News Feeds

Bagi sebagian pemain, memilih permainan slot bukan sekadar mencari tampilan menarik atau tema yang sedang ramai dibicarakan. Ada satu angka yang sering menjadi perhatian sebelum menentukan pilihan: RTP atau Return to Player. Istilah ini kemudian ikut mendorong popularitas situs slot yang menawarkan permainan dengan persentase RTP tinggi.

Di balik angka tersebut, sebenarnya ada cerita yang lebih sederhana. Pemain ingin memahami permainan yang mereka pilih sebelum mengeluarkan uang. Mereka membandingkan informasi, membaca keterangan permainan, lalu mencoba menentukan pilihan berdasarkan data yang tersedia. Kebiasaan itu menunjukkan bahwa semakin banyak pemain mulai melihat permainan digital dengan pendekatan yang lebih rasional.

RTP menggambarkan persentase teoritis dari total taruhan yang dikembalikan kepada pemain dalam jangka panjang. Misalnya, permainan dengan RTP 96 persen secara statistik dirancang untuk mengembalikan sekitar Rp96 dari setiap Rp100 yang dipertaruhkan dalam periode yang sangat panjang. Angka tersebut bukan jaminan bahwa seorang pemain akan memperoleh kembali 96 persen modalnya dalam satu sesi.

Perbedaan tersebut penting dipahami. Hasil setiap putaran tetap ditentukan oleh mekanisme permainan dan unsur acak. Karena itu, RTP tinggi tidak otomatis berarti seseorang pasti menang, apalagi menghasilkan keuntungan secara konsisten.

Meski demikian, informasi RTP tetap memiliki nilai. Pemain dapat menggunakannya sebagai salah satu bahan pertimbangan ketika membandingkan berbagai permainan. Selain RTP, mereka juga sebaiknya memperhatikan volatilitas, aturan permainan, batas taruhan, serta reputasi penyedia permainan.

Di sinilah pengalaman pengguna turut berperan. Situs yang menyajikan informasi permainan secara jelas membantu pembaca mengambil keputusan dengan lebih terukur. Sebaliknya, promosi yang hanya menonjolkan istilah seperti “pasti menang” atau “cuan tanpa batas” patut disikapi secara kritis karena tidak ada angka RTP yang dapat menghapus risiko kerugian.

Popularitas situs dengan permainan RTP tinggi pada akhirnya tidak hanya berkaitan dengan angka. Ada kebutuhan pemain terhadap informasi yang mudah dipahami, transparansi, dan pengalaman bermain yang tidak membingungkan. Pemain modern cenderung mencari referensi sebelum menentukan pilihan, bukan sekadar mengikuti tren.

Pada titik ini, literasi menjadi bagian penting. Memahami cara kerja RTP membantu seseorang membedakan antara informasi statistik dan janji promosi. Semakin baik pemahaman tersebut, semakin mudah pula pemain menetapkan batas pengeluaran dan menyadari bahwa permainan berbasis peluang tetap memiliki risiko.

Pada akhirnya, istilah “situs slot RTP tinggi” mungkin terdengar menarik, tetapi angka persentase bukanlah tiket menuju kemenangan. RTP lebih tepat dipahami sebagai informasi statistik untuk membantu mengenali karakter sebuah permainan. Sikap bijak justru muncul ketika pemain mampu membaca informasi tersebut secara kritis, memahami risikonya, dan tidak menjadikan permainan sebagai cara untuk mendapatkan penghasilan yang pasti.

Eco-populism or barbarism? Channel Comment brendan 10th August 2026 Teaser Media

A new documentary highlights the impact of Pamilo hydropower station to lake Koitere and other water bodies, land locked salmon and local communities in Koitajoki.

This documentary contains materials of community-based observations of hydropower impacts and ecological change in Koitajoki catchment, North Karelia. It is the home of a large Snowchange restoration project funded by Endangered Landscapes and Seascapes Programme.

Impacts have accumulated since 1950s, including the loss of the migratory routes and habitat for the unique land locked salmon. A new restoration plan has been developed to address some of the issues.

You can see the film here.

Closing borders and resorting to security measures involving beatings and assaults is the only option European governments have in response to the right to migrate.

The post Ceuta: Another Painful Chapter in the Suffering of Migrants appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

• Flock had a plan to turn hundreds of thousands of Uber, Lyft and delivery vehicles into rolling, easily hacked surveillance cameras to collect data that it could turn around and sell to repo agencies. (404 Media)
• A study published in the Journal of Transport and Sustainability came to the surprising conclusion that places where people drive less have fewer traffic deaths.
• Transit agencies should be more willing to take on loans to met pent-up demand for service, particularly automation and electrification, which save money in the long run, says the Center for Public Enterprise.
• On a party-line vote, U.S. senators approved four of the Trump administration’s transportation appointees before leaving town for their August recess. (Eno Center for Transportation)
• Ride-hailing services grew GDP in cities where they launched in the 2010s, but the gig-economy jobs created mostly replaced more traditional permanent jobs, according to a Carnegie Mellon study. (Smart Cities Dive)
• Debate is reopening on Reddit about whether cyclists are safest with protected infrastructure or riding with cars, as the late John Forester believed. (The Cool Down)
• A 12-year, $90 billion Pennsylvania infrastructure plan includes $13 billion for transit in the first four years. (PennLive)
• Utah’s Frontrunner light rail double-tracking project took another step toward receiving a $1.3 billion federal grant. (KSL)
• With gas prices of more than $4 per gallon, few Utah drivers even noticed that the state’s six-cent gas tax was suspended. (Salt Lake Tribune)
• The downtown Oklahoma City streetcar will remain fare-free indefinitely after a pilot program boosted ridership 74 percent. (Free Press)
• An Oregon transportation committee is looking to other states for inspiration on how to fill a $200 million funding gap. (Capital Chronicle)
• Dozens of countries are using the video game Minecraft to educate children about urban design. (New York Times)

Summer at the Audubon Center at Debs Park comes in many forms, from rust-colored California Buckwheat to the trill of Hooded Orioles. For the Public Programs team, it also means the return of Audubon...

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES SLF-2007-024 The Sakhalin Papers XIV: The Whales, the Scientists and the Financing Test

Archive reference: SLF-2007-024
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal record: IUCN Independent Scientific Review Panel report, Shell Sustainability Report 2005, International Whaling Commission Resolution 2005-3 and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development records
Supporting record: Contemporaneous press reporting, Parliamentary material and the later High Court record concerning ECGD scrutiny of Sakhalin-2
Evidence standard: Scientific findings, corporate statements, lender records and judicial material are distinguished from campaign claims and editorial interpretation. No court is represented as having adjudicated the underlying whale science.

Introduction

By early 2005, one of the smallest surviving populations of great whales had become entangled with one of the largest energy projects then under construction anywhere in the world.

The Western North Pacific gray whale population using the waters off north-eastern Sakhalin was estimated at only about 100 animals. IUCN described the population as critically endangered and said the surviving whales’ known feeding grounds lay alongside existing and proposed oil and gas development. Its scientific review identified potential threats including disturbance, underwater noise, ship collisions, oil contamination and changes to the prey habitat on which the whales depended.

The uncomfortable feature of this story is that the scientists were not imposed upon Sakhalin Energy from outside.

Sakhalin Energy itself asked IUCN to convene them.

What followed produced one of the clearest examples in the Sakhalin archive of independent science changing the physical design of Shell’s project — while simultaneously exposing how serious the unresolved risks remained.

And behind the science stood another question.

Could Sakhalin-2 still satisfy the environmental standards of the international institutions being asked to finance it?

1. Sakhalin Energy Calls In the Scientists

In 2004 Sakhalin Energy Investment Company asked IUCN — then commonly known as the World Conservation Union — to establish an independent scientific review of the project’s potential effects on the Western gray whales.

IUCN convened an Independent Scientific Review Panel, chaired by cetacean specialist Randall Reeves. The panel met four times between September 2004 and January 2005, including a meeting and site visit on Sakhalin itself. Its mandate was scientific: evaluate risks to the whales and related biodiversity, examine mitigation options and assess the adequacy of monitoring.

That provenance matters.

This was not simply an environmental pressure group preparing a report attacking Shell.

It was an independent scientific process established under IUCN auspices at Sakhalin Energy’s request. IUCN subsequently described the review as the beginning of a longer relationship with the company on whale conservation.

2. The Population Was Already at the Edge

The February 2005 report opened with an exceptionally stark assessment.

The panel described a population of roughly 100 animals, potentially including only about 23 reproductively active females. Commercial whaling had reduced the population so drastically that it had once been thought extinct. The surviving animals faced threats throughout their range, while the north-eastern Sakhalin feeding grounds placed them directly beside major offshore hydrocarbon development.

