News Feeds

Scroll to the end to view the trailer for this movie. From its very first moments, the movie H Is for Hawk shines its spotlight on the beauty and power of the goshawk. The film’s opening credits...

Small, plug-in PV systems are populating balconies across Europe and the US, but many Australian apartment dwellers are locked out of the new solar boom.

The post Balcony solar is powering apartments from Berlin to Barcelona. So why not in Australia? appeared first on Renew Economy.

The new Net Zero Fund will launch in mid-2026 with a $5bn kitty of cheap money for industries wanting to go clean and green.

The post Weaning off fossil fuels: Net Zero Fund offers super-cheap loans to big business for clean energy upgrades appeared first on Renew Economy.

By: John E. Peck, executive director of Family Farm Defenders An abridged version of this article was recently published in the Capitol Hill Citizen The Grinch really stole Xmas last year for many family farmers – and sadly his spirit … Continue reading →

Aqua Metals (NASDAQ: AQMS) and American Battery Factory (ABF) announced Tuesday a proposed strategic collaboration focused on advancing the domestic battery materials supply chain through recycling and circular manufacturing.

Under a non-binding memorandum of understanding (MOU), the companies will evaluate the co-location of a commercial Aqua Metals battery recycling facility adjacent to ABF’s planned battery cell manufacturing operations in Tucson, Arizona.

The proposed collaboration would enable Aqua Metals to recycle lithium-ion-phosphate (LFP) battery manufacturing scrap generated by ABF and return battery-grade lithium carbonate for reuse in US-based battery production, the companies said.

The collaboration is designed to address a key challenge facing the US battery industry: how to economically process battery materials domestically rather than exporting manufacturing scrap and black mass to overseas markets, primarily in Asia, for conventional hydrometallurgical processing.

In late 2025, Aqua Metals signed a non-binding letter of intent with Westwin Elements, the only major US nickel refinery, to supply up to 1,000 metric tons of recycled nickel carbonate a year starting in 2027.

The potential deal, valued at around $12 million annually based on current nickel prices, aims to strengthen domestic production of critical minerals.

Integrating recycling with battery manufacturing

By integrating recycling directly with battery manufacturing, the companies aim to improve cost competitiveness, reduce logistics complexity and strengthen domestic supply chain resilience.

Aqua Metals’ proprietary AquaRefining technology replaces high-temperature furnaces and chemical-intensive hydrometallurgical processes with an electricity-powered, closed-loop system. This approach, it said, is designed to operate more efficiently in the US regulatory and labor environment, while creating manufacturing jobs and producing battery-grade materials suitable for direct reuse.

“This strategic collaboration reflects our belief that domestic battery recycling must be economically viable, not just environmentally preferable,” Aqua Metals CEO Steve Cotton said in a news release.

“By working alongside American Battery Factory, we are evaluating a model that would keep valuable materials in circulation, support US manufacturing jobs, and offer a realistic alternative to exporting battery scrap overseas for processing methods that simply do not translate well to the United States.”

ABF is developing large-scale LFP battery cell manufacturing capacity in the US, supported by federal and state initiatives aimed at expanding domestic battery production. Through the contemplated collaboration, Aqua Metals would develop a co-located recycling facility that would process manufacturing scrap using AquaRefining and supply battery-grade lithium carbonate back into ABF’s supply chain or to designated downstream partners.

The MOU also outlines plans to evaluate a commercial-scale recycling facility capable of processing up to 10,000 metric tons of lithium-ion battery materials annually, including both manufacturing scrap and third-party feedstock.

The companies are targeting 2028 for the start of commercial operations.

Photo: Lakeview Middle School in Watsonville, CA, surrounded by farms that use pesticides

At a Pesticide Reality Tour last May, Dr. Ann Lopez stood next to legendary farmworker activist Dolores Huerta, Lopez’s inspiration for her work to elevate the lives of farmworkers. Dolores Huerta, ever the activist at age 95, was there to support the Campaign for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture (CORA) co-founded by Lopez to eliminate the exposure to toxic pesticides that farmworkers endure with devastating regularity. 

Seventy percent of the population of the farming community of Watsonville, CA, where the rally was held, is Latinx, many of whom work in the local berry fields in the Pajaro Valley that straddles the Santa Cruz and Monterey County line. In this agricultural region, like many others, pesticides are routinely sprayed around schools and homes. Each year, one million pounds of pesticides are applied to farmland in Santa Cruz County, 67% of which are toxic fumigants that become airborne and can travel for miles.

One of these pesticides, chloropicrin, is banned or restricted in Europe. The chemical is injected into the soil as a sterilizing fumigant before planting a crop. In the First World War, it was used as a poison gas and recently there have been allegations that it is being used by the Russians in the war against Ukraine.

The European Union’s Food Safety Authority has established that chloropicrin is toxic when inhaled and causes severe eye, skin, and respiratory irritation. Some studies have indicated that it could also cause DNA damage.

Lopez, a biologist turned farmworker advocate, addressed the gathering about the dangers of pesticides with a tone of indignation, “I’m sick and tired of meeting families that have at least one kid that has some anomaly that will probably affect them for life including brain cancer, bone cancer, ADHD, and learning disabilities. It was shocking to go house-to-house and meet these families and almost everyone has some child that has one of the serious anomalies…. Mothers sent me pictures of their children just before they died.”

Lopez’s ire is not solely based on anecdotal evidence. The UCLA Fielding School of Public Health has identified 13 pesticides correlated to the onset of childhood cancer between birth and 5 years old, when the mother lives within 2.5 miles of pesticide application while pregnant.

Dr. Lopez pointed to the fact that Latinx school children are 3.2 times more likely than white students to attend schools with high exposure to hazardous pesticides as an example of environmental racism. Children and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of these agricultural toxins.

Ernestina Solorio has been working in the farm fields since 1993, even when she was pregnant with her two youngest children who have been diagnosed with ADHD, have learning problems and suffer from depression. Holding back tears as she addressed the CORA rally in Spanish, Solorio said, “Both of them are constantly going to medical appointments and counselors and psychologists. It is very difficult to see that they are not getting better or making any progress. If I had known about the chemicals in the field, I would have chosen not to work there. The difficult thing for me is that my lack of knowledge now results in my kids’ suffering. My 18 year old asks why he can’t be normal. The owner of these fields should have some conscience and think about the kids and how much they suffer… Driscoll’s should have some conscience and change those farms to organic for the kids and the farmworkers and the community.”

The CORA campaign is primarily targeting Driscoll’s, a family owned company that began in the early 1900’s in Watsonville and is now the largest berry grower in the world with farms in California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, Baja California, Chile, and Peru. CORA is promoting organic and regenerative farming as the remedy to the tragedy of farmworker families’ exposure to toxic pesticides that destroy health and even take lives.  Fifteen to twenty percent of Driscoll’s production is currently organic, however, 9 of the 11 schools in Pajaro Valley are adjacent to conventional farms that use toxic pesticides and the 2 others are only a couple of blocks away from farms that use chemical sprays.

