News Feeds

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Neha Pathak

Most of us sense it without being told why: A walk in the woods or an hour in the park leaves us calmer, clearer, and restored. Increasingly, modern science agrees. A growing body of evidence links time in nature to better physical and mental health – and a major new effort is working to document exactly what that evidence shows.

That effort is called the Nature Record, and its survival is a story in itself. It began as the National Nature Assessment, a federal undertaking modeled on the long-running National Climate Assessment and mandated by a Biden-era executive order. Roughly 180 scientists volunteered to develop about a dozen chapters. The project had reached an early public-comment draft when the Trump administration canceled it. Rather than abandon the work, the authors decided to finish it independently under a new name, with foundation funding and National Academy of Sciences review.

Howard Frumkin, a physician-epidemiologist and a professor emeritus at the University of Washington, led the assessment’s chapter on human health. Yale Climate Connections spoke with him about how the report survived, what the science says about nature’s health benefits, why those benefits aren’t shared equally, and what it all means for communities and the healthcare system.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Yale Climate Connections: The connection between nature, health, and climate change pulls together fields that don’t usually sit at the same table. How do you frame that intersection?

Howard Frumkin: This intersection of the natural world and human health – in the context of climate change – draws on three different lineages intellectually.

The first is the scientific evidence on the health benefits of nature contact, which is what the Nature Record is focusing on. So if you or I take a walk in a forest or in a park, we have nature contact, and something about that is good for us. We don’t fully understand. It might be the visual appreciation of beautiful nature; it might be phytoncides – biogenic chemicals that we’re inhaling. It could be the quiet, could be the physical activity. But nature also delivers benefits without direct contact: The upstream ecosystem in the watershed that delivers clean water is good for health. We may never go up there, but we still benefit from it.

The second is the whole literature on climate solutions, indicating that coastal mangrove forests and sponge cities and tree canopy deliver benefits both in terms of climate mitigation and adaptation: We can store carbon, reduce temperatures of neighborhoods, we can manage storm water.

Then there’s a third line of thinking, which has to do with the human relationship with the natural world. In Indigenous and tribal wisdom, there’s talk of reciprocity, the shared relationship that we have as part of nature, the obligations for stewardship, the legal concepts of the rights of nature. All of that is related to, but different than, the climate benefits piece because it’s explicitly not instrumental; it’s not transactional; it’s relational. You come into that thinking about the right relationship that we as humans should have with the natural world – not because of what it gets us.

Yale Climate Connections: So how did the Nature Record come to be, and how did the project survive after the federal government withdrew its support?

Frumkin: It was a pretty simple concept: the idea that you can’t take good care of what you don’t know. There was a perception that if we were to be good stewards of our natural heritage in this country, we needed an inventory. We needed to take stock of what we had, and not just at a fixed moment in time but over time to understand the trends that were affecting nature and the benefits it delivers. The model for doing that was the National Climate Assessment, which is the every-four-year assessment of climate change in the U.S. – how it’s unfolding, what the impacts are on humans – mandated by federal legislation back in the 1990s. It comes with lots of federal procedures, in terms of scientific rigor, transparency, public review, and so on. Out of that conceptual commitment to taking stock of what we have, and using the model of the National Climate Assessment, an executive order in the Biden administration mandated the creation of the National Nature [Assessment].

It got as far as a “zero order draft,” – what regular people call an outline – that was published in the Federal Record and made available for public comment. And no sooner did that happen than the Trump inauguration happened, and the Trump administration killed the National Nature Assessment.

By then we had rostered around 12 chapters with around 15 authors each, so we had 180 authors all volunteering time, representing academic institutions and agencies and NGOs across the country. And pretty much in the blink of an eye, everybody said, “Let’s do it anyway … This work is so important, and the value is so clear that we don’t need to be a federal undertaking.”

There were some legal issues, like we couldn’t use the same name; federal employees could no longer participate because of potential risks to them and to the project. We found foundation support in early 2025, and by mid-2025 [it was] clear that we had enough money, energy, and commitment that we could continue. We landed on the Nature Record, and we’re proceeding almost in some ways as if it were a federal document – with transparency, National Academy of Sciences review, very careful documentation of all factual claims – partly because rigor will give a lot of credibility to the report, and partly because it would be a good thing for this to return to being a federal effort. If we have followed all the rules, dotted all the i’s, and crossed all the t’s, this can be reimported into government.

