News Feeds

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.

Blue foods can be complex; consumers can easily be overwhelmed. With so many species, preparation methods, and marketing claims. Because of size, scale, and accessibility, the ocean remains a largely invisible part of the food system for many consumers. Not everyone can walk down to the dock and watch a local fisherman coming in with the catch of the day.

And yet, the importance of blue foods for people and the planet is simple: we must navigate complexities by educating consumers while encouraging science-based fishery management and transparent verification along the seafood supply chain.

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) recent State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) 2026 report paints a complex but encouraging picture on the state of our wild capture fisheries. While overfishing persists as a serious global challenge—with the share of fish stocks classified as biologically sustainable declining slightly to 62.4 percent—the report also demonstrates that we already have a solution: sustainable management of fisheries.

The SOFIA report shows more than one-third of the global population gets at least one-fifth of their animal protein from blue foods. The report indicates that global trade in aquatic animal products reached $184 billion, rivaling the value of all other animal proteins combined.

Simultaneously, new data from the world’s largest survey of more than 20,500 seafood consumers revealed increased awareness and optimism about the state of the world’s oceans. The survey, done in partnership with the Marine Stewardship Council and GlobeScan, details environmental and seafood awareness and understanding from consumers in 23 countries.

The data show that consumers appear to increasingly understand the challenges and opportunities facing oceans and fisheries. While 58 percent of Americans correctly recognize that overfishing is more widespread today than it was 50 years ago, 17 percent believe fish populations can never recover from overfishing, and another 25 percent remain unsure.

The reality is that fish populations can and do recover when fisheries are managed sustainably. Around the world, there are countless examples of depleted fisheries rebuilding through science-based catch limits, strong monitoring programs, and collaboration among fishers, scientists, governments, and environmental organizations.

Seafood consumers have increased confidence that positive change is possible; 51 percent believe our oceans can be saved from irreparable damage over the next 20 years, up from 41 percent in 2024.

And consumers in the United States increasingly want to be part of that future. The survey found that 58 percent of U.S. seafood consumers say purchasing products with ecolabels aligns with their personal values. Participants report taking actions such as reducing plastic use and seeking seafood they believe to be sustainably sourced. Shoppers are increasingly noticing ecolabeled products, rising from 28 percent in 2024 to 40 percent in 2026. Awareness of the MSC blue fish label similarly increased from 28 percent to 35 percent.

As consumers navigate increasingly complex and crowded seafood aisles, independent certification and ecolabels help provide confidence that sustainability claims have been verified by a credible third party. 60 percent of seafood consumers say ecolabels increase their trust in brands, while sustainably sourced seafood continues to rank among the most important purchase considerations, following quality, health, and price.

And consumers recognize their choices can make a difference. Market demand for responsibly sourced seafood sends important signals throughout the supply chain, rewarding fisheries that invest in sustainable practices and encouraging broader adoption of effective management.

At the same time, concern about ocean health remains high, with nearly nine in ten U.S. seafood consumers worrying about the state of the world’s oceans. And that concern is warranted. Overfishing persists in many regions, and the SOFIA report highlights significant disparities between areas with strong management systems and those where management capacity remains limited.

The challenges facing our oceans are real, but so are the solutions. Science-based fisheries management, independent verification, robust monitoring, and collaborative action have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to rebuild fish populations and support thriving fishing communities.

Awareness and optimism are essential ingredients for the long-term work of protecting oceans and ensuring that sustainable seafood remains part of our future. The survey data represents a win for fisheries and businesses and all partners prioritizing healthy oceans and sustainable seafood for future generations. This awareness and optimism can buoy us, knowing we are making a difference, and sending positive market signals to fisheries. After all, a rising tide lifts all boats.

The benefits of blue foods are simple: they provide sustainable protein to a growing global population, foster global food security, and secure and provide livelihoods, among many other benefits. The onus is on us to produce and use these resources sustainably to ensure we have them for the future.

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 Geoff Trodd, Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | Blue Foods Already Feed the World: In the U.S., Awareness and Optimism Grow appeared first on Food Tank.

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.

Brazil’s groundwater under pressure Channel News brendan 27th July 2026 Teaser Media

by David Spratt

Download the submission

Climate disruption, not China,  is the key security threat facing Australia is the main message in the Safe Climate Australia submission to the AUKUS Public Inquiry.  This is the text.

Summary

• Climate disruption presents Australia’s greatest long-term security threat.
• AUKUS risks over-prioritising military competition over systemic climate risks.
• Climate impacts threaten food, water, infrastructure, health and regional stability.
• Security spending should better reflect the scale and certainty of climate risks.
• Australia needs a climate-first national security framework focused on resilience and prevention.  

The biggest security threat  

The first duty of any government is to “protect the people”: their collective and individual safety, their health and well-being, their property and livelihoods, and their civil and democratic rights.
This should be the starting point for any government’s security policy: human security, including national, regional and global security.  

But this has not been the case in Australia. Security policy has been generally constructed as a national defence and border security issue with an emphasis on the state-security institutions: police, customs, military and intelligence services. Even from this narrow perspective, Australia has not released a national security strategy since 2013, nor has security responsibility been integrated across government. 

