California Attorney General Rob Bonta has announced that the state has filed a lawsuit against oil major ExxonMobil for its alleged engagement in “a decades-long campaign of deception,” which led to and exacerbated the worldwide plastics pollution crisis, a press release from the California Department of Justice said.

The complaint, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleges that over the past half century, ExxonMobil has been misleading Californians through public statements and “slick marketing” that promised recycling would tackle the continuously increasing plastic waste the oil company produces.

The purpose of the lawsuit is to compel ExxonMobil to stop its deceptive practices, which threaten both the public and the environment. ExxonMobil is the largest promoter and producer of polymers — the building blocks of single-use plastics — in California.

“Plastics are everywhere, from the deepest parts of our oceans, the highest peaks on earth, and even in our bodies, causing irreversible damage — in ways known and unknown — to our environment and potentially our health,” Bonta said in the press release.

Bonta is seeking an abatement fund, as well as disgorgement — a legal remedy requiring the relinquishment of profits made by illegal or unethical means — and civil penalties for harm inflicted upon the environment and California communities by plastic pollution.

“For decades, ExxonMobil has been deceiving the public to convince us that plastic recycling could solve the plastic waste and pollution crisis when they clearly knew this wasn’t possible. ExxonMobil lied to further its record-breaking profits at the expense of our planet and possibly jeopardizing our health,” Bonta said in the press release. “Today’s lawsuit shows the fullest picture to date of ExxonMobil’s decades-long deception, and we are asking the court to hold ExxonMobil fully accountable for its role in actively creating and exacerbating the plastics pollution crisis through its campaign of deception.”

Since 1970, the oil company’s trade association adapted and promoted its “chasing arrows” symbol, which has become strongly associated with recycling. It has led consumers to believe items containing the symbol are able to be and will be recycled if placed in a recycling bin. The reality is that just roughly five percent of plastic waste in the United States gets recycled, and the rate of recycling has never been more than nine percent.

“For decades, ExxonMobil, one of the most powerful companies in the world, falsely promoted all plastic as recyclable, when in fact the vast majority of plastic products are not and likely cannot be recycled, either technically or economically. This caused consumers to purchase and use more single-use plastic than they otherwise would have due to the company’s misleading public statements and advertising,” the press release said.

Recently, the company has continued to deceive the public by promoting “advanced recycling,” a plastics industry umbrella term for a variety of solvent- or heat-based technologies that are able to theoretically convert particular kinds of plastic waste to become petrochemical feedstock that is then used in the making of new plastic.

ExxonMobil promotes the “advanced recycling” program as a technological breakthrough that will result in plastics becoming sustainable while concealing important truths regarding technical limitations of the process.

One of these limitations is that most plastic waste — 92 percent — produced through “advanced recycling” technology primarily becomes fuels rather than recycled plastic. The plastics produced through the process are also essentially virgin plastics because they contain such a small amount of plastic waste, but are deceptively marketed as “circular.”

Under the company’s best case scenario, the production of plastics through the “advanced recycling” program will only make up less than a percent of its total production capacity of virgin plastic, which keeps on growing.

The program is also not able to handle large volumes of post-consumer plastics like potato chip bags without equipment safety and performance risks.

“ExxonMobil’s ‘advanced recycling’ program is nothing more than a public relations stunt meant to encourage the public to keep purchasing single-use plastics that are fueling the plastics pollution crisis,” the press release said.

ExxonMobil is the largest producer of plastic waste from single-use plastics. In excess of 26 million pounds of garbage has been collected from waterways and beaches in California since 1985, and roughly 81 percent of this waste is plastic. Most plastics collected yearly on California Coastal Cleanup Day are traceable to the polymer resins produced by ExxonMobil.

“The global plastics waste and pollution crisis has been driven by the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries. Around the world each year, an estimated 12.1 million tons of plastic waste become aquatic pollution, and 19.8 million tons are polluted to land,” the press release said. “Through its deception, ExxonMobil has caused or substantially contributed to plastic pollution that has harmed and continues to harm California’s environment, wildlife, and natural resources.”

Single-use plastics — such as those used to make plastic bags, straws, packaging, disposable utensils and plasticware and other products — make up most plastic waste that pollutes the environment. Plastic is not biodegradable, but breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces called microplastics. These tiny plastic pieces have been found in food, drinking water and the air we breathe. Most recently, they have been found in the blood, lungs and breast milk of the human body.

Bonta estimated the lawsuit’s unspecified damages would amount to “multiple billions of dollars,” reported The New York Times.

