J2. Fossil Fuel Industry

Fossil fuels dominate the U.S. energy market, but not because of free competition. With $760 billion in annual subsidies, oil and gas companies are propped up by taxpayer dollars.

The post Fossil Fuel Subsidies: The $760 Billion Lie About ‘Free Market’ Energy appeared first on FracTracker Alliance.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

The post Protected: Cracks in the Fossil Fueled-Facade: March 2025 appeared first on 350.

Sacramento, California – Today,  environmental justice and environmental sustainability organizations in the Break Free From Plastic movement condemn the State of California and Governor Gavin Newsom for failing to meet the deadline to implement landmark California legislation designed to expand plastic recycling and limit the use of single-use plastic packaging, and the plastics industry for their continuous efforts to derail the statute’s implementation.

Both the State’s and industry’s actions represent a betrayal of the compromise reached in 2022 that led advocates to withdraw a ballot initiative that the industry had strongly opposed. Instead of the ballot measure, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 54, an agreement that allowed the industry, rather than the government, to manage an effort to reduce plastic pollution.

Despite the clear terms of that agreement, the industry has worked to undermine SB 54 ever since its passage, all while plastic pollution has dramatically increased. Mounting scientific evidence has proven that plastic pollution is permeating our air, water, food, and virtually every part of our bodies. It is not only an environmental problem but an urgent public health threat as well.

A California state-sponsored study found that nearly three million tons of single-use plastic and more than 170 billion single-use plastic products were sold, offered for sale, or distributed in California in 2023. Californians throw away the equivalent of 290 Olympic-sized pools of plastic every day, much of which gets shipped to developing countries.  California was rated as the state with the highest waste exports, contributing 20 million kg to non-OECD countries and 51 million kg to Mexico.

SB 54 required the industry to make investments in reuse infrastructure and reduce single-use plastic packaging by 25 percent by 2032. By then, all single-use plastic is to be recyclable or compostable. The bill also made producers – rather than consumers or local governments – responsible for managing the task of keeping single-use plastics out of the environment, a central function of extended producer responsibility

Despite their agreement to comply, industry has continuously lobbied the state to slow the adoption of the necessary implementation regulations. Today, Friday, was the deadline for submitting those rules, and instead of following SB 54, Governor Newsom, citing unreasonable burdens to industry, broke his promise to the people of California, prioritizing industry’s bottom line over Californians’ rights to a clean and healthy environment and protection by their government.

The plastics industry again proves that they cannot be trusted to live by agreements negotiated with advocates, the Legislature, and the Governor’s office. Even if new regulations are ultimately adopted, the industry has made it clear that they are simply not serious about meaningfully reducing the amount of plastic pollution that they create and from which they profit.

Advocates are committed to reevaluating all possible avenues to achieving the targets and goals in SB 54, including reviving the ballot initiative to let voters decide this issue. Public opinion polling consistently shows that California voters overwhelmingly support regulating and taxing plastic packaging. If Governor Newsom and public officials will not stand up to industry pressure, then the people will.

"While the Trump Administration is shredding environmental law and giving the petrochemical industry license to poison our air, water, and bodies, we are relying on our state governments to hold the line and protect the people and the environment. Governor Newsom claims to be a climate, environmental, and public health leader. He’s made promises to act in the best interest of Californians. Instead, he is kowtowing to big plastic in a bid to strangle SB 54, putting profit over people and showing the people of California which side he is on. The Governor cites cost as the deciding factor, but what about the cost of failing to act, the cost to our health and a livable future? With the majority of California voters in support of regulating plastic packaging and supportive of politicians who stand up to special interests, not so-called leaders who follow industry’s lead, the people will have the last word."

- Melissa Aguayo, US + CAN Regional Coordinator, Break Free From Plastic (BFFP)

“As a coalition representing some of California's most impacted and overburdened communities throughout the lifecycle of plastic, we are deeply disappointed by this outcome. This was a pivotal opportunity for California to push forward regulations that would better protect our communities from companies that keep putting profit over people. The regulations as written would have played a role in keeping chemical recycling technologies from being allowed near our communities. Instead, we now face threats from both the ongoing plastic pollution crisis & from false solutions being championed by the same industries causing suffering - all of which perpetuate public health risks to predominantly low-income and communities of color throughout the state. This delay sends a clear message: the needs and concerns of environmental justice communities are being sidelined in favor of industry greed & false solutions.”

