SANTA FE, N.M. - The U.S. House of Representatives today is slated to repeal the Bureau of Land Management's Methane Waste Rule, which requires drilling companies to capture excess methane at oil and gas wells on public land rather than burn or vent it into the atmosphere.

The Obama-era rule went into effect only weeks ago, after years of public comment and hearings as well as a court challenge.

Kent Salazar, a board member of the New Mexico chapter of Hispanics Enjoying Camping, Hunting and the Outdoors (HECHO), said companies should be required to install methane-capture equipment so the gas can be sold and generate royalties for taxpayers.

"Especially now, New Mexico's in dire economic straits because of the drop in oil prices, and as citizens of the state of New Mexico, we're losing money when we lose our resource," he said. "When this methane is vented off, that's waste."

Opponents of the Methane Waste Rule have said it imposes additional costs on the industry by requiring more equipment in remote locations. To scrap the law, the Congressional Review Act is being invoked, a rare tactic that requires only a simple majority in the House and Senate and forbids the BLM from crafting a similar rule in the future.

Pollution from compounds in methane gas has been linked to respiratory disease and cancer, so Salazar argued that the Methane Waste Rule is needed to protect air quality in local communities.

"It affects the health of the Native Americans (and) the Hispanics that live out by these wells," he said. "The natural gas that comes on methane has some other substances attached to it, such as benzene - which, when they enter the air like that and these people breathe it in, it causes health problems."

Oil and gas developers have fought the rule for months, insisting they'll reduce gas leaks voluntarily. However, studies have estimated that natural gas valued at $330 million a year is wasted on public lands, nearly a third of it in New Mexico.

A summary of the rule is online at doi.gov.


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. Supreme Court this month declined to hear a case brought by youth activists, who argued the federal government has failed to protect them from climate change.

Minnesota teens are also elevating their voices on this topic. The court case was seen as a potential game-changer in highlighting the influence the fossil fuel industry has on federal policy.

Separately, a coalition of Minnesota high school students is pushing the Legislature to approve a bill that would bring climate justice education to classrooms in the state.

Wayzata High School Sophomore Ansh Shah said if his generation will have to help with solutions, they'll need the facts.

"We haven't had stuff taught to us on our own," said Shah. "We have to go out and we have to find all these information sources ourselves. And if we had, like, actual curriculum in schools, it'll make it a lot easier for people to be informed on this and actually want to make an effort."

The bill calls for a model program - consistent with state standards - with some focus on how marginalized communities often face the worst effects of climate change.

Similar to the national court case, the Minnesota effort has run into setbacks. Earlier proposals didn't gain traction in recent legislative sessions - and so far, this one hasn't received much attention.

But like their peers elsewhere in the country, these Minnesota students feel their effort will turn some heads, even if they're not always successful.

Fellow Wayzata Sophomore Vedanth Srinivasf said despite the urgent tone associated with climate change, it's important to think longer-term.

"Climate change isn't something that's going to be solved in the next 10 years," said Srinivasf. "It'll have to be solved in the next 50 years. So, starting right now, through small incremental steps, is a solution."

These students will be well into their professional careers by the time Minnesota is required to meet its goal of generating 100% carbon-free electricity in the state.

A landmark law signed by Gov. Tim Walz two years ago says that mandate has to be met by 2040.




get more stories like this via email

The Pacific Northwest Water Year Impacts Assessment, an important resource for managing drought and other climate extremes, was published today. The assessment tracks impacts of weather conditions on different sectors across Washington, Oregon and Idaho. The 2024 water year, which starts and ends in the fall, was Washington's fourth warmest in more than 100 years. Higher temperatures and low snowpack contributed to drought in much of the state, according to the new data.

Karin Bumbaco, climatologist and lead author of the assessment, says the research is helpful to understand cumulative impacts of drought on the region.

"Even though our snowpack is doing better now compared with last year, that really has to be seen through the lens of deficits from the previous year and even before," she explained.

Bumbaco added that in the last decade, droughts have been more frequent than usual in Washington. The assessment focuses on impacts of either too much or too little water on seven sectors, including agriculture, drinking water, fisheries and forestry.

Bumbaco said the agricultural sector in Washington reported the highest number of impacts from dry conditions last year.

"That can range from limited water availability, reduced crop yields. There was also quite a few reports about negative consequences for livestock and grazing," she continued.

Bumbaco said heat, fire and smoke forced recreation areas to close, and the drought brought increased insect activity and tree mortality. This is the fifth Water Year Assessment, and Bumbaco added that along with the challenges she has noticed more people working to mitigate impacts of a changing climate.

"There seems to be more climate resilience being built across our region. And people are taking actions to kind of avoid the worst impacts from either really wet conditions or really dry conditions," she said.

For example, she said farmers are changing crops, as well as the timing of irrigation, and monitoring water use and availability more closely. While some areas of the state saw reduced stream flow, increasing salmon mortality, the assessment was not all bad news. Bumbaco said a well-timed August rain supported a record salmon run in North Central Washington.





get more stories like this via email

The feasibility of putting solar panels over the state's network of canals is the topic of a big new research project, co-led by the University of Southern California.

The California Solar Canal Initiative builds on a study from the University of California-Merced, which found solar arrays over the canals could generate clean energy, conserve water, reduce air pollution and save land.

Monica Dean, director of climate and sustainability practice at the University of Southern California-Dornsife, said the research will answer practical questions.

"How would we do it? Which canals make the most sense? How much energy could they actually produce? What would the economic implications of doing this be?" Dean outlined. "We're taking a hypothetical scenario and making it real."

The research phase will last about two years and is expected to provide a roadmap for policymakers, utilities and communities. The original Merced study estimated covering the Golden State's canals with solar panels could generate enough electricity to power about 2 million homes each year.

Covered canals also prevent evaporation and could save enough water to meet the residential needs of up to 2 million people per year and they could lower maintenance costs, since fewer weeds grow in shade.

Dean estimated the arrays could save about 50,000 acres of land.

"Rather than needing to put a solar panel on land that could be used for housing or farming or some other purpose, now you're just repurposing existing infrastructure and making it work a little bit harder," Dean emphasized.

The initiative is cosponsored by the independent advisory firm Solar AquaGrid. It will also include faculty from the University of California-Berkeley, the University of California-Irvine, the University of California-Merced and the University of California College of the Law-San Francisco, plus San Jose State University and the University of Kansas.