News Feeds

On April 17, 2026, the Seal River Watershed Alliance, the Manitoba government, and the government of Canada released a joint proposal to designate one of our planet’s largest intact watersheds as...

Classic plays are often approached as cultural artifacts: texts to be presented, preserved, interpreted, and admired for their artistic merit or historical importance. They are staged to entertain, to educate about theatrical craft, or to fulfill curricular requirements in literature and drama. They have been seen and appreciated by countless people. They are amazing works […]

This article A peace agenda to end military madness was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'9d200FZBSONMmdpUpWoz3Q',sig:'4H34AzCl8kk2yw3Bfvc5ip3eqnuLjohTpSMjKQiFL5U=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2272262936',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

The president who promised to end forever wars and spoke of reducing nuclear weapons has succumbed to what David Wallace-Wells calls “impulsive warmongering.” 

After bombing Iran for 12 days last June, the U.S. and Israel launched a massive military assault that has caused widespread damage in the region and major disruption in global energy markets. In January, Donald Trump sent military forces to capture and arrest the leader of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro. The White House has proposed the largest military spending increase since World War II and plans to pay for it with draconian cuts in health care and other domestic social programs. Trump has refused offers by Moscow to preserve limits on U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals and wants to resume nuclear testing.

Opposing these policies and advocating for peaceful alternatives is essential to create a safer world. A more engaged global peace movement is needed to counter these threats and advocate for a more secure future. 

Below is a four-point agenda for political action: End the war against Iran; prevent nuclear proliferation in the Gulf; halt and reverse the global nuclear arms race; and slash military spending levels. 

Ending the war in Iran

Stopping Trump’s continued military aggression against Iran is an urgent priority. The war is increasingly unpopular. Recent polls show 58 percent of Americans opposed to the war, with disapproval of Trump’s presidency at a record high. 

Although Republicans in the Senate have repeatedly rejected Democratic attempts to invoke the War Powers Act limiting U.S. involvement, some in the GOP have signaled that the statute’s 60-day deadline on May 1 could be a turning point. Some Republicans have indicated they will not support the war beyond that date if the president does not seek Senate approval or find a way to end the conflict. These rumblings of discontent, although faint, are an indication of mounting political trouble for the White House.

The president desperately needs a way out of the quagmire he has created for himself. He claims that Iran has been defeated and the war is over, but Tehran refuses to yield. The U.S. allowed the initial deadline for the end of the ceasefire to pass last week without taking further military action, but Trump repeated his odious threat to cause the “major destruction” of Iran’s civilian infrastructure. 

Previous Coverage

The American peace movement we need today

As Trump flails about for a solution, opponents of the war must continue to demand an end to all further bombing and all U.S. military operations in the region, urging a withdrawal of American forces and negotiations for a solution to regional security issues and agreed limits on Iran’s nuclear program. 

Protests against the war are increasing. On April 20, dozens of veterans and military family members demonstrated at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Members of About Face, Veterans For Peace, Common Defense, Military Families Speak Out and other groups unveiled antiwar banners in the Cannon House Office Building rotunda. They held red tulips out of respect for the thousands of Iranians killed by U.S. strikes. They conducted a flag-folding ceremony to honor the 13 U.S. troops killed so far in the war. Chanting antiwar slogans, more than 60 of the veterans and their supporters were arrested by U.S. Capitol Police. 

That same day protesters gathered at the New York office of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand urging support for legislation introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders that would block U.S. funding for additional weaponry and bulldozers to Israel. The Sanders resolution is gaining increased support among Democrats in Congress. The actions in Washington, D.C. and New York in recent days were among many protests against the war across the U.S., around the world and in Israel. 

Opposition to the war has become a theme of the No Kings movement, which initially concentrated on saving democracy and opposing executive overreach. With Trump’s attack against Iran, the focus of the movement has broadened. Messages opposing the war and its costs were prevalent in the massive March 28 mobilizations. Posters for “healthcare not warfare” appeared frequently. 

Antiwar themes need to be front and center as activists engage in the midterm elections. MoveOn, the Movement Voter Project and other organizations are already hard at work mobilizing support for progressive candidates. By participating actively in political meetings and campaign debates, opponents of the war can deliver a powerful message: If candidates want our vote, they must take a firm stand against Trump’s disastrous war.  

Preventing proliferation in the Gulf

The stated purposes of the war have shifted constantly, but the most consistently emphasized goal is to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. Trump has also mentioned other objectives, such as regime change and gaining control of Iran’s oil. If nonproliferation is the goal, the use of military force is the wrong approach. Most successes in nonproliferation policy have been the result of diplomatic bargaining, often utilizing targeted sanctions and incentives. 

Iran’s nuclear program was effectively contained through the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, which blocked Tehran’s pathway to developing nuclear weapons. (Details on how the JCPOA curtailed Iran’s nuclear program and the evidence of Iranian compliance with the agreement are available here.)

#newsletter-block_e7b39b95c5d4dade65c4c92918c6696e { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_e7b39b95c5d4dade65c4c92918c6696e #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

Although the U.S. State Department reported Iranian compliance with the JCPOA, Trump claimed falsely that Tehran was cheating and reneged on the deal in May 2018. The U.S. then imposed “maximum pressure” sanctions, leading to renewed enmity, prompting Tehran to enrich uranium to higher levels and laying the foundation for the current armed hostilities. 

Iran made major compromises in the JCPOA, and it offered similar concessions in negotiations in June 2025 and February 2026. On the last two occasions, the U.S. and Israel began bombing just as conciliatory Iranian proposals were presented. Given Trump’s disdain for diplomacy, Iranians are understandably skeptical of the prospects for a negotiated agreement. 

U.S. and Israeli assaults may have stirred an impulse among Iranian hardliners to play the nuclear card they have previously held in reserve but have not used. The tragic irony is that a war supposedly to prevent Iran from building a bomb may increase the propensity to do just that. 

Worsening the danger is Trump’s commitment to help Saudi Arabia acquire uranium enrichment and plutonium separation facilities. As Washington wages war to prevent Iran from enriching uranium, it is proposing to help Tehran’s rival develop a similar and more expansive nuclear capability. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman stated in a 2018 interview that if Iran develops a bomb, “we will follow suit as soon as possible.”  

A nuclear arms race in the Gulf would be a nightmare for everyone, including Israel, which adds a compelling argument for ending the war and engaging in effective diplomacy to settle the dispute with Iran and contain nuclear programs in the region. Members of Congress have introduced legislation to prevent Saudi enrichment and impose strict nonproliferation guardrails on the proposed deal. These efforts deserve public support.

Halting the arms race

Nuclear proliferation is not just a concern in the Middle East. Dozens of disarmament groups in the U.S. and other countries recently joined together to issue a global “Call to Halt and Reverse the Nuclear Arms Race.” The groups are urging a complete stop to the development and deployment of nuclear bombs and weapons systems on all sides, including the U.S., Russia and China. The organizations have unified around the message that “more nuclear weapons will not make the world safer.”