- Tevin Hamilton, Coalition Coordinator, Environmental Justice Communities Against Plastics (EJCAP)

“SB 54 states that ‘Disadvantaged and low-income communities are disproportionately impacted by the human health and environmental impacts of plastic pollution and fossil fuel extraction.’ This means a delay in implementing these regulations will allow more plastic pollution to be created and allow further harm to the health of our state’s—and the world’s—most vulnerable and overburdened people. This delay by Governor Newsom is an environmental injustice, plain and simple.”

- Thomas Helme, Co-Founder / Co-Director, Valley Improvement Projects (VIP)

“It's disappointing—but ultimately not surprising—that the industry is backing away from its commitment to tackle plastic pollution and trying to slow down the process that they themselves agreed to. The growing impact that plastic pollution is having on our health and the environment make it clear that we can’t afford to continue with the status quo that the industry is fighting so hard to defend.”

- Nick Lapis, Director of Advocacy, Californians Against Waste

“Surfrider Foundation is extremely disappointed in today’s outcome. With countless hours spent developing and refining the draft SB 54 regulations, a thorough process with ample public engagement opportunities was conducted. This is another unfortunate example of industry undermining public processes to disrupt and maintain the status quo and pad their bottom line. We’re drowning in plastic pollution, and as California is looked up to as a global leader in environmental conservation, the state let down our communities, especially marginalized communities who bear the brunt of cumulative pollution impacts, and our environment by intervening.”

- Miho Ligare, Plastic Pollution Initiative, Surfrider Foundation

“When the SB54 draft comment period opened in the summer of 2024, Plastic Pollution Coalition and eight other organizations shared our concerns over the legislation’s many vague definitions, focus on recycling target rates rather than source reduction, and were deeply disappointed to learn that the sole Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) approved was the Circular Action Alliance that was composed of board members from some of the largest plastic polluters.

We knew then that plastic producers were not acting in good faith, nor did they really intend to work with the State of California to solve the plastic crisis, but only to ensure they could continue actively undermining, and delaying the implementation of California’s plastic reduction laws. This is the fox guarding the hen house.

Californians want an end to the plastic pollution crisis, and have voted to do so. It is time to let the voters have a direct say in regulations that hold plastic producers accountable for their pollution. The plastics industry has proven time and again that they are incapable of self regulation and will only continue business as usual at the expense of current and future generations. If the leaders won't lead, the people will.”

- Dianna Cohen, Co-Founder and CEO, Plastic Pollution Coalition

“This is yet another example of the plastics industry, with California’s help, putting profits before people—with Governor Newsom allowing them to get away with it. Instead of investing in real solutions, they peddle toxic technologies and deliberately stall progress to protect their bottom line—at the cost of communities, climate, and environmental health. Despite overwhelming public support for action on plastic pollution, Governor Newsom and California—a state that claims to be a leader in climate, health, and environmental justice—has failed to act. This is more than just a setback; it is a blatant reminder that corporate influence continues to undermine environmental justice. Californians were promised action, not excuses. The communities most harmed by plastic pollution cannot afford more delays. The time for half-measures and empty promises is over—strong enforcement and real accountability must come next.”

- Denaya Shorter, Senior Director, US & Canada Region, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)

“This is yet another example of how the public can’t trust the fossil-fueled plastic industry. We need plastic pollution to be addressed in California now, instead of wasting taxpayers' money by delaying the implementation of this important law.”

- Renee Sharp, Director of Plastics and Petrochemical Advocacy, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

California’s packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law is the only one of the five existing packaging EPR laws that includes explicit, numeric reuse targets in statute. Many schools and organizations that have already adopted reuse systems have seen a return on investment (ROI) and cost savings within months of implementation. The delay in enforcing these provisions will have significant health and environmental consequences for Californians.

This delay essentially allows plastic producers to avoid responsibility, shifting the burden of their plastic waste and pollution onto California taxpayers. SB54 was intended to be costly for plastic polluters, but it was designed to ultimately save Californians money by preventing increases in trash rates and reducing the costs of pollution and health-related cleanups.

I do not understand how Governor Newsom could suddenly reverse his position and decide that it is too expensive for plastic polluters to pay for the damage they’ve caused. Yet, it seems acceptable to raise waste rates for everyday Californians and leave local governments to bear the increasing costs of waste management. This shift in responsibility unfairly burdens the public while letting polluters off the hook.

- Shira Lane, CEO, Atrium 916 - Creative Innovation Center for Sustainability

The governor’s delay raises questions about his commitment to those impacted by the plastic pollution crisis. Our communities have been engaging with this process in good faith, but these delays and requests to continue engaging in this process without a clear commitment to action places unacceptable burdens on already burdened communities.

