News Feeds

View USDA’s guide on how to become certified organic: Becoming Certified Find certifying agents in your area using USDA’s Organic Certifier Locator FSA’s Organic Certification Cost Share Program provides cost share assistance for farmers who are obtaining or renewing their organic certification. The program covers up to 75% of certification costs. The application deadline for […]

The post Links & Information: The Road to Organic appeared first on RAFI.

Books & Articles Why SNAP Works, by Christopher Bosso (2025) The Queen: The Forgotten Life Behind an American Myth by Josh Levin (2019) “Welfare queen” stereotype (2022) Big Hunger by Andrew Fisher (2017) The Painful Truth about Hunger in America by Mariana Chilton (2024) Videos & Documentaries A Place at the Table (2013) The danger […]

The post Links & Information: Corporate Welfare Queens appeared first on RAFI.

The National AgrAbility Project currently has state / regional projects in 21 states: AK, CA, UT, NM, CO, TX, SD, NE, MO, WI, IL, IN, MI, OH, PA, ME, VA, TN, SC, GA, & FL. Five additional states also have affiliate projects: ID, WY, KS, IA, & NC. Learn more about service in your state […]

The post Links & Information – Farming with Disabilities appeared first on RAFI.

Bassirou Sani Boubacar Gaoh has spent the last decade trying to figure out how the plants feeding millions across Niger can better withstand the unpredictability of a warming planet. Extreme heat waves and severe droughts that alternate with heavy rainfall and flash floods are imperiling the many millet, rice, and sorghum farms throughout the Sahel region, where temperatures have risen much faster than the global average. 

Yet the biggest threat to those farms is neither heat, droughts, nor floods, but the infestations unleashed with their arrival. The millet head miner is one of the most notorious of these hordes. The destructive moth lays eggs directly onto the flowering heads of the pearl millet crop, which hatch into larvae that feed voraciously from within the plant’s florets. Drought, sandy soils, and certain farming practices, such as sowing fields too early, only worsen infestations. 

“In a bad year, it can wipe out a large part of a family harvest,” said Boubacar Gaoh. Domestic agriculture, he noted, is both the West African nation’s economic backbone and the foundation of most families’ access to food. Roughly 2.4 million people throughout Niger face acute food insecurity and 1.6 million children suffer from acute malnutrition. “When you’re talking about a crop that feeds the household, that isn’t just lost income. It’s less food on the table,” he said. 

Bassirou Sani Boubacar Gaoh (center) and another researcher talk with a farmer in Konni, Niger, about the pest challenges he faces in his field.
Courtesy of Bassirou Sani Boubacar Gaoh

Boubacar Gaoh’s grandparents were millet farmers, so as a plant breeder in Niamey specializing in staple crops, he’s personally invested in developing on-the-ground solutions to help protect growers from pests like the millet head miner. In November 2024, he launched a program that sought to equip local farmers with the tools they need for crop disease surveillance and pest control. In partnership with an agricultural research hub hosted by Pennsylvania State University, the work was funded through the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Feed the Future Innovation Labs program.  

From the start, he and his team set out to visit farmers across Niger, offering hands-on training on how to fight pests and disease affecting their harvests, teaching them not only how to use free technologies like PlantVillage, an AI-powered mobile platform for pest and disease forecasting, but how to confront infestations. Solutions for containing infestations vary, but farmers first must spot the bugs behind them — a tricky feat, especially in the case of the millet head miner, which can do some real damage undetected. That’s where monitoring tools, said Boubacar Gaoh, can make all the difference. “Timing is everything. … It only strikes during a short window as the grain forms,” he said. “The real reduction in crop loss comes from acting on that warning at the right moment.” 

Last January, they were preparing to roll out the use of natural predators to eradicate the millet head miner, along with a multitude of other agricultural menaces. They’d even just met with officials at Niger’s Ministry of Agriculture to negotiate use of their data to inform the government’s understanding of crop health and national surveillance systems. 

Then, without warning, it was all over. On January 24, 2025, days after his inauguration, President Donald Trump issued a stop-work order that suspended nearly all of USAID’s overseas programs, before dismantling the agency entirely. In the months that followed, nearly all of the 17 core Innovation Labs, anchored in American universities with a network of international partners, received funding termination notices. 

Boubacar Gaoh stayed on part time, drawing on a small stipend provided by a donor to the Penn State lab, but the rest of his team in Niger was let go. In the year and a half since, he has pivoted to chasing funding sources in an increasingly fraught and competitive philanthropic landscape. He’s had little luck. 

“I was surprised when it was stopped — because, why? Everyone knows that with climate change, pests are moving around. The conditions are so that these pests can grow and develop in the region where previously they couldn’t develop and affect food supply,” said Boubacar Gaoh. 

Boubacar Gaoh’s team conducted diagnostic visits all over Niger, including at a watermelon plot (left) and a vegetable farm (right). Then, without warning, it was all over.​ ​Courtesy of Bassirou Sani Boubacar Gaoh​

A statement by the White House on the funding cuts issued last fall, when it formally cancelled the $72 million funding the program, described USAID’s spending as “woke, weaponized, and wasteful.” By then, the administration had gutted all but one lab. The Climate-Resilient Cereals Innovation Lab at Kansas State University was given the go-ahead to continue its research. (The lab has since rebranded itself as the “Innovation Lab for Cereals.”) Because Congress appropriated the funds, questions surfaced on the legality of Trump’s power to withhold the funding, but then the Supreme Court ruled that the president had the discretion to do so. 

“Why were all the other labs terminated?” Timothy Dalton, then-interim director of the Kansas lab, asked at the time. “When they’re doing such critically important work as we are doing, in order to combat global food insecurity and to generate scientific advances that can be harnessed by the U.S. agricultural community?” A university spokesperson for the cereals lab declined Grist’s request for an interview. 

This March, the State Department issued a new call for proposals for Feed the Future Innovation Labs, inviting any U.S.-based university to submit a statement of interest in an open competition for the resurrected program. The call for applications described the labs as mechanisms “to advance global food security in alignment with U.S. policy through targeted research.” Approximately five to seven awards were anticipated, the listing noted, ranging from $20 million to $40 million. To the scientists watching their labs get dismantled a year earlier, the announcement raised an obvious question: resurrected for whom, and to do what?  

