Progressive climate groups condemned Exxon Mobil's participation in a side event at the Democratic National Convention, calling it a dangerous normalization of fossil fuel interests.
Friends of the Earth, Climate Hawks Vote and Oil Change U.S. protested Exxon Mobil's sponsorship of a DNC side event.
Four protesters disrupted the event, criticizing Exxon Mobil’s role in climate change and its influence on the energy transition.
The activists emphasized that Exxon’s involvement undermines the Democratic Party's climate goals.
Key quote:
“I’m a Democratic National Committee member, and I am here because Exxon lied and people died.”
— RL Miller, the political director of Climate Hawks Vote
Why this matters:
Fossil fuel companies’ involvement in political events like the DNC may hinder climate progress by lending legitimacy to industries that contribute heavily to climate change. This tension reflects the ongoing struggle within the Democratic Party over how to address climate policy.
“Pennsylvania steel communities have lived with dangerous air quality for generations. That needs to end.”
PITTSBURGH — Amidst recent news that President Biden plans to block the sale of U.S. Steel to Nippon Steel on national security grounds, communities near the company’s plants in Pennsylvania say their concerns about pollution are still ignored.
While news about the merger has created political ripples nationally and internationally, members of environmental justice communities in the Pittsburgh region that have experienced elevated risk for asthma, lung disease and cancer for generations as a result of U.S. Steel’s harmful emissions say their voices aren’t being heard.
“Despite the drama in the press, the real issues remain the same,” Matthew Mehalik, executive director of the Breathe Project, a coalition of more than 30 groups advocating for more stringent air pollution controls in the region, said in a statement. “The ongoing threats from pollution from outdated and leaking coke and steel plants…need to be addressed.”
New federal coke oven regulations
U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke Works.
Credit: Mark Dixon/flickr
Emissions from coke ovens, which convert coal into coke, a key ingredient in steelmaking, include chemicals like benzene, formaldehyde and heavy metals. Coke oven emissions are carcinogenic and are also linked to lung and respiratory disease.
There are coke ovens in 11 locations throughout the U.S., including Indiana and Alabama, but the largest coke plant in the country is U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works, about 16 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. Communities surrounding the plant regularly see some of the highest daily air pollution levels in the country. U.S. Steel also has several other steel making facilities in the Pittsburgh region.
On July 5, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposed new regulations for coke ovens to reduce hazardous emissions of chemicals like benzene, mercury, lead and arsenic. Under the federal Clean Air Act, the EPA is supposed to update coke oven regulations every eight years, but it hadn’t done so since 2005, and it only issued the new rules after being sued by environmental advocacy groups over the delay.
"For decades, the EPA has ignored setting coke oven standards, allowing cancer-causing pollutants to harm communities in Pennsylvania, Alabama, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio,” Tosh Sagar, an attorney for Earthjustice, one of the advocacy groups that filed the lawsuit, said in a statement. “These communities have suffered enough."
A Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel spokesperson said in a statement at the time that the company was “concerned” the new rules would result in “unprecedented costs” and called them “unachievable.” But environmental health advocates say the new rules don’t do enough to prevent cancer in people who live near these facilities.
“These communities have suffered enough." - Tosh Sagar, Earthjustice
On September 3, a group of environmental health advocacy groups including the Clean Air Council and PennEnvironment filed another federal lawsuit against the EPA demanding stronger regulations for benzene, saying the recently updated rules will still result in communities downwind from coke oven plants being exposed to dangerous levels of the carcinogen.
Air monitoring devices around U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works and other coke plants by the Environmental Integrity Project, an environmental advocacy group, have detected dangerously high levels of benzene.
Meanwhile, U.S. Steel executives recently threatened to shut down the company’s Pittsburgh-area facilities and move its headquarters away from the region if Biden blocks the Nippon Steel deal, saying that as many as 3,800 union jobs in the region would be lost as a result.
“Subjecting the community to ongoing uncertainties about its future by threatening to move headquarters away and shut the plant down in a negotiation ignores the real social harms experienced by residents and workers who are manipulated without regard for their wellbeing,” Mehalik said. “Stop the 150-year trend of ignoring people impacted by harmful investment decisions.”
Continued use of coal in steelmaking
In April, residents of the Pittsburgh-area communities where U.S. Steel operates held a protest at the company’s corporate headquarters in downtown Pittsburgh to call attention to the company’s history of violating environmental regulations and harming the health of workers and residents amidst news of the potential merger.
The protesters noted that the company has a long history of breaking promises to clean up its operations in the region, pointing to the reversal of plans to make $1.5 billion in equipment upgrades that would have substantially lowered harmful emissions at its Pittsburgh-area plants while providing the region with up to 1,000 additional union jobs in 2021 as a recent example.
Climate advocates have also used news about the merger to raise awareness about both U.S. Steel’s and Nippon Steel’s continued reliance on coal, in contrast with competitors in the industry that are decarbonizing by expanding their capacity for green steelmaking.
Nippon Steel has pledged to spend $2.7 billion upgrading U.S. Steel’s plants if the deal goes through, including at least $1 billion in the Pittsburgh region, prompting U.S. Steel employees who support the deal to demonstrate outside U.S. Steel’s Pittsburgh headquarters with signs reading, “Nearly $3B reasons to say yes,” but environmental health advocates remain wary.