- Fernando Tormos-Aponte, Policy Lead, Just Transition Alliance

In a time when we desperately need State governments to show leadership and step up to the challenge of protecting our most vulnerable communities, we are disappointed to see how industry interests and profits continue to be prioritized over our own health and the health of our unique California environment, while stealing the right to a healthy environment from future generations.

- Alejandra Warren, Co-Founder and Executive Director, Plastic Free Future

The petrochemical industry’s plan to expand the production of plastics and petrochemicals is an existential threat to our health and our climate. Plastic is 99% oil and is responsible for more than 12% of all oil demand, a number set to double by 2050 as the fossil fuel industry plots for new areas of growth. If we want to protect our health and climate, we need to turn off the tap of endless plastic production.

Fortunately, there is still time to secure an ambitious Global Plastics Treaty that includes limits on plastic and petrochemical production and standards to address health and justice concerns. A strong Global Plastics Treaty would represent a rare and new opportunity to clean up our oceans, protect human health, head off the unsustainable growth of greenhouse gas emissions, and envision sustainable alternative livelihoods for the plastics workforce.

At the negotiations in Busan in December, most countries agreed on crucial aspects of a Treaty and aligned on the need for a strong treaty. This strong negotiating position is the result of an immense effort by civil society groups who have broadened the framework of the negotiations away from one focused primarily on issues like waste management. Instead, Treaty delegates now understand that plastics are poisoning people and the planet, and now is the time to end this existential threat. This progress occurred despite the hundreds of lobbyists from chemical and fossil fuel industries that far outnumbered any individual country’s delegation and who launched large-scale disinformation campaigns.

The upcoming meeting in Geneva on August 5-14 is a critical opportunity for civil society to hold political leaders accountable and build global momentum for a meaningful treaty. The global civil society movement stands ready to block the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to derail the treaty and to support an international agreement that protects people’s health and the planet.

FracTracker Alliance criticizes CNX Resources' "Radical Transparency" program, arguing it undermines independent science and public health. We urge Pennsylvania to prioritize unbiased research in fracking regulations amidst the dangers of industry influence.

The post FracTracker Alliance Calls for Independent Science in Pennsylvania appeared first on FracTracker Alliance.

Back in December 2019, the European Union (EU) set its sights on a climate-neutral future by 2050. With the unveiling of the European Green Deal, it seemed as though a new era of climate action was beginning—one where ambitious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, net-zero targets, green technologies, and sustainable job creation were all interconnected. The EU's promise to balance environmental stewardship with economic opportunities was met with widespread support, as it appeared to align with the public’s call for urgent climate action and legislative efforts to tackle climate change were gaining momentum.

This week, the EU turns a page towards a new phase of climate legislation with the introduction of the Clean Industrial Deal, which promises to transform the industrial sector to support decarbonization and a circular economy. Yet, the very way it was launched speaks volumes about its priorities. Presented on 26 February 2025 in Antwerp—Europe’s biggest petrochemical hub and the second-largest in the world—the plan was unveiled in a closed-door event with more than 300 industry CEOs, including the President of the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), a powerful industrial lobby, without any participation from civil society. This choice not only highlights the privileged access industry enjoys in shaping policy but also underscores how little attention is given to communities impacted by plastic and chemical pollution.

The CID misses the mark when it comes to genuinely addressing the deeper, more systemic environmental issues—particularly the role of plastic production and pollution in our climate crisis. What was framed as a bold leap toward sustainability risks becoming just another policy framework that overlooks critical aspects of ecological harm in favor of economic gain.

The EU has promoted a transition to renewable energy for the decarbonization of many sectors, but plastic production remains a significant blind spot in these efforts. Notably, plastic production is now the largest industrial consumer of oil, gas, and electricity in the EU—surpassing even energy-intensive industries like steel manufacturing, automobile production, and food processing. In 2020, the plastic industry alone was responsible for almost 9% of the EU's fossil gas consumption and 8% of its oil consumption. These figures are staggering, given the pressing need to reduce fossil fuel reliance in every sector to meet climate targets.

Rotterdam petrochemical plant. Photo credit: Hansenn

Reducing fossil fuel use and transitioning toward cleaner energy alone will not be enough to meet the scale of the climate challenge of petrochemical production, particularly if the production of chemicals and plastic polymers continues unabated. In fact, the plastic industry's expansion is exacerbating the demand for oil and gas, and if left unchecked, it could consume up to one-third of the remaining global carbon budget by 2050—even in a decarbonized scenario.

