News Feeds

Newsom signed several other bills with direct or indirect implications for electric utilities and power infrastructure stakeholders, including Assembly Bill 192 standing up the transmission infrastructure accelerator.

The $3.3-billion project aims to improve downstate power delivery by 2030. It is being developed by New York Transco and the New York Power Authority.

India, a country of nearly 1.5 billion people, has long relied on coal to power its growing economy. But over the last two years, it has seen a remarkable shift: The rapid buildout of renewable energy has halted the growth of coal. 

Read more on E360 →

What California’s paraquat phaseout means for your state Anthony Lacey September 21, 2026

When California regulators asked the pesticide industry for more information about the toxic chemical paraquat, the companies abandoned the state instead of providing the data.

It’s a telling sign that every state should heed – not just because California is the second state to phase out paraquat but because of what the industry’s behavior revealed.

California regulators sought data to determine whether the health and safety risks of paraquat were fully understood and whether they could be controlled after new studies linked exposure to paraquat to thyroid damage and birth defects.

If the paraquat companies had proof the chemical was safe to use, submitting that information might have kept them in the largest paraquat market in the country. 

Instead, they walked away from California entirely. 

That’s the clearest signal a company can send that no fix exists. When managing health and environmental risks from pesticides is possible, California regulators tend to allow the industry to propose mitigation plans because it’s the cheaper, more profitable and politically palatable path. 

When industry chooses to ditch an entire market instead, that’s a strong indication the risk sits beyond what regulators assume they can address by merely restricting how it’s used.

Failing to turn over safety data

A 2024 California law required the state’s pesticide regulators to reevaluate paraquat’s risks to public health and the environment. As questions arose, regulators called on the paraquat companies for missing safety data. 

California’s regulators sought additional data from industry after their own scientists publicly reviewed studies linking paraquat to preterm birth, congenital heart and limb defects, low birth weight, hypothyroidism and lower thyroid hormone levels.

The state also requested a study on field volatility. Field volatility studies monitor how far a pesticide travels through the air after it's applied, which regulators use to estimate exposure risks to nearby workers and communities. 

That request followed new data submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Syngenta, the world’s largest paraquat distributor at the time. The data indicated that paraquat vapor may travel more than 2.7 miles from the field where it's applied, based on early estimates from computer models. 

When regulators ask for this information, what they really want to see is if they can keep the product on the market, not pull it. If the answer had been, “it travels a manageable distance, and here's how buffer zones or application changes address the risks,” paraquat might have been allowed to stay in use in California under new restrictions.

The companies shared some data, but ultimately decided to pull their products from California rather than provide the requested data about birth defects, thyroid damage and field volatility. 

Instead of complying with the state’s request, all seven paraquat manufacturers chose to walk away from their largest market. And it wasn’t just one or two major companies who could afford to take the hit. Every company had the chance to provide data when the regulators began their process, but all  chose to back out. 

Their decision triggered a so-called “voluntary” end to the sale of paraquat in California, which the state’s pesticide regulatory program announced in August. 

The word “voluntary” is somewhat misleading. The inability or unwillingness to prove that the ongoing use of paraquat is safe belies the industry’s “voluntary” action.  

Why 2.7 miles is a mitigation problem, not just a statistic

The paraquat regulations currently in place in California and across the country were implemented under the assumption that only people working directly with the chemical  were at risk of breathing it in. 

The new 2.7-mile estimate from the Syngenta data means that people living around areas where it’s used are not protected by those regulations. 

That distance matters because it falls largely outside what standard regulatory tools can fix. That is why both California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation and the EPA asked pesticide companies to monitor how far paraquat actually moves in the air away from the application site. 

Industry left California, rather than submit that data to DPR.

Regulators often use buffer zones to protect nearby workers and communities when they believe a risk is contained to a few hundred feet. Application timing restrictions are implemented when the danger is tied to specific conditions, like wind speed on the day of applying. But a vapor that can potentially travel multiple miles after application isn't something a buffer zone or a limited application schedule can reliably contain. 

There are no obvious restrictions that manage a risk of that magnitude for paraquat, which may be exactly why the companies were unable to successfully propose one. 

Paraquat health risks

Paraquat is one of a small number of chemicals with a clear link to Parkinson's disease. Chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing the disease by reducing the number of neurons in dopamine-producing parts of the brain. 

Exposure to the chemical is also linked to thyroid cancer, childhood leukemia, kidney cancer, lung damage and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. 

More than 70 countries have already banned it, along with the state of Vermont.

The risk isn't abstract. In March, a truck spilled 60 gallons of paraquat on a highway in Dorris, a small town in Northern California, forcing roughly 600 residents, including students at a nearby elementary and high school, to shelter in place. Ten people were hospitalized.

The companies had every reason to address the problems and didn't.

Despite the risks, paraquat manufacturers had a straightforward business incentive to keep selling in California: it was their biggest U.S. customer base. Over the past 10 years, paraquat use peaked in the state at around 11 million pounds in 2018. It has since declined to roughly 370,000 pounds in the most recently available year of data (2023). 

That decline suggests farmers have effective alternatives. But that’s still a massive amount of paraquat. 

If mitigating these risks had been possible, proposing a plan would have cost far less than walking away from the nation’s biggest market entirely. 

The pesticide companies didn't contest DPR's initial concerns about potential health effects, nor did they  propose ways to mitigate the human safety risks. They simply left, and DPR canceled every paraquat product registered in the state, a step so rare in California that it almost never happens.

Why this matters regardless of your state’s regulatory tools 

Not every state has California’s regulatory authority to reevaluate and cancel a pesticide's registration. 

