The May revision of Gov. Gavin Newsom's budget is due at the end of this week, so conservation groups are speaking out, calling for what they call a Climate Courage Budget, with at least 5% of state spending over five years.

Advocates want the state to commit roughly $75 billion, about twice what Newsom proposed at the beginning of the year.

Samuel Sukaton, advocacy coordinator for the group California Environmental Voters, acknowledged the governor proposed a historic amount, but argued it is not large enough to truly tackle the problem.

"Historic is not the same thing as adequate," Sukaton contended. "$37.6 billion over five years is about 2% of the state's budget per year. But two cents on the dollar is not really enough."

The governor's current budget would combat climate change on multiple fronts, with billions to cut emissions from transportation, electrify more homes and buildings, invest in clean energy, reduce wildfire risk and much more.

In a letter to the governor, Envirovoters' climate budget seeks to expand on those priorities, and put more money into fleets of electric buses, incentives to buy zero-emission vehicles, and programs to reduce water usage during the drought.

Sukaton emphasized the state needs to build out the power grid so, for example, wind farms in Humboldt Bay can send power to San Francisco and Sacramento.

"Without grid adjustments to export that capacity from Humboldt all the way to the rest of the state, we're not actually getting that energy to people that need it," Sukaton stated.

The Climate Courage Budget also calls for extra investment in natural landscapes that absorb carbon from the atmosphere, and to help workers in the oil and gas field retrain as California transitions away from fossil fuels.

The Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant in Pueblo, Colo., is set to close in just six years -- and community leaders, regulators, and Xcel are considering plans to replace the unit's energy and economic contributions.

A new Energy Innovation report suggests that an industrial-scale energy park that harnesses wind, solar, and battery storage would check all the boxes.

Michelle Solomon, electricity policy manager with the nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation, said the energy park would create some 300 permanent, high-paying jobs in plant operations, engineering, and more.

"The energy park could generate up to $40 million in annual tax revenue for Pueblo," said Solomon, "which is really important because they depend on this tax revenue that they're getting from Comanche right now -- for things like schools and libraries, things that the community can't afford to lose."

Comanche's connection to the power grid would allow the energy park to meet rising demand locally and in places like Colorado Springs and Denver.

A separate proposal calls for replacing Comanche with a small modular nuclear reactor, an energy source that does not emit carbon but remains controversial.

Tribal lands have been repeatedly targeted as radioactive waste dumps, and many still remember nuclear disasters at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

Wind and solar are now the cheapest source for electricity - and Solomon said unlike nuclear-reactor or natural-gas plant projects, ratepayers would share startup costs with onsite manufacturers, who get guaranteed low-cost energy to produce fertilizer, hydrogen, and more.

"That could be used at any type of industry that's using heat," said Solomon. "So, that could be a steel plant, a cement plant, anything that's using heat for manufacturing."

Solomon said speed is also important for getting economic benefits flowing back into the community. The energy park could break ground before 2030, years earlier than other options.

"They are also the types of resources that can come online more quickly," said Solomon. "When the coal plant retires, the community can't wait a decade for a new resource to come online."

Trenton is set to become home to the region's largest battery storage facility but federal policy changes might change how it's funded.

The DTE Trenton Channel Energy Center would use clean energy tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act but proposed federal cuts threaten the tax credits.

The plant is expected to store enough energy to power 40,000 homes for a day, create union jobs and help offset the area's economic loss from the 2022 closure of the Trenton Channel Power Plant.

James Harrison, director of renewable energies for the Utility Workers Union of America, said he has three generations of family history at the Trenton plant and is concerned about the potential effects of the proposed cuts.

"They're going to probably move forward with projects," Harrison explained. "The difference is going to be whether or not ratepayers are going to be on the hook to pay for that, or whether or not there's an opportunity to utilize tax credits to offset the cost to ratepayers."

In Michigan alone, more than 100 utility-scale projects are in development which could use the tax incentives. Those who want to eliminate the tax credits said the energy sector should compete without federal aid, arguing tax breaks add to the national debt and unfairly favor certain industries.

The Trenton facility is expected to start operations in mid-2026. The battery storage facility is also expected to generate more tax revenue than the former coal plant, which would benefit schools and public services in the Trenton/Wayne County area.

Harrison shared how his family history at the plant site colors his personal feelings about the new facility.

"I've been in the power industry almost 50 years," Harrison noted. "It's nice to see that the very first power plant that I worked at is being repurposed with modern technology to do the very same kind of job that original plant had provided to the community."

Some Republican lawmakers support keeping certain clean energy tax credits, citing their benefits for jobs and local economies. The Trenton project is also expected to contribute to Michigan's efforts to meet its renewable energy targets of using 60% clean energy by 2030, and 100% by 2040.


get more stories like this via email

By Dawn Attride for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Danielle Smith for Tennessee News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Methane isn’t exactly the sexiest greenhouse gas. It’s often trumped in the climate conversation by carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas known for its longevity in the atmosphere. Yet, methane is more potent — it traps about 80 times more heat over a 20-year period. Human activities are responsible for about 60 percent of methane emissions, with the largest offender being food, such as cows belching out methane during digestion. A new report suggests large supermarket chains, including Walmart, have an important role to play in bringing down methane emissions from food — but for now, none of them are taking action.