The International Whaling Commission later incorporated the essential population concern into its own formal resolution.

At its 57th meeting in 2005, the IWC recorded that the review panel had found fewer than 30 reproductive females and noted a population model under which a hypothetical additional death of just one female whale each year could result in extinction before 2050.

That model was not a prediction that extinction would occur.

It was a risk scenario illustrating how little additional mortality such a depleted population might be able to absorb.

That distinction is essential.

3. The Feeding Grounds Were the Problem

The whales were not merely migrating past Sakhalin.

They were feeding there.

The IUCN review identified the nearshore feeding ground around Piltun as particularly important, including for mothers and calves. Construction noise, pipelines, vessel traffic, spills and physical disturbance therefore presented a different class of risk from activity occurring in an incidental transit area.

The scientists also identified substantial uncertainty.

Their report said better information was required concerning underwater-noise propagation, exposure from multiple noise sources, whale behaviour and physiological responses. It regarded significant physiological stress from industrial noise as plausible, while acknowledging that further study was required.

This is one of the recurring themes of the Sakhalin environmental record:

uncertainty itself became part of the risk assessment.

The scientists were not saying that every feared effect had already been demonstrated.

They were saying that, for a population this small, waiting for definitive proof of serious harm could itself be dangerous.

4. The Panel Had Problems With Sakhalin Energy’s Risk Method

Sakhalin Energy applied an engineering risk-reduction concept known as ALARP — reducing risk to a level “as low as reasonably practicable.”

The panel did not reject that concept outright.

Its problem was transparency.

The scientists said they were often unable to determine exactly how Sakhalin Energy had applied the standard or how considerations such as conservation and cost-effectiveness had been weighed. According to the report, this lack of specificity prevented a rigorous independent evaluation of some important project decisions, including mitigation options associated with the offshore development.

That finding is significant because it goes beyond disagreement about a particular pipeline route.

It concerns how environmental risk decisions were being made.

A mitigation programme can contain sophisticated modelling, extensive monitoring and substantial expenditure and still be difficult to audit scientifically if the underlying decision criteria are unclear.

5. The Report Was Not a Simple “Stop Shell” Document

The panel’s conclusions need to be described accurately.

Its terms of reference did not require it to determine whether Sakhalin-2 should proceed as an economic or political proposition. The scientists expressly said they had not been asked to evaluate the strategic, economic, social or security implications of Sakhalin development. Their role was to analyse risks and options and provide evidence that could inform decision-makers.

Nevertheless, the scientific conclusion was severe.

Given the identified risks, uncertainty and doubts about the effectiveness of some proposed mitigation measures, the report said the “most precautionary approach” would be to suspend existing operations and delay further oil and gas development near the whale feeding grounds.

If development nevertheless continued, the panel said decisions needed to be conservative from the perspective of the whales and their habitat, with substantial monitoring and the ability to alter operations when necessary.

That is considerably stronger than saying merely that Sakhalin Energy should monitor the whales.

But it is also different from a legal prohibition on the project.

6. The Pipeline Became the Immediate Test

One of the clearest disputes concerned the offshore pipelines linking the Piltun-Astokhskoye facilities with the shore.

The panel examined several routing alternatives. Its analysis concluded that one alternative offered significant advantages because construction would create less disturbance to the nearshore foraging habitat and any release would occur farther from the Piltun feeding ground and lagoon. It also recognised a disadvantage: the longer route somewhat increased the probability of a pipeline leak or rupture simply because more pipeline would be installed.

This is worth emphasising.

The scientists did not pretend there was a risk-free option.

They compared competing risks.

A longer route could increase one category of pipeline risk while reducing potential consequences for the whales and their principal feeding habitat.

That is genuine risk analysis rather than slogan.

7. March 2005: Sakhalin Energy Changes the Route

On 30 March 2005, Sakhalin Energy announced that it would reroute the offshore pipelines.

Contemporaneous reporting described the pipelines as being moved approximately 20 kilometres south of the original route to take them farther from the Western gray whale feeding grounds. The decision followed publication of the IUCN review.

The company later incorporated the decision into Shell’s own official account.

The Shell Sustainability Report 2005 states that Sakhalin Energy had initiated the independent panel and then:

“took the Panel’s advice”

by moving the offshore pipelines 20 kilometres farther from the feeding ground.

That Shell document is particularly important for the archive.

There is no need to infer whether the independent scientific process influenced the design.

Shell itself said that it did.

8. Shell’s Own Version of the Whale Story

Shell’s 2005 Sustainability Report devoted substantial space to Sakhalin-2.

It acknowledged that the summer feeding grounds of approximately 100 endangered whales lay nearby and said harm needed to be avoided. Shell presented the rerouting decision as part of a broader programme involving acoustic modelling, external scientific observers, vessel speed restrictions and designated ship lanes.

Shell also stated that installation of the bases for two production platforms had been monitored externally and completed without signs of whale disturbance.

That is Shell’s corporate account of the monitored construction activity.

It should be recorded as such rather than converted into an independent finding that all project effects were harmless.

The same report said Sakhalin Energy was working with IUCN to establish a permanent Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel that would continue providing independent scientific advice during construction and beyond.

That longer-term panel was subsequently established in October 2006.

9. The International Whaling Commission Was Not Satisfied Yet

The reroute did not end international concern.

In its 2005 resolution, the International Whaling Commission expressly welcomed both the cooperation between Sakhalin Energy and IUCN and the proposed rerouting of pipelines around rather than through the feeding ground.

But the same resolution said the Commission remained concerned that noise from pipeline work, platform emplacement and onshore construction would affect the Piltun feeding ground.

The IWC called for industrial organisations to minimise received noise levels, supported development of a comprehensive conservation strategy and urged oil companies, governments, scientists and other organisations to cooperate and share relevant data.

That produces another important evidential distinction.

The reroute was a recognised improvement. It was not regarded as the end of the conservation problem.

Both propositions are supported by the official record.

10. Oil-Spill Risk Remained

Noise was only one issue.

The IUCN report examined possible oil spills, pipeline failures and blowouts.

Using information contained in Sakhalin Energy’s own Comparative Environmental Assessment, the panel calculated that different offshore pipeline options carried differing lifetime spill probabilities. It also emphasised that probability alone was insufficient: the location and consequences of a release mattered greatly because spilled oil entering the feeding areas could affect the whales directly or damage the benthic prey on which they fed.

The report criticised gaps in parts of the spill analysis, including the absence of calculations quantifying how much of the feeding areas might lie inside projected spill trajectories in particular scenarios.

Again, this was not a prediction that a catastrophic spill would occur.

It was an assessment that consequences potentially affecting such a vulnerable population required unusually conservative treatment.

11. The Scientists Were Working With Incomplete Information

There is another revealing detail buried inside the review process.

The panel said its work had been complicated because Sakhalin Energy’s Comparative Environmental Assessment — described as important to Phase 2 decision-making — was not completed and supplied until 30 November 2004.

By then, the panel’s original review period was largely over.

Its contracts therefore had to be extended and the final report delayed until February 2005.

This does not establish that Sakhalin Energy deliberately withheld information.

The panel explicitly explained that the relevant documentation had not yet been completed.

But it does establish a timing problem:

independent reviewers were being asked to assess a rapidly advancing industrial project while some of the central environmental analysis was itself still being finalised.

That fact becomes particularly significant when the financing timetable is added.

12. The Whales Meet the Banks

Sakhalin-2 required enormous amounts of capital.

Among the institutions considering Phase 2 financing was the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Shell’s own Sustainability Report stated in 2005 that the EBRD and other institutions were considering funding and that, late that year, the Bank had judged Sakhalin Energy’s environmental, social and health-and-safety approach “fit for the purpose of public consultation.”

Those words require care.

“Fit for the purpose of public consultation” was not an EBRD financing approval.

The distinction is confirmed by EBRD’s own later records.

13. EBRD: Due Diligence Was Still Open

At a May 2006 meeting of the EBRD’s Environmental Advisory Council, Bank staff reported that Sakhalin-2 remained in due diligence.

No decision had been taken to submit the project to the EBRD Board for financing approval.

The Bank identified numerous significant matters still requiring work, including the status of the Western gray whales, oil-spill planning, river crossings, fisheries, indigenous peoples, resettlement, cultural heritage, stakeholder relations, consultation and legal issues. EBRD staff also discussed the Bank’s commitment to applying the precautionary principle to biodiversity.

This is a crucial documentary correction to a common shorthand account.

