News Feeds

Spending plan lacks detailed reporting on spending and project implementation BATON ROUGE, La. (April 27, 2026) – The Louisiana Legislature approved the state’s FY27 Annual Plan for Coastal Protection and Restoration, which outlines the state’s coastal priorities and funding strategy for the next fiscal year. Restore the Mississippi River Delta, a coalition of four national and local conservation groups working to advance meaningful, large-scale coastal restoration, released the following statement: “The plan contains many worthwhile individual projects, but this year’s ...

Read The Full Story

The post Louisiana’s new coastal spending plan passes, but questions remain appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

In January, the Audubon Center for Birds of Prey became part of a global network for tracking bird migration with the installation of a Motus station on our property. As spring migration approached...

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear former Ohio House speaker Larry Householder’s appeal of his 2023 bribery conviction and 20-year prison sentence tied to his corrupt passage of the HB 6 law that bailed out two coal-burning power plants.

The court didn’t state its reasons for denying the appeal Monday. It also rejected former Ohio Republican Party chairman Matt Borges’ appeal.

Householder led the fundraising campaign in which FirstEnergy funneled some $60 million through surreptitious channels to Householder, who used it to push for the bill’s passage in 2019.

A Republican, Householder is expected to seek a pardon from President Trump, who has granted multiple pardons for public officials convicted on corruption charges. The president was convicted of 34 felony counts in New York in 2024.

Ray Locker is the executive director for Checks & Balances Project, an investigative watchdog blog holding government officials, lobbyists, and corporate management accountable to the public. Funding for C&BP is provided by Renew American Prosperity and individual donors.

You may also want to read:

PUCO let utility redact information from audit examining electricity prices
OVEC power plants were losing between $150,000 and $175,000 a day, emails show
Utility agrees to disclose audit details highlighted by C&BP

Share Post Share

The post Supreme Court rejects Householder appeal appeared first on Checks and Balances Project.

Summer camps at Rowe Sanctuary have long been foundational to its identity, helping place the sanctuary on the map as a local leader in environmental education. It isn’t rare for Rowe Sanctuary...

We need clean, renewable energy to protect our health and to drive down energy costs. As organizations representing public and environmental health as well as frontline healthcare professionals, including the American Lung Association, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Concerned Health Professionals of New York, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, we urge Governor Hochul and the New York State Legislature to ensure that renewable energy investments remain a central priority in this year’s state budget negotiations.

At a moment defined by rising energy costs, worsening air quality, and increasing climate-driven health risks, failing to fully fund wind, solar, and geothermal energy would be a profound mistake; one that New Yorkers cannot afford. Our organizations see firsthand how pollution and climate instability harm our communities. Fossil fuel combustion remains a leading contributor to increasing asthma attacks, worsening COPD exacerbations, cardiovascular disease, and premature death across New York State. Rising temperatures and poor air quality have led to more emergency room visits and hospitalizations. These burdens fall disproportionately on low-income communities, communities of color, children, and older adults, populations who already face systemic health inequities.

The fossil fuel-based energy system has created both a climate crisis and a public health crisis that demands courageous and equitable policy action now. Renewable energy is a public health intervention that can help improve patient outcomes. Expanding wind, solar, and geothermal infrastructure will reduce harmful air pollutants, decrease hospitalizations, and improve quality of life for millions of New Yorkers. At the same time, renewable energy is one of the most effective ways to bring down long-term energy costs for everyday residents. Unlike fossil fuels, which are subject to volatile global markets and geopolitical disruptions, renewable sources like wind and solar provide stable, predictable pricing once infrastructure is in place. Investing in these technologies now will shield New Yorkers from future price spikes while reducing reliance on imported fuels.

For example, geothermal systems offer households consistent, efficient heating and cooling, cutting utility bills significantly over time. Leaving these investments out of the state budget would mean locking families into higher, less predictable energy costs for years to come. Renewable energy development drives economic growth and job creation across the state. From offshore wind projects along our coasts, to solar installations in rural and urban communities alike, these investments support thousands of good-paying jobs while strengthening local economies. They also reduce strain on our healthcare system by preventing illness before it begins, an often overlooked but critical form of cost savings.

New York has already positioned itself as a national leader in climate action through the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). But leadership requires follow-through. If renewable energy funding is weakened or omitted from the state budget, it will not only delay progress toward our climate goals, it will also jeopardize the health and financial stability of New Yorkers. Governor Hochul and state legislators face a clear choice. Invest in a cleaner, healthier, and more affordable energy future, or allow short-term budget decisions to undermine long-term wellbeing.

The evidence is overwhelming. Renewable energy saves lives, reduces healthcare costs, and puts money back into the pockets of working families. For the sake of public health, economic stability, and environmental justice, New York must not leave renewable energy behind.

Authors:

Max Micallef, NYS Advocacy Manager – Clean Air Initiatives, American Lung Association
Bryanna U. Patterson, MS, FNP, RN-BC, Fellow, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
Carmi Orenstein, MPH, Program Director, Concerned Health Professionals of NY
Zach Williams, MPH, Associate Director, Environment & Health, Physicians for Social Responsibility

The post For Public Health and to Save Money, New York Needs Renewable Energy appeared first on ANHE.

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Jeff Masters

October 28, 2025, was a very bad day to be in Jamaica. That morning, Category 5 Hurricane Melissa intensified into the strongest hurricane ever observed in the Atlantic: 190 mph (305 km/h) winds, a tie with Hurricane Allen of 1980. That afternoon Melissa powered ashore in Jamaica, causing a catastrophic $8.8 billion in damage, equivalent to 41% of Jamaica’s GDP.

