A new rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency could reduce the amount of methane escaping from equipment in Texas oil fields.

Last Saturday, the EPA finalized a long-anticipated climate regulation meant to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas operations.

Virginia Palacios, executive director of the advocacy organization Commission Shift, is focused on reforming the Texas Railroad Commission, the state agency overseeing the oil and gas industry. For several years, her group has argued against companies' requests for rule exceptions.

"Almost every single meeting, we have at least one or two of the commissioners saying something to the operators about how they should 'do better on venting and flaring,' but then they just go right ahead and approve the flaring rule exception request," Palacios pointed out.

She noted the most recent example occurred at a September meeting, when one commissioner chastised a Houston-based company for flaring natural gas at a drilling site, but nonetheless approved its permit. Since the commission launched a database to track exceptions in May 2021, Palacios reported only 44 applications were shown to be denied, while more than 8,000 were approved.

The EPA's new rule, announced at the COP28 climate meeting, aims to cut methane emissions by requiring equipment upgrades and regular leak inspections. Still, Palacios expects Texas to sue the federal government over the change. She explained her group formed because of what she describes as a big gap in the environmental movement in Texas.

"We want the Railroad Commission to provide a real service to the people of Texas," Palacios emphasized. "And for the people of Texas to be able to meaningfully engage with the commission to have their needs met and to have their public health protected and their natural resources protected."

The EPA said the new rule would allow oil and gas companies greater flexibility to use innovative and cost-effective methane detection technologies. Data shows Texas is by far the largest oil-producing state in the United States.

The Town of Carrboro is leveraging state law to combat climate change, announcing a lawsuit aimed at Duke Energy.

Barbara Foushee, mayor of Carrboro, revealed the case Wednesday, filed in Orange County Superior Court, alleging the company misled the public about the dangers of fossil fuels and delayed its transition to renewable-energy sources. Foushee said the town wants accountability for the damage caused by the delays and the harmful effects of the company's continued reliance on coal and gas.

"For years, Duke Energy Corp. has been working against our public safety," Foushee alleged. "As our town has been working hard to use every tool at our disposal to mitigate the devastating effects of climate change."

Foushee argued the climate crisis has taken a toll on Carrboro's public health and well-being and cost the town millions of dollars. She added while fossil fuels have caused measurable harm, Duke Energy has doubled down on coal and gas use, even constructing new coal plants in North Carolina.

Danny Nowell, mayor pro tem of Carrboro, underscored what he called the depth of Duke Energy's climate deception and the effects it has had on communities.

"Because of their monopoly, North Carolinians had no choice but to trust their deceptions," Nowell contended. "Our trust has been violated, and we have paid for it. We have paid for excess road repairs. We have faced the effects of stormwater, and we will continue to pay for even further expenses as we uncover them."

The Center for Biological Diversity and the nonprofit climate justice group NC WARN are assisting Carrboro with its case.

Jim Warren, executive director of NC WARN, said Duke Energy's leadership needs to be held accountable for what he called its long history of misleading the public and the widespread harm caused by its practices, comparing them to the tobacco industry. He is optimistic the lawsuit could provide relief and accountability for others who have suffered from the harmful effects allegedly caused by the company.

"We all hope this lawsuit can help the many communities down east North Carolina, in the mountains, around the world that have been hurt already by climate disasters," Warren emphasized.

Duke Energy responded to the lawsuit by stating it is reviewing the complaint and remains committed to its customers and communities. The company added it plans to continue collaborating with policymakers and regulators to provide reliable, increasingly clean energy while keeping rates affordable.

Oil and Water Don't Mix, a nonprofit group opposing Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline, is leading student efforts across the Upper Great Lakes to advocate for its shutdown.

The campaign includes eight Michigan universities, with schools in Wisconsin, Illinois and Canada. Opponents argued the aging pipeline, running through the Straits of Mackinac, poses a catastrophic environmental risk if a spill occurs.

Calvin Floyd, a graduate student at the University of Michigan and volunteer student organizer, joined the Line 5 student campaign after first learning about the issue in high school.

"I remember the Kalamazoo oil spill," Floyd noted. "I became aware of the same company is operating a ticking time bomb underneath the Straits of Mackinac and that it had to be stopped."

Enbridge defends Line 5 by citing its economic importance and safety measures, including a proposed tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac and continuous monitoring.