The late-2005 milestone did not mean:

“EBRD approves Sakhalin-2.”

It meant that the documentation had reached a stage at which formal public consultation could proceed while due diligence continued.

That difference matters enormously in reconstructing the financing history.

14. Why the Whale Question Became a Financing Question

By this stage, the Western gray whale issue was no longer simply a dispute between conservationists and an oil company.

It was embedded in institutional finance.

The EBRD was examining environmental performance while considering whether to participate financially. UK export-credit officials were separately considering support. The IUCN process had generated independent scientific recommendations. The International Whaling Commission had adopted a formal resolution. Sakhalin Energy had altered its pipeline design.

The result was a form of external leverage that does not fit neatly into the categories of regulation or litigation.

No international scientist had the legal power to order Shell to move the pipeline.

But lenders could insist upon environmental standards.

Governments considering export-credit support could demand environmental assessment.

And a project seeking billions of dollars in external finance had strong commercial reasons to demonstrate that internationally recognised concerns were being addressed.

That is an inference from the documented financing and review structure, rather than a finding that any single lender forced the March 2005 reroute.

15. What the Contemporary Press Saw

The press immediately recognised the connection.

Contemporaneous reports in March 2005 described Shell and Sakhalin Energy moving the offshore route after intense concern over the whales. The Guardian reported that the change did not end the campaign against the project, with environmental organisations continuing to press prospective lenders and the UK Export Credits Guarantee Department not to provide support.

Other contemporary reporting noted the commercial importance of satisfying the environmental requirements attached to international financing. Energy-industry coverage explicitly linked the reroute with Sakhalin-2’s effort to obtain loans from international financial institutions.

Those articles are contemporaneous interpretations.

They support the proposition that financing pressure formed part of the public context.

They do not, standing alone, prove that Shell would have refused to reroute the pipeline in the absence of prospective financing.

16. The Court Record Later Captured the Same Collision

Three years later, Sakhalin-2’s whale controversy appeared in the English High Court record.

In Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), the court described the project as potentially having a major impact on the habitat and feeding grounds of the Western Grey Whale and recorded that approximately US$650 million of project finance support had been sought from ECGD.

As explained in SLF-2007-023, that case concerned disclosure of government environmental information.

It did not decide the scientific merits of the whale controversy.

It did, however, place into a formal judicial record the connection between the endangered whale habitat, Sakhalin-2 and the proposed taxpayer-backed financing.

The science and the money had become inseparable parts of the public controversy.

17. A Rare Example of Science Changing a Megaproject

With hindsight, one feature of the record is difficult to dispute.

The independent scientific process changed the project.

IUCN later highlighted the 2005 pipeline reroute as a concrete example of the advisory process influencing corporate action. Its retrospective account says Sakhalin Energy changed the route preferred by the independent panel, moving it roughly 20 kilometres south to reduce disruption to the feeding grounds.

Shell’s own contemporaneous sustainability report says essentially the same thing.

This should not be understated merely because serious criticism of Sakhalin-2 continued.

An independent scientific panel recommended a different route.

A Shell-led project changed its engineering design.

That is a real outcome.

18. But It Was Not a Scientific Clean Bill of Health

The opposite exaggeration would be equally misleading.

The pipeline reroute did not mean the independent scientists concluded that Sakhalin-2 was environmentally safe.

Their report remained concerned about cumulative effects, acoustic disturbance, vessel strikes, oil-spill risks, habitat alteration and uncertainty surrounding mitigation. The most precautionary option identified by the panel went considerably further than rerouting a pipeline.

The International Whaling Commission likewise welcomed the reroute while retaining explicit concerns about construction noise.

The accurate documentary conclusion therefore lies between two competing caricatures.

It would be wrong to say:

“Shell ignored the scientists.”

It would also be wrong to say:

“The scientists approved Sakhalin-2.”

Neither proposition reflects the record.

19. What Is Established

The documentary record establishes that the Western North Pacific gray whale population using Sakhalin waters was extraordinarily small and regarded as critically endangered in 2005. Sakhalin Energy asked IUCN to convene an independent scientific panel. That panel identified substantial risks and uncertainties associated with Phase 2 and concluded that the most precautionary course would be suspension or delay of development close to the feeding grounds.

It is also established that the panel preferred a different offshore pipeline routing from the original proposal and that Sakhalin Energy subsequently moved the pipelines approximately 20 kilometres farther from the feeding ground. Shell itself attributed the decision to the panel’s advice.

The International Whaling Commission welcomed the cooperation and reroute but remained concerned about industrial noise and the extreme vulnerability of a population containing fewer than 30 reproductive females.

And it is established that environmental performance, including whale protection, remained part of EBRD’s continuing due diligence while the Bank considered possible financing.

20. What Is Not Established

The records examined here do not establish that Sakhalin Energy’s activities caused the extinction, or near-extinction, of the Western gray whale population.

They do not establish that a major oil spill affecting the whales actually occurred.

They do not establish that IUCN approved Sakhalin-2 as an environmentally acceptable project.

They do not establish that the EBRD approved Phase 2 financing in 2005.

They do not establish that the English courts ruled Sakhalin-2 environmentally unlawful.

And while financing considerations plainly formed part of the institutional environment surrounding the project, the documents examined here do not prove that Sakhalin Energy changed the pipeline route solely because it needed lender approval.

Those boundaries are as important as the findings themselves.

Commentary

The whale file is revealing precisely because it refuses to fit a simple corporate morality tale.

Shell’s project faced serious environmental criticism.

But Sakhalin Energy did something corporations under attack do not always do: it voluntarily invited an external scientific body to examine the problem.

The scientists then produced conclusions considerably more uncomfortable than corporate public-relations language would normally welcome.

And at least one major engineering decision changed.

That deserves recognition.

But the same record also demonstrates why independent oversight was necessary.

The whale population was so small that conventional industrial assumptions about acceptable risk became difficult to apply. A low-probability event could have disproportionate consequences. Scientific uncertainty could not simply be treated as evidence of safety. And the panel itself complained that it could not always determine how Sakhalin Energy was balancing conservation risk against other considerations.

The financing dimension sharpened everything.

A lender assessing billions of dollars of exposure was not simply asking whether the project held Russian regulatory approvals. International financial institutions were asking whether environmental and social performance could satisfy their own standards.

That made the whales financially relevant.

The pipeline reroute is therefore more than an environmental footnote.

It is evidence of the moment when independent science, corporate engineering and international finance collided — and the physical route of Sakhalin-2 changed as a result.

The more difficult question was whether changing one route could resolve the much larger collection of risks accumulating around the project.

By 2005, the answer was plainly not yet known.

Source Record

The principal source is the February 2005 Report of the Independent Scientific Review Panel on the Impacts of Sakhalin II Phase 2 on Western North Pacific Gray Whales and Related Biodiversity, convened under IUCN auspices at Sakhalin Energy’s request. The report documents the population assessment, noise and collision concerns, oil-spill analysis, alternative pipeline routes, cumulative-risk modelling and the panel’s precautionary conclusions.

Shell’s own Sustainability Report 2005 provides the corporate account of Sakhalin Energy’s response, including the statement that the company took the panel’s advice and moved the offshore pipelines approximately 20 kilometres farther from the feeding ground. It also records Shell’s account of acoustic mitigation, external monitoring, vessel controls and prospective EBRD financing.

The International Whaling Commission Resolution 2005-3 independently records both the significance of the rerouting decision and continuing concern about noise, while documenting the exceptionally small number of reproductive females identified by the review.

EBRD records establish that environmental review continued beyond the late-2005 public-consultation milestone and that the Bank had not yet decided to submit Sakhalin-2 to its Board for financing approval in May 2006.

Contemporaneous reporting provides the public context surrounding the March 2005 reroute and the continuing campaign aimed at prospective project financiers.

The later High Court record provides additional confirmation that the Western Grey Whale issue formed part of the environmental controversy surrounding ECGD’s consideration of approximately US$650 million in project-finance support.

PS.

Encouragingly, subsequent monitoring indicated substantial growth in the whales using the western North Pacific feeding grounds. The International Whaling Commission lists a 2015 best estimate of approximately 200 animals for the Western Feeding Group, compared with an estimated 74 in 1995. Later research has, however, demonstrated considerable movement between the western and eastern North Pacific, complicating the older concept of a wholly separate western population.

Archive disclaimer: Scientific modelling describes risk scenarios and should not be confused with predictions that a particular outcome would necessarily occur. Corporate sustainability reports record the company’s own account and are identified as such. Environmental campaign statements and contemporaneous journalism are distinguished from independent scientific findings and judicial determinations. Nothing in this instalment should be read as asserting a finding of unlawful conduct unless attributed to a competent court, regulator or other authority. Site-wide disclaimer also applies.