But what happened in the state makes one thing clear: when given the chance to demonstrate that paraquat's risks could be managed, the industry that profits most from paraquat could not do it. 

States like Michigan and Maine have utilized their pesticide regulatory authority to cancel the registration of dacthal and ban chlorpyrifos, respectively. 

Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, and several other states have restricted other high-risk pesticides through legislation, without needing California's specific reevaluation process. Other states have recently attempted to ban or restrict the use of paraquat through legislation. 

California's story strengthens the case for state action, regardless of the route a state must take. In the face of unknown exposure and health risks that cannot be controlled or mitigated, the only answer is to cancel paraquat. 

What you can do

• Contact your state lawmakers to urge them to ban paraquat 

• Contact your state's pesticide regulators and ask them to take action on paraquat

• Find and support farmers in your community who don’t use paraquat at your local farmers market

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Family Health Paraquat California The decision highlights safety risks that regulations can’t address Authors Emily Bryson, MPH September 21, 2026

Climate change is already affecting what farmers can grow, when they can plant, and how much they can harvest. Across the globe, they are navigating drought, unpredictable rainfall, and extreme heat. Meanwhile, public investment in agricultural research is uncertain, global conflicts are contributing to hunger and displacement, and food is becoming more expensive.

“I can’t overstate how intense climate impacts are for young farmers across the country right now,” says Michelle Hughes, Executive Director of the National Young Farmers Coalition, at “Putting Farmers First: How Young Farmers are Shaping the Future of Food,” which Food Tank hosted at Climate Week NYC 2026 in partnership with Whole Foods Market.

“Farming is starting to feel not only hard but borderline impossible for some folks,” says Hughes. 

And the pressures facing farmers extend beyond climate change. Sarah Jones of Jones Farms Organics, a fourth-generation, family-owned farm in Colorado’s San Luis Valley and the region’s first Regenerative Organic Certified grower, described the many roles farmers must take on to keep their businesses operating.

“We’re biologists, environmentalists, mechanics, engineers. We do marketing, sales, social media, we’re distributors, brand designers, customer service…it doesn’t end,” says Jones.

Farmers also face significant financial risks and difficult working conditions. Brita Lundberg, Fourth-Generation Farmer and Communications Manager at Lundberg Family Farms, highlighted the demands of agricultural work and the challenges of maintaining a viable livelihood.

“Farming is hard, it’s risky, and it’s capital-intensive. And still, data from the USDA shows that 84 percent of U.S. farmers take on second jobs to support their livelihoods,” says Lundberg.

For Amalia Colón-Nava, Farmer and Co-Director of Dirtbaby Farm, these economic challenges affect both farm owners and agricultural workers—and they are rooted in a long history of exploitation. 

“Whether you are a farm owner or a farm laborer, there’s a huge gap in how we can pay ourselves…So many farmers are actually not able to sell vegetables for a profit. Our food system is built off of slavery, exploited labor, and that culture still exists,” says Colón-Nava. “Food is a human right; it’s not a privilege.”

For DeVonne Jackson Perez, Co-Founder of Good Ground and Director of Brooklyn Supported Agriculture, conversations about climate resilience must account for farmers’ basic needs and working conditions. 

“We can’t really talk about climate resilience or supporting farmers without using them as if they too are a product,” says Jackson Perez. “Farming is one of the most dangerous careers that you can choose, but many don’t have healthcare.”

Speakers also pointed to gaps between consumer demand and the markets farmers need to adopt more sustainable practices. Jones says many farmers are prepared to transition to organic production but lack the buyers to make that change financially viable.

“We’ve got to get back to community over commodity,” says Jones. “Farmers are ready and willing. I could list 10 farmers that would go organic tomorrow if you give them the market.”

Creating those markets is one of the most important ways retailers can support farmers, says Sonya Gafsi Oblisk, Whole Foods Market Chief Merchandising & Marketing Officer and Vice President, Amazon Worldwide Grocery Stores Private Brands & Marketing.

“As a retailer, the number-one thing we can do is really create a market and demand…There can’t be supply without demand,” says Gafsi Oblisk, who also emphasizes that transforming the food system requires changes in consumer behavior: “To change the food system at scale, we need to be able to change demand, not just supply…Vote with your wallet.”

Speakers also said that businesses must prioritize farmer input when developing sustainability initiatives.

“The first thing we need to do is listen. We have to put farmers’ voices first,” says Caitlin Leibert, Global Head of Sustainability at Amazon Grocery and Whole Foods Market. “We can’t just say as a retailer we want this…We have to invest and co-create the future we want to see.”

Building on-farm resilience through soil health and transitioning to organic practices takes more than one growing season, and farmers need to know that they will have buyers for their crops after they make the investment. This requires long-term investment, looking beyond immediate purchasing decisions.

“The top thing we can do as retailers is help commit to the supply not just for tomorrow and next month and six months from now, but what are the commitments we can make further out,” says Jason Buechel, Vice President of Amazon Worldwide Grocery Stores and Chief Executive Officer of Whole Foods Market. “Many farmers depend on small, regional, local banks, where their business is considered high risk.”

For Becca Millstein, Co-Founder and CEO of Fishwife, strengthening food systems also means investing in sustainable seafood production and helping consumers understand the role of aquaculture.

“More than half of our seafood globally is produced from aquaculture, but there’s broad misunderstanding of what that means. Aquaculture has long been saddled with a really unfortunate reputation,” says Millstein, but “there are advances being made every single day in aquaculture…In many ways, aquaculture has more resilience than wild fisheries.”