Melissa came close to its maximum potential intensity

The maximum potential intensity of a tropical cyclone is the maximum strength a storm can achieve based on the existing atmospheric and oceanic conditions. Potential intensity theory was pioneered in 1987 by MIT hurricane scientist Kerry Emanuel, who showed that human-caused global warming will increase the maximum strength that a hurricane can achieve. Hurricanes are heat engines that take heat energy out of the ocean and convert it to the kinetic energy of wind, so it makes sense that the winds of the strongest hurricanes will get stronger as the oceans heat up.

Melissa’s 190-mph winds were very close to its maximum potential intensity: The hurricane’s maximum potential intensity was about 197 mph (317 km/h), according to the SHIPS model, and about 200 mph (320 km/h), according to a graphic available at the University of Wisconsin’s CIMSS (Fig. 1). It is quite rare for a hurricane to come this close to its maximum potential intensity — all conditions have to be perfect, and the atmosphere and ocean make up a complex system where perfection is rarely achieved.

Figure 1. The maximum potential intensity (MPI) of Hurricane Melissa on Oct. 28, 2025, was about 175 knots (200 mph). (Image credit: University of Wisconsin’s CIMSS)

Given the less-than-ideal conditions for intensification – light to moderate wind shear of 5-15 knots, a very slow forward speed of less than 5 mph that allowed upwelling of cooler water from the depths to affect it, and interaction with the rugged terrain of Jamaica – Melissa came remarkably close to its maximum potential intensity. (The formula for maximum potential intensity does not include wind shear and slow hurricane motion.)

So how strong could Melissa have gotten if everything were going its way? Melissa formed in late October, when ocean temperatures were about 30 degrees Celsius (86°F). Six weeks earlier, during the early- to mid- September peak of sea surface temperatures, ocean temperatures in the central Caribbean were near 31 degrees Celsius (88°F). According to a 2023 paper, the maximum potential intensity increases 5-7% per degree Celsius of sea surface temperature increase. Thus, Melissa’s maximum potential intensity would have increased by about 11-15 mph (18-25 km/h) had it formed during the September peak in sea surface temperatures. If we assume the other factors limiting its intensification were not present, Melissa could have peaked with 215 mph (345 km/h) winds.

This is the same intensity achieved by the strongest known hurricane in world history, 2015’s Hurricane Patricia. Patricia formed off the Pacific coast of Mexico over record-warm waters of 30.5-31 degrees Celsius (87-88°F). And though the difference between 180 mph and 215 mph may not seem like much, it would actually represent about a fourfold increase in damage potential, according to NOAA.

Figure 2. The strongest tropical cyclones observed globally, 1972-2025, using windspeed ratings from the National Hurricane Center for the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific and from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center elsewhere.

How strong can a hurricane get?

The global list of tropical cyclones during the satellite era (1972-present) with winds as strong or stronger than Melissa is a short one: just 11 storms (Fig. 2). (There were 19 Western Pacific typhoons from 1955-1966 that “officially” have winds of 195 mph or higher, but hurricane experts agree that the intensities assigned to typhoons during that pre-satellite period suffered from a high bias and are not reliable.)

For most of the Northern Hemisphere’s tropical cyclone-prone areas, September will be the month with the highest possible maximum potential intensity, since that is when sea surface temperatures peak. Emanuel, the MIT hurricane scientist, created maps of the top 10% maximum potential intensity expected within 1,000 km of a given point during September, using climate data from the period 1982-1995 (Fig. 3). In the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico and western Caribbean have the highest values: 224 mph (100 m/s) or higher. In the Pacific, the southern Philippines, Mexico, and most of Central America also have a top 10% maximum potential intensity of 224 mph (100 m/s) or higher.

Figure 3. Top 10% maximum potential intensity winds within 1,000 km of a given point for tropical cyclones expected during September, using climate data from the period 1982-1995. The only places with an MPI in excess of 110 m/s (246 mph) are the ocean areas of the Middle East. (Image credit: Kerry Emanuel)

Emanuel also created a table showing the top-10% maximum potential intensities for individual cities across the globe. All of these numbers (and the ones in Fig. 3) need to be adjusted upward because the climate has warmed significantly since the 1995 cutoff of the historical data used. A 2022 paper, A potential explanation for the global increase in tropical cyclone rapid intensification, reported that between 1982 and 2017, potential intensity during August-September-October in the Northern Hemisphere tropics increased by 2.3-2.4 mph per decade, or 8.6 mph over the 36-year period (1.02-1.06 m/s per decade). During that same period, Northern Hemisphere tropical sea surface temperatures increased by 0.17-0.23 degree Celsius per decade, or 0.6-0.8 degree Celsius over the 36-year period. A 2021 paper, Poleward expansion of tropical cyclone latitudes, reported similar numbers, with larger increases in potential intensity observed in the eastern Caribbean and western Gulf of Mexico.

These results suggest that the maximum potential intensity numbers in Fig. 3 and in Emanuel’s table should be adjusted upward by about 9 mph (4 m/s). Here are the adjusted numbers for the U.S. from Emanuel’s table showing the top-10% maximum potential intensities for individual cities:

Boston: 78 mph (35 m/s), Cat 1
Honolulu: 186 mph (84 m/s), Cat 5
Miami: 226 mph (101 m/s), Cat 5
Galveston: 220 mph (98 m/s), Cat 5
New Orleans: 231 mph (103 m/s), Cat 5
New York City: 112 mph (50 m/s), Cat 2
San Diego: 72 mph (32 m/s), Tropical Storm
Washington D.C.: 105 mph (47 m/s), Cat 2

Note that for cities like Boston and Washington, D.C., fast-moving storms coming from the south – where they typically move over warmer waters – can arrive at these cities at a strength higher than the local maximum potential intensity. This is why there is a separate entry in Emanuel’s table for the highest maximum potential intensity within 1,000 km of each city. I didn’t show this quantity in the list above, though it is plotted in Fig. 3.