As a result there has been a de facto privileging of defence policy as a substitute for a broad approach to “protecting the people”. The National Defence Strategy has become a military-focussed stand-in for a security policy, and even the defence policy seems in practical terms to be often reduced to an acquisitions plan.  It has become a shopping list as a substitute for a policy, and AUKUS sits atop the list.

The AUKUS plan arrived without sufficient consideration of the biggest threats to Australia and Australians’ future safety.

To start at the beginning, the greatest threats are those that may be termed existential or catastrophic risks, that is, those that have the capacity to so disrupt human society from its present structures and course of development that it is unable to (fully) recover. In general, these risks include climate and Earth system disruption, pandemics, weapons of mass destruction, near-Earth asteroid collisions and the impacts of digital technology and artificial intelligence (including disinformation).

Each year, the World Economic Forum (WEF) surveys global leaders in the public and private spheres on their risk perceptions, and from that data compiles an annual report. This year, over the longer term (ten years), respondents rated climate disruption and Earth system degradation as the top four risks, and five of the top 10 (see Figure 1).  Misinformation, AI and cyber espionage account for another three places and the remaining two were inequality and social polarisation. State-based conflict and geopolitical confrontation (such  as war involving China) didn’t make the long-term list.

Figure 1: Global risks ranked by severity, World Economic Forum, 2026

AUKUS only makes sense if siding with the USA in a war with China is identified as the security priority in the medium term. However, many expert voices, including those of the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group, have repeatedly made the point that climate, not China, is the biggest threat.

Security assessment 

In a way, some of the Australian Government’s own actions support this view.  In 2022, shortly after coming to power, the Albanese government commissioned the Office of National Intelligence (ONI) to prepare Australia’s first climate and security risk assessment, with an emphasis on the Indo-Pacific region, and as an input into the Defence Strategic Review.  It was delivered to the Government’s National Security Committee of Cabinet in December 2022, where it was met with shock and awe, with ministers saying they had not heard anything like it before. The ONI report was immediately securitised and not even members of relevant parliamentary policy committees were briefed, nor was a declassified version made public. This was the opposite of the practice for the Defence Strategic Review, where a declassified version was available immediately. 

For the past three years, the government has barely spoken about climate–security threats. Consideration of these threats in both the Defence Security Review and the subsequent 2024 National Defence Strategy and 2026 National Defence Strategy was cursory at best, more accurately tokenistic. The 2026 document contains no strategy in response to systemic climate–security risks.

The reasons for this secrecy seem obvious: the ONI report said things so drastic about the likely climate impacts on Australian and regional security that its narrative would have exposed Australia’s decisions to support and license new coal and gas exports as an act of gross climate vandalism that would undermine Australia’s future security.

This was made clear when the Government decided, for reasons that were not publicly explained, to brief a small number of independent members of the Parliament in late 2024.  One of those briefed, Senator David Pocock, called the ONI report “frankly terrifying”. “We’re woefully underprepared for what’s coming,” Pocock told The Saturday Paper, “It’s no surprise that the government has been sitting on this report from the Office of National Intelligence.” Others in attendance have made similar comments, and he and progressive independents in the House of Representatives say it is “recklessly negligent” not to let Australians know as well.

Global security risk assessment 

It is reasonable to assume that the ONI report was consistent with a similar piece of work issued two years earlier in the UK by that country’s premier security think tank, Chatham House. That report, Climate change risk assessment 2021, found that without a sharp emissions decline before 2030 (which current trajectories suggest is increasingly unlikely), impacts likely to be locked in for the period 2040–50 include:

• A 30% drop in crop yields by 2050;
• Food demand will be 50% higher; and
• One-third of cropland will be affected by severe drought each year.

The assessment warned that the world is “dangerously off track” to meet the Paris Agreement goals, that the risks are compounding, and that “without immediate action the impacts will be devastating” in the coming decades, especially for food security. It concluded that the drop in crop yields and more severe and extensive droughts would contribute to cascading climate impacts and “drive political instability and greater national insecurity, and fuel regional and international conflict”.

Twenty years ago, Kurt Campbell, who was United States Deputy Secretary of State and National Security Council coordinator for the Indo-Pacific in the Biden administration, led a group of security analysts in producing a groundbreaking report on climate and security, The Age of Consequences. In it, they described a scenario in which the world had warmed by 3°C:

“Massive nonlinear events in the global environment give rise to massive nonlinear societal events. In this scenario, nations around the world will be overwhelmed by the scale of change and pernicious challenges, such as pandemic disease. The internal cohesion of nations will be under great stress, including in the United States, both as a result of a dramatic rise in migration and changes in agricultural patterns and water availability. The flooding of coastal communities around the world, especially in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China, has the potential to challenge regional and even national identities. Armed conflict between nations over resources, such as the Nile and its tributaries, is likely and nuclear war is possible. The social consequences range from increased religious fervour to outright chaos. In this scenario, climate change provokes a permanent shift in the relationship of humankind to nature’ (emphasis added).” 

