The Biden administration will end new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin, the largest coal-producing region in the U.S.
Climate activists celebrate the decision, which could prevent billions of tons of coal from being mined.
Critics, including Republican lawmakers and mining groups, argue it will harm local economies and energy security.
Key quote:
“The nation’s electricity generation needs are being met increasingly by wind, solar and natural gas. The nation doesn’t need any increase in the amount of coal under lease out of the Powder River Basin.”
— Tom Sanzillo, director of financial analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
An international coalition presented a letter to a Canadian consular official, urging the revocation of a treaty that supports the operation of Line 5.
The pipeline, which traverses tribal lands, has been deemed trespassing by a court, with orders for partial closure by 2026.
Enbridge disputes these claims, citing a 1992 easement and arguing against treaty violations.
Key quote:
“It’s hypocritical and irrelevant for the Canadian government to invoke the 1977 treaty while ignoring the long standing treaties they have with First Nations.”
— Andrea Pierce, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians citizen
Why this matters:
Line 5, part of a network operated by Enbridge Inc., runs under the Straits of Mackinac, connecting Lake Huron and Lake Michigan. This location is pivotal for its natural beauty and as a vital freshwater resource. Critics argue that any potential oil spill could devastate these waters, which are important for local ecosystems and the millions who rely on them for drinking water.
Targa Northern Delaware vented substantial amounts of methane due to 'emergency' loopholes in state regulations.
These emissions were the highest since New Mexico began tracking data in 2021, significantly impacting greenhouse gas reduction efforts.
Despite regulations, the loophole allows substantial methane releases under specific conditions deemed as emergencies.
Key quote:
“Why wasn’t this massive amount of gas routed to a flare?”
— Jon Goldstein, senior director of regulatory and legislative affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund
Why this matters:
Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is more than 25 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, and its unchecked release can accelerate global warming. The issue is particularly pressing in New Mexico, where oil and gas production is a major economic driver yet a significant source of methane emissions. This situation places the state at a crossroads: how to sustain its economic engine without compromising its environmental responsibilities.
Astronomers have observed the impact of climate change on their field, prompting some to shift their focus towards Earth-based issues.
Initiatives like Astronomers for Planet Earth and various educational efforts highlight the community's proactive stance on environmental activism.
Notable figures in astronomy, including former Australian chief scientist Penny Sackett, have become prominent advocates for addressing climate change.
Key quote:
“I’m still kind of angry that, because of policymakers not doing enough to stop global heating, I felt compelled to leave astrophysics and become the climate scientist.”
— Peter Kalmus, climate scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Why this matters:
The involvement of astronomers in climate science is indicative of the urgent need for diverse scientific perspectives in combating global environmental challenges. Their unique insights help illuminate the broader implications of climate change, impacting policy and public awareness on a global scale. Read more: Unconventional pathways to science, with Dr. Katharine Hayhoe.
Juan Mancias, chairman of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, confronts fossil fuel developments threatening ancient burial sites and village grounds in the Rio Grande Delta.
The region faces significant industrialization threats from projects like Texas LNG, which plans to build on a site with deep historical significance.
Despite the lack of federal recognition, Mancias advocates for the protection and recognition of his tribe's ancestral lands and their cultural heritage.
Key quote:
"They almost annihilated us and that genocide continues. To destroy the environment you have to destroy the people who protect it."
— Juan Mancias, chairman of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas
Why this matters:
The lands in question, steeped in centuries of history and tradition, are home to sacred sites and are rich in biodiversity, acting as crucial habitats for local wildlife. Mancias’s opposition is fueled by concerns that extend beyond sovereignty. The environmental repercussions of such projects—increased emissions, potential spills, and habitat destruction—pose a significant threat to the local ecosystems and to the broader health of the planet. This is particularly poignant in an era where the impacts of climate change are becoming more unpredictable and severe.
Related EHN coverage:
Americans have a tragically strong track record of punishing those who speak out.
Florida's proposed bill redefines its energy policy, emphasizing energy independence and security while removing references to climate change.
The legislation seeks to cancel renewable energy targets set in 2022, advocating instead for a reduction in reliance on foreign energy sources.
If signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, the bill would dismantle initiatives from previous administrations that aimed to address greenhouse gas emissions.