Storytelling plays a major role in creating more sustainable food systems, speakers agreed. Anna Turrell, Global Chief Sustainability Officer at Mars Snacking, called for more storytelling to generate greater visibility for the farmers who supply the food industry.

“[Mars] won’t be here in the future if we don’t start investing in our supply chains differently, and bring the faces in that supply chain to light,” says Turrell. “I’d love to see the farmer faces of our food showing up everywhere in the next five years.”

Ultimately, speakers emphasized that supporting farmers requires action across the food system, from creating reliable markets and providing long-term investment to improving labor conditions and strengthening consumer connections.

“Sometimes when we get in these spaces we often think too lofty and then we don’t do anything… teach somebody, fund an organization, there are little things we can do day to day. The agriculture industry needs everything,” says Jackson Perez.

As retailers, brands, and consumers consider the future of food, the event underscored the importance of putting farmers’ needs at the center of efforts to build a more sustainable and equitable food system.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

The post Putting Farmers First to Build a Resilient Food System appeared first on Food Tank.

Relief materials have been distributed in Kalika Rural Municipality of Rasuwa, and support has also been extended to the families of the deceased and the missing.

The post Nepal: Peasant Union ANPFA and allies are organizing flood relief efforts, while insisting on climate justice appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Reabold Resources has hit back at doubts over plans to frack at West Newton in East Yorkshire made by the partner it is seeking to acquire.

Road closure plans as part of West Newton fracking operation. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

Earlier this month, Union Jack, which has a 16.665% stake in West Newton, said it had concerns over the “technical viability of the project” to recomplete the West Newton-A2 well (WNA-2), due to be carried out by the end of 2026.

Union Jack, which rejected Reabold’s takeover bid, also said it was concerned about the ability of the site operator, Rathlin Energy, to deliver “overall sustained commercial production”.

This morning, Reabold accused Union Jack of “speculative” and “unsupported” comments over West Newton. Official statement

“Undeveloped discovery”

In a circular to shareholders on 11 September 2026, Union Jack said:

“West Newton remains an undeveloped gas and condensate discovery that has yet to establish sustained commercial production.”

Two wells drilled in the West Newton field had “failed to establish sustained flow”, consistent with wellbore formation damage, Union Jack said.

It added that an initial review had concluded:

“The outcome of the proposed stimulation is not known.”

Union Jack also raised concerns about possible legal action over the Environment Agency’s variation of the West Newton permit. It said:

“The outcome of those proceedings (if any) is outside the control of either company, and an adverse outcome, or interim relief granted before or during operations, would immediately halt the planned work and capital expended to date could be at risk.”

“Misleading, selective and highly speculative”

This morning, Reabold said it “strongly rejects the suggestion that West Newton lacks strategic merit”.

It accused the Union Jack board of “highly selective views” on West Newton. It also said the Union Jack circular contained “a number of misleading, selective and highly speculative statements regarding Reabold, the offer and the West Newton project”.

Reabold, which has a near 80% stake in Rathlin Energy, said:

“The New Board seeks to characterise West Newton as a risk that Union Jack Shareholders should avoid.

“Reabold considers this position inconsistent with Union Jack’s longstanding investment in West Newton and the repeated statements made by the former Union Jack board regarding the significance of the project.

“West Newton remains one of the largest onshore conventional gas and condensate discoveries in the United Kingdom. Significant technical work has been undertaken to understand historic well performance and to design the forthcoming WNA-2 recompletion programme.”

Reabold described as “largely speculative” the new board’s comments on reservoir performance, permitting matters and future development activity.

It added:

“Importantly, the New Board provides no independent technical report to support its assertions regarding the project’s prospects.”

Reabold described the rejection of its offer by the new Union Jack board as “self-serving” and said it was “not in the best interests of Union Jack as a whole or for Union Jack shareholders”.

It said Union Jack may require additional funding to meet future commitments, including those at West Newton.

• The Takeover Panel has extended the deadline for the Reabold offer for Union Jack until 1pm on 2 October 2026.

Road closure

The first stage in the West Newton project is construction of passing places along the lorry route on Pasture Lane. The road is due to be closed from Wednesday 23 September to Monday 5 October 2026.

On August 29, the Dominion Society of Canada hosted Dom Con 2026, a claimed first annual conference which was originally set to take place in...

The post Hope Not Hate: Hamilton’s community response to white supremacist violence first appeared on Spring.

Português abaixo

New report documents decades of land dispossession, water depletion, Cerrado destruction and conflict as Aperam receives €250 million financing package

21 September, 2026 — A new, in-depth investigation published today exposes the devastating social and environmental costs of Aperam BioEnergia’s monoculture eucalyptus plantations in Minas Gerais, Brazil, which it uses to produce charcoal, biochar and “green steel”. The co-authors of the investigation have issued an urgent call for all investment in the company to be halted.

The report, Dry Streams in an Ocean of Eucalyptus: Aperam BioEnergia’s Green Steel and Carbon Removal Illusion, based on extensive field research and interviews with traditional and Quilombola communities and public officials, reveals that Aperam’s business model—promoted as a climate and sustainability solution—has been imposed through large-scale deforestation, leading to the loss of biodiversity and the depletion of water resources in the Jequitinhonha Valley. The report documents a drastic drop in water tables, drying of springs and rivers and the collapse of traditional agricultural and pastoral livelihoods.

Local communities recount decades of land dispossession, intimidation and health risks linked to pesticide use and air pollution from Aperam’s operations. Many now face food insecurity, economic hardship and a worrying increase in health problems, including cancer. The investigation also highlights the severe shortcomings of voluntary certification schemes and international financiers, such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC), whose recent €250-million financing package is enabling Aperam’s continued expansion despite clear evidence of harm.