The plastic industry's growing carbon footprint is primarily driven by the fossil fuels used as feedstocks for plastic production. While the industry is exploring plans to decarbonize its energy supply through technologies like renewable power and energy efficiency measures, these efforts will only scratch the surface. Even if the energy used to process plastic were to be fully decarbonized, it would have little impact on the overall emissions of the sector.

This is because 70% of the fossil fuels consumed by the plastic industry are used as raw materials in the creation of plastic polymers, not just for energy during production. The reliance on oil and gas as feedstocks for plastic means that, without addressing the production side of the equation, energy decarbonization will not result in significant reductions in emissions.

From a non-toxicity and zero pollution perspective, the challenges only deepen. Plastics are made from chemicals derived from fossil fuels, and these chemicals can be harmful to human health and the environment. There are concerns over the harmful substances released during the lifecycle of plastics, from their creation to their disposal. These substances, including persistent pollutants like phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), and styrene, have been linked to a range of environmental and health risks, including hormone disruption, cancer, and impacts on reproductive health.

The plastic industry also contributes to widespread pollution that affects ecosystems, wildlife, and human communities. Every year, millions of tons of plastic waste enter the oceans, degrading marine ecosystems and entering the food chain, or are incinerated. The toxicity associated with plastics, from microplastics to hazardous chemicals leaching from products, is becoming an increasingly urgent issue that calls for comprehensive action. 

Addressing the plastic industry's role requires a fundamental shift away from fossil fuels as feedstocks and the adoption of a circular economy model that minimizes waste, strives for zero pollution and promotes reuse systems. Until the EU and other global actors acknowledge and address these gaps in the current approach to industrial decarbonization, the Clean Industrial Deal and similar policies will fall short of their climate goals, leaving an important piece of the puzzle unresolved.

Increasingly, the building blocks of plastic are sourced from fracked gas in the United States, particularly from regions like the Permian Basin in Texas. The environmental and social devastation linked to fracking is well-documented: water supply depletion, drinking water contamination, air pollution, habitat destruction, and increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Communities living near fracking sites suffer from higher rates of respiratory diseases, contaminated drinking water, and degraded land. Despite these well-known consequences, European petrochemical companies continue to rely on fracked gas from the U.S. as a feedstock for plastic production. 

Beyond the emissions and pollution from extraction, plastic production itself is riddled with toxic chemicals that harm workers, consumers, and ecosystems. Certain types of plastic, such as PVC (polyvinyl chloride), are particularly problematic due to their reliance on hazardous chemicals, including chlorine, heavy metals, and plasticizers. These materials pose long-term risks to human and environmental health, both during production and throughout their lifespan.

One of the most insidious forms of plastic pollution comes from PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), also known as "forever chemicals." These substances, used to make plastics resistant to heat, water, and grease, have been found across Europe, contaminating soil, water sources, and even human bloodstreams. The societal costs of PFAS pollution are staggering, from increased healthcare burdens to the financial cost of cleaning up contaminated environments. Meanwhile, microplastics are now found everywhere—air, water, soil, even in the human placenta and bloodstream—with growing evidence pointing to their harmful effects on both environmental and human health.

Despite all of this evidence, the majority of plastic produced today serves short-lived purposes, primarily for packaging and disposable products. Despite the availability of durable and reusable alternatives, single-use plastics continue to dominate, perpetuating a cycle of waste, pollution, and emissions. At the end of their brief but harmful lifecycle, these plastics contribute further to climate change and pollution, particularly through incineration (which releases CO₂ and toxic pollutants into the air) and landfilling (which can lead to long-term environmental contamination). The so-called "lifecycle" of plastics is neither circular nor clean—it is a linear system of extraction, production, pollution, and waste.

Photo Credit: Ecoton, 2024

Compounding this crisis is the global waste trade, which allows higher income nations, including those in the EU, to export their plastic waste to lower income countries, often with less environmental regulations. Instead of taking responsibility for their plastic pollution, EU countries continue to ship vast quantities of plastic scrap to Southeast Asia, Turkey, and other regions, where waste often ends up in informal dumps, burned in open air, or leaks into rivers and oceans.

This practice disproportionately impacts vulnerable communities, exposing them to toxic fumes, contaminated water, and severe health risks. The EU’s continued reliance on exporting its plastic waste problem not only shifts the burden onto the Global South but also undermines the very principles of a circular economy by perpetuating an unjust and exploitative system of waste disposal.

For any industrial transformation to be truly clean it must detoxify production processes, eliminate harmful chemicals from products (including plastics), and transition toward a non-toxic, sustainable economy. This is not just a question of energy decarbonization—it is a question of eliminating pollution at the source. Yet, the Clean Industrial Deal presented by the European Commission fails to take on this challenge with the urgency it requires. 