Next Archive File SLF-2007-025 — The Sakhalin Papers XV: The $20 Billion Shock — When Shell Doubled the Price of Sakhalin-2

Only months after the whale-panel confrontation, another disclosure transformed the project.

The original Phase 2 cost estimate had been approximately $10 billion.

In 2005 Shell acknowledged that the expected cost had effectively doubled to about $20 billion, while first LNG deliveries were pushed back.

That was not merely an accounting revision.

Under Sakhalin-2’s production-sharing arrangements, project costs were intimately connected with when Russia would begin receiving substantial profits.

The next file will follow the documentary trail behind the cost explosion, what Shell told investors and the Russian authorities, and why the $20 billion figure became one of the central triggers in the confrontation that eventually stripped Shell of control of Sakhalin-2.

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 9 AUGUST 2026 was first posted on August 9, 2026 at 7:51 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Disclosure Ruling Is Followed by a Timetable to Preserve Evidence

Archive reference: AUS-WB-2026-002
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Queensland
Case: Quinlan v Shell Energy Operations Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 115
Decision date: 10 June 2026
Evidence standard: Reported court proceedings and published case information. This article does not treat allegations in pleadings or media reports as established facts.

Site-wide disclaimer applies. Mr Quinlan’s substantive allegations remain contested and have not been proved in court. Shell denies wrongdoing.

The Update Since the March Hearing

In March, former ERM Power executive Kent Quinlan asked the Supreme Court of Queensland to require Shell Power to provide further internal documents. He alleges that he raised concerns about insider trading and “sham” transactions at ERM Power, and that he later suffered detrimental treatment. Shell disputes the claims.

On 10 June 2026, Cooper J delivered an interlocutory decision concerning disclosure, document searches and redactions. The ruling did not determine whether any alleged misconduct occurred. It addressed what material the parties must provide while the litigation continues.

The August Case-Management Hearing

On 8 August, Michael West Media reported that the Supreme Court had set a timetable intended to enable Mr Quinlan’s evidence to be preserved later in 2026. The report said the Court had been told that he has terminal brain cancer and a life expectancy of less than 12 months.

According to that report, Cooper J granted an application for Mr Quinlan to give evidence, with the evidence to be taken in closed court and audio-video recorded. If Mr Quinlan dies before trial, the recording is intended to be played publicly at the trial. The Court fixed a timetable aimed at taking his evidence-in-chief in December, with a further case-management hearing listed for 14 October.

This is a procedural step taken in light of Mr Quinlan’s reported medical condition. It does not decide the allegations against Shell or the other respondents. Those allegations remain contested and unproven; Shell denies wrongdoing.

What the Court Ordered

Published case information records that the Court ordered Shell Energy Operations to disclose a defined group of documents identified in the relevant affidavit within seven days. Beyond that limited order, Mr Quinlan’s broader application for disclosure relief was dismissed.

The Court also considered Shell’s requests concerning unredacted disclosure and Mr Quinlan’s own disclosure obligations. The dispute included whether redactions to employee salary and contact information were justified, and whether further searching of archived material was proportionate.

This is an important but narrow outcome. It means that a specified category of documents had to be disclosed; it does not mean the Court accepted Mr Quinlan’s allegations, found that Shell concealed evidence, or made a ruling on insider trading, market manipulation or retaliation.

The Earlier Reporting

The March hearing was reported by the ABC. It described Mr Quinlan’s case as alleging that he raised concerns about illegal insider trading and “bogus” trades during his time at ERM Power, an Australian energy business acquired by Shell in 2019. His counsel sought further documents, arguing that legal privilege could not protect communications said to further fraud.

Shell’s counsel told the Court that the company had already provided a substantial volume of material and that the additional document requests were not reasonable or sufficiently connected to the issues in dispute. That remains Shell’s position in the contested proceedings.

Why the Distinction Matters

Disclosure litigation is often mistaken for a verdict. It is not. Courts decide whether documents are relevant, protected, proportionate to retrieve or capable of being disclosed with proper privacy safeguards. Those decisions can affect what evidence becomes available, but they do not resolve the truth of every allegation in the case.

The responsible conclusion at this stage is therefore straightforward: Mr Quinlan obtained limited additional disclosure, Shell succeeded in resisting broader relief, and the central allegations remain unresolved.

What Happens Next

The immediate next development is the 14 October case-management hearing, followed by the proposed December evidence timetable, subject to the Court’s directions and Mr Quinlan’s health. The June disclosure order, any costs decision and ultimately the Court’s determination of the substantive claims will remain important. Until then, descriptions of the dispute must retain the words “alleged”, “contested” and “not proved”.

Sources

• Michael West Media: Court fast-tracks Shell whistleblower’s case after terminal cancer diagnosis, 8 August 2026.
• ABC News: Kent Quinlan asks Supreme Court to force Shell Power to hand over secret company documents, 31 March 2026.
• Quinlan v Shell Energy Operations Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 115, Supreme Court of Queensland decision summary, 10 June 2026.
• Case summary: Quinlan v Shell Energy Operations Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 115, accessed 9 August 2026.
• Earlier ShellNews article: Shell Inherits an Explosive Australian Whistleblower Battle, 17 July 2026.

Kent Quinlan v Shell: Court Fast-Tracks Evidence After Terminal Cancer Diagnosis was first posted on August 9, 2026 at 7:23 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

A listing of 29 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, August 2, 2026 thru Sat, August 8, 2026. Stories we promoted this week, by category:

Climate Change Impacts (11 articles)

• El Niño and climate change are affecting rice crops in weird ways Researchers explain how El Niño and global warming are combining to create "the haves and the have-nots." Grist, Tik Root & Frida Garza, July 31, 2026.
• Heatwaves and raging fires mark Europe’s ‘dystopian’ summer This article about the recent record-breaking heat and wildfires in Europe dives into the science about the causes, quoting several experts. ABC News, Romy Stephens, Alex Lim and Fran Rimrod, Aug 1, 2026.
• Climate shocks hit hydropower in Southern Africa, reviving interest in coal The Daily Climate, Chisapi Kumbutso, Aug 02, 2026.
• Climate change could dramatically reduce water flowing from the West's headwaters Phys.org, Northern Arizona University, Aug 02, 2026.
• Washington`s wildfires are a warning for the entire U.S. Dry conditions and climate change are putting forests across the country at risk for disaster Scientific American, Mary Randolph, Aug 03, 2026.
• Factcheck: How nuclear, gas, wind and solar power are affected during heatwaves Carbon Brief, Molly Lempriere, Aug 04, 2026.
• French wildfires are turning animals’ homes into ‘a desert of ashes’ The catastrophic fires have potential to do long-term damage to many wild animal populations, but a toad species could be the most affected. National Geographic, Melissa Hobson, Aug 4, 2026.
• Butterflies are on the move as the planet warms: new research A comprehensive survey indicates that one in ten known butterfly species have already shifted in range. The Conversation, Shawan Chowdhury, Aug 05, 2026.
• Summer of wildfires sees catastrophe bonds approach new record Wildfires raging across the U.S. and Europe this summer are pushing more and more insurers into slashing their risk by issuing catastrophe bonds to investors, and the so-called CAT bonds on the market are already nearing levels from all of last year. Callaway Climate Insights, David Callaway, Aug 06, 2026.
• Climate change created conditions for Canada fires, scientists say, as Trump blames mismanagement A new study calculates that human-caused climate change doubled the likelihood of the tinderbox weather conditions that sparked Canada’s massive summer wildfires. The Okaloosa Herald, EHN Curators, Aug 06, 2026.
• Heatwaves have killed millions. Here’s how scientists tally lives lost Two very different methods are used to estimate the human toll of heatwaves such as those now hitting parts of Asia and Europe. Nature, Kaia Glickman, Aug 6, 2026.