“Aperam’s operations are being presented as part of the green transition, but what is being ‘greened’ is a polluting, extractive industrial model.” said Jana Uemura, coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition’s Climate Justice and Forests Campaign and the Biomass Action Network’s Latin America Working Group. “Eucalyptus plantations, charcoal and biochar are being sold as climate solutions, backed by international finance and carbon markets, while communities and ecosystems bear the costs.”

The investigation’s key demand is unequivocal: all financial support, investment and sourcing relationships with Aperam must be suspended immediately. The report calls on the IFC, World Bank Group and all other financiers to cancel contractual arrangements and commit to no future support for Aperam. Certification schemes such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Puro.earth are urged to suspend Aperam’s certifications pending full investigations of community complaints.

“Justice for affected communities and the protection of the Cerrado’s unique biodiversity must take precedence over corporate profit and greenwashing,” the report concludes. It calls for a redirection of investment toward community-led restoration, agroecology and water security initiatives in the Jequitinhonha Valley, and a transition away from all carbon fuel-based energy.

The full report, published by the Global Forest Coalition with support from Biofuelwatch, the EPN’s Biomass Action Network and the Hands Off Mother Earth (HOME) Alliance, is available in English and Portuguese.

Media Contacts: 

Jana Uemera (Eng/Por): jana.uemura@globalforestcoalition.org

Ismail Wolff (Eng): ismail.wolff@globalforestcoalition.org

About the Investigation: This report centers the experiences and demands of the Jequitinhonha Valley’s traditional and Quilombola communities. It exposes the urgent need for a paradigm shift in climate and development finance, away from harmful monocultures and false climate solutions, and toward justice, community rights and ecological restoration.

“Aço verde” construído sobre secas e terras roubadas: sociedade civil pede a suspensão da expansão da Aperam

Novo relatório documenta décadas de expropriação de terras, esgotamento hídrico, destruição do Cerrado e conflitos, enquanto a Aperam recebe um pacote de financiamento de € 250 milhões

21 de setembro de 2026 — Uma nova pesquisa aprofundada, publicada hoje, expõe os custos sociais e ambientais devastadores das plantações de eucalipto em monocultura da Aperam BioEnergia em Minas Gerais, Brasil, utilizadas para produzir carvão vegetal, biochar e “aço verde”. Os coautores da investigação fizeram um apelo urgente para que todo investimento na empresa seja interrompido.

O relatório, intitulado Córregos secos em um oceano de eucalipto: Aço verde e a ilusão da remoção de carbono da Aperam BioEnergia, baseia-se em extensa pesquisa de campo e entrevistas com integrantes de comunidades tradicionais e quilombolas e representantes do poder público. O documento revela que o modelo de negócios da Aperam — promovido como uma solução climática e de sustentabilidade — foi imposto por meio de desmatamento em larga escala, levando à perda de biodiversidade e ao esgotamento dos recursos hídricos no Vale do Jequitinhonha. O relatório documenta uma queda drástica nos níveis do lençol freático, a secagem de nascentes e rios e o colapso dos meios de subsistência tradicionais ligados à agricultura e à pecuária tradicionais.

Comunidades locais relatam décadas de expropriação de terras, intimidação e riscos à saúde, especialmente de mulheres e crianças, associados ao uso de agrotóxicos e à poluição do ar decorrente das operações da Aperam. Muitas pessoas agora enfrentam insegurança alimentar, dificuldades econômicas e um aumento preocupante de problemas de saúde, incluindo casos de câncer. A investigação também destaca as graves falhas dos sistemas de certificação voluntária e dos financiadores internacionais, como a International Finance Corporation (IFC), cujo recente pacote de financiamento de € 250 milhões está viabilizando a continuidade da expansão da Aperam, apesar de evidências claras de danos.

“As operações da Aperam estão sendo apresentadas como parte da transição verde, mas o que está sendo ‘pintado de verde’ é um modelo industrial poluente e extrativista”, disse Janaina Uemura, coordenadora da campanha de Justiça Climática e Florestas da GFC e do Grupo de Trabalho Latinoamericano e do Caribe da Rede de Ação Contra a Biomassa Industrial. “Plantações de eucalipto, carvão vegetal e biochar estão sendo vendidos como soluções climáticas, sustentados pelo financiamento internacional e pelos mercados de carbono, enquanto comunidades e ecossistemas arcam com os custos.”

A principal exigência da investigação é inequívoca: todo apoio financeiro, bem como todos os investimentos e as relações de fornecimento com a Aperam devem ser suspensos imediatamente. O relatório insta a IFC, o Grupo Banco Mundial e todos os demais financiadores a encerrarem seus vínculos contratuais e a se comprometerem a não oferecer apoio futuro à Aperam. Sistemas de certificação, como o Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) e a Puro.earth, são instados a suspender as certificações da Aperam até que as denúncias das comunidades sejam plenamente investigadas.

“A justiça para as comunidades afetadas e a proteção da biodiversidade única do Cerrado devem prevalecer sobre o lucro corporativo e o greenwashing“, conclui o relatório. O documento defende o redirecionamento de investimentos para iniciativas de restauração lideradas pelas comunidades, de agroecologia e de segurança hídrica no Vale do Jequitinhonha, bem como para uma transição para abandonar todas as fontes de energia baseadas em combustíveis de carbono.