That said, being nonfederal offers some advantages. We can be more flexible and nimble, more creative in the ways we undertake outreach and build partnerships, and publicize and disseminate what we find. In some ways, this is a blessing in disguise. We have, for example, a national poetry effort running alongside the Nature Record, and we’ve published a book of poetry. We’ve engaged young people in graphic arts related to the benefits of nature. Bringing that creativity to bear has been a really nice part of the project.

Yale Climate Connections: When you dug into the evidence for the health chapter, what were the biggest takeaways or trends you saw?

Frumkin: The first key message is that, in general, nature contact is good for people; it’s health-promoting. The second is that those benefits are unequally distributed across society. Some of us have much better or easier access to nature than others. It’s an equity issue, because poor people and people of color disproportionately tend to have less access to parks and high-quality park programming, through the legacies of redlining and other historical trends.

But it’s not just that conventional form of equity that’s important. People with disabilities have difficulty accessing natural places. Older people have difficulty because too many parks lack accessible trails and shade, and children often lack access because safe, easy access to green space is rare in many communities.

Another trend is more screen time and less green time. People are spending less time outdoors. On the other hand, there are some emerging technologies that may facilitate nature contact, such as Merlin [the birdsong identification app], which may help deepen people’s appreciation of nature, and there’s reason to think that being more familiar with it deepens nature connectedness.

Four takeaways about health and nature from the Nature Record

• Nature contact is broadly good for human health.
• Those benefits are unequally distributed – by race, income, age, and disability.
• Long-term trends, such as rising screen time and falling green time, are reshaping how people benefit – for better and worse.
• Evidence-based interventions, like well-designed park programming, can reliably strengthen nature’s health benefits.

Yale Climate Connections: If the evidence that nature helps is solid, how much do we actually know about why – and about how much nature is enough?

Don’t miss out: If you sign up by August 1 to support our extreme weather coverage with a monthly donation, you’ll be invited to an exclusive conversation with our meteorologists later this season. Become a monthly supporter of Jeff Masters, Bob Henson, and Irene Sans’s extreme weather coverage today.  

Donate

Frumkin: One of the most interesting parts of this is that although we have pretty solid evidence that nature contact benefits health, we know precious little about how it works. So you may walk through a forest and benefit from seeing the natural beauty of the forest. We have lab evidence that T cells do better after contact with natural compounds than they otherwise would. It may be that the benefit comes from the fact that you’re walking through the forest with friends, and social contacts in natural settings are soothing and restorative. It may be that natural settings call on us just to get out there and take a walk, and the physical activity is a really effective promoter of good health.

Not knowing the pathways and mechanisms of benefits makes it a little difficult to prescribe. And we don’t know a lot about the varieties of nature and which ones are more or less effective. Do you need trees, or do shrubs do the trick? Do you need immersion, or viewing nature out the window? Do you need the real thing, or might virtual nature provide some of the same benefits? Do you need to get out every day, or does a few times a week suffice? So these are a lot of questions we still need to try to answer.

The potential benefits of nature contact are strong, much less expensive than pharmaceuticals, free of side effects, and don’t need to be prescribed by a licensed healthcare provider. The cost-benefit implications are potentially enormous if we get it right and understand best how to optimize those benefits.

Yale Climate Connections: As a physician, I hear a real fear of nature from patients: ticks and mosquito-borne disease, allergies, wildfire smoke, and extreme weather – and climate change is heightening those risks. How do you balance nature’s benefits against these threats?

Frumkin: Rarely in life can you eliminate risk altogether, but you can manage risk.

The risks of being outside: Well, there’s a risk of sunburn – but we can manage that risk with sunblock and with protective clothing. The risk of ticks – that’s a real risk. But we can manage that risk: inspecting ourselves after we’ve been in tick-infested areas and using bug repellent to keep the ticks away. So for each risk, we can reduce the risk by managing it well.

