After California's Legislature approved a plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2045, experts called for one renewable-energy source to be re-evaluated.

Woody biomass is under fire in California, as opponents argued it is not a clean-burning energy source, more akin to coal, since it burns carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Shaye Wolf, climate science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said there are plenty of misconceptions about woody biomass' positive aspects. One such myth suggests it is good for thinning forests to prevent wildfires.

"Thinning forests isn't an effective way to reduce wildfire risks," Wolf countered. "It in fact can even make fires burn hotter and faster. And that's not surprising because many larger, fire-resistant trees are cut during thinning operations."

According to a 2021 report from the Center for Biological Diversity, woody biomass can be twice as harmful since it emits more carbon from power-plant smokestacks while leaving less carbon stored in forests.

Massachusetts recently became the first state to remove woody biomass from its renewable-energy portfolio standard as part of a new climate law.

Ultimately, Wolf thinks the state will not have trouble finding ways to fill the gap, should this energy source no longer be used. According to 2021 California data, it contributes less than 3% to the state's electrical grid. She feels the state needs to consider more realistic climate solutions.

"Biomass heats the climate, it pollutes communities, and it's really expensive," Wolf outlined. "It has no place in the state's renewable-energy future. It shouldn't be happening in a state that holds itself up as a climate leader. California is in a climate emergency, and we don't have time for false solutions."

She feels woody biomass has hung on so long because the state qualified it as a renewable resource when they first developed a renewables portfolio standard program. Wolf thinks the state should be promoting cleaner, non-carbon energies, such as solar and wind energies, instead of carbon-burning woody biomass.

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

Results of a new study from Michigan State University suggest farmers no longer have to choose between growing crops and harnessing solar power. They can do both on the same land.

The 25-year study of California farmland found farmers who added solar panels, a practice known as agrivoltaics, made more money per acre than those who did not. The research shows crops and solar work together, especially when panels are placed on low-yield acres, or spots not growing as much food due to poor soil or too much shade.

The research indicates the approach helps farmers boost income without reducing food production.

Jake Stid, a graduate student at Michigan State and lead author of the study, said farmers can also benefit through a system called Net Energy Metering.

"A return structure where farmers can directly in many cases, interconnect so they can use the electricity to offset their own needs, as well as sell excess generation, excess electricity back to the utility for a discounted rate," Stid outlined.

Researchers estimate California land now used for solar panels could have fed 86,000 people had it stayed in crops. The study looked at the trade-off between farming and solar energy, while critics warned it could worsen food security by reducing farmland.

Stid highlighted his team chose California's Central Valley as the focus of the research due to its significant contribution to both national and global food production, particularly for a variety of orchard crops.

"It's a really, really agriculturally valuable state and it also happens to be a pretty water-stressed state," Stid pointed out. "Specifically, the Central Valley has been experiencing pretty significant drought, as well as over allocation of water resources."

Some farmers expressed concern about solar panels shading crops, affecting growth and reducing yields. Stid hopes to expand his research on solar arrays and food production nationwide, contributing to the ongoing debate among farmers on how to use land sustainably, without harming food production.


get more stories like this via email