Driscoll’s position is that they are in full compliance with state and federal pesticides laws. But evidence is mounting that those laws are woefully insufficient to protect the public’s health. Ultimately, CORA wants to see the more than 25,000 acres of farmland in the Pajaro Valley farmed organically. In the short term, their campaign is focused on having the fields near homes and schools converted to organic farms in order to protect the health of children and the wider community.

For more articles like this sign up for the Food Web newsletter

The post Pesticides Devastate Farmworkers Lives appeared first on Bioneers.

What rational sense does it make to spray food with poison? And yet that is the prevailing method in which food is grown commercially with the exception of a small percent of crops that are grown organically. Chemical pesticides (the suffix “cide” means killer) leave residues on foods that we consume daily. The USDA found that more than 75 percent of fruits and over 50 percent of vegetables contain pesticide residues.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determines what level of those pesticide residues are “safe.” The standard they use is that the pesticide will not cause “unreasonable adverse effects to humans or the environment.” Determination on whether a pesticide meets that standard is based on research done by the same chemical companies seeking approval for their products. The registration process can take 6 to 9 years, at a cost of millions of dollars. So, companies have substantial incentives to get their products approved and are assisted by a cadre of lobbyists.

According to the Environment Maryland Policy and Research Center, “Big agribusiness corporations have invested millions of dollars in campaign contributions and lobbying to defend agricultural practices that pollute America’s rivers, lakes and ocean waters and to defeat common-sense measures to clean up our waterways.”

Over the years, some government agencies, such as the Public Health Service and Fish and Wildlife have found evidence that pesticides negatively affect human health. After the publication of Rachel Carson’s seminal book ,Silent Spring, which sounded the alarm on the harms of pesticides, President John F. Kennedy directed the President’s Science Advisory Committee to investigate. The Committee found that pesticides cause environmental contamination and are potentially dangerous to other living organisms, including humans.

Prior to 1962, the government regulated pesticides mainly to verify that chemical preparations were effective, and were less concerned with issues of safety. But with the publishing of Silent Spring, and with support from the Kennedy administration, legislative action to evaluate pesticide safety began. Numerous laws have passed regulating pesticides since then, but do they go far enough to ensure public and environmental health and safety?

Approximately 800 chemicals are approved for agricultural use currently. More than 8 billion pounds of pesticides are used globally every year with the U.S accounting for roughly 11 percent, or more than one billion pounds despite evidence of their association with cancer, and neurological and pulmonary diseases. The soils of 80% of global farms contain pesticide residues. A report from Systemiq titled “Invisible Ingredients: Tackling Toxic Chemicals in the Food System” estimates that the global healthcare cost due to pesticide exposure is $816 billion.

Why, if the EPA’s standard of “unreasonable adverse effects” is being enforced, has

Bayer/Monsanto had to pay out $11 billion dollars in settlements because the courts determined that the herbicide Roundup caused cancer (Bayer still faces another 60 to 70 thousand more Roundup lawsuits)? Why have 25 countries banned or restricted Roundup? And why, if their product is safe, has Syngenta paid $187.5 million in 2021 to settle claims linking its herbicide paraquat to Parkinson’s disease? This is by no means a comprehensive list, just prominent examples that lead one to question the EPA’s rigor in adhering to its own standard.

Even though strong evidence that harm to environmental and human health from pesticides exists, can a case be made that the benefits of pesticide use outweigh the risks? The argument is that pesticides protect crops from damage and disease and without them we would not have a stable food supply. But data from The Rodale Institute contradicts that argument. Rodale has conducted 40-year side-by-side commodity grain trails comparing organic production to conventional (chemical) farming. The research revealed that, “Organic systems produce yields of cash crops equal to conventional systems. However, in extreme weather conditions, such as drought, the organic plots sustained their yields while the conventional plots declined. Overall, organic corn yields have been 31 percent higher than conventional production in drought years.”

How Did Pesticides Become Acceptable? 

By some accounts, pesticides have been used for thousands of years. There is evidence that sulphur was used to control pests in ancient Sumeria 4500 years ago, obtained by heating up the mineral pyrite, an iron sulfide, to release the sulphur. Mercury and arsenic salts were introduced later, and the insecticidal properties of chrysanthemum flower extracts (pyrethrum) were discovered around 2000 years ago. As industrialization progressed, much of the source chemicals were waste products from mining and manufacturing such as arsenic, mercury, sulphonic acid and lead in the forms of dusts, granules and sprays. Even some fertilizers were made from industrial waste. By the late 1800s through the early 20th century, kerosene was used for controlling pests like fruit flies, leafhoppers on farms and fleas on pets in homes. Lead arsenate and calcium arsenate were widely used on larger farms by 1900, and were still in wide use till the 1940s and not banned by FDA until 1988. Needless to say, those make up a highly toxic arsenal, even more hazardous than most modern chemicals.

In the latter part of the 19th Century,  American farmers experienced an atypically high pressure from pests. This created an opportunity for chemical companies to push their products as scientific breakthroughs that were superior to biological controls and nature-based strategies. 

But in the 1890s, a number of poisonings led to opposition to these substances. In 1903, Great Britain set limits for residues in food and drink. American chemical companies fought regulation and for 60 years, US regulators failed to support limits even though dozens of reports of serious food poisonings were reported in both US and Europe.

Organic farming pioneer, Will Allen, in his comprehensive book War on Bugs, tells the story of the evolution of pesticides and how the public came to accept them with the help of an unlikely player, popular children’s book author, Dr. Seuss.

Illustration by Dr. Seuess appeared in the New Yorker magazine in 1928

In the early 1900s, nearly 40 percent of Americans were farmers (today that number is less than 2%). Farm journals, at that time, were influential sources of information read by a large portion of the population and even used in some schools as reading material. The majority of advertisers in those journals were chemical companies. So the journals were eager to tout the benefits of the products that provided their main income stream while minimizing their toxic impacts.

By the 1920s, chemical companies, seeking ways to expand their markets into households, promoted the concept of “chemical cleanliness” to rid the home of insects and rodents. In 1928, cartoonist Theodore Geisel, was hired by Standard Oil to promote its pesticide Flit. Geisel later gained fame under the pen name Dr. Seuss, as the author of the loveable and whimsical children’s books such as The Cat in The Hat, Green Eggs and Ham and many others. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, Geisel’s humorous advertisements made Flit a household name. Geisel’s cartoons, which appeared in thousands of magazines and newspapers, were, in fact, advertisements promoting the pesticide. One such cartoon showed a family scene with the caption: “Don’t worry Papa, Willie swallowed a bug, so I’m having him gargle with Flit.” Standard Oil’s advertising campaign was successful in convincing the American public to embrace pesticides as safe and a normal part of homelife. In War on Bugs, Allen pulled no punches assigning culpability to Geisel, “Seuss helped Americans become friendly with poisons.”