Yale Climate Connections: How do you hope communities will use the Nature Record?

Frumkin: So for communities, here’s an example. Almost every community in the country now has a housing shortage, and there is a need to build more housing. And to do that in economically and environmentally efficient ways generally means density. Density can collide with protecting nature. This report will make it clear that balancing the protection of nature with fulfillment of other human needs – like housing – is a key set of trade-offs we need to tackle and be explicit about.

Using the insights from this report, design strategies that both protect nature and provide nearby nature contact and also provide housing and transportation – which means in many cases nonmotorized transportation, active transport, cycling, and walking. The design of communities needs to take into account all these needs: environment, human, and equity.

Yale Climate Connections: Hospitals and health systems have a natural connection to health, not only through the care they provide but also through the spaces they create. As they consider land use decisions, including parking needs and opportunities for green space, what should they keep in mind?

Frumkin: Two thoughts. One is that we know a lot about how to build green, and that means the buildings themselves, with biophilic principles. It means the environmental performance of the buildings – what are called green buildings – and it means the situation of buildings in lots, protecting nearby nature. That’s a good way to build; it’s economical. There may be increased up-front costs, but they’re generally recoverable in a short number of years, and they deliver health benefits to patients and staff.

The second message is that nonprofit hospitals are required to carry out community health needs assessments and to invest in community health based on the findings of those assessments.

Nature deficit is a community health need, and in my view ought to be a part of every community health needs assessment. To the extent that it’s documented, hospitals can consider investing funds in local parks, either for developing parks or planning programming in parks that we know improve community health.

I would urge hospitals to think about nature deficit as one of those community health needs and then consider investments in nature contact for people in their catchment areas as a means of promoting public health.

Yale Climate Connections: Finally, what makes you most hopeful?

Frumkin: For me, one of the biggest potential sources of despair is the polarization and ideological hysteria that seems to be sweeping our country and many others as well. But this topic offers a counterbalance, because across the political spectrum people love the natural world and appreciate it.

Hunters and anglers and campers may be far right politically, but they have common cause with environmentalists who may be on the political left. There aren’t too many domains that can unite us across the ideological divide that bedevils the country now, but this is one.

I think the fact that we’re approaching this entire Nature Record in an apolitical way, and framing it in terms of benefits that all Americans can enjoy, gives me hope that we may be able to help overcome one of the biggest challenges we face.

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

Pescadero, Calif. (July 27, 2026) — TomKat Ranch, based on California’s Central Coast, has achieved the National Audubon Society’s Bird-Friendly Land Certification. Earned through...

Three new Little Nature Playgrounds are planned for Cobbs Creek Park. Designed with input from local residents, these welcoming spaces will encourage children and families to explore the park, learn about its history and ecology, and safely access the trail from nearby neighborhoods.

Each playground will feature a combination of nature-inspired elements, colorful asphalt art, and wayfinding maps that help connect visitors to Cobbs Creek Park.

Clean Air Council is partnering with Philadelphia Parks and Recreation, Tiny WPA, Amber Art and Design, and community organizations to bring this vision to life.

How does the Little Nature Playground Project help the surrounding community? 

• Connect neighbors to park resources and the physical, social, emotional benefits of green space.
• Offer fun, nature-based play and learning opportunities that encourage repeated visits to the park.
• Welcome  the community into Cobbs Creek Park through safe, accessible entrances 

Designed With the Community 

Community input has shaped every step of this project. Over the past six months, Clean Air Council and community partners have presented the Little Nature Playground Project at almost a dozen in-person meetings and events.These conversations were designed to gather design and location feedback while ensuring the project reflects the community’s vision.

Partnering with the Cobbs Creek Community Environmental Center and area libraries, the Council shared updates through community meetings, educational programs, and events. The Council also held a series of “dinner and design workshops” to gain perspectives from neighbors and distributed flyers to encourage participation.

Workshop attendees offered feedback and insight into the project’s themes. Initial project locations were identified by using  existing pedestrian safety infrastructure, including traffic signals, crosswalks, and pedestrian crossing signals. Community members voted on their favorite locations and the top three crossing sites were selected.

