by Taylor Kate Brown for ProPublica

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Before and after the 2024 election, Elon Musk made it clear he disliked environmental regulations and considered them a barrier to innovation, especially given the quick timelines his companies prefer to operate on.

The billionaire spent more than $250 million to help elect President Donald Trump and, in the first months of Trump’s second term, Musk led the Department of Government Efficiency, making cuts to the federal bureaucracy and regulatory staff, including environmental agencies, before a dramatic falling out with the president.

Musk-controlled companies have also developed influence in Texas, a state already known for a lighter touch on environmental regulation. In addition to his lobbyists’ successful track record in the Texas Legislature, Gov. Greg Abbott cited Musk as inspiration for the state creating its own DOGE-style office.

A new investigation from ProPublica, the Texas Newsroom, the Houston Chronicle and the Texas Tribune has found Musk and a Houston-area member of Congress have pushed Texas and local officials to hire Musk’s Boring Co. for a $760 million flood control project in the city.

Reporters Lauren McGaughy and Yilun Cheng found that Rep. Wesley Hunt helped pitch Boring’s involvement even though the company builds tunnels narrower than the ones extensively studied by flood control experts for the project. An engineering expert warned that the volume of the tunnels the company is proposing may not be sufficient during a flood emergency. Another said that the proposed tunnels, which would be built at shallow depths, could interfere with existing utility lines and bridge foundations.

Boring has described its project in pitches to lawmakers as an “innovative and cost-effective solution.” But experts and some local officials question whether Boring should be awarded the contract. One Democratic county commissioner told the newsrooms that Musk shouldn’t be involved in the Houston project, arguing he has shown “blatant disregard for democratic institutions and environmental protections.”

Hunt, Musk and representatives from Boring did not respond to the newsrooms’ request for comment before publication of the Aug. 28 story. After publication, Hunt and Musk defended the project on X, the social media platform that Musk owns. Musk claimed that the tunnels would cost less than alternatives and that additional tunnels could increase flow, but he provided no further details.

Officials in Houston haven’t decided on a contractor for the tunneling project yet, and it remains to be seen which environmental regulations will come into play.

In the past, Boring has found ways to navigate around environmental rules. A Boring tunnel project in Las Vegas has skirted environmental, building and labor regulations, a previous ProPublica and City Cast Las Vegas investigation found.

Other Musk-owned companies have faced similar criticism. Over the past year, environmental groups have also raised concerns about an xAI supercomputing facility in Memphis, Tennessee. Musk did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.

Adam Kron, a senior attorney at the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice, said any company ignoring or avoiding regulations entirely reminds him of the fracking boom in the early 2010s, when companies moved quickly to drill, poisoning some local communities’ groundwater in the process. “There is a gold rush mentality of getting out there [first] and paying the fine later, once you can prove it,” Kron said. “When you have that kind of culture, you do see more of the notorious attempts to not seek the correct permits or not comply with the standards.”

Here’s what to know about Boring and other Musk-affiliated companies’ history of bumping up against environmental regulations.

Boring Co.’s Las Vegas Convention Center Loop Station, where visitors can ride electric vehicles through a 1.7-mile tunnel system connecting the convention center to nearby areas of the city. (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP/Getty Images) Boring Co.

In Las Vegas, a previous ProPublica investigation found Boring was able to skirt building, environmental and labor regulations by structuring a transportation project as a completely private venture and leaning on its local connections.

Boring is constructing a planned 68-mile tunnel system beneath Las Vegas where Teslas ferry passengers underneath the city’s urban core. The project avoided lengthy reviews by building its first section near the convention center under the auspices of the tourism authority. Since then, Boring has received county approval for dozens of more miles of tunnels under obscure holding company names.

Since Boring’s Las Vegas project began, it has been cited or fined for wastewater violations. It also paid retroactive fees for permits after being caught tunneling without them, reporters Daniel Rothberg and Dayvid Figler found. Workers for the company have filed complaints with the state Occupational Safety and Health Administration about “ankle-deep” water in the tunnels, muck spills and severe chemical burns. Nevada OSHA fined the company more than $112,000, after an investigation in 2023, but Boring has disputed the regulator’s allegations and contested the violations.

Boring had already been hit with multiple violations over its management of industrial wastewater at its headquarters in Bastrop, Texas, by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The company, while generally denying the allegations, was eventually fined more than $9,000 and required to make changes at the site, according to a TCEQ spokesperson. In 2023, the company applied for a permit to dump more than 100,000 gallons per day of industrial wastewater from Boring and SpaceX into a nearby river, but it was met with local resistance. A year later, Boring agreed to transfer wastewater to a new city treatment plant, expected to open in early 2026.

Boring did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.

xAI

In June 2024, the Memphis Chamber of Commerce announced xAI, Musk’s artificial intelligence company, was setting up a data center at a former manufacturing site in the southern part of the city. That came as a surprise to some members of the City Council, one of whom told NPR she first heard about it on the local evening news.

Within a few months, Musk said the data center, dubbed Colossus, was online. The facility primarily powers the company’s chatbot and generative image maker, Grok, which is integrated into X.

The electricity needed for the computing power was double what the local utility could immediately provide, so xAI used methane gas generators to bring the data center online, burning fossil fuels without a permit or pollution control technologies for nearly a year.

“It’s an actual gas plant in the middle of a neighborhood, and you don’t need any permitting?” Democratic state Rep. Justin Pearson, who lives 3 miles from the data center, told CNN in May. “Something has failed drastically and significantly with our system of checks and balances.”

In January, amid wider community push back, xAI applied for a permit for 15 generators on site. Opponents have aerial imagery they say shows more than 30 generators appearing to be operational on site as late as April. Company officials have said they wouldn’t install pollution controls on any of the turbines until the permit was approved, which happened in early July.

The company maintained permits weren’t necessary to start because of an exemption for generators on site for less than a year, a rationale Shelby County’s Health Department agreed with. Wendi C. Thomas recently reported for ProPublica and MLK50: Justice Through Journalism on how the city’s Chamber of Commerce went to unusual lengths to promote xAI. Memphis’ mayor has backed and defended the project, saying the city will address pollution concerns with “independent environmental consultants” and “community benefit policies.” Tennessee’s governor has touted the opportunities the facility will bring to the city. The EPA was beginning to look into whether the exemption applied to xAI in October of last year; new EPA head Lee Zeldin recently met with the company.

Community members packed an April hearing on the permits, and state representatives for the area have questioned the mayor’s trust in xAI, especially as the company plans to set up a second data center in Memphis.

Environmental advocates have said that xAI needed permits because of the size of the generators and the scope of the pollution. In early April, the Southern Environmental Law Center estimated the turbines could produce, in a year, between 1,200 and 2,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, a smog-forming pollution associated with poor respiratory health in nearby areas, as well as the carcinogen formaldehyde.

The company’s generators are only a few miles from a historically Black neighborhood already considered a toxic air pollution hot spot because of more than a dozen polluting facilities nearby, including a steel plant, a refinery and power plant. The county has seen consistently low air quality and the highest rate of ER admission for asthma attacks in Tennessee. ProPublica’s air toxics map showed a cancer risk hot spot four times the national average nearby before xAI moved in.

Regulations and permitting are in place because unchecked pollution can have wide-ranging impacts on a nearby community, regardless of industry, said Jennifer Duggan, executive director at the Environmental Integrity Project, a watchdog nonprofit. “The environmental laws on the books are designed to protect public health and our natural resources. If there is no enforcement, when there are violations of those laws, then there is no protection from industrial pollution for those communities.”

While the impact to a community depends on the industry in question, as well as length and seriousness of the pollution, Duggan said, it can mean increased risk of premature mortality, higher health care costs, lost school days, lost productivity for workers, birth defects and even psychological trauma.

Permits generally require facilities to operate safely and install pollution controls, Duggan said. If those controls are not installed — or turned off — “then you’ve got more pollution in the air than the law allows,” which puts people at risk.

The company did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.

A SpaceX Starship is being prepared for a flight test on March 3, 2025. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images) SpaceX

While SpaceX regularly launches its Falcon rockets to deliver satellites and astronauts into orbit, Musk’s ultimate goal for the company is much further afield. Starship, SpaceX’s giant combined reusable rocket and launch vehicle, is supposed to eventually help deliver humans and cargo to Mars, and it’s currently part of NASA’s effort to return astronauts to the moon.

But the program has already run into issues here on Earth, including violations of clean water regulations during launch tests and a cross-border investigation into falling debris.

Starship’s launch pad is along the Texas coastline, less than 5 miles from the Mexico border, surrounded by a state park and a national wildlife refuge established to protect the biodiversity of the lower Rio Grande River. Among the animals in this refuge are fragile shorebird populations. When asked about Starship tests in 2018, Musk said at the Texas site “we’ve got a lot of land with nobody around, and so if it blows up, it’s cool,” a comment that angered the residents of a nearby village.