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'3bnZ3DobSUphotgTT2aXsw',sig:'-HL4zq5s1lwdnVKGZlhMSctFoNTlHG8yVwEKoquRHOM=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'1246391377',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

Disseminating the call and seeking additional endorsements from religious, scientific and social organizations are achievable action steps that can increase awareness of the nuclear danger. Building support for the call can prepare groups to oppose specific acts of nuclear development by the United States, such as the deployment of additional nuclear warheads on existing weapons platforms, and resuming nuclear explosions at the Nevada test site. 

Activists are also demanding that Washington and Moscow formalize an agreement on maintaining current strategic weapons limits and begin negotiations for a new arms reduction treaty. They advocate for the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, as specified in the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Slashing war budgets 

The president and his Republican supporters in Congress are drastically militarizing the U.S. federal budget. Adjusting for inflation, Trump’s 2027 budget will increase military spending by more than 40 percent. Among the many alarming items in the new budget is a 65 percent spending increase on plutonium production to create 100 new plutonium pits for nuclear warheads per year. 

Even before the proposed increase, military spending is higher now than it was at the peak of the Vietnam War. It is nearly twice what it was in 1961, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about the “unwarranted influence” wielded by the military-industrial complex. 

The new budget can be regarded as a vast corporate welfare system to further enrich arms contractors. The unparalleled increase in their financial power will enable arms builders to lobby the government for even more unnecessary weapons. It will also benefit members of Congress who receive contributions from weapons contractors to create jobs in their district. It’s a legalized form of corruption masquerading as national defense. 

Decades ago, those who profited from war were branded merchants of death. Peace activists in the 1930s helped Sen. Gerald Nye of North Dakota convene widely publicized hearings on the munitions industry. The proceedings exposed the role of industrial and financial magnates in promoting the pre-World War I arms race, and fueled public disgust with capitalist greed. Perhaps an equivalent public disclosure of arms contractor corruption could be organized today.

Military spending expert Stephen Semler’s analysis of Trump’s 2027 budget illuminates America’s warped national priorities. Setting aside entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, which are funded by fixed formulas written into law and can only be adjusted through extraordinary Congressional action, Trump’s budget allocates 80 percent of discretionary spending either directly or indirectly to war: preparation for war, the consequences of past wars or militarized policing. If enacted, the new proposal would cut spending on domestic priorities and social programs by $300 billion.

#support-block_e80aed8590e5399d5a6f1ee211befbfb { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

On top of all of this, the White House has announced it will submit a $98 billion supplemental appropriation to continue the war on Iran and stock up weapons to fight similar wars in the future. The war supplemental will face stiff opposition in Congress, deservedly so. The budget debate provides an opportunity for activists to mobilize against further spending for war, and also to challenge the entire warmaking budget. Small cuts here or there will not suffice against the monstrously distorted budget now before Congress. 

If we add to the direct and indirect costs of war, the military’s share of the interest on the national debt, along with growing expenditures on prisons and immigrant detention centers, the amount of tax dollars devoted to the wars at home and abroad in Trump’s proposed budget would exceed $2 trillion per year, according to Semler’s analysis. Programs for public health, the environment, housing, scientific research, day care, nutrition and education are slashed to the bone. The Trump administration has built a garrison state that feeds weapons contractors and starves the rest of us. This is a tragedy of historic proportions, and it means there is nowhere to hide from the war machine and the surveillance state. 

More and more people and organizations now have no choice but to pay attention to overspending on the Pentagon, and to fight back as if their lives and livelihoods depend on it. Because, increasingly, they do. Among the organizations working directly against the war machine’s spending splurge are People Over Pentagon, a coalition that includes Public Citizen, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Project on Government Oversight, the American Friends Service Committee, Peace Action, and the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and the Poor People’s Campaign, a joint project of the Kairos Center and Repairers of the Breach.

Pressure is needed to demand a fundamental restructuring of federal spending priorities. Without a wholesale shift towards more balanced budgeting, millions of Americans will suffer from untreated medical conditions, inadequate nutrition and lack of access to economic opportunity.

The peace agenda is demanding and will require an enormous mobilization of political action from millions of Americans. The challenge is daunting, but the prospects for progress are real. Trump’s warmongering is increasingly unpopular. The prospects for political realignment in November are increasing. Millions of people have participated in No Kings protests. If the political energy against Trumpism can be harnessed for a concentrated campaign to stop war and militarism, a more peaceful future will be possible.

This article A peace agenda to end military madness was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

We often talk about climate change as a problem of carbon emissions rising and the technologies needed to bring them down. But that framing leaves out something fundamental.

Brett KenCairn, founding director of the Center for Regenerative Solutions and a longtime leader in community-based climate initiatives, has spent decades advancing nature-based solutions grounded in land restoration and local action. In his keynote at Bioneers 2026, he reframes the crisis as one rooted not only in emissions, but in the widespread degradation of living systems — and points toward restoration as a path forward.

This is an edited transcript of his talk.

Brett KenCairn: 

I come from Boulder, Colorado, a community with a unique relationship to climate change. We have 11 federal research labs, including the National Center for Atmospheric Research, established there in 1967. Our community takes climate science seriously, probably because around 3,000 climate scientists actually live there. There’s a bit of an inside joke in Boulder that we have more climate scientists than therapists and personal trainers.

Boulder was also one of the first communities in the world to step up when our federal government chose not to sign onto early international agreements to reduce emissions. We said we would. We committed to reducing emissions as a community, and then we started organizing — working with other cities across the country and helping build a broader global movement.

When I joined in 2013 to help shape the next generation of our climate action plans, I was given the opportunity to collaborate with teams all over the world: Helsinki, Stockholm, Rio, Sydney, New York, Seattle, Toronto. It was an exuberant time.

But many of those cities are now quietly stepping back from this work. There’s a real sense of despair and hopelessness among many of us who’ve been at it for years, because we can see that our strategy isn’t working.

What I’ve come to understand is that it was doomed from the beginning, built on a false premise and a half-truth. The premise was that this problem was purely about technology — about machines, about energy sources. That if we just changed those sources — built more wind farms, installed more solar, deployed more electric vehicles and heat pumps — we could solve it.

That’s the half-truth.

Climate Change Has Two Drivers

The other half is something we’ve known for more than 50 years. If you go back to the early days of global climate conversations in the 1970s, they all pointed to the same thing: Climate change has two legs. Yes, one of those legs is fossil fuel emissions. Nothing I’m saying diminishes the importance of reducing them. But even then, we knew there was a second leg: the degradation of land, the desecration of living systems.

Because the atmosphere isn’t just a geochemical machine governed by CO₂ in and CO₂ out. It’s a life-mediated system. Life created our atmosphere — for life. And the breakdown of these living systems is what’s been driving instability within them.

When the world came together in the 1990s at the Rio Earth Summit, we understood that there were three existential threats we needed to address. Climate was one, and we created the Convention on Climate Change — the IPCC we’ve heard so much about.

But there were two other conventions established at that summit. Biodiversity was one. The other was meant to be called the Convention on Land Degradation, but that didn’t sound compelling enough, so it became the Convention to Combat Desertification. Unfortunately, that framing led many of us to think, well, that’s a problem somewhere else; maybe Africa, but not here.