“Throwing around $3 billion figures about vague investments further subjects our region to stressful uncertainties without specific solutions to real community needs,” Mehalik said. “Talk to residents. Listen to what they need.”
A wealthy Utah rancher bulldozed large swaths of forest with taxpayer support, claiming unproven environmental benefits, but experts raise doubts about his methods.
A Utah rancher used millions in taxpayer funds to clear forests, promoting his untested tree removal method, “roller felling.”
The rancher, Mike Siaperas, received state funds through questionable contracts and political connections, promoting his method as a wildfire and drought solution.
Political connections helped secure millions in state funding for the rancher’s project, despite doubts about its environmental benefits.
Key quote:
“It looks like nothing more than a pet project with a thin veneer of science.”
— Ben Abbott, ecology professor at Brigham Young University.
Why this matters:
This rancher’s project, funded by over $5 million in taxpayer dollars, isn’t just a case of bad science—it’s a reflection of Utah’s broader issue with how political influence shapes so-called “green” initiatives. The claims of ecological benefits are shaky at best, and yet, thanks to powerful allies, this rancher’s proposal got the green light without much competition or scrutiny. Read more: Giving Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante the protection they deserve.
A widening political divide shows Republicans increasingly losing faith in science, raising concerns about the public health impacts of this skepticism, especially as misinformation about vaccines and climate change spreads.
Republican distrust in science has surged from 14% in 2020 to 38% in 2023, while Democrats’ confidence has remained relatively stable.
Misinformation, amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic, has fueled skepticism of vaccines, climate change, and public health measures.
Political identity, particularly within the MAGA movement, plays a crucial role in shaping these views, exacerbating the partisan gap.
Key quote:
“Americans died because they had read or heard that mRNA vaccines were more dangerous than a bout of Covid.”
— Matthew Dallek, political historian at George Washington University
Why this matters:
Science should be society’s best way of understanding the world, not a pawn in our political battles. The more we politicize it, the more we open the door for denialism to creep in, leaving us all worse off—environmentally and in terms of public health. Read more: America re-discovers anti-science in its midst.
Cheshire, Ohio, was wiped off the map in 2002 after a coal plant bought the entire town to relocate residents amid toxic pollution, and today, its empty streets remain overshadowed by the looming plant.
The Gavin coal plant, now owned by Blackstone, displaced the entire town of Cheshire, Ohio, due to severe pollution, leaving it a ghost town.
Gavin remains one of the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the U.S., and its political ties to Trump raise questions about future environmental regulations.
Residents recall the traumatic experience of being forced to leave their homes due to toxic emissions from the plant, which continues to operate.
Key quote:
“There is a trend of private equity walking away from polluting assets without being liable for the environmental cleanup. They want to squeeze as much profit as possible while they can from this outdated, dangerous coal plant.”
— Alissa Jean Schafer, climate director of the Private Equity Stakeholder Project.
Why this matters:
Gavin remains a major source of pollution, contributing to climate change and local environmental harm. This case raises concerns about private equity ownership of coal plants and the political influence protecting outdated energy sources over public health.
The Supreme Court may soon revisit a long-unused doctrine that could curb federal agencies’ authority by placing more responsibility on Congress to legislate directly.
Conservative justices are signaling interest in reviving the nondelegation doctrine, which limits how much power Congress can delegate to federal agencies.
The Pacific Legal Foundation argues Congress has given too much power to agencies, challenging environmental regulations as part of this strategy.
If revived, the doctrine could reshape how agencies like the EPA regulate, shifting more responsibility back to Congress.
Key quote:
“This is the next frontier of separation of powers. This is definitely something we’re pushing in our litigation.”
— Luke Wake, attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation
Why this matters:
Reviving the nondelegation doctrine could reduce the power of regulatory agencies, requiring Congress to take on more direct decision-making. This shift could lead to delays in addressing complex issues like environmental protections due to political gridlock.
Rosen supports the Inflation Reduction Act and policies promoting clean energy and solar panel imports, while Brown opposes solar expansion, claiming it harms Nevada’s landscape.
Brown advocates for increasing domestic oil and gas production and has criticized renewable energy projects for benefiting California over Nevadans.
Nevada, with vast public lands and abundant sunshine, is key to the national energy transition, but faces tension between renewable energy development and conservation.
Key quote:
“Nevada is leading the nation in building a robust clean energy economy, which is creating new good-paying jobs and lowering costs across my state.”
— Jacky Rosen, U.S. Senator
Why this matters:
Nevada’s Senate race could shape U.S. energy policy. If Brown wins, the state’s renewable energy sector may face setbacks, impacting climate efforts and job growth tied to solar energy expansion.
Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, supports clean energy and reducing emissions but has avoided taking detailed positions on energy issues with two months left in the race.
Harris supports cutting pollution and clean energy investments but has not endorsed specific proposals like a drilling phaseout or a faster shift to 100% clean electricity.
Environmentalists are divided on whether her broad statements on climate change will mobilize voters, especially among the younger generation.
The fossil fuel industry seeks more clarity from Harris, urging her to define her stance on energy security and inflation.
Key quote:
“We want to be able to sell that to our base. We want to be able to push for the climate agenda that we know that we need.”
— Collin Rees, campaign manager at Oil Change U.S.
Why this matters:
Harris’ general approach on energy could influence key voter blocs. Her reluctance to dive into detailed policies risks alienating both climate advocates and younger voters, a demographic critical for Democratic success.