Climate Policy and Politics (6 articles)

• ECB official warns climate crisis poses growing threat to `core financial stability` Exclusive: As wildfires rage, Frank Elderson says more work needed to assess risk from collapse of ecosystem services The Guardian, Richard Partington, Aug 01, 2026.
• Climate Hushing Strategy May Cost Democrats At The Polls Argued from a foundation of ample research evidence, this colorfully written op-ed criticizing ''climate hushing'' suggests that tip-toeing around climate change isn't grounded in facts, and that addressing public concerns about climate change can be part of a winning electoral package. CleanTechnica, Steve Hanley, Aug 03, 2026.
• Opinion: Why local action is key to surviving America's climate crisis 'The current administration in Washington denies that climate change is even real,'' starkly reminding us that meaningful climate change mitigation is a political matter and begins with voting. Politico, William S Becker, Aug 03, 2026.
• Appeals Court Says E.P.A. Cannot Block Billions in Climate Grants The funds have been frozen since early in President Trump’s second term. New York Times, Claire Brown, Aug 04, 2026.
• Q&A: What is in China`s new five-year plan for climate change? The new plan does not include any major new targets, instead consolidating and reaffirming existing policies, but does include significant signals on key policy areas, such as non-carbon dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gases, global climate governance and carbon markets. Carbon Brief, Carbon Brief Staff, Aug 06, 2026.
• Trump Administration to Pay RWE to Cancel Wind Leases It was the fifth such deal struck by the administration to get companies to drop offshore wind projects. NYT, Brad Plumer, Aug 06, 2026.

Climate Education and Communication (4 articles)

• Why is gaining citizen support for climate policies so difficult? Phys.org, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Jul 31, 2026.
• A majority of Americans don`t actually fit either climate camp An analysis of 20 years of polling data shows how age, education and income—in addition to political affiliation—shape views on climate policy Anthropocene, Sarah DeWeerdt, Aug 04, 2026.
• Climate Trunk - The Persuadable Majority Progress on climate depends on speaking to the movable middle. Climate Trunk, John Lang, Aug 5, 2026.
• Extreme heat impact on travel, family increasingly felt by Americans: poll Americans are increasingly feeling a personal impact from extreme heat, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. AP News, Alexa St. John and Linley Sanders, Aug 06, 2026.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (3 articles)

• Climate adaptation at its limits, says one scientist A climate scientist says Earth is "passing the limits of adaptation" when it comes to withstanding the effects of climate change. NPR, Michelle Aslam, Jul 31, 2026.
• Q&A: Does the world need `carbon capture and storage` to reach net-zero? Carbon capture and storage is an expedience for the fossil fuel industry and frequently the target of emotionally overheated and shallow criticism, but also stands as a poster child for ''nothing is simple," as illustrated in this excellent explanation. Carbon Brief, Josh Gabbatiss, Aug 03, 2026.
• `The obsession with endless growth can only end in tears`: your questions on extreme weather this summer answered 'Every fraction of a degree of warming that we can prevent will help millions of people and billions of other forms of life,'' which pretty much answers why Skeptical Science exists and what each of us can help to achieve; we can do better or worse by fractions of degrees, and we choose better. The Guardian, Jonathan Watts and Ajit Niranjan, Aug 03, 2026.

Miscellaneous (2 articles)

• 2026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31 A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, July 26, 2026 thru Sat, August 1, 2026. Skeptical Science, Bärbel Winkler & Doug Bostrom, Aug 02, 2026.
• 15 new books for five new takes on climate change Recent years have seen a boom in books on climate change. This collection spans from techno-optimism to philosophical pessimism. Yale Climate Connections, Michael Svoboda, Aug 06, 2026.

Climate Law and Justice (1 article)

• Supreme Court sets date for blockbuster climate case The case, Suncor v. Boulder, has spurred calls for two of the justices to recuse themselves as they weigh whether federal law or the Constitution bars local governments from suing fossil fuel companies over the costs of addressing climate change. Politico E&E News, Lesley Clark, Aug 05, 2026.

Climate Science and Research (1 article)

• A Short History of Climate Science #17 of the ClimateTrunk graphics published ClimateTrunk, John Lang, July 15, 2026.

Public Misunderstandings about Climate Science (1 article)

• Fixing one of climate`s worst plots The 1930s were hot over the U.S. Midwest, but not that hot The Climate Brink, Andrew Dessler, Aug 03, 2026.

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

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is considering regulations for dairy and livestock operations to reduce the impact of animal agriculture on the environment.

The Board is weighing emissions data, mitigation strategies, and regulations as they consider a variety of regulatory approaches to reduce emissions of the potent greenhouse gas.

Under a 2024 resolution, CARB’s Executive Officer was asked to develop a plan for livestock methane regulations, Joe DeAnda, Director of Communications at CARB, tells Food Tank. Following rule development in 2025, the resolution outlines potential regulation consideration by the CARB Board by 2028, and, if adopted, implementation in 2030.

In 2016, SB 1383 set statewide targets in California to reduce short-lived climate pollutants. For dairy and livestock sectors, legislation set a goal of reducing methane emissions 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030.

The law directed CARB to approve and implement a strategy to meet targets and work with stakeholders to identify and address barriers to emissions reduction goals. During a recent public comment period, CARB sought feedback on the technological and economic feasibility of the dairy and livestock sector, says DeAnda.

Dairy and livestock operations are California’s largest source of methane emissions, originating from manure and enteric fermentation, CARB reports.

Since SB 1383 was enacted, the state has targeted manure-related emissions through incentive-based programs. These initiatives include grants for anaerobic digesters and alternative manure management practices, which reduce methane by changing how manure is stored, handled, or treated.

Voluntary incentive programs allow farmers to reduce emissions without taking on the full cost of new infrastructure, says Michael Boccadoro, Executive Director of Dairy Cares. “We’re more than two-thirds of the way to achieving the dairy share of livestock methane emission reductions,” he tells Food Tank.

Boccadoro believes state and federal funding are central to that progress. He says some alternative manure management projects can be fully covered by grants, while many digesters are financed, owned, or operated by outside developers. In those cases, farmers may provide manure as feedstock without paying to build the project themselves and can receive a small revenue stream.

“The beauty of the incentive program is it hasn’t impacted farmers financially, except in some cases in a positive way,” Boccadoro tells Food Tank. He says the projects can also offer additional benefits, including improved manure handling and water quality.

While mandatory reporting is important to Boccadoro, he believes the requirements should stop short of direct emissions mandates. He argues that demanding every dairy farm to achieve a specific reduction target is “catastrophically unhelpful” because it can undermine the credit and financing systems that have supported methane reduction. “If you lose the incentives, these projects don’t go forward because there’s nobody to pay for them,” he says.

Frank Mitloehner, Air Quality Specialist at UC Davis, also supports California’s incentive-based approach. “When the law was passed there weren’t many options to reduce methane emissions. It was ahead of the technology, but by pushing incentives it allowed for solutions to blossom and result in real methane reductions,” he tells Food Tank.

Mitloehner has been impressed by the speed of transition in the dairy industry. “It’s astonishing how quickly an entire industry sprung up and the sector moved to be in line with state laws,” he says. But now “we’ve tackled the low-hanging fruit and need further technologies to find solutions in other sectors.”

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

Photo courtesy of Haley Owens, Unsplash

The post California Eyes Methane Regulations for Dairy and Livestock appeared first on Food Tank.

Into a clear blue sky, the sweet-smelling smoke billows and spreads. Farmers have been burning and harvesting sugarcane this way for generations, but the practice creates ash fallout and hazardous air pollutants. Every year, farmers plan and coordinate the fires, to clear out pests like snakes and clear leaves, leaving behind only the stalks where the sugar lies.

Nobody in Iberia Parish thinks twice. Sugarcane smoke is a part of life.

But locals are wary of the dangers they suspect lurk within a different, newer industry. This new industry is going to be the ruin of Iberia Parish, they warn, with dangers ranging from toxic smoke and cancer-causing chemicals to homegrown tornados and flying debris, even poisoned farmland and worthless houses. 

Dangers that are almost entirely imagined, say experts, who now find themselves as the main line of defense against misinformation that could hamstring a vital field. It’s a dynamic being repeated nationwide.

This is a close-knit community, part of the Acadiana region of Louisiana best known as Cajun Country. But last year, opposition to solar farms became so heated here that speakers at Iberia Parish Council meetings were brought to tears. Hundreds of residents successfully mounted a campaign opposing a proposed utility-scale solar project that would have been sited northeast of town. Opponents voiced fears that solar panels would destroy farms and poison the soil. They wore anti-solar T-shirts and staked yard signs. They snubbed and scolded the project’s supporters.

A social media group for Nebraskans posted a meme aimed at Tennesseans opposed to industrial solar projects. Similar themes and images appeared in social media posts that targeted other states.
Facebook

They feared fires, falling property values and panels that they said would leach chemicals into bayous. “I’ve done my own research. I don’t need anybody to tell me that it can’t cause cancer, or that they don’t crack and things don’t seep out,” said opponent Cathrine DeGroat during a June 2025 council meeting.

After heated debate, the council passed an ordinance requiring utility-scale solar projects to be set back at least half a mile from the nearest residential property line. Solar opponents hailed it as a victory for Iberia Parish. 