Beating Swords into Plowshares: Wartime Chemicals Repurposed for Agriculture

With America’s entry into World War II, there was a sudden demand to supply the military with a wide variety of critical needs. Chemical companies and other industries retooled factories producing peacetime products to supply the materials needed for war. Everything from synthetic rubber and plastics to explosives and pesticides. American soldiers were equipped with an individual supply of DDT for delousing, and killing bed bugs and malaria carrying insects. DDT was acclaimed for its role in controlling a typhus outbreak during World War II in Naples, Italy when American forces deloused a million Italians with DDT powder.

Post war, companies such as Dow, DuPont, Standard Oil, Monsanto and others transitioned their factories back to products for families, farms, and industry. Ammonium nitrate, used extensively during the war to make bombs, was converted into nitrogen fertilizer. Nerve gas developed by the Nazis became the basis for many pesticides.

As the chemical industry moved into the post war boom era, they were riding high in both profits and public approval, widely admired for the scientific breakthrough that led to an era of “better living through chemistry” thanks to the “miracles of science” (a couple of advertising slogans promoted by Dupont).

Challenged by an Unlikely Antagonist

But the industry’s prosperity and favorable reputation would face a serious challenge from an introverted marine biologist and best-selling author known for her lyrical nature writing.

In Silent Spring, Rachel Carson revealed the shadow side of the so-called “miracles of science” by describing how the widespread, indiscriminate use of pesticides entered the food chain. With a particular focus on DDT, she explained how it was poisoning ecosystems and killing fish, birds and insects as it persisted in the environment long term and accumulated in the fatty tissues of animals, including human beings, and caused cancer and genetic damage. 

Carson, deeply distraught by how man’s war against nature was upsetting the ecological balance with grave, long-term effects, wrote, “Intoxicated by his own power, mankind seems to be farther and farther into experiments for the destruction of nature and of the world.”

An organized campaign by the chemical industry called Carson a hysterical woman (the use of “woman,” as well as “hysterical,” was also meant to be a discrediting pejorative by the chauvinistic, male-dominated science world).

Silent Spring, which has sold over 2 million copies and has been translated into 16 languages, awakened public environmental consciousness and led to a domestic ban of DDT. Carson’s book is not only credited with starting a movement to regulate pesticides, it is widely acknowledged, along with the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill that killed thousands of wildlife and polluted 35 miles of coastline, as the beginning of the modern environmental movement. In 1970 the Environmental Protection Agency was formed. The NGO, National Resources Defense Council, also founded the same year, has been heavily involved in legal battles to restrict harmful pesticide use.

The Green Revolution: Some Promise, but Ultimately a Flawed System

Despite the momentum to create a sane and safe approach to agrochemical use, a countervailing movement had been gaining favor around the same time. The high-yielding hybrid seeds of the Green Revolution came with the promise of “feeding the world.” Credited with saving one billion lives from starvation, Norman Borlaug, acknowledged as the “Father of the Green Revolution,” was given the Nobel Peace Prize. But the overlooked caveat of Green Revolution technology was the fact that the hybrid seeds are highly dependent on synthetic, petroleum-based fertilizers to obtain those high yields, as well as pesticides due to their inferior resistance to pests and diseases compared to more traditional crops.

Hybrid seeds were the central element to the new intensified farming system that also included monocropping and mechanization. But over time, the flaws of that system began to reveal themselves. Monocropping encouraged greater pest infestations requiring more applications of pesticides. Chemical fertilizers and plowing destroyed the health of the soil, which resulted in weakening the immune response of plants. And due to heavy, repeated applications of pesticides, insects over time became resistant.

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) describes the declining benefits of the Green Revolution in this way, “In 1982 the luster of the Green Revolution was beginning to fade. The promised dramatic increases in yields from ‘miracle’ hybrid grains that required high inputs of water, chemical fertilizers and pesticides failed to deliver and were revealed as campaigns to sell technology to growers who couldn’t afford it.”

Despite the growing evidence of the flaws of the system, it has endured as the dominant agricultural paradigm often driven by inflated claims. The next evolution came in the 1990s with Genetically Modified (GMO) crops. After decades of industry promises of unrealized future innovation and aggressively promoting their technology by monopolizing the seed markets for corn, soy, canola, cotton and sugar beets, their main success is producing herbicide resistant corn, soy, and canola. The technology allows the farmer to spray over the crop killing the surrounding weeds but not the crop itself. Monsanto/Bayer leads the way with Roundup Ready seeds. Tests have shown that these crops often contain higher residues of glyphosate than non GMO seeds of the same crops. The price of this “success” is the billions of dollars of legal settlements that Bayer is paying to victims who have contracted cancer due to exposure to glyphosate.   

In the 1990s and beyond, chemical companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, and Bayer bought up seed companies. By the 2000s, five of the world’s seven largest seed producers were chemical companies who viewed seeds, not as the foundation of a healthy food system, but rather as a mechanism to sell more chemicals.

As a result, we live in a chemically saturated world. The EPA has approved over 80,000 chemicals with hundreds of new ones added each year. In a small test, the Environmental Working Group tested umbilical cords gathered by the Red Cross and found on average 200 chemicals including pesticides. When it comes to chemical pollution, agriculture is not the only source, but it is the most dominant, fouling the air, polluting waterways, soils, people and wildlife.

Grass Roots Action Fills in Where the FDA Falls Short

With ubiquitous chemical contamination and increasing evidence of its harms–cancer, neurological, reproductive and endocrine systems disorders–why does it appear that the EPA seems too often to favor industry interests over public safety?  

The undisputable fact is that there is a “revolving door” between industry and FDA through which former chemical industry personnel go to work for FDA and former FDA employees go to work in the chemical industry. The opportunity for conflict of interest is a genuine concern. 

In the absence of rigorous regulatory agency oversight to sufficiently safeguard public health, where do we look for answers?

The first line of refuge for personal health is organic food and Certified Organic Regenerative (ROC) foods. Regenerative agriculture is the evolution of organic farming which emphasizes soil health, healthy ecosystems and highly nutritious food. However the term “regenerative” is used in different contexts and if it is not labeled ROC, you cannot be sure that it has not been sprayed with herbicides or pesticides. Unfortunately, organic food does generally cost more and that can be a barrier for some.

The Environmental Working Group has a downloadable PDF titled “Clean Fifteen and Dirty Dozen.” If you can’t buy organic food, this guidelines lists the 15 foods that carry the lowest pesticide residues and the 12 foods to avoid that have the highest amount of pesticides.

Other organizations are working to transform the food system to one that is free of toxic pesticides.

The Center for Food Safety takes legal action against the FDA and the big agriculture companies such as Monsanto, and is an excellent source for pesticide information.

Beyond Pesticides works with local groups to promote organic land management practices that embrace a precautionary approach by eliminating toxic pesticides.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the first national environmental advocacy group to focus on legal action, has taken the first Trump administration to court 163 times and been victorious in 90% of the cases.