Last month, Oakland University hosted "Bad River," a documentary about the Bad River Band's fight against the Line 5 pipeline, while the University of Michigan screened "Troubled Water," focusing on environmental and social justice.

Floyd pointed out student support for shutting down Line 5 is strong, with a diverse group leading the effort at the University of Michigan.

"It's both in-state students who have a connection to the Great Lakes and to the region and they know the weight of this issue, and it's also folks who come from all over the world who realize both the importance of this resource and how it's under threat," Floyd outlined.

In November, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources approved permits for Enbridge's 41-mile reroute of the Line 5 pipeline, bypassing the Bad River Band's reservation. The project faces opposition from the tribe and environmentalists.

By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Shanteya Hudson for Alabama News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Over the last couple of years, the US Department of Agriculture has been funding various agricultural initiatives that it calls “climate-smart.” These are farming practices that, in the USDA’s estimation, provide some kind of benefit to the environment. But where is this climate-smart money actually going, and is it really doing anything to stop or slow climate change?

The impetus behind climate-smart farming policies is rather straightforward. Food production is currently responsible for almost one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions, with the majority of those emissions coming from animal agriculture. Over three-quarters of all freshwater and ocean eutrophication are the result of agricultural production, as is almost all habitat loss on the planet.

It’s clear that our farming practices need to change, and climate-smart policies are the U.S. government’s attempt to bring about this change. At least, that’s what the government says.

What Are Climate-Smart Policies?

While the concept of agricultural practices that are good for the environment is nothing new, only recently did the U.S. government start using the phrase “climate-smart” to refer to such policies. Unfortunately, the term doesn’t have any official or legal definition, and as we’ll see, that’s resulted in a number of dubiously beneficial practices being dubbed “climate-smart.”

Broadly speaking, though, climate-smart policies are those that provide some sort of environmental benefit, or otherwise help slow climate change and global warming. Usually, this means that they either reduce carbon emissions or increase carbon capture by soil, trees and other sequesterers.

Climate-smart policies are funded by the USDA, which is in turn funded by Congress, and the USDA has many different programs through which it distributes climate-smart funds.

However, tracking the funding, progress and implementation of these climate-smart practices is quite difficult, in large part because the USDA has made it that way.

The USDA’s Climate-Smart Initiatives Aren’t Transparent

In 2022, the USDA announced the formation of Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, a billion-dollar pilot program aimed at researching and testing the environmental benefits of various farming and forestry practices. Farmers and other agricultural producers could apply to receive grants from the USDA to spend on potentially climate-smart policies, and over the years, the USDA would measure how beneficial to the environment these practices actually were.

The USDA initially dedicated $1 billion to this program, and has added several billion more since then. But Jason Davidson, Senior Food and Agriculture Campaigner for the nonprofit Friends of the Earth, tells Sentient that the inner workings of this pilot program have been anything but transparent, with almost all of the process taking place behind closed doors.

“The USDA has been very opaque in describing not just the projects themselves, but even what sort of data they plan to collect [to evaluate them],” Davidson says. “All we can really say is that they have planned to give money to these organizations. On what schedule, or whether that’s a lump sum over the years, etc, is unclear.”

The Problematic Investment in Supposedly ‘Climate-Smart Beef’

This lack of transparency makes it difficult to determine why, to take just one example, some of the largest meat companies on the planet, including Tyson, JBS and Perdue, received “climate-smart” funds through the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program.

“Tens of millions of dollars were given to projects where either a primary or secondary applicant was a major international meat company,” Davidson explains. “But the actual specifics of all of these programs are hard to decipher. The only sort of information that USDA released was who applied, how much money they were given and a brief description of the project.”

Take the “Climate-Smart Grasslands” grant. The goal of this initiative, according to the USDA, is to “market climate-smart beef with the ultimate goal of launching a cooperative to sell climate-smart beef products.” A partnership of 28 different entities, including JBS USA and Tyson, received $30 million to implement this project.

But what exactly is “climate-smart beef?” Sure, different methods of cattle farming vary in their environmental impacts, but none of those methods are beneficial to the climate. Beef production emits over twice the greenhouse gasses as any other protein on a per-gram basis, according to Our World In Data, and is the leading driver of deforestation worldwide.