A 300-mph (134 m/s) tropical cyclone is possible in the Persian Gulf

Globally, the highest maximum potential intensities are found in the ultrahot waters of the Middle East. There has never been a tropical cyclone observed in the Persian Gulf because it is narrow and prone to high wind shear and dry air. 

Figure 4. Category 1 Tropical Cyclone Gulab makes a bid at entering the Persian Gulf on Oct. 3, 2021. (Image credit: NASA World View)

However, for their eye-popping 2015 paper, Grey swan tropical cyclones, Ning Lin and Kerry Emanuel performed modeling showing that strong tropical cyclones can move through the Persian Gulf, representing an underappreciated threat to major cities like Dubai. The modeling showed that a sea surface temperature of 35 degrees Celsius (95°F) can create a maximum potential intensity of 296 mph (132 m/s) in the Persian Gulf. Their worst-case 1-in-30,000-year storm was a 257 mph (115 m/s) Category 5 beast with a central pressure of 784 mb that brought a colossal storm surge of 24 feet (7.5 meters) to Dubai.

The study used the climate of 1980-2010, and sea surface temperatures in the Persian Gulf have warmed significantly since then. Over the period 1981-2012, the Persian Gulf had peak summer sea surface temperatures of 32-35 degrees Celsius (90-95°F). But in July 2020, those temperatures hit 37.6 degrees Celsius (99.7°F). More recently, in August 2023, sea surface temperatures above 36 degrees Celsius (97°F) were measured over portions of the Persian Gulf. Thus, an even stronger storm – with winds over 300 mph (134 m/s) – would be possible in today’s climate.

There has been a recent close call for a strong tropical cyclone entering the Persian Gulf: In 2021, Category 1 Tropical Cyclone Gulab (Fig. 4) entered the Gulf of Oman, which connects to the Persian Gulf. A four-day forecast from the HWRF model (Fig. 5) predicted Gulab would pass over Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, enter the Persian Gulf, and then intensify into a Category 2 storm with a central pressure of 958 mb. Fortunately, Gulab ended up weakening into a tropical storm and making landfall in Oman, near the entrance to the Persian Gulf.

Figure 5. Four-day windspeed forecast from the HWRF model made on Oct. 1, 2021, for Tropical Cyclone Gulab. The model predicted Gulab would be a Category 2 storm with a central pressure of 958 mb in the Persian Gulf. Purple colors correspond to Category 1 winds (74 mph or greater). (Image credit: Levi Cowan, Tropical Tidbits)

Sources of real-time maximum potential intensity data

Kerry Emanuel’s website
University of Wisconsin CIMSS (for active storms)
SHIPS model (for active storms)

For years, farmers and ranchers in the state have been facing rising costs of inputs. Now, as a consequence of the...

The post New Bill Aims to Support CA Farmers Facing Fertilizer and Water Shortages  appeared first on CalCAN - California Climate & Agriculture Network.

A new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) finds that the expansion of US sanctions against Cuba beginning in 2017 were likely the primary cause of a major increase in infant mortality in Cuba. The report, by Alexander Main, Joe Sammut, Mark Weisbrot, and Guillaume Long examines the unprecedented increase in Cuba’s infant mortality rate (IMR), which soared by 148 percent from 2018 to 2025. During this time, US unilateral economic coercive measures against Cuba were greatly tightened by President Trump and then largely maintained under President Biden before being tightened even further during the second Trump administration. Had Cuba’s IMR remained stable over the last eight years, then approximately 1,800 deaths of infants would not have occurred.

“The Trump policy of ‘maximum pressure’ on Cuba has killed a lot of babies — and, although we don’t yet have data for the last few months, it’s highly likely that more babies are dying now, and at an even higher rate than last year as a result of the current US fuel blockade targeting Cuba,” CEPR Director of International Policy and report coauthor Alexander Main said. “The question is how many more babies will have to die before the current economic siege against Cuba is lifted.”

The report notes that “In Cuba, where for decades the state has invested substantially in health care services, the IMR was … among the lowest in the Western Hemisphere, and lower than in the US,” but that “Since 2018 … Cuba’s IMR has increased from an annual rate of 4.0 per 1000 live births to a rate of 9.9 as of 2025.”

The paper also notes that Cuba, unlike its neighbors in the region, has not rebounded economically from the COVID-19 pandemic, averaging just 0.4 percent annual per capita GDP growth from 2020 to 2024, versus 3.2 percent for the Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole.

The report looks at the economic and social effects of the hardening of US sanctions since 2017, focusing in particular on the impact on Cuba’s health-care sector. Trump administration pressure on Cuba has included restrictions that have sharply diminished the island’s important tourism sector; severely limited exports of goods to Cuba — including essential medication and medical equipment; cut Cuba’s access to international financial markets by putting the country back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list; curbed remittances; pressured countries to end their partnerships with Cuba’s medical missions, and notably imposed a recent fuel blockade that prevents Venezuelan oil from reaching the island.

“US sanctions have targeted Cuba’s key sources of export earnings, such as tourism, remittances from Cuban Americans to their family members, and even by putting pressure on other countries to end primary care programs staffed by Cuban doctors. These measures sharply reduced Cuba’s capacity to pay for needed food and medicines,” CEPR International Research Fellow and coauthor Joe Sammut said. “Cutting off medical services exports is doubly cruel as these programs mostly serve marginalized communities in poorer countries, while bringing in foreign currency revenues to Cuba in a mutually beneficial trade. As such the increasing US sanctions have a negative health-care spillover even beyond the island of 10 million people.”

As the report discusses, recent research has shown that unilateral, broad economic sanctions are as deadly as armed conflict, killing some 564,000 people annually, according to a study by CEPR economists Francisco Rodríguez, Silvio Rendón, and Mark Weisbrot published in August in The Lancet Global Health. More than half of these deaths are children under five, and deaths of infants are even more disproportionate, since they are three-quarters of the under-five population.