Key quote:
“We are literally watching south Florida go extinct while our government promotes the very entities that perpetuate these antiquated ways of business that are causing the problems in the first place.”
— Delaney Reynolds, University of Miami student
Why this matters:
This legislation has profound implications for Florida's environmental and health policies, essentially sidelining climate change considerations in favor of economic growth and energy security. As a state particularly vulnerable to climate impacts, the redirection could have lasting effects on its resilience in the face of future environmental challenges. Read more: With Ian, treat climate like an 'active shooter.'
Nearly $7 trillion has been funneled to fossil fuel companies by major banks since the Paris climate agreement, intensifying the global climate crisis.
Michigan's Attorney General Dana Nessel is initiating a lawsuit against fossil fuel companies to recover losses due to climate change impacts, marking a significant legal move.
Dana Nessel aims to hold oil companies financially accountable for their role in exacerbating climate change, which has affected Michigan's economy and lifestyle.
The state plans to join other governments in litigation efforts, seeking to compensate for damages like severe weather and economic downturns.
External legal teams are being solicited to support the extensive legal battle, with a potential to secure billions in damages.
Key quote:
"It’s long past time that we step up and hold the fossil fuel companies that are responsible for all these damages accountable."
— Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General
Why this matters:
This legal move mirrors a growing trend where states leverage the judicial system to address environmental and public health issues directly tied to climate change. By focusing on the fossil fuel industry, which has historically played a significant role in greenhouse gas emissions, Nessel aims to not only secure financial compensation for the state but also push for greater corporate accountability and transparency in environmental practices.
Occidental Petroleum's strategy to achieve net-zero emissions through carbon capture and other technologies faces significant criticism for potentially increasing overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite Occidental Petroleum's commitment to net-zero by 2040, critics argue that their reliance on carbon capture technologies may actually exacerbate their carbon footprint.
The company's plans involve using captured carbon for enhanced oil recovery, which critics say undermines the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Independent experts and analyses suggest that the energy-intensive nature of these technologies, primarily powered by fossil fuels, may result in net increases in emissions.
Key quote:
"What we have to do is phase out fossil fuels, not perpetuate their life."
— Marlène Ramón Hernández, expert on carbon removal at Carbon Market Watch
Why this matters:
Critics argue that while carbon capture technologies promise to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, they may inadvertently lead to an increase in overall greenhouse gas emissions. This paradox arises because the infrastructure and energy required to capture and store carbon can itself be substantial. There's also a concern that relying heavily on these technologies could perpetuate the continued use of fossil fuels, as companies might feel justified in maintaining or even increasing production due to the perceived mitigation offered by carbon capture.
Fossil fuel lobbyists in Colorado represent both polluters and environmental advocates, creating a significant conflict of interest in air quality legislation, reveals a recent investigation by F Minus and Brown University's Climate and Development Lab.
The report uncovers lobbying firms in Colorado working for both sides of environmental legislation, raising concerns about their effectiveness and loyalty.
High pollution levels in Colorado communities contrast starkly with the state's legislative inaction, influenced by conflicting lobbying efforts.
The dual representation includes cases where lobbyists represent both oil and gas interests and public health entities affected by pollution.
Key quote:
“Residents’ tax dollars are essentially going into the pockets of fossil fuel lobbyists, which is crazy.”
— James Browning, founder and executive director of F Minus
Why this matters:
Colorado, known for its pristine landscapes and outdoor lifestyle, is at a crossroads with its air quality challenges. The Denver metro area, in particular, has struggled to meet federal ozone standards. Fossil fuel emissions are a significant contributor to this issue, which not only clouds the picturesque view but also poses serious health risks to the population. Elevated ozone levels can exacerbate asthma, decrease lung function, and increase visits to emergency rooms.
Trump promised oil industry leaders substantial regulatory rollbacks in exchange for significant campaign contributions.
This fundraising strategy highlights a direct linkage between financial support and policy promises aimed at benefiting the oil industry.
The former president's agenda starkly contrasts with existing environmental policies, suggesting major policy reversals if re-elected.
Key quote:
"You all are wealthy enough, you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House."
