Green News

As tech companies have built hundreds of hyperscale data centers to power the artificial intelligence boom, they have triggered conflicting predictions over how these facilities will affect the nation’s power grid. Critics have argued that data centers will raise power bills and increase carbon emissions. Supporters claimed they could increase investment in infrastructure and clean energy, leading to lower prices and emissions.

We now have a clearer picture about at least one consequence of the data center boom, and it isn’t encouraging. A report released last week from the Energy Information Administration found that carbon emissions from the U.S. power sector rose by 4 percent last year — larger than the increase in the economy overall, where emissions only ticked up 2 percent.  The agency attributes this rise to a 13 percent increase in coal power generation, partially driven by the proliferation of large-scale data centers.

The national increase in power sector emissions represents the reversal of a longstanding trend. Before the AI boom, U.S. power consumption had been flat for decades. Utilities, grid operators, and energy planners had assumed that pattern would continue, and many planned to retire their older and dirtier coal plants with the expectation that natural gas and renewables could replace them. Instead, electricity demand is rising much faster than anticipated. Data centers could make up more than 10 percent of U.S. electricity usage by 2030, and they operate around the clock, including when wind and solar farm output is low. That demand has extended the life of some aging coal plants.

“Commercial load is starting to grow, and that’s part of the data center story,” said Steve Piper, the director of energy research at S&P Global Energy, a market intelligence firm. “It’s kind of a rising tide lifts all boats phenomenon. While we think structurally coal will decline over time, [the AI boom] is going to slow down that decline.”

The increase in power sector emissions would have been even bigger were it not for the fact that solar and wind energy also surged last year. Utilities can now tap cheap, carbon-free energy during much of the day, which means they are less reliant on fossil fuel-burning plants that make up the backbone of the energy system. Solar now produces more power than coal during sunny months when demand is low. The climate problem is that while solar is still growing, coal is not shrinking. 

The other driving factor behind last year’s increase was that coal became cheaper relative to natural gas, the country’s largest power source. As natural gas exports have increased, domestic gas prices have risen relative to coal.

The coal industry has also been buoyed by increased political support. President Donald Trump and Energy Secretary Chris Wright have vowed to revive the nation’s moribund coal industry by supporting new coal power plants and helping build an export terminal that can ship coal to Asia. Wright has issued temporary emergency orders to prevent the retirement of at least half a dozen coal plants around the country, forcing utilities to run plants they had previously sought to shut down. His department has argued that these orders are justified because hot and cold weather are straining the power grid.

But these orders aren’t actually the reason that coal emissions have rebounded. The plants that Wright has kept open are running at a lower capacity than they did before Trump took office, in large part because there are still cheaper sources of power than coal out there. 

Take for example the J.H. Campbell coal plant in Michigan, owned by Consumers Energy. It was the first major coal facility that Wright prevented from closing. At the time, Wright said that the plant’s operation was necessary so that Michigan “[did] not lose critical power generation capability as summer begins.” Yet in each of the last three quarters, the plant has generated less electricity than it did in the equivalent quarter the previous year.  

Instead, the increase is happening across the country. Outside of the Western U.S., nearly every state generated more coal power in 2025 than it did in 2024. One of the biggest jumps came in Virginia, home to the world’s largest AI cluster, where utilities almost doubled their coal power generation to serve the state’s growing clusters of data centers. Nearby coal states like Pennsylvania and West Virginia also stepped up their generation to match data center demand. 

The report is especially concerning since decarbonizing the electricity sector, which accounts for about 25 percent of U.S. emissions, is an essential step toward meeting national climate targets. Unlike in the transportation sector, where electric vehicles still face significant cost and infrastructure barriers, and heavy industry, in which natural gas is still needed to make steel and cement at scale, the power sector has real cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels.

Once electricity became cleaner, switching cars, home heating, and other sectors from fossil fuels to electricity would sharply reduce emissions.  

And there were signs of progress: Emissions from the power grid have fallen by about one-third from their peak around 2005 as utilities have replaced old coal plants with less carbon-intensive methods such as natural gas turbines, which emit about half as much carbon per watt of electricity. The rapid build-out of solar and wind power was supposed to reduce power emissions even further. 

The stubborn presence of coal is a problem for that progress.

“Coal generation may sort of have a floor in our forecasts,” said Piper. He said he expects that in the long run, coal will continue to decline, but that “it will take something else” to dislodge it from the power grid altogether. And until we have a grid with enough round-the-clock power to render the dirtiest fuels unnecessary, the nation’s journey away from fossil fuels will be stuck at the starting gate.  

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline It’s official: Data centers are slowing America’s shift away from coal on Jul 29, 2026.

The European Union’s cap-and-trade system has long been considered the gold standard for market-based emissions-reduction policies, and it’s influenced similar efforts from California to South Korea. Since 2005, it’s helped reduce the EU’s industrial carbon emissions by about 50 percent, and a recent working paper called it the “most impactful climate policy in the world.” But a set of changes proposed earlier this month by the European Commission, the bloc’s legislative body, has called its credentials into question.

Wijnand Stoefs, EU policy lead for the European nonprofit Carbon Market Watch, likened the day of the proposals to Black Friday — and he wasn’t talking about the annual shopping event. Instead, he reached for another metaphor. “Smoke appeared from the 13th floor of the Berlaymont,” he wrote on LinkedIn, referring to the Brussels headquarters of the European Commission. “And it was acrid, tarry, black smoke.” 

Stoefs’ account is unusually evocative, but he shares concerns with other policy experts who say the commission’s proposed updates — including slower emissions reductions and extra leniency for major polluters — will weaken the EU’s Emissions Trading System, or ETS, while potentially emboldening industry groups that want to weaken cap-and-trade systems elsewhere. 

“I think they will have the perfect excuse to go, ‘Hey, the EU isn’t moving ahead as fast as they were,’” Stoefs told Grist. “It’s just, like, a belt of ammunition for industrial lobbyists.”

The ETS is the European Union’s flagship climate policy. It sets a cap on carbon emissions for about 10,000 EU oil refineries, power stations, and other companies that together represent 40 percent of the bloc’s total climate pollution. It works by requiring certain companies to buy “allowances” to cover their expected emissions for the year — and each year, the amount of available allowances shrinks, forcing companies to gradually reduce emissions. Sometimes a polluting company purchases more allowances than they’ll actually need, in which case they can sell their surplus to other firms. Companies that reach the end of the year without enough allowances, however, are subject to heavy fines.

Read Next Can a carbon price lower power bills? Virginia is betting yes. Jake Bittle

Until earlier this month, the ETS was on track to steer the companies it covers to net-zero by 2039. The most significant update proposed by the European Commission would delay that timeline. Instead of reducing total emissions by 4.4 percent a year until 2039, the commission proposed to lower emissions by 3.7 percent annually between 2031 and 2035, and then just 1.7 percent thereafter.