O relatório completo, publicado pela Global Forest Coalition com o apoio da Rede de Ação contra a Biomassa (da EPN), da Biofuelwatch e da aliança Hands Off Mother Earth (HOME), está disponível em inglês e português.

Contatos para a imprensa:

Sobre a investigação: Este relatório coloca no centro as experiências e reivindicações das comunidades tradicionais e quilombolas do Vale do Jequitinhonha. Expõe a necessidade urgente de uma mudança de paradigma no financiamento climático e para o desenvolvimento, afastando-se de monoculturas prejudiciais e falsas soluções climáticas e voltando-se para a justiça, os direitos das comunidades e a restauração ecológica

Headline News:

• “Solar Power Is So Cheap That It’s Almost Unbelievable” • Dave Jones, co-founder of the energy research firm Ember, told the Financial Times that 26 years ago solar panels used to run between $5/W and $6/W of capacity. Today, Jones says, solar panels sell for just 12¢/W, a price he says is “offensively cheap” considering the alternatives. [Futurism]

Solar cells (Oregon DOT, CC BY-SA 2.0)

• “China Is Doing About Thirty Times More Agricultural Drone Work Than The US” • Agricultural spray drones are no longer an emerging technology in China, but ordinary farm machinery at extraordinary scale. China entered 2026 with about 309,000 plant-protection drones, and they performed about 203 million hectare-treatments during 2025. [CleanTechnica]
• “Gazelle Develops 18-MW+ Floating Wind Platform” • Gazelle Wind Power has developed and tested a new floating offshore wind platform design for 18-MW+ turbines in extreme offshore conditions. The company said the design is being developed as part of its work with a major Asian utility on a large floating offshore wind development. [reNews]
• “EV Sales At 32% – No, Make That 38%! – By 2030 ” • In July economists at Harvard University were predicting that EVs will account for a fairly healthy 32% of all new vehicle sales in the US by 2030, which is just around the corner. That estimate was since corrected to an even rosier 38%, more than quadruple the 2025 figure of just 8%. [CleanTechnica]
• “Brussels to keep ban on Arctic oil and gas drilling despite Norwegian pressure” • A ban on new oil and gas drilling in the Arctic will remain the European Commission’s official position in a revised strategy Brussels is about to unveil, a Commission spokesperson told Euronews, despite fierce pressure from oil-rich Norway to drop the ban. [Euronews]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

Three safety habits to guide utility crews through any conditions.

Blaze expands nationwide with online ordering, rentals, equipment and expert support.

Dola Oluteye, PhD, is a senior fellow in energy and transport policy at the UCL Energy Institute and founder of The Professional African Network Advisory Initiative.

At the June 2026 UN Climate Meetings in Bonn, the incoming Turkish COP31 Presidency introduced a headline target for the Action Agenda: raising electricity’s share of global final energy consumption from around 20% today to 35% by 2035. 

Backed by the international Electrify Now campaign – also launched in June by the European Commission and governments across five continents, including Ethiopia – the aim is to replace fossil fuels with clean energy by shifting the way we travel and transport goods and commodities, cook and warm our homes and offices, and power our industries.

• Sep 11, 2026 Clean Energy Frontier Made in Nigeria: The race to build an African solar industry from scratch A solar power revolution is gathering pace in Africa and Nigeria wants a slice of the fast-growing industry, but competing with Chinese imports won’t be easy Read more
• May 29, 2026 Justice Q&A: How can African electricity access power jobs not just lightbulbs? Carol Koech from the Global Energy Alliance says electricity connections in Africa should happen in a way that transforms communities and livelihoods Read more
• Feb 4, 2026 Energy Africa records fastest-ever solar growth, as installations jump in 2025 Africa’s solar power installations have increased sharply, driven by utility-scale projects and privately financed rooftop and commercial systems Read more

On paper, this is a welcome signal. Yet, as world leaders line up behind global goals in the lead-up to COP31, African nations face a fundamental question: whose energy transition are we talking about? For the roughly 600 million people living without electricity on the continent, international climate targets often sound less like a lifeline and more like a conversation happening on another planet.

For developed countries, electrification is largely a replacement exercise – swapping petrol and diesel vehicles for electric ones, and gas boilers for heat pumps powered by existing, stable grids. 

But across sub-Saharan Africa, the challenge is vastly different. The region accounts for 85% of the global population without electricity, up from 50% in 2010. Here, electrification is not a technology swap; it is the foundational building block of human dignity, economic sovereignty, energy access and modern development.

Electricity connections must deliver real development

Half of the number of people without electricity access in Africa live in three countries – Nigeria, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo – while 900 million other Africans lack clean cooking solutions.

The proposed global electrification goal must not treat a continent with nearly half of its population without electricity the same way it treats mature Western economies.

To regard electrification merely as a tool for decarbonisation misses the core reality of our continent. Africa is not just transitioning an existing energy system; we are building one from the ground up in many places.

If a global electrification target of 35% by 2035 is to mean anything for Africa, it must be rooted in African realities. That begins with acknowledging that expanding power connections alone is insufficient. 

China’s industrial engine starts to break its fossil fuel habit

Energy poverty does not end when a power line crosses a village; it ends when electricity is reliable, affordable and powered by clean sources that spur productive economic activities. Connecting households to a micro-grid they cannot pay to use does not deliver development.

Electrification can also help solve the critical issue of super pollutants in countries like Nigeria, notably the production of methane and black carbon, by replacing combustion-based systems with cleaner, electric alternatives.

Breaking from past extractive models

Equally critical is how the electricity is generated. Within some African policy circles, electrification has occasionally been viewed with scepticism – seen as a possible Trojan Horse to justify expensive nuclear projects or to expand long-term fossil gas lock-ins. 