The first Starship launch vaporized part of the launch site and threw debris as far as 6 miles. Then the EPA and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said Starship launches in 2023 and 2024 violated the Clean Water Act for discharging untreated industrial wastewater. SpaceX applied for a wastewater permit in July 2024 and later said it “fundamentally” disagreed with the allegations from regulators but settled for about $150,000 to “focus our energy on completing the missions.” In February of this year, state regulators granted SpaceX a permit.

Starship’s fast-moving schedule has suffered setbacks this year, with explosions during three launches or tests so far. Mexico has threatened to sue over debris and potential environmental contamination crossing over the border. SpaceX said in response there were “no hazards to the surrounding area.”

But the Federal Aviation Administration recently approved SpaceX for up to 25 Starship launches a year, and the Trump administration has signed an executive order announcing attempts to “eliminate or expedite” environmental review of rocket launches by the FAA, ProPublica’s Heather Vogell and Topher Sanders reported.

SpaceX did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.

Tesla

While the popularity of electric vehicles like Tesla in California has led to a notable decline in carbon pollution from cars there, the company’s factory in the state has been repeatedly admonished for releasing toxic air pollution and other toxic chemicals into the surrounding community. Tesla’s Bay Area facility has received more air quality warnings in the past five years than all other companies in California, save one: a Chevron refinery, according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal.

By 2022, the company had been fined by both the local air quality district over health concerns and the EPA for breaking federal air quality laws. In June 2024, the district ordered Tesla to correct ongoing violations of toxic air pollution coming from the factory’s paint shops, allegations the company denied. The company is currently in the process of implementing an abatement plan, according to a spokesperson for the Bay Area Air District.

Separately, dozens of California counties sued Tesla in 2024 over claims of illegally dumping hazardous waste produced at its facility and local service centers. The company settled the lawsuit for $1.5 million, not admitting to wrongdoing but agreeing to five years of mandatory training and independent waste audits.

Musk had already moved Tesla’s headquarters to Texas in 2021, in part over complaints about California regulatory culture. But, as the Journal reported in November 2024, Texas regulators have also cited the company for actions at Tesla’s giant Gigafactory just outside of Austin, including for dumping untreated wastewater, releasing pollution in excess of its permit and then not reporting it.

A former Texas employee sent a whistleblower memo to the EPA in 2024 accusing the company of asking staff to lie to government regulators, the Journal reported, including creating an “elaborate ruse” during an inspection to make sure a troubled furnace passed an emissions test. Both the EPA and Texas environmental regulators opened a “preliminary inquiry” related to the memo in November 2024, according to the Journal. The EPA did not respond to ProPublica’s question about the status of the inquiry and pointed us to the TCEQ. A TCEQ spokesperson said it could not comment “to support the integrity of all criminal investigations conducted by TCEQ.”

Tesla did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment. But a day after the story was published, Musk reposted an X user who mentioned the Journal story, adding the message: “Legacy media is a sewage pipe of lies.”

Tesla did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.

The people affected by environmental violations are not just the nearby community, Duggan said, but the workers at polluting facilities as well. “They are really on the front line in certain industries,” she said.

This post was originally published on ProPublica.

by Yilun Cheng, Houston Chronicle

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

This article is co-published with the Houston Chronicle and The Texas Newsroom as part of an initiative to report on how power is wielded in Texas.

Billionaire Elon Musk is taking issue with a recent investigation by the Houston Chronicle and The Texas Newsroom that raised questions about a flood tunnel project he’s pitching to address Houston’s chronic flooding woes. But experts said his response, which he did not explain to the newsrooms, isn’t supported by facts or data.

Last month, the newsrooms reported that Musk’s tunneling company, The Boring Co., has been lobbying elected officials for months to allow it to build tunnels under Houston for flood mitigation. Boring has proposed digging two 12-foot-wide tunnels beneath Buffalo Bayou — the main waterway running through central Houston — to carry stormwater out of neighborhoods and toward the Gulf of Mexico during major storms. Experts say, however, that larger tunnels, closer to 30 to 40 feet in diameter, could carry far more water and be more effective.

Musk and representatives with Boring did not respond to interview requests or answer questions the newsrooms sent in advance of last month’s story about whether Boring’s smaller tunnels would be able to handle the scale of floodwater Houston is likely to encounter in the future.

Instead, Musk waited until hours after the story published to post a response on X, the social media company he’s owned since 2022.

“Boring Company tunnels will work and cost <10% of alternatives,” his Aug. 28 post read. “If more flow is needed, additional tunnels can be built and furthermore they can be route water from many parts of the city, not just one.”

The post was written in response to a post on X from U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt, a Houston Republican who helped arrange private meetings with government officials in Harris County and across the state to sell them on Boring’s flood tunnel plan. Hunt also did not respond to questions from the newsrooms ahead of publication of the original story, but he weighed in on X after the story was published.

“A lifelong Houstonian and Texas Congressman spoke to the smartest man on planet earth about solving a generational flooding issue in our city that no one else will fix,” Hunt wrote.

Musk’s post offered no data or engineering explanation to back up his assertions. So the newsrooms examined his statements, comparing them against flood studies, and interviewed engineering experts, some of whom pointed out key technical and logistical challenges with the Boring plan.

One of Musk’s claims is likely false, and the others are not yet possible to verify with certainty, according to the newsrooms’ examination.

Again, when the newsrooms pressed Musk and Boring representatives to explain the tech billionaire’s claims, they did not respond. Nor did Hunt.

Houston’s Buffalo Bayou Park is visible from the roof of The Allen, a nearby condominium, in 2023. The bayou is the main waterway running through central Houston. (Kirk Sides/Houston Chronicle) Would Boring’s tunnels cost less than 10% of alternatives?

Musk’s proposal carries a lower price tag than the estimated cost of the larger system the flood control district has spent years and millions of dollars studying. But that’s partly because the two are strikingly different proposals.

Hunt’s team has said Boring’s Buffalo Bayou project would cost $760 million, according to internal communications obtained by the newsrooms through public records requests.

The county’s flood control district, on the other hand, proposed in 2022 tunnels of 30 to 40 feet in diameter for that segment of the system at a price of about $4.6 billion.

Since the project is still in the research phase, the county numbers are preliminary. But based on the figures available, Boring’s proposal would cost closer to one-sixth of the county’s estimate — not less than 10%, as Musk’s post suggested. So Musk seems to be exaggerating how much cheaper his system would be.

Flood control experts also maintained that the reduced price is somewhat proportional to the reduced capacity of Boring’s narrower tunnels. Two 12-foot tunnels would provide less than one-fifth of the volume that a single 40-foot tunnel offers.

That means they would divert less water from vulnerable areas than one large tunnel.

Jim Blackburn, a Houston environmental lawyer and flood policy expert, said while Musk’s company deserves a fair hearing, cheaper does not automatically mean better.

“If it’s a smaller tunnel, then I would expect it to cost less,” Blackburn said. “You’ve got to look at how much flood mitigation you get for the dollars you spend.”

Emily Woodell, a spokesperson for the Harris County Flood Control District, said the agency needs more information before it can weigh in on any of Musk’s claims.

“We’d have to do a lot of study before anything could even potentially move forward, so I wouldn’t want to speculate,” she said. “Until we have a project or another study, we’d point people to our website for the reports and data we’ve compiled to date.”

Can additional tunnels be built for more water flow?

Musk’s post said if more floodwater needs to be moved, more tunnels can be added. Engineers said it is not that simple.

Larry Dunbar, a veteran water resources engineer who has advised Houston-area governmental agencies on drainage issues, said based on size alone, it would take about 11 of Boring’s tunnels to carry the same amount of water as one large tunnel. Lined up side by side, with enough room between them to keep the ground stable, the full system could span hundreds of feet. That would require securing rights to more land and building more access points for maintenance, he said.

And each new phase of construction might bring another round of reviews and mobilization costs, Dunbar said, undercutting the speed and affordability that Boring has touted as key advantages of its proposal.

“The issues start to just get more and more complicated,” Dunbar said. “Not that it can’t be done, but just to kind of throw out there — ‘Oh, if we need more, we’ll just do more’ — well, there’s a lot more to it than that.”

Harris County Commissioner Tom Ramsey, who has an engineering background, agreed. More tunnels would also mean more equipment to maintain, which could drive up long-term costs, Ramsey said.

He added that the county would need to decide on the full plan at the outset so all system elements like pumps, drains and outfalls can be designed properly.

“It would not be simple to just add additional tunnels later,” Ramsey said.

John Blount, a former Harris County engineer who retired after more than three decades with the county, similarly dismissed Musk’s suggestion that Boring could just build more tunnels if the initial plan falls short.

While working on other infrastructure projects, Blount said, he has come across a number of contractors capable of building tunnels large enough to handle the job properly the first time.