The ordinance appears to have effectively killed the Acadiana Solar project, which could have brought millions in local tax revenue to Iberia Parish, a rural area that could sorely use the public funds. The project’s developers would have leased land from Andree McAnally’s family farm for part of the project, money that would have helped pay college tuition and other expenses in a household budget that has been tighter since the death of her husband from COVID in 2021, McAnally said. She felt the lost opportunity more sharply, she said, since the fight against it was not based on facts. 

The day of the vote, in July 2025, McAnally told parish council members that she was disappointed in them. “I thought you were going to call in your own experts and figure it out yourself,” she said. “People are fueled by misinformation.”

McAnally herself had once believed that misinformation, she told the council. When her parents first agreed to put a solar farm on her family’s land, she was furious — she believed that her family was sure to get cancer. So she dug deep into research. What she learned changed her mind. “We have three generations right there on the property. And I would not put myself or my children in harm’s way,” she said.

Misinformation has become one of the primary hurdles for utility-scale solar projects like the one once planned here.  “Sometimes you just have this opposition that develops from misinformation and disinformation that tends to spread like wildfire,” said Matthew Holland, energy policy outreach coordinator at the Blanco Center, who counsels solar advocates to counter misinformation through specific facts about the benefits of the projects. And, as solar projects become more commonplace, some misinformation may lose its grip. 

Posts aimed at solar opponents in Indiana, Texas, Iowa and California, clockwise from top left, repeated messaging and imagery. Composite image by Dominique Hodge / Mississippi River Basin Ag & Water Desk

For some who live in Iberia Parish, the standoff seems more deep-seated. “I think you’re seeing the animus of people who feel like their opinion is not taken seriously,” said Josh Trosclair, a member of the United Houma Nation and native of the small community of Lydia, just south of New Iberia, who argued on behalf of solar in front of the council. After one meeting, agitated solar opponents followed him to his car, he said. 

It seems clear that unfounded fears of solar have found fertile ground here. 

Facebook groups and AI bots

In Acadiana, solar opposition appears to have been organized in large part through a 1,200-member social-media group known as “NO Industrial/Utility solar in Iberia Parish” on Facebook. “Panels are toxic, contaminate the soil and water, [and] are a huge fire hazard,” wrote one of the group’s administrators in an April 2024 post. 

The group appears to have been first created in 2024 by a local real estate agent, Angela Scott. Scott did not respond to multiple attempts to reach her for this story.

Many posts express concerns that Iberia would no longer be a farming community. “There’s about 500k acres of sugarcane in the state. About 250k of them are leased for potential solar farms in the future,” read a post reshared from a group for St. James Parish — which also saw an anti-solar campaign. “If we lose 250k acres of farmland in this state, the sugar mills will likely close.”

To date, experts project that, at most, Louisiana solar will require about 87,000 acres over the next 10 years, on sites spread out across the state — not just on sugarcane fields. Only about 1 percent of Louisiana’s total farmland would be impacted by the highest estimates of solar buildout over the next decade, researchers estimate. 

Read Next For first time, Americans are getting more of their electricity from solar than coal Tik Root

Posts in the group echo the dangers cited by opponents in council debates, along with a few new alleged hazards, including “increased ambient temperatures” and suggestions that solar panels themselves create unstable weather, particularly tornadoes.

Many posts in the group are cross-posted from “Stop Solar-Wind-BESS-Carbon Capture Scams,” a larger, 11,000-member Facebook group, which has become a hub for people who oppose solar across the nation. It was created in 2020 by Indiana resident Franklin T. Wike. 

A pinned post by Wike under the name “David Herman” seeks people willing to be trained to spread anti-solar messages: “We are looking for volunteers that would be interested in learning how to HELP run anti-Solar or anti-Solar and Wind websites. We are willing to train the individuals if needed,” reads the post. “The position will basically involve copying and pasting news links from various Facebook Groups we run, then writing a short introduction to the news articles.”

Wike also did not respond to requests for comment.

Some members of the network of anti-solar groups are sharing nearly identical posts of AI-generated anti-solar content, tailored to different U.S. states.

“Once Louisiana is gone, there’s no way to get it back,” reads one AI-generated graphic, shared by user Sheila Thomson, the words appearing on a sign with a farm and red barn in the distance. “Solar panels belong on roofs, not on farmland.” In a Facebook group for Texans, a different user posted a similar image tailored to Texas: “Once Texas is gone, there’s no way to get it back,” reads the sign. The same message and graphic appears in other groups tailored to Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and elsewhere.

The accounts have been linked to a network of “AI slop machine” accounts, per an analysis released earlier this month by the threat intelligence company Alethea. The network has also targeted data centers. Many of the accounts are anonymously run, are based in Bangladesh, and appear to be rapidly producing a volume of “emotionally resonant, locally targeted content … to manufacture the appearance of organic, grassroots consensus.”

Highly charged issue divides neighbors

Iberia Parish is more familiar with a different aspect of the energy sector. Parish workers fabricate parts for oil and gas infrastructure, like offshore platforms and pipelines. They work for petrochemical companies that, historically, come in, extract resources, and leave behind poverty and pollution — and loss. Trosclair’s uncle, whom he’s named after, was doing oil and gas fieldwork when he was killed by a burst pipe in 1980 at 20 years old.

Fossil fuels also don’t provide the jobs they once did: A report this summer from The Data Center, a Louisiana nonprofit, found that oil and gas production and transportation in the New Orleans metro area lost over 6,500 jobs between 2004 and 2023, a 47 percent decrease. 

Solar, on the other hand, will keep growing, say analysts, because the technology has simply gotten so efficient and affordable that the low cost will keep driving demand despite the hostile federal policy landscape. Scientists say that the world must transition to renewable energy as quickly as possible as global climate change worsens. Energy generated by solar in the U.S. recently overtook coal for the first time. Even President Trump’s allies recently softened their once-hostile tone and began championing solar outright.

Read Next The state of solar: Despite partisan rhetoric, the industry is still booming Rebecca Egan McCarthy & Kate Yoder

Perhaps because of their fraught history with oil and gas, locals can be wary of large new developments on agricultural land. They rallied the council last year to discuss the risks of carbon capture and sequestration and weighed instituting a moratorium. For the past several years, the solar industry has instilled worries, turning longtime friends into enemies.

“This is a highly charged, emotional issue, not just for me but for all of my neighbors who are my friends,” McAnally told the Council, her voice shaking. “Or — were my friends.”

Sugarcane has long been the dominant crop in Iberia Parish, where some farms have been handed down through four or five generations. The hundreds of acres of sun-drenched land also appealed to Recurrent Energy, a division of Canada Solar, which selected about 1,000 acres for their proposed solar project, initially dubbed “Acadiana Solar.” It would have been a $175 million investment.

But amid passionate public opposition, Iberia Parish passed its first solar-related ordinance in February 2024, a moratorium on solar farms, described as a temporary measure until permanent regulations could be agreed upon. A year later, in July 2025, the council passed the second ordinance, requiring that solar farms in the parish be sited at least a half mile from the nearest residential zones and occupied structures.

At the state level, Louisiana legislators passed their first solar restrictions last year, with House Bill 459, which requires that solar projects 75 acres or larger be set 300 feet from the nearest residential property line. The law also allows local governments to set larger setbacks.

Louisiana’s setback law is “one of the larger distances that you’ll see in the country,” Mark Zappi, executive director of the Energy Institute of Louisiana, told 1012 Industry Report in April. The Iberia Parish ordinance, with a setback that’s more than eight times larger, is among the most restrictive in the state.

The full effects of that setback are unclear: Though Recurrent Energy has never officially announced that its project was canceled, there’s been no movement on the project since the ordinance passed, local advocates say.

Solar panels don’t leach toxins

It is clear that, for solar development in Louisiana, one of the most formidable hurdles is misinformation.

Some inaccuracies are spread among friends and neighbors, by mouth or by social media. Sometimes disinformation is spread deliberately by politically-linked groups or digital marketers sharing AI-generated posts.

Or, as Terrence Chambers, the recently retired director of the University of Louisiana-Lafayette’s Center of Efficiency and Sustainable Energy, testified in front of a Louisiana legislative committee in 2021: “I have recently heard many concerns expressed by members of the public, some of which are based on incorrect information, and I would like to address some of those concerns, so that public policy can be based on accurate information.” 

Read Next In a first, Utah got more power from solar than any other source Leia Larsen

In his testimony and in the 17-page written testimony that he supplied the committee, Chambers set the record straight. “The solar cell is completely protected from air and water during normal operation, and as such, rainwater does not wash any toxic materials into the soil,” he said. “Solar racks can easily be designed to wind speeds of 150 mph or higher,” he wrote, noting that data from 50,000 operational solar installations shows that “solar plants stand up well to hurricanes and hail.” Also, because solar panels are mostly made of non-flammable materials like steel, glass and aluminum, they will not catch fire.

