How Fossil Fuels, Plastics, and Agrichemicals Delay Climate Action

January 26, 2025 / activist360

Split-screen visual with two contrasting scenes: Left Side: A sandy beach littered with plastic waste, including plastic bottles, straws, and various other trash items, emphasizing pollution and environmental degradation. Right Side: A serene and clean beach at sunset, with a golden sun reflecting on the calm waves of the ocean, symbolizing natural beauty and a sustainable, unpolluted environment. The image symbolizes the contrasts between environmental harm and the potential for a clean, thriving ecosystem.

Unmasking Climate Obstruction

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, but did you know that some of the biggest industries in the world are working together to block meaningful action? Fossil fuels, plastics, and agrichemicals are deeply connected, and they often use clever strategies to delay or deny the need for urgent climate action. These industries are obstructing progress and impacting on our planet as well as the health of ourselves and our loved ones.

Fossil Fuels and Climate Change

The Root of the Problem

Burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas is the main driver of climate change. These fuels release greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. These gases trap heat, causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. This leads to more extreme weather, rising sea levels, and harm to ecosystems and biodiversity.

But the problem doesn’t stop there. The fossil fuel industry is deeply connected to two other major industries: plastics and agrichemicals. Together, these industries form a powerful network that resists policies aimed at reducing fossil fuel use.

Plastics and Agrichemicals: Hidden Contributors

Plastics and Pollution

Plastics are made from fossil fuels, and their production contributes significantly to climate change. Every year, millions of tons of plastic waste end up in our oceans, harming marine life and ecosystems. Over time, plastics break down into tiny particles called microplastics, which pollute water, soil, and even the food we eat.

Agrichemicals and Their Impact

Industrial farming relies heavily on chemicals like fertilizers and pesticides, which are also made from fossil fuels. These chemicals can contaminate water sources, harm wildlife, and disrupt ecosystems. For example, pesticides can kill beneficial insects like bees, which are crucial for pollinating crops. Fertilizers can cause algal blooms in water bodies, leading to “dead zones” where marine life cannot survive.

How Industries Block Climate Action

Social Media and Misleading Messaging

Companies in these industries often use social media platforms like X to spread messages that downplay the urgency of climate action. They ignore the problem of our reliance on fossil fuels. For example, ExxonMobil has promoted carbon capture technology as a solution, but this technology is not yet widely used and doesn’t address the continued extraction of fossil fuels.

Shifting Blame to Individuals

Instead of taking responsibility, these industries often shift the blame to individuals. They might encourage people to recycle more or use less water, while ignoring their own role in creating pollution and climate change. This tactic distracts from the need for large-scale, systemic changes.

Greenwashing

Many companies engage in “greenwashing,” where they make themselves appear environmentally friendly without taking meaningful action. For instance, they might highlight small sustainability projects while continuing to expand fossil fuel production. This creates a false impression that they are part of the solution, when in reality, they are part of the problem.

Lobbying Against Change

These industries spend millions of dollars lobbying governments to resist stricter environmental regulations. They argue that such rules would hurt the economy and cost jobs, even though these regulations are essential for protecting the planet and public health.

Impact on Biodiversity and Health

Harm to Wildlife

The production and use of fossil fuels, plastics, and agrichemicals have devastating effects on biodiversity. For example:

Plastics harm marine life, with animals like turtles and seabirds often mistaking plastic for food.
Pesticides kill beneficial insects like bees, which are vital for pollinating crops and maintaining ecosystems.
Fossil fuel extraction destroys habitats and contributes to deforestation, threatening endangered species.

Health Risks

These industries also pose serious risks to human health:

Air and water pollution from fossil fuel extraction and processing can cause respiratory diseases and other health problems such as cancer.
Chemicals from plastics and agrichemicals can contaminate drinking water and food supplies, leading to long-term health issues, including cancer.

What Can We Do?

Raise Awareness

One of the most important steps is to raise awareness about how these industries work together to block climate action. Share articles like this one, and talk to friends and family about the issue. The more people know, the harder it will be for these industries to continue their obstruction.