— Donald Trump, former U.S. president
Why this matters:
If he's elected in November, Trump's promises to the oil industry could result in the reversal of key U.S. environmental and health policies enacted during the Biden administration, potentially eroding gains in emissions reductions, clean energy advancements and environmental justice.
Flashback to 2020: Trump's first term resulted in significant environmental rollbacks. Here are a few of them.
The U.S. oil sector is creating executive orders for Donald Trump, focusing on natural gas exports and deregulating drilling, anticipating his possible reelection.
Energy executives express concern over Trump's potential lack of focus on energy policy if reelected, prompting preemptive action.
Plans include reversing Biden's green initiatives and increasing federal lands access for oil drilling.
Industry insiders are crafting detailed drafts to ensure favorable policies are implemented swiftly.
Key quote:
“You’ll see a lot of Biden regulations that have come out in the past six months checked one way or another. It’s going to be like shooting fish in the barrel — there’s just so much to go after.”
— Stephen Brown, director of energy consulting firm RBJ Strategies and a former refining industry lobbyist
Why this matters:
The oil industry's direct involvement in drafting executive orders reveals the sector's anticipation of a political climate more favorable to fossil fuel enterprises, which contrasts starkly with the current regulatory approach that prioritizes environmental safeguards and renewable energy sources.
Vermont's Climate Superfund Act requires companies like oil giants to pay for climate change-related damages.
Payments will be calculated based on each company's emissions from 1995 to 2024 and the impact of those emissions on Vermont's extreme weather.
The funds collected will be used to enhance infrastructure, weatherproof public buildings, and address health impacts of climate change.
Key quote:
"We’re able to say very clearly, ‘We would not be experiencing these intense global temperatures without human-caused climate change and the history of carbon pollution.’"
— Andrew Pershing, vice president for science at Climate Central
Why this matters:
This law links financial accountability to scientific research on climate impact, potentially setting a precedent for other states. It addresses not just environmental but also public health challenges, offering a model for proactive climate adaptation and mitigation. Read more: "We just can’t quit fossil fuels, can we?"
PITTSBURGH — On a windy, rainy afternoon in early April, bundled-up protesters gathered in front of U.S. Steel’s corporate headquarters downtown ahead of a shareholder vote on the sale of the company to Japanese-owned Nippon Steel.
They held signs bearing messages like, “Will your grandkids forgive you?” and “If they don’t give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair.”
The ongoing political debate over the pending sale of U.S. Steel to Nippon Steel has reached the highest levels of government, but residents near the company’s Pittsburgh-area plants say those conversations are excluding the voices of communities subjected to U.S. Steel’s health-harming emissions.
“It's completely unacceptable and untenable for a community to be subjected to thousands of violations of the Clean Air Act for decades,” Matt Mehalik, executive director of the Breathe Project, a coalition of more than 40 environmental advocacy groups in the region, told EHN during the protest. “The people at the negotiating table need to deal with these issues as part of the sale process.”
After the protesters on the sidewalk chanted “U.S. Steel, you steal our health,” shareholders gathered in a boardroom in the skyscraper high above voted to sell the company to Nippon Steel for $14.1 billion, with 98% of shares voting in favor of the deal. It remains to be seen whether it will go through or be halted by regulators.
“This sale has been pushed forward by U.S. Steel at the expense of both community members and workers,” Hilary Lewis, the steel director for Industrious Labs, an environmental advocacy organization focused on decarbonizing heavy industry, told EHN. “There’s been a lot of pushback because these important stakeholders are just not being heard.”
U.S. Steel has been fined more than $20 million for Clean Air Act violations at its Pittsburgh-area facilities since 2018, and the company recently settled a lawsuit for about $25 million with environmental advocacy groups over more than 12,000 air permit violations in the region. It’s a decades-long pattern and impacted residents accuse the company of acting under a “pay-to-pollute” model, opting to pay fines rather than stop violating clean air laws. Meanwhile, climate advocates say U.S. Steel is lagging behind the rest of the industry when it comes to advancing clean technology and phasing out health-harming and climate-warming coal.
In April, President Joe Biden told steel union workers in Pittsburgh that his administration would attempt to block the sale of the company to Nippon Steel and the national security review that’s now underway could last at least a year. The United Steelworkers Union has opposed the sale, expressing concerns about whether Nippon Steel would honor its existing commitments to things like pensions and other worker benefits and citing Nippon Steel’s history of hiring “anti-union lawyers” in disputes with its U.S. steel plants. The Japanese company delayed the takeover last week by three months.