In explaining the move, the European Commission said it would “bring relief to industry” while still lining up with EU climate law requiring member states to reduce economy-wide emissions by 90 percent below 1990 levels by 2040.

Sven Harmeling, head of climate at the nonprofit Climate Action Network Europe, disputed this claim, saying the bigger issue is all of the extra carbon that may now be released into the atmosphere over the next 14 years. “There are different ways you can get to 2040 with more or less emissions,” he told Grist, and a slower decarbonization timeline has the potential to allow much more pollution than a faster one. Carbon emissions warm up the planet and contribute to more frequent and intense extreme weather, including heat waves, wildfires, and storms.

According to one estimate, the European Commission’s new proposal would allow covered companies to emit roughly 2 billion metric tons more carbon pollution than the previous plan. That’s significant, given scientists’ projection that, as of 2025, the world can only emit another 80 billion metric tons of carbon pollution and still have a two-thirds chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) — a threshold beyond which risks to ecosystems and society escalate dramatically.

The ETS “only looks at where we’re going to be in 2040,” Harmeling said. “What happens between 2030 and 2040 is actually what matters to the climate.”

The commission also proposed continuing to dole out free emissions allowances to certain companies, including those it thinks might otherwise relocate in order to avoid paying for their climate pollution. Critics said this could not only disincentivize faster decarbonization; it could enrich big polluters. ETS-covered companies have regularly received more free allowances than they actually need, allowing them to sell and earn billions of euros from them.

Some of those companies, including the steelmaker ArcelorMittal and chemical company BASF, lobbied heavily for the ETS to distribute more free allowances.

To be sure, the details of the European Commission’s proposal may still change; they’re now subject to negotiation with the Council of the EU and European Parliament, and some European environment ministers have vowed to “fight tooth and nail” against a weakened ETS. The final rules are expected by early next year. 

Milan Elkerbout, director of an international climate policy initiative at the think tank Resources for the Future, was less grave in his evaluation of the commission’s proposal. Yes, slower emissions cuts for ETS-covered sectors will require faster decarbonization elsewhere — like in agriculture and construction — but he thinks that’s still possible, keeping the EU’s 2040 target within reach. 

The ETS remains, “by quite a margin, the most ambitious [carbon] trading system in the world,” he added. He said carbon trading mechanisms in California, Washington state, Quebec, South Korea, and elsewhere are different enough to be insulated from direct copy-and-paste modifications — and that, in fact, aligning them more closely with the ETS could raise their ambition rather than lower it.

Still, despite structural differences among regional carbon trading systems, polluters everywhere tend to share similar goals: cheaper emissions allowances, more free pollution permits, laxer rules on carbon credits — all of which serve to drive down the price of carbon. Big polluters in the oil and gas industry are already pushing for these reforms in places including California, which in May said it would expand free emissions allowances to oil refineries. 

Stoefs said it’s hard to see how the European Commission’s recent retrenchment won’t be used to justify — or at least advocate for — similar concessions elsewhere. “If the EU waters down the ETS, I think those other systems will do the same,” he said.

toolTips('.classtoolTips4','The process of reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that drive climate change, most often by deprioritizing the use of fossil fuels like oil and gas in favor of renewable sources of energy.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The EU might weaken its landmark climate law — the ‘most impactful’ in the world on Jul 29, 2026.

Two days before the sweltering July 4 weekend, Martina Meijer, a New York City elementary teacher who occasionally substitutes over the summer, covered a class. The city’s summer school programhad just begun and that day temperatures reached 100 degrees. 

“Even though the AC was on, it wasn’t working very well,” said Meijer. “There was no programming, no schedule, no plans shared.”  

For four hours straight, Meijer and her students remained in the classroom. The stifling heat drained their energy, leaving them lethargic and making it difficult to focus. When she called the main office to ask if she could take them to the gym or outside for recess, school officials told her the weather was too hazardous, she said. They instructed her to stay in the classroom and give her class of 15 students indoor movement activities — commonly known as “brain breaks” — by following YouTube tutorials.

While many school districts prioritize placing students and staff in schools with air conditioning during summer programming, the blistering temperatures around the country sometimes mean it’s not enough. Problems like malfunctioning air conditioners still persist, and cooling systems have their limits during periods of intense heat like this July’s heat dome. 

Climate change is increasingly testing the limits of how summer programs — when students take part in enrichment activities or remediation — can ensure academic needs are met while keeping students safe from the blazing heat.

Elementary teacher Martina Meijer at City-As-School in the West Village, Manhattan, on Wednesday, July 15, 2026. Yunuen Bonaparte for The Hechinger Report

Federal regulations that would protect workers like teachers from heat illnesses by mandating water breaks, rest periods and areas to cool off, have stalled for the foreseeable future. 

In recent weeks, schools in major cities and rural communities alike have had to end classes early, close or completely restructure daily activities. 

Kristen Hengtgen, the project manager of UndauntedK12, a national organization committed to reducing carbon emissions in K-12 schools, said that many educators rely on temporary or improvised solutions whenever possible.

“Smaller things that we are seeing now, like moving indoors, moving to air‑conditioned spaces, having hydration breaks and cooling periods when temperatures are unsafe, flexible scheduling, doing stuff earlier in the day — I think that will continue to happen,” said Hengtgen.

When classrooms become overheated or outdoor recess gets canceled, students struggle to focus and learn. Excessive heat impairs cognitive performance, putting students who need extra academic support during the summer at an even greater disadvantage.

“A lot of the kids in summer school may already be having academic challenges,” said Elizabeth Bechard, public health manager at Moms Clean Air Force, an environmental advocacy group dedicated to protecting children from the effects of climate change. “Asking them to catch up with their learning in very suboptimal learning conditions, when it’s too hot to learn, is not going to help so much.”

Elementary school students, staff and volunteers walk back to P.S. 94 The Henry Longfellow School from a trip to the pool before the summer school day ends in Sunset Park on Thursday, July 16, 2026. Yunuen Bonaparte for The Hechinger Report

Children are especially vulnerable to heat-related illnesses compared to adults. This is because their thermal regulation systems are still developing. They tend to sweat less and breathe faster, Bechard said. And for those without air conditioning at home, the risks are higher for both their physical well-being and their ability to learn effectively.

“If students are going to schools that don’t have air conditioning, and then coming home to homes that also don’t have air conditioning, there’s no chance for the body to really rest and recover,” said Bechard.

On the last day of school in early June, the Philadelphia School District dismissed students early at 52 insufficiently air-conditioned schools due to extreme heat.