“The sanctions on Cuba starkly illustrate how these economic sanctions work: they target the civilian population, often with the goal of provoking regime change,” said Mark Weisbrot, CEPR Co-Director. “This can dramatically increase death rates, as shown statistically in the Lancet Global Health study of economic sanctions throughout the world. The increased mortality in Cuba fits this pattern, and the causality is visible.”

The US Senate may vote as early as Tuesday, April 28, on a War Powers Resolution introduced by Senators Tim Kaine, Adam Schiff, and Ruben Gallego to “to prevent [US] Armed Forces from engaging in hostilities [against Cuba] unless authorized by Congress.”

“This legislation pending in Congress right now argues persuasively that the current blockade constitutes a military participation in hostilities that is unlawful according to the US Constitution and law because it has not been authorized by Congress,” Weisbrot said.

“The collective punishment of civilians is prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention when there is armed conflict, and can be prosecuted as a war crime. This would appear to be applicable now that the current naval blockade involves the US military.”

The report also describes the vulnerability of newborn babies in Cuba to the impact of blackouts and fuel scarcity — as recently reported by The New York Times. “The blockade has had a particularly dire effect on Cuba’s health-care infrastructure, with frequent power outages interrupting the use of critical equipment for the treatment of patients, including incubators for premature babies, and ventilators to help sick newborns breathe,” Guillaume Long, CEPR Senior Research Fellow and coauthor said.

The report notes: “Given the effects of the US energy blockade, it is highly likely that Cuba’s infant mortality rate has increased significantly since December of 2025, when it had reached 9.9 per 1000 live births. Other key health indicators, such as life expectancy and maternal mortality have also very likely deteriorated since the beginning of the year.”

This virtual training session is designed to equip you with the essential tools and strategies of powerful nonviolent direct action. Whether you consider yourself new to taking action or a seasoned action taker with expertise to share, this webinar will deepen your understanding and sharpen your skills.

The post Register today for CELDF’s Nonviolent Direct Actions Skills with Lina Blount on May 20th from 7 to 9pm ET appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

The United States government has entered a new era of financing critical minerals projects, deploying tools that go far beyond the grants, loans, and tax incentives that have dominated US industrial policy for decades. Over the past year, the federal government has ramped up its investment strategy with a series of equity stakes in private critical mineral projects and companies.

These investments underscore the importance of critical minerals to the US economy and national security and demonstrate the lengths to which the US government is willing to go to diversify supply chains. Critical minerals are key inputs to defense, energy, and AI technologies. If the US wants to meet rising electricity demand  while creating more secure energy supply chains, it needs a more reliable supply of critical minerals.

Diversifying critical mineral supply chains will require investment, and government equity is emerging as a favorite tool of the Trump administration to de-risk and stabilize the sector. US critical mineral production is costlier than China’s, and new projects require high up-front capital costs and long lead times. While up-front investment from the federal government can help push projects forward, their long-term success will ultimately depend on market stability and sustained product demand. So far, critical minerals projects that have received equity investments have experienced jumps in their stock prices and additional private sector investment.

Yet, while equity deals can shore up or kick-start projects, it is yet to be seen whether they can create the market signal required for a sustainable operating environment. To build a durable US critical mineral industry, federal supply-side investment, like equity, must be paired with demand-side support to create a sustained market.

In the meantime, developing a Congressionally authorized program that follows the critical mineral equity investment framework proposed in this article can strengthen deals and create a suite of coordinated investments that help stabilize the critical minerals market.

Why is the critical mineral industry attracting government investment?

Critical minerals are significant inputs to a broad array of technologies in different industries, including semiconductors, permanent magnets, electric motors, transmission, batteries, solar photovoltaic cells, wind turbines, and advanced industrial equipment. Key minerals to the energy transition include copper, gallium, nickel, rare earth elements, graphite, lithium, and cobalt. These minerals are used in everything from chips to cooling systems in data centers to actuators and alloys in specialized defense equipment.

The critical mineral market is concentrated in a few countries, creating the potential for supply disruption, with China dominating the critical mineral mining and refining market. The US Geological Survey found that the US relies on China for 24 mineral commodities, and China is the leading producing nation for 30 critical minerals globally. China controls the global production of approximately 77% of natural graphite, 70% of rare earth elements, and 98% of gallium.

Market concentration in China has created complex trade dynamics and market uncertainty. In 2023, China announced export controls including permit requirements for exports of gallium and germanium and a ban on rare earth extraction and separation technologies. In the spring of 2025, the US announced import tariffs on China, and China announced export controls on seven heavy rare earth elements. US investment in critical minerals would reduce dependence on China by creating a new steady supply.

Government critical mineral equity deals

The US government has historically invested in critical mineral companies to spur domestic industry, promote innovation, and stockpile key national security inputs. These investments have mainly been grants and loans managed by the Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, and the US International Development Finance Corporation.

Tax credits have also been used to incentivize domestic production of critical minerals and battery components, such as the Advanced Manufacturing Production Tax Credit (45X), the Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Credit (48C), and the now phased out complementary New Clean Vehicle Credit, which required domestic critical mineral and battery inputs to increase domestic demand.

In 2025, we saw a series of announcements from the US government providing up-front capital to acquire equity stakes in critical mineral mine projects. While equity investments are not new for the US government, the quantity of equity-based investments in the critical mineral sector is, with 7 projects being announced over the past year.

These critical minerals deals have taken stakes in companies or specific projects, such as through a special purpose vehicle, a legal entity created for one specific project separate from a parent company. The deals have included equity stakes, preferred stock, warrants for future stock purchases, and in some cases minority positions on boards, price floors, and offtake agreements.