Although the labs’ stated goals on hunger and food security haven’t changed much, where the work happens could look very different under the Trump administration’s redesigned version of the program. Former USAID officials and innovation lab directors told Grist that they are concerned that lower-income African regions, which had always been the focus of the program, have now been deprioritized in favor of countries in the Western Hemisphere.

“A 27-page document of criteria, and Africa gets three paragraphs on the last page,” said Jim Gaffney, a former general development officer at USAID’s Bureau for Food Security. “It never says you should not work in African countries. But it’s obvious it’s not terribly important to them.” 

According to one American researcher, “We were learning from African colleagues about genetic sources of disease resistance that we could bring over. … It was a two-way street.”  Courtesy of Bassirou Sani Boubacar Gaoh

Africa just surpassed Asia as the continent with the largest number of people facing hunger, according to the annual State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report released last week by a cohort of United Nations agencies. Swaths of the continent are seeing temperature rises up to 1.5 times the global mean, which imperils food security, ecosystems, and economies, and has fueled mass displacement and migration. Floods, heat waves, and droughts forced 700,000 people out of their homes in 2024, according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization. A growing body of research has found food insecurity, climate change, and migration to be closely interlinked with geopolitical instability.

Gaffney said the State Department’s implicit deprioritization of Africa is likely to have created a chilling effect on the number of agricultural research and development proposals focusing on the continent, which could have serious knock-on implications for the global food system. “People say, ‘Well, it’s good, it’s great that we’re doing these things for these low-income countries,’ but it’s also great for U.S. research,” said Gaffney. “We solve problems in Africa, and those same problems might hit our shores someday here in the U.S., and we’ll be ready for them.” The other major change in the call for applications was the erasure of climate-related research priorities. 

Across the country, universities followed the guidelines: They stripped their submissions of mentions of “climate change” and pivoted to “desirable” geographies. 

Read Next Trump gutted USAID. Hunger and violence followed. Ayurella Horn-Muller

David Hughes, the former director of the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Current and Emerging Threats to Crops at Penn State, which had supported Boubacar Gaoh’s work in Niger, said his team swapped out terms like “climate change stress” for “drought” in their application. The State Department didn’t respond to a question about their decision-making process, but, referring to the practices of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, Hughes says that the Penn State team had in mind that the government had been “running these proposals through word search or AI.”

The Penn State lab also expanded its geographic range. Their application, shared with Grist, listed Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, Peru, Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, and Nepal as proposed target countries. It did not mention supporting Boubacar Gaoh’s efforts in Niger. “We did, of course, maybe do a little more in this hemisphere. Although I point out that this hemisphere includes West Africa as well. I don’t think they know their geography,” said Hughes. Ultimately, the lab’s application was denied. 

In a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing last June, Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, who represents Mississippi, asked Russell Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, for assurances that specific innovation labs, including a Mississippi State University lab focused on fisheries, would be protected from budget cuts. 

“The lab’s work illustrates the proverb, ‘Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.’ This is exactly what the MSU Fish Innovation Lab is doing,” said Hyde-Smith at the hearing. “Rather than giving other countries food, we are teaching them how to feed themselves through modern aquaculture practices.”

The next iteration of innovation labs is starting to take shape. A preliminary list obtained by Grist reveals that approximately seven new project proposals have advanced to the next and final stage of the application round. The labs advancing are from institutions almost exclusively in Republican-majority states. Kansas State University, Mississippi State University, the University of Florida, two labs at Alabama’s Auburn University, South Carolina’s Clemson University, and the University of Georgia were all asked to submit a full proposal, according to multiple sources familiar with the State Department’s new program. The work led by Clemson features a collaboration with the University of Hawaiʻi, making it the only lab with blue-state representation. 

Sources told Grist that the team behind the Mississippi State proposal is from the very same fisheries lab that Hyde-Smith had publicly lobbied Vought for. The lab declined Grist’s request for an interview. 

“It doesn’t feel like, by chance, it would just be red states receiving these awards,” said a former USAID official involved with the program who asked to remain anonymous. 

Others are questioning whether the administration’s newfound version of the innovation labs will actually look all that different to the version that was culled. Carrie Seay-Fleming, an assistant professor specializing in food security and the environment at the University of Minnesota Duluth who has studied the impact of Feed the Future, found a surprisingly similar emphasis on “increasing productivity” and “market-based solutions” in the State Department’s language. “Which of course makes you wonder what the cancellation of the old programs achieved,” said Seay-Fleming. 

A spokesperson at the State Department told Grist in an email that “applications are evaluated against the published criteria in the funding opportunity, without regard to the political characteristics of an applicant’s home state.” The spokesperson declined to clarify when grant awards would be finalized or announced, nor did they comment on changes to funding criteria. However, the spokesperson did note that the agency plans to obligate funds into awards by the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30. 

The spokesperson said the Feed the Future Innovation Labs funding opportunity is evaluated to ensure it makes the country stronger, safer, and more prosperous. In order to align with national interests, foreign assistance and research investments must “directly benefit American farmers, researchers, and taxpayers, rather than being shaped by the priorities of the prior administration,” the spokesperson added.

Among those invited to advance was the Innovation Lab for Peanut at the University of Georgia, which worked with peanut farmers in roughly 13 countries but focused on Senegal, Ghana, Uganda, Malawi, and Zambia, and had been a participant in the earlier version of the USAID program. After the collapse of USAID, the lab was forced to close. When the administration resurrected the funds, former lab leadership decided to apply for the funds and see if they could rebuild much of the work they had been doing beforehand. Jamie Rhoads, former assistant director at the peanut lab, wasn’t optimistic about their chances. 

“We tried to globalize it a little bit, and shifted the language a little bit toward the more safer, stronger, more ‘America First’ kind of language,” said Rhoads, who contributed to the new proposal. “We kind of made a pitch for the sake of the U.S. industry, and also the potential domestic demand happening in Africa, [that] this is a valuable investment to make in Africa.” 

Read Next To keep climate science alive, researchers are speaking in code Kate Yoder, Ayurella Horn-Muller, & Clayton Aldern

So it was a welcome surprise when, in June, the UGA lab advanced to the next, and final, stage of the State Department’s process. “It was kind of frustrating because we had to put all this ‘America First’ language into it, but a lot of what we were doing was already, in the best sense of things, using American goodwill and technology,” said Rhoads. “We were learning from African colleagues about genetic sources of disease resistance that we could bring over that are useful for our varieties potentially, or globally. It was a two-way street.” 