But I can show you places right outside Boulder that are desertifying right now. Because even then, we understood that this crisis was also about land degradation.

But then we started to forget. We need to understand why we made those choices. But what I will say is this: It’s time to change our strategy, because the one we’ve been using doesn’t offer much hope.

Let me summarize this in a way that might feel familiar.

If I asked many of you what’s causing climate change and how we solve it, you’d probably describe it something like this: Over the past few centuries, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been rising. And as fossil fuel use has increased, emissions have risen right alongside it.

Those two trends line up so closely that it feels obvious, like clear cause and effect. It’s easy to say: There’s your answer. The smoking gun — or in this case, the smoking stack. 

When you understand climate change through that relationship, it naturally leads you to believe the solutions are technological. And if you’re a financier, if you like technology, that’s a very appealing frame to work within.

But we’re starting to learn that there’s another driver here. The science is finally beginning to catch up.

A 2017 report by Jonathan Sanderman and others looked at soil loss over the past 12,000 years. For most of that time, soil loss was minimal. But with the rise of early empires and the expansion of agriculture, you start to see it increase. And then, in the last century, it accelerates dramatically.

What Sanderman and his colleagues found is striking: Somewhere between a quarter and a third of the excess carbon in the atmosphere didn’t come from burning fossil fuels. It came from the loss of soil carbon — from degrading the land itself. And it’s not just about carbon. 

When we lose soil, we also lose the capacity of living systems to hold water. We’ve forgotten that the most abundant greenhouse gas driving warming isn’t CO₂. It’s water vapor. So as we degrade the land, we’re not only releasing carbon, we’re also releasing vast amounts of water that would otherwise be held in healthy ecosystems. And that, too, intensifies climate instability.

There’s another relationship here, too: how fossil fuels, used through machinery, have reshaped the land itself. You don’t have to look far to see it. Just look at our own backyards. Take the Great Plains, once one of the most extraordinary ecological systems on the planet. In the span of just 10 years, we plowed up 30 million acres. 

And it wasn’t just in the United States. This was happening all over the world. So while we’ve told ourselves the story that climate change is about industry and fossil fuel combustion, it’s also about the widespread degradation of the living world.

And the scale of it is immense.

The UN estimates that around 70% of the Earth’s terrestrial systems are degraded. A report last year suggested that roughly half of the planet’s biological capacity has already been compromised. 

We’re living on a planet operating at roughly half its basic photosynthetic capacity — what scientists call “net primary productivity.” We don’t even know what it feels like to live on a fully functioning planet anymore. Although we’ve heard the stories.

We’ve Recovered Before, and We Can Again

Remember the stories about the passenger pigeons? Wow, when they took flight, the sky would go dark? That the rivers were so full of salmon you could walk across them? That you could stand on the Plains, look in any direction for miles, and see the land moving with millions of buffalo?

That’s what this planet looked like when it was operating at its full capacity. And that’s what we have to bring back. It’s the only real hope we have to address the climate crisis.

Now, it can feel hopeless. But there have been other moments when it felt that way. If you haven’t watched documentaries about the Dust Bowl, you should. Try to imagine what it was like on the Great Plains after we plowed up 30 million acres and turned it into a monoculture of wheat, and then the dust storms began. At first, just a few each year. Then dozens. People describe walls of dust, miles high, rolling toward them — like hell itself descending. It must have felt hopeless.

But we lived in a time when we still believed we could do something about it. When we believed we could return to the land and repair what we had broken. Millions of people went back to work restoring it. We made a living putting the world back together. And we did it.

In the span of a decade, we stopped the destruction. Within another decade, we began to restore what had been lost.

What happened during the Dust Bowl affected nearly a third of this country, but it also showed what’s possible at scale. The work people did together was extraordinary. Billions of plants were put back into the ground. Thousands of miles of contouring and check dams were built. It was simple, practical work, but deeply impactful. And it’s exactly the kind of work we need to be doing again.

I recently heard a presentation from Elizabeth Heilman at Wichita State. She shared that in parts of Kansas, regenerative agriculture has now been adopted at a remarkable scale — something like 70% of a county has returned its land to living cover, to deep-rooted systems. Do you know what they’re seeing? They’re changing weather patterns. 

We can do this. We’ve done this. We are doing this right now.

The Real Shift: An Economy That Repairs the Planet

This won’t happen just because we shift consciousness, or do more education, or launch another communications campaign for the planet. It will happen because we change the economy. We have to make it possible to make a living repairing the planet.

There’s promising research showing that if we restored just a third of degraded land globally, we could stabilize the climate while also reversing biodiversity loss. And according to the World Economic Forum, that kind of effort could generate 190 million jobs and $3.5 trillion in economic activity.

That’s the future we need to demand. So where do we start?

• First, we have to prepare and plan, just like in the 1930s. When systems begin to unravel, it’s too late to start from scratch.
• Second, we need to test and prove what works. Pilot these approaches now. Get them underway.
• Third, we need partnerships at every level — across neighborhoods, jurisdictions, countries. And we have to learn quickly and scale what works.
• And finally, we have to remember: This is a political process. I know it’s more fun to talk about whales and growing things — I like that too — but this is political.

Yes, this is daunting. I know, especially for younger leaders, it can feel overwhelming. But you can start now.

In my own community, we’re starting with a simple idea: Remove the barriers to participation. We have to de-professionalize land stewardship. This isn’t complicated work. It’s something many of us can do. But when only professionals are allowed to participate, most people are left out.

First, we need to move beyond volunteerism. That was a 20th-century model. People’s time and knowledge deserve to be paid. Even modest support — 10 to 15 hours a month at a living wage — can sustain these systems. Water the trees, mulch, care for the plants. That’s enough to keep things going.

Second, we need the infrastructure to do this at scale. We’re training local contractors, especially small and minority-owned businesses, in things like wildfire-resilient landscaping, rain gardens, and biodiversity restoration. Then the public sector can seed that capacity through small contracts.

Third, we need to fund this work at scale. Through partnerships, we’ve seen how communities can generate tens of millions of dollars through local funding measures to invest in restoration.

That’s what we need to be doing everywhere. And we can. So join in.

Start by growing something. A flower, a medicinal plant, food. Then learn how it grows alongside other plants — what it needs, what it supports. And then start to see how that small system fits into something larger. Before long, you’ll find yourself part of a much bigger community — one that’s ready to welcome you and help you find your way.

The post Climate Change Has Two Drivers. We’ve Been Largely Ignoring One. appeared first on Bioneers.

Is Premier Danielle Smith betraying her base? Her United Conservative Party (UCP) swept almost every riding outside of Calgary and Edmonton in the last election but the love does not seem to be mutual.

Smith is bulldozing the interests of small town property owners as she plows forward with aggressive plans to attract $100 billion in private sector investment for gas-fired AI data centres despite the concerns of nearby residents.

There are over 40 data centres proposed for construction in Alberta. Often opposed by local residents, these enormous installations create few jobs and require vast amounts of electricity and water – two commodities in limited supply in the province.