Crucially, the petrochemical sector—the very foundation of plastic production—is largely overlooked in the Clean Industrial Deal. Without addressing the root causes of plastic pollution, including the industry's deep ties to fossil fuel extraction, the EU will not meet its climate targets. The failure to confront the role of petrochemicals in driving both fossil fuel dependence and chemical pollution exposes a glaring gap in the EU’s approach to industrial decarbonization. If Europe is serious about a cleaner future, tackling plastic production head-on—through reduction, regulation, and a shift toward safe, non-toxic materials—must be at the core of any climate and industrial strategy.

Europe can drastically reduce plastic production and consumption, as viable alternatives already exist and are increasingly being implemented.

Currently, close to 40% of plastic produced in the EU is used for packaging, the majority of which is single-use. However, with the growing adoption of packaging-free practices and reuse systems, the EU is already proving that a different path is possible. The recently adopted Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) mandates reductions in packaging waste, creating a critical opportunity to curb plastic production and consumption associated with this sector. By scaling up reuse and refill systems and eliminating unnecessary packaging, Europe can significantly cut its reliance on single-use plastics.

Beyond packaging, other high-consumption sectors also have clear pathways to reducing plastic use. The construction sector, which accounts for 20% of plastic production in the EU, can shift toward alternative materials and circular practices that minimize plastic use—particularly for toxic plastics like PVC, which poses serious environmental and health risks. The textile sector, another major source of plastic consumption and microplastic pollution, also presents significant opportunities for reduction through fast fashion regulation, fiber innovation, material durability and reuse, and a move away from synthetic fabrics.

The EU imports the majority of the feedstock used for plastic production, including oil and fracked gas from the U.S. and, at least until recently, gas from Russia. This heavy reliance on fossil fuel imports not only deepens Europe's dependence on volatile and often harmful trade flows but also undermines its climate and pollution objectives. By reducing plastic production and consumption, strengthening reuse systems, and ensuring toxic-free recycling (through the phase-out of hazardous chemicals), the EU can simultaneously advance its decarbonization and zero-pollution agenda while enhancing economic and resource resilience.

In a world where we must drastically cut resource consumption to stay within planetary boundaries and keep our planet liveable, strategic decisions about resource allocation are critical. We must ask ourselves: should we prioritize using energy to heat homes and schools, or continue diverting resources into energy-intensive industrial processes that produce unnecessary, short-lived plastics? The answer should be clear.

Beyond its environmental and social costs, plastic overproduction is also an economic liability. The petrochemical sector— including plastic production—is already experiencing a global oversupply problem, both in Europe and worldwide. This means there is no credible business justification for further expansion. Consumer preferences are shifting away from single-use disposable plastics, regulatory frameworks are tightening, and the market is becoming increasingly risky for investors. As demand weakens and overproduction worsens, profits in the sector are becoming less dependable—further challenging the industry's long-term viability.

The EU has an opportunity to proactively lead the transformation of the petrochemical and plastic sectors before economic realities force abrupt and disruptive change, with the EU plastic production industry already declining. The plastic industry is a poster child of an outdated industrial model—one based on high resource consumption, high energy use, and intensive chemical dependency. It sits at the intersection of the climate, waste, and pollution crises, propped up by harmful subsidies and carrying severe human rights impacts.

But just as it exemplifies what is wrong with the current system, it can also become a model for a planned and just industrial transition. By engaging workers and communities, supporting reskilling programs, and providing social protections, the EU can ensure that this transformation is fair, sustainable, and economically viable.

This shift would allow the EU to take an active, rather than reactive, role in reshaping the industry. It would also reinforce its commitment to plastic production reduction, a stance it has already taken at the international level. As part of a coalition of over 100 countries negotiating the Global Plastics Treaty, the EU has supported a legally binding commitment to control and ultimately reduce plastic production. The EU now has a chance to not just regulate plastic pollution—but to pave the way for phasing out plastic overproduction altogether.

Health and Environment Alliance: The Clean Industrial Deal needs to be a zero pollution deal

Seas At Risk: Commission’s Clean Industrial Deal overlooks true circularity, missing key opportunity for effective decarbonisation

European Environmental Bureau: The Clean Industrial Deal hides dirty concessions

Zero Waste Europe: Zero Waste Europe calls for stronger circularity measures in the Clean Industrial Deal

ECOS: EU Clean Industrial Deal: Some opportunities with few guarantees