Historically, federal equity investments have been used relatively sparingly and often in response to specific economic or strategic circumstances. However, US government equity stakes in private companies have crossed sectors and administrations. In 2008, the US Department of the Treasury purchased preferred stocks in several banking and automotive companies through the Troubled Asset Relief Program to stabilize the US financial system. In 2025, the US government made equity investments in sectors beyond critical minerals, such as Intel and Nippon Steel.

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 trends do we see in critical mineral deals passed so far?

• Many of the projects are already in development or actively under construction.
• The majority of projects are funded by the Department of Defense.
• Many of the projects are financed by more than one federal agency.
• The US government is restructuring existing funding from previously awarded grants and loans into these new deals.
• Deals have been announced alongside already committed private investment. Three deals had subsequent offtake agreements or investments with private companies.
• The majority of projects are for facilities based in the United States. The exception is the Alcoa Sojitz Gallium Recovery Project to build a gallium refinery in Western Australia. This project was a joint investment with Australia and Japan.

The MP Materials deal stands apart because the equity investment is complemented by a guaranteed price floor and an offtake commitment. For 10 years the US government will purchase at $110 per kilogram the rare earth elements product neodymium-praseodymium or price match if purchased by another company for a lower price. The deal also included a 10-year commitment to purchase 100% of the magnets produced at a proposed facility. This sets a powerful demand safeguard to ensure the increased output has a market that can keep the company afloat.

At the time of the deal, China had implemented a tariff of 125% on US imports, including rare earth concentrates from the Mountain Pass mine. Rare earth materials are critically important to defense, and the US government stepped in to ensure the facilities were kept online.

The deals that have succeeded MP materials have not included offtake agreements or price floors. In February this year, the White House launched a new US Strategic Critical Minerals Reserve, Project Vault, to store critical minerals for civilian industries at facilities across the United States, backed by the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM).

A framework to finance the future

As a key input to energy, the US government should bolster investments in critical mineral supply chains to increase domestic capacity and diversify global supply. Equity investments are one financing mechanism that with careful design could help stabilize the critical minerals market.

A congressionally authorized program that provides equity investments in critical minerals projects would codify some of the benefits of government stakes with the purpose of strategically building a portfolio of investments that support long-term market stability. A congressional program would set safeguards to protect market stability and taxpayer funds. Whether establishing a new program or consolidating deals into an existing one, a centralized federal program could sharpen the government’s understanding of the long-term impacts of equity investments while allowing it to build out expertise to better support potential board representation and eventual exit strategies. The program could be cross-sector, covering projects to support acute energy and infrastructure supply chain risks or targeted at critical mineral projects.

With more dedicated resources to evaluate projects, the program could consider the following project framework to maximize market-wide impact and strengthen critical mineral supply chains.

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}}});

So far, deals have been financed by the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Energy. A new program could either sit in one of these existing departments or in a new, more targeted organization.

Going beyond equity deals

Equity deals demonstrate the US government’s willingness to intervene more directly in critical mineral supply chains. They can catalyze investment, accelerate projects, and stabilize strategically important facilities.

To secure the production of minerals essential to energy, defense, and digital infrastructure, the United States should pair capital with predictability and build a coherent, transparent, and strategic program capable of steering investment where it has the greatest impact.

While equity deals provide strong up-front capital, equity alone is not enough. Without demand-side policies that guarantee buyers, stabilize prices, or provide incentives for domestic sourcing, even well-capitalized projects may fail to thrive.

The New Energy Industrial Strategy Center

The NEIS Center is a thought partner, funder, and community builder that helps create advanced energy systems that support competitive economies and power the industries of the future.

The post Securing Energy Supply Chains: One Critical Mineral Deal at a Time? appeared first on RMI.

If your community is thinking about building a renewable energy project, you will need to make important decisions around who owns and profits from the project. This guide will walk you through the basics of project ownership covering topics such as:...

Welcome to CELDF’s America 250: A Revolutionary Perspective, an ongoing series this year.

The post CELDF’s What is America 250: A Revolutionary Perspective appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

In the United States, public lands have often been treated like they exist for one main purpose: extraction. The actions of this administration treat them as if it’s public, it’s “available.”

Although that idea isn’t always said directly or out loud, it shows up clearly in how decisions get made, especially in national forests, where roadbuilding is usually the first step toward things like mining, large-scale logging, and other forms of industrial extraction that permanently reshape the landscape.

That pattern is exactly what the Roadless Rule was designed to help fix. It protects some of the last large, intact national forests from new road construction and large-scale development.

Today, that protection is again being targeted by the Trump administration, with efforts underway to roll it back nationwide. If that happens, tens of millions of acres of national forests could be opened to new roads and industrial use. Many of these areas are among the least fragmented forests left in the country.

It’s also no coincidence that this is unfolding alongside a broader restructuring at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Forest Service itself, where staffing, capacity, and decision-making authority have been under sustained pressure and internal change. Weakening the Roadless Rule at the same time the agency responsible for managing these lands is being reshaped compounds risk across the entire system, reducing both the guardrails on the landscape and the institutional capacity meant to defend it.

Alaska Wilderness League is no stranger to this fight. For years, we’ve worked alongside Tribal governments, local communities, and conservation partners to resist repeated attempts to open forests to clear-cutting and new roads, especially in places like the Tongass and Chugach. Because what’s at stake is whether these ecosystems remain intact long enough to function at all, supporting climate stability, salmon runs, and the communities that depend on them.

Photo: Alaska Wilderness League

And to understand why this fight keeps coming back, you have to understand what roads actually do to a forest in the first place.

The Roadless Rule

As Dr. Seuss’s Lorax once said, “It’s not about what it is, it’s about what it can become,” and a road in a forest can change everything.