Indeed, American farmers would also benefit from this type of research based in Africa. That includes farmers like Josh Johnson, who runs the Old Tyme Bean Company in Elloree, South Carolina. In recent years, as rising temperatures have made it increasingly difficult to grow varieties of heat-sensitive Southern crops, Johnson has pivoted toward growing cowpeas, a drought-tolerant crop that’s regionally popular and has long been a major food commodity throughout western and central Africa. But that introduced Johnson to a whole new threat: the cowpea curculio, a destructive weevil whose larvae feed on the seeds inside the legume’s pod. Within the last two years, the curculio has taken almost half of Johnson’s acreage of the bean plant. 

Josh Johnson (right) and his sons grow crops like cowpea, a major food commodity in western and central Africa, on their family farm in Elloree, South Carolina. Courtesy of Josh Johnson

“You’ll start shelling those peas, and you’ll end up with maggots and larva coming out the shells,” said Johnson. “You can imagine how selling something like that would be terrible. … It is a booger-bear to control.” 

To fight the wily bug, Johnson sprays the perimeter of his fields with pesticides. But it only does so much. When the small weevil senses a tractor’s movement, it balls up, drops to ground, and plays dead to protect itself, also making it nearly impossible to spot. Johnson said he desperately needs a new tool or technique that would allow him to better track and stave off outbreaks well before they spread.

A solution not unlike the on-farm pest surveillance Boubacar Gaoh had been working to develop half a world away.

Climate change is only making crop infestations like these worse, forcing farmers and scientists from South Carolina to Niger to contend with new pathogens, as warming temperatures reshuffle the geographic range of pests worldwide. “Some pests that you find now in Africa, in a few years maybe you will find it in America. So I think it’s really relevant to deal with them at the source,” said Boubacar Gaoh. “Pests, they don’t need visas to travel.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Inside the ‘America First’ makeover of a global hunger program on Jul 28, 2026.

California has spent nearly two decades relying on taxpayers to finance its high-speed rail project. Now it’s looking to private investors.

Whether any step up remains an open question.

The search for private money was always part of the plan. When Californians approved a bond measure to fund the project in 2008, they pictured a system to rival the best in the world. Sleek trains would whisk riders between San Francisco and Los Angeles in just 2 hours and 40 minutes. Using renewable energy would cut emissions by up to 3 million metric tons annually. Voters were willing to put up $10 billion to make this dream a reality.

Everyone knew that wouldn’t be enough.

The bond was never meant to cover the entire cost. State officials envisioned the federal government and private sector contributing equally toward the projected $45 billion budget. But Washington’s support ebbed and flowed with each president. After years of legal battles with the Trump administration, the state said “the federal government is not a reliable, constructive, or trustworthy partner” in advancing the project. Private capital, meanwhile, has largely remained on the sidelines. 

That may soon change. The California High-Speed Rail Authority recently announced a $25 million agreement with a consortium of companies that will explore ways to advance the project. Over the next six months, it will develop funding strategies to expand the project beyond the state’s Central Valley, potentially into San Francisco and Los Angeles. 

“This agreement reflects growing market confidence in that strategy and the long-term potential of California high-speed rail as a transformative investment in California’s future,” Ian Choudri, the agency’s CEO, said in a news release. Choudri said the agency has spent the past year taking steps to “reposition” the project around “a more commercially focused and delivery-oriented strategy.”

Most of the construction is focused in the Central Valley, where the first phase will connect the cities of Merced and Bakersfield. The rail authority chose to start there because it offered the quickest and cheapest path to getting trains running. It is also an opportunity to bring a state-of-the-art transportation system to a region long overlooked by the state. Crews have completed dozens of bridges and viaducts and laid almost 90 miles of guideway. Their efforts will soon shift to laying track.

Linking San Francisco and Los Angeles is expected to cost $126 billion, with service slated to begin in 2040. Even the first phase alone will likely require tens of billions of dollars. Last year, the state committed $1 billion annually to finance the project through 2045. 

Read Next Billions spent, miles to go: The story of California’s failure to build high-speed rail Benton Graham

Genevieve Giuliano, a professor emeritus of public policy at the University of Southern California, said the rail authority’s announcement doesn’t mean an influx of private capital is imminent. It is simply an agreement to explore how that might happen. “Until I see something that says, ‘Company X is going to put up $10 billion under the following conditions,’ I don’t see that as we’re getting private money in here,” she said.

She also doesn’t see the private sector taking on any risk until it has a guaranteed revenue stream and is confident the project will be profitable. 

Others see opportunities for private investment, but not necessarily in financing the railway.

“I do not believe there will be any at-risk private investment in expanding the system,” said Lou Thompson, who chaired the High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group from 2012 until 2024. 

Instead, he sees investors finding opportunities in merchandising, such as T-shirts, caps, and model trains, and residential and business development around stations. The rail authority sees that potential, too. It could allow cable companies to install fiber optic lines alongside tracks, for example, or produce surplus energy for utilities. The agency expects to have an agreement in place with power companies later this year to consider opportunities.

Whether those opportunities lead to significant investments remains uncertain. But establishing a business consortium to find out shows California is willing to get creative, said transportation expert Joe Schwieterman.

“They’re not settling for a go-slow approach that pushes key decisions off to the next generation,” said Schwieterman, who leads the Sustainable Urban Development Project at DePaul University. He conceded that “there’s still gigantic financial hurdles ahead,” not the least of which is that the funding needed to finish the project “has yet to be identified.”

Andy Kunz sees reason for optimism. He sees private capital helping the rail system reach the more profitable cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. “Having private sector groups show up just gives us more confidence that it’ll be done more quickly,” said Kunz, head of the U.S. High-Speed Rail Association. That’s important, given the meager federal support the project has. 

“Because our public sector is not really leading the charge, this is really exciting,” he said. “We now have a private sector group stepping in to help get these first couple of projects going.”

Choudri has been pursuing that exact strategy since taking the helm at the California High-Speed Rail Authority in 2024. He told Grist the timing is right, given the state’s promise of annual funding and the project now owns all of the land needed to complete the first 119 miles.