Nevertheless, the USDA soon authorized Tyson to market their Brazen Beef subbrand as “climate-friendly,” and to claim on the packaging that it achieves a “10 percent greenhouse gas reduction.” Even if Brazen Beef’s production techniques really do produce 10 percent fewer greenhouse gasses than traditional beef production, though, they’re still emitting more than twice the greenhouse gasses than any other protein source.

But it’s not even clear that this 10 percent reduction is actually happening, as Tyson and the USDA have offered vanishingly few details as to how they’re achieving this supposed reduction. (Tyson is also being sued for these claims.) The USDA doesn’t directly monitor their implementation of these practices, and EWG says that when it asked the USDA for substantiation of this claim, the documents it received were heavily redacted in order to protect Tyson’s “trade secrets.”

This kind of opacity is indicative of the USDA’s general approach when pressed for details on its climate-smart policies, Davidson tells Sentient. Other environmental organizations, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, have also expressed frustration at the USDA’s lack of transparency regarding climate-smart policies, as have some members of Congress.

“Friends of the Earth and other organizations have submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to USDA over the last two years to try and get more information about these projects, and we have been largely unsuccessful, receiving heavily redacted documents in return,” Davidson says. “It is extremely unclear how the USDA evaluates these programs.”

The Inflation Reduction Act Funded Climate-Smart Projects — Or Did It?

 When the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act was announced, information on it included $19.5 billion in funding for climate-smart policies. While it’s true that it contains $19.5 billion in funding for the USDA, the phrase “climate-smart” doesn’t actually appear anywhere in the law’s text.

In truth, the the IRA allocated this money to a selection of USDA conservation programs, and mandated that these programs use the money only on practices that “directly improve soil carbon, reduce nitrogen losses, or reduce, capture, avoid, or sequester carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide emissions, associated with agricultural production.”

Since then, the USDA has curated and maintained a list of programs that it considers to be “climate-smart,” which it updates annually. This list determines which specific practices are eligible to receive climate-smart funds provided by the IRA. In October 2023, the USDA added 14 new practices to its list of “climate-smart” policies.

A February investigation by the Environmental Working Group, however, found that one of the USDA’s newly designated “climate-smart” programs — waste storage facilities for animal farms — actually increases greenhouse emissions, according to the USDA’s own analysis from 2024. Note: though the 2024 data is no longer available on the USDA website, this author did review data provided by EWG.

The Farm Bill Could Scale Back Climate-Smart Funding

Every five years, Congress has to renew the Farm Bill, an enormous package of legislation that undergirds American farming and agriculture. The last version of the bill has expired, and as usual, Republican and Democratic lawmakers are bickering over what the next bill should include. One of these arguments concerns the IRA’s funding for climate-smart policies.

In May, Republicans released a Farm Bill proposal that retained the $19.5 billion in funding that the IRA approved, but removed the requirement that this money go to initiatives that “directly improve soil carbon, reduce nitrogen losses, or reduce, capture, avoid, or sequester carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide emissions, associated with agricultural production.”

If this version of the Farm Bill passes, which looks increasingly probable given Republicans will control both the House and Senate, the $19.5 billion in “climate-smart” funding provided by the IRA would become $19.5 billion in general funding for the USDA’s conservation projects, regardless of their impact on the climate.

A 2022 analysis by EWG found that the overwhelming majority of funds from the USDA’s conservation programs don’t go to climate-smart projects, and the group estimates that if these “guardrails” from the IRA are removed, only one-fifth of the USDA’s conservation budget will go to programs that reduce greenhouse emissions.

It’s not a sure thing that this provision will be included in the final Farm Bill, which isn’t expected to pass until next year. Nevertheless, the fact that these guardrails are on the chopping block shows just how precarious funding for climate-smart projects is, regardless of their efficacy.

The Bottom Line

From a bird’s-eye perspective, it’s undoubtedly a good thing that the federal government has, at least in theory, recognized the importance of making America’s farming practices more sustainable.

But the extent to which these efforts have actually benefited the environment is entirely unclear. Some of the ostensibly “climate-smart” initiatives are anything but, and the USDA’s lack of transparency makes it difficult to measure the effectiveness of those that are.

Bringing about a more environmentally friendly farming system is a laudable goal, but the American government’s efforts to do so have been disappointing and lackluster at best.


Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email