By the end of the 20th century, national forests already contained more than 380,000 miles of roads. That network fundamentally reshaped how these ecosystems function. It disrupted wildlife habitat, cutting ecosystems into smaller and more isolated patches. It altered salmon systems through sedimentation, stream channel changes, and blocked access to spawning grounds. It changed how water moves through entire watersheds in ways that continue long after roads are no longer actively used.

Figure: Selva N., Hoffmann M.T., Kati V., Kreft S., Ibisch P.L. (in press). Emerging topics in Road Ecology. Roadless areas. In: M. D’Amico, R. Barrientos, F. Ascensão (Eds). Road Ecology: Synthesis and Perspectives. Springer. Still in press.

The Roadless Rule is one of the most significant conservation actions taken for national forests in modern U.S. history. In 2001, after years of scientific analysis, public comment, and environmental review, the U.S. government finalized the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which protects 58.5 million acres of National Forest land, about a third of the entire Forest Service system. The rule prohibits most new road construction in those areas and significantly limits large-scale timber harvests in these landscapes, recognizing that once fragmentation begins, it rarely ever stops.

Take Action The Tongass and Chugach National Forests

Nowhere is that pressure more visible than in Alaska.

The Tongass National Forest is the largest temperate rainforest in the world, covering about 17 million acres in Southeast Alaska. It contains old-growth forests, salmon-bearing rivers, and coastal ecosystems that support extraordinary biodiversity. Within it, the Roadless Rule protects more than 9 million undeveloped acres, over half the forest, keeping these landscapes intact and connected, rather than divided by industrial access. These areas are critical for salmon habitat, subsistence use, and not to mention stores 8-10 percent of carbon in the U.S.

Tongass National Forest (Photo: Alaska Wilderness League)

The Chugach National Forest spans about 5.4 million acres in southcentral Alaska and includes glaciers, fjords, and river systems shaped by ice and meltwater. Its roadless areas protect headwaters that feed salmon-producing watersheds flowing into Prince William Sound and the Copper River Delta. What happens upstream here determines the health of entire coastal ecosystems downstream.

Chugach National Forest (Photo: AWL Staff / Mladen Mates)

Together, these roadless areas are functioning systems that support fisheries, climate resilience, and watershed stability. And because they remain unfragmented, they still have the capacity to adapt. That capacity disappears the moment a road gets built. Which is why these places have been a target for decades.

A Long History

The Roadless Rule has never been politically stable. Since its creation, it has been repeatedly challenged in court, revised through administrative action, and targeted for exemptions or repeal. In the early 2000s, it was replaced with a state-by-state petition system that was later struck down in federal court, restoring nationwide protections. Each attempt has followed the same arc: weaken the rule, open the door, then face legal and public pushback that forces it back into place.

In 2020, the Trump administration removed Roadless protections from the Tongass explicitly and exclusively, opening millions of acres of old-growth forest to potential roadbuilding and timber harvest. In 2023, that decision was reversed by the Biden administration under a new federal review process, restoring protections once again.

And outside of Alaska, the same vulnerability exists. Roadless areas stretch across Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, California, and other states, often serving as the last remaining large, unbroken forest landscapes in regions already heavily developed.

Which brings us to the largest attempt yet to unwind these protections at scale.

The Current Rollback Effort

In 2025, the USDA began the process of removing the Roadless Rule nationwide. If finalized, it would eliminate protections for 58.5 million acres of national forest and allow new road construction in areas that have been protected for more than two decades.

The public comment period for this proposal was 21 days, a grossly short amount of time for something that would change our national forests forever. Despite that, over half a million public comments were submitted opposing the rollback.

If the rule is eliminated, it would remove the legal restriction on road construction in currently roadless areas, effectively turning “protected by policy” into “open season for industrial development.” In practice, that unlocks industrial logging, mining access, and long-term fragmentation of landscapes.

In Alaska, that means it would reopen roadless portions of the Tongass and Chugach, including old-growth forests and remote watershed headwaters that have remained intact for decades. And in other parts of the U.S., it would apply to inventoried roadless areas that currently function as some of the least disturbed forest ecosystems left.

The Roadless Area Conservation Act (RACA)

In response to these rollbacks is a piece of legislation called the Roadless Area Conservation Act (RACA).

Reintroduced in 2025, RACA would codify Roadless Rule protections into law, ending the cycle of administrative reversal that has defined this issue for more than 20+ years. Instead of protections shifting every time leadership changes, it would lock them into statute, placing the baseline of protection beyond the reach of executive reinterpretation.

If passed, the Act would:

• Make protections permanent for roadless areas
• Prohibit new road construction in these areas, with limited exceptions
• Reduce the risk of future rollbacks tied to political change
• Provide long-term stability for forests, wildlife, and watershed health

Since its reintroduction, Alaska Wilderness League has helped build bipartisan momentum behind the bill, working across constituencies to make clear this is not a regional issue or a partisan one. It’s about whether intact public lands remain intact.

What’s Next

Roadless areas include some of the largest remaining connected forest landscapes in the entire National Forest system. These are places where ecosystems still function, where wildlife can live freely without disruption, salmon systems still run from headwaters to ocean, and forests still store carbon and regulate water the way they have for centuries.

The window for shaping the outcome of the Roadless Rule rescission is not closed. A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and proposed rule will result in another public comment period sometime in Spring 2026.

This isn’t just a fight for the Tongass or Chugach. It’s a fight for every roadless forest in the National Forest system, for every Tribal nation whose treaty rights depend on healthy ecosystems and federal stewardship being upheld, and for every community whose economies and identities are tied to functioning watersheds and intact wildlands.

Our National Forests are not a renewable resource in any meaningful human timeframe. What’s lost here is lost for generations, if that. And what’s dismantled now will take far longer to rebuild than it took to remove.

We’ve done this before, and we will keep showing up, through every rollback attempt and every effort to chip away at what’s already been secured.