We must be clear: expanding electricity demand while increasing reliance on volatile fossil fuels or unviable, high-cost infrastructure is a false solution.

True electrification must be paired directly with the massive development of Africa’s unparalleled renewable energy resources. 

Africa holds 60% of the world’s best solar resources, alongside immense hydro, wind and geothermal potential. Tying the global electrification push to renewable energy capacity and local battery storage is the only pathway that protects African economies from international fuel price shocks while keeping our climate commitments intact.

Global climate negotiations such as those ongoing at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) offer another building block for Africa’s green energy future. 

International trade linked to 20% of global emissions – but imports ignored

Adopting a shipping carbon price at the IMO this year, through the Net-Zero Framework, would create a climate fund worth $12 billion a year. This finance could be used not only towards the electrification of Africa’s ships and ports, but also for building broader renewable energy production on the continent.

Furthermore, global initiatives must break from past extractive models. Africa cannot remain merely a site for extracting critical minerals – such as lithium, cobalt, and copper – to feed green supply chains elsewhere, only to import expensive finished technologies. 

An authentic, inclusive campaign must support the development of local industry, mineral value addition and job creation on the continent.

Africa’s COP31 agenda should centre clean electrification

To achieve this, international campaigns like Electrify Now must deepen their partnership with Global South institutions. Western-centric messaging encouraging people to buy electric vehicles and install heat pumps at home must be paired with calls for robust transmission grids, decentralised mini-grids, industrial energy security and affordable clean cooking.

For this to happen, it would be great to see more African governments, businesses and civil society organisations join the Electrify Now campaign, where they can advocate for the challenges and opportunities on our continent. 

Ethiopia is a great example, where a government policy to ban the importation of petrol and diesel cars has led to the country becoming a continental leader in the uptake of electric vehicles. Meanwhile, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam has seen the cost of electricity come down significantly and accounts for more than half of Ethiopia’s renewable energy generation capacity.

Türkiye says it has “final decision” at COP31 despite Australia running negotiations

The road to COP31 offers Africa a pivotal opportunity to place clean electrification at the very centre of its economic and climate agenda. 

By taking ownership of this narrative, African leaders can insist that global targets deliver capital, technology sharing and infrastructure investments tailored to local needs.

Electrification is not a luxury or a secondary climate goal. Powered by renewable energy – the African sun and wind – it can be the engine of our green industrial transition. It is important for global climate architecture and Western governments to be aligned with that reality.

The post Why the global electrification agenda misses the point on Africa’s energy crisis  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Renewables retailer and home energy management specialist has closed a nearly twice oversubscribed funding round to accelerate local growth and expand into global markets.

The post Home battery automation champion raises $78.5 million towards local growth, global expansion appeared first on Renew Economy.

It is hard to believe that fall is upon us. Now that summer is over, I’ve had a chance to dig through some of the photos and spreadsheets I put together after my family’s road trip to B.C. in our electric vehicle (EV) this summer. Our family has...

Last Tuesday, Senator Mitch McConnell returned to Congress after a three-month absence and promptly cast a deciding vote in the Republican-led agricultural committee. Back in August, Democrats on the committee blocked the Senate’s version of the farm bill from progressing to a full vote. 

But even after McConnell’s vote, the way things are going, it’s unlikely that Congress will pass a farm bill this year — which would mark the fourth straight year that lawmakers have failed to renew the nation’s cornerstone of agricultural policy.

The issues that made Democrats oppose the farm bill last month are still there, meaning the path to surviving a vote on the Senate floor remains unclear. With 53 seats, Republicans hold a majority in the chamber, but they need 60 votes to pass a bill — so they would need to sway several Democrats to their side in a relatively short amount of time. Midterms, after all, are in November. 

Democrats mainly oppose the current draft of the bill because it doesn’t reverse cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Changes to SNAP are typically implemented through the farm bill, which historically was passed every five or so years. However, last summer, President Donald Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which slashed funding for SNAP by $186 billion. 

Democrats in the Senate agriculture committee have refused to support a farm bill that doesn’t restore SNAP funding; they have also pushed for a delay in a crucial change to SNAP that would increase states’ administrative costs for running the food assistance program. Since the farm bill that advanced out of committee does neither of these things, it remains difficult to see how Senate Democrats would support this package in a floor vote. 

The cuts to SNAP have wide-reaching impacts for millions of low-income families and individuals across the country who rely on it to buy groceries. But it also has implications for the farmers whose customer base includes SNAP benefit users. “The farmers in our network live in rural areas,” said Jody Osmund, a founding member of the FACE Ag Network, a coalition of pasture-based livestock producers. Rural areas, Osmund continued, “have a higher uptake of SNAP participation than urban areas. So it’s hurting our community.” 

Because the Senate farm bill also doesn’t delay a change to the cost-sharing structure of SNAP, states could end up with less funding overall for their own agricultural programs. “States are gonna have to rethink their budgets,” said Mike Lavender, policy director of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. “That could mean that states are looking at, ‘Hey, do we fund education at this level or do we fund SNAP? Or do we fund transportation or SNAP?’ So this is forcing really difficult decisions that could impact departments of agriculture at the state level.” 

These kinds of decisions will hit small- and medium-sized farmers much more than large corporate farms, making the financial calculus of growing food even harder at a time of rising input costs and unstable trade markets.

Read Next The fate of the Endangered Species Act rests on 2 simple words Sachi Kitajima Mulkey & Kate Yoder

There is one bright spot in the latest Senate farm bill for many farm groups, and that’s the exclusion of the Save Our Bacon Act, a provision that would have made it easier for livestock producers to employ some of the least humane practices for caging and confining animals on their farms. “It’s encouraging,” said Osmund. 