This is the future Australia will face, but in our parliament it has not been a topic of serious conversation since a Senate inquiry on the topic eight years ago, despite growing evidence regarding escalating climate-related security risks.

It is no longer controversial that climate disruption is an existential threat. Pacific leaders, the UN Secretary-General, the former US Defence Secretary, and the current Australian climate minister have said it. Nobody says that China is an existential risk, and that represents the great inversion in Australian security policy: a secondary issue becomes primary policy, and the greatest threat is simply not spoken about. 

Like the WEF, the Global Challenges Foundation (GCF) also releases an annual report on the big risks to humanity. Their Global Catastrophic Risks 2026 report identified the key issues as:

• Catastrophic climate change and responsibility in the age of Earth system tipping points; 
• Ecological collapse and nature in global governance; 
• Weapons of mass destruction and multi-domain escalation risk; 
• AI in military decision-making and the global governance challenge; and
• Near-Earth asteroids and how to protect Earth from the asteroid impact hazard

Regional impacts

Catastrophic climate change is coming to our region, given the present failure to rapidly reduce climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions. The world has reached 1.5°C of warming, the rate is accelerating, and Earth will hit 2°C in around fifteen years on current trajectories. A survey of climate scientists found that a majority think warming will exceed 3°C given the current level of global climate action. 
Scientists have described a zone of “near-unliveable” heat at 2.7°C of global average warming, which will exhibit levels of heat beyond that ever experienced by humans, currently only found on 0.8% of the world’s surface, and that would affect 22–39% of the global population, mainly in Asia (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Projected zone of heat of “near-unliveable conditions” at 2.7°C global average warming.

It is difficult to imagine the consequences of such a world, but these impacts will become perhaps the greatest security challenge to Australia. Part of the risk is northern Australia, which will also become practically unliveable for part of the year. 

This has direct implications for AUKUS, because Australia is already spending billions upgrading facilities in northern Australia, mainly for the purpose of making them de facto US bases (Figure 3). How these bases would operate in such conditions of extreme heat seems not to have been fully considered by the government in its security planning and spending. It is another example of how climate and security risks may collide.

Figure 3: Zone of extreme heat and defence bases in northern Australia at 2.7°C global average warming (ASLCG)

This reinforces the need for a comprehensive Australian security strategy, not an acquisitions shopping list with an eye-watering price tag that will do very little to protect Australia from the biggest threats.
Security policy has to be built on solid ground, not on the shifting sands of the AUKUS. 

Rebuilding security policy

If security policy is to be truly taken seriously, here are some initial steps:

Regular government catastrophic risk assessments. An initial step would be a comprehensive assessment by ONI, drawing on agencies across government and more broadly, of the catastrophic risks Australia faces, including those identified by global leaders in the 2026 risk reports of the WEF and GCF. Such an assessment could draw upon the valuable work done by ONI in the still-classified 2022 climate and security risk assessment. The new work on the ecology of catastrophic risks Australia faces should include a declassified public version. A forward-thinking and security-aware parliament would legislate a Catastrophic Risks Assessment Bill mandating such regular work as part of ongoing security policy review and development. 

A commitment to regular climate risk assessments that are comprehensive and integrated in looking at systemic risks. They need to avoid the pitfalls that have befallen the ONI report and the domestically-focussed National Climate Risk Assessment: siloed analysis, bottom-up methodologies, narrow terms of reference and secrecy.

Rebuilding Australia’s climate science capacity, which has been so run down that scientists are in despair that Australia’s climate model, the only one in the Southern Hemisphere, is now so lacking in staff and resources that it will cease to function properly in helping understand what climate warming and the security risks will look and feel like in the future. 

Based on these three actions, the production and regular updating of a National Security Strategy would reflect the commitment of a government which genuinely seeks to protect the people, their safety and well-being.

• Download the submission

 

A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, July 19, 2026 thru Sat, July 25, 2026. Stories we promoted this week, by category:

Climate Change Impacts (11 articles)