A December study from Chambers and other researchers at UL-Lafayette reached a similar conclusion: “There are no harmful emissions or runoff from solar power plants that would negatively affect the soil.”

Some opponents’ concerns were valid decades ago, but have now been largely addressed. For instance, residents expressed worries that solar panels would depress property values, become eyesores amid the landscape, or  — like the “orphan wells” often left behind by fossil-fuel companies — that the projects won’t be properly decommissioned when the projects end, leaving farmland littered with aging solar panels.

Studies have drawn differing conclusions about property values, but another UL-Lafayette paper points to two recent ones, by appraisers in North Carolina and Virginia who found that solar projects have no effect. Abandoned panels are less of a concern now since Louisiana law requires every project to have a decommissioning plan, which must account for closure in case of disaster and be updated every five years, with the costs set aside before construction begins. The way solar projects are designed has improved dramatically as well, said Stephen Barnes, director of the Kathleen Babineaux Blanco Public Policy Center at UL-Lafayette. 

Today’s projects are designed to be less visible than older ones, partly because it’s become standard for projects to include vegetative barriers – tall plants and bushes used to blend solar arrays with surrounding landscape.  “The reality is that most people that live in a parish that does have a solar farm don’t think about it ever,” said Barnes. “You could be driving past one and never even know it.”

Solar continues to grow, and provide needed tax revenue, despite hurdles

Across Louisiana, 19 solar projects are operating. Five began operating after Iberia passed its strict ordinance. 

Rural parishes that may otherwise see little investment are reaping massive tax benefits by embracing solar projects, researchers at UL-Lafayette say. Even if solar facilities are granted massive tax exemptions, they’ll generate at least 40 times more local property tax than farmland. 

Near Iberia, in Pointe Coupee Parish, the Oxbow solar project  — the largest in the state — is projected to generate $9.7 million in local tax revenue within the first three years. Morehouse Parish has already brought in about $3 million in sales tax revenue thanks to the Oak Ridge Solar Farm that began operating in 2023, about half of which went to the School Board. 

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

The UL-Lafayette study predicts solar will bring in about half a billion dollars in state taxes through 2035. And once built, Barnes said, solar projects “tend to sit quietly with very little activity, generating significant, steady, predictable stream of tax revenue,” without requiring the increased public services — like fire protection or better roads  — that other large development projects need, said Barnes. Investment in a solar facility can also draw other businesses in, or prompt investment in improving the local electrical grid — what Barnes calls “broader spillover economic benefits.” 

“There will be continued expansion,” said Monika Gerhart, executive director of Gulf States Renewable Energy Industries Association. “The question is whether those projects will be over the state lines in Texas or Arkansas or Mississippi, or whether Louisiana is going to be able to avail itself of that revenue.”

Despite its opposition, Iberia Parish, too, has begun to see spillover benefits from investments in solar energy. 

Last year, a company called First Solar opened a $1 billion solar-panel production facility in Iberia Parish. It will manufacture 3.5 gigawatts of solar panels annually and is the largest investment in Iberia Parish history. 

The plant now employs hundreds of locals.

This story is a product of the Mississippi River Basin Ag & Water Desk, an independent reporting network based at the University of Missouri in partnership with Report for America, with major funding from the Walton Family Foundation.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline In rural communities, fears amplified by ‘AI slop’ and social media hamper solar boom on Aug 9, 2026.

Headline News:

• “Wildfire Smoke Poses Growing Risk To Pregnant Women As Climate Change Worsens” • A study published in Frontiers in Environmental Health tracked exposure to fine particulate matter from US wildfires from 2003 to 2019. It found that emissions from transport and industry fell in that time, smoke from wildfires offsets some of the gains. [Euronews]

Statue of Liberty in a smoky sundown (Chris Barbalis, Unsplash)

• “World’s Largest 12.8-GWh Battery Storage Cluster Activated in China” • Sources at Envision told Cleantechnica that its 4-GWh flagship plant could very well be “the world’s largest single-site electro-chemical energy storage facility.” It serves as the central anchor for a network of energy storage installations distributed across energy production centers. [CleanTechnica]
• “Renewable Energy Equipment Now Duty-Free for Import in Cuba” • A range of renewable energy components, including solar panels, transformers, lithium-ion batteries, and other batteries, can now be imported into Cuba without incurring customs duties. The plan is for this exemption to be in effect until December 31, 2027. [CubaHeadlines]
• “Harvesting Rainwater From Rooftops Could Cut The Number Of Heatwave Days And Reduce AC Reliance” • Rooftop rainwater could be a secret weapon to address urban heat. Researchers at The University of Manchester modeled capturing rainwater from rooftops and spraying it onto buildings during hot weather, reducing a need for air conditioning. [Euronews]
• “Twenty Thousand Flee Wildfires As British Columbia Declares State Of Emergency” • British Columbia has declared a state of emergency after a fast-moving wildfire destroyed homes and forced more than twenty thousand people to flee communities along Okanagan Lake in western Canada. Dozens of them were rescued by aircraft. [ABC News]

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

Vanadium batteries could be the answer to the expanding, energy-hungry artificial intelligence infrastructure sector, with data centres rising around Australia's major cities.

The post Vanadium: The silvery data centre storage metal that you may never have heard of appeared first on Renew Economy.

Pagi itu, sebuah angka beredar di grup percakapan. Ada yang menyebutnya hasil analisis, ada pula yang menganggapnya sebagai angka yang “sedang bagus”. Dalam hitungan menit, pesan tersebut berpindah dari satu ponsel ke ponsel lain. Tidak ada yang benar-benar tahu dari mana asalnya, tetapi semakin banyak orang membicarakannya, semakin kuat pula kesan bahwa informasi itu layak dipercaya.

Situasi semacam ini bukan hal baru dalam pembicaraan mengenai togel hari ini. Informasi mengenai angka, hasil pengundian, prediksi, hingga berbagai istilah analisis dapat ditemukan dengan mudah di internet. Persoalannya bukan sekadar banyaknya informasi, melainkan bagaimana seseorang membedakan data yang dapat diverifikasi dari klaim yang hanya dibungkus dengan bahasa meyakinkan.

Langkah pertama adalah memahami perbedaan antara hasil dan prediksi. Hasil pengundian merupakan informasi yang dapat diperiksa setelah proses pengundian berlangsung. Sebaliknya, prediksi adalah perkiraan yang belum tentu terjadi. Keduanya tidak boleh diperlakukan sebagai hal yang sama.

Di sinilah sikap kritis menjadi penting. Ketika sebuah situs atau akun menyatakan memiliki “angka pasti”, misalnya, pembaca sebaiknya bertanya: apa sumbernya, bagaimana metode tersebut dibuat, dan apakah ada bukti yang dapat diperiksa? Istilah seperti pola, angka panas, angka dingin, atau statistik tertentu mungkin terdengar teknis, tetapi istilah tersebut tidak otomatis membuat sebuah prediksi menjadi akurat.

Cerita tentang seseorang yang berhasil menebak angka tertentu juga perlu ditempatkan secara proporsional. Satu keberhasilan dapat menjadi pengalaman menarik, tetapi tidak cukup untuk membuktikan bahwa sebuah metode selalu bekerja. Dalam permainan yang hasilnya ditentukan secara acak, kejadian sebelumnya tidak dengan sendirinya menjamin kejadian berikutnya.

Ada pula persoalan yang sering luput ketika orang terlalu fokus pada informasi angka: pengelolaan uang. Membaca statistik atau mengikuti hasil pengundian seharusnya tidak membuat seseorang mengabaikan kebutuhan sehari-hari. Uang untuk makan, tempat tinggal, transportasi, tabungan, dan kebutuhan penting lainnya memiliki prioritas yang berbeda.

Karena itu, informasi seputar togel lebih sehat dipandang sebagai bahan pengetahuan, bukan kepastian hasil. Pembaca dapat memeriksa sumber resmi, membandingkan informasi dari beberapa tempat, serta menghindari klaim yang menggunakan kata-kata mutlak seperti “pasti menang” atau “dijamin keluar”.

Pada akhirnya, memahami informasi angka secara bijak bukan soal menemukan ramalan yang paling meyakinkan. Justru sebaliknya, kemampuan terpenting adalah mengetahui batas antara data, opini, dan spekulasi.