“We need to turn this project into a business,” he said. “We need to build this corridor having rail as primary service, but then use it for other economic development and growth in order for us to be self-sustainable.”

Correction – An earlier version of this story misstated the initial projected budget for the project and the amount of guideway that has been laid.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Next stop for California’s high-speed rail: Finding private investors on Jul 28, 2026.

Rapid decline in Arctic sea ice Channel News brendan 28th July 2026 Teaser Media

Sunset at the Gualala River on July 21, 2026
Photo courtesy of Michael Coustier

Insects are critically important to our world: They bolster the global food supply through pollination, recycle organic waste, support food webs that sustain countless species, and more. Yet they are...

In a special crossover, Green and Red co-host Prof. Bob Buzzanco joins Jason Myles and Pascal Robert on THIS IS REVOLUTION podcast to talk about the Black Political Class and…

Location: In-office position, in Helena, Montana.  Scope: The Administrative and Development Associate will handle general office tasks and administrative duties, such as organizing schedules and events, entering data, maintaining office equipment, providing basic tech support, and other general operations activities.   Reports to: Chief Financial Officer (CFO)  Compensation: MEIC offers compensation commensurate with skills and …

The post Now Hiring: Administrative and Development Associate appeared first on Montana Environmental Information Center - MEIC.

In April, when the Trump administration first announced it wanted to open the Greater Chaco Canyon region in New Mexico to oil and gas drilling, we asked you to speak up. Following an initial scoping period that generated over 100,000 comments in support of maintaining broad protections for this remarkable place, the Department of the Interior has doubled down on its plans and released a formal Environmental Assessment with a brief 14-day public comment period.

Please take action today and help defend the Greater Chaco Region

After decades of advocacy by Tribal Nations and conservationists, federal protections in the greater Chaco region were finally put in place in 2023 with the establishment of a 10-mile buffer zone shielding the Chaco Culture National Historical Park from new oil and gas leasing. The administration is now considering two options, neither of which is acceptable: revoking protections entirely or shrinking the buffer to just 5 miles.

In either scenario, thousands of cultural sites would be exposed to drilling. Although only 15-20% of the area has been surveyed, archaeologists estimate that as many as 12,000 cultural sites lie within the areas the Trump administration plans to open to leasing and exploitation. Indigenous communities already living with the health impacts of over 37,000 nearby wells would face even more industrial development at their doorstep. 

Comments are due this Wednesday, July 29. We encourage you to make your voice heard by using the advocacy action from our friends at New Mexico Wild; they also have a web page where you can learn more about the threats facing Chaco Canyon.

Click here to take action now!

The post Another Chance to Speak Up for Greater Chaco Canyon appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Union Jack, which has interests at Wressle and West Newton, has recommended shareholders vote against a proposal to remove the board.

The company has called a requistioned general meeting for next month (August).

This follows a resolution by two investors holding more than 14% of voting rights to remove the three current directors: David Bramhill, Joseph O’Farrell and Zac Phillips.

The investors, described by Union Jack as requisitioners, are former board members, Craig Howie and John Americanos. They have also tabled a resolution for their reappointment as directors.

In a statement today, Union Jack said:

“The Company will today post a circular to shareholders convening the Requistioned GM [general meeting] and outlining the unanimous recommendation by the Company’s board to directors to vote against all the resolutions to be proposed at the Requisitioned GM.

The statement added:

“The Board believes that the Requisition is misguided, ill-timed and destined to lead to a destruction in value for the Company’s shareholders.”

The requisition notice was dated 7 July 2026, less than a week after a takeover offer by Reabold Resources.

Union Jack’s statement continued:

“by proposing the Resolutions just six days after the announcement of the all share offer by Reabold Resources plc, the Requisitioners are simply being opportunistic by seeking to replace the Board during the Offer process without providing the Company’s shareholders with the opportunity to realise a control premium.”

Union Jack also announced it had reconvened the previously postponed annual general meeting. This was adjourned on the day it was planned, 26 June 2026, because of the Reabold takeover offer. The AGM will now be held after the requistioned meeting.

The requisitioned meeting will be at 11am on 24 August 2026 at the offices of Keystone Law, 48 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JF.

The reconvened AGM will be held on the same date and place, at 12 noon, or as soon as the requisitioned meeting has ended.

Farm Service Agency County committees are a critical component of the day-to-day operations of USDA/FSA and allow grassroots input and local administration of federal farm programs.

The post 2026 FSA County Committee Elections appeared first on RAFI.

This is a re-post from The Climate Brink

A graph has been making the rounds on social media showing the average number of days per weather station above 95F, 100F, and 105F across the contiguous US since 1895. It comes from CFACT analyst Chris Martz, drawing on raw data from NOAA’s Global Historical Climatology Network daily dataset (GHCNd), and it shows the 1930s towering over everything since. The implication is that extreme heat in the US is nothing new, and that all the recent fuss about record temperatures is overblown.

It is a compelling figure. The 1930s Dust Bowl really was an extraordinary period of extreme heat in the US, and no amount of correction for changes in measurement techniques over time makes it go away. But the graph is also a case study in why you cannot naively count threshold exceedances in raw daily station data and call it a climate record. Its results rest on two well-documented thermometer problems that artificially depress modern hot day counts, plus a station network that happens to be oversampled where the Dust Bowl happened.

Reproducing the viral chart

To start with, let’s reproduce the figure properly. Rather than averaging whatever stations happen to be reporting in a given year (the station network grew from a few hundred stations in 1895 to many thousands today, with big shifts in where they are located), I selected the 543 GHCNd stations in the contiguous US with long, near-continuous maximum temperature records over the full 1895-2025 period,1 gridded them to 2x2 degree cells, and computed an area-weighted national average.

Average number of days per year at or above 95°F, 100°F, and 105°F over the contiguous US, 1895–2025, from 543 long-record GHCN-Daily stations (raw, unadjusted TMAX), averaged on a 2°×2° grid with cos(latitude) area weighting.

Here we see the same basic story as the viral version: a huge spike in the 1930s (1936 alone averaged 33 days at or above 95F across these stations), elevated values through the mid-1950s, and nothing since that comes close. So the Martz figure is not fabricated, and its shape is not an artifact of the changing station network. To be fair to its author, counting hot days in raw data really does produce this picture.

The problem is what “raw” means here.