• Insane': Republicans Push To Punish Canada For Wildfires “We will not tolerate this incompetence,” vowed Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno, who may not understand how climate change works. Huffington Post, Jennifer Bendery, Jul 17, 2026.
• UN to list more sites as 'in danger' from conflict or climate change Phys.org, Simon Valmary and Celia Lebur, Jul 18, 2026.
• As mosquito ranges expand, better monitoring is key to preventing disease Monitoring is expensive and labor intensive. But it helps public health officials stop outbreaks. Ars Technica, Madeline Shaw, Jul 19, 2026.
• Climate Scientists Say The Dice Are Loaded. Here's Why "Just have a Think" on Youtube, Dave Borlace, July 19, 2026.
• Opinion: Is the Colorado River in a climate doom loop? We caused a problem, and our efforts to fix the problem make it worse Colorado Newsline, Gary Wockner, Jul 20, 2026.
• Rising seas magnify the dangers of coastal Georgia`s industrial past The state’s first Superfund research center is looking into how climate change is resurfacing industrial pollution. Grist, Emily Jones, Jul 20, 2026.
• Extreme heat morphs into a major economic shock for an unprepared Europe Europe’s status as the planet’s fastest-warming continent is becoming a serious drag on its economic prospects. The Business Standard, Laura Millan, Jul 21, 2026.
• What Happens to Our Brains in a Warming World? In this era of advancing AI, when everyone is debating the nature of 'intelligence,' we have forgotten that our brains run well only within a narrow band of temperature. What happens to the brain once that temperature threshold is crossed is often overlooked in discussions of climate change. State of the Planet, Marco Tedesco and Burcin Ikiz, Jul 22, 2026.
• The year climate change came for the Tour de France Record heat, wildfire threats, and an unprecedented stage modification highlighted the growing challenge global warming poses to endurance sports. Grist, Tik Root, Jul 23, 2026.
• Climate change to obliterate $1.5 trillion in U.S. home values Climate change will wipe out about $1.47 trillion in U.S. home values over the next three decades and hasten economic gaps in U.S. communities, a report released on Monday finds. CBS News, Kate Gibson , Jul 23, 2026.
• This El Niño is set to be the largest on record by a ‘mind-blowing margin’ Forecasters predict that the monster climate pattern will combine with global warming to push global temperatures in 2027 to new heights. Nature, James Dinneen, Jul 23, 2026.

Climate Policy and Politics (5 articles)

• How Companies Have Abandoned Their Climate Goals and Let Themselves Off the Hook Big business made big promises about saving the planet. Following through hasn’t been easy. New York Times, David Gelles, Jul 17, 2026.
• Trump threatens new Canada tariffs over fires sending 'filthy' air into US cities US President Donald Trump has threatened to impose new tariffs on Canada after hundreds of wildfires have left much of the northern US covered by a blanket of smoke. BBC News, Nadine Yousif, Jul 18, 2026.
• Majority of US voters link extreme weather to climate crisis, study finds Top Democrat says findings show public ‘way ahead of the politicians’ as Trump dismisses global heating as ‘hoax’ The Guardian, Dharna Noor with graphics by Andrew Witherspoon, Jul 19, 2026.
• Trump Lashes Out at National Academies of Sciences Over Climate Guide For Judges Trump claimed without evidence that the manual was “fraudulent, biased, and misleading.” Inside Climate News, Dennis Pillion, July 20, 2026.
• Q&A: What the EU`s carbon market review means for climate action The European Commission has put forward new plans to cut emissions under the EU carbon market more slowly, from 2031 onwards. Carbon Brief, Orla Dwyer, Jul 20, 2026.

Climate Education and Communication (3 articles)

• Why Earth is reflecting less sunlight Climate change is first and foremost an emissions problem. It’s also fast becoming a reflection problem. Climate Trunk, John Lang, Jul 21, 2026.
• The climate crisis onscreen: 14 films that made waves Climate-themed films matter more than ever as the Trump administration weakens environmental protections. Here are some of the best and most meaningful ones. Capital & Main, Alex Demyanenko, Jul 22, 2026.
• Trump calls climate change a hoax. Americans aren`t buying it New polling finds broad agreement that the climate crisis is worsening heat, floods, and wildfires. Mother Jones, Dharna Noor, Jul 24, 2026.

Climate Science and Research (3 articles)

• Skeptical Science New Research for Week #29 2026 A regular weekly survey of climate-related research from academic, government and NGO sources. Skeptical Science, Doug Bostrom & Marc Kodack, Jul 16, 2026.
• Skeptical Science New Research for Week #30 2026 Skeptical Science, Doug Bostrom & Marc Kodack, Jul 23, 2026.
• France orders total evacuation of Cap Ferret peninsula as wildfire spreads ‘Unpredictable’ blaze forces evacuation of holiday spot Cap Ferret and Spain declares emergency over fires near Madrid The Guardian, Jon Henley in Paris and Sam Jones in Madrid, Jul 24, 2026.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (2 articles)

• Lake Powell shrinks and marinas must adapt “The Colorado River is in full-blown crisis mode,” said John Berggren, regional policy manager with Western Resource Advocates, an environmental nonprofit. AP News, DORANY PINEDA and JOHN LOCHER, Jul 22, 2026.
• Air conditioning is not enough to keep people cool — can scientists find an alternative? Air conditioning can end up as a climate maladaptation due to installation and operation expenses as well as serious side-effects, but advances in methods to passively cool buildings hint at solutions without drawbacks. Nature, Rachel Fieldhouse, Jul 22, 2026.

Miscellaneous (2 articles)

• 2026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29 A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, July 12, 2026 thru Sat, July 18, 2026. Skeptical Science, Bärbel Winkler & Doug Bostrom, Jul 19, 2026.
• Oil Firms Knew for Decades of Methane’s Danger to Planet, Documents Suggest The companies knew they were releasing more of the greenhouse gas than they publicly reported, according to industry files cited by the Center for Climate Integrity, an activist organization. NYT, Hiroko Tabuchi, Jul 21, 2026.