“When the mercury climbs above 85-90 degrees, we either send students home early or move those schools to virtual days,” said Tony Watlington Sr., the superintendent of the School District of Philadelphia.

Teachers are also trained to ensure children aren’t exposed to conditions that could lead to dehydration or heat stroke, he said.

“Our teachers do a really good job of using professional judgment and not having kids out in 90‑degree heat with that sun barreling down on what we sometimes refer to as concrete deserts,” Watlington said. 

Without professional training or clear guidelines, however, some families worry about leaving critical heat safety decisions up to teachers.

unuen Bonaparte for The Hechinger Report

In late June, parents in Virginia’s Alexandria City Public Schools received an advisory letter outlining precautions for staff during an anticipated heat wave, when experts warned the heat index could reach 112 degrees. School officials urged staff to restrict outdoor activities and remain vigilant for signs of heat exhaustion. 

“I feel like it’s a mix of mostly saying the right things, but it’s also dependent on the discretion of various adults,” said one parent, who requested anonymity to maintain her privacy. “We have no idea what level of training they have — like, ‘Be aware of the signs of heat exhaustion and heat stroke’ is great, but how do we know people are?”

Higher temperatures are also sparking and intensifying the frequency of wildfires. 

In mid July, Canadian wildfires clogged the skies with a thick haze of smoke, forcing programs like Summer Rising in New York City to move all outdoor activities for thousands of students inside. 

While periodic indoor movement breaks keep students engaged throughout the day, they fall short of helping them release energy or recharge in the way outdoor play provides. 

Read Next As climate change threatens student athlete safety, states try to adapt Neal Morton, The Hechinger Report

Research shows that recess improves academic outcomes, social development and emotional regulation. If students can’t expend their energy outdoors, it can hinder their development.

“There’s this horrible chicken-or-egg situation that teachers have, which is: Kids really need to get out and run around, especially younger kids,” said V. Kelly Turner, a heat researcher and professor at UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. “If they don’t get their energy out outside, they can’t focus on their schoolwork inside. But if they’re outside roasting, then they can’t focus inside either.” 

Nathan Cruz, a parent whose 6-year-old daughter attends Sharp Avenue Elementary School in Los Angeles, feels the weight of this predicament. 

“Sometimes [the kids] forget to drink water, could get dehydrated, and there’s been conditions, like nosebleeds,” said Cruz. 

On especially grueling days during the school year, when temperatures climb to triple digits, Cruz said children in the after-school program remain inside the school’s auditorium.

“It’s a lot of kids and it gets tight,” said Cruz. “It can be a challenge because you can’t keep them indoors every day, even though the weather could be over 95 degrees for over two to three weeks at a time.” 

Read Next Teachers unions leverage contracts to fight climate change Caroline Preston, The Hechinger Report

Schools in the Northeast, like Philadelphia, face similar challenges and were not built to handle unusual and prolonged stretches of extreme heat. 

A 2021 study by the Center for Climate Integrity, an environmental group that helps communities hold fossil fuel companies accountable, found that over 13,000 public schools nationwide — many built in a different climate era — would require $40 billion to install HVAC systems. In the Northeast, states that didn’t require air conditioning in the past — like Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont — need it today. 

On average, public schools in the United States are nearing 50 years old, which means they require major structural upgrades to install proper HVAC systems and improve airflow. Philadelphia’s school buildings are even older — 73 years old, on average. 

“Because it’s an old city and we have a lot of old buildings, we can’t go and just drop air conditioners in all of the windows,” Watlington said. “People ask all the time, ‘Why don’t you just put some $100 air‑conditioning units from Home Depot or Lowe’s and call it a day?’ It’s not that simple.”

During the July 4 week that summer school classes proceeded in New York City, schools in Washington, D.C., canceled all outdoor programs, citing the high temperatures. 

Read Next Cities are rehearsing for deadly heat. Will it help when disaster comes? Natalie Donback

One district suspended bus routes because its buses lacked air conditioning. Smaller districts, like Joliet Public Schools in Illinois, switched to remote instruction, while the Central Falls School District in Rhode Island shut down all summer programs. 

In the Midwest, the Madison Metropolitan School District in Wisconsin also canceled summer school for elementary students when meteorologists projected temperatures to feel as hot as 108 degrees.

Scott Chehak, senior executive director of building services at the Madison Metropolitan School District, said the district tracks weather forecasts to assess heat risks. 

“If it does hit an extreme weather warning or extreme heat warning, we tend to close schools if we see it coming,” said Chehak. “Sometimes we’ll have calls on the weekends with our executive staff just to make sure that we’re looking ahead.”

They also designate larger, air-conditioned spaces, such as gyms and libraries, as “cooling centers” where students rotate throughout the day. There, children have access to fans, extra hydration centers and specialized cooling towels.

Chehak said they train their staff to look for signs that a child might be overheating, especially for students who might be underprepared for hotter weather. 

“Are they starting to lose attention? Does it feel like they’re warming up? You can tell by human behavior,” said Chehak.

For 14 years, Denisha Jordan, a veteran physical education teacher, worked in one of the hottest regions in Los Angeles at a high school in the San Fernando Valley, where she constantly monitored signs of heat exhaustion. 

“When it comes to the high heat, you see more heat illnesses,” said Jordan. “Their skin will be cherry red. [There’s] profuse sweating, even when the kids aren’t doing anything.”

During her entire time there, the gym and locker rooms never had air conditioning, Jordan said. Outside, beneath the relentless sun, she recalls a student showing her the melted soles of his shoes after playing basketball on the playground’s scorching asphalt. 

“If it’s 80 degrees outside, our blacktop can easily reach 90 degrees and above,” said Jordan. “I would go and put my hands down and see how long I could keep my hands on there, and if I couldn’t keep my hands on there, then I would know that we’d have to be on the grass that day.”

As summers intensify and heat waves creep into the fall months, Hengtgen from Undaunted K12 believes schools will need to create long-term action plans, rather than ad hoc, one-off emergency responses, even during summer school when temperatures are at their highest. 

“Sometimes things like an extreme heat plan may seem fluffy or extra when we have a literacy crisis,” said Hengtgen. “But we are threatening the mission of public education if we can’t provide buildings that are safe and comfortable and healthy spaces for kids to learn and for teachers to teach.”

Sign up for Hechinger’s climate change newsletter.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Is it getting too hot for summer school? on Jul 29, 2026.