Throughout the last six months, online surveys and meetings with community stakeholders have helped refine the three playground locations and their themes. Project consultants are currently designing initial project sketches.  

Little Nature Playground Proposed Locations

• Woodland Ave. and Cobbs Creek Parkway (north side)
• Market St. and 63rd St. (north side)
• Spruce St. and Cobbs Creek Parkway (south side)
   

Location: Woodland Ave. and Cobbs Creek Parkway 
Theme: Lenape history and connecting to the creek

“Karakung” is the Lenape name for Cobbs Creek and translates to “the place of the wild geese.” One element of the play structure could be different geese that people can climb and sit on. Above is a mock up of what one of the geese could look like.

Location: 63rd St. and Market St.
Theme: Nature of Cobbs Creek Park (native plants, flowers, animals)

Many neighbors talked about wanting a place to rest along the trail during different community feedback sessions.  Above is an image of a mock up of a bench in the shape of a creek. Elements that may be highlighted in the play structure design include local animals, native flowers, and the creek.

Location: Spruce St. and 63rd St.
Theme: Celebrating Cobbs Creek communities

Inspired by conversations with community groups and neighbors, this location will celebrate the collective energy put into supporting and caring for the community. The design will recognize that  supporting young people is a key part of the neighborhood’s success. The creek bench may also be included in this location. 

How can the surrounding community continue to inform this project and lead the vision? 

Community members are encouraged to sign up to attend one or all of the upcoming Cobbs Creek Neighbors RCO community meetings, where we will be giving project updates and continuing to gain community feedback. These meetings will take place Monday evenings at the Blanche A. Nixon/Cobbs Creek Library, 5800 Cobbs Creek Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19143. Register for free below to keep updated on any changes!  

• September 14, 5:30 – 7 p.m. Register
• November 2, 5:30 – 7 p.m. Register
• December 7, 5:30 – 7 p.m. Register

Follow @CobbsCreekWatershedCoaltion on Instagram and Facebook for updates! 

Questions? Email Trails@cleanair.org 

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

Do solar plants require backup from fossil fuels?

Solar plants require backup, but it doesn’t have to be from fossil fuels.

A combination of renewables, energy storage, and long-distance transmission can reliably power the majority of the U.S. without relying on coal, oil, or natural gas, as one 2017 research paper describes. Renewables like wind can generate under cloudy conditions, while surplus solar from brighter weather can be stored in utility-scale batteries for rainy days. Additionally, transmission from neighboring regions can assist solar capacity drops.

The Department of Energy and Princeton have outlined decarbonization scenarios projecting expansion of solar and decrease in fossil fuels while maintaining reliability. Analysis of real-world outcomes has found that renewables growth has actually outperformed projections.

California is an example of improving reliability while transitioning from fossil fuels to solar. From 2015 to 2025, in-state generation saw a jump in solar reliance from 8% to 27%, while natural gas dropped from 60% to 36%.

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

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

Sources

The Electricity Journal Reliably integrating variable renewables: Moving grid flexibility resources from models to results

The Alliance for Climate Transition Institute Solar energy requires 100% fossil fuel backup

Princeton University Net-Zero America

University of Virginia Decarbonization by 2050: Are We on Track?

California Energy Commission CA Electric Generation 2001-25

California Energy Commission California Energy Leaders Report Progress on Grid Reliability Ahead of Summer 2026

MIT The Future of Energy Storage

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

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

About fact briefs published on Gigafact

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

Buying cookware? A California law makes it easier to spot PFAS in kitchen products Monica Amarelo July 28, 2026

For years, the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS were used in many products that touch food, including popcorn bags, pizza boxes, pans and other cookware. Concerns about PFAS’ health harms then led many states to either restrict or outright ban the chemicals in specific items.

Eventually, outcry over these toxic substances led to manufacturers phasing out their use in food packaging nationwide. But they’re still allowed in kitchen products.

That doesn’t mean you’re stuck with PFAS when you’re shopping for pots and pans.