While the protesters outside U.S. Steel tower want to see the company’s environmental compliance issues in Pennsylvania addressed in these debates, the potential sale has also sparked concerns about how the deal might impact U.S. Steel’s existing, hard-won environmental compliance agreements in the region.
“We’re talking about another country millions of miles away,” Natalie Morris, a resident of Braddock who lives near U.S. Steel’s Edgar Thomson Mill, told EHN during the protest. “I don’t think they’re going to care about us.”
And — whether or not the sale goes through — U.S. Steel remains a distant laggard in the push toward cleaner steelmaking, as steelmakers nationwide are increasingly turning away from coal.
What will a sale mean for U.S. Steel’s existing environmental commitments?
U.S. Steel operates three facilities in the U.S. that still rely on coal. Two are in Pennsylvania’s Monongahela Valley near Pittsburgh and one is in Gary, Indiana.
The company was once an industrial powerhouse, but has faced challenges for several decades due to competition from cheaper steel produced in other parts of the world. The proposed sale to Nippon Steel is pitched as a solution to the company’s financial woes, but union opposition has framed it as a means to generate exponential profits for executives at the expense of workers.
All three U.S. Steel plants still reliant on coal are regularly fined for violating clean air regulations. The Clairton Coke Works, about 15 miles south of Pittsburgh, is the largest coke-making plant in the country —a process that involves cooking coal at extremely high temperatures to create a key steelmaking ingredient known as “coke.” Coke made at the Clairton Coke Works supplies both the other western Pennsylvania steel plant and the Indiana plant.
Residents impacted by the plant’s ongoing pollution problems in Pennsylvania are also worried about what the sale might mean for existing legal agreements over pollution violations.
For example, in March a judge finalized a settlement that requires U.S. Steel to spend nearly $20 million upgrading its western Pennsylvania facilities and put an additional $5 million into health and clean air programs in local communities. It’s the largest Clean Air Act citizen suit payout in Pennsylvania history and the third-largest in U.S. history, according to environmental advocates.
“It's completely unacceptable and untenable for a community to be subjected to thousands of violations of the Clean Air Act for decades.” - Matt Mehalik, Breathe Project
The settlement was the result of a lawsuit filed by the Allegheny County Health Department, which oversees local air quality, and environmental advocacy groups PennEnvironment and the Clean Air Council, in response to a fire that knocked out pollution controls at the company’s Clairton plant in 2018. The incident resulted in weeks of substantial Clean Air Act violations and well-documented health effects.
The agreement also requires U.S. Steel to invest in measures to prevent similar pollution events, creates financial penalties for pollution control equipment outages for the next five years and requires the company to shut down one of its oldest, dirtiest coke ovens.
“This is not just about a financial penalty to U.S. Steel,” Matt Donohue, a staff attorney at the National Environmental Law Center, who argued the case, told EHN. “During discovery it became apparent that if nothing was done there would be more outages, more pollution events and more harm to the communities surrounding the plant. Preventing that from happening was the most important thing to us.”
In an email, U.S. Steel spokesperson Andrew Fulton said, “U. S. Steel employs more than 3,000 hardworking men and women throughout its [southwestern Pennsylvania] facilities … their work has yielded exceptional, measurable results including an environmental and permit regulation compliance rate exceeding 99%.”
U.S. Steel has reached similar settlements over other pollution incidents. According to Donohue and a spokesperson for U.S. Steel, these agreements will remain in place and remain legally binding regardless of who owns the company.
“That’s true for all agreements like this, but because we knew the sale was possible, we also went through our agreement with a fine-toothed comb to make sure that whoever owns this company has to comply with all of the terms of the agreement on the same timeline,” Donohue said.
What would it take for U.S. Steel — or whoever owns the company next — to clean up its operations in Pennsylvania?
The ongoing political debate over the pending sale of U.S. Steel to Nippon Steel has reached the highest levels of government, but residents near the company’s Pittsburgh-area plants say those conversations are excluding the voices of communities.