Cheap, abundant Chinese solar panels have become essential to decarbonizing the global energy system. Without them, the world’s clean energy transition would have arguably been slower and more expensive. But China’s solar manufacturing industry now faces a bizarre problem: oversupply. Chinese solar manufacturers have built far more production capacity than the market can absorb. In fact, China now has enough factories to meet roughly twice the global demand for solar products, according to an analysis by the research firm Rhodium Group. If all newly announced factories get built, the country’s manufacturing capacity could double, further widening the gap between supply and demand. 

The market imbalance has put Chinese solar panel makers in a precarious position. Market analysts and company executives say the industry’s central problem — a massive oversupply of panels — has triggered vicious “price wars” between competing companies and sent prices plummeting. In the first quarter of 2026, the country’s solar manufacturers announced $1.5 billion in losses, an extension of roughly three years of continuous unprofitability. Industry behemoths like JinkoSolar and Longi have also been facing slowing installations in China, U.S. trade barriers, and weaker global demand. 

“There’s been an enormous amount of price wars internally in China, with companies just slashing prices to very, very low levels,” said Hannah Pitt, director of the energy and climate practice at Rhodium Group. 

Chinese officials have spent years trying to curb the cutthroat competition, stem overproduction, and stabilize prices, with little success. For all but the most advanced solar products, prices kept falling, and companies kept building new facilities. Regional governments, which have invested heavily in solar supply chains, have been hesitant to trim local development. Some manufacturers even built illegal factories or produced panels without permits, according to reporting by the South China Morning Post. 

“Everyone is wondering how long this can last,” said Martin Schachinger, a solar product wholesaler based in Germany. “Even TaleSun, a manufacturer we expected to go out of the market five years ago, still exists. So, it’s a little bit … spooky.”  

China designated solar a strategic industry in 2010, prompting massive public investment. Local governments subsidized manufacturers, while private investors expanded every stage of the supply chain in anticipation of booming global demand. The resulting manufacturing ecosystem allowed Chinese firms to produce extraordinarily cheap solar panels for both domestic and international markets.

But production soon outpaced global demand, triggering a fierce battle as manufacturers slashed prices to win customers. The Chinese government dubbed this self-defeating competition neijuan, meaning “involution,” a term originally coined by Chinese students describing the relentless pressure to succeed with diminishing returns. Involution is a common trend in Chinese industries that receive heavy public support, including other clean energy sectors such as batteries and electric vehicles.

For the United States and the rest of the globe, the oversupply has meant consistent availability of cheap solar panels and components that boosted the adoption of renewable energy. Solar panels provided more electricity in the United States than coal for the first time on record in May, according to analysis of government data by Ember, an energy think tank. Globally, clean power sources, of which solar is the fastest growing, met all new electricity demand around the world in 2025, staving off an increase in fossil fuel generation. It’s helped China, the world’s largest net emitter of greenhouse gases, flatten its emissions growth, too. The country’s emissions appear to have plateaued and could soon peak. 

If Chinese officials correct the oversupply problem, it could cool some of that rapid solar deployment. But experts say China is more focused on advancing its solar industry than rightsizing it, meaning the cheap solar panel prices may continue for years. 

Read Next It’s official: Data centers are slowing America’s shift away from coal Jake Bittle

Chinese officials have called for “concerted efforts” to rein in solar production as recently as April. But the country’s broader industrial policies and stated goals seem to be leaning away from strict discipline, focusing instead on upgrading solar supply chains to produce more advanced technologies, according to a May report by Rhodium Group. In other words, the oversupply problem isn’t scaring China away from its big bets on solar. In fact, its latest five-year plan signals that China will continue supporting its massive clean energy industries, including solar, “optimizing and upgrading“ those industries rather than clamping down on their oversupply.

“It’s a really interesting moment right now across Chinese industries. Instead of just trying to consolidate, Beijing is pushing industries to go further, to move into more advanced manufacturing,” said Pitt. 

The strategy stands in stark contrast to the United States’ steady solar manufacturing growth, which relies on market conditions rather than government support. Over the past year, the Trump administration and Congress have weakened policy incentives for solar, cutting back tax credits expanded in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and impeding solar development on federal land.

But demand for cheap solar has kept the industry growing. Unlike China’s self-sufficient solar empire, U.S. producers can’t meet all domestic demand for solar panels and are still heavily reliant on foreign components, primarily from China. While the U.S. pursues a slower, market-led approach, China has chosen a long-term state strategy that prioritizes manufacturing dominance over near-term profits. 

That manufacturing dominance is especially important now that other countries are pushing back against China’s near-monopoly in the industry. The country’s efforts to upgrade its supply chains and move into higher-value products could help it stay ahead as new technologies reshape the solar market and countries attempt to build their own competing industries.

“If a solar company in Europe doesn’t make a joint venture with Chinese companies and use the huge advantages of the Chinese systems, then it won’t be successful,” said Schachinger. “From time to time, Indian manufacturers try to step into the European market, but against Chinese products, they have no advantages, and the prices are higher.”

That means if unsustainable business models or geopolitical tensions don’t spoil the boom, the world will have at least a few more years of low-cost Chinese solar products to supply its decarbonization goals, experts suspect.

“This isn’t over yet,” Pitt said. “I think the data points to prices remaining low for the foreseeable future.”

toolTips('.classtoolTips3','Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases that prevent heat from escaping Earth’s atmosphere. Together, they act as a blanket to keep the planet at a liveable temperature in what is known as the “greenhouse effect.” Too many of these gases, however, can cause excessive warming, disrupting fragile climates and ecosystems.'); toolTips('.classtoolTips4','The process of reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that drive climate change, most often by deprioritizing the use of fossil fuels like oil and gas in favor of renewable sources of energy.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline China’s solar industry is losing money. The country is doubling down anyway. on Jul 29, 2026.

Social media driving wild animal pet trade Channel Comment brendan 29th July 2026 Teaser Media

In a first, Germany drew more power from wind and solar than from fossil fuels last year.

Read more on E360 →

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether any step up remains an open question.

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

Everyone knew that wouldn’t be enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 →

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

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.

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.

This story was originally reported by Jenae Barnes, Climate Reporter of The 19th. Meet Jenae and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

Anti-abortion advocates, including Republican lawmakers and state officials, want the EPA to review mifepristone as a water contaminant. Scientists say there’s no evidence it harms the environment or people.

While there is no scientific evidence that abortion medication is contaminating Americans’ water supply, it has nonetheless become a central claim by the anti-abortion movement. Activists, Instagram influencers and Republican Party officials — including state and federal lawmakers — are doubling down on what experts describe as a disinformation campaign that mixes environmental policy and reproductive rights, and risks exploiting legitimate concerns about clean water.

“What if I were to tell you that every time you fill up a glass of water at your kitchen sink from the tap, you were actually *drinking* someone else’s abortion,” influencer Isabel Brown wrote in an Instagram post in May. In the accompanying video, the Gen Z conservative content creator, who has more than 1 million followers on her platform, talks to Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, a national anti-abortion organization, and contends that anti-abortion medication is “poisoning” the water.