Two thermometer problems, both pointing the same way

Raw sounds virtuous, like unfiltered honesty. But the US cooperative observer network has changed in two important ways over the past century, and both changes bias hot day counts downward in recent decades relative to earlier ones.

The first is time of observation bias. Volunteer observers read and reset their max/min thermometers once a day. In the early 20th century most did so in the late afternoon, near the hottest part of the day. An afternoon reset means a very hot afternoon can get counted twice: once for the day it happened, and again the next day if the following afternoon is cooler, since the thermometer still holds yesterday’s peak. Over the 20th century the network gradually shifted to morning observations (better for measuring precipitation), which does not double count heat. Vose et al (2003) documented how this shift alone imparts a spurious cooling trend of a few tenths of a degree in US records, and the double counting directly inflates hot day counts at afternoon-observing stations.

The second is the thermometer switch. In the mid-1980s NOAA replaced liquid-in-glass thermometers in wooden Cotton Region Shelters with electronic maximum-minimum temperature sensors (MMTS) at most cooperative stations. Quayle et al (1991) showed the new sensors read maximum temperatures around 0.4C (0.7F) cooler than the old shelters. This produced a one-time step change at thousands of stations that landed right at the start of the modern warming era. When your threshold is a hard cutoff like 95F, a step down of nearly half a degree C removes a lot of days.

Homogenization algorithms (like NOAA’s pairwise method, Menne and Williams 2009, or the Berkeley Earth approach, Rohde et al 2013) detect and correct these breakpoints by comparing each station to its neighbors. Our 2016 paper validated these adjustments against the pristine, purpose-built US Climate Reference Network and found they perform well. While NOAA does not have daily homogenized data (they only provide monthly homogenized data), Berkeley Earth does. So let’s compare the raw hot day count to the same metric computed from Berkeley Earth’s homogenized daily maximum temperature fields.

Days per year at or above 95°F over the contiguous US. Top: raw GHCN-Daily data from 543 long-record stations, gridded and area-weighted. Bottom: Berkeley Earth homogenized daily TMAX (1°×1°, area-weighted over CONUS), with the dashed line showing the same calculation restricted to the grid cells containing the long-record stations. Absolute values differ because gridded fields smooth out local extremes; the shapes are the meaningful comparison.

The two datasets agree that the 1930s were exceptional. Where they disagree is the modern era: in the homogenized data, recent decades rival the Dust Bowl years CONUS-wide, with 2011 (16.1 days) actually edging out 1936 (14.0 days) as the biggest year in the Berkeley Earth series.

We can make the comparison cleaner by putting each series relative to its own 1951-1980 average:

Days ≥95°F, 11-year running means, with each series shown relative to its own 1951–1980 average. Red: raw GHCN-Daily long-record stations. Blue solid: Berkeley Earth homogenized daily TMAX over the full CONUS. Blue dashed: Berkeley Earth restricted to the grid cells sampled by the long-record station network.

The raw and homogenized series track each other closely for the first 85 years, through the Dust Bowl peak and the cool 1960s and 70s. Then, right around 1980 (just when the MMTS transition began), they split. The homogenized data rises to around 1.4 times its mid-century baseline while the raw data stays flat at roughly 1.0. The raw data does not exaggerate the 1930s, but rather erases the last 40 years of increases in extreme heat.

The dashed and solid blue lines in the figure are also worth a closer look. The dashed line averages the Berkeley Earth data over only the 130 grid cells where our long-record stations actually sit; comparing it to the raw series is the fair like-for-like test, since the places are the same and data adjustments are the only difference. The solid line averages over the whole country, and the gap between the two exposes a sampling problem rather than a data problem. Century-old stations cluster in the Midwest and East, which is precisely where the 1930s heat was centered and where extreme daytime heat has increased the least since. Averaged over the long-lived station locations, even in homogenized data, puts the 1930s roughly 45% above the last two decades. If we average over the full contiguous US, however, that gap shrinks to about 10%.

Locations of long-lived weather stations used in the reproducing the viral Martz figure. Note that these tend to oversample the Midwest region where dust bowl temperature extremes were most pronounced. A Dust Bowl story, not a national one

There is a second, subtler issue with interpreting the viral graph: geography. Long-record stations are heavily concentrated in the Midwest and East (only 116 of our 543, around a fifth, sit west of 100W), which happens to be exactly where the 1930s heat was centered. Let’s break the country into NOAA’s nine US climate regions and look at each one separately, using the spatially complete Berkeley Earth data.

Days per year at or above 95°F for each of NOAA’s nine US climate regions, 1895–2023, from Berkeley Earth homogenized gridded daily TMAX (1°×1°), area-weighted within each region. Thin lines are annual values; bold lines are 11-year running means. Note that the y-axis scale differs by region.

The Dust Bowl turns out to be a story about three regions. In the Upper Midwest the 1930s averaged around 15 times as many 95F days as the last two decades (3.4 vs 0.2 per year), in the Northern Rockies and Plains around 9 times (2.8 vs 0.3), and in the Ohio Valley around 4 times (8.7 vs 2.1), with 1936 the record year in all three.

Everywhere else the present rivals or beats the past: the South is essentially tied (22.4 days in the 1930s vs 22.7 over 2000-2023, with 2011 the biggest year in the record), while the Southeast (14.7 vs 11.1 days), Southwest (4.9 vs 3.9), and West (4.6 vs 3.6) all see more 95F days now than in the 1930s, with the two western regions peaking in 2020. (The remaining two regions, the Northeast and Northwest, average less than one 95F day per year throughout the record, too few for meaningful comparisons.)

The mid-century spike in that average comes almost entirely from three regions in the middle of the country. This makes physical sense: the Dust Bowl heat was tied to a specific regional catastrophe, a multi-year drought amplified by human-induced land degradation (Cook et al 2009), with bare, desiccated soils driving daytime temperatures to levels those same fields have not approached since. A record set during an ecological disaster in one part of the country is not evidence that the whole country, much less the planet, was hotter. The national chart is really being driven by a distinct regional anomaly.2

Meanwhile, the thermometers all agree it is warming

Finally, it is worth stepping back from the hottest afternoons of the year, which are a noisy, bias-sensitive sliver of the temperature record, and looking at what US temperatures as a whole are doing. The figure below shows annual average maximum, minimum, and mean temperatures for the contiguous US from NOAA’s homogenized nClimDiv dataset.