Credit: Kristina Marusic for EHN
The movement toward cleaner steelmaking in the U.S. is already well underway. About 70% of steel produced in the country is made with electric arc furnaces, which do not use coal, while the remaining 30% still use coal to power blast furnaces. Around 72% of the industry’s climate-warming pollution comes from those remaining blast furnaces.
“Not only is [coal-based steelmaking] inherently dirty, but [Clairton Coke Works] is also regularly out of compliance with health-protective regulations,” Lewis, the advocate from Industrious Lab, said. “A half measure would be just complying with the law, but if we’re actually talking about protecting community health, we need to get coke out of steelmaking.”
In 2019 U.S. Steel announced $1.5 billion in upgrades to its western Pennsylvania facilities, but reneged on that promise in 2021 and instead put that money toward an electric arc furnace in Arkansas.
Electric arc furnaces essentially recycle scrap steel instead of using coke to make new steel products. But on its own, an electric arc furnace isn’t capable of making “virgin” steel, which is considered higher quality, less likely to crack and is needed for certain steel applications, including much of what’s used by the automobile industry.
In order for U.S. Steel to do away with coal at its Pennsylvania plants, they’d need both electric arc furnaces and a method of producing direct reduced iron, a replacement for coke that can be made using green hydrogen from renewable energy.
“A half measure would be just complying with the law, but if we’re actually talking about protecting community health, we need to get coke out of steelmaking.” - Hilary Lewis, Industrious Labs
Last month, a Swedish company announced the first “green” steel plant proposed in the U.S. If the project moves forward, the Mississippi plant will use both electric arc furnaces and direct reduced iron made with green hydrogen to make steel. Green hydrogen isn’t yet available at the scale required to meet total demand for steelmaking, Lewis conceded, but the U.S. Department of Energy is working to change that.
“This Mississippi project is a perfect model that U.S. Steel could follow,” Lewis said, noting that a company in Boston is working on a similar green steel project that uses electricity rather than green hydrogen. “That technology isn’t as commercially advanced as green hydrogen, but the point is that there are numerous clean technologies that U.S. Steel could move toward using instead of coal.”
Making that transition will also be essential to staying competitive as the world decarbonizes, according to Lewis.
“The auto industry makes up about a third of all steel sales,” Lewis said. “That industry has climate goals and commitments that will eventually require them to eliminate the use of steel made using coal, and when they do, they’ll be taking their business to facilities like the new green steel plant in Mississippi and that will leave companies still producing steel with coke behind.”
U.S. Steel declined to go on the record about whether the company has or will consider investing in these technologies for its western Pennsylvania facilities, but noted that they’re working on carbon capture and battery-powered locomotive projects.
“According to the Allegheny County Health Department, hazardous air pollutants have decreased by 80% in Allegheny County over the last 12 years,” Fulton, U.S. Steel spokesperson, said. “U.S. Steel has invested roughly $750 million in its Mon Valley operations in the past five years and invests more than $100 million per year on environmental compliance.”
As for the potential sales impact on environmental efforts, both U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel have set goals of being carbon neutral by 2050, but “neither company has a very concrete plan for how they’re going to do this and neither company is addressing concerns about the ongoing use of coal in steelmaking,” Lewis said.
Nippon Steel has made some investments in electric arc furnaces, but Mehalik, of the Breathe Project, said Nippon Steel also has a record of environmental issues at some of its plants.He expressed concern that even if the company sells, health harms from its Pennsylvania facilities could persist.
“Everywhere that U.S. Steel operates communities are affected and harmed, but it’s particularly acute here,” Mehalik said. “Whether the sale proceeds or not, whoever ends up owning U.S. Steel needs to bring these things to a close.”
BAYTOWN, TX — As Exxon Mobil moves forward with federal re-permitting for its massive petrochemical complex in the Houston area, residents remain frustrated with the lack of accessibility and Spanish-language outreach from the state and company.
At issue is Exxon Mobil’s application for its Baytown Olefins Plant permit, which must be approved by the the Texas Commision on Environmental Quality every five years to continue operations.