In an interview, Bonta commented that plastic pollution was “fueled by the myth of recycling, and the leader among them in perpetuating that myth is Exxon Mobil.”

The Surfrider Foundation, Sierra Club, Heal the Bay and Baykeeper have each filed their own lawsuits that raise similar issues regarding the role of ExxonMobil in the world’s plastics pollution crisis.

The post California Sues ExxonMobil Over Its Global Plastic Waste Pollution and Deceptive Recycling Campaign appeared first on EcoWatch.

Elite universities in the United States — which conduct important climate research — are raking in millions from fossil fuel interests, potentially creating conflicts of interest.

This is according to a collection of new reports compiled by student organizers and released by the student-led Campus Climate Network, as The Guardian reported.

“Universities globally are often caught in a web of financial and research dependencies with the fossil fuel sector. These ties not only conflict with the ethics of academic independence but also hinder the progress of genuine climate research,” Campus Climate Network said on its website.

One institution, Princeton University, seems to have actually owned an oil company — Petrotiger, named after its mascot — earning it millions of dollars, reported The Guardian.

Six analyses put together by students at each institution focused on Princeton, American University, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Cornell University, Columbia University and University of California, San Diego.

“Fossil fuel companies are hijacking our universities to perpetuate their own toxic industry, and we students are not having it anymore,” said Will Kattrup, Campus Climate Network research lead, as The Guardian reported.

In order to document university funding that came from fossil fuels, those conducting the research looked at tax forms revealing oil company donations to universities, tracked statements of conflict of interest in academic articles and searched for names of school board members associated with fossil fuel interests. Public information requests for additional financial information were also filed by students attending public universities.

The researchers discovered that, since 2003, the six prestigious schools have accepted a total of more than $100 million in funding tied to the fossil fuel industry, either from companies or their charitable divisions.

In addition, the students organizers said companies that are enablers of the fossil fuel industry gave millions more, such as groups spreading climate disinformation and banks funding oil expansion.

The students emphasized that the figures were understatements, since most research centers at universities don’t publicly disclose their donors, and some of the data only went back as far as the most recent decade.

A total of 1,507 academic articles published at the universities were funded by those with interests tied to oil and gas, which brought up concerns of bias. A number of individuals with fossil fuel ties have also been placed on university boards — governing boards, in some cases, which frequently set the policies of the respective institutions.

Alex Norbrook, a Princeton sophomore, discovered that the university appeared to have earned almost $140 million in the past decade in direct financial contributions and investment income from Petrotiger, its oil and gas company based in Houston.

A spokesperson for the university, as well as school officials, did not comment on Princeton’s relationship with Petrotiger, according to the research.

Between 2013 and 2023, Princeton also received over $40 million from fossil fuel companies. During that decade, the university reported more than $350 million in oil and gas sector revenue from its investments. The students pointed out that the financial relationships persisted despite the university’s decision in September of 2022 to dissociate itself from the biggest fossil fuel companies.

“Princeton’s claim that it is a climate leader is false. The university cannot make this claim while continuing to promote the fossil fuel industry behind the scenes,” Norbrook said, as reported by The Guardian.

Likewise, students at American University found that contributions of $1,004,784 had been made by the fossil fuel industry to the university in the past decade. The Koch Foundation — which has a history of breeding doubt regarding climate science — also gave the university almost $1.41 million.

The researchers found that Columbia University had been given $43,712,333 since 2005 in fossil fuel-related funds, as well as produced 784 academic papers with industry funds.

The Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia had also gotten more than $15 million in industry funds since its founding in 2013.

A study published by WIREs Climate Change earlier this month examined the influence of the fossil fuel industry on academia. It found that the funding of universities’ climate efforts by industry companies is delaying the phase out of fossil fuels.

“It’s time for our universities to become real climate leaders and cut ties with the fossil fuel industry once and for all,” said Maddie Young, Sunrise Movement at American University’s student organizer and Campus Climate Network research manager, as The Guardian reported.

The post ‘Fossil Fuel Companies Are Hijacking Our Universities’: 6 Top Schools Received Over $100 Million in Funds From Polluting Industries Since 2003 appeared first on EcoWatch.

According to a new report by Rystad Energy, converting production facilities for upstream oil and gas so that they are powered by electricity fueled by renewable sources or natural gas that would have otherwise been burned and flared could eliminate more than 80 percent of the sector’s associated emissions.

