SANTA FE, N.M. - Environmentalists are cheering a recent agreement between President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that will reduce the release of methane from both new and existing sources.

The leaders signed a wide-ranging environmental agreement last week that will help both the United States and Canada meet their obligations under the 2015 Paris climate change agreement. Camilla Feibelman, executive director of the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club, said the pact will go a long way toward helping New Mexico reduce its massive methane cloud.

"The Obama administration has agreed to add the final piece of the puzzle to controlling methane pollution," she said, "and they're doing that by agreeing to omit a rule that controls methane coming out of existing sources."

Earlier this year, the Bureau of Land Management instituted methane limits on new oil and gas rigs on public lands, and the new regulations will limit emissions from existing wells. Under the current situation, Feibelman said, scientists estimate that by 2018, 90 percent of methane pollution will come from sources in place just five years ago.

Feibelman said New Mexico has lost millions of dollars in revenue, royalties and resources from both the accidental and intentional release of methane. She also said it is critical to control methane in order to address global warming.

"Methane is 86 times more potent of a global-warming gas than CO2 (carbon dioxide) is over a 20-year period," she said, "so that means that it's something that we urgently have to control, but it also means that is something that we can control."

Feibelman said the new regulations also will bring jobs to New Mexico, since 11 or more companies already are in the state that develop and install the technology to control methane emissions.

Details of the agreement are online at whitehouse.gov.


get more stories like this via email

Groups working to curb climate change said a Supreme Court ruling limiting the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control carbon emissions is a major setback in their fight.

The justices, on a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, ruled only Congress can set limits on carbon monoxide and other pollutants, in Arizona and elsewhere. Going forward, the EPA must have clear congressional authorization to formulate most regulations.

Kirti Datla, director of strategic legal advocacy for Earthjustice, said the ruling could affect other regulatory agencies as well.

"If a court thinks that what an agency is trying to do is too new or too big, or addressing too important of a problem, it's going to basically assume that Congress didn't give the agency that authority," Datla explained.

Climate-change activists vow to fight the ruling, but a deadlocked Congress will make it difficult. In recent years, Phoenix and other Arizona cities have passed resolutions calling for emissions cutbacks, but state regulators have not made them mandatory for energy producers.

Datla pointed out in its ruling, the high court invoked a rarely-used rule known as the "major questions doctrine," which blocks the EPA and potentially other agencies from setting regulations deemed "transformational" to the economy unless Congress approves them first.

"There's some reason for concern that all the environmental laws, and kind of the system that's existed for the last 50 years that we've taken for granted keeping us safe -- or at least, safer than we would have been -- are being challenged," Datla emphasized.

Datla noted the ruling negates an Obama-era doctrine which set carbon limits aimed at pushing states to use less coal and more alternative energy sources. She thinks the decision could also undo a recent executive order requiring all federal agencies to take steps to reduce their carbon footprints.

"I think the bottom line here is that the decision is bad, and that it takes a highly effective way of regulating emissions from power plants off the table," Datla asserted. "Those emissions are an incredibly important piece of solving the climate puzzle."

According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, coal and other hydrocarbon-based fuels account for almost 80% of U.S. power generation, while renewables make up 12%. The Biden Administration's goal is to cut greenhouse gases in half by 2030, and make the nation carbon-neutral by 2050.

Oregon's estuaries - the wetlands where the ocean meets rivers and streams - are rich habitat for wildlife, and they even store carbon from the atmosphere to help fight climate change.

But the state's plans to manage them are now decades old. That's why Oregon is setting out to update them.

The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development is piloting this revision project with the Yaquina River estuary management plan. Katie Ryan is the executive director of The Wetlands Conservancy, which is part of the update project on the Yaquina River.

"These estuary management plans are outdated," said Ryan, "and they just don't take into account the current challenges that land managers have in these estuaries."

Oregon's estuary plans were developed in the 1980s. However, some vital elements were left out of the original process, including the involvement of tribal nations.

This time around, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians is part of the steering committee and advisory group on the first revision of the Yaquina River plan.

Ryan said estuaries are an important part of Oregon's goal to reduce carbon in the atmosphere.

"Our coastal wetlands store carbon and actually, in a lot of ways, hold more carbon than our forests do," said Ryan. "We just have quite a few left - tidal wetlands - than we do forests. So, they help with climate change by helping store carbon."

Ryan noted that estuaries also are rich and crucial habitats for shorebirds, as well as juvenile salmon. She said that's important for the economy.

"In terms of this robust fishing industry that happens on this Oregon coast, our estuaries are huge for helping to support those economies," said Ryan. "So, I think just looking at the economies that rely on our estuaries - we want to make sure that the plans, you know, take their business into account."

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

As Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin pushes forward on plans to withdraw the Commonwealth from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), environmental activists are raising concerns over the plan.

The multistate compact aims to reduce greenhouse-gas pollution through carbon allowances and capping carbon dioxide emissions. It also funds Virginia's Community Flood Preparedness Fund, a program supporting strategies to mitigate and prevent flooding.

Andrea McGimsey, executive director of Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions, said pulling out of RGGI would end the initiative.

"Our rainfall is just getting a lot harder, we're seeing these deluges like we've never seen before, and the science backs that up," McGimsey pointed out. "Our communities are flooding more and more, and we need to prepare for that, because we know it's going to get worse."

A report commissioned by the governor found participation in the program will drive up energy bills for Virginia residents by about $2.39 cents per month, and more than $1,500 per month for industrial customers. The report's authors also contended the project has not borne out its intended benefits.

Annette Osso, managing director for Resilient Virginia, countered it is because the program is relatively new. Virginia completed its enrollment in RGGI in January 2021, and the Flood Preparedness Fund has only completed three grant rounds so far.

"You're either going to pay for it later, after a flood, or you're going to spend some money up front now to put in the mitigation," Osso contended.

One path the governor could take to back out of RGGI involves Virginia's seven-member Air Pollution Control Board.

Zander Pellegrino, northern Virginia organizer for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said Youngkin has been filling the board with his appointees, a process which will conclude tomorrow.

"He's going against the will of the General Assembly," Pellegrino emphasized. "There were numerous attack bills that were introduced this past legislative session that tried to do exactly this, that tried to repeal RGGI. He lost. They were voted down."

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network is organizing a protest outside the state Capitol building tomorrow to protest Youngkin's efforts to pull out of RGGI. At noon, demonstrators will march backward around the building to symbolize the direction they say Youngkin is taking the Commonwealth.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.