No one is more vulnerable to pesticide exposure than farmworkers and their families. The UCLA Fielding School of Public Health has identified 13 pesticides correlated to the onset of childhood cancer between birth and 5 years old, when the mother lives within 2.5 miles of pesticide application while pregnant. Farmworker families suffer disproportionately high rates of debilitating, pesticide-related diseases that are devastating families. A small, grassroots organization, Campaign For Organic and Regenerative Agriculture (CORA), is challenging the largest berry grower in the world to initially transition all of their berry fields near schools to organic and ultimately to convert their entire production to organic farming to eliminate these avoidable and tragic health risks.

The name Silent Spring is a metaphor for a time when the environment becomes so toxic and deadly that many species are wiped out and the sound of the songbird ceases. Rachel Carson found the war against nature to be incomprehensible and questioned its irrationality, “How could intelligent beings seek to control a few unwanted species by a method that contaminated the entire environment and brought the threat of disease and death even to their own kind?” 

For more articles like this sign up for the Food Web newsletter

The post Agriculture’s War on Nature: Are Toxic Pesticides Worth the Harm? appeared first on Bioneers.

Winter Storm Fern swept across the United States this past week dumping snow and ice and wreaking havoc from Arizona to Washington, D.C. In addition to the tragic loss of life, almost 1 million people lost power, some of whom are still without power, creating difficult and dangerous living conditions, and costing families, utilities, and states a lot of money. During a particularly strained hour on the afternoon of January 25th, prices in one zone topped $1,800 per megawatt-hour — an order of magnitude higher than average prices during the weeks before the storm. Unfortunately, extreme weather events are becoming more common (and more extreme).

How can we better prepare for the next big storm? In a few ways. Strengthening electricity infrastructure and enabling more interconnected transmission infrastructure could have helped reduce both outages and costs. And, on the customer side, improving the efficiency of housing can relieve both grid and cost stress. Updating homes to just a 2009 building code can keep them above 40 degrees Fahrenheit for nearly two days in sub-zero temperatures.

Below, we dive into how our grid can evolve to make the next “Fern” less impactful.

What RMI is doing

RMI provides utilities and regulators with the tools they need to make smart investment decisions on both  large- and small-scale solutions, from transmission lines and utility-scale renewables to efficiency and distributed energy resources. Our resources include The State Regulator’s Role in Transmission, a handbook for US state regulators on how to advance proactive transmission buildout to reduce costs for ratepayers; our Transmission Resource Library, a downloadable spreadsheet with a list of all major reports on transmission going back to 2004; and a webinar that brought utilities, grid operators, and regulators together to discuss how to deploy advanced transmission technologies to boost capacity, improve flexibility, and speed new energy integration.

Sharing electricity across regions

The US grid is made up of geographically distinct transmission planning regions that share power with each other when necessary. For example, if there is low energy availability or high-priced electricity in one region, it can be supplemented with lower-priced available energy from a neighboring region.

During Fern, neighboring regions supported each other wherever possible. When one area had excess electricity, it sent power to other regions facing shortages — but only up to a point.

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

Power sharing is limited by contractual and infrastructure constraints. Transmission lines, like water pipes, restrict how much electricity can move between regions. So even if one area has surplus power, insufficient transmission capacity often keeps it from reaching places in need.

Research shows that just increasing the efficiency with which we utilize existing lines can save hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Beyond that, more interregional transmission planning and buildout is necessary to increase system-wide reliability while meeting needs more cost-effectively.

Transmission constraints drive huge price differences

When transmission is constrained and regions cannot share power, electricity prices can vary drastically, even within the same grid.

For example, MISO, the transmission organization that covers parts of 15 states in the Midwest and South, is made up of three different regions: north, central, and south. In the beginning of Fern, cold temperatures and low wind speeds in the northern states made wind power production plummet and constrained gas availability. Meanwhile, their southern MISO counterparts and neighbors in SPP were flush with higher wind generation than expected and a less constrained gas system. As a result, MISO north customers were left paying much higher prices (2 to 15 times as much at times) than their neighbors.

More transmission capacity between these regions could have allowed lower-cost power to serve more customers, providing relief for ratepayers. Similarly, in PJM, which primarily covers states in the Mid-Atlantic region, the limits on transmission availability meant that some customers were paying much higher prices than others. And in Texas, on January 25, average electricity prices between the northern and southern parts of the state differed by more than $700 per megawatt-hour in the real-time market.

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

More interregional and intraregional transmission availability could have helped keep prices down for customers. To increase the ability to share power across regions, we need to increase transmission capability on existing lines and plan and build new interregional lines to enable more power sharing.

Strengthening electricity infrastructure

The ice that Fern brought damaged and downed some power lines as well. Initial damage assessments show over 470 miles of affected transmission lines, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without power. This was especially damaging in southern states, where the cold temperatures pushed the electricity infrastructure past its limits.

Hardening transmission and distribution infrastructure, for example by using advanced conductors with anti-icing coatings and real-time monitoring sensors, not only protects lines from extreme cold but also boosts grid capacity overall. These upgrades help reroute power and ensure reliable power delivery during increasingly severe and prolonged storms, reducing the need for repeated fixes (as experienced by crews working through ongoing hazards to restore power in Middle Tennessee Electric territory). Finally, strategic undergrounding, though more costly up-front, can further safeguard lines from extreme weather and limit recurring repair expenditures on the same infrastructure.

A grid that works better — in calm and crisis

Winter Storm Fern made one thing clear: the power system we rely on every day is being pushed beyond the conditions it was designed to handle. As extreme weather becomes more frequent, more intense, and more geographically widespread, the costs of outages — in lost power, lost lives, and lost economic activity — will only grow.

A more resilient grid requires both stronger transmission and smarter planning. Regulators play a central role in making this possible by supporting both planned and new transmission expansion and upgrades that deliver broad reliability and cost benefits, including projects that improve interregional power sharing. Legislators can also encourage grid modernization technologies that increase capacity on existing lines as well as threat awareness and responsiveness. And it’s important to take a long-term view of costs, recognizing that investments that reduce outages and price spikes can save customers and utilities money over time.

Likewise, improving home energy efficiency can reduce overall demand on the grid, lower customer bills, and help homes maintain safe indoor temperatures for longer during outages.

Inaction has a cost. Investing now in stronger, more interconnected, and more resilient transmission can help ensure the power system works not just on clear days — but when communities need it most.

The post Winter Storm Fern Highlights the Need for More Resilient Transmission appeared first on RMI.

State bills show building momentum to ban toxic weedkiller paraquat Anthony Lacey February 3, 2026

Nine states are weighing bills to prohibit use of the toxic weedkiller paraquat entirely or near public schools, signaling growing support for banning the chemical. 

Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Utah are so far considering legislation to ban paraquat use in their state or near public schools. More states are expected to introduce paraquat ban bills in the coming weeks. 