In the Norwegian Continental Shelf, oil rigs and other assets that have been fully electrified emit 86 percent less carbon dioxide for each barrel of oil equivalent they produce — 1.2 kilograms, down from 8.4 kilograms before electrification, a press release from Rystad Energy said.

“As the world confronts the pressing issue of climate change, the oil and gas industry is under increasing pressure to minimize its carbon footprint and align its practices with global sustainability objectives. Where it’s possible and economically viable, electrification has great potential to lower the industry’s emissions while maintaining production output,” said Palzor Shenga, Rystad Energy’s vice president of upstream research, in the press release.

Norway — a country which gets most of its energy from hydroelectricity while also being one of the largest oil exporters on the planet — has the unique ability to tap into its abundant sources of renewable energy to greatly reduce its upstream greenhouse gas emissions.

It has been estimated by scientists that humans need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 43 percent by 2030 as compared with 2019 levels to have a chance of keeping global heating to below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in accordance with the 2015 Paris Agreement, reported Reuters.

“Flaring, the practice of burning off excess natural gas that cannot be processed or sold, not only wastes a valuable resource but also emits substantial amounts of CO2 and methane into the environment. Flaring plays a major role in global emissions primarily due to the lack of economic incentives, regulatory frameworks or technical capabilities to develop gas markets and infrastructure,” Rystad said in the press release.

Approximately 140 billion cubic meters of gas were flared annually over the past decade, equal to about 319.7 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year.

“These volumes are primarily driven by major producers in North America, the Middle East and Africa. Hence, flaring avoidance can be an effective way of reducing upstream emissions for both electrified assets and assets with limited electrification potential,” the press release said.

Rystad pointed out that even partial electrification would cut emissions significantly.

“Premium energy basins (PEB) – a term coined by Rystad Energy to describe oil and gas basins with ample hydrocarbon reserves and the potential to incorporate environmentally friendly practices – could hold the key. We have identified 30 such basins worldwide, which collectively contribute more than 80% of the world’s oil and gas this year and will continue to do so until 2050. If PEB assets electrify and reduce emissions by 50%, a total of 5.5 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (Gt of CO2) would be avoided by 2050,” the press release said. “Based on the accepted industry standard calculation, this CO2 reduction would equate to about 0.025 degrees Celsius of global warming avoided during the same period.”

Norway plans to slash its continental shelf emissions by 70 percent by 2040. Most of the nation’s big production sites are located near potential sources of renewable energy, which would facilitate the transition.

“Electrification requires careful planning, including the selection of optimal technologies, assessment of total costs and strategies to ensure a continuous energy supply, particularly in remote locations with limited grid access. Economic and financial viability must also be prioritized. A proactive approach to electrification can enhance operational efficiency and open new revenue streams through the sale of excess renewable energy,” Rystad said in the press release.

The post Electrification of Upstream Oil and Gas Facilities Could Reduce Production Emissions by Over 80%, Report Finds appeared first on EcoWatch.

A new report by Earth Track has found that the world is spending a minimum of $2.6 trillion annually on subsidies that destroy the environment and fuel global heating.

One of the biggest achievements of the 2022 COP15 Convention on Biodiversity was the passage of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which has a target of protecting and restoring nature by 2030. Target 18 of the GBF included the first quantitative goal for the reduction of environmentally harmful subsidies (EHS), a news release from Earth Track said. The target committed to reducing EHS by $500 billion each year by the end of the decade.

An initial review of the state of EHS in 2022 included looking at a variety of economic sectors that impact land-use changes and the extraction of resources, since it is the combined effect of subsidies that drives nature and biodiversity loss.

Earth Track found that governments are continuing to provide billions in subsidies, tax breaks and other fundings that frustrate the goals of the GBF and the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, reported The Guardian. The report uncovered channels of direct financial support being provided by nations for deforestation, fossil fuel consumption and water pollution.

^{Earth Track}

“Environmentally harmful subsidies are subsidies that governments give in many different forms – not just cash – that have the result of accelerating natural resource extraction, damage to natural habitats and pollution,” said co-author of the report Doug Koplow, who is also founder of Earth Track. Author Ronald Steenblik co-authored the report.

Earth Track said the scale of the subsidies is continuing to rise, even with the GBF and increased focus on EHS.

“Our current estimate is at least $2.6 trillion a year, equivalent to 2.5% of global GDP. These subsidies harm nature and associated biodiversity, and slow global efforts to transition to lower-impact production methods and energy systems,” Earth Track said. “We continue to view our estimate as a floor value for EHS because we know there are so many large data gaps. Closing the largest of these should be a priority for signatories working on Target 18 compliance.”