“You don’t start small and figure it out later,” he said. “This whole concept of putting in 20% of what you need to see if it’s enough makes zero sense.”

Buffalo Bayou, which runs through the heart of Houston, floods after Hurricane Beryl made landfall on July 8, 2024. (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle) Can Boring’s tunnels move water from other parts of the city, and will the tunnels work?

Musk argued that Boring’s tunnels could be used in different parts of the city, not just along Buffalo Bayou.

Some local officials agreed that Musk’s tunnels might actually work better for smaller watersheds that do not take on as much water as Buffalo Bayou.

Ramsey said he supports exploring smaller tunnels for areas like Hunting and Halls bayous, which run through other parts of the city and also need resources to strengthen their flood protection. The county commissioner publicly called for a closer look at narrower tunnels during a commissioners court meeting in April, after Hunt had pitched him on Boring’s proposal in February.

“It’s another tool in our toolbox to help mitigate flooding. And certainly with what’s happening in the Hill Country,” Ramsey said, referring to recent deadly floods in Central Texas, “and what continues to happen in Harris County, we need as many tools as we can possibly get.”

Woodell, with the flood control district, told the newsrooms in August that the agency initially focused on large-diameter tunnels because engineering studies identified them as the most effective option for a countywide system.

However, she said smaller tunnels could be a viable solution in certain areas. Since that idea had not been a focus of research, she added, more study would be needed before any such project could move forward.

Colleen Gilbert, executive director of the Greens Bayou Coalition — a nonprofit that works to protect neighborhoods near Greens Bayou, in northeast Houston — said communities in her watershed are desperate for relief as well. They would welcome the massive storm tunnel once proposed by Harris County, she said, but even smaller tunnels would be better than nothing.

“We would be thrilled to have any and all possibilities looked at,” Gilbert said. “If Congressman Hunt and The Boring Co. are looking at this, we are delighted to hear it.”

Experts and officials the newsrooms interviewed, however, still took issue with Musk’s sweeping statement that “Boring Company tunnels will work” because it doesn’t take into account complexities of the project or that success largely depends on what kind of system the county ultimately wants.

In a two-page memo Boring sent to Hunt’s team in February and that was circulated among local officials in the county, the company framed the pitch as an “innovative, cost-effective solution” to Houston’s chronic flooding.

“We are confident in our ability to execute this project successfully,” wrote Jim Fitzgerald, Boring’s global head of business development.

But Dunbar said the only way to evaluate Musk’s claim is to focus on the purpose of the stormwater tunnels.

If the goal is to build as large a project as possible for the lowest price, Dunbar said, Boring’s proposal might fit the bill. But if the goal is to shield lives and property from another Hurricane Harvey-level flooding event, he believes the smaller-scale project simply does not measure up.

“You have to have some underlying reason why you build this tunnel, what you’re trying to accomplish,” Dunbar said. “And I have not heard that Elon has given that answer.”

Rock Owens, retired Harris County attorney for environmental affairs who represented agencies including the flood control district, said he has seen local officials repeatedly greenlighting massive projects that were not well thought out and led to costly legal battles.

He pointed, for instance, to flood control issues along White Oak Bayou in northwest Houston. In a lengthy legal battle that began in 1999, about 400 homeowners in the area blamed the county for approving upstream development without adequate flood control, which they said caused repeated flooding of their homes.

The Texas Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the county in 2016. But Owens said even unsuccessful lawsuits are costly and the kind of challenge that could have exposed the county to a substantial damages award.

Musk’s ethos of moving fast and worrying about consequences later, Owens said, only heightens the risk.

“That works fine in the private sector, but not the public sector,” he said. “We’re not looking at Mr. Musk’s personal fortune; we’re looking at the livelihood and lifelong investments of people who live here.”

Yilun Cheng is an investigative reporter with the Houston Chronicle. Reach her at yilun.cheng@houstonchronicle.com.

Lauren McGaughy of The Texas Newsroom contributed reporting.

This post was originally published on ProPublica.

If the internet were a nation, it would sit near the top of the global pollution charts. That sounds dramatic, but the numbers back it up. Data centers and the networks that keep them running now use more than one percent of the world’s electricity, according to the International Energy Agency. One percent might look small on paper. In reality, it is the equivalent of powering whole countries.

Most of us imagine the climate cost of streaming Netflix or mining crypto. Those images are easy to latch onto. What rarely gets attention is the quieter machinery of the web. Every website you scroll through, every blog you read, every campaign page you share is propped up by servers consuming electricity around the clock.

It is easy to forget that hosting is part of this picture. Yet it matters. Even small organizations can make smarter choices, whether through efficiency measures or by using more sustainable services at one.com. Hosting is not an invisible background function. It is infrastructure, and infrastructure is tied directly to the climate crisis.

Beyond Streaming and Crypto: The Overlooked Culprit

The conversation about tech and the environment usually chases the obvious villains. Bitcoin. Streaming. Cloud gaming. These stories dominate headlines because the scale is so eye-catching. But the basic act of keeping websites online is just as relentless.

Servers never sleep. They need constant power. They need cooling systems that often run on fossil-fuel-heavy grids. The result is a steady drain of energy, no matter how many or how few visitors show up to a given site.

Think of it this way. Statista reports more than 1.1 billion websites worldwide. Even if only a fraction are active, they all sit on servers that have to stay alive. Add them together and the hidden emissions climb fast, turning what seems like a minor detail into a global problem.

Who Bears Responsibility?

The knee-jerk reaction is to blame the tech giants. And yes, hyperscale data centers run by big names are huge players here. But the story is bigger than that. Independent publishers. Activist groups. Local businesses. Everyone with a website is part of the ecosystem.

This creates an awkward tension. A media outlet might publish stories about climate action while its own site runs on carbon-heavy servers. A grassroots campaign might call for renewable energy but rely on hosting powered by coal. It is not hypocrisy so much as a reminder that the internet’s skeleton is easy to overlook. Responsibility is not equal, but it is shared.

The Power of Greener Hosting

Here’s the hopeful part. The industry is not frozen. Hosting companies are experimenting with renewable energy, more efficient cooling systems, and smarter infrastructure. It is not happening everywhere, but the shift has begun.

For small players, the barrier is no longer technical expertise. Platforms like one.com make it straightforward to get a site online without piling on emissions. Their website builder lowers the entry point, meaning a local journalist or a community group can publish and still choose a path that minimizes their digital footprint. The tools are already here. It is more a matter of awareness and will.

Policy, Pressure, and Public Action

Technology rarely changes just because it feels like the right thing to do. Pressure makes it happen. Campaigns like Greenpeace’s “Click Clean” have shown that public scrutiny matters, ranking companies based on their energy sources and shaming laggards into action. Reports from the International Energy Agency keep stressing the same point: efficiency is not optional if climate targets are to be met.

Public influence does not stop at petitions or exposés. Everyday choices add weight. When small organizations demand greener hosting, they send a signal to the market. Over time, what feels like an individual decision accumulates into a trend. That is how standards shift.

The Road Ahead

The internet feels intangible, but it is not. Every click leaves a trace on the energy grid. Every email, every video, every page left running adds up. The challenge is not to shrink our digital lives but to build them more intelligently.

That means demanding greener infrastructure. It means supporting policies that keep data companies accountable. And it means making conscious choices about where we host our sites.

Independent publishers and activists do not have to go silent to be consistent with their values. They can keep their voices loud while choosing greener hosting. They can pressure bigger players into accelerating the shift.

The carbon cost of the internet is not destiny. It is a design problem. And design problems can be solved. By acknowledging the hidden footprint of web hosting and embracing solutions already within reach, from renewable energy policies to accessible platforms like one.com, we can keep the internet a tool of connection without letting it quietly overheat the planet.

By Nathan Spears

This post was originally published on Canary.

The consequences of the climate crisis are far-reaching. Rising global temperatures disrupt weather patterns, making extreme events like heatwaves more common. But what’s less discussed is the impact these heatwaves can have on people’s safety in their own homes. A new study suggests that prolonged extreme heat in New Orleans has been linked to a surge in domestic violence reports.

The research, conducted by Tulane University’s Newcomb Institute and published in JAMA Open Network, analyzed more than 150,000 domestic violence calls from 2011 to 2021. It found that when “feels-like” temperatures remained extremely high (between 93 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit) for at least five consecutive days, calls increased by around seven percent.

Pexels

This is particularly troubling, as New Orleans is getting hotter every year. In 1970, the city’s average summer temperature was around 80 degrees Fahrenheit. By 2022, the average had risen to 84 degrees. In 2023, New Orleans set a record when the airport hit 105 degrees in August. And in June 2025, the “feels-like” temperature reached 110 degrees both at the airport and along the lakefront.

The researchers estimated that without prolonged periods of extreme heat, there may have been roughly 245 fewer incidents of domestic violence over the study period.