Take Action

The skies over Rowe Sanctuary have grown noticeably quieter in recent weeks, as the calls of sandhill cranes drift north with the spring migration. With their departure, I find myself reflecting on...

May 3rd Online Event – The American Chestnut: A Conversation with Environmental Historian Dr. Donald Davis Thoreau Farm, May 3rd at 2pm Eastern Register to watch on Zoom Presented by the Thoreau Alliance Before 1910, the American chestnut was one of the most common—and cherished—trees in the eastern United States. Its rot-resistant wood framed barns […]

Editor’s note: This article is a joint publication of SEJournal and The Revelator.

Like a lot of journalists, I love writing underdog stories.

For me, though, covering an underdog story might mean reporting about red wolves — or wolf spiders or wolfsnails.

For more than 20 years, I’ve been on the extinction beat, writing stories about rare or endangered species, the people trying to understand what’s threatening them or how to save them, and the plants and animals it’s now too late to save.

Along the way I’ve written more species “obituaries” than I ever imagined I might.

Most recently I collected the stories of more than 30 species declared extinct in 2025. Many of these disappearances were caused by the same factors that threaten people around the world: climate change, pollution, development, income inequality, and introduced diseases.

But at the same time, I’ve written about species recoveries, rediscoveries, conservation victories (big and small), scientific breakthroughs, and the very human efforts behind them all.

That’s one of the secrets of the extinction beat: You’re writing about animals and plants, but at the same time you’re really writing about people — at their worst and at their best.

Yes, it’s a difficult beat, one with more bad news than good. But looking back at the past couple of decades, I can see several reasons why I’ve stuck with it.

Writing About Extinction Is (Believe It or Not) Hopeful

I’ve said this several times over the past few years: Writing about extinction is an inherently hopeful act.

That might seem like a disconnect, but here’s the truth: Although I’ve covered hundreds of extinctions, I’ve written or edited thousands of articles about species surviving, often with the help of scientists and conservationists, sometimes through their own tenacity.

Even the negative stories — the tales of population declines or disappearances, the new threats that emerge, the projections of climate change — only happen because people are looking into those problems. And the discovery of a problem is the first step toward a solution.

That’s another secret of the extinction beat: While the word “extinction” implies a finality, the journalism surrounding it is rarely about “the end.” Instead, it’s often about preventing that end.

We write about what has been lost, what’s being lost, to ensure we have the knowledge and the collective will to prevent further declines or the next extinction.

Every story is potentially a lesson in what to protect and a road map for how to do it better.

Extinction Is About People

Behind every endangered species is a spider’s web of scientists, activists, and local communities whose lives are intertwined with that animal or plant.

Telling their stories and describing their passions or dramas brings a relatability to stories about species who can’t speak on their own — which might otherwise be more challenging when writing about unfairly maligned creatures like snakes, insects or parasites.

When we write about a species on the brink, we’re often also writing about the people who refuse to let it go — the ones who spend their lives in remote habitats, in labs or in the halls of government, fighting for creatures who will never know their names or who few people will ever see.

And that’s another secret about the extinction beat: These people can also be the underdogs of your story. They’re the ones fighting the system, often against seemingly impossible odds.

Extinction Is About Culture

Our societies are built upon observations of the natural world. When that world unravels, so does human culture.

Take sports, for example. How many teams are named after rapidly disappearing species? Or employ animals as their anthropomorphic mascots? What would the Detroit Tigers be without actual tigers?

Or go deeper, into our religions, fables, creation stories, idioms, slang, pop culture. They’re all deeply rooted in the natural world and in the ecosystems that we inhabit.

When a species goes extinct, it isn’t just a biological loss; it’s a cultural one. We lose a piece of the world that informed our ancestors’ stories and our children’s imaginations.

Writing about extinction is, in many ways, an act of cultural preservation. We’re helping to prevent the “extinction of experience” — where we even forget the way things once were.

Plants and Animals Can’t Tell Their Own Stories

One major reason why endangered species are underdogs is that they can’t tell their own stories — at least, not directly. They can’t explain to indifferent humans how their habitats are changing or advocate for their right to exist.

As journalists we act as their translators, bringing the dangers they face into the light for a world that might otherwise overlook them — and in the process, perhaps, we provide a new lens to help our readers understand the threats we all face.

Plastic pollution is an obvious example. The photos of sea turtles with plastic straws up their noses helped change behavior for many people.

More broadly, can describing the threats a species faces from climate change, PFAS pollution, or wildfires help readers understand that those threats are coming for them, too?

Every Species Is Amazing

Let’s step back from the doom and gloom and remember that just about every species has something amazing about it. A certain biological function, unique vocalizations, mating habits, feeding behaviors, migratory feats …

A recent paper found that conveying the awe about nature can inspire pro-environmental behaviors, such as helping and supporting conservation efforts. Even extinct species had unique qualities that we can recognize and mourn.

Think of chimpanzees. How much more endangered would they be today if Jane Goodall hadn’t spent years studying their behavior and bringing that story to the world (with the help of many journalists)?

As an aside, one of the most frustrating things about covering extinct and endangered species is the dearth of good photos for many of them. But when you finally find the right image? That can often sell your story as well as your words.

If Not Me, Who Else?

I often ask myself: If I don’t cover these stories, who else will?

Despite the stakes, extinction stories remain chronically underrepresented in environmental journalism and in the broader media landscape. We’re saturated with political commentary, influencer videos and sports analysis, but the literal disappearance of life on Earth often struggles to find space on the front page — let alone manage to reach eyeballs through social media algorithms.

But I’m always surprised. My stories do find readers, and they make a difference. They’ve inspired fundraisers, petitions, podcasts, and even a death-metal album. They’ve been cited in lawsuits and the Federal Register. They’ve brought “thank you” emails from readers around the world, many of whom have found ways to explore their grief for a disappearing world, or who have found their own ways to participate in conservation.