Image

At least 70 countries have banned paraquat because it threatens the health of people exposed to the chemical. Paraquat has been linked to Parkinson’s disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, childhood leukemia and more.

Image

Paraquat is primarily used to clear fields before farmers plant corn, soybeans, cotton, almonds, peanuts, wine grapes and other crops. 

While much of the paraquat applied winds up in the soil for years, the chemical can also drift through the air or linger in dust. A recent Environmental Protection Agency review found paraquat can drift further than was previously thought. 

This pesticide drift creates health concerns. Recent studies show workers and residents in areas with the highest use of the chemical face greater risk of Parkinson’s disease.

Syngenta makes paraquat in the United Kingdom. The Swiss-based company, which was acquired by a Chinese state-owned chemical conglomerate, has long understood the chemical’s health risks. But it spent decades hiding this knowledge from the public and the EPA. 

Ironically, Chinese, U.K. and Swiss farmers are prohibited by their respective governments from using paraquat. 

Parkinson’s and paraquat

Chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease by reducing the number of neurons in dopamine-producing parts of the brain. Researchers have used paraquat exposure in animals to study Parkinson’s disease. 

A study using data from the National Institutes of Health found people who sprayed paraquat were more than twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease as those who applied other pesticides. And a meta-analysis of 13 studies found a 64% increase in the likelihood of developing Parkinson’s disease from paraquat exposure.

It’s not just the people applying the weedkiller who face health risks. Most recently, findings from researchers at UCLA show that people living or working within 500 meters, or about 1,640 feet, of paraquat application could more than double their odds of developing Parkinson’s. 

Other health problems linked to paraquat include thyroid disease and cancer, impaired kidney function, childhood leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

EPA ignores the evidence

Like Syngenta, the EPA has long understood the risks posed by paraquat but has ignored the potential exposure faced by people working on farms or living nearby. 

The agency assumes that people spraying paraquat will follow instructions designed to minimize drift and harm. But studies show “off label” use of pesticides is common, with virtually no enforcement. Two recent investigations in California and Pennsylvania found that paraquat is not always used according to the instructions on the label.

Citing the EPA’s long history of delay, states aren’t waiting for the agency to act. Federal pesticide law sets a floor, not a ceiling, on safeguards. To protect their citizens and public health, state and local governments have the power to enact measures such as a ban on paraquat.

Areas of Focus Farm Pollution Toxic Chemicals Paraquat Guest Authors EWG Staff February 4, 2026

If you need proof that Arctic drilling has become an act of desperation, look no further than what just happened. 

The federal government has opened a 30-day “call for nominations” period—the early step in the leasing process when oil and gas companies are invited to signal interest in bidding on public lands inside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

Normally, this stage happens quietly. Industry lobbyists weigh in behind closed doors, and the public rarely hears about it. But there’s nothing normal about this moment. 

After years of legal fights, public opposition, and repeated market failures, the administration is once again trying to force drilling into one of the most iconic and ecologically important landscapes in America. It’s the same tired playbook we’ve seen before: rush a lease sale, hope companies show up, and pretend there’s an economic case that simply doesn’t exist. 

Past Refuge lease sales have drawn almost no serious interest from industry. Major oil companies have stayed away. Investors have backed off. Bids have been sparse and underwhelming.  

This 30-day window is the only official opportunity for the public to weigh in before the leasing process moves forward. It’s our chance to make it crystal clear that any company reckless enough to bid will face immediate public scrutiny and sustained opposition. 

This is where we build the record and the pressure to stop this scheme before it starts. 

TAKE ACTION Arctic Drilling is Bad Business 

For years, behind-the-times lawmakers have tried to frame the Refuge as the next great energy frontier. But in reality, Arctic oil development is one of the most expensive, complicated, and financially risky bets in the entire industry.

Operating in America’s Arctic means building roads, pipelines, and infrastructure across remote tundra in extreme weather. It means short drilling seasons, high labor and transportation costs, and constant logistical challenges. It means years—sometimes decades—of permitting battles and legal uncertainty. Even under ideal conditions, projects here carry some of the highest production costs in North America (maybe even in the world).

Photo Credit: Steven Kazlowski

At the same time, the global energy landscape is changing fast. Clean energy is getting cheaper. Investors are scrutinizing high-risk fossil fuel projects more closely. And analysts increasingly warn that long-term, high-cost oil developments—especially in fragile places like the Arctic—risk becoming stranded assets before they ever turn a profit. The math simply doesn’t work out.

Any company that chooses to bid now would be making a deliberate decision to sink money into one of the riskiest oil fields on the planet, gambling shareholder dollars on a project with enormous costs, uncertain returns, and fierce public opposition. 

Where You Come In 

This call for nominations is designed for oil companies, but nothing says the public can’t speak louder. And when it comes to corporate decision-making, public pressure matters. 

Executives and investors pay attention to risk. They pay attention to reputational damage. And they pay attention when a project becomes synonymous with controversy and opposition. If bidding on the Arctic Refuge means headlines, protests, investor questions, and sustained public backlash from day one, many companies will decide it simply isn’t worth it. 

Photo Credit: Alaska Wilderness League Staff / Monica Scherer

We have the chance to send a clear, unmistakable message: Drilling the Arctic Refuge is outdated, unnecessary, and a terrible business decision. 

Plus, the Refuge is too special to gamble with. It supports caribou herds, polar bears, migratory birds, and the cultural lifeways of the Gwich’in people who have protected this place for generations. It deserves protection and not another desperate attempt to auction it off to the highest bidder. 

Tell oil companies to stay out. Tell them the risk is too high. Tell them the future isn’t in the Arctic. 

Add your name and send a message now: Don’t bid on the Arctic Refuge. Not now. Not ever. SIGN YOUR NAME   Header photo credit: Lisa Hupp/USFWS

With the 2026 Winter Olympics just days away, anticipation is building as the world prepares for another showcase of the elite winter sport. Around 3,500 athletes from more than 90 countries are set to travel to northern Italy and compete at Milano Cortina this month.

The ultimate prize, of course, is the gold medal awarded to the winner of each event. The silver and bronze medals, too, will be hard-earned prizes in their own right.

While to the athletes Olympic medals may be priceless, sentiment aside, their value is also measured by the metals they contain.

Given how much metal prices have rallied over the past year, calculating their intrinsic value is worth a closer look.

What are Olympic medals made of?

For each Olympics, the medals are redesigned to make them unique to the host cities. Milano Cortina 2026 features a split design, reflecting the partnership between Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo.

According to the official Milano Cortina website, the 2026 medals are crafted by the Italian State Mint, using recycled metals and renewable energy. Each type of medal contains a distinct metal composition — silver for silver medals and copper for bronze. Surprisingly, the gold medal is predominantly made of silver, not gold.

Based on design specifications released by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), each gold medal is expected to contain approximately 500 grams (16.1 troy ounces) of .999 fine silver and 6 grams (0.19 troy ounces) of .9999 fine gold. Silver medals contain the same amount of silver as gold medals, while a bronze medal contains about 410 grams of copper.