Important issues like carbon emissions, water availability, and noise pollution would normally be considered through a provincial environmental assessment process. However, Smith’s government has been excluding large data centre proposals from such routine oversight, including the “Wonder Valley” project shilled by celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

The citizens of Olds, Alberta, were alarmed to learn that what could be the largest data centre in the country accompanied by the second largest power generation facility in the province was slated to start construction inside their town boundaries within two months, and without an environmental assessment.

The acting approvals manager of the Alberta Ministry of Environment and Protected Areas assured the proponent Synapse Real Estate Corp., “I have decided that further assessment of the activity is not required. Therefore, a screening report will not be prepared and an environmental impact assessment report is not required.”

Residents of Olds were not so assured, learning of the plan in late January just days before an open house meeting on February 4. Synapse proposed breaking ground in March. Many homes are within less than one kilometre of the proposed two million square foot facility that would run 24 hours a day, requiring natural gas turbines generating 1.4 GW of power and 600 backup diesel generators. As one anti-data centre post on Facebook noted, good neighbours avoid “humming at 90 decibels in your backyard at 3:00 AM”. 

The previously quiet town of 10,000 residents may soon sport 17 metre-high flare stacks from ten massive gas turbines producing as much power as is consumed by the entire city of Edmonton. While the original proposal from Synapse was rejected by the Alberta Utility Commission (AUC) for numerous deficiencies in public consultation, revised documents were resubmitted within a month.

Does Danielle Smith’s government plan to intervene on behalf of concerned citizens? Nope. Alberta’s Minister of Technology and Innovation Nate Glubish washed his hands of responsibility, relating to CBC News that “he can’t endorse, approve or deny a project as minister — that’s the regulator’s job.”

Glubish instead spun the botched initial application to AUC as a positive development. “All data centre projects with power generation must get Alberta Utilities Commission regulatory approval to proceed. Synapse’s first application was inadequate and thus did not proceed. This is evidence of the process working,” Glubish told CBC in a written statement.

The stampede of server farm proposals encouraged by the UCP would collectively consume almost the entire capacity of Alberta electrical grid, so Smith’s government is encouraging data centre companies to “bring their own energy”. This means burning enormous amounts of natural gas, a strategy that dovetails with her plans to double Alberta’s oil and gas production. 

When asked about the climate impacts of scaling up $100 billion in gas-fired AI data centres, Glubish enthused, “this is good news for Alberta because it’s going to create significantly increased drilling, exploration, and production activity in rural Alberta, it’s going to allow for increased distribution investment to get the gas to the different markets that need it, and it’s going to generate significant incremental natural gas royalty revenues for the benefit of all Albertans.” 

The baked-in bias of Smith’s alleged “free-market” government toward fossil fuels stands in stark contrast to her hands-on hostility towards the renewable energy sector. In 2023, Smith announced a surprise seven-month moratorium on wind and solar approvals in 2023, throwing $33 billion in renewable investments into limbo. Onerous land use restrictions and reclamation requirements further decimated the sector, resulting in a 93 percent decline in wind and solar installations in two years. 

Proponents pitching turbine-fired data centres instead enjoy what the gas-loving Smith government fawningly calls their “concierge program”. Companies proposing an AI server farm within municipal boundaries are publicly promised that allegedly impartial regulators will “streamline pathways to partnerships, leveraging existing infrastructure and expertise to deliver unparalleled speed to market.”  

This cozy accommodation of companies over the interests of rural Albertans does not bode well for those unexpectedly living next to a massive new data centre.

Danielle Smith has built a political career as a supposed champion of rural Albertans. Many of these non-urban voters are now learning the hard way that her true allegiance has always been the oil and gas industry.   

The post Danielle Smith Is Betraying Rural Alberta To Build Gas-Powered Data Centres appeared first on DeSmog.

A LIVE STREAM Conversation with Keala Kelly (Kānaka Maoli) and Dina Gilio-Whitaker (Colville Confederated Tribes) as part of our America 250: A Revolutionary Perspective series.

The post JOIN CELDF LIVE ON MAY 7TH at 4pm ET! – Discussion on Systemic Racism, Sexism, Culturecide and Genocide from America’s Beginning appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

Nurses at University Medical Center New Orleans (UMCNO) in Louisiana are gearing up for their upcoming five-day strike starting May 1, 2026. Nurses announced their intent to strike after filing an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charge against LCMC Health and UMCNO management on April 20, charging the hospital’s management has spent more than two years intentionally dragging out and frustrating negotiations through surface bargaining.

.entry-header{display:none;}

The post Tell Wells Fargo: Stop the Racist Lending + Environmental Racism! appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

Philadelphia’s trail network is one of the city’s greatest assets.

With more than 80 miles of trails, these spaces connect neighborhoods, schools, parks, and local businesses. They provide safe places to walk, bike, commute, and spend time outdoors. For many residents, they are some of the most accessible and welcoming public spaces in the city.

But that safety and accessibility don’t happen automatically.

Trails require regular maintenance to stay usable. That means clearing debris, repairing damaged surfaces, trimming overgrowth, and making sure paths remain visible, clean, and safe.

Right now, much of that work is being done by a small trail maintenance crew funded through a temporary grant. Thanks to that support, progress has been made. But without permanent, dedicated funding, that progress is at risk.

If funding disappears, the trails can quickly become harder to use, less safe, and less welcoming.

Philadelphia has an opportunity to get ahead of that.

City Council can invest in a long-term solution by funding a dedicated trail maintenance crew and supporting trail development across departments. The current proposal includes:

• $300,000 in new funding for trail maintenance (FY28–FY30)
• $500,000 in sustained funding through the Streets Department
• $250,000 in sustained funding through Parks and Recreation

These investments would ensure that Philadelphia’s trails remain safe, clean, and accessible for years to come.

Philadelphia’s trails already connect the city. With the right investment, they can continue to serve everyone.

Tell City Council: invest in trail maintenance now.

A major right-wing political funder has dramatically increased his fossil fuel investments this year, DeSmog can reveal.

Jeremy Hosking, who owns the hedge fund Hosking Partners, donated £1.7 million to Reform UK between 2019 and 2024. The party, led by Nigel Farage, campaigns to scrap the UK’s flagship 2050 net zero emissions target, remove environmental protections, and turbocharge new fossil fuel extraction.

Hosking also owns The Critic magazine, which frequently attacks climate policies and supports new North Sea oil and gas exploration. Its current edition carries a cover story titled “The Green Myth: Fossil Fuels are Britain’s Real Energy Source”.

DeSmog’s analysis of the latest U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings from Hosking Partners reveals that it held $440.8 million (around £326.5 million) worth of stock in oil, gas, and coal companies as of the end of March 2026.

The filing, which covers the first quarter of the year, shows an increase of more than $154 million (£114 million) since the previous entry – up by 53.8 percent.

“This exposé highlights the urgent need for an honest debate about the fossil fuel industry’s toxic influence over our media,” said Richard Wilson of the campaign group Stop Funding Heat.

“Thanks to DeSmog, we already knew that GB News is co-owned by a fossil-fuelled billionaire, and that the Daily Mail’s parent company makes millions running oil and gas conferences. Now we learn that yet another outlet which regularly attacks climate action is similarly compromised.”

He added: “Democracy depends on having a media that tells the truth without fear or favour, not one beholden to special interests.”