Thanks to a California law that banned PFAS in paper-based food packaging, it is now possible for consumers across the country to find out which companies use PFAS in their products. That’s because the law also included language ordering companies to disclose on their websites if they use PFAS in their cookware – information anyone can see, not just Californians.

Which companies use PFAS?

Last week, the environmental group Defend Our Health compiled this data and released a public directory detailing PFAS usage claims by over 200 cookware companies. You can check the directory to see if a product you are interested in purchasing is labeled PFAS-free.

Of the 210 companies, about 40%, or 82 companies, disclosed their products contained PFAS. A total of 44 companies clearly disclosed through the California requirements that they don’t use PFAS in their products. 

Another 23 companies stated that they do not use PFAS, but these claims could not be verified because the companies either did not provide a disclosure in keeping with the California requirement or may have been exempt from the disclosure requirement under California law. 

Widespread contamination

Teflon and other PFAS-coated cookware are the poster child for a contamination crisis that extends across the globe, with the chemicals detected in soil, water and air. 

Exposure to PFAS at incredibly low concentrations can lead to health harms that have been documented in nearly every system in the body. The chemicals have been linked to cancer, reproductive and immune system harm and other diseases.

When pans coated with the forever chemical PTFE are heated above roughly 400 to 500 degrees Fahrenheit, they can release hazardous fumes. Overheating has been linked to a documented condition called polymer fume fever, sometimes known as “Teflon flu.”

PFAS in nonstick cookware and other consumer and industrial products remain a concern throughout their lifecycle – from manufacturing and use to disposal – because they can pollute the environment and contribute to human exposure.. 

EWG for over 20 years has recommended consumers avoid nonstick pans. EWG commissioned tests of nonstick pans in 2003 and published a report, “Canaries in the Kitchen,” showing that pans can overheat and off-gas pollutants within minutes of use. 

In 2021, EWG scientists summarized peer-reviewed studies showing that PFAS can migrate from containers and cookware into food. Our recommendation still stands: Seek out cast iron, stainless steel or carbon steel cookware.

States are leading the way

States are taking steps to tackle PFAS in kitchen products.

In 2025, California Senate Bill 682, authored by state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), would have banned the sale of cookware containing intentionally added PFAS beginning in 2030. Despite passing the Legislature, the measure was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, meaning the chemicals can still be used in products sold in the state. 

That veto didn’t slow other states from banning PFAS in cookware outright. 

Amara’s Law ended the sale of PFAS cookware in Minnesota, the first state to do so. The law took effect in 2025. Maine and Colorado PFAS cookware bans took effect in January 2026. Connecticut, Vermont and Washington have bans on the use of PFAS in cookware set to take effect in the coming years.

States also set the first PFAS drinking water standards, and they continue to lead on tackling other sources of forever chemicals contamination.

According to the SaferStates PFAS tracker, 17 states have legislation pending that would end the use of PFAS in categories ranging from textiles and dental floss to cookware and firefighting foam.

This state-driven action is leading to real change. Online disclosure of PFAS use is an important first step for consumers, but more change is still needed. Some companies already go beyond what is required in California by independently verifying their products are PFAS-free.

Reducing your exposure to PFAS

PFAS exposure is widespread, because this class of chemicals has found its way into hundreds of products used every day by consumers. 

Research indicates the source of  exposure comes from food, water and PFAS that have migrated into dust from household products. No single step will completely eliminate exposure, but small changes matter. 

Start with the sources you can control, including:

• Choose PFAS-free cookware
• Filter PFAS from your tap water
• Cook fresh food at home as much as possible and limit takeout
• Vacuum frequently with a HEPA-filter vacuum to remove household dust 
• Avoid purchasing products marketed as “stain resistant,” “water proof” and “long lasting.” 

Areas of Focus Food Household & Consumer Products Cookware & Food Containers PFAS Chemicals California Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. July 28, 2026

At the western edge of Florida, just miles from the Alabama border, Shorebird Stewardship Senior Coordinator Brian Cammarano hops out of his National Audubon Society truck with a camera, scope, and...

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

Read more on E360 →

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether any step up remains an open question.

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

Everyone knew that wouldn’t be enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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