Contiguous US annual average daily maximum (TMax), minimum (TMin), and mean (TAvg) temperature anomalies relative to 1901–2000, from NOAA nClimDiv, 1895–2025. Thin lines are annual values; bold lines are 11-year running means.

All three are unambiguous. Since 1970, maximum temperatures have warmed at 0.52F per decade, minimums at 0.51F per decade, and the average at 0.51F per decade (all p < 0.0001), with the last decade roughly 2F above the 20th century baseline. The 1930s show up here too, but as a modest bump in maximum temperatures far below present (as the dust bowl event was largely limited to summer TMax temperatures, with a much smaller effect on the remainder of the year). Extreme daytime heat in summer is one of the places where the US warming signal is weakest (a real and interesting scientific result, related in part to agricultural intensification and irrigation in the Midwest (Mueller et al 2016), but it is not representative of the climate system as a whole.

Zooming all the way out

One last piece of context. The contiguous US covers less than 2% of the Earth’s surface, and as we saw above, even within the US the Dust Bowl signal is regional. So what does the very same chart look like for the planet as a whole? The figure below reproduces the design of the viral graph (days at or above 95F, 100F, and 105F) using the Berkeley Earth daily data over global land. To avoid mixing climate changes with changes in the locations we measure (global station coverage grew from under 40% of land area in the 1890s to essentially complete today), I restrict the average to the grid cells with continuous century-long records, covering 42% of global land.3

Average number of days per year at or above 95°F, 100°F, and 105°F across global land, 1895–2023, from Berkeley Earth homogenized gridded daily TMAX (1°×1°), area-weighted by cos(latitude) and land fraction. Restricted to grid cells with complete data in at least 90% of years over 1895–2023 (42% of global land area), so that changing station coverage does not affect the trend.

Globally there is no 1930s spike at all: 1936, the year that towers over the US record, comes in at 15.1 days at or above 95F, less than a day above the surrounding years. The Dust Bowl, extraordinary as it was in Kansas, barely registers when averaged over the world’s land. Instead, hot days hold roughly steady until around 1980 and then climb: days at or above 95F are up around 70% between the early 20th century (1895-1924) and the last decade (12.8 to 22.1 per year), days at or above 100F have more than doubled (3.0 to 7.5), and days at or above 105F have nearly quintupled (0.3 to 1.6). The hotter the threshold, the faster the rise, which is exactly what you expect when a whole temperature distribution shifts upward. All ten of the warmest years by the 95F metric have occurred since 1998, and the six most recent years in the series (2018-2023) are all among them.

The US Midwest is one of the few places on Earth where the hottest days of the mid-20th century still stand; picking it as your yardstick for global warming is, to put it charitably, a choice.

So what are the takeaways here?

First, the Dust Bowl was real, and it remains the benchmark for multi-year extreme daytime heat in the central US, in adjusted and unadjusted data alike. Anyone claiming the 1930s heat is purely an artifact of bad data is simply wrong.

Second, it was a regional phenomenon. Break the country into NOAA’s nine climate regions and the 1930s is only exceptional in only three of them (the Upper Midwest, the Northern Rockies and Plains, and the Ohio Valley, at roughly 4 to 15 times recent levels). The four regions where hot days are the most common (the South, Southeast, Southwest, and West) all match or exceed the Dust Bowl today, with record years of 2011 and 2020, not 1936.

Third, raw daily data is the wrong tool for this question. Time of observation changes and the 1980s switch to MMTS sensors both suppress modern hot day counts relative to the past, and the raw and homogenized series diverge almost exactly when the instrument transition happened. In homogenized data, recent decades rival the 1930s even averaged nationally.

Fourth, hot days above a fixed threshold are a narrow and noisy way to look at the data. The overall US warming trend (around 0.5F per decade since 1970 in max, min, and mean temperatures) is robust in every dataset, raw or adjusted, satellite or surface. And globally, days above 95F have been climbing steadily for a century, with no Dust Bowl bump at all: the central US is one of the few spots on the planet where the mid-20th century still holds the record for extreme daytime heat.

The viral chart is built from real measurements, and the heat it shows was real too. But it takes a regional catastrophe, fails to account for changes in instruments and observation times, and presents the result as a national climate verdict. Accounting for the thermometers and the geography, and the US looks a lot like the rest of the planet: the hottest days on record are increasingly the ones we are living through now.

I’ve included a more detailed writeup of the methods and code to reproduce this analysis on my GitHub here.

1 Specifically: stations whose GHCNd TMAX record spans at least 1900 through 2024, keeping station-years where at least 80% of April-October days have a valid, quality-controlled observation, and keeping stations valid in at least 85% of years over 1895-2025. Hot day counts are averaged within 2°×2° grid cells and combined with cos(latitude) area weighting over the 130 cells with near-complete records. The results are insensitive to these choices: stricter completeness screens shrink the network but leave the series essentially unchanged (details and robustness checks are available in the methods writeup on my GitHub). A map of the station network is also available in the repo; note that coverage is much denser east of 100W, a point that becomes important later in the post.

2 This also explains most of the difference between the dashed and solid blue lines in the “days ≥95°F, 11-year running means” figure. The long-record station network oversamples the region where the 1930s were most extreme and undersamples the South and West where recent warming has added the most 95F days.

3 This matters a lot. Computed naively over whatever area has data each year, the global days above 95F triple from ~12 to ~37 days per year, but much of that rise is an artifact of hot regions (the Sahara, the tropics, interior Australia) entering the dataset over time. On the fixed network the increase is a still-substantial ~75% (from ~13 to ~22 days per year). The fixed-coverage region is disproportionately Northern Hemisphere midlatitude land, so this series should be read as “hot days where we have century-long records” rather than a true global land average.

The Bureau of Land Management has approved an AI data center on national public land that was originally approved for a solar energy project, without conducting a new review or taking public comment on the switch. The project is believed to be the first data center approved on BLM-managed public lands. However, the project is relying on prior approval for not a data center but a solar energy project, swapping out an energy-generating project for one that would consume more energy than the entire neighboring community of Boulder City, Nevada.