The new EHS estimate by Earth Track is roughly $800 billion higher than in 2022 — $500 billion after adjusting for inflation. The organization said the increase was due to improved data estimates for rising fossil fuel subsidies, non-energy mining, plastics production and inflation, with fossil fuel subsidies being the biggest driver.

Fossil fuel subsidies “surged to more than $1.5 trillion by the end of 2022 as the Russian invasion of Ukraine led governments around the world to attempt to buffer consumers from price increases,” Earth Track said. “Further, subsidies to carbon capture are growing rapidly in many countries, and are particularly generous in the United States. Much of this will support core fossil fuel industries, including through enhanced oil recovery, and the economic incentives to keep older high-carbon infrastructure in service longer and operating at higher capacity factors.”

Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said governments need to provide clearer environmental policies, The Guardian reported.

“Two years on from the signing of the landmark biodiversity plan, we continue to finance our own extinction, putting people and our resilience at huge risk. Estimates are higher than previously thought – with at least $2.6tn now funding the destruction of nature, endangering the chances of meeting our nature and climate goals,” Figueres said.

The authors of the report said a large portion of the $2.6 trillion in subsidies could be redirected toward policies benefiting nature and humans.

With countries meeting next month in Colombia for COP16, Koplow and Steenblik urged governments to keep their commitment to the GBF.

“The issue with a lot of these subsidies is that they’re very poorly targeted,” Steenblik said, as reported by The Guardian. “We’ve seen places like Nigeria where they’ve tried to reform subsidies, [and] there’s a huge backlash because the general public sees it as the only benefit they’re getting out of the government. They [were] spending more on fuel subsidies than education or health.”

The post $2.6 Trillion Spent Annually on Global Subsidies That Harm the Environment, Report Finds appeared first on EcoWatch.

In an effort to tackle the air emissions from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) “forever chemicals,” the environmental agencies of New Mexico, North Carolina and New Jersey have petitioned the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to expand the Clean Air Act’s list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) to include four specific PFAS compounds.

PFAS air emissions affect groundwater, surface water and soil, resulting in the contamination of drinking water.

“The unregulated nature of per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) as air pollutants is a tremendous concern in our States and across the U.S.,” the states wrote in their petition to EPA Administrator Michael Regan.

The states’ environmental agencies are requesting that the chemical compounds perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and HFPO dimer acid (GenX) be regulated under the Clean Air Act, Section 112, a press release from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) said.

“The EPA has been proactive in addressing PFAS and supporting efforts to address PFAS contamination in our states,” said Elizabeth S. Biser, NC DEQ Secretary, in the press release. “Adding these forever chemicals to the list of regulated pollutants addresses a gap in our regulatory authority and makes it possible to tackle a critical part of the PFAS life cycle: air emissions.”

In their request, the petitioning states demonstrated the necessity of standards for PFAS emissions to prevent contamination from the hazardous chemicals from spreading.

“With EPA’s bold actions to the clean-up of forever chemicals from our water and land, we cannot afford to transfer these toxic pollutants to our air,” said James Kenney, secretary of New Mexico’s environment department, in the press release. “We must act quickly and holistically to protect our communities from drinking and breathing these toxic chemicals.”

The PFAS Strategic Roadmap by the EPA contains the target of addressing PFAS emissions — including an assessment of listing the chemical compounds as HAPs — under the Office of Air and Radiation.

“To best protect Americans from exposure to the toxic PFAS forever chemicals that have poisoned our environment, we must reduce PFAS pollution that flows through our waters, upon our land, and into our air,” said Shawn M. LaTourette, New Jersey Commissioner of Environmental Protection, in the press release.

All three of the petitioning states have experienced PFAS pollution produced by PFAS manufacturing sites or from firefighting foam released by the military.

“Communities throughout the country have experienced the effects of water contamination as a result of PFAS, including air pollution releases that impacted thousands of private drinking water wells in the vicinity of the Chemours Fayetteville Works facility in North Carolina,” NC DEQ said.

PFAS are a class of roughly 15,000 synthetic chemical compounds most often used to make products that are resistant to water, stains and grease. They have been associated with cancer, decreased immunity, birth defects, kidney disease and a host of other significant health issues. The toxic compounds are known as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down naturally in the environment.

“The petitioning States have presented the necessary evidence that PFAS are air pollutants and are causing adverse effects to human health or adverse environmental effects,” the press release said.

The post 3 States Call on EPA to Regulate PFAS Air Emissions appeared first on EcoWatch.