How much are they worth?

Despite a sharp pullback from record highs last week, gold, silver and copper are still trading at levels higher than during any previous Winter Games.

Based on current market prices — around $4,800/oz for gold, $80/oz for silver and $13,000 per tonne for copper — a gold medal would have an intrinsic value of about $2,212, while a silver medal would be worth roughly $1,286. A bronze medal’s value, by comparison, is estimated at just $5.46.

During this year’s event, a total of 735 Olympic medals (245 sets of gold, silver and bronze) are expected to be awarded, along with 411 medals for the Paralympic Games, bringing the total to 1,146 medals across both competitions.

At current prices, the combined intrinsic value of all medals would exceed $1.3 million (see table).

While this figure falls well short of capturing the true significance of an Olympic medal, it highlights the enduring role of metals such as gold as stores of value. For comparison, during the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, a gold medal was estimated to be worth around $736, based on a gold price of $1,900/oz and silver prices near $23/oz at the time.

At today’s prices, the intrinsic value of a gold medal has therefore risen by roughly threefold.

Australian gold miner Regis Resources (ASX: RRL) has moved to revive its stalled McPhillamys gold project in New South Wales by seeking approval for a new waste storage design after a federal heritage ruling rendered the original plan unviable.

In August 2024, then environment minister Tanya Plibersek blocked Regis from building a tailings dam near the headwaters of the Belubula River outside Blayney, halting development of the proposed mine. The decision forced the company to book a non-cash impairment of A$192 million ($135m) and warn that relocating the tailings facility would effectively restart approvals, potentially delaying the project by up to a decade.

After a sharp rally in gold prices, Regis this week asked the Environment Department to approve an alternative waste storage location that would not require reopening the entire approvals process. The proposal centres on an “integrated waste landform” that would store processed ore with waste rock along the eastern and southern edges of the project, while keeping the mine and processing facilities as approved by the department in 2023.

Below optimal

Regis said the original tailings dam remained the “optimal” solution but argued the revised design would allow the project to proceed under existing approvals. The company is simultaneously suing the federal government, seeking to overturn Plibersek’s heritage declaration on the grounds it was denied procedural fairness and that officials accepted claims about the blue-banded bee without sufficient scrutiny.

McPhillamys hosts at least 2.26 million ounces of gold, according to Regis disclosures. At Tuesday’s gold price of $4,906 an ounce, the resource could theoretically generate more than $11 billion in revenue if fully mined and sold.

Regis also applied on Monday for approval of a new 90-kilometre water pipeline from EnergyAustralia’s Mt Piper coal-fired power station near Lithgow, along with a new power line after the previous connection was caught up in the heritage ruling.

The nearly 100-year-old Horne copper smelter. Credit: Glencore.

Glencore (LSE: GLEN) said it’s halting all investments related to emissions reduction at its Horne smelter in northern Quebec after failing to reach a deal with the provincial government on a plan to secure the facility’s long-term viability.

Despite sustained negotiations with Quebec dating back to mid-2025, the regulatory framework needed to justify the planned investments is “not sufficiently in place,” Glencore said Tuesday in a statement. Glencore said it was prepared to invest almost C$1 billion ($730 million) at Horne over five years, including C$300 million for emissions reduction. 

Without completing the planned investments, it will become impossible for the smelter to meet certain emissions targets that come into effect starting in March 2027, Glencore said. “Accordingly, the situation will need to be reassessed in the coming months,” the company stressed.

Investments at Glencore’s CCR copper refinery in Montreal will also be scaled back over the medium term, the company said Tuesday in a statement.

“We have worked in good faith and explored every option available to us. Protecting jobs and maintaining operations remain the company’s top priorities, but the conditions needed to move forward simply are not in place right now,” Marc Bédard, chief operating officer of Glencore’s custom metallurgical assets, said in the statement.

China may look to stockpile more copper as part of its strategic minerals inventory after its state-backed metals industry group suggested the move to bolster the nation’s supply security.

During its annual briefing on Tuesday, the China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association said the Chinese government should expand its strategic reserves of copper, while working with major state-owned producers to boost commercial inventories.

In addition, market experts from the Association also suggested the possibility of adding copper concentrates to the nation’s strategic reserves.

The calls come a day after the US government unveiled “Project Vault” — a planned $12 billion fund aimed at building strategic mineral reserves to support domestic production and reduce reliance on Chinese supplies.

Last year, the US Geological Survey added copper to its list of minerals that are critical to the American economy and national security. The metal, which is used in almost everything from infrastructure and machinery to electronics and renewable energy, is currently being examined for a potential tariff by the Trump administration, highlighting the risks in its supply chain.

China, meanwhile, is thought to have been accumulating strategic stockpiles of minerals like copper for decades to protect itself from supply disruptions.

Amid a wave of mine disruptions and aggressive demand forecasts, copper prices have been soaring over the past year, recently hitting a record high of $14,500 per ton in London.

Despite the massive selloff in the metals’ market last week, copper has maintained a 40% gain on this time last year, and is 4% higher since the start of 2026.

Privately held developer Torngat Metals has pushed back its target for starting rare earths production at the C$2-billion ($1.46-billion) Strange Lake project in northern Quebec by about a year due to permitting and other delays. 

Until recently, the Montreal-based company had been saying it was aiming to start production by 2028. That timeline has now slipped, CEO Yves Leduc says. 

“It’s likely we will get permits in the earlier part of 2027, and construction would start around then. So 2028 is very, very tight. It’s more like 2029-30,” CEO Yves Leduc told The Northern Miner in a January telephone interview. 

Torngat is working to publish a bankable feasibility study for Strange Lake in the first half of 2026 and complete environmental impact assessments by the end of the year, Leduc says. The project includes three key components – a mine and concentration plant in Nunavik; a 180-km road to Voisey’s Bay, Labrador and an $800 million, 15,000 tonne-a-year rare earth separation plant in Sept-Îles, Quebec. 

Strange Lake stands out among North American rare earth projects for its heavy rare earth content, particularly dysprosium and terbium – elements critical to permanent magnets used in electric vehicles, wind turbines and defence technologies. It’s also notable for the company’s strategy of building a rare earth separation plant in Quebec and producing finished oxides domestically rather than exporting concentrates. 

Global demand for rare earths is set to climb by as much as 700% by 2040 to meet the needs of green technologies, according to International Energy Association forecasts. 

Chinese leverage 

China’s dominance in the mining, processing and separation of rare earths has spurred Western countries such as Canada and the U.S. to accelerate mining projects – especially after the Asian country introduced export curbs last year. China controls 80 to 90% of the rare earths market, along with the entire supply chain for electric motors and permanent magnets.  

“You can say it was foresight on the part of China. Everybody was happy to have the processing of rare earths done in China,” Leduc said. “Today this small industry, heavy rare earths, which has a $10-billion size globally, controls directly over $50 trillion of economies. You can’t imagine more leverage.” 