Townsite Solar 2, LLC, the project developer, originally received approval in 2023 to build a solar energy and battery storage project on a BLM-managed parcel within the city limits of Boulder City. Earlier this year, TS2 amended its application to develop a data center instead, which the BLM approved without seeking public comment on the new proposal. “We’ve had no conversations, there’s been no chance for the community or for the city to provide any input to the federal government,” said Boulder City spokesperson Lisa LaPlante. “This feels so unprecedented for us to have a project placed in our city without the chance to weigh in.”

The BLM justified its approval by claiming that a solar project and a data center are “substantially the same,” noting similarities in acreage, perimeter, construction time, and the size and shape of the facilities. Relying on this rationale, the BLM used a Determination of NEPA Adequacy to transfer the 2023 analysis and approval to the amended project. “It’s an extraordinary and liberal interpretation of existing law and regulations,” said Mike Ford, a former high-level official at the BLM.

According to reporting by Heatmap, the bait-and-switch approval may have had some help from the Bernhardt Group, the lobbying firm led by former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt. Lobbyists from the Bernhardt Group were hired by Arevon, one of Townsite Solar’s financial backers, around the time when Townsite Solar 2 was preparing to shift from a solar project to a data center, though Arevon denies hiring lobbyists for the Townsite Solar project specifically.

“This was a bait and switch,” said Olivia Tanager, director of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club. “If we allow this precedent to stand, the fear is that this could promulgate throughout not just Nevada, but all over the country in the interest of expediting data centers.”

Quick hits Pueblo leaders, New Mexico lawmakers speak out to protect Chaco Canyon

High Country News | Source NM

This desert oasis is a biological wonderland. Trump’s border wall threatens to destroy it

The Guardian

The U.S. has acknowledged Bears Ears and Grand Staircase as sacred for over a century, but keeps stripping away protections

The Conversation

Trump admin eyes massive coal reserves under federal lands

Inside Climate News

Lawmakers propose blocking controversial quarry expansion that threatens hot springs

Colorado Sun | Denver Post | Grand Junction Daily Sentinel | Westword

As climate lawsuits advance, the oil industry enters ‘panic mode’

Grist

Colorado River reservoirs hit record lows as Trump admin threatens major cuts

CBS News | USA Today

Cheatgrass is invading the best sagebrush left in the West. How can Wyoming hold the line?

WyoFile

Quote of the day

The question before us is simple: What kind of legacy will we leave? Will we choose short-term extraction, or will we choose to protect one of the most important Indigenous cultural landscapes in North America, a place whose meaning reaches far beyond any single administration?”

—Cochiti Pueblo Governor Phillip Quintana, High Country News

Picture This

@usinterior
High in the Olympic Mountains, the alpine tarns of Upper Royal Basin reflect some of the most rugged scenery at @Olympic_nps.
Jagged peaks and clear water = not a bad place to stop and stare for a while.
Photo by Hwei Ling Ng @thenomadicartist Featured image: Aerial view of Boulder City, Nevada, and nearby Lake Mead, Doc Searls/CC BY 2.0

The post Trump admin swaps out solar project for data center on BLM land appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

In a summer of record heat waves, France and Spain are now facing wildfires that have forced the evacuations of more than 300,000 people. Scientists say that a sharp swing from wet to dry weather, a signature of climate change, helped fuel the blazes.

Read more on E360 →

People have three weeks to comment on the controversial Rosebank development, Britan’s biggest undeveloped oil and gas field.

A public consultation by the government runs until 17 August 2026.

The Rosebank field, 80 miles north west of Shetland, was granted a licence by the Conservatives. But this was ruled unlawful by Scottish courts in January 2025.

That decision followed the landmark Finch Ruling at the Supreme Court, which established that environmental impact assessment for fossil fuel projects must account for the emissions produced when extracted fuel was burned.

These emissions, known as scope 3 or downstream, were included in a resubmitted document for Rosebank in 2025.

The new energy secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, is expected to decide whether to grant consent for the field after the consultation. Her decision will be based on the revised environmental impact assessment.

Rosebank is estimated to hold more than 480 million barrels of oil. Some estimates suggest it would release emissions totalling 254 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent over its lifetime. This is said to be equivalent to nearly 70% of the UK’s entire annual emissions in 2024. This would make it incompatible with the UK’s legally-binding climate commitments, campaigners have said.

Opponents have argued that the field would not lower UK energy bills or improve energy security because 90% of reserves are oil destined for international markets. They have stated that the field’s small gas reserves could reduce UK gas import dependency by just 1%, if none were exported.

At the weekend, the Guardian reported that production at Rosebank, if approved, could be delayed after equipment from a rig was accidentally dropped into the North Sea in April 2026.

The field operator, Adura, now expects production would be delayed from the end of this year to sometime in 2027, the Guardian reported.

The Rosebank development is in two phases.

• Phase 1 involves drilling four production and three water injection wells.
• Phase 2, dependent on results of phase 1, involves drilling a further 3 production and 2 water injection wells.

Wells would be connected by new flowlines to a redeployed Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessel (FPSO). Gas would be exported from the FPSO to a new gas export pipeline connecting to the existing West of Shetland Pipeline Systems. Oil will be offloaded using tankers.

Consultation details

Official notices of the consultation were published in Shetland Times, Aberdeen Press & Journal and the Daily Telegraph earlier this month.

All representations should quote reference number ES/2022/001 and be made to:

• OPRED@Energysecurity.gov.uk
• Business Support Team Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment & Decommissioning Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, AB1 Building, Crimon Place, Aberdeen AB10 1BJ

The energy secretary’s decision will be published here (see link).

Rosebank is currently owned by Adura (a joint enterprise of Shell and Equinor 80%) and Ithaca Energy (20%). Energy Voice reported last week that Adura has called for voluntary redundancies among staff at its Aberdeen headquarters. It is not known how many job cuts are planned.

Links to government notices and official documents on Rosebank

Guide to Rosebank by the campaign organisation, Uplift

• A public consultation on the Jackdaw gas field, also owned by Adura, is due to finish on 10 August 2026. The Guardian reported earlier this month that, if approved, Jackdaw would create just 27 direct full-time jobs.

If done right, the rapid growth of artificial intelligence and the data centres that support it presents a unique economic opportunity for Alberta and Canada. But, as we argue in this submission to the Alberta Electricity System Operator’s (AESO)...

