LINCOLN, Neb. – Researchers say they've tapped the most comprehensive estimate of greenhouse gas emissions created by U.S. consumer food purchases, and those emissions are on par with other major contributors to climate change.

Rebecca Boehm, lead author of the report from the University of Connecticut, says consumers are in a position to make a big impact each time they go to a restaurant or grocery store.

"The easiest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from your diet or your food purchases is to purchase less red meat and animal products,” she points out. “They are more carbon intensive to produce. Plant based diets generate lower greenhouse gas emissions."

Researchers found that the life cycle of food purchases – from growing and harvesting crops to marketing, packaging and transportation – created 16 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions in 2013.

By comparison, commercial and residential activity accounted for 12 percent, with industrial activities adding 21 percent.

The single largest contributor of CO2 continues to be coal fired power plants.

Boehm says helping reduce climate pollution doesn't have to mean giving up meat altogether. Poultry and seafood have a lower carbon footprint, and Boehm says opting for plant-based proteins such as beans and lentils more frequently can make a difference.

She notes that because people make decisions about what to eat three times a day, those choices can really add up.

"You know there are plenty of alternatives to the most carbon intensive foods,” she states. “There's also potential health benefits to making those changes. So, it's sort of a win-win for consumers."

Buying fruits and vegetables from local farmers also can help cut emissions created by transporting goods in refrigerated containers cross-country or across oceans.

And while consumers alone can't re-shape the nation's food industry, Boehm says they can help support grocery stores and food vendors working to cut their carbon footprint.


get more stories like this via email

Nine in ten people in Colorado and across the globe are worried about climate change and want governments to do something about it, according to a new survey, but they mistakenly assume that others do not share their view.

Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, called this a perception gap.

"The average person believes that other people in their own country tend not to worry about climate change that much when, in fact, the majority of people in most countries do worry about climate change," he said.

That gap in perception has real-world policy implications. In the U.S., almost 80% of congressional staffers underestimated their constituents' support for reducing climate pollution, sometimes by more than 50 percentage points. Leiserowitz said helping more people understand that they are not in the minority could unlock a social tipping point that moves leaders to act.

He pointed to one example where 96% of liberal Democrats and 78% of conservative Republicans supported helping farmers protect and restore soil to absorb more carbon dioxide. But he said progress is stymied by misperceptions.

"If your perception is that Republicans are absolutely against climate policy, then many people might then conclude - especially if you're a policy maker - that we shouldn't be taking action when, in fact there's overwhelming support, even among conservative Republicans," he continued.

Decades of misinformation campaigns, aiming to protect fossil-fuel company profits, play a big role in perception gaps. But Leiserowitz said gaps also persist because any two individuals, not knowing what the other thinks, are likely to avoid topics they believe are controversial, including climate change.

"So, that leads neither of us to talk about it. Well, now expand that to 300 million people, and you can see that we start slipping down this 'spiral of silence.' Nobody talks about it, so nobody talks about it. Which means nobody talks about it," he concluded.


get more stories like this via email

As Boulder and local governments across the U.S. turn to courts to pay for rebuilding after wildfires, floods and other extreme weather events linked to a changing climate, a new study shows it is now possible to pinpoint specific companies that could be held accountable.

Justin Mankin, associate professor of geography at Dartmouth College and study coauthor, said using advanced modeling, his team calculated a price tag for the impacts of extreme heat, just one climate hazard, linked to carbon dioxide and methane emissions from 111 companies over 30 years.

"The world would be $28 trillion more wealthy had those companies found ways to mitigate the extreme heat impacts of those emissions," Mankin reported.

Researchers found 10 fossil-fuel companies - including Chevron, ExxonMobil and Saudi Aramco - were responsible for half of the total losses.

Oil and gas companies have argued in court it was not possible to assign blame to their company's carbon or methane molecules in the atmosphere compared with all the other molecules released. They have also noted oil and gas production has produced numerous public benefits and wealth.

Using emissions data and advanced climate models, Mankin pointed out it is now possible to see what the world would look like if any particular corporation had not produced emissions. He added other industries have not gotten off the hook, including "Big Pharma," just because they produced breakthrough medicines and vaccines.

"That doesn't absolve them for their role in, say, generating the opioid crisis," Mankin contended. "Courts have ruled that they had a role in generating the opioid crisis, and needed to compensate harmed individuals for that."

Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed to hold corporations and trade associations accountable for climate damages. Colorado's Supreme Court has heard oral arguments but has not yet ruled on a case brought by San Miguel County and the city and county of Boulder seeking compensation from ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy.


get more stories like this via email

By Alyssa Burr for the Michigan Independent.
Broadcast version by Chrystal Blair for Michigan News Connection reporting for the Michigan Independent-Public News Service Collaboration

In recent years, Michigan has been aggressive in its approach to clean energy: It’s invested millions of dollars in renewable energy infrastructure, created training programs for jobs in the electric vehicle industry, and set a goal of moving the state to 100% carbon neutrality by 2050.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and other state officials aim to make the Great Lakes State a leader in clean energy manufacturing by bringing jobs and investments to local communities while also tackling pollution, which continues to wreak havoc on the environment.

Now Michigan’s clean energy efforts have seemingly hit a wall of uncertainty as President Donald Trump’s administration takes ongoing actions to roll back federal climate regulations.

“We’ve seen nothing less than an unprecedented, all-out assault on our environment and our democracy,” said Bentley Johnson, the Michigan League of Conservation Voters’ federal government affairs director.

The clean energy sector has grown rapidly in the United States since President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. Congress appropriated $370 billion under the IRA, and White House officials at the time touted it as the country’s largest investment in clean energy.

According to Climate Power, a national public relations and advocacy organization dedicated to climate justice, Michigan was the No. 1 state in the nation in 2024 in its number of clean energy projects; from 2022-2024, the state announced 74 projects totalling over 26,000 jobs and roughly $27 billion in federal funding.

Trump has long been critical of the country’s climate initiatives and development of clean energy technology. He’s previously made false claims that climate change is a hoax and wind turbines cause cancer. Since taking office again in January, Trump has tried to pause IRA funding and signed an executive order to boost coal production.

Additionally, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced in March that the agency had canceled more than 400 environmental justice grants to be used to improve air and water quality in disadvantaged communities. Senate Democrats, who released a full list of the canceled grants, accused the EPA of illegally terminating the contracts, through which funds were appropriated by Congress under the IRA. Of those 400 grants, 15 were allocated for projects in Michigan, including one to restore housing units in Kalamazoo and another to transform Detroit area food pantries and soup kitchens into emergency shelters for those in need.

Johnson said the federal government reversing course on the allotted funding has left community groups who were set to receive it in the lurch.

“That just seems wrong, to take away these public benefits that there was already an agreement — Congress has already appropriated or committed to spending this, to handing this money out, and the rug is being pulled out from under them,” Johnson said.

Climate Power has tracked clean energy projects across the country totaling $56.3 billion in projected funding and over 50,000 potential jobs that have been stalled or canceled since Trump was elected in November. Michigan accounts for seven of those projects, including Nel Hydrogen’s plans to build an electrolyzer manufacturing facility in Plymouth. 

Nel Hydrogen announced an indefinite delay in the construction of its Plymouth factory in February 2025. Wilhelm Flinder, the company’s head of investor relations, communications, and marketing, cited uncertainty regarding the IRA’s tax credits for clean hydrogen production as a factor in the company’s decision, according to reporting by Hometownlife.com. The facility was expected to invest $400 million in the local community and to create over 500 people when it started production.

“America is losing nearly a thousand jobs a day because of Trump’s war against cheaper, faster, and cleaner energy. Congressional Republicans have a choice: get in line with Trump’s job-killing energy agenda or take a stand to protect jobs and lower costs for American families,” Climate Power executive director Lori Lodes said in a March statement.

Opposition groups make misleading claims about the benefits of renewable energy, such as the reliability of wind or solar energy and the land used for clean energy projects, in order to stir up public distrust, Johnson said. 

In support of its clean energy goals, the state fronted some of its own taxpayer dollars for several projects to complement the federal IRA money. Johnson said the strategy was initially successful, but with sudden shifts in federal policies, it’s potentially become a risk, because the state would be unable to foot the bill entirely on its own.

The state still has its self-imposed clean energy goals to reach in 25 years, but whether it will meet that deadline is hard to predict, Johnson said. Michigan’s clean energy laws are still in place and, despite Trump’s efforts, the IRA remains intact for now.

“Thanks to the combination — I like to call it a one-two punch of the state-passed Clean Energy and Jobs Act … and the Inflation Reduction Act, with the two of those intact — as long as we don’t weaken it — and then the combination of the private sector and technological advancement, we can absolutely still make it,” Johnson said. “It is still going to be tough, even if there wasn’t a single rollback.”


Alyssa Burr wrote this article for the Michigan Independent.


get more stories like this via email