Climate Law and Justice (1 article)

• Trump Attacks National Academies Over Climate Chapter in Judges` Manual The president joined Republican officials who slammed the National Academies of Sciences for a chapter about climate science in an educational guide for judges. NYT, Karen Zraick, Jul 20, 2026.

Public Misunderstandings about Climate Science (1 article)

•  Hot days, cold thermometers Why a viral graph on US days above 95F is misleading and overstates regional warmth The Climate Brink, Zeke Hausfather, Jul 22, 2026.

If you happen upon high quality climate-science and/or climate-myth busting articles from reliable sources while surfing the web, please feel free to submit them via this Google form so that we may share them widely. Thanks!

America’s offshore wind farms have already shown their ability to keep electricity flowing during brutal winter storms. Now, the clean energy resource has proved it can also bolster the grid during major heat waves.

Earlier this month, as dangerously hot and humid temperatures settled over the eastern United States, two wind projects near New England consistently delivered hundreds of megawatts to the grid as residents cranked up their air conditioners. The influx of wind reduced utilities’ reliance on dirty, expensive oil-burning peaker plants, which operate only when electricity demand is through the roof, according to the data firm Grid Status.

Analysts compared how the regional system performed during the July heat wave and a sweltering stretch in June 2025, before much of the current offshore wind capacity came online. Oil provided nearly 10 percent of the region’s total power supply during peak-demand conditions on July 2, 2026 — that period’s hottest day — down from nearly 15 percent at the highest point on June 24, 2025. That’s a drop of more than a gigawatt in oil-fueled generation between those two days.

Part of the decline was due to slightly weaker overall demand during the July 2 peak than during last year’s event. But Grid Status said that stronger generation from the region’s utility-scale offshore wind farms was a key factor. The projects are coming online despite repeated attempts by the Trump administration to block them.

Read Next Biden’s climate law is dead. The energy transition might not be. Jake Bittle

The surge of hydropower delivered via the New England Clean Energy Connect power line, which started carrying electricity from Canada to Maine in January, also reduced peak oil use. Meanwhile, an abundance of rooftop solar installations significantly eased overall electricity demand during the heat wave.

“Even if total demand was in line with last year, we would still be hundreds of megawatts below what the total [peak oil] burn would’ve been,” said Tim Ennis, a Grid Status analyst in Boston. ​“We didn’t have to turn the oil on as hard at lunchtime because we had the wind and [hydropower line] online as well.”

Ennis noted that offshore wind is often touted by experts for its ability to bolster grid reliability during winter. New England’s power system is becoming increasingly constrained in colder months, owing to the shift to electric space and water heating systems. Ocean winds in the region are at their strongest and steadiest during the season, meaning offshore turbines can help meet some of that growing electricity demand and reduce stress on gas-fueled power plants.

While wind speeds are generally lower during summer, the recent heat wave confirms that the projects still play a meaningful role on the hottest days — more of which are headed for the region this week.

The 806-MW Vineyard Wind, off the coast of Massachusetts, finished construction in March, and its developer had activated 49 of its 62 turbines as of early May. The 704-MW Revolution Wind, near Rhode Island, started sending power to the grid in March and is set to reach full commercial operations by the second half of 2026.

Read Next The Pentagon is blocking more than 150 wind projects over drone fears Austin Corona

Ennis said data shows that the commissioned offshore turbines relieved grid stress from July 1 to 4, during periods when air conditioning use was at its peak, offsetting some of utilities’ need to turn on oil plants, a step that adds to customers’ already high utility bills. All told, New England operators produced 42.2 gigawatt-hours of oil-fired power during that four-day heat wave, down 37 percent from the total oil burned from June 23 to 25, 2025.

Outside New England, the already completed 132-MW South Fork Wind farm had a strong showing off the coast of New York. The project, which came online in 2024, operated at nearly full capacity on July 2, sending electricity into the heat-stressed grid on Long Island, Mikkel Mæhlisen of Ørsted, which jointly owns South Fork Wind with Skyborn Renewables, recently wrote on LinkedIn.

The Independent System Operator New England has previously stressed the role that offshore wind can play in supporting the grid during extreme heat events. The regional grid operator spoke out last August after the Trump administration halted construction of Revolution Wind, which was then 80 percent complete.

Read Next ‘Why take those jobs away?’: The unionized workers decrying Trump’s war on wind Michael Sainato, The Guardian

“Recent heatwaves in New England drove demand for electricity to very high levels and demonstrated that our region needs all generation resources with market obligations to be available to meet demand and maintain required reserves,” ISO New England said in an August 25, 2025, statement, noting that delaying Revolution Wind ​“will increase risks to reliability.”

A federal judge overturned the stop-work order in September. But its developer Ørsted was forced to hit the brakes again in December after Trump’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management paused the leases for all five large-scale U.S. offshore wind projects under construction. Though judges later lifted those orders as well, the delays still cost some developers millions of dollars and threatened projects’ viability.

The Trump administration has since adopted a new tactic for kneecapping America’s fledgling offshore wind industry: paying developers to abandon plans for future wind farms, using billions of dollars in taxpayer funding. The strategy makes it highly unlikely that any new projects will be built in the next few years.