Supermarkets are the place where we, as consumers, interact with food systems and to a greater extent, those systems emissions. Food-related methane mainly comes from farm animals — their belches and manure — and food waste in landfill sites. A new report from Mighty Earth and Changing Markets Foundation found that none of the 20 top-grossing retailers in the U.S. and Europe — including household names like Lidl, Kroger and Walmart — are addressing methane emissions within their supply chains.

This leaves a crucial blind spot in reaching 2050 net-zero targets — an emissions reduction goal of the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change — which many of these retailers have committed to. U.S. supermarkets performed especially badly, “displaying a stark lack of climate accountability and ambition from their European counterparts,” the report found.

Retailers Omit Indirect Emissions From Climate Promises

Since none of the 20 food retailers surveyed had set a methane reduction target, Mighty Earth designed a scorecard to assess what action on methane emissions retailers have taken within their food supply chains. Only one UK supermarket, Tesco, scored above 50 points while U.S. retailers Kroger and Walmart lagged behind severely at a mere 9.5 and 7 points, respectively.

Many of the retailers named in the report do have climate plans, and goals to reduce their emissions. Walmart, for example, aims “to achieve zero emissions across global operations by 2040” and reduce their scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2025. Scope 1 and 2 emissions are what’s directly emitted by the company — the energy needed to keep food cold, for instance. Yet there is scant mention of efforts to reduce scope 3 emissions, which are indirect emissions generated from their supply chain, including methane emissions from foods like beef.

Scope 3 emissions aren’t just a drop in the ocean. For grocery stores, they’re the bulk of their climate pollution, estimated to make up 93 percent of European retailers total emissions profile, with meat and dairy accounting for almost half of all scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, according to the report. In this way, retailers are missing the elephant — or rather the cow — in the room when it comes to creating meaningful climate plans, Gemma Hoskins, global methane lead at Mighty Earth, tells Sentient.

“Supermarkets talk a lot about climate change, but very, very few are acknowledging meat and dairy, given that could be almost 50 percent of their emissions — that is a huge proportion,” Hoskins tells Sentient.

Paul West, senior scientist of Ecosystems and Agriculture at Project Drawdown says most retailers don’t address scope 3 emissions because they can’t directly control them and it requires changing consumers or companies’ behaviors through incentives or penalties. A 2024 decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled that retailers aren’t required to disclose their scope 3 emissions.

Despite these challenges, reducing demand for high-emissions foods remains a critical component of climate plans. “Aside from deforestation, supermarkets’ largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in their supply chains come from raising beef and dairy cattle. Changes in manure management, feed additives and other practices can reduce emissions a bit, but the only big way to do it is to reduce demand. Supermarkets, or any business, have little incentive to reduce demand for one of its products unless there is more demand for an alternative,” West tells Sentient.

A Question of Consumer Demand

Mighty Earth’s researchers argue that retailers are in a unique position to initiate the necessary changes in the food environment due to their ability to negotiate with producers, set prices and market directly to consumers.

The U.S. and EU launched the Global Methane Pledge in 2021 committing to reducing methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030. “Since the food sector is the largest source of methane emissions by people, it needs to lead the way to meet this target,” West tells Sentient.

There is a lack of accountability for retailers. Take food waste, for instance — while in the last year of the Biden administration, the USDA and EPA pledged to cut food waste in half by 2030, there are no legally binding targets for retail supermarkets. Companies can play a role by redirecting unsold food to pantries or educating shoppers on how to effectively reduce waste at home.

The report did note that eleven of the supermarkets do call out animal agriculture emissions as a key contributor to climate change, with many suggesting eating more plant-based foods could help, but the researchers also found these companies often fail to implement the kinds of actionable changes that would address their role in fueling emissions.

This is a missed opportunity, according to Project Drawdown scientist Paul West. “Supermarkets are a critical part of the supply chain. The majority of environmental impact happens earlier in the supply chain, mostly driven by what and how food is produced. On the flipside, most of the food waste in the U.S. and Europe is when it reaches people’s households. The big stores are right in the middle. Because they control so much of the market share, larger stores have more influence on what and how food is produced than consumers do,” West tells Sentient.

In Europe, there is more consumer demand for plant-forward foods because of their Green Deal and other initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable food systems. In some European countries, there are efforts to knock VAT off plant-based milk to reach price parity with cows milk and “protein split” initiatives to expand supermarket sales of plant proteins. In much the same way that retailers helped inform consumers on the downsides of single use plastics, Hoskins says they need to be transparent about sources of their emissions.

“If you said to the average shopper, do you realize that half of the emissions coming from a retailer are meat and dairy, I think people would be really shocked by that…and would make people think very differently about what was in their basket,” she says.


Dawn Attride wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email