A high-stakes global climate conference wrapped up this week, with a new agreement concerning fossil fuels in place.

But it wasn't just elected leaders having talks - environmental justice advocates from Minnesota are reflecting on their participation.

At the two-week-long Conference of the Parties (COP) 28 summit, some 200 countries agreed to a more aggressive push in phasing out energy sources like coal.

Underneath those high-profile negotiations were discussions about helping under-developed countries affected by climate disasters.

Carolina Ortiz, associate executive director with Minnesota's Communities Organizing Latino Power and Action, or COPAL, said it aligns with her team's desire to make environmental justice a priority.

"We need to continue pressuring our world leaders to do better," said Ortiz, "and to continue making sure that we're putting community lives before profit."

Earlier in the conference, leaders agreed to establish a loss and damage fund of nearly $800 million for smaller nations vulnerable to climate change.

Advocates for some of those countries say it's a positive step but stress the need for sustainable help.

As for the fossil fuel agreement, some nations acknowledge that implementation will be vital for that plan to work.

COPAL was part of a regional delegation - led by the organization Climate Generation - that attended the conference. Officials said the goal was to introduce voices they feel aren't heard.

Ortiz said the public needs to know more about things like climate migration, and that it's not just an issue happening elsewhere in the world.

"You know," said Ortiz, "we're seeing it from people that live in South Minneapolis, North Minneapolis - different parts of Minnesota - that are living in disadvantaged communities where they're being more directly impacted by pollution and other things like that that affect their daily lives."

Ortiz suggested that as regional climate issues worsen, people living in those underserved communities could be forced to uproot their lives in hopes of improving health outcomes.

Meanwhile, climate analysts say disasters elsewhere in the country might prompt people to move to places like the Midwest, raising questions about whether "haven cities" have enough resources.

Illinois plans to spend $1.5 billion through 2027 in significant grid investments to help meet the state's ambitious clean-energy goals, with nearly half of funds going toward addressing environmental disparities.

The Climate and Equity Jobs Act requires at least 40% of state grid investments to benefit underserved and low-income communities.

Brad Klein, managing attorney with the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said fulfilling it means first learning more about existing issues.

"That requires new tools to sort of analyze disparities in service. So, do some neighborhoods enjoy better reliability than others? There's new modeling in the plans to try to discover that," he said.

As well as plans to upgrade substations, which include poles and wires, to close any existing gaps - and what Klein calls "full and fair access" for people in all communities to invest in things like rooftop solar, electrification and heat pumps.

The Illinois Commerce Commission rejected initial plans by Ameren and ComEd because they didn't demonstrate how the utility companies would benefit disadvantaged communities or keep monthly costs down for customers. Both companies revised their proposals which now outline both and describe plans for increased reliability, including key upgrades to increase the grid's power demand and make it more resilient to outages. Klein said overall, it means easier access to local clean energy.

"We'll have better options for connecting rooftop solar and community solar to the grid, and if done well, over time that also can help lead to opportunities for energy cost savings for customers and certainly address climate change," Klein continued.

Although officials say increases in monthly bills to customers will vary based on service class and energy usage, the ComEd plan shows an average increase of about $22 per year until 2027, while Ameren estimates an increase of less than $1 per month.


get more stories like this via email

President-elect Donald Trump retakes office in less than a week and promises to roll back efforts to combat climate change. But state-level efforts will continue in North Carolina. Trump has promised to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act passed under President Joe Biden. Brittany Griffin with the nonprofit CleanAIRE NC says that would hurt the state, including its ability to prepare for more severe weather as climate change worsens. But she says there are glimmers of hope on the state level.

"We still have a lot of state-led policies, and then our makeup now of the General Assembly looks different. We have a governor who also is pretty well-informed and, I believe, dedicated to addressing environmental issues in our state," he said.

Griffin added that her organization will be working with community and legal partners to resist potentially harmful changes under the Trump administration. CleanAIRE NC's community science manager Daisha Wall is on the Environmental Justice Advisory Council for the Governor's Office.

Griffin noted that there are a number of ways CleanAIRE NC is helping people feel more empowered, such as through its air monitoring networks in communities across the state and clean energy transportation efforts in rural areas, and said community member involvement is important to the state's response to climate change.

"When they amplify their voice, it allows them to feel like they are participating in the process of shaping environmental policies as it relates to their communities," she explained.

North Carolina lawmakers have passed climate goals under the state's Carbon Plan that aim to reduce Duke Energy's carbon emissions by 70% by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050. But Griffin said the current plan falls short for the state's underserved and impacted communities. However, it is renewed every two years and she hopes they have a larger say in the next iteration.

"We at CleanAIRE NC would like to make sure there's more inclusion for communities in the planning process so they can actually more directly benefit from it," she continued.

For workers or pension systems trying to keep support for the fossil-fuel industry to a minimum, one expert has some suggestions.

Just last month, Maryland State Retirement and Pension System officials voted to create a climate advisory panel. The panel will be tasked with advising the pension system on how to consider climate risks in investments.

For those who are just starting to invest for retirement, Jessye Waxman - campaign advisor on Sierra Club's fossil-free finance team - said fossil-fuel stocks aren't the most profitable or stable option.

"The fossil-fuel industry has been pretty volatile in terms of the kinds of returns it's looking at," said Waxman. "Holding fossil fuels is actually a more risky proposition. They're creating a lot of instability and not optimizing for portfolio returns."

A study of Maryland's pension portfolio agreed. It found the stocks in oil and gas companies in Maryland's pension system were falling behind.

The study found the portfolio would have grown an additional 10% if the pension system had divested in 2010.

For those current shareholders, Waxman said to hold investments and use voting power to keep companies accountable on climate issues.

That includes denying debt, which involves not buying new bonds for fossil-fuel companies. That, she said, makes it more difficult for fossil-fuel companies to operate - or expand operations.

"If you are a shareholder," said Waxman, "hold the stocks that you have, and use that to leverage your power as a shareholder to hold companies and their boards accountable for their greenhouse-gas emissions, for decarbonization efforts."

A Sierra Club report found that bonds are a growing share of financing for fossil-fuel company projects, such as new pipelines and coal power plants.

In 2000, bonds accounted for 14% of fossil-fuel financing, compared with 52% in 2020.