However, when all five wind farms are fully up and running, they will add nearly 6 GW in clean capacity to help the East Coast navigate days of bone-chilling cold or life-threatening heat.

“The potential costs and benefits of offshore wind have been debated for decades,” said Fara Courtney, who consults on offshore wind policies and research projects for Outer Harbor Consulting, in Gloucester, Massachusetts. ​“Now we have the first projects up and producing, [and] the data is clear: Offshore wind is a new American energy sector with a big role to play in meeting this region’s skyrocketing energy demand.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Here’s how offshore wind helped New England beat record heat on Jul 26, 2026.

The Los Angeles Food Policy Council’s (LAFPC) Cultivating Farmers program helps urban and peri-urban farmers navigate land access, business development, and long-term viability.

Through workshops, technical assistance, and free one-on-one advising, the program supports growers as they work to build and sustain their operations. For Black Thumb Farm, a nonprofit urban farm in the San Fernando Valley, that support has supported them through a years-long effort to secure long-term access to public land.

Cultivating Farmers launched in 2024 to provide business-focused support to farmers across Los Angeles. Rather than focusing on production practices, the program centers business planning, insurance, grant writing, marketing, and sales strategy.

“The program is all about supporting urban farmers with the business side of running a farm,” Nikhita Jain, Senior Urban Agriculture Program Associate at LAFPC, tells Food Tank. “Outside the work of growing food, starting and operating a farm business has its own learning curve.”

According to Jain, many urban farmers in Los Angeles face barriers that extend well beyond growing food. She says the city lacks some of the support systems available in other cities.”The City of Los Angeles does not have a dedicated person or office focused on urban agriculture,” Jain tells Food Tank.

Without those resources, Jain says many farmers rely on informal agreements with schools, churches, and community organizations to access land. While those arrangements with landowners can create opportunities, they can also leave farmers vulnerable if leadership changes or properties are sold.

“It’s all relationship-based,” Jain explains. “Maybe there’s a city council member who really believes in what the urban farmer is doing. But then if that person changes, that’s where that uncertainty comes in.”

The lack of long-term land security can make it difficult for farmers to plan. Jain says growers may hesitate to invest in infrastructure or soil improvements when they do not know whether they will still have access to the land several years later. Informal arrangements can also make it harder to access certain grants and federal programs that require documentation of land tenure.

Black Thumb Farm has experienced many of those challenges firsthand.

Founded by Alexys Romo and Analisa Joh, the nonprofit urban farm centers BIPOC youth and communities through land-based programming, culturally sustaining food production, and environmental education. The organization operates programs that introduce young people to farming, workforce development, food sovereignty, and stewardship of the natural world.

Black Thumb Farm has spent roughly five years working to secure access to a 2.3-acre publicly owned parcel in the northeastern San Fernando Valley.

“There is no formal or institutionalized process,” Jain tells Food Tank. “They just started calling the city and trying to figure out who to talk to. Eventually they got a call back.”

Throughout that effort, Black Thumb Farm has worked with partners including the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust while navigating multiple layers of local government. Jain says the experience illustrates both the persistence required of urban farmers and the need for stronger institutional support.

Helping farmers navigate those challenges is a central part of Cultivating Farmers’ mission. In addition to workshops, the program offers individualized advising sessions with Jain where growers can receive support tailored to their specific goals and obstacles.

Jain believes additional public investment and dedicated support structures could help more urban farmers establish long-term roots. But she also points to organizations like Black Thumb Farm as evidence of what is possible when growers receive the support they need.

For communities across Los Angeles, the benefits extend beyond food production. Farms can create green space, provide educational opportunities, and strengthen community connections. Through Cultivating Farmers, LAFPC is working to ensure that the people building those spaces have the tools and resources to succeed.

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 Black Thumb Farm

The post How One Los Angeles Program Helps Urban Farmers Thrive appeared first on Food Tank.

News & Resources Learn more about our 2026 cohort of RAFI farmer grantees. Watch the FOCN webinar on Community Crop Variety Trials. View more trainings and workshops in our Trainings & Webinar Library. Listen to Come to the Table’s new podcast, Food & Conversations. Find farm grants, loans, and relief payment programs through Farm Aid’s […]

The post Links & Information: Farmers Connection Fall 2026 appeared first on RAFI.

Each week, Food Tank is rounding up a few news stories that inspire excitement, infuriation, or curiosity.

Bangladeshi Farmers and Environmentalists Protest Harmful Pesticides

This week, food producers and environmentalists gathered in northwestern Bangladesh, where they called on national leaders to phase out extremely hazardous pesticides including paraquat. 

Fishers say that they used to catch a wide variety of local fish, but over the years, populations—and their income—have declined. Indigenous communities are also losing wild and medicinal plants and other foods they rely on. Advocates say that Bangladesh, as a member of the Rotterdam Convention and the Stockholm Convention, is obliged to play a role in implementing international commitments. 

“Agriculture dependent on pesticides and chemicals can never be sustainable,” says Atikur Rahman, President of the Barendra Youth Forum “We want a farming system where safe food, biodiversity conservation and climate justice are ensured together.”