“Extreme heat is more than a weather issue — it’s a public health and safety concern,” Anita Raj, executive director of the Newcomb Institute and senior author of the study, said in a statement. 

The team recommends that New Orleans incorporate domestic violence prevention into heatwave response plans and increase support for vulnerable victims during periods of extreme heat. “We must treat heat preparedness as part of our violence prevention strategies,” Raj added.

Why does heat make people more violent?

A growing body of research suggests that rising temperatures correlate with higher rates of violence. In 2024, for instance, a meta-analysis of more than 16,000 studies found that an increase in temperature of 10 degrees Celsius was associated with a nine percent increase in violent behavior.

Iseechange

The reasons aren’t fully clear. Possible explanations include biological changes (such as higher testosterone and lower serotonin, which can affect aggression), behavioral shifts (like increased alcohol use during hot summer months), and the simple reality of discomfort. After all, heat can make people feel irritable and frustrated.

Whatever the cause, the implications are serious. “Extreme heat can strain not just infrastructure, but human relationships,” said Arnab Dey, lead author of the Newcomb Institute study and a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “Recognizing this link can help shape more responsive public policies.”

This post was originally published on VegNews.com.

Here are a few fun facts about whale sharks: they have tiny teeth on their eyeballs, they’re gentle giants, and they can live up to 150 years. But here’s the not-so-fun fact: most won’t make it to old age, because they’re under threat.

A new study has revealed that around 62 percent of whale sharks off the coast of West Papua, Indonesia, bear scars or injuries. Two of the biggest culprits? Tour boats and fishing vessels. Of the 206 injured sharks studied, more than 80 percent had wounds directly linked to human activity.

“We found that scars and injuries were mainly from anthropogenic causes, such as collisions with ‘bagans’—traditional fishing platforms with lift nets—and whale shark-watching tour boats,” said Edy Setyawan, PhD, lead conservation scientist at the Elasmobranch Institute Indonesia.

Protecting Indonesia’s whale sharks

Setyawan and his team conducted their research in the Bird’s Head Seascape, a protected marine area celebrated as one of the richest biodiversity hot spots on Earth. Alongside whale sharks, it is also home to sea turtles, manta rays, coral reefs, and countless reef fish.

While most of the sharks studied didn’t have severe injuries, many showed abrasions from rubbing against boats. Whale sharks are naturally drawn to fishing vessels because they feed on baitfish, making the risk of harm nearly unavoidable without human intervention.

Pexels

“We aim to work with the management authorities of the marine protected areas to develop regulations to require slight modifications to the bagans, including the removal of any sharp edges from boat outriggers and net frames,” said Mark Erdmann, PhD, the study’s last author and Shark Conservation Director for Re:wild. “We believe those changes will greatly reduce scarring of whale sharks in the region.”

How does the global fishing industry impact whale sharks?

Regulation is critical to protecting marine life. Not long ago, the Bird’s Head Seascape itself was nearly destroyed by unregulated commercial fishing and even dynamite fishing, which uses explosives to kill large numbers of fish.

“The waters of the Bird’s Head were brought to the brink of ruin,” Conservation International reports. But in 2004, the organization partnered with the people of West Papua, World Wildlife Fun (WWF), and the Indonesian government, among other organizations, to protect the area. Since then, the marine environment has recovered significantly.

Pexels

Still, whale sharks remain at risk elsewhere. They are frequent victims of bycatch, often becoming entangled in fishing gear. The Red List of Threatened Species, put together by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, currently classifies whale sharks as endangered, with the fishing industry identified as one of their greatest threats.

Shipping traffic poses another danger. In fact, many whale sharks disappear after entering busy shipping lanes.

“Satellite tags would be happily pinging on whale sharks, then they would swim into a shipping lane and suddenly they’re gone,” Erdmann said in 2024. “Those ships move at high speeds and can be the size of a football field. It’s likely they’re mowing over whale sharks without even knowing it.” He added: “If we can get industrial ships to slow down in areas with a high risk for collisions, we can make a big difference.”

Gardein

What can help?

Protecting whale sharks is complex, since they face multiple threats, including shipping traffic, tourism, and warming oceans.

But when it comes to bycatch, one of the most effective ways to protect whale sharks, as well as many other species harmed by the fishing industry, is to reduce demand for industrial fishing. With more plant-based seafood options available than ever before, it’s easier to enjoy seafood while protecting marine animals. Read more about some of our go-to vegan seafood products here.

This post was originally published on VegNews.com.

by Martha Pskowski, Inside Climate News, and Mark Olalde, ProPublica

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Hakim Dermish moved to the small South Texas town of Catarina in 2002 in search of a rural lifestyle on a budget. The property where he lived with his wife didn’t have electricity or sewer lines at first, but that didn’t bother him.

“Even if we lived in a cardboard box, no one could kick us out,” Dermish said.

Back then, Catarina was a sleepy place. A decade later, oil and gas drilling picked up, and he welcomed the financial opportunities it brought. Dermish launched businesses to support the industry, offering everything from guards for drill sites to housing for oil field workers.

The growth also brought flares — flames burning off excess natural gas — that blazed day and night at wells in the surrounding countryside. Initially enamored of the industry’s potential, Dermish now worried that its pollution endangered the health of the town’s 75 residents. He began lodging complaints with the state in 2023, asking it to push companies to control emissions.

Inspectors with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality investigated, finding only a handful of violations, some of which the companies addressed. But that did little to allay the concerns of Dermish and his neighbors, who continued to see flares light up the sky and to smell gas wafting over the community.

“Starting first thing in the morning, talk about the stench. Then you call the state and nothing happens,” Dermish said. “They do absolutely nothing.”

His neighbor Lupe Campos, who worked in the oil fields for more than three decades, lives three blocks from a flare. Toxic hydrogen sulfide escapes from nearby wells, giving the air the smell of “burnt rotten eggs,” Campos said. “It’s hard to bear.”

Lupe Campos (Christopher Lee for ProPublica)

While working to expand the nation’s oil and gas production, President Donald Trump’s administration has maintained that drilling in the U.S. is cleaner than in other countries due to tighter environmental oversight. To mark Earth Day, for example, the White House boasted in a statement that increased natural gas exports meant the U.S. would be “sharing cleaner energy with allies” and “reducing global emissions.”

But Texas, the heart of America’s oil and gas industry, tells a different story.

Texas regulators tout their efforts to curtail oil field emissions by requiring drillers to obtain permits to release or burn gas from their wells.

Yet a first-of-its-kind analysis of permit applications to the Railroad Commission of Texas, the state’s main oil and gas regulator, reveals a rubber-stamp system that allows drillers to emit vast amounts of natural gas into the atmosphere. Over 40 months — from May 2021 to September 2024 — oil companies applied for more than 12,000 flaring and venting permits, while the Railroad Commission rejected just 53 of them, a 99.6% approval rate, according to the data.

Natural gas is composed mostly of climate-warming methane but also contains other gases such as hydrogen sulfide, which is deadly at high concentrations. Gas escapes as wells are drilled and before infrastructure is in place to capture it. It also can be intentionally released if pressure in the system poses a safety risk or if capturing and transporting it to be sold is not profitable. Typically, drillers burn the gas they don’t capture, converting the methane to carbon dioxide, a less potent greenhouse gas, in a process called flaring. Sometimes, they release the gas without burning it, in a process called venting.

The permit applications showed oil companies requested to flare or vent more than 195 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year, enough to power more than 3 million homes and generate millions of dollars of tax revenue had the gas been captured. Those emissions would have a climate-warming impact roughly equivalent to 27 gas-fired power plants operating year-round, even if the flares burned every molecule of methane released from the wells.

“It’s a gargantuan amount of emissions,” said Jack McDonald, senior analyst of energy policy and science for the environmental group Oilfield Witness. “Because so much of this gas is methane and so much of it is either incompletely combusted or not combusted at all through the venting process, we see a huge climate impact.”

Oilfield Witness gathered and studied the Railroad Commission data on exemptions to the state’s flaring rules and shared it with ProPublica and Inside Climate News. The news organizations verified the data, including by soliciting input from professors at universities in Texas.

Railroad Commission spokesperson R.J. DeSilva said in a statement that Texas has made “significant progress” in addressing methane emissions. Companies must provide evidence that flaring is necessary, and, when approving permits, the agency follows all applicable rules, he said. “If an application lacks sufficient justification, it is returned with comments for clarification.”

“I am proud of the progress that has been made to reduce the waste of our natural resources,” Jim Wright, chair of the Railroad Commission, said in a statement, adding that “there is always room for further improvement.”

Between May 2021 and September 2024, state regulators approved 280 permits to burn or vent natural gas in Dimmit County, which is home to the small town of Catarina and its 75 residents. (Christopher Lee for ProPublica)

The analysis likely overstates emissions, since the near-guarantee that regulators will approve a permit gives companies an incentive to request authorization for amounts larger than they intend to emit to ensure they’re in compliance. For example, operators in four Texas counties flared about 70% of the volume of gas that their permits allowed, according to a recent effort to compare the state’s flaring data to information collected via satellite. And the Railroad Commission sometimes approves flaring smaller volumes than requested, which is not captured in the data.