The claim isn’t new. For decades, anti-abortion advocates have argued that abortion medications, primarily mifepristone, pollute the environment and put pregnant people’s health at risk. But the argument has now become part of a widespread and often coordinated effort to create federal and state policy that further suppresses abortion access.

On June 5, 14 Republican state attorneys general and 19 GOP lawmakers in Congress urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to classify and regulate mifepristone as a water contaminant. In two concurrent letters, officials argued that the abortion medication, part of a safe and effective two-drug regimen to terminate pregnancies, is “a growing threat to the country’s waterways” and violates the Safe Drinking Water Act.

One letter was signed by attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. The other letter, led by Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, made similar claims and was signed by 18 other GOP lawmakers.

Environmental health experts have consistently said there is no scientific evidence that abortion medication causes harm to the environment — or to humans. Both reproductive rights advocates and environmental scientists have said that the argument co-opts environmental policy as a pathway to weaponize and stigmatize health care.

“This is really part of a broader effort to restrict access to medication abortion,” said Anna Bernstein, principal federal policy adviser at the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports reproductive rights. She said anti-abortion activists are increasingly turning to “every lever they can” as medication abortion has become the largest share of abortion care nationwide. Medication abortion accounted for 63 percent of all abortions in the United States in 2023, according to Guttmacher Institute data.

Does Oral Abortion Medication Really End Up in Drinking Water?

Anti-abortion advocates contend that over 50 tons of medical waste “including blood, placental tissue, and human remains” are flushed into water systems each year as a result of these drugs. They argue high concentration of the elements of mifepristone in water, specifically a hormone called progesterone, disrupts and reduces fertility in women. They also say that previous results of federal testing of mifepristone’s environmental impact are outdated.

Environmental health experts dismiss these claims. These experts consistently point out that there is no scientific basis for treating mifepristone or other abortion medication as a water contaminant. Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed out that mifepristone is used by a small fraction of the population and is typically taken as a one-time dose. By comparison, many pharmaceuticals taken daily by tens of millions of Americans enter wastewater systems in far greater quantities. He also noted that mifepristone was not included among nearly 700 pharmaceutical compounds the EPA previously screened for potential water contamination concerns.

Instead, Donley described the effort as an attempt to use environmental concerns as a pretext for limiting reproductive rights. He noted that while proponents are seeking to add mifepristone to the EPA’s 6th Contaminant Candidate List (CCL6), a preliminary list of substances that could potentially be considered for future drinking water regulation, placement on the list would not itself regulate the drug but could begin a lengthy review process.

Donley added that focusing on mifepristone distracts from well-documented water quality threats, including PFAS — known as forever chemicals — pesticides, lead and nitrate contamination.

“There are legitimate water quality threats that we need to attack and rectify in a regulatory manner. And then there are things that are out in the left field that just distract people,” Donley said.

Where Did This Argument Come From and Why Is It Gaining Traction Again Now?

In 1996, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tested for the environmental effects of mifepristone and found “no significant impact.” In the June letter, lawmakers cite the FDA study, and urge “reconsideration” of potential harm to the environment.

Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, opponents have increasingly focused on limiting access to abortion medication and prescribing it through telehealth, which has become a critical pathway for people living in states with abortion bans.

But anti-abortion groups have ramped up efforts during the second Trump administration to advocate for the official classification of mifepristone as a water contaminant.

Last November, Students for Life of America (SFLA), a national anti-abortion group, met with the EPA to advocate for adding mifepristone to the CCL6 as the agency carried out a routine update to a separate list of health benchmarks for pharmaceuticals that must be tracked in drinking water.

The coordinated letters in June were timed toward the EPA’s 60-day comment period, which began in April and allowed members of the public to submit their thoughts on draft proposals to be reviewed by the agency.

“SFLA asks that mifepristone be tracked, given the reasonable cause for concern that regular and ongoing exposure to a progesterone blocker is impacting public health, endangered species, and the environment,” the anti-abortion group said in a statement on their website, adding that the group plans to take on the issue in every state. “You don’t have to be pro-life to want clean drinking water. You don’t have to be pro-life to be concerned that we are being ‘microdosed’ by progesterone blockers, which are a factor in rising infertility.”

The SFLA said it collected over 1,700 public comments to send to the EPA, and helped spearhead the 14-state campaign of letters from attorneys general to the EPA ahead of its public comment period for the CCL6.

The draft for the CCL6 received nearly 22,000 public comments before closing on June 5, public records show.

How Are Lawmakers Trying to Change Environmental Abortion Policies?

In 2025, anti-abortion policymakers introduced nine bills in seven states tying medication abortion to water pollution, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That same year, 25 members of Congress sent a similar letter asking the EPA to monitor for environmental harms of mifepristone. This March, U.S. Rep Mary Miller, a Republican from Illinois, introduced a Clean Water for All Life Act, citing similar claims of environmental degradation from abortion medication.

According to Bernstein and Guttmacher state policy adviser Kimya Forouzan, some proposals would require state agencies to test wastewater for abortion medications. Others would require patients to use so-called “catch kits” and medical waste bags to collect and return pregnancy tissue after taking abortion medication. Some bills would create liability for drug manufacturers if abortion medications were detected in wastewater.

While the bills vary, abortion rights advocates say they share a common goal: creating additional barriers to medication abortion access.

“The CCL is one part of a broad regulatory process. This draft list is then used to inform another list, which determines which contaminants are monitored and regulated, but the surveillance really does happen at a municipality and then state level,” Bernstein said, adding: “So this would be setting federal benchmarks for localities to monitor in their wastewater.”

To date, neither President Donald Trump nor EPA chief Lee Zeldin have explicitly spoken to any health risks of mifepristone in water. But the president and leading administration officials’ decision to stay silent on the issue may increase pressure from anti-abortion advocates, according to Bernstein.

“We anticipate that disinformation campaigns surrounding mifepristone, including these false claims on the environmental impact, will continue to escalate — particularly as abortion opponents are frustrated at a perceived lack of action by the Trump administration,” Bernstein told The 19th. “We know, however, that restricting access to abortion is politically unfavorable, and candidates may be hesitant to focus on these efforts before the midterm elections.

What Are the Stakes for Pregnant People?

As abortion rights and access have shrunk, Forouzan said that medication abortion has become a “lifeline” for many people seeking care after Dobbs, particularly through telehealth providers operating under shield laws, which are state-by-state legal protections to safeguard practitioners from being sued by states with abortion bans. As a result, anti-abortion officials at the state and federal level have increasingly focused on restricting the remaining ways people can access abortion care.