USDA Reorganization Threatens Major Programs

Employees at the U.S. Department of Agriculture are warning that the agency’s reorganization plans threaten several key programs that support food aid, food safety,  and agricultural research. 

If employees are relocated as planned, less than 10 people will oversee the billions of dollars managed through the country’s international food aid program, Food For Peace, according to Collin Bradley, President of AFSCME Local 3976, the labor union representing USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service. He believes the changes will “decimate the agency.”

Last week, food safety groups also asked Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to pause the relocation of the Environmental Microbial and Food Safety Laboratory. In a letter, they wrote, “The loss of highly specialized scientific expertise would be substantial” and similar moves in the past have led to “gaps in institutional knowledge and reduced effectiveness.”

One Agricultural Research Service employee, who asked to remain anonymous, worries about the toll the moves take on morale as well, telling Politico, “everybody is just really in a bad place mentally.”

Rodale Institute Launches Campaign to Transition 10 Million Acres

Rodale Institute launched a new campaign to transition 10 million acres of U.S. farmland to organic and regenerative organic by 2030.

CEO Jeff Tkach says, “Our goal is simple: give farmers the research, education and support they need to succeed. When they do, the benefits reach far beyond the farm to strengthen our communities and the economy.”

One of the central pieces of the campaign is their Center for Regenerative Organic Innovation, which officially broke ground. Set to open in 2028, it will serve as a national hub for farmer education that includes three virtual classrooms.

The Institute aims to raise US$139 million to support the full campaign, which is guided by their new five-year Strategic Plan. These funds will help them conduct 10 long-term research trials; educate 100,000 farmers, agricultural professionals, and consumers; and reach 100 million people. At a time when the average age of U.S. farmers is on the rise, the Institute hopes to create more career paths to bring young people into agriculture. 

Brazil Invests in Thriving Namibian Food Systems

The government of Brazil announced a US$120,000 investment to continue a successful program boosting food security in Namibia. The new funding is expected to benefit more than 1,000 people. 

The project, which was implemented by the Namibian government in 2021 with support of the World Food Programme, has grown into a network of community farms that produce vegetables and eggs for schools, clinics, and vulnerable households. They also offer training to help farmers develop their business skills. 

National Planning Commission Director General Ambassador Kaire Mbuende says the program proves that people can move from relief to resilience. “Communities that once received food are now producing it,” he says. 

Mbuende sees Brazil’s support as an prime example of South-South cooperation, stating, “Brazil shares with us the lessons of its own journey, from school feeding linked to family farming to public procurement from smallholder producers. These are lessons between equals.”

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 Immo Wegmann, Unsplash

The post Food Tank’s Weekly News Roundup: Farmers Protest Toxic Pesticides, USDA Plans Threaten the Agency, Rodale Institute Invests in Agricultural Transformation appeared first on Food Tank.

Christine Waugh-Fleischmann, an art teacher who said she spends up to $200 a week on gas driving to see her grandchildren, is a Democratic voter in Michigan’s 7th Congressional District. One of the most competitive seats in the country, it is currently held by Republican Representative Tom Barrett and she believes the seat can be flipped, partly due to the high price of gas. 

“I do see a lot of people in my conservative neighborhood here who are very upset,” she told Reuters. “It’s gas. It’s grocery prices, it’s health care costs.”

The arithmetic of her frustration is easy to trace. After war broke out with Iran in late February, the average price of gas in Michigan jumped roughly 32 percent in three weeks, from $2.99 to $3.95 a gallon. Governor Gretchen Whitmer declared a formal energy emergency to let southeast Michigan stations sell cheaper summer-blend fuel, citing both the war and tariffs. Prices kept climbing anyway — including a 90-cent spike in a single week, among the sharpest in any midterm battleground — briefly topping $4 before coming down in recent months.

Read Next Why are so many Democrats going quiet on climate change? Kate Yoder

Crisis, emergency orders, persistent pain heading into the fall: That is the narrative spine of Michigan’s midterms, and both parties know it.

A ground shift

Republicans spent years circling Michigan as their best 2026 pickup opportunity. Now doubts are creeping in. A Democrat won a special state Senate election in May by nearly 20 points in a district Kamala Harris carried by less than one, and President Donald Trump’s economic approval fell even among Republicans, from 74 percent to 62 percent, between March and April.

In a Climate Power survey of 600 likely Michigan voters conducted in mid-June, 42 percent of those polled, including 44 percent of independents, said they would be less likely to vote for a congressional candidate who supports Trump’s energy policies, as opposed to 21 percent who said they’d be more likely. And 58 percent said Trump has made energy prices more expensive, while 63 percent rejected his claim that high gas prices are a “small price to pay” for the war in Iran. Since the war began, 45 percent said they had grown more supportive of diversifying America’s energy sources, including solar and wind.

“Trump’s energy agenda is costing Michigan families at the pump and on their power bills — and voters know it,” said Tom Lenard, Climate Power’s Michigan director, warning that candidates who back it “do so at their own political peril.”