The olefins plant — which produces about 10 billion pounds of petrochemical products annually — is part of Exxon’s petrochemical complex in Baytown, which includes the nation’s third-largest refinery. The renewal has been contested by residents and activists due to pollution concerns and 12 consecutive quarters of Clean Air Act violations at the Exxon Mobile Baytown Complex. If approved, the permit would allow the facility to operate for the next five years.
A public hearing this week — the second in as many months — was held for community members to bring comments or questions to Exxon Mobil or the TCEQ.
At the previous hearing community residents brought up concerns about the meeting notice not being published in Spanish on the TCEQ’s site. TCEQ attorney Amy Browning said that the reconvening was a result of the agency’s failure to “publish (the meeting notice) in Spanish electronically on the commission’s site.”
In addition to the original meeting notice not being published in Spanish, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, or TEJAS, representative Deyadira Arellano pointed out at both meetings that Exxon’s slides related to their plant operations are not translated to Spanish. At this week’s meeting, Exxon approached her in the break period to offer slides in Spanish to her email. However, Arellano said that her frustration resided with the TCEQ.
TEJAS representative Deyadira Arellano pointed out at both meetings that Exxon’s slides related to their plant operations are not translated to Spanish.
Credit: Cami Ferrell for EHN
“The TCEQ should preview these materials ahead of time,” said Arellano. “It is important to ensure meaningful engagement efforts are inclusive and accessible to all diverse members of our communities.”
Exxon’s Public and Government Affairs Manager Aaron Stryk said that they are “continuously working to improve their Spanish language communications” and do provide Baytown-related communications updates in English and Spanish.
“It is important to ensure meaningful engagement efforts are inclusive and accessible to all diverse members of our communities.” - Deyadira Arellano, TEJAS
The TCEQ publishes all public comments and addresses each of them during the permitting process. English-speaking individuals have access to a digital comment interface 24/7 to comment on the permit while the comment period is open. However, Spanish speakers have no accessibility tools provided from the TCEQ to help navigate the English-only interface. Many have to opt to comment in person or mail in their comments and then have their comments translated, according to TCEQ Attorney Christyn Cavasos.
TEJAS has long advocated for better accessibility for Spanish speakers from the TCEQ. The state agency has a history of neglecting Latino and Spanish speaking communities in their outreach, including important air pollution monitoring information.
The permit will undergo a revision phase if needed after the comments have been finalized. Following the revision, the TCEQ will submit the permit to the EPA which has 45 days to reject it. If applicable, emissions units must comply with new federal regulations.
The World Bank proposes shifting subsidies from high-emission foods like red meat and dairy to more sustainable options such as poultry and vegetables, aiming to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
The World Bank's new strategy focuses on reallocating funds to support less carbon-intensive foods, like chicken and vegetables.
This approach could drastically lower the agriculture sector's contribution to global emissions, currently at nearly one-third.
The plan coincides with upcoming updates to the Paris Agreement, stressing the urgency of enhanced climate action in food production.
Key quote:
“We have to stop destroying the planet as we feed ourselves.”
— Julian Lampietti, manager for global engagement in the World Bank's agriculture and food global practice
Why this matters:
Red meat and dairy are among the most resource-intensive and polluting agricultural sectors, contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and water scarcity. By diverting subsidies to lower-emission alternatives such as poultry and plant-based products, the initiative aims to mitigate these environmental concerns while fostering a more sustainable and resilient food system.
Researchers argue that the expansion of liquefied natural gas facilities in the Gulf Coast endangers local environments and communities, particularly affecting minority populations.
The report identifies significant environmental and health risks for communities near six LNG facilities in Louisiana and Texas.
Increased LNG production has made the U.S. the world's leading exporter, raising concerns about global emission targets.
Local disparities in employment and compensation exacerbate the economic impact on affected communities.
Key quote:
"As communities of color are literally fighting for our lives on the front lines, (federal) departments and agencies like FERC ... continuously are approving permits for these deadly, monstrous projects."
— Roishetta Ozane, executive director of The Vessel Project of Louisiana
Why this matters:
Historically, industrial developments have been disproportionately sited in minority communities, leading to concerns about systemic discrimination and neglect by policymakers. The siting of LNG facilities often follows this pattern. LNG facilities are typically associated with air and water pollution, including the release of hazardous pollutants such as volatile organic compounds and particulate matter, which can lead to respiratory issues and other health problems.