He and other coalition members flew to Washington, D.C. ahead of the Senate agricultural committee vote and met with lawmakers in hopes of convincing them to oppose the Save Our Bacon Act. Other pieces of the Senate farm bill that are unpopular with certain agricultural groups include cuts to conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, as well as the Conservation Stewardship Program, or CSP. Yet Osmund argues that these conservation programs don’t just suffer from a lack of adequate funding; they need to be redesigned in order to direct the most amount of money possible to the most sustainable farming practices. He’d like to see fewer conservation dollars going toward, for example, managing animal waste on industrial livestock operations and more money going toward climate adaptation on farms. 

Which is why, from Osmund’s point of view, the Senate farm bill’s unlikely path to becoming law might be a good thing. In the absence of bipartisan cooperation to pass this bill before the midterms, many federal agricultural programs will continue to be funded by stopgap measures. “A continuation of the 2018 farm bill may be better,” he argued. “It’s not good. It is not ideal, but no deal on the current versions of the farm bill, in our opinion, is much better than a very, very bad deal.” And no deal this year means Congress will be back to the drawing board in 2027.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Has the farm bill hit a dead end? on Sep 21, 2026.

In a possibly more than averagely batshit news week, the apocalyptic clusterfuck of clowns "governing" this country just got up to some serious weirdness. As the chief clown waffled on the best way to kill us all - AI, nukes, nukes in space, forever war, hissy fits, agitprop up the wazoo - his lackeys frantically gaslit us with brain-dead pols, high T warriors and drunken sheep fuckers. No wonder Americans are said to be dreading the fall - not autumn, but the fall of democracy and civilization (sic) itself.

With Trump's approval rightly cratering but his faithful flunkies inexplicably urging us to vote like he's on the ballot - umm, okay - he's so far gone he still giddily maintains the deranged fiction we "have the greatest economy in history," we're resplendent in "a Golden Age of America," and he's all good on shamelessly, unconstitutionally banning news outlets he doesn't like - "I don't want them in my (sic) office," aka, "I’ll take 'Something a dictator would say' for $1000, Alex" - because he evidently thinks "repressive" is a compliment, devoutly to be wished. Otherwise, heading into a mid-term election that promises ("Oh please, oh please") to be a GOP rout, he's doing nothing to drag them out of the deepening holes he's dug except flailing and digging more.

Historically, inanely dazzled by nuclear power - see his "irresponsible and dangerous and frankly incompetent" burbling about the "N-word" - he's now touting the option of a shiny new Space Force military "offensive." Never mind America's 1969 moon landing assurance from "Planet Earth," "WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND"; the one relatively peaceable place in the galaxy, space-weapons free for 18 billion years, now faces possible invasion from "Mister Schlock, Trash Gordeon, Darth Hater, Puke Skyfucker." Or in the pointedly indecipherable jargon of Air Force Secretary Troy Meink, "The United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action." By more "aliens"?

Back on an increasingly fragile Planet Earth, the same dangers loom amidst an Iran debacle wherein the U.S. is committing war crimes, hiding deaths and shortfalls along with damage to buildings, equipment, vehicles - one active service member: "We’re standing with our eyes closed getting punched in the face" - lying about a vital Strait of Hormuz that remains "a parking lot" and spending up to $2 billion a month despite a third House vote to end the carnage and a defiant Iran insisting it will not reopen the Strait until “the criminal Trump and bloodthirsty Netanyahu” are gone. All as the mad child-king muses publicly about his "big decision coming up. Do I want to go in and annihilate them or do I not? Anything could happen with me."

Hence another equally incoherent whiplash on the hazards of AI: From unhinged denial spewed by the master of "Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV": the only guardrail needed is "a STRONG AND SMART (high IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S. has that, in spades!" - to tentative hedging - a supposed concept of a plan to create an AI Czar - with the moronic, "Only High I.Q. individuals need apply!” - and an AI Force - like his "tremendous SUCCESS" the largely illusory Space Force - back to a knee-jerk "SICK conspiracy" against AI and data centers like the "many Hoaxes generated by the Radical Left Dumocrats, for purposes of destroying our Country.” When in God's name will he learn: "It ill behooves a man to rave on at length."

Still nursing a long-held grudge against the elites of the arts world, especially the storied family who both embodied it and always outclassed him, he also remains obsessed with slapping his odious name on the Kennedy Center or, now, threatening to tear it down if he can't. George Conway: "To destroy things he can’t possess or control is his essential nature." After multiple losses in court - the most mortifying the forced removal of his name, which rankled so much he's lamely kept the facade covered with a tarp - he persists in arguing the flourishing-until-he-came-along Center is "a mess" that's lost "tens of millions" or maybe "hundreds of billions" and "I’m the one capable of fixing it." Otherwise, "The building is destined to doom (sic)."

Unsurprisingly, an emerging backstory is far seedier. The only thing straining finances is the arts world boycotting him and his own Treasury holding hostage hundreds of millions in funds. After a storm brought down some ceiling plaster, lackeys left it, posted photos - Trump will fix it! - mapped the “debris field” for a 55-page bullshit briefing, and voted to close down. Richard Grenell partly replaced the art collection, including African works honoring JFK, with MAGA "art," some from "the Tony Montana Meets Saddam Hussein Collection," and workers glitzed up Trump's theater boxes. After a judge again refused to restore his name, Trump threw a tantrum and brought in forklifts, prompting the judge to issue an emergency order forbidding any mob-like, midnight demolition.