Forouzan said the push to monitor abortion medication in wastewater contributes to a broader “culture of surveillance” surrounding abortion. She said proposals to test wastewater for mifepristone raise concerns about how such monitoring data could eventually be used and whether it could increase scrutiny of people who obtain medication abortions.

Do These Claims Have the Potential to Affect Federal Policy?

The potential of environmental harms continues to shape policy for abortion and anti-abortion advocates. On the anniversary of Dobbs, Rep. Brittany Pettersen, a Democrat from Colorado, submitted a resolution to address the disinformation campaign, saying that water systems should “not be weaponized for the purposes of surveilling, tracking, or detecting use of, stigmatizing, and further restricting access to medication abortion care.”

Advocates also point to what they see as a contradiction in the campaign. Many of the same advocates and elected officials who support mifepristone monitoring have opposed other environmental hazard regulations. For example, in Indiana, where the state’s attorney general co-signed the letter, state lawmakers recently passed legislation to deregulate the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, an agency in charge of limiting pollution in the state’s air, water and soil.

The EPA has already taken action to recommend states begin testing drinking water for abortion medications. In April, the agency released a list of 374 drugs that states should monitor. While it does not include mifepristone, it does include other medications used in abortions such as misoprostol and methotrexate, commonly used in daily birth control and the NuvaRing contraceptive. It’s the first time the agency has designated pharmaceuticals as a contaminant group, according to an April press release.

The EPA did not respond to The 19th’s request for comment.

The EPA’s comment period allowed 60 days for the public to weigh in on the list before agency staff began reviewing the feedback and finalizing. Now that the June comment period has closed, whether the agency will ultimately add the medication to the list remains uncertain. However, when federal regulators previously reviewed environmental concerns related to mifepristone, they found no evidence warranting restrictions, according to Bernstein.

Bernstein and Forouzan said that anti-abortion states and lawmakers often learn from each other in order to pass bills in their respective states. Forouzan added these efforts work “parallel” to federal bill proposals, both with the same goal: to restrict further access.

“Its really just to restrict access to mifepristone and specifically to roll back requirements to force in-person dispensation, which would really limit access to a lot of folks.”

Four years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, reproductive advocates say the evolution of anti-abortion campaigns continue to “severely restrict” access to care across the country. Thirteen states currently enforce total bans, and 6 explicitly prohibit telehealth use to provide abortion pills, according to Guttmacher Institute.

“It’s contributing to this culture of surveillance around medication abortion at a time when that is already increasing, and folks, especially in banned states, are facing increasing fear of criminalization,” Bernstein said. “There are concerns whether it will be eventually used for the criminalization of patients, in addition to creating a broader restriction of mifepristone and perpetuating these myths.”

The post No, Drinking Water Isn’t Contaminated By Abortion Pills appeared first on The Revelator.

The use of small, controlled burns to clear out flammable underbrush has saved thousands of giant sequoias from devastating wildfires, new research finds.

Read more on E360 →

Could the oil industry be held responsible for fueling the extreme heat that led to a woman’s death?

That’s the question at the heart of a novel lawsuit in Washington state. Misti Leon’s mother died from overheating during the hottest day in state history in June 2021, when temperatures climbed to 108 degrees Fahrenheit. Scientists said the unusual heat dome that descended on the Pacific Northwest would have been “virtually impossible” without climate change. So last year, Leon sued Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron, Shell, and other oil majors for wrongful death, alleging that they had known for decades that fossil fuel emissions would lead to destructive consequences, but deceived the public about it, delaying action that could have prevented her mother’s death. An estimated 1,200 people in the region perished from the heat during that simmering week in June.

Earlier this month, a King County judge ruled against the oil companies’ motions to dismiss Leon’s lawsuit, allowing it to proceed toward trial. The ruling was a signal that this kind of case has merit, said Mike Meno, the communications director at the Center for Climate Integrity, a nonprofit supporting climate accountability cases. “It’s the latest type of legal liability that the oil companies are absolutely terrified of and are going to fight like hell to try to escape,” he said. 

More than a decade after investigations found that Exxon Mobil had known about the dangers of global warming since the 1970s but publicly downplayed the threat, lawsuits against oil companies have proliferated. There are nearly 40 of these cases pending across the country, according to Margaret Barry, who manages a climate litigation database at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center. After years of delay tactics from the oil industry, at least five of these lawsuits — from Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, and Honolulu — have proceeded to the discovery stage, in which both sides try to uncover evidence to bolster their case in court. That’s the last major step before a trial, when oil executives would be forced to defend their actions in front of a jury.

Some cases are on hold as judges wait to hear how the Supreme Court handles a lawsuit from Boulder, Colorado, this fall. The city and county of Boulder allege that Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy violated state laws by concealing the dangers of their products and they want money to pay for the rising costs of improving infrastructure to deal with heat waves, wildfires, and floods. The outcome could affect existing climate lawsuits, or push plaintiffs to take different approaches.

Portland residents fill a cooling center at the Oregon Convention Center during the June 2021 heat dome. Nathan Howard / Getty Images

In the meantime, the industry has been mobilizing a counterattack against the lawsuits with the help of the Trump administration and Republican politicians. The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s biggest lobbying group, has said that one of its priorities for 2026 was to “stop extreme climate liability policy.” The industry has begun challenging “attribution science,” a rapidly developing field that seeks to quantify how climate change, and even emissions from specific companies, have intensified extreme weather. 

The flurry of activity suggests that the industry feels like it’s under threat, Meno said. “Quite simply, Big Oil is in panic mode.” 

Republicans are trying to pass laws to grant oil majors immunity to these kinds of lawsuits, with success in several states so far. Utah, Iowa, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Louisiana have recently signed laws shielding fossil fuel companies from lawsuits related to greenhouse gas emissions, while Montana and Utah (again) reformed existing laws to narrowly define what counts as a “public nuisance,” effectively blocking lawsuits against oil companies to recover damages from climate change under that legal theory. The effort has gone national: Republicans in both chambers of Congress introduced bills this spring that would give oil companies broad immunity from lawsuits seeking to hold them accountable for climate damages, with the backing of the American Petroleum Institute. 

In April, an investigation from ProPublica revealed a coordinated effort behind these “liability shield” laws from conservative groups tied to the activist Leonard Leo. Evidence provided to Grist from the watchdog group Fieldnotes shows that Koch Industries and Exxon, in particular, have extensive ties to the organizations pushing for these laws, including the American Legislative Exchange Council and the American Tort Reform Association.

“If these companies have done nothing wrong and they think the law is on their side, why are they lobbying Congress for immunity?” Meno said. 