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

The U.S.-Israeli war in Iran – which began in late February – has disrupted global supply chains for consumer goods, and major commodities including fossil fuels.

It has also delivered windfall profits to the world’s biggest oil and gas companies, with the top 100 making $23 billion (almost £17 billion) in March alone. The oil major BP today announced £2.4 billion in profits for the first quarter of this year – up 130 percent from the same period last year.

Although it’s unknown if Hosking Partners increased its fossil fuel investments in response to the Iran war, the firm has stood to benefit from its expanded oil and gas holdings.

The hedge fund has $369.7 million (around £273.7 million) invested in oil and gas. This includes $34.7 million (£25.6 million) in ConocoPhillips, $8.4 million (£6.2 million) in ExxonMobil, and $7.9 million (£5.8 million) in Chevron.

Shares in ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil soared by 41 percent in the first quarter of this year, while Chevron’s share price rose by 35.7 percent.

Hosking’s firm also has $71 million (around £52.6 million) invested in coal companies: $61 million (£45 million) in Warrior Met Coal, $7 million (£5 million) in Core Natural Resources, and $2.7 million (£1.9 million) in Peabody Energy.

Hosking did not respond to our request for comment but previously told DeSmog: “I do not have millions in fossil fuels; it is the clients of Hosking Partners who are the beneficiaries of these investments.”

Farage Funding

Hosking has used his wealth to support right-wing political projects – including parties that campaign for new fossil fuel extraction and against clean energy development.

He donated more than £1.7 million to Reform over a four-year period, including £125,000 before the 2024 general election.

Reform has led the charge against the UK’s net zero targets, calling for new fossil fuel extraction, including North Sea exploration and the reopening of coal power plants. It also campaigns for state renewable energy investment to be scrapped, and has used the Iran war to double-down on its pro-oil policies, pledging to extract “every last drop” of oil and gas out of the North Sea.

The party – leading in UK-wide polls and expected to gain ground in this year’s May elections across Britain – has also promoted climate science denial. Farage has claimed it’s “absolutely nuts” for CO2 to be considered a pollutant, despite admitting: “I can’t tell you whether CO2 is leading to warming or not”.

In reality, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said it is “unequivocal” that human influence has caused “unprecedented” global warming.

And while Reform has claimed that the UK’s climate policies are “economic suicide”, a report by the New Economics Foundation concluded that the party’s anti-renewables agenda could cost 60,000 jobs and wipe £92 billion off the economy.

In March, the independent Climate Change Committee said the entire cost of cutting emissions to net zero by 2050 would be less than a single fossil fuel price shock – two of which have been experienced by the UK in the past five years.

Hosking has also donated £4.3 million since 2019 to the Reclaim Party, led by radical right-wing commentator and former actor Laurence Fox. The party, which has a minimal electoral presence, claims “there is no climate emergency”, wants to ditch net zero, and frack for shale gas.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.

Credit: Associated Press / Alamy Stock Photo / Alastair Grant Pro-Oil Coverage

Hosking’s magazine The Critic routinely dismisses the need to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Its current cover story is written by contributing editor Chris Bayliss, who argues that renewable energy is unreliable and expensive. In a follow-up piece online, he blames “elite” support for net zero on “climate hysteria”.

Bayliss is a former civil servant who works in the energy sector in Iraq. He’s the Iraq Country Lead for IM Power, which runs liquefied natural gas (LNG), oil and coal power plants, offers “oil and gas refining, storage and pipeline solutions”, and works to “maximise value from hydrocarbon resources”. IM Power also provides renewable energy from solar power, an energy source Bayliss criticises in his articles.

In The Critic, Bayliss cites debunked policy papers authored by individuals and groups with ties to the fossil fuel industry.

His position is endorsed by the magazine. The current edition includes an editorial titled “On a Wind and a Prayer” arguing that “beggaring ourselves will not cool the rest of the planet’s weather”.

The Critic has also run articles by senior figures at the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the UK’s foremost climate science denial group, which has claimed that carbon dioxide emissions are “a benefit to the planet”.

In February, The Critic ran a piece titled “We Can’t Just Stop Oil: Oil and Gas are inevitable elements of our future” by Kathryn Porter, an oil and gas industry consultant who has authored reports for the GWPF.

In November, the magazine published an article by GWPF head of policy Harry Wilkinson calling for the United Nations COP climate negotiations to “be realistic” and drop its push for “centrally planned decarbonisation”. Wilkinson added that “COP delegates have long demonised fossil fuels as a problem to be expunged, instead of an engine of economic development”.

Wilkinson has long dismissed the threat from climate change, writing in 2018: “A temperature rise of more than two degrees is not inherently dangerous.”

The magazine has also run anti-net zero articles by Craig Mackinlay, a Tory peer and the current director of the GWPF, and similar articles by Steve Baker, a former GWPF director and Tory MP who spoke at a U.S. fundraiser for the group in February.

The Critic and Bayliss were contacted for comment.

The post Reform Donor Expands Fossil Fuel Portfolio to £300 Million appeared first on DeSmog.

The Caribbean region of CLOC–Vía Campesina commemorates April 17 struggle and calls for comprehensive agrarian reform, while upholding food sovereignty as the central banner of the peasantry’s struggle.

The post 17 April | CLOC (Caribbean) commemorates the 30th anniversary Peasants’ Struggle Day appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

OTTAWA — CHRIS SEVERSON-BAKER, Executive Director at the Pembina Institute, made the following statement in response to the federal government’s 2026 Spring Economic Update:“Today’s federal economic update paints the picture of a country with all the...

National Nurses United (NNU) today announced its endorsement of Abdul El-Sayed from Michigan for U.S. Senate. El-Sayed has been a longtime partner to NNU in the fight to win a single-payer health care system, and nurses are ready to send him to Congress.

Electricity demand is rising faster than new generation and transmission can be built. Active efficiency—through demand flexibility, controls, and smarter operations—helps utilities expand usable capacity at a fraction of the cost of new infrastructure. For ASE, this is foundational: the cleanest, cheapest kilowatt is the one you don’t have to generate.

Demand Flexibility = New Capacity

Flexible load reduces peak demand and reshapes how the grid operates:

• Automated HVAC adjustments
• Thermal storage and pre-conditioning
• Smarter ventilation strategies
• Shifted load during predictable peak windows

Instead of building a new peaker plant, utilities can unlock capacity through smarter use of existing buildings.

Real-World Examples of Active Efficiency

For example, PSE&G, a New Jersey-based utility, offers energy efficiency solutions for businesses and worked with the Montclair Public Library to modernize how energy is managed across its busy, seven-day-a-week facility. Improvements, including upgraded HVAC systems, digital controls and remote monitoring, are projected to deliver more than $125,000 in annual energy cost savings while improving comfort and reliability for the community. By optimizing how existing systems operate, the library is able to reduce unnecessary energy demand and make more efficient use of available capacity, illustrating how building-level improvements can translate into broader system benefits.

At the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, leadership set out to improve the performance of its historic headquarters through a more strategic approach to energy use. Recognizing that every kilowatt-hour saved contributes back to available grid capacity, they partnered with PSE&G to implement upgrades including lighting, heating systems and building controls. These improvements are expected to deliver more than $17,000 in annual energy cost savings.