Not every voter in Barrett’s district sees it that way. Alexander Melton, a 38-year-old heating and air conditioning technician, told Reuters that he still backs the Republican congressman. “We don’t dictate the price of gas,” he said.

Affordability versus the ‘Green New Scam’

In the Democratic Senate primary, which takes place August 4, Haley Stevens, Mallory McMorrow, and Abdul El-Sayed have all tied affordability messaging to clean energy — McMorrow, before exiting the race, called it “a freedom issue, it’s a cost issue” and argued that Democrats are “on the precipice” of lowering bills. Republican Mike Rogers, who’s running for a U.S. Senate seat for the second time, countered that the push for renewables is itself what is driving up Michigan’s energy costs.

Read Next The Trump EPA ended the ‘green new scam.’ A year later, communities are still paying the price.  Sophie Hurwitz

Underneath the messaging war sits real economic damage. Michigan lost $4.1 billion in planned clean manufacturing investment and roughly 11,700 jobs after the Trump-era rollbacks, while $540 million in climate grants were canceled or delayed — including $156 million meant to help low-income residents install solar panels. And the administration ordered Consumers Energy to keep the J.H. Campbell coal plant running past its planned retirement, a move the state’s attorney general and other critics said will cost ratepayers more than transitioning away from it.

The fallout has cut across party lines. In March of last year, Representative John James of Shelby Township and at least seven other House Republicans called on their colleagues to preserve the Biden-era clean energy tax credits. “We must not neglect the sector-wide energy tax provisions that manufacturers and job creators rely on in my district,” James said.

Divided government, divided stakes

The starkest fight is in Lansing. Michigan’s 2023 Clean Energy and Jobs Act requires 100 percent renewable electricity by 2040, but the November elections could determine the law’s future. House Republicans last month passed “Project Lighthouse,” a package that would repeal the clean energy mandates; its sponsor, state Representative Pauline Wendzel, called the 2023 requirements “arbitrary” and said they help large investor-owned utilities instead of everyday ratepayers. The legislation is likely dead in the Democratic-held Senate — for now. But DTE Energy and Consumers Energy, the state’s largest utilities, will submit integrated resource plans in 2026 for the first time under the new law, meaning the election will set the ground rules just as they take effect.

Ben Poulson, state government affairs director for the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, argued the repeal legislation reaches further than its sponsors let on. “It repeals a lot of programs that we have been using to lower energy waste and lessens the accountability that we have on utility companies here in the state,” he told Planet Detroit.

Denise Keele, executive director of the Michigan Climate Action Network, said that climate change is showing up on the campaign trail under a different name. “We’re seeing it show up as energy affordability,” she said, noting that Michiganders pay some of the highest residential electricity and gas rates in the country. House Republicans, she said, “are essentially blaming clean and renewable energy as [to] why those energy prices are going up” — even though renewables make up only about 11 percent of the state’s mix and wind and solar are cheaper and faster to build. Her frustration cuts both ways: Not enough Democrats, she argued, are running on renewable energy’s success, a reticence she likened to what acclaimed environmental activist and journalist Bill McKibben calls “climate hushing.” The honest case — that prices will rise less with renewables than with fossil fuels — “is apparently too hard to message.”

Data centers and utility money

The hottest flashpoint may be data centers, which have driven up utility rates while promising jobs — and split traditional Democratic constituencies. Gubernatorial frontrunner Jocelyn Benson, endorsed by the Michigan League of Conservation Voters at a Grand Rapids riverfront event, has pledged enforceable guardrails on data centers and utilities and a moratorium on companies that violate environmental standards. Her platform centers on expanding clean energy to lower utility bills, replacing aging water infrastructure and reinstating polluter pay laws. 

Read Next America’s data center backlash is bipartisan — can it stay that way? Zoya Teirstein & Kate Yoder

But some unions back the data center projects. “We respectfully urge policymakers to support a responsible path forward for data center development that protects communities, grows the tax base, strengthens our workforce and keeps Michigan competitive for decades to come,” Douglas W. Stockwell, business manager and general vice president of Operating Engineers 324, testified at a hearing in Michigan’s House of Representatives.

Voter anger at the utilities is reshaping the money race, too. More than 150 Michigan politicians from both parties have pledged to reject campaign funding from Consumers Energy and DTE, according to the Michigan League of Conservation Voters — even as Consumers Energy requested another rate hike for its electricity customers this week. 

“This is disgusting what’s happening and it’s exploitative, it’s extractive, it’s unethical,” said Jerry Norris, a Lansing community activist who said he is following the money this cycle. “It might not own everybody when they accept money like that, but it influences it, and it creates an obligation and it creates a debt,” he told WILX10.

For voters like Alexis Jones of Lansing, the debate comes down to a number on an envelope. His utility bill is “almost $400,” he said. 

“It’s terrible. And not only do I have to look out for me, but I’ve got little munchkins, grandkids, to look after. And things are out of control.”

Copyright 2026 Capital & Main

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline In Michigan, the price of energy is on the ballot and both parties know it on Jul 25, 2026.