Support Stronger Regulations

Advocate for policies that limit fossil fuel production and promote clean energy. Contact your local representatives and let them know that you support stricter environmental regulations.

Reduce Your Reliance on Plastics and Chemicals

While individual actions alone won’t solve the problem, they can still make a difference. Reduce your use of single-use plastics, choose organic foods when possible, and support sustainable farming practices.

Hold Companies Accountable

Support organizations and campaigns that hold fossil fuel, plastic, and agrichemical companies accountable for their actions. Look for brands that are genuinely committed to sustainability and avoid those that engage in greenwashing.

Summing Up

The fossil fuel, plastics, and agrichemical industries are deeply connected and often work together to resist climate action. They use social media, lobbying, and misleading messaging to delay or deny the need for urgent action, all while continuing to harm the environment and public health. To address climate change, we need to look beyond just energy and focus on the entire petrochemical industry, including plastics and agrichemicals.

By raising awareness, supporting stronger regulations, and making sustainable choices, we can push back against these industries and work toward a healthier, more sustainable future. Together, we can unmask climate obstruction and demand real action for our planet.

Source: Kinol, A., Si, Y., Kinol, J., & Stephens, J. C. (2025). Networks of climate obstruction: Discourses of denial and delay in US fossil energy, plastic, and agrichemical industries. PLOS Climate, 4(1), Article e0000370. https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000370.

Living near fracking sites linked to higher risk of early death: Study

January 30, 2022 / activist360 / Leave a comment

Fracking Site in Warren Center, PA, August 23 2013, Source: Fracking Lawyer, Ostroff Law — *Fracking Site in Warren Center, PA, August 23, 2013, Source: Fracking Lawyer, Ostroff Law, (CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons).*

Harvard researchers provide further evidence that, as one environmental advocate has said, “fracking is inherently hazardous to the health and safety of people and communities in proximity to it.”

By Kenny Stancil, Common Dreams (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Elderly individuals who live near or downwind of fracking and other “unconventional” drilling operations are at higher risk of early death compared with seniors who don’t live in close proximity to such sites, according to a new study out Thursday from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Airborne contaminants from more than 2.5 million oil and gas wells across the U.S., researchers wrote in a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Energy, are contributing to increased mortality among people 65 and older residing in neighborhoods close to or downwind from what is called unconventional oil and gas development (UOGD)—extraction methods that include directional (non-vertical) drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

“Although UOGD is a major industrial activity in the U.S., very little is known about its public health impacts,” Petros Koutrakis, professor of environmental sciences and one of the paper’s co-authors, said in a statement. “Our study is the first to link mortality to UOGD-related air pollutant exposures.”

Co-author Francesca Dominici, professor of biostatistics, population, and data science, added that “there is an urgent need to understand the causal link between living near or downwind of UOGD and adverse health effects.”

Earlier research, the Harvard Chan School acknowledged in its press release, has “found connections between UOGD activities and increased human exposure to harmful substances in both air and water, as well as connections between UOGD exposure and adverse prenatal, respiratory, cardiovascular, and carcinogenic health outcomes. But little was known about whether exposure to UOGD was associated with mortality risk in the elderly, or about exactly how exposure to UOGD-related activities may be contributing to such risk.”

To find out more, a team of 10 scholars analyzed a cohort of nearly 15.2 million Medicare beneficiaries living in all of the nation’s major UOGD exploration regions from 2001 to 2015. They also examined data collected from more than 2.5 million oil and gas wells.

For each Medicare recipient’s ZIP code and year in the cohort, researchers calculated what pollutant exposures would be if one lived close to UOGD operations, downwind of them, or both, while adjusting for socioeconomic, environmental, and demographic factors.

The closer people lived to fracked gas and other unconventional wells, the greater their risk of premature mortality, researchers found.

According to the Harvard Chan School’s summary of the study:

Those who lived closest to wells had a statistically significant elevated mortality risk (2.5% higher) compared with those who didn’t live close to wells. The study also found that people who lived near UOGD wells as well as downwind of them were at higher risk of premature death than those living upwind, when both groups were compared with people who were unexposed.

“Our findings suggest the importance of considering the potential health dangers of situating UOGD near or upwind of people’s homes,” said Longxiang Li, a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Environmental Health and lead author of the study.