Together, these examples show how smarter energy use can improve performance while helping make better use of available grid capacity.

The Avoided Cost Advantage

According to EIA:

• New peaker plant capacity: $150–$250/kW-year
• Active efficiency: $20–$40/kW-year

Demand flexibility delivers affordable, scalable capacity—accessible to both large and small customers.

Why This Matters for Energy Efficiency—and ASE’s Work

ASE’s Active Efficiency initiative demonstrates how flexible load strengthens reliability, reduces bills, and improves system efficiency. VPPs aggregate these benefits, transforming distributed flexibility into a dependable grid asset.

Interested in shaping utility flexibility policy? Email jrobinson@ase.org with “Interested in IPC.”

A Practical Policy Step: Value Demand-Side Capacity

Regulators and utilities should:

• Include demand flexibility in integrated resource plans
• Standardize valuation methodologies
• Expand incentives for VPP participation

More Flexibility = More Reliability

Active efficiency lets utilities meet rising demand without expensive new infrastructure—delivering practical, scalable capacity where and when it’s needed.

Resources & Further Reading

• U.S. Energy Information Administration: Electric Power Monthly — Capacity, Generation, and Peak Demand Data
  https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
• American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE): Guidance on Valuing Energy Efficiency in Utility Capacity Planning
  https://www.aceee.org
• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings (GEB) Research Hub
  https://geb.lbl.gov 
• National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Demand Flexibility and Grid Integration Research
  https://www.nrel.gov
• Alliance to Save Energy: Active Efficiency Initiative
  https://www.ase.org/active-efficiency
• Alliance to Save Energy: Advancing Virtual Power Plants to Scale: Policy, Market Trends, and Deployment Pathways (2025)
  https://www.ase.org/resources/advancing-virtual-power-plants-scale-policy-market-trends-and-deployment-pathways

North Yorkshire councillors are free to issue a formal refusal of plans by Europa Oil & Gas for drilling for gas and lower-volume fracking at Burniston, near Scarborough.

Banner at Burniston decision meeting, 24 April 2026. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The council’s strategic planning committee voted almost unanimously (11 votes and 1 abstention) in a “minded to” refusal of the planning application last Friday afternoon (24 April 2026) .

The formal decision had to wait for a ruling by the local government secretary, Steve Reed, on whether another environmental impact assessment was needed.

Earlier this month, Friends of the Earth asked Mr Reed to consider an additional screening direction for the Burniston plans. The organisation suggested that more information was needed on the environmental impact of the application.

Friends of the Earth said this afternoon it had now received a reply from the minister, which said:

“the Secretary of State declines to issue a screening direction in response to your request.” 

In a statement issued on 29 April 2026, North Yorkshire Council’s head of development management, Martin Grainger, said:

“We have been notified by the Secretary of State that the Government does not intend to re-screen the application.

“Officers will now look to finalise reasons for refusing the application in line with members’ decision. A formal decision notice will then be issued in the near future.”

Friends of the Earth said this clears the way for councillors to issue a formal refusal.

Tony Bosworth, of Friends of the Earth, said:

“With the final issue resolved, North Yorkshire councillors can now formally reject this damaging and unnecessary fracking proposal at Burniston.”

The organisation is urging the government to ensure that its promised ban on hydraulic fracturing will include all fracking techniques for fossil fuels, including the lower-volume proppant squeeze intended for Burniston.

Environmental campaigners have argued for more than six years for the closure of a legal loophole that allows fracking techniques using volumes of fluid below the legal threshold.

The moratorium, introduced in England in 2019, prevents only operations using more than 1,000m3 per fracking stage or more than 10,000m3 in total.

Mr Bosworth said: 

“Fracking blights our countryside, won’t lower UK energy bills, and remains deeply unpopular. 

 “The focus now shifts to the government: it must deliver on its promise to ban fracking for good – with no loopholes. That means covering all forms of fracking, including ‘proppant squeeze’. If it fails, communities across England will remain under threat.” 

Yesterday, Europa Oil & Gas formally announced to investors it intended to appeal against the North Yorkshire decision.

DrillOrDrop report of the decision meeting and reaction

Updated 29 April 2024 with statement from North Yorkshire Council

At a ceremony in Spain, Kallen Oliveira received the award on behalf of the MST and commemorated the 30th anniversary of the Eldorado dos Carajás Massacre.

The post 17 April | MST receives Berta Cáceres Award on International Day of Peasant Struggle appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Key Takeaways

• Reporting on electricity outages due to supply-side shortfalls is scarce and unreliable.
• Although most grid investments are targeted to increasing generation, customers experience more outages due to failures on the distribution system and extreme weather.
• Renewable resource deployment has not worsened reliability outcomes.
• RMI’s Reliability Dashboard can help inform system planning practices so that grid investments truly reduce customer outages.

Electric grid reliability has been a major topic of public policy and discourse over the past year. If we want to improve grid reliability, and do so in an affordable way, grid planners need to take steps to ensure that the investments they’re making will actually reduce the types of outages their customers experience.

To that end, we decided to take a close look at the numbers to see if the data backs current strategies to enhance reliability. RMI developed a new dashboard, leveraging data reported annually to the Energy Information Administration, to showcase the differences in electric reliability across utilities in the United States.

Recent public policy discourse has focused on the impact of load growth on grid reliability, particularly from data centers, and some policies go as far as trying to prescribe certain types of generators in the name of meeting reliability needs. However, available historic data does not show that load growth or supply-demand imbalances have driven customer outages. Over the past decade, extreme weather and failures on the distribution system — the lower-voltage wires connecting homes and businesses to the bulk electric grid — have been the primary causes of customer outages nationwide.

This reality is already all too familiar to customers, with outages caused by these “major events” reaching a decadal high in 2024. Yet public policy is currently focused on rising energy demand, which does not address distribution system needs and extreme weather risks.

To ensure grid investments are informed by reliability data, utilities and regulators must improve how they track reliability events and incorporate these insights into planning so that the right investments are being made to keep the lights on for all customers.

Planning for a reliable grid

Most regions in the United States plan for grid reliability using a one-day-in-ten-year loss-of-load expectation, a standard that functions as a benchmark that indicates whether further investment in generation is necessary to ensure sufficient ability to meet future demand (“resource adequacy”). While investments can reduce customer outages when they address the specific weaknesses causing outages, this only holds if planning decisions are aligned with the actual sources of interruption. Many outages originate on distribution systems, such as from tree contact or severe weather, where additional generation supply provides little benefit.

Although the grid is only planned to meet the aforementioned resource adequacy standard at the bulk power system level, grid reliability is best understood as an umbrella concept that depends on three distinct components: resource adequacy, stability (or operational reliability), and resilience, across both the high-voltage bulk power system and the lower-voltage distribution system.

Different reliability investments affect these components in different ways and come with very different costs, ranging from low-cost operational and maintenance measures to capital intensive infrastructure investments. Ideally, planners would sequence investments by prioritizing lower-cost actions first and ensure that higher-cost measures are tightly targeted to pesistent, demonstrated sources of unreliability.