Oil executives have also gotten help from the federal government, following an executive order from President Donald Trump last year directing the attorney general to prioritize blocking climate lawsuits by states. This May, the Justice Department responded to Minnesota’s climate lawsuit against Big Oil with a lawsuit of its own, just as the state’s case was moving into the discovery phase. It said Minnesota was undermining “American energy dominance” and attempting to regulate greenhouse gases, which should fall under the purview of federal law — echoing the oil industry’s well-known argument. In a related development, Robert Levy, a longtime Exxon lawyer, recently joined the Department of Justice in the newly dubbed “Energy and Natural Resources Division” (instead of the “Environment and Natural Resources Division”).

Read Next Red-state Republicans seek climate ‘liability shield’ for fossil fuel industry Dharna Noor

As oil companies have worked to delay these lawsuits, the scientific backing supporting some of these cases has gotten stronger. A new, major report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concludes that the existing science linking climate change to extreme weather has become increasingly robust, particularly for extreme heat, extreme cold, and heavy rainfall. Though the report doesn’t make recommendations about how the findings should be used, it has drawn an unusual level of scrutiny. Last month, ahead of the report’s release, the opposition research firm Argus Insight requested to see internal communications between the members of the panel working on the report and any emails they might have exchanged with academics and lawyers involved in researching legal strategies for climate court cases. 

“We saw pushback to not the science itself, but the process,” said Carly Phillips, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ climate litigation hub. “For me, that was really illustrative, because the science is really sound.” She sees the opposition as an attempt to discredit scientific evidence before it has a chance to be heard in court.

Earlier this year, Republican attorneys general pressured the National Academies of Sciences and the Federal Judicial Center, the research agency for federal judges, to remove a chapter on climate science from their updated reference manual for judges, but only the Judicial Center complied. Trump entered the debate on Sunday, ordering officials to review the conduct of the National Academies of Sciences. “Our Taxpayers should not be funding Climate Fraud, and Judges should never have relied upon it,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Big Oil ostensibly hopes to avoid the fate of Big Tobacco, which paid hundreds of billions of dollars to settle lawsuits demonstrating that companies lied about the health risks of smoking. As the legal theories for those seeking to hold oil companies accountable for global warming evolve, the fossil fuel industry has to keep up, Justin Anderson, a lawyer for Exxon, explained at a panel on climate litigation held by the Federalist Society in November. 

“Why do they keep adapting and changing their theories?” Anderson asked. “It’s kind of obvious. I have to win every time. I have to win every case that is brought. They just need to find one they can get through.”

toolTips('.classtoolTips3','Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases that prevent heat from escaping Earth’s atmosphere. Together, they act as a blanket to keep the planet at a liveable temperature in what is known as the “greenhouse effect.” Too many of these gases, however, can cause excessive warming, disrupting fragile climates and ecosystems.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline As climate lawsuits advance, the oil industry enters ‘panic mode’ on Jul 24, 2026.

This story is published through the Indigenous News Alliance.

Indigenous communities around the world face mounting, and colliding, impacts from climate change, violence, rising threats from artificial intelligence, and many other crises. Their leaders are demanding that the world take action, and they’ve given the United Nations a 12-point plan for what they say it must do. 

Simply put, their proposal calls on the U.N. and governments around the world to take sweeping and rapid action to protect Indigenous land, rights, and lives. 

“Our communities — our women, our children, our families — they have a right to action and that’s what we’re not seeing globally,” said Cora McGuire-Cyrette, who is a member of the Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek and spoke on behalf of the Ontario Native Women’s Association. “We’re looking for action.” 

Last week, the seven Indigenous members of the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or EMRIP, finalized the proposal it will present to the U.N. Human Rights Council. But even as the recommendations generated hope for change, the financial crisis facing EMRIP cast a shadow over the proceedings. Many delegates expressed concerns about the future of the forum, and other hard-won international platforms for Indigenous voices.

Given the scale of threats Indigenous peoples face, these forums are more important than ever, said Sheryl Lightfoot, who is Anishinaabe and serves as EMRIP’s North America region expert.  “There’s clearly no shortage of work,” she said.

The breadth of the 12 recommendations reflects that urgency, calling for stronger protections for Indigenous cultures and rights and a greater voice in global affairs.

One recommendation sought greater protections for remote Indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation or initial contact. Others stressed the need to preserve Indigenous languages and data sovereignty.

Delegates also argued that the legal standing of Indigenous peoples must be strengthened by recognizing their rights as distinct from broader human rights and by fully implementing the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They also called on the U.N. to increase Indigenous participation within the Human Rights Council and encourage member states to engage more fully with EMRIP.

Albert Barume is the U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples and EMRIP’s former chairperson. He told the delegates about what he called a widespread trend of “stagnation and regression” for human rights. “In the last years,” he said, “almost no single states have taken a new measure protecting Indigenous peoples’ rights. And states that had legal and policy frameworks are actively dismantling and regressing.”

Macy Duxfield, who is Māori and belongs to the Ngaa Rauru, Te Ātihaunui-a-Papārangi, and Ngāi Tahu nations, described Aotearoa New Zealand’s policies toward Indigenous peoples as regressive. But she reminds herself of the continual work that’s still needed to overcome the challenges her people face. “We exist in this moment,” she said. “We’ve inherited the work from our ancestors, and we pass it on to our descendants.” 

McGuire-Cyrette and others also reminded delegates about the importance of greater autonomy for Indigenous women and girls. “We recommend the inclusion of Indigenous women in all decisions that impact our lives, our families, and our nations,” McGuire-Cyrette said.

But even as Indigenous delegates try to use international forums to fight for change, those mechanisms are in danger. EMRIP is among the three U.N. bodies focused on Indigenous peoples — along with the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples. All three agencies face an uncertain future due to dwindling financial support.

Marjolaine Étienne, who is Innu from the Pekuakamiulnuatsh community of Mashteuiatsh in Quebec, told delegates the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples needs greater support. The program helps Indigenous representatives cover the costs of attending international meetings. The number of representatives the fund supports is already perilously low, she said. Without greater state contributions, fewer delegates will be able to attend those forums, sidelining them from the international stage. 

Just eight countries contribute to the fund, and its budget is less than $2 million. Only three countries contributed to the U.N. Trust Fund for Indigenous Peoples. The United States does not contribute to either of them. 

“The liquidity crisis must not be used as an excuse to limit the mandate of EMRIP and to reduce the frequency or depth of country engagements or follow-up,” McGuire-Cyrette said. 

Lightfoot acknowledged there is widespread uncertainty within EMRIP and all U.N. bodies amid the agency-wide reform effort known as UN80. But she said EMRIP is preparing for whatever happens. “There are a lot of unanswered questions right now” about the reforms, she said, “and what the impacts of that might be for Indigenous-specific mechanisms.”