“The Texas oil and natural gas industry is committed to ongoing progress in reducing flaring and methane emissions while continuing to meet the ever-growing demand for reliable oil and natural gas across the globe,” Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil and Gas Association, a trade group, told ProPublica and Inside Climate News in a statement.

Residents of communities surrounded by flares and leaking wells, like Catarina, want the state and the industry to do more to control oil field emissions. The Railroad Commission approved eight flares within 5 miles of the town during the study period and 280 across surrounding Dimmit County, according to agency data.

The danger posed by the gas became impossible to ignore on March 27, as a 30-inch steel pipeline a half-mile from Catarina failed. The rupture blasted more than 23 million cubic feet of gas into the air, as much as is used in 365 homes in a year, according to data the company that owns the pipeline, Energy Transfer, reported to the Railroad Commission.

On March 27, a pipeline just outside Catarina failed, spewing a large volume of natural gas into the air. As his house shook, Hakim Dermish captured the aftermath on his cellphone. (Courtesy of Hakim Dermish)

Watch video ➜

Dermish recorded the chaos with his cellphone. “The house is shaking,” he says in the video as the escaping gas roars, its concussions jostling the camera.

Fearing for their safety, he and his wife evacuated, heading to a neighboring town for the day. After they returned home that evening, he called the sheriff to ask what had happened. During the conversation, Dermish could feel the gas causing him to slur his words. The next morning, Dermish noticed new gas flares, presumably lit to release pressure in the pipeline network by burning excess gas. A cellphone video he recorded shows a towering column of flame, taller than a nearby telephone pole, billowing and rippling.

“Have you ever seen ‘Lord of the Rings’? Do you remember the Fire of Mordor?” Dermish said in an interview. “That’s what we have here.”

An incident report submitted to the state by Energy Transfer attributed the pipeline failure to a technician’s errors. Without objection from the Railroad Commission, the pipeline was repaired and back in service three days later. The agency did not assess Energy Transfer with a violation or a fine.

Energy Transfer did not respond to a request for comment.

After more than two decades in Catarina, Dermish and his wife are planning to move away. “It’s just too dangerous,” he said.

Hakim Dermish has for years urged Texas oil and gas regulatory agencies to more closely monitor the flares near Catarina. (Christopher Lee for ProPublica) Is American Oil and Gas Cleaner?

While the Trump administration characterizes American oil and gas as cleaner than fossil fuels from other countries, it has rolled back rules regulating methane.

The Environmental Protection Agency has, under Trump, delayed implementing previously finalized rules that would’ve mandated that the industry monitor for methane leaks and address them. He and Republicans in Congress also repealed the country’s first-ever tax on methane. And in June, Trump revoked a Biden administration guidance document laying out how companies should comply with a law aimed at reducing methane leaks from pipelines.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

As the nation’s highest-producing oil and gas state, Texas is a key barometer of the U.S. regulatory environment and whether it has created a cleaner fossil fuel industry.

The Permian Basin — the country’s largest oil field, which straddles the Texas-New Mexico border — was estimated by a 2024 study to emit the second-most methane of any oil field in the world.

The industry disputes that finding, pointing to a June report from S&P Global Commodity Insights that found that the rate of methane emissions in the Permian Basin dropped 29% between 2023 and 2024. “Methane emissions management” is increasingly a part of the industry’s operations, Raoul LeBlanc, a vice president at S&P, said in a statement announcing the findings. However, S&P’s report acknowledged that satellite data showed a much more modest reduction of 4%, contradicting the company’s own data, which was collected by airplane.

“We can say confidently that there is no evidence that methane emissions from the Permian Basin are low,” said Steven Hamburg, who studies methane as the Environmental Defense Fund’s chief scientist.

Companies dispose of oil field waste in this growing dump in Catarina. (Christopher Lee for ProPublica) Texas’ Attempt to Rein In Flaring

In Texas, State Rule 32 prohibits flaring and venting gas at wells, except under a few specific conditions: while the well is being drilled, during the first 10 days after the well is completed and when necessary to ensure safety. Otherwise, drillers must seek an exception.

The Railroad Commission changed the application process for these exemptions in 2020 and issued new guidance in 2021. Operators would have to explain why they could not suspend drilling to avoid flaring and indicate that they had investigated all options for using the gas before flaring.

Oilfield Witness gathered all exemption requests since 2021, which showed the agency repeatedly approving permits that failed to comply with its guidelines. In many cases, oil companies asked to flare indefinitely or didn’t justify why they needed to flare, leaving blank the section of the application asking why the exemption was needed.

Capturing the gas requires an expensive system of pipelines, compressors and other infrastructure that can cost more than the gas is worth. In their permit applications, companies cite this reality, often listing financial considerations as the reason for seeking exemptions, Oilfield Witness found. These were nearly always approved, even though the agency wrote that finances were an insufficient explanation in a presentation on the permitting process.

“The Railroad Commission seems very interested in devolving decision-making processes to the companies themselves,” McDonald said.

The data also showed that nearly 90% of the approved permit applications were backdated, retroactively giving permission for flares that were already burning. Oil companies typically asked the Railroad Commission for permission to flare 10 days after they had already burned the gas.

A spokesperson said that when the commission revamped its guidelines in 2020, it allowed a longer period in which companies could file for a permit after they’d already started to flare. Even so, nearly 900 of the permits were applied for after the updated filing window and still accepted by the agency.

The Railroad Commission also approved more than 7,000 flares within areas where the gas reservoir being drilled was known to be high in hydrogen sulfide, increasing the likelihood that the toxic gas could escape into the air. Of those flares, 600 were within a mile of a residence, the agency’s data showed.

Minimizing flaring permits is “not a priority in any sense” for the Railroad Commission, said Gunnar Schade, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. “The priority is oil produced, and that means revenue for the state. Oil and gas is a priority, so who cares about the flaring?”

Overstating the Progress

The Railroad Commission and the state’s oil industry trumpet their work to reduce flaring. The agency points to state data showing flaring rates dropping dramatically, specifically since 2019. And the Texas Oil and Gas Association announced in early August that drillers in the Permian Basin “slashed methane emission intensity by more than half in just two years.”

But such claims are misleading, according to experts such as David DiCarlo, an associate professor in the University of Texas at Austin’s petroleum engineering school. Using 2019 as a starting point leaves a false impression that there’s been a sharp decline, he said, as methane emissions that year were staggeringly high due to booming production and inadequate pipeline capacity to gather the gas.

DeSilva, the Railroad Commission’s spokesperson, defended using 2019 as the baseline because “about five years ago we began taking proactive steps to reduce flaring in Texas.”

Taking a longer view shows that a median of 2.2% of gas at Texas oil wells was flared or vented over the past decade, according to a ProPublica and Inside Climate News review of state data. (Flaring at gas wells is rare because those sites have the necessary pipeline infrastructure in place to collect the gas.) That figure hovered just north of 2% in the most recently available data, representing a much smaller drop than the state and industry claim. The industry still hasn’t built sufficient pipeline networks to capture gas at oil wells, so, as production rises, so does flaring and venting.

Not Much Recent Progress on Oil Well Flaring

The Texas oil industry and its regulators have celebrated a reduction in the burning of climate-warming gases at oil wells, a practice known as flaring. However, state data shows that, while the flaring rate is below its 2019 peak, it has stayed relatively constant for the past several years.

“They can’t get it below 2% because they keep drilling,” DiCarlo said. Since emissions are highest when a well is being drilled, overall emissions will remain high as long as the industry is drilling new wells. “That’s just the nature of the beast.”

Among the largest beneficiaries of the state’s lax permitting system was an oil company called Endeavor Energy Resources. More than half the approved permanent flaring exemptions went to Endeavor, which merged with the $40 billion Diamondback Energy in September 2024. Endeavor also applied for the longest flaring permit — 6,300 days, or more than 17 years. The Railroad Commission approved the permit without shortening its duration.

Diamondback Energy did not respond to a request for comment.

The industry has simultaneously claimed that it is addressing methane while bristling at oversight.

Natural gas, as seen through a specialized camera that captures infrared energy, streams out of a Diamondback Energy facility near Midland, Texas, in 2023. (Courtesy of Oilfield Witness)

Watch video ➜

Steven Pruett is the president and CEO of Elevation Resources, a Permian Basin oil company, and the immediate past chair of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, one of the industry’s main trade groups. His company saw a 2,408% increase in flaring immediately following new wells being drilled and a 692% increase in flaring overall in 2023, according to emails unearthed by environmental watchdog organization Fieldnotes and shared with ProPublica and Inside Climate News. In the email exchange with University of Texas faculty who were preparing a grant application for a federal methane-reduction program, Pruett blamed the increases on inadequate infrastructure to capture the gas.