The new study adds to a growing body of literature linking fossil fuels to negative health outcomes. In a recent report, the World Health Organization warned that burning coal, oil, and gas is “causing millions of premature deaths every year through air pollutants, costing the global economy billions of dollars annually, and fueling the climate crisis.”

Another recent study estimated that eliminating greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would save 74 million lives this century. Despite mounting evidence of the deadly toll of fossil fuels, President Joe Biden has yet to use his executive authority to cancel nearly two dozen fracked gas export projects that are set to unleash pollution equivalent to roughly 400 new coal-fired power plants.

So-called unconventional drilling practices have grown rapidly over the past decade, becoming the most common form of extraction in the U.S. As of 2015, the Harvard Chan School pointed out, “more than 100,000 UOGD land-based wells were drilled using directional drilling combined with fracking,” and “roughly 17.6 million U.S. residents currently live within one kilometer of at least one active well.”

Fracking threatens every person on the planet, directly or indirectly. It should be banned entirely.
—Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch

Oil rig, ~12219-12999 Macon Road, Saline Township, Michigan, June 22, 2012. Source: Dwight Burdette, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons. — *Oil rig, ~12219-12999 Macon Road, Saline Township, Michigan, June 22, 2012. Source: Dwight Burdette, (CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons).*

In contrast to conventional oil and gas drilling, methods such as fracking require “larger volumes of water, proppants (sand or other materials used to keep hydraulic fractures open), and chemicals,” the Harvard Chan School noted.

Last summer, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) uncovered internal records revealing that since 2012, fossil fuel corporations have injected potentially carcinogenic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or chemicals that can degrade into PFAS, into the ground while fracking for oil and gas—after former President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency approved their use despite agency scientists’ concerns about toxicity.

At the time, Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, called the PSR report “alarming,” and said it “confirms what hundreds of scientific studies and thousands of pages of data have already shown over the last decade: fracking is inherently hazardous to the health and safety of people and communities in proximity to it.”

“This says nothing of the dreadful impact fossil fuel extraction and burning is having on our runaway climate crisis. Fracking threatens every person on the planet, directly or indirectly,” said Hauter. “It should be banned entirely.”

Fight against fossil fuels gains new allies at COP26

November 14, 2021 / activist360 / Leave a comment

Climate change protest photo of sign reading "Don't be a Fossil Fool." Photo by Hello I'm Nik on Unsplash. — *Photo by Hello I’m Nik on Unsplash*

Fossil fuels have barely been mentioned in previous climate talks. COP26 has seen a shift, and new movements are forming.

By Catherine Early, The Ecologist (CC BY-ND 4.0).

A fight for the future of fossil fuels is underway at COP26 in Glasgow. On one side, the fossil fuel industry, whose lobbyists have been found to be more numerous than any single country’s delegates.

On the other, progressive countries vowing to phase out oil and gas, and campaigners urging for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.

Draft texts of the final deal at Glasgow unveiled in the past couple of days have been interfered with by the hands of fossil fuel interests, who have “watered it down with weasel words,” said Cat Abreu, founder and executive of Canadian climate advisors Destination Zero.

Oil and gas

The first draft text released on Thursday morning called for governments to “accelerate the phasing-out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels”, but this was amended in the second draft text to “accelerating the phaseout of unabated coal power and of inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels”.

This language has been used before, Abreu said, pointing to the example of the G20 group of nations, who pledged to phase out fossil fuel subsidies in 2009, but still have not done so.

“’Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies’ means nothing, and we’ve seen no progress on eliminating those subsidies since we’ve had that language,” she added.

Abreu noted that UN climate talks had never explicitly focused on fossil fuels up till now. “It’s as if we set up a system to deal with a pandemic and never mentioned what caused the virus!” she said.

However, other developments at COP26 have struck a blow at fossil fuels. On Thursday, Denmark and Costa Rica launched the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance – the first time governments have led a move away from oil and gas production.

Unabated

France, Greenland, Ireland, Sweden, Wales and Quebec have joined the founder countries to commit to an end date for their oil and gas exploration and extraction, and curtail new licensing of oil and gas production. New Zealand and California have also pledged to take steps such as subsidy reform.