Meanwhile, he whines - The Federal Reserve is raising interest rates “to make Trump do as bad as they can possibly do” (sic) - threatens - North Carolina may get no more FEMA funding after Helene, "the biggest water hurricane" - propagandizes - the Smithsonian's "Ideological Capture” - and a desperate GOP goose-steps along. Vance lies about immigrants, RFK Jr. blithers about "chemtrails," Melania sneers let them eat flowers, fabulist MAGA Mike, seeking to be raptured, boasts of an uber-productive House "almost unmatched in history." And Mitch 'Weekend at Bernie's - McConnell is outlandishly wheeled out, dead-eyed and smile-plastered, from a months-long stupor to cast a vital "vote." Mother Mary of God, make it stop.

Preening peacock Pete Hegseth, evidently thinking he’s still on TV, ordered commanders to choose only soldiers who meet “impeccable grooming and uniform standards (no exception)” to attend his upcoming “State of the Force” speech; if they’re really cute they may get to join one of his dorky workouts. He also revived testosterone screening for symptoms like low energy and “loss of spontaneous morning erections.” Rex Huppke: “OUR ENEMIES WILL QUAKE AT THE SIGHT OF AMERICA’S BONER WARRIORS!” No wonder Unholy Mike ran away - aka sent the House home early "to explain all the great things we’ve done" - so they couldn't vote on Rep. Thomas Massie's articles of impeachment against Hegseth for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Finally, there was Kash Patel, lackiest lackey of all, with his "unbelievable" testimony before a Senate hearing on newly lowered standards to work at the FBI. First, Tom Wellborn's background on Patel, a grown, childless man who wrote a kids' trilogy about a wizard named Kash serving a king named Donald; sold Ka$h-branded merch and anti-COVID-vaccine supplements; compiled an enemies list of high-level anti-Trump conspirators; took a government plane to hear his SWAT-team-protected girlfriend sing at a wrestling match; long yelled for release of the Epstein files until he was in power and found nothing to see; likewise ignored ICE abuses, rampant corruption, right-wing extremism while purging the FBI of 1,100-plus "disloyal" agents; and abruptly lowered standards to stop losing candidates to "the rigors of the requirements from yesteryear.”

Last week, Patel defended a new policy that no longer automatically disqualifies people for several offenses: paying for sex, defrauding employers, and bestiality - having sex with animals. In the FBI's universe of moral relativism, now you're all good if you hired a prostitute fewer than three times or over ten years ago; stole from your employer at least three years ago, or did unspeakable things with a sheep, horse, goat, dog etc when you were young and presumably horny. Throughout his testimony - here starting at 5:25 - Patel, who's suing The Atlantic for $250 million for credibly charging he's often drunk on the job, frantically shuffled papers that turned out to be cheat sheets to trash Sen. Dick Durbin, who calls him "the least qualified and most partisan FBI director in U.S. history."

Patel's surreal, wide-eyed, often bellicose testimony on, say, goat-fucking rattled even Louisiana's fake-folksy GOP Sen. John Kennedy, who was trying hard to give him the bizarre benefit of the doubt. After Patel explained the earlier policy "automatically disqualified any individual who participated on either side of it," a confused Kennedy asked, "Which side of what, the bestiality?" Patel: "Yes." Kennedy: "So, you disqualified the animal?" Patel: "We have some great canines - we're not gonna disqualify them. Hang on, I'm trying to explain." Kennedy: "So if Joe participated in bestiality, not as the animal but as the human, don't you think he ought to be disqualified?" Patel: "If he voluntarily did it, sure, but if he was trafficked into it..." Kennedy: But how do you involuntarily do it?" Etc.

Bravely, Kennedy tried to understand Patel's response to what he assumed was an underling's report. "Why would you get into bestiality?" he asked. "When you saw bestiality, I say this with respect...Why didn’t you just say, 'What planet did you parachute in from?'" Smirking, Patel said that was his response until he learned people were often "trafficked (into) these awful heinous acts." Then, he summoned his best impersonation of self-righteousness. "We did not want to punish victims of bestiality," he intoned, with the once-clear word "victim" doing a ludicrous amount of work. "At this FBI, we're not gonna criminalize and prevent victims from serving (America) in the premier law enforcement agency in the world." Maybe it was, before him. Maybe not. Just sayin'.

"This is what unseriousness looks like," noted one observer, "when it finally hits a wall." And when the edict, "Do not obey in advance" matters. Per Tolstoy: "The wicked become even worse when they are tolerated." Friday night, organizers of a protest dubbed "Hands Around the Kennedy Center" hoped for a turnout of 400 to 800 people. They were pleased when about 950 signed up online. Then over 6,400 showed up. The mood was angry, hopeful, defiant. One longtime volunteer said she was ready to "stand in front of the wrecking ball." People formed a human chain around the beloved concert hall a president just closed and called "a dump," relishing what it felt like “to hold hands with somebody you don’t know for something you believe in.” Afterwards, they all sang America the Beautiful.

Intergenerational Report estimates coal and gas output could shrink about 70% by 2050 if emissions are cut in line with Paris target. Climate impacts, though, remain highly uncertain.

The post Intergenerational Report plots fossil fuel decline, rise of electrification, as climate impacts mount appeared first on Renew Economy.

EPBC waves through one of a series of renewable energy projects being built to wean remote WA towns off diesel fuel generation and power them with solar and battery storage. 

The post Local utility gets green light to replace remote town’s diesel and gas power with a solar-battery hybrid appeared first on Renew Economy.