Compared with China’s state-backed operations, Strange Lake would be modest in scale but significant strategically. Its planned annual output could meet a meaningful portion of North American demand for dysprosium and terbium, helping to cut reliance on Chinese imports. 

“We’re looking at an opportunity, probably never seen in Canada, to build an industry that will be the only alternative to a Chinese monopoly,” Leduc said. “If you add to that permanent magnet production, which could be in Canada’s control, you can see a mine-to-magnet vision. No other country, other than China, would have that. So the stars are aligned for this project to succeed.” 

Top producer 

Strange Lake would make Torngat the largest producer of heavy rare earths in North America and one of the biggest outside China. Production costs per kilogram of rare earth oxide would be competitive with global producers, though final figures will depend on engineering studies now in progress, Torngat says. 

The company envisions a mine life of more than 30 years, with between 5 million and 13 million tonnes of material extracted annually. Strange Lake is projected to produce 540 tonnes of dysprosium, 80 tonnes of terbium and 2,400 tonnes of neodymium and praseodymium a year, the company says on its website. 

In the meantime, talks are under way with six First Nations – including the Innu and the Inuit – to secure community approval for the project’s key components and negotiate equity stakes. 

“We want the Indigenous to become shareholders in the company, which would be a first in Eastern Canada,” Leduc said. “We are mobilizing to earn their trust. We set the bar very high on the environmental side. We want to be a role model in how we exploit rare earths and how we refine them.”

Torngat Metals’ rare earths project revival aims to create ‘a new industry in Canada’ CEO says Fundraising mode 

After securing $165 million in loans last year from Export Development Canada and the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) for pre-construction work at Strange Lake, Torngat is again in fundraising mode. The current focus is on raising equity, Leduc said. 

CIB could lend Torngat as much as $500 million to help build access to the project, Divya Shah, the bank’s managing director of trade and transportation investments, told The Northern Miner in a separate interview. 

With Prime Minister Mark Carney having made critical minerals a priority for Canada, “we’re at the heart of many, many discussions that are critical to Canada’s future,” Leduc said. “This project is extremely well financed, and it will continue to be.” 

Canadian interests 

Although Torngat’s largest shareholder is New York-based private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, following a US$50 million ($70 million) investment in 2022, Leduc insists Strange Lake will serve Canada’s interests first and foremost. 

Cerberus executives “understand this has a to be a Quebec project,” Leduc said. “That’s why they nominated a Quebec CEO and a Quebec chair. We are putting a lot of focus on building a shareholder base that’s Canadian. That’s how we make this a Canadian project serving Canadian interests.” 

“It’s all about making sure the project remains Canadian. Our focus is on building an industry here. That will create leverage for the country that other industries wouldn’t have.” 

Provincial commitment 

Political developments in Quebec haven’t dented the province’s commitment to Strange Lake, Leduc adds – even after Premier Francois Legault said Jan. 14 he planned to step down this year. Quebecers are scheduled to go to the polls in October.  

“There is a great deal of enthusiasm already expressed by the current government” about Strange Lake, Leduc said. “This is not something that’s tied to a government. I’m very confident that whoever leads [the province] after the next election will have the same level of enthusiasm that I have.” 

Leduc, a veteran executive with about 25 years of manufacturing experience who was named Torngat CEO last March, says his current challenge is unlike anything he’s ever experienced. 

“This is the most exciting thing I’ve ever done in my career,” he said. “The energy transition fully depends on heavy rare earths. Once Quebec has that strategy in place and we are in operation, we will be a critical component of the energy transition. That moves a lot of people.” 

Glencore (LSE: GLEN) has entered a non-binding agreement to sell a 40% stake in its mine assets in the Democratic Republic of Congo to the Orion Critical Mineral Consortium (Orion CMC).

Glencore currently operates the Mutanda and Kamoto mines in DRC’s Lualaba province — both large-scale producers of copper cathodes and cobalt hydroxide. Last year, they produced 247,800 tonnes of copper — roughly 30% of the group’s global output — and 35,100 tonnes of cobalt.

Under the proposed deal, Orion CMC would acquire 40% of Mutanda Mining (MUMI) and Kamoto Copper Company (KCC), both majority held by Glencore (95% and 75% respectively), for a total enterprise value of $9 billion.

Orion CMC may also appoint non-executive directors in respect of the assets and direct the sale of the relevant share of production to nominated buyers, in accordance with the US–DRC strategic partnership agreement. Upon completion of the transaction, the mines would continue to be managed as part of the Glencore group.

Orion CMC was established by Orion Resource Partners last October with the backing of Abu Dhabi’s ADQ and the US International Development Finance Corp. (DFC). Together, the parties sought to invest upwards of $5 billion to support the US and its allies in their critical minerals push.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, Orion said the companies will seek opportunities to expand and develop the asset in partnership with the DRC government and state-owned miner Gécamines, Glencore’s existing partner in KCC.

They will also look to acquire additional critical mineral projects and assets in the DRC and the African copper belt more broadly, it said.

US-Congo partnership

“This proposed partnership between Orion CMC and Glencore has the potential to bring significant returns for both the United States and the DRC,” DFC CEO Ben Black said. “CMC’s potential investment would reflect the growing relationship between the US and the DRC, help secure a reliable source of critical minerals for the United States and our partners.”

In December, DFC pledged to invest more than $1 billion in two major projects as part of the US-DRC strategic partnership. These include plans to support a new copper and cobalt venture between Gécamines and commodity trader Mercuria Energy, as well as a rail project linking Congo and other central and southern African nations to Angola’s coast.

US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said the proposed transaction between Orion CMC and Glencore “reflects the core objectives of the US-DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement by encouraging greater US investment in the DRC’s mining sector and promoting secure, reliable, and mutually beneficial flows of critical minerals between our two countries.”

“Through this partnership, we would be able to support the ambitions of the US government and private sector with the supply of two critical minerals,” Glencore CEO Gary Nagle said.

The move comes as Glencore continues to work out details on its proposed combination with Rio Tinto (ASX, LSE: RIO), which would create a copper-mining behemoth with a market value of more than $200 billion.

Shares of the Swiss group rose 2.9% on Tuesday on the asset sale announcement, taking its market capitalization to approximately £61 billion ($83.5 billion).

Ivanhoe Mines (TSX: IVN) founder and co-executive chairman Robert Friedland relayed the mining industry’s support for how US President Donald Trump has funded projects, quickened permits and now created a $12 billion minerals stockpile.

“Mr. President, thank you so much for what you’ve achieved,” Friedland said in an Oval Office ceremony on Monday featuring cabinet secretaries and other industry leaders such as General Motors CEO Mary Barra. “I’m telling you, on behalf of every miner I know, they’re elated.”

Friedland noted how the array of cameras facing the assembled were made of mined components, cell phones, too. He thanked Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and the US Export-Import bank for funding projects. The bank last year indicated the potential of $825 million in long-term debt financing for Ivanhoe Electric’s (TSX: IE; NYSE-AM: IE) Santa Cruz copper project in Arizona.