This approach would help ensure that spending produces measurable improvements in customer reliability metrics rather than defaulting to an overreliance on resource adequacy alone. However, current data collection practices obscure which component(s) failed during an outage, making it difficult to align investments with the true drivers of customer interruptions.

Quantifying grid reliability

Utilities track two key metrics when looking at the historical reliability of their system: outage durations and outage frequencies, with the threshold for an “outage” being a loss of power for five minutes or longer.

Outage duration is tracked using the System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI). This metric tracks how long the average customer was without power over the course of each year. Outage frequency is tracked using the System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI). This metric tracks how many times the average customer lost power over the course of each year.

Both of these metrics can be combined to determine a utility’s outage restoration, also known as the Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI). CAIDI tracks the average time it took electric providers to restore power to customers each year, or put differently, how long the average customer was without power when there was an outage.

From our new Reliability Dashboard on the Utility Transition Hub, we can see that over the past decade, US electricity customers experienced, on average, about six hours without power annually. However, variation from state-to-state and utility-to-utility can be significant, so be sure to check out our full dashboard to explore reliability in your state or utility.

Three key takeaways from historical reliability data

When we look at reliability data and drivers of outages for customers over the past decade, we see three key trends:

1. Reporting on outages due to supply-side shortfalls is scarce and unreliable. Only about half of utilities report this metric, and each utility’s definition of “loss of supply” can vary. Utilities that do report this show that loss of supply was a minor contributor to customer outages over the past decade.

Inconsistent definitions mean that some outages classified as supply-related may actually occur on distribution systems. As a result, it is impossible to parse whether reported supply-side outages are due to power plant outages, transmission versus distribution failures, fuel supply issues, or any other factors. This reduces planners’ ability to ensure that future investments are actually addressing the most critical system needs.

For utilities that track those occurrences, loss of supply was a minor contributor to system outages. From 2014 to 2024, 57% of respondents separated outages that were due to loss of supply, and in the past five years, those outages represented less than 10% of the duration of outages the average customer experienced. In other words, for over 90% of the time that customers were experiencing outages, their utilities did not attribute these outages to supply-side shortfalls, and instead attributed them to distribution system failures.

2. Although planned investments achieve modeled targets, in reality, customer outages can exceed those targets due to failures on the distribution system and extreme weather.

The one-day-in-ten-year (which can be translated to 2.4 hours per year) planning standard is typically used to propose new supply-side resources (power plants, transmission, etc.) until modeling results meet that bulk system resource adequacy target. However, when we retroactively evaluate the average duration of customer outages over the past 10-year period, we see that many customers do not experience that standard — especially when incorporating major events.

This indicates that although utilities may be meeting their supply-side standard in planning, other types of vulnerabilities not accounted for — particularly on the distribution system — are driving customer outages beyond planning standards.

Utilities in more than half of states do not conduct comprehensive integrated system planning that includes the distribution system. As a result, while utilities plan to have enough power plants to limit bulk system outages to an acceptable resource adequacy standard, the same is not applied to the distribution system, leading to worse outcomes for customers.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

3. In contrast to what some policies suggest, renewable resource deployment has not worsened reliability outcomes.

When we pull in data from the amount of deployed renewable resources in each state over the years, and connect it with this measured reliability data, we don’t see evidence that renewable resources reduce reliability. In fact, states exposed to extreme weather and heavy forests have longer customer outages on average. Overall, clean energy deployments have supported grid reliability through day-to-day operations and numerous extreme storms.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

What regulators and grid planners can do to make informed decisions about reliability and encourage affordable investment

The same focus that has been placed on potential outages of the future needs to be placed on the experienced outages of today to ensure customers aren’t overpaying for grid investments that don’t meet their needs. To ensure data-driven decision-making that produces an affordable, reliable grid, regulators and grid planners can pursue the following:

• • Use RMI’s new Reliability Dashboard to learn more about your state’s reliability, inform system planning practices, and improve the way that reliability data is tracked and reported so that grid investments truly reduce customer outages.
    • With the rapidly evolving needs of consumers today (and entirely new classes of consumers, like datacenters), data tracking must be updated to better assess and address reliability. For example, outages from supply-side shortfalls should be clearly distinguished from transmission or distribution issues. In 2025, the Hawaiian Electricity Reliability Administrator in filing F-338153 recommended this be addressed with a generator-specific outage metric, as well as the use of segment-specific derivatives of SAIDI and SAIFI that differentiate between transmission and distribution. These metrics are already in use by other utilities internationally, such as those in Canada, Sri Lanka, and some African countries.
    • Regulators can initiate compliance dockets for more detailed data, such as Michigan Public Service Commission’s docket U-21122, which requires utilities to report information about their worst-performing circuits and zip codes with the worst and best outage rates, and outline their plans to improve reliability.

• • Deploy available technologies that address the specific reliability issues localities face today, keeping in mind the evolving grid. 
    • Solutions to load growth are often framed around large, capital-intensive investments on the bulk power system, like new power plants, which can be expensive and may do little to reduce customer outages. In contrast, commonly overlooked and lower-cost solutions such as energy efficiency, virtual power plants, and advanced transmission technologies can both help accommodate load growth and meaningfully improve customer reliability, particularly where outages are driven by the distribution system and extreme weather. These lower-cost solutions are often overlooked due to the prevailing cost-of-service utility regulation model, which biases utility investment toward high capital cost investments. Regulators can investigate performance-based regulation practices that would help counter this bias and restructure utility incentives to ensure affordable approaches are leveraged.
    • Regulators can require their utility to perform integrated distribution system planning aligned with best practices that considers investments at all levels of the grid.
  • Intentionally plan for resilience to major events via improved forecasting and infrastructure.
    • Improve forecasting and extreme weather considerations to better plan for the system to be resilient to future excursions beyond normal conditions.
    • Build resilient inter-regional transmission in coordination with neighboring regions to access resources and support across the United States during wide-area storms.
    • Leverage battery energy storage systems (both transmission-connected and distributed in virtual power plants) to directly reduce outages, and also reduce costs via temporal electricity price arbitrage.

As utilities ask consumers to pay more for their investments amid soaring bills, data-backed and informed decisions matter now more than ever. Improving data collection practices to become more standardized and reflect different levels of the grid is necessary to capture the complexities of grid needs to a sufficient level of detail. RMI’s new Reliability Dashboard can help regulators and planners interact with and learn from existing data, and identify smart improvements that serve all customers’ needs.

RMI’s Gaby Tosado and Jon Rea were both critical collaborators in developing the new Reliability Dashboard on the Utility Transition Hub.

The post Reliability Explored: What a Decade of Data Tells Us About US Grid Reliability appeared first on RMI.

For the last two decades, conservationists on the remote Pacific atoll of Palmyra have been working to uproot invasive palm trees and restore native wildlife. A new study finds that native fungi could be instrumental to that process.

Read more on E360 →

The National Farmers’ Union calls for a national agricultural model that guarantees full food sovereignty, advances rural development, and upholds human dignity for all.