A hush has fallen over the Democratic Party — a “climate hush,” to be precise. The phrase captures the push within the party to focus more on the high cost of living and less on the planetary crisis, in hopes of addressing a popular diagnosis of why Democrats lost the 2024 presidential election to Donald Trump. Since then, Democratic politicians have been mentioning the subject less on social media and in their press releases. Candidates in this summer’s primaries might have it in their platforms, but it’s the rare candidate who campaigns on it. 

But a new report pushes back against the idea that talking about climate change could cause Democrats to lose votes. The 2035 Initiative, a climate policy research center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, released polling this month that suggests that emphasizing the issue could increase support for Democratic candidates. The release comes ahead of primaries for key states — including Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia — that could determine whether Democrats regain control over Congress. 

“Our data shows pretty firmly that adding climate change to the mix is neutral to helpful from a political perspective,” said Matto Mildenberger, a political science professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who worked on the report. His team conducted two surveys this summer with roughly 3,500 total participants, weighted to represent the U.S. electorate with a mix of voters from across the political spectrum. He said it’s the first empirically rigorous evaluation of the “climate hush” hypothesis. 

It’s part of a growing pushback to the climate hushing phenomenon, spearheaded by longtime climate advocate Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, and a collection of experts studying political science and public opinion. “This is a sort of a sign of where the conversation has moved, in that you do have this really robust effort to attempt to highlight that climate change is something that Democrats should continue to be talking about in a big way,” said Tré Easton, vice president for public affairs at Searchlight Institute, a Democratic-aligned think tank.

Last September, Searchlight argued that the “first rule about solving climate change” was “don’t say climate change,” provocative advice that’s been invoked as an example of climate hushing. Easton rejects that characterization. “It’s just very interesting to see Searchlight treated as, like, the prime climate-husher organization,” he said. “I didn’t know that’s where I worked.” He doesn’t advise never talking about climate change, but thinks candidates should talk about it in the context of energy policy, with Democrats arguing for a climate-conscious approach that balances trade-offs and guarantees the country can meet growing demand for electricity.

Mildenberger’s research, however, points to a more ambitious approach. His polling implies that climate change isn’t as politically toxic as it’s made out to be, finding that about two-thirds of respondents supported a government program to invest in solar and wind energy no matter how its goal was framed, whether that was “addressing climate change,” “developing new energy sources,” or “reducing pollution and protecting clean air.” About 60 percent of the Republicans surveyed would back such a policy, and using the word “climate” didn’t dent their support.

When respondents were asked to choose between pairs of candidates with randomly assigned priorities, they were more likely to pick those who made climate change a top priority, Mildenberger found. Among all voters, it led to a 4.5 percentage point increase in the candidate getting selected, and for those open to voting Republican, it made no difference (though it hurt a candidate’s chances among committed Republicans). The polling also found that people who support climate action are far more motivated to vote on it than people who oppose it, meaning that talking about climate change isn’t likely to lose votes.

The organizations described in the report as scolding Democrats for talking about climate change weren’t convinced the survey results undermined their case. Liam Kerr, co-founder of WelcomePAC — a center-left political action committee that has argued Democrats are “overly focused on climate change” — said in an email that “the Democrats winning Trump voters are mostly those who have followed the opposite advice of the researchers.” In the 2024 election, Representative Jared Golden from Maine advertised that he was “fighting against Biden’s electric car mandate” and “voting to increase domestic oil and gas production,” and wound up getting reelected in a district that voted for Trump by almost 10 percentage points. That same year, Ruben Gallego, a Democratic senator from Arizona, won in a state that voted for Trump by 5.5 points. He released an “all of the above” energy plan to tackle inflation last December and has called for Democrats to talk about energy affordability rather than climate change directly.

Senator Ruben Gallego, a Democrat from Arizona, speaks during a recent press conference on Capitol Hill. Finn Gomez / Getty Images

There’s one thing everyone involved agrees on: Climate change is not a top priority for voters. Mildenberger’s research found that respondents ranked climate change 12th out of 15 issues, way behind the cost of living and health care but ahead of foreign policy and AI. Where you go from there has become a point of contention. In Easton’s opinion, it’s not worth chasing a small electoral benefit on an issue voters don’t prioritize. 

“If I am an operative advising a candidate, and you’re like, ‘I get a very small benefit if I talk about this thing,’ I’m not going to tell you to talk about that thing,” Easton said. “I want to encourage you to try and find a thing that gets you the biggest benefit you can with voters, especially in these hard-to-win places.”

Between the two camps, there’s a fundamental difference in thinking about what will lead to climate action. Can Democrats achieve results by working quietly behind the scenes, keeping climate change out of partisan debates? Or does staying quiet about it reduce the general sense that it’s a vital issue, eroding the political will to do anything about it?

Mildenberger is on the second team, arguing that Democrats will lose the opportunity to act on climate change the next time they’re in power if the subject slips out of the political conversation. “We’re not going to pass a climate policy bill, or prioritize it, or do what we need to do to solve this problem if there isn’t debate and conversation and attention to the issue,” he said. He pointed to the debate over how to address climate change in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election as creating the momentum for former President Joe Biden to pass the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, a package of green incentives that was the country’s widest-ranging climate law in history, at least until Republicans repealed most of it last year.

Others argue that climate policymaking can be “quiet” — small interventions tucked away into bigger bills without drawing the attention of the media, where it can be drawn into polarized debates. “The more that something is viewed as a pet political project of a particular political party, the more something is viewed in the partisan lens, the harder it is to achieve durable policy success on that particular thing,” Easton said. 

Easton thinks that climate change is so ingrained in the Democratic Party, it’s not going anywhere, even if politicians don’t mention it very often. Zohran Mamdani, the mayor of New York City, barely mentioned climate change in his campaign, but Easton said he doesn’t doubt Mamdani’s commitment to taking action. And in the end, Democrats can’t act on climate change, or anything else, unless they’re voted into office.

“I get it — if the cause of your life is fighting climate change and this is what you’ve devoted your career to, I understand why you want to put out work like this [survey],” Easton said. “The cause of my life is making sure that autocrats and authoritarians don’t win our government again. And hopefully when the folks who defeat those autocrats and authoritarians get in power, they will do work on any host of important things, including climate change.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Climate hushing’ has swept the Democratic Party. New polling suggests it’s a mistake. on Jul 27, 2026.