“We need your support, and we’re really happy to get it,” Friedland told President Trump. “The morale of the miners is sky high.”

Watch a clip of the exchange above and the full White House video on the minerals stockpile here.

Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.

Can solar projects improve biodiversity?

Solar projects do not inherently reduce biodiversity, and when designed with best practices, they can sustain or even increase local wildlife and plant diversity.

Impacts depend on where and how projects are built.

Siting solar on already developed land and minimizing soil disturbance can maintain habitats and support more diverse vegetation, insects, and birds. Solar farms can create “microclimates” where shade under panels reduces soil moisture loss and encourages plant growth. This may be especially valuable in regions currently experiencing hotter, drier conditions.

Developers can further reduce harm by avoiding bulldozing, leaving habitat patches, and building wildlife corridors within a site. Construction timing can also be adjusted to avoid sensitive periods such as breeding or migration.

After installation, habitat restoration efforts like planting native flowering species can boost floral diversity and pollinator populations, benefiting overall ecosystems and human agriculture.

Go to full rebuttal on Skeptical Science or to the fact brief on Gigafact

This fact brief is responsive to quotes such as this one.

Sources

Clarkson & Woods and Wychwood Biodiversity THE EFFECTS OF SOLAR FARMS ON LOCAL BIODIVERSITY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Mitigating biodiversity impacts associated with solar and wind energy development

U.S. Department of Agriculture Pollinator Habitat Planting: CP42

U.S. Department of Energy Buzzing Around Solar: Pollinator Habitat Under Solar Arrays

Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles

Please use this form to provide feedback about this fact brief. This will help us to better gauge its impact and usability. Thank you!

About fact briefs published on Gigafact

Fact briefs are short, credibly sourced summaries that offer "yes/no" answers in response to claims found online. They rely on publicly available, often primary source data and documents. Fact briefs are created by contributors to Gigafact — a nonprofit project looking to expand participation in fact-checking and protect the democratic process. See all of our published fact briefs here.

Before you read about our January winners, add your voice to February’s benchmark. Vote Now – It takes 60 seconds.

Agnico Eagle, Hycroft Mining Holding and Sidney Resources began 2026 as clear January leaders in the Global Mining Power Rankings, lifted by investor sentiment, firmer commodity prices and strong 2025 execution that set them apart from peers.

The January rankings reflect companies seen by investors, analysts and industry insiders as delivering operational consistency, financial momentum and strategic progress across market capitalizations. Sentiment carried extra weight this month, supported by improving balance sheets, steady project delivery and supportive gold, silver and copper prices.

Large-cap winner: Agnico Eagle (9.2% of votes) Agnico’s LaRonde mine in Quebec’s Abitibi Greenstone Belt. (Image courtesy of Agnico Eagle.)

Canada’s Agnico Eagle (TSX, NYSE: AEM) claimed first place with 9.2% of votes. Agnico topped the category for a third straight month, backed by steady production across Canada, Australia, Mexico and Finland, disciplined cost control and a strong third quarter that kept the stock ahead of global peers. Investors continued to favour the company’s predictable operating profile in a year marked by persistent inflationary pressure across the mining sector.

Shares have climbed 89% in Toronto and roughly doubled in New York over the past year. Agnico also streamlined its portfolio through the sale of its 55% interest in the Barsele project in northern Sweden to Goldsky Resources, reinforcing balance sheet strength.

In 2025, the company broadened its strategic reach with the launch of Avenir Minerals Limited to pursue about $80 million in early-stage critical minerals investments, following its $180 million investment in Perpetua Resources (NASDAQ, TSX: PPTA) and the Stibnite gold-antimony project in Idaho. 

With gold prices strengthening early in 2026, investors continued to position for sustained shareholder returns.

Notables:

2. Rio Tinto (7.1%) (ASX: RIO): Firm iron ore prices and steady global steel demand underpinned sentiment.

3. Newmont (7.1%) (NYSE: NEM): with investors weighing portfolio optimization and integration progress following asset sales and strategic refocusing through 2025.

Small-cap winner: Hycroft Mining Holding (4.2% of votes) Hycroft project. (Image courtesy of Hycroft Mining Holding.)

Hycroft Mining Holding (NASDAQ: HYMC) benefited from renewed interest in large-scale gold and silver assets as prices firmed late in 2025. The Nevada-based precious metals developer made progress last year on technical work aimed at unlocking value from its Hycroft mine, including metallurgical testing and project optimization, while maintaining a disciplined approach to capital amid volatile markets. That progress, combined with improving sentiment toward silver, helped lift the company into the top spot.

Notables

2. Snowline Gold Corp (3.4%) (TSX: SGD)(OTCQX: SNWGF): Snowline delivered a total return of about 209% in 2025, far outpacing gold’s gains. The Yukon-focused explorer advanced its Rogue project, where drilling at the Valley deposit extended mineralization beyond 1 km, and graduated to the TSX in November, a key corporate milestone.

3. Vizsla Silver Corp (2.4%) (TSX: VZLA): had a strong 2025 marked by continued exploration success at its Pánuco silver-gold district in Mexico, where drilling supported resource growth and reinforced the project’s status as one of the sector’s more advanced primary silver assets. Late in January, however, ten workers were abducted from the Pánuco project in the Mexican state of Sinaloa, underscoring the persistent security risks facing mining companies operating in regions affected by organized crime.

Micro-cap winner: Sidney Resources Corp. (11.7%)  The Warren Mining District. (Image courtesy of Sidney Resources.)

Sidney Resources Corp. (OTCMKTS: SDRC) climbed to the top in January after expanding its footprint in the historic Warren Mining District through the acquisition of Unity GoldSilver Mines assets early in the year and staking roughly 7,600 acres of new claims in December. The Idaho-focused explorer advanced gold, silver and critical minerals exploration during 2025 while continuing development of its proprietary laser mining technology.

“We are profoundly grateful to the MINING.COM readers for selecting Sidney Resources as the #1 Micro-Cap company and being ranked in the top 5 for the second consecutive month,” chief executive Sean-Rae Zalewski said. “This ongoing support underscores the momentum from our recent advancements, including expanded claims in the Warren District, promising concentration achievement in rare earth elements and critical minerals, and steady progress on our innovative laser mining technology.”

Zalewski said his company remains focused on responsible growth and creating long-term value through disciplined exploration and ethical practices.

Notables

2. Xtra Energy (10.8%) (OTCMKTS: XTPT): The micro-cap explorer spent 2025 advancing early-stage critical mineral and energy-related assets, focusing on asset consolidation, permitting and positioning for drilling as investor interest in domestic resource supply chains increased.

3. BrightRock Gold (9.5%) (OTCMKTS: BRGC):  The third spot win is the product of a year in which the company sharpened its exploration focus, expanded its land position and delivered steady technical progress that resonated with retail investors seeking leverage to higher gold prices.