Just weeks later, Pruett participated in a tour of the oil field alongside EPA staff, where he echoed the claim that the American oil and gas industry is cleaner than others and that drilling companies were complying with efforts to reduce emissions.

During his term at the helm of the national trade group, it spearheaded multiple lawsuits against the EPA over the government’s methane rules.

Pruett did not respond to a request for comment.

“A Constant Roar”

Those opposed to flaring face long odds in halting the practice, even in rare instances when the Railroad Commission hears objections.

Consider the experience of Tom Pohlman, then sheriff of Fisher County, who had a flare burning next to his home in the Texas Panhandle starting in October 2023. The driller responsible for it, Patton Exploration, solicited companies to extend a pipeline to the oil well to capture the gas and evaluated whether the gas could be used to mine bitcoin. But by July 2024, it still had no deal, so the company sought another permit to continue flaring up to 1 million cubic feet of gas per day for 18 months. “Patton is diligently pursuing every avenue possible to find a solution, but still needs more time,” the company wrote in its application.

When Pohlman learned that Patton Exploration had applied for a new permit, he and his neighbors urged the Railroad Commission to deny it.

“The sound that comes from the flame is a constant roar that we can hear throughout our property both day and night,” the neighbors wrote in their objection. “There is no peace and quiet since the day of its ignition.”

In September 2024, Pohlman became one of the few people to officially challenge a flaring permit in Texas, as he and Patton Exploration representatives went head-to-head in a hearing before a Railroad Commission administrative law judge.

“For approximately 20 of my residents in this area, it completely lights up their yard and everything else,” Pohlman said, telling the judge that the flare was 45 feet high. “I just need liveability for this neighborhood. We’ve had nothing but issues here.”

Patton Exploration’s lawyer, David Gross, acknowledged the neighbors’ frustrations but emphasized the importance of keeping the well pumping.

“You can’t produce the oil without producing the gas,” he told the judge. “It’s the public policy of Texas that the recoverable oil and gas in the state’s reservoirs be recovered because it is in the public interest.”

In January, the three elected members of the Railroad Commission voted unanimously to approve the permit and allow flaring for another 12 months.

A flare lights up the night sky in Catarina. (Christopher Lee for ProPublica)

This post was originally published on ProPublica.

Belém Brazil: How the Equatorial Margin Shapes COP30 Discussions on Energy Transition

In November, COP30 will be hosted in Belém, Brazil, a city of great environmental significance in the lower Amazon rainforest. This will be the first time the country hosts the conference, placing Brazil —an economic powerhouse, home to vital ecosystems, and a strong advocate for energy transition, sustainability and indigenous rights— at the center of global attention. The event’s relevance will amplify discussions, from media and journalists providing reports and analysis to Latin American CSR communication experts translating complex debates into clear, actionable messages and initiatives.

Given its context, one of the key controversies that will gain prominence during the conference will be the Brazilian government’s plans for oil exploration on the Equatorial Margin, situated just off the coast of Belém, Brazil. The city is situated in the Marajó Bay, which is a key feature of this important coastal region.

A heated debate is expected to surround the topic, as it highlights a contradiction in Brazil’s energy transition and sustainability ambitions: how can a country that raises these flags also plan to extract massive volumes of petroleum right next to the Amazon rainforest, one of the most iconic natural landmarks on the planet?

The Equatorial Margin: A Region in the Spotlight

The Equatorial Margin refers to a coastal region in Northern Brazil, approximately 2,200 km long, located near the Equator —hence its name, referencing its geographical location. The region encompasses six Brazilian states: Amapá, Ceará, Maranhão, Pará (where Belém is located), Piauí, and Rio Grande do Norte.

A key aspect of this area is the influence of the Amazon River, as the river’s mouth is located there. Due to the large volume of water that it dumps into the ocean, rich in unique sediments and organic matter, the Equatorial Margin has developed a complex and diverse environment, characterized by mangroves, estuaries, and coral reefs.

Investigations by Petrobras, the Brazilian state-owned petroleum corporation, have found a vast offshore area on the ocean floor for oil and gas exploration, comprising five major oil basins. It is estimated that there are more than 30 billion barrels of oil in the area, which the company refers to as a “new frontier” for petroleum. This could have a massive impact on Brazil’s economy and energy security.

However, the implementation of having oil rigs to extract petroleum underground can have serious implications, especially since it is considered a high-risk area for oil spills. This could cause irreversible damage to the intricate biodiversity —which has not yet been widely studied— in the location and potentially further afield, as it is a crucial spot for ocean currents, which could spread the problem to far-off places.

Brazil’s Energy Transition Contradictions

Brazil currently has an ambitious energy transition schedule, aiming to gradually increase the share of renewables in its energy matrix by 23% by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality within the following 20 years. The country already boasts the extensive use of hydropower (which is not included in the percentage aim), but is investing in other sources, such as biofuels and wind.

The Ministry of Mines and Energy of Brazil and the Federal Government have a structured plan for energy transition, which emphasizes the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving a sustainable model as key goals. Nevertheless, it also prioritizes energy security. In the case of the Equatorial Margin oil, these two key points present a contradiction of interests.

This issue creates division at the heart of the Brazilian government itself. Marina Silva, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, for instance, is openly against oil exploration in the Equatorial Margin, advocating for the creation of an environmental preservation area in the same location. 

This aligns with IBAMA’s ideology, the country’s primary environmental agency, which twice denied the environmental license for Petrobras to explore oil in the region, citing three main concerns: the need to improve studies of ocean currents to predict where the oil would spread in case of a spill; insufficient communication to the public, particularly Indigenous communities, about the potential environmental impacts; and the absence of a rapid response plan to rescue animals that might be affected by the oil. 

Several other government members, however, value the energy autonomy argument more and are in favor of extraction, including Brazil’s President, Lula da Silva. The country’s leader has stated that the exploration will proceed and “the world is not ready to live without petroleum yet,” defending the importance of extraction due to economic factors.

There is also pressure from powerful mining and gas companies from around the world, in addition to Petrobras, which could also greatly benefit from the extraction projects. Many of them already operate in petroleum exploration on the nearby coast of Suriname and Guyana, countries that have growing oil industries.

This sets the stage for a head-on clash in Belém, Brazil, next November, where civil society members, big business and government agents from all around the world will all be reunited to address these issues, and many others alike.

Global Reliance on Oil and Hurdles to Clear

The difficulties of transitioning to clean energy are numerous. There are technological and logistical aspects that make it challenging to adapt existing infrastructure, for example, which serves to further fortify our dependence on energy derived from fossil fuels. Moreover, a  lobby led by major oil, gas, and coal investors is, through financial interest, dedicated to making the process even more treacherous.

Some of these players are actually governments —especially in the Middle East— where strong economies with major global influence and significant power in climate negotiations gather, with a substantial portion of their GDP derived from oil and gas extraction and exports. Classic examples include Saudi Arabia, the 17th biggest economy, and the United Arab Emirates.

Brazil, despite its renewable energy potential, has been shaped by these dynamics. Due to the significant relevance the industry holds globally, this exploration could be a substantial contributor to its economy. To join the game, however, it is crucial for the country to form alliances with major exporters, which gives these players significant bargaining power in negotiations with the Brazilian government.

Even though there are many hurdles, ranging from economic, political and technological types, energy transition is an urgent topic to tackle with the aim of ensuring the Earth’s temperature doesn’t rise by the mark of 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial measurements – the amount stipulated to be avoided, as outlined in the Paris Agreement of 2015. This is because the energy sector is the one with the greatest greenhouse gas emissions, particularly those from fossil fuel-based sources.

According to the UNEP Emissions Gap Report, as of 2023, 68% of GHG emissions came from energy production: 26% from power, 11% from industry, 15% from transportation, 6% from buildings, and 10% from fuel (3% of which from oil). 

Brazil’s Environmental Inconsistency

There is a clear paradox, as we established, in Brazil’s standing: a commitment to sustainability coexists with the desire to produce more fossil fuel energy through oil extraction in the Equatorial Margin. This contradiction actually goes far beyond this particular topic. The history of powerful economic agents influencing Brazilian environmental policies goes way back.

A relatively recent example is the Bill 2.159/2021, nicknamed the “Destruction Bill”, which was approved by the Brazilian Congress, and later sanctioned by President Lula with 63 partial vetoes. While the law weakened several licensing rules by removing the need for technical assessments to obtain environmental licenses, the vetoes were intended to mitigate environmental impacts and preserve minimum standards. 

The agribusiness sector, a crucial part of the country’s economy, played a significant role in its approval. This is of great interest to them, as it is a growing business that requires land to expand. The destruction of forests and other ecosystems provides them with additional space to plant more crops or raise cattle, for example.