And so, as I do whenever I talk about this subject, I’ll now turn my question around: Why not you?

Joining the extinction beat is not just a professional choice. It can be a deeply rewarding and emotional journey, a chance to stand out from the pack, an opportunity to tell unique stories and a way to make a difference.

Reporting stories about species teetering on the brink of extinction allows you to tap into local expertise, explore your own regional culture and highlight species who exist in your own backyard. Or you can focus on faraway animals who rank high in our popular culture, or even species who few people realize even exist.

From a practical standpoint, you won’t be competing with 1,000 other climate journalists for the same headline. Instead, you may find new, vital angles that resonate with readers on their own emotional levels — and keep them coming back for more.

And in a world where journalism itself is an endangered species, that may be one of the best reasons of all.

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator

Why Don’t We Hear About More Species Going Extinct?

The post Why I Write About Extinction appeared first on The Revelator.

A tool for understanding the relationship between capitalism and nature and how to change it

Source

John Deere, an American agricultural, construction, and forestry equipment manufacturer, is opening new facilities in the United States and rehiring some of its laid-off workforce. But these moves, make a modest dent in the thousands of U.S. jobs the company has cut in recent years while Deere’s sizable global presence continues to expand.

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump announced that John Deere will open two new U.S. facilities—a distribution center near Hebron, Indiana, and a manufacturing site in Kernersville, North Carolina.

According to a press release from Indiana Governor Mike Braun, the company plans to invest US$125 million to construct and equip a 1.2 million-square-foot warehouse and distribution center on 234 acres near Hebron. In North Carolina, Deere is putting US$70 million toward expanding its Kernersville plant, which will take over excavator production previously based in Japan.

John Deere estimates that each site will generate about 150 jobs, underscoring the company’s intent to continue driving U.S. innovation and jobs, says John May, Chairman and CEO of John Deere.

Deere has also pledged to invest US$20 billion in U.S. manufacturing and is reinstating some previously laid-off employees including 146 employees in Waterloo, 24 in Dubuque, and 75 in Davenport.

But the new facilities and limited callbacks make only a modest dent in the significant losses across Deere’s U.S. operations in recent years. John Deere, an American company with deep midwestern roots, began making substantial lay-offs in October 2023, when the company fired 225 production employees from a plant in East Moline, Illinois.

In 2024, Deere cut 2,167 jobs across key facilities, including nearly 1,000 in Waterloo and hundreds more in Davenport, Dubuque, Ankeny, Ottumwa, Moline, and East Moline. Layoffs continued into 2025, with over 500 workers let go in Iowa alone.

Deere says that about 80 percent of the equipment it sells in the U.S. is manufactured domestically. Nevertheless, its international operations remain integral to its business model and supply chain.

International markets are a major driver of Deere’s revenue, providing nearly half of its consolidated net sales and revenues. The company employs 75,000 people worldwide, but more than half are abroad: only 30,000 employees are located in the U.S.

The company manufactures equipment and components throughout a global network, producing backhoes and planting equipment in Brazil, tractor engines and combines in Argentina, crushers and sprayers in Germany, feederhouses in France, cotton harvesters in China, and tractor screens in India.

And Deere continues to expand internationally, prompting scrutiny over how the company balances U.S. manufacturing with global production. The company recently announced that they’re moving their skid steer and track loader manufacturing from Dubuque, Iowa, to a new facility in Ramos, Mexico, and confirmed plans to build a US$55 million plant in Nuevo León to manufacture mini track loaders and mini wheel loaders.

Trump has said Deere’s new facilities as a win for U.S. manufacturing, announcing the projects at a January rally and on social media. The White House also highlighted Deere’s U.S. projects as part of a list of new investments during Trump’s second term as evidence of the President’s “unwavering commitment to revitalizing American industry.”

However, the groundwork for both projects had been laid in 2024 under the Biden-Harris administration. Deere’s planned expansion in Kernersville was first announced in 2024, according to Reuters.

Plans for the Indiana site trace back to a land acquisition that same year, which details the purchase of a 234-acre undeveloped parcel in northwest Indiana that “will be the future site of a 1.2-million-square-foot John Deere warehouse/distribution.” When asked about the timing, the company noted that some of these plans had been disclosed earlier.

Deere has indicated that its long-term strategy will continue “regardless” of political developments in the U.S.. But policy changes under the Trump-Vance administration are proving expensive. According to The Wall Street Journal, Deere incurred roughly US$600 million in tariff-related costs in its 2025 fiscal year and expects that figure to climb to about US$1.2 billion this year.

The broader equipment manufacturing sector is also facing headwinds: output and employment have declined from 2022 levels, according to the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, prompting concerns about the long-term trajectory of U.S. production. “The path that we are on is leading us to less manufacturing in the United States,” says Kip Eideberg, the Association’s Senior Vice President of Government and Industry Relations.

The workers being called back represent a small but significant reprieve for communities hit hard by recent layoffs. “When those layoffs are announced, it doesn’t just throw the family—it throws an entire town into confusion and chaos and worry,” explains Charlie Wishman, President of the Iowa AFL-CIO.

But for many others, the damage remains: Deere’s sweeping changes to its U.S. workforce have sparked both uncertainty and outrage, leaving hundreds of families questioning how they will pay rent, put food on the table, and find new sources of income.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Chris Robert, Unsplash

The post Can New Deere Jobs and Facilities Offset Years of Layoffs? appeared first on Food Tank.

This commemoration represents a critical moment to reaffirm and strengthen the human rights of peasants, while also reflecting on the long history of their struggles against deep-rooted structural challenges.

The post Indonesia: On Indonesian Peasants’ Rights Day, SPI Calls for Revision of the Peasants’ Rights Law appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.