Though noticeably lacking large gas producers such as Russia and COP26 host the UK, climate campaigners were jubilant, calling it a gamechanger. “The launch of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance is a turning point. For far too long, climate negotiations have ignored the basic reality that keeping 1.5°C alive requires an equitable global plan to keep fossil fuels in the ground,” said Romain Ioualalen, global policy campaign manager at Oil Change International.

Coal, oil and gas are this generation’s mass weapons of mass destruction.

Speaking at the launch of BOGA at COP26, Danish climate minister Dan Jørgensen stressed that the launch was just the first step, and that it was urging other countries to join, with new signatories expected in the coming days. He also spoke of the need for a just transition, with retraining to be offered to workers in the sector.

The announcement on oil and gas followed a flurry of announcements at COP26 last week targeted at coal power. These included at least 23 new countries committing to phase out existing coal power, including Vietnam and Poland, who also committed to building no new coal plants.

Some 25 countries have signed up to ending international government funding for unabated fossil fuel energy by the end of 2022. Nearly 30 new countries signed up to the Powering Past Coal Alliance, including Chile and Singapore, bringing the total membership to 188 countries, sub-national governments and businesses.

Consumption

Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) published on Friday found that pledges made at and in the run-up to COP26 have had an “unprecedentedly large and direct” impact on coal-fired power generation. This includes 370 more coal plants generating 290GW given a close-by date, the likely cancellation of 90 new coal power projects (totalling 88GW); and a further 130 new projects totally 165GW called into question.

Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at CREA pointed out that 95% of the world’s coal power plants are now covered by carbon neutrality targets, which cannot be met without closing essentially all of the coal fired power plants.

However, Abreu pointed out that some governments had signed these initiatives while continuing to pour millions of dollars into coal power in their own countries. A report published November 13, 2021 by a group of NGOs including Stand.earth and Greenpeace pointed out that the UK, US, Canada, Norway and Australia are all planning to approve and subsidise new fossil fuel projects, undermining their recent claims of leadership in addressing the climate crisis.

Despite their net zero targets and climate pledges these five nations alone have provided over $150 billion in public support for the fossil fuel production and consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, the report found. This level of support to fossil fuel production is more than the entire G7 put towards clean energy as part of the pandemic recovery ($147 billion).

Protagonists

During COP26, the European Commission proposed plans to subsidise new fossil gas pipelines, terminals and storage facilities which could import gas that would emit more carbon than Austria and Denmark combined, according to analysis by Global Witness.

Meanwhile, youth activists Fridays for the Future have called for governments to sign a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, joining a movement that now includes more than 120 nationally-elected parliamentarians from 25 countries including Indonesia, the Philippines and Pakistan, more than 2000 scientists, over 700 civil society organisations and indigenous peoples.

Fossil fuel production must decline by roughly 50% by 2030 to keep average global temperature rise within 1.5C from pre-industrial times, according to a report by the UN Environment Programme, while the International Energy Agency has said that expansion of fossil fuels is incompatible with the target.

The campaign is based on other global campaigns including the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the Anti-personnel Landmine Convention and the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances, all of which provide a model towards a treaty to abandon fossil fuels, its protagonists believe.

Burning

The treaty proposed by campaigners would bring about an immediate end to the expansion of all new coal, oil and gas production; a fair phase out of existing fossil fuel production and a just transition for workers and communities dependent on jobs in the industry so that they can diversify their economies.

A letter signed by young people from 20 countries in support of the treaty complained that their participation in climate conferences had been tokenised, while that of fossil fuel interests had been supported.

Speaking at a press conference with Fridays for the Future at COP26, Brenna Two Bears said: “Coal, oil and gas are this generation’s mass weapons of mass destruction.

“We are doing this because of the wilful ignorance of our leaders, and their predominant fixation on profit and economic growth. Young people are not just inheriting a burning, flooding, melting planet, we are already living in it,” she said.

Catherine Early is chief reporter for The Ecologist and a freelance environmental journalist. She tweets at @Cat_Early76.