Based on that, it is highly plausible to be concerned about the role fossil fuel lobbies can play on the Equatorial Margin, conducting actions that prioritize economic gains over environmental considerations.

In Belém, Brazil, the Brazilian government is expected to present a large Sustainability Fund project, which could backfire badly if contradictions in its politics emerge during discussions and negotiations. Due to the nature of the conference and many of its participants, this is actually quite likely to happen.

COP30 in Belém — Brazil’s Energy Contradictions Put on the Spot

As COP 30 convenes, the world will watch how the host nation navigates its contradictions. This could be a great opportunity to bridge the divide and leverage renewable potential, seeking a way to balance economic interests and environmental concerns. Things can also go the other way, exposing inconsistencies that could erode credibility and create conflict.

During the conference in Belém, Brazil, the country may be forced to redefine its role in the energy transition. Tension may also spread to global businesses, as pressure should also find its way to push big companies, especially those in the oil industry, to align their investments with sustainability.

By Nathan Spears

This post was originally published on Canary.

by Lauren McGaughy, The Texas Newsroom, and Yilun Cheng, Houston Chronicle

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

This article is co-published with The Texas Newsroom, the Houston Chronicle and The Texas Tribune as part of an initiative to report on how power is wielded in Texas.

The devastating flooding in Houston caused by Hurricane Harvey in 2017 killed dozens of people, inundated hundreds of thousands of homes and left the community desperate for a solution.

Since then, local flood experts have extensively studied the possibility of a multibillion-dollar tunnel system across Harris County, where Houston is located. Studies have focused on the construction of pipelines, 30 to 40 feet in diameter, that could ferry massive amounts of water out to the Gulf in the event of a storm.

Now, after years of research and discussion, Elon Musk wants a piece of the project.

An investigation by The Texas Newsroom and the Houston Chronicle has found that the billionaire, in partnership with Houston-area Rep. Wesley Hunt, has spent months aggressively pushing state and local officials to hire Musk’s Boring Co. to build two narrower, 12-foot tunnels around one major watershed. That could be a potentially cheaper, but, at least one expert said, less effective solution to the region’s historic flooding woes.

Hunt’s team has said the Boring project would cost $760 million and involve the company getting 15% of the cost up front from state and local coffers.

Within two months of this push, the Harris County Commissioners Court unanimously voted to study a pilot program that included a look at smaller tunnels, with specifications similar to what Boring had pitched. The commissioners court, made up of five elected members including a county judge, oversees the county’s budget.

Both Musk and Hunt stand to benefit should Boring be selected to build any part of the project. Hunt is reportedly considering a challenge to U.S. Sen. John Cornyn in next year’s Republican Senate primary. And landing a job like this would also be a significant win for Boring, which has not completed a major public project in Texas and faces criticisms for its ventures elsewhere.

The discussions about the Boring pitch have happened mostly out of the public eye. Hunt mentioned the project in passing at a town hall in Houston in February. Since then, he has refused to answer the newsrooms’ questions about when Musk sold him on the idea and why he became its pitchman.

Efforts to reach Musk and representatives with Boring were not returned.

Experts and some local officials question whether Musk and his company are the right pick for the job. The Boring Co. has focused on transportation tunnels, not flood mitigation.

“If you build a smaller tunnel, OK, it’ll be cheaper, but it can carry less water,” said Larry Dunbar, a veteran water resources engineer who has advised Houston-area governmental agencies on drainage issues. “So what have you saved? Have you reduced the flooding upstream by an inch? And are you going to spend multimillions of dollars to do that? Well, maybe that’s not worth it.”

In response to the newsrooms’ questions, state and local officials said no public money has been allocated to Boring. County officials added that they have not chosen a tunnel contractor and any process to do so would follow normal procurement rules.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, whose staff met with Hunt’s team during the legislative session to discuss the proposal, remains open to the idea. As president of the Texas Senate with close ties to President Donald Trump, he is a powerful ally.

“If Elon Musk and the Boring Company, or any other company, can build two massive tunnels under the Houston bayous in a few years to save the city from flooding, I am always going to be interested to listen,” Patrick, a Republican, told the newsrooms. “The truth is, Elon Musk is one of the only people in the world who could accomplish this.”

Then-candidate Wesley Hunt, now a Republican representative, speaks with volunteers before they campaign on his behalf in 2020. (Mark Mulligan/Houston Chronicle) The Pitch Process Begins

In 2022, the Harris County Flood Control District released findings from its yearslong tunnel study, which has so far cost nearly $3 million in local and federal funds.

The idea was to build eight tunnels, totalling around 130 miles in length, according to the report. The tunnels would be huge, wide enough for a container ship, and buried 40 to 140 feet underground, depending on the location. Austin and San Antonio have similar systems, although on a smaller scale.

The Buffalo Bayou segment of the Houston project — which Boring has proposed to build — is a centerpiece of the design and would run through the city’s core and some of its most developed neighborhoods. The county estimated it would cost $4.6 billion.

The total cost for the system was projected to be $30 billion, funded by a potential mix of federal, state and local dollars, and the timeline was 10 to 15 years to complete construction.

Given the scope and complexity of the project, the Army Corps of Engineers has been involved in discussions about the tunnels since the beginning. The corps also has jurisdiction over the two federal reservoirs in the area.

Eight years after Harvey, however, the tunnel project has not broken ground.

Hunt has accused the Army Corps of “​​dragging their feet a little bit” because its study of the tunnel system has been delayed. In December, Congress ordered the Corps to finish the analysis. Hunt hailed the decision, but to date the Army Corps has not completed the study.

Just two months later, however, his staffers and Musk’s team started shopping Boring’s proposal to politicians across the state.

Emails, text messages and policy memos the newsrooms obtained through public records requests show Hunt’s chief of staff, James Kyrkanides, repeatedly attempted to obtain public money on behalf of Boring. The documents, which have not been released previously to the public, also lay out how Hunt worked to secure Musk access to lawmakers and other officials ahead of the formal bidding process.

Kyrkanides declined to comment for this story.

In February, Boring pitched its proposal to elected officials in Harris County as an “innovative and cost-effective solution.”

“We are confident in our ability to execute this project successfully to bring peace of mind to residents of Harris County and the greater Houston area during future flood events,” Jim Fitzgerald, Boring’s global head of business development, wrote in a two-page memo about the proposal addressed to Kyrkanides and shared with local officials.

That same month, Hunt spoke at a town hall meeting about his involvement.

“I talked to him” — Musk — “about Hurricane Harvey and how we need tunnels,” Hunt said, according to Community Impact. “He told me, ‘I can do that at a fraction of the cost the Army Corps of Engineers would do it.’”

A few days later, the head of a local nonprofit wrote to a county commissioner saying she’d heard Hunt and Musk were shopping the proposal around and that the idea may have been discussed on board the president’s jet.

“I hear that Congressman Hunt talked to Elon Musk about his boring company while on a trip on Airforce 1,” Colleen Gilbert, executive director of the Greens Bayou Coalition, emailed.

It’s unclear if Trump was on board or took part in the discussions. The president’s spokespeople didn’t answer questions about the apparent meeting.

In April, Kyrkanides made a detailed pitch in an email to Patrick’s staff. He passed along Boring’s proposal and suggested that $60 million be set aside in the state budget “that will be matched with another $60 million” from the Harris County Flood Control District as a “down payment for the $760 million project Elon pitched Wesley.”

“I believe the Lt. Gov. spoke with Elon and the Boring Company this week,” Kyrkanides emailed in May, a month before the regular legislative session wrapped up. “Wesley also spoke with Elon, and everything seems on track!”

Kyrkanides followed up once more mid-month: “Anything you need from us?”

Pushing for Smaller Tunnels

As they pushed the idea to state lawmakers, Hunt’s team repeatedly lobbied Harris County officials, reaching out to at least two commissioners, the county’s legislative liaison and flood control experts.

Early on, Houston officials had concerns about what Boring proposed.

The two-page letter from Boring said its tunnels would be “no shallower than 15 feet to 30 feet below ground surface,” while the county’s previous research proposed a much deeper range for the Buffalo Bayou segment.

An engineering expert in County Commissioner Tom Ramsey’s office warned that Boring’s shallower plan could interfere with bridge foundations, utility lines and existing easements.

“It discusses that the tunnel would be much shallower then anticipated,” Eric Heppen, Ramsey’s director of engineering, wrote in an email to other staffers in his office on Feb. 17. “I would quickly confirm if it can be deeper or if that becomes a load challenge for the system.”

Boring said in its pitch that the tunnel depth is “flexible,” but the company did not respond to the newsrooms’ question about whether it can build to the standards outlined in the county’s study.

Volume was another concern. A single 40-foot-wide tunnel can move about 12,000 cubic feet of water every second, county studies show. Two 12-foot-wide tunnels, laid side by side, as Boring proposed, might struggle to keep pace in a flood emergency, according to Dunbar, the veteran water resources engineer.