“I don’t know where we’re going,” she said. “I don’t know what kind of efficiencies the U.N. will ask of us. But I know we are thinking it through because we want to be ready to respond.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Indigenous leaders give the UN a roadmap for protecting their peoples on Jul 24, 2026.

Dancing towards the revolution Channel News brendan 24th July 2026 Teaser Media

The past 30-40 years have been hard on people and their relationships with neighbors and communities. Powerful interests have driven a wedge between people and divided us by promoting self-centeredness and antisocial beliefs. But there are many smart ways we can push this anti-community thinking with grace and empowerment — including the promotion of green spaces.

Dear Dr. Green,

My town has been pretty good about preserving green spaces, but lately the more MAGA-influenced people in town object (strongly!) to spending any tax dollars on things that don’t benefit them directly. Isn’t there evidence that green space psychologically benefits a community? Lower crime, less stress, better health, etc.?

 

Hello Friend,

If only more people would be as caring about their communities. Many people reading this might feel the same frustration and puzzlement over community members who don’t seem to care about community resources.

Yes, there’s strong evidence that green spaces and environmentally sound civil engineering in towns and cities create more wholesome places to live for everyone.

Sadly, cash-strapped municipal governments often see funding for green spaces as the easiest thing to cut from annual budgets. That’s why so many local parks (not to mention national public lands) are in disrepair or unsafe. But an analysis published this May by the Trust for Public Land found every dollar invested in local parks and recreation generates at least $3 in economic benefits, including several ways they help people psychologically.

Let’s look at some science-based arguments for green spaces as a community benefit and help make a case for spending community resources.

The evidence that green space psychologically benefits communities — and the scientific evidence that supports community funding:

Green spaces  can be defined as public places where open areas are dedicated to community benefit. These can include parks, designated trails, playgrounds, shade trees, dog parks, and outdoor seating. Productive green spaces improve air and water quality and support local pollinators and other wildlife.

Image by Christel from Pixabay

 

 

A widely cited study published in 2018 detailed the community benefits of green spaces on mental and physical health. Further scientific studies clearly show that daily exposure to green spaces has been linked to improved physical and mental well-being, reduced levels of stress, enhanced brain function, and increased physical activity. Green spaces also reduce violent crime, anxieties, and fears by creating a place for communities to get together and feel safe while outdoors. The effect has been documented worldwide. See our resource list below for more information.

Parks and forests get the most attention when it comes to green spaces, but here are some other ideas for green spaces to offer to your town or city council support, some of which may not even require funding from local governments:

• Community Gardens are shared parcels of land cultivated by a group of people rather than a single individual. These spaces allow participants to grow fresh fruits, vegetables, and flowers, while promoting food security, social interaction, and environmental sustainability.

Image by Tharushi Jayawardana from Pixabay

• Individual Plots are parcels of land subdivided into smaller sections and each gardener or a family is responsible for managing their own plot and keeps the harvest it yields.
• Collective/Cooperative Gardens are land parcels that are tended by a community group. All participants share the labor, and the harvest belongs to everyone.
• Youth Gardens can provide education for youth and are maintained by schools, universities, or nonprofits specifically to teach children about nature, nutrition, and agriculture in a social setting.

Image by Fabien from Pixabay

 

• Green Roofs and Walls involves planting vegetation on top of buildings or vertically on facades and lining streets with trees to encourage walking and cool down summer heat that rises at night from cement and asphalt.

Image by Fabien from Pixabay

• Protected Nature Preserves can be designed to conserve native and local flora and fauna plus provide education about them.

These kinds of green spaces are important for creating a pleasant living space for the whole community and improving the environment in your locale. Green spaces also provide community connection by gathering people together, reducing isolation, and fostering a sense of shared civic pride. The health and well-being of entire communities is boosted through promotion of outdoor physical activity, stress reduction, education, and enhanced mental health.

Coming up:

Shortly after submitting their original question, this week’s reader followed up and asked:

I guess my secondary question is, can sharing this science help persuade these anti-tax activists?

We’ll address that question in our next column, where we’ll learn about how to make a strong case for the mutually beneficial science behind local green spaces (and just about any other environmental initiative). We’ll explore how to win hearts and minds of anti-tax opposition through engaging, positive public speaking, and presentations at town council meetings to justify the need for community green spaces.

Looking forward to it,

Dr. Green

What are you struggling with as a dedicated environmentalist? Use the form below to send your questions and success stories.

All participants are anonymous. Even Dr. Green has no idea who you are.

Send Dr. Green your questions and stories below:

All questions are anonymous and considered intended for publication. Individual replies are not possible.

Disclaimer: This column is not a replacement for therapy, and the advice given is educational in nature, not a replacement for professional psychological or psychiatric therapy. This is a peer-driven support effort by The Revelator to inform and build community with environmental and wildlife defenders.

If you are feeling critically depressed and suicidal, it’s time to immediately find professional help. Go to your closest emergency room or call the following numbers to get immediate help in your area:

SUICIDE HOTLINES

Worldwide: http://www.befrienders.org/support/

United Kingdom: http://www.samaritans.org

USA: http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org

1-800-273-TALK

Resources:

“The Importance of Greenspace for Mental Health.” Barton J, Rogerson M. The importance of greenspace for mental health. BJPsych Int. 2017 Nov 1;14(4):79-81. doi: 10.1192/s2056474000002051. PMID: 29093955; PMCID: PMC5663018.

“Who Heals the Earth’s Healers? Ways to Avert Burnout for Environmental Advocates,” The Revelator, May 2025

“Dr. Green: Why Some People and Groups Become Resistant to Science”

“A comparative study of the physiological and psychological effects of forest bathing (Shinrin-yoku) on working age people with and without depressive tendencies.” Akemi Furuyashiki, et al., Environmental Health and Preventative Medicine, The Japanese Society for Hygiene.2019 Jun 22

Forest Bathing: How Trees Can Help You Find Health and Happiness by Dr. Qing Li

Forest Bath  by Jen Barton and Felishia Henditirto, Magination Press — American Psychological Association. A children’s (5-9 years) picture book.

Environmental Psychology: An Introduction 2nd Edition

“The Effects of Forest Therapy on Immune Function” by Youngran Chae, Sunhee Lee, Youngmi Jo, Soyean Kang, Suyoun Park, and Hyoyoung Kang

“The Case for Green Space: A Cost-Effective Mental Health Resource” by Elizabeth Hoge, M.D. and Charlotte Wulf

 

The post Dr. Green: The Psychological and Social Benefits of Green Community Spaces appeared first on The Revelator.