The post Morocco: The Meknes Appeal Reaffirms the Role of Peasants and Small-scale Farmers in Defending Food Sovereignty appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

A much-discussed “return to coal” by some countries in the wake of the Iran war is likely to be far more limited than thought, amounting to a global rise of no more than 1.8% in coal power output this year.

The new analysis by thinktank Ember, shared exclusively with Carbon Brief, is a “worst-case” scenario and the reality could be even lower.

Separate data shows that, to date, there has been no “return to coal” in 2026.

While some countries, such as Japan, Pakistan and the Philippines, have responded to disrupted gas supplies with plans to increase their coal use, the new analysis shows that these actions will likely result in a “small rise” at most.

In fact, the decline of coal power in some countries and the potential for global electricity demand growth to slow down could mean coal generation continues falling this year.

Experts tell Carbon Brief that “the big story isn’t about a coal comeback” and any increase in coal use is “merely masking a longer-term structural decline”. 

Instead, they say clean-energy projects are emerging as more appealing investments during the fossil-fuel driven energy crisis.

‘Return to coal’

The conflict following the US-Israeli attacks on Iran has disrupted global gas supplies, particularly after Iran blocked the strait of Hormuz, a key chokepoint in the Persian Gulf.

A fifth of the world’s liquified natural gas (LNG) is normally shipped through this region, mainly supplying Asian countries. The blockage in this supply route means there is now less gas available and the remaining supplies are more expensive.

(Note that while the strait usually carries a fifth of LNG trade, this amounts to a much smaller share of global gas supplies overall, with most gas being moved via pipelines.)

With gas supplies constrained and prices remaining well above pre-conflict levels, at least eight countries in Asia and Europe have announced plans to increase their coal-fired electricity generation, or to review or delay plans to phase out coal power.

These nations include Japan, South Korea, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, Germany and Italy. Many of these nations are major users of coal power.

Such announcements have triggered a wave of reporting by global media outlets and analysts about a “return to coal”. Some have lamented a trend that is “incompatible with climate imperatives”, while others have even framed this as a positive development that illustrates coal’s return “from the dead”.

This mirrors a trend seen after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which many commentators said would lead to a surge in European coal use, due to disrupted gas supplies from Russia. 

In fact, despite a spike in 2022, EU coal use has returned to its “terminal decline” and reached a historic low in 2025.

Gas to coal

So far, the evidence suggests that there has been no return to coal in 2026.

Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air found that, in March, coal power generation remained flat globally and a fall in gas-fired generation was “offset by large increases in solar and wind power, rather than coal”.

However, as some governments only announced their coal plans towards the end of March, these figures may not capture their impact.

To get a sense of what that impact could be, Ember assessed the impact of coal policy changes and market responses across 16 countries, plus the 27 member states of the EU, which together accounted for 95% of total coal power generation in 2025.

For each country, the analysis considers a maximum “worst-case” scenario for switching from gas to coal power in the face of high gas prices.

It also considers the potential for any out-of-service coal power plants to return and for there to be delays in previously expected closures as a result of the response to the energy crisis.

Ember concludes that these factors could increase coal use by 175 terawatt hours (TWh), or 1.8%, in 2026 compared to 2025.

(This increase is measured relative to what would have happened without the energy crisis and does not account for wider trends in electricity generation from coal, which could see demand decline overall. Last year, coal power dropped by 63TWh, or 0.6%.)

Roughly three-quarters of the global effect in the Ember analysis is from potential gas-to-coal switching in China and the EU.

Other notable increases could come from switching in India and Indonesia and – to a lesser extent – from coal-policy shifts in South Korea, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

However, widely reported policy changes by Japan, Thailand and the Philippines are estimated to have very little, if any, impact on coal-power generation in 2026. The table below briefly summarises the potential for and reasoning behind the estimated increases in coal generation in each country in 2026.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

Dave Jones, chief analyst at Ember, stresses that the 1.8% figure is an upper estimate, telling Carbon Brief:

“This would only happen if gas prices remained very high for the rest of the year and if there were sufficient coal stocks at power plants. The real risk of higher coal burn in 2026 comes not from coal units returning…but rather from pockets of gas-to-coal switching by existing power plants, primarily in China and the EU.”

Moreover, Jones says there is a real chance that global coal power could continue falling over the course of this year, partly driven by the energy crisis. He explains:

“If the energy crisis starts to dent electricity demand growth, coal generation – as well as gas generation – might actually be lower than before the crisis.”

‘Structural decline’

Energy experts tell Carbon Brief that Ember’s analysis aligns with their own assessments of the state of coal power.

Coal already had lower operation costs than gas before the energy crisis. This means that coal power plants were already being run at high levels in coal-dependent Asian economies that also use imported LNG to generate electricity. As such, they have limited potential to cut their need for LNG by further increasing coal generation.

Christine Shearer, who manages the global coal plant tracker at Global Energy Monitor, tells Carbon Brief that, in the EU, there is a shrinking pool of countries where gas-to-coal switching is possible:

“In Europe, coal fleets are smaller, older and increasingly uneconomic, while wind, solar and storage are becoming more competitive and widespread.”

In the context of the energy crisis, Italy has announced plans to delay its coal phaseout from 2025 to 2038. This plan, dismissed by the ECCO thinktank as “ineffective and costly”, would have minimal impact given coal only provides around 1% of the country’s power. 

Notably, experts say that there is no evidence of the kind of structural “return to coal” that would spark concerns about countries’ climate goals. There have been no new coal plants announced in recent weeks.

Suzie Marshall, a policy advisor working on the “coal-to-clean transition” at E3G, tells Carbon Brief:

“We’re seeing possible delayed retirements and higher utilisation [of existing coal plants], as understandable emergency measures to keep the lights on, but not investment in new coal projects…Any short-term increase in coal consumption that we may see in response to this ongoing energy crisis is merely masking a longer-term structural decline.”

With cost-competitive solar, wind and batteries given a boost over fossil fuels by the energy crisis, there have been numerous announcements about new renewable energy projects since the start of war, including from India, Japan and Indonesia. 

Shearer says that, rather than a “sustained coal comeback” in 2026, the Iran war “strengthens the case for renewables”. She says:

“If anything, a second gas shock in less than five years strengthens the case for renewables as the more secure long-term path.”

Jones says that Ember expects “little change in overall fossil generation, but with a small rise in coal and a fall in gas” in 2026. He adds:

“This would maximise gas-to-coal switching globally outside of the US, leaving no possibility for further switching in future years. Therefore, the big story isn’t about a coal comeback. It’s about how the relative economics of renewables, compared to fossil fuels, have been given a superboost by the crisis.”

Santa Marta: Key outcomes from first summit on ‘transitioning away’ from fossil fuels

International policy

|

30.04.26

Iran war analysis: How 60 nations have responded to the global energy crisis

International policy

|

08.04.26

Q&A: Why does gas set the price of electricity – and is there an alternative?

Oil and gas

|

13.03.26

Q&A: What does the Iran war mean for the energy transition and climate action?

International policy

|

10.03.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_a6dd1abd18950d65e92cc0670b53264a .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post World ‘will not see significant return to coal’ in 2026 – despite Iran crisis appeared first on Carbon Brief.