“One would need eleven 12-foot diameter tunnels to provide the same flow capacity as one 40-foot diameter tunnel,” he told the newsrooms. “Providing only two 12-foot diameter tunnels does not provide the flow capacity that Harris County or the Corps of Engineers are seeking.”

Boring Co.’s Proposed Tunnels Would be Narrower and Shallower Than County Plan Calls for (Sources: Harris County Flood Control District study; Boring Co. tunnel pitch. Graphic: Ken Ellis, Houston Chronicle.)

The county continued to engage with the company despite these concerns.

In March, Scott Elmer, who’s overseen the tunnel study for the past few years at the county’s flood control district, reached out to Boring executives to set up a meeting. In the following weeks, he and other flood control officials met with Boring engineers at least twice to discuss the specifics of Boring’s capabilities.

During one of the meetings, flood control officials pressed Boring representatives on whether the company could build tunnels that are at least 20 feet wide, according to an agenda shared with attendees via email.

The company was reportedly studying how to make tunnels as wide as 21 feet several years ago. But it’s unclear if Boring ever developed that capability or what it told county officials about its potential to make bigger tunnels. On its website, Boring notes it “maintains the same tunnel design for all projects to avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’ for every tunnel.”

An April 10 commissioners court meeting in Houston was a turning point.

That appears to be the first time county officials brought up in public the fact that Hunt had been pitching them on a smaller-scale version of the flood plan they’d studied for years. They referred to this idea as a pilot program that would focus on just a few sections of a larger, countywide tunnel system.

Ramsey, the panel’s only Republican, specifically mentioned the pilot program tunnels could be narrower in diameter, as small as 12 feet, and shallower — specifications that would fit the kind of tunnel Boring has typically built.

Commissioner Lesley Briones, a Democrat, said a pilot project may help kick-start a huge, expensive project that the county has struggled to get off the ground.

No one mentioned Boring or Musk explicitly until Commissioner Rodney Ellis, a Democrat, said he’d gotten wind that the tech billionaire might be involved.

“I’ve heard all of the stories about Elon Musk having a tunneling company,” Ellis said. “I’ve got pretty good ears. I’ve got good Republican friends, too, now.”

He questioned the pitch, saying he was worried it would take the county off track.

However, Ellis and all of the commissioners unanimously voted to produce a white paper studying the idea of a scaled-down pilot project. They also voted to ask the state for flood mitigation funds. The vote didn’t require the county to commit to a specific project.

Later that month, records show the county’s legislative liaison reached out to staff for state Sen. Joan Huffman, a Houston Republican who chairs the Senate Committee on Finance, to indicate the county’s support for a $60 million budget rider for “underground flood risk reduction systems in Harris County.”

A two-page memo explaining the pilot project included with the request did not mention Musk or Boring and still referenced the larger 30- to 40-foot tunnels.

Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, points to a Texas- and Tesla-themed belt buckle as he answers a question about operating his business in Texas. (Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle) What’s in It for Musk’s Allies

Hunt has been a leading voice on the need for flood mitigation during his short time in Congress.

Last year, he partnered with Democratic U.S. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher to order the Army Corps of Engineers to move forward with the underground tunnel study. The effort was applauded as a bipartisan victory.

But Fletcher, a Democrat, said she was not involved in Hunt’s work with Musk on the Boring proposal and has “not heard from anyone advocating for it.” She said she’s worked with Army Corps of Engineers and local communities “on a transparent, informed, community-driven effort to address water conveyance and flood control in our region.”

A West Point graduate and former Army captain, Hunt has shaped a political brand that appeals to both GOP insiders and MAGA-leaning voters. He was a regular at Trump campaign events in and outside Texas and secured a prime-time speaking slot at the 2024 Republican National Convention. He is the only Black Republican in the Texas congressional delegation.

But if Hunt enters the U.S. Senate race against Cornyn, he will likely need a high-profile political win to stand out, according to Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, as incumbent senators in Texas have won nearly every primary over the past few decades.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is also challenging Cornyn in the primary.

Given the volatile dynamic between Trump and Musk, aligning with the latter carries political risk but also the potential for major reward, Rottinghaus said.

“Hunt certainly is well-known enough as a member in his district, but the problem is that when you’re in Congress running for a statewide office, your base support can sometimes be very provincial,” Rottinghaus said. “To partner with Musk would provide for a kind of national profile that Hunt would need to be successful.”

Musk has tapped local politicians when pursuing similar big projects elsewhere.

In Tennessee, Republican leaders recently announced that Boring would build a transit tunnel for cars from downtown Nashville to the nearby airport. The city’s mayor and other Democratic leaders have raised questions about a lack of transparency, competitive bidding and environmental planning. At a public meeting in early August, a Boring official said the company would seek public input for the project but did not answer reporters’ questions about why they had not yet done so, according to the Nashville Banner.

In Las Vegas, where Boring built a transit tunnel system, the company was able to avoid many of the lengthy governmental reviews typical of these kinds of projects because it is privately operated and receives no federal funding, ProPublica previously reported.

In 2022, Bloomberg reported the company had pitched eight projects to Texas officials. Two were water drainage projects in Austin and Houston. Neither appears to have been built.

If Boring secures part of the Houston job, it would appear to be the company’s first public flood control project. The company lists only transportation-related projects on its website.

Texas law requires county governments to open large public projects to competitive bidding and give all potential contractors an equal shot under the same conditions.

While the law does not explicitly bar local officials from discussing projects with individual companies ahead of time, that kind of early outreach — though common in some places — hasn’t been expressly authorized by state courts or the attorney general, according to legal guidance from the Texas Municipal League, which provides legal guidance to local government officials.

Emily Woodell, the spokesperson for the Harris County Flood Control District, said the agency has not shared any sensitive information with Boring about the Houston project and only met with the company to understand its capabilities.

Ramsey, the county commissioner, told the newsrooms he believes there’s nothing wrong with officials entertaining private pitches before the formal bidding process begins.

“All companies that might have an interest in it, that might understand and offer us information, certainly we’d be open to listening,” Ramsey said.

What’s Next

The future of the project, and Musk’s involvement, are still up in the air.

The state never granted Boring the $60 million it wanted for the project. Huffman, the senator overseeing the finance committee, confirmed the rider was never placed in the state budget and told the newsrooms she had nothing to do with the proposal.

“The only involvement my office had with this proposal was when Rep. Hunt’s chief of staff reached out to my scheduler to arrange a meeting between Rep. Hunt and me, but it never took place,” she said in a statement.

County officials also told the newsrooms that they haven’t provided any public money to Musk.

However, in June, the Harris County Flood Control District produced the pilot project report that commissioners voted for in the spring, looking at a scaled-back version of the original tunnel design. This white paper proposed focusing on only a few segments of the countywide tunnel system and considered tunnels as small as 10 feet in diameter as a real option — well within Boring’s ability to construct.

The white paper also floated the idea of a public-private partnership allowing a private firm to design, build and even run the system afterward, just as Boring has done elsewhere.

It does not appear that this report has been released to the public. The flood control district provided it to the newsrooms upon request.

Carlos Gomez, acting public affairs chief for the Army Corps of Engineers’ Galveston District, told the newsrooms he had not heard about the pilot project potentially involving The Boring Co. and could not say if his agency would be interested.

After the newsrooms presented them with the findings of this investigation, Briones and Ramsey emphasized they are not committed to one particular company and that all solutions would be subject to due diligence. Ellis told the newsrooms that Musk should not be involved, calling him “someone who has shown blatant disregard for democratic institutions and environmental protections.”

Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo and Commissioner Adrian Garcia, both Democrats, declined to comment.

Woodell, with the flood control district, said there have been no further discussions with Boring in months. She said the county has looked at smaller tunnels before but acknowledged that engineering analyses found large-diameter tunnels would be the most effective option for a countywide system. Woodell added the county might still consider smaller tunnels in “specific locations.”

“There will never be a single solution to flooding in Harris County,” she said.

If Harris County moves forward with a smaller-scale project like the one Hunt wants, which doesn’t rely on federal funding, the process to design and build it could still take up to a decade.

Jim Blackburn, co-director of Rice University’s Severe Storm Prediction, Education and Evacuation from Disasters Center, said Musk’s slimmer tunnels might still prove useful. But he warned against handing a project of this magnitude to a private company without proper vetting.

“The scale of the problem we have really demands, I think, all of us to be open-minded about ideas,” Blackburn told the newsrooms. “Invite them in. Just don’t give them the contract tomorrow.”

Lauren McGaughy is an investigative reporter and editor with The Texas Newsroom, a collaboration among NPR and the public radio stations in Texas. She is based at KUT News in Austin. Reach her at lmcgaughy@kut.org. Yilun Cheng is an investigative reporter with the Houston Chronicle. Reach her at yilun.cheng@houstonchronicle.com.

This post was originally published on ProPublica.