Di tengah derasnya informasi togel hari ini, sikap tenang mungkin terdengar sederhana. Namun, ketika setiap angka datang bersama cerita tentang peluang dan kemenangan, kemampuan untuk berhenti sejenak, memeriksa sumber, dan membuat keputusan secara bertanggung jawab menjadi jauh lebih berharga daripada sekadar mengikuti angka yang sedang ramai dibicarakan.

By KAY MATTHEWS

There’s good news for the many Questa area citizens opposed to the proposed Kit Carson Electric Cooperative hydrogen facility and solar array. Attorneys for the Cabresto Lake Irrigation Community Ditch Association and Acequia Madre del Cerro de Guadalupe filed suit against the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service over the agency’s Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) authorizing the Questa Hydrogen Project. Claiming that the ruling violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the notice seeks judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and requests that a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be conducted rather than the inadequate Environmental Assessment (EA). The plaintiffs also allege that the EA improperly limited the scope of the environmental review by excluding the proposed solar array from analysis.

Kit Carson Electric Cooperative, Inc. (“KCEC”) proposes to construct and operate a hydrogen-production facility, an associated electrical substation, and a solar-generation facility in the Village of Questa, New Mexico. The proposed hydrogen facility and related infrastructure are located on property associated with the former Questa Mine Tailings Site and within or adjacent to areas subject to ongoing environmental remediation and oversight under the federal Superfund program. The Project would use electricity generated by the proposed solar facility to support the production of hydrogen. The hydrogen facility, electrical substation, solar facility, and related infrastructure are intended to function together as components of the same overall development. The Project plans the use of groundwater from an existing well owned by Chevron mining identified as RG-14117 POD 18 (“POD 18”). At present, POD 18 is authorized for water use associated with reclamation and dust-control activities at the mine and tailings facility.

The two acequia plaintiffs, Cerro Acequia, which diverts water from Cabresto Lake, and Acequia Madre, which diverts water from Latir Creek and contributing streams, supply irrigation water for hundreds of parciantes and allege that USDA approved the Project without complying with NEPA’s procedural requirements by preparing an inadequate EA and failing to take the required hard look at significant environmental consequences.

Operation of the Project requires the continued withdrawal and destruction of substantial quantities of groundwater, including approximately 10,579 gallons per hour, from a well located within the Chevron Questa Mine Superfund Site. Once the water is introduced into the electrolyzer, it undergoes destruction as water and dissociates into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. The liquid water pumped from the ground no longer exists. The EA concluded that groundwater resources would not be affected but did not support that conclusion with a quantified analysis of the Project’s anticipated withdrawals. The EA did not include an aquifer-drawdown analysis, long-term water analysis, or other adequate assessment of how sustained Project pumping could affect groundwater levels, nearby wells, connected surface-water resources, or water historically available to Plaintiffs and their members.

The suit also raises the issue of KCEC’s lease of the Chevron mine. At the time USDA issued the EA and the FONSI, KCEC was “currently in the process of purchasing the land described from Chevron for the construction of the proposed project.” On May 8, 2026, five months after issuance of the EA and the FONSI, KCEC and Chevron entered into a 3-year lease for the property. The lease, with a term of 3 years without renewal provisions, addresses ownership and use of the property, the presence of contaminated materials, responsibility for damage to the existing environmental remedy, and the allocation of environmental risks. Because the lease postdated the FONSI, USDA did not evaluate the final lease terms before making its NEPA determination, including the terms governing the duration of KCEC’s site control, ownership of permanent Project infrastructure, groundwater limitations, and responsibility for environmental conditions caused or aggravated by project activities.

After KCEC and Chevron executed the lease, USDA did not reopen its environmental review, prepare a supplemental environmental assessment, or issue a new finding addressing the final lease terms. USDA therefore did not evaluate whether the executed lease altered or undermined assumptions concerning KCEC’s long-term control of the Project site, ownership of permanent infrastructure, authority to use groundwater, responsibility for environmental damage, or interaction with the existing environmental remedy.

Furthermore, hydrogen gas production poses the risk of explosion. Upon completion and operation, the Project will store up to 29 tons of produced hydrogen gas under pressure in 54 tanks, with 28 tanks situated south of the 42 electrolyzer units and 26 tanks situated north of the 42 electrolyzer units. While KCEC contracted with Entrust Solutions to conduct a “What If” assessment, using 79 scenarios to evaluate risk and likely consequences of a variety of hypothetical failures of key components across the hydrogen storage, electrolyzer, and fuel cell units, an explosion can occur without the ignition of hydrogen.

Because construction is currently ongoing the Plaintiffs request immediate conjunctive relief. For more information you can go to the Questa Watershed Protectors Facebook page where the attorney who filed the complaint in US District Court in Albuquerque, Guy Dicharry, thanks Honorio Justin Rael who has done most of the legal work on this case.

file:///Users/geographer/Downloads/FILED%20COMPLAINT%20(1).pdf

In Wisconsin, utility Alliant Energy has called off a project meant to reduce power outages in disadvantaged and tribal communities, after the Trump administration terminated a federal grant that would have supported it.

In California, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which has deployed and upgraded hundreds of thousands of advanced smart meters, has not received any reimbursement from the U.S. Department of Energy, or DOE, for the work since October, when the Trump administration declared it was killing grants that it described as fueling ​“the Left’s climate agenda.”

And in the upper Midwest, a consortium of regional grid operators, utilities, and state agencies is still waiting for $464 million in DOE funds meant to help build high-voltage transmission lines to reduce grid congestion — although the agency in charge of the project says the funding will soon be restored.

Across the country, hundreds of such projects to improve grid reliability and make electricity more affordable face a highly uncertain future — the result of Trump administration actions that have slowed the outflow of billions of dollars of DOE funds to a trickle.

Read Next In Michigan, the price of energy is on the ballot and both parties know it Marcus Baram, Capital and Main

Some of those projects in ​“blue states” were targeted as political retribution, as recent reporting from The New York Times has made clear. A handful of grant awardees in this category have won favorable court rulings, and more are seeking legal redress.

But many others are suffering from the DOE’s broader failure to carry out work that Congress has tasked it to do, according to groups that have been monitoring the agency since the start of last year. In red and blue states alike, the DOE is forcing thousands of grantees to undergo a laborious review process, so even projects that have not been officially terminated are stuck, unable to determine when or if they’ll start getting the money they’re owed.

According to an April report from the DOE Alumni Network, a group of former agency employees, the DOE has announced the termination of 356 awards totaling $12.5 billion since January 2025, and has threatened to terminate 303 additional awards worth $12.2 billion.

But the DOE has also stalled projects for ​“a large number of awardees who have never appeared on any list,” the report found. ​“This means the agency is not moving forward to resolve disputes, finalize conditional awards, or respond to continuation applications, leaving projects in administrative limbo and functionally freezing promised funds.”

“DOE both overtly canceled a set of projects, then had this pattern of behavior where for 15 months they stopped actively managing projects,” said one former DOE official. ​“Projects can’t proceed to the next stages and get their next tranche of funding.”

The former official, who asked not to be named, described a pattern of stalling, stonewalling, and ​“ghosting” utilities, state governments, energy companies, and nonprofit groups awarded grants under the Biden administration.

Read Next The nation’s biggest public utility just doubled down on coal, gas, and nuclear Katie Myers

Many of those projects have been caught up in a process the DOE announced in May 2025 to review all financial assistance ​“on a case-by-case basis to identity [sic] waste of taxpayer dollars, protect America’s national security and advance President Trump’s commitment to unleash affordable, reliable and secure energy for the American people.”

Then, in October, the DOE announced the ​“termination of 321 financial awards supporting 223 projects” — all of them tied to states that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The DOE’s termination announcement came right after Russ Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, declared in a social media post that the administration would cancel ​“nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding.”

Canary Media reached out to a subset of DOE grantees that had won funding from the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) program created by the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. The DOE issued a total of more than 100 GRIP grants — in October 2023, August 2024, and October 2024 — for projects to enlarge the grid, harden it against extreme weather, build microgrids to protect vulnerable communities, and deploy technologies to integrate solar, wind, EVs, and batteries.

Some of the GRIP projects involve expanding clean energy and serving disadvantaged communities, two bugbears of the Trump administration. But many more are straightforward grid improvement projects that need federal dollars to reduce the costs borne by utilities and regional or state agencies.

The largest of these is in California. In 2024, the DOE awarded a $630.6 million grant aimed at upgrading more than 100 miles of high-voltage power lines in the state with advanced power cables capable of carrying more electricity along existing transmission corridors, a project estimated to be capable of delivering about $200 million in savings from improved energy efficiency. That project was terminated in October, and the DOE has disbursed no money for it, according to federal records.

Read Next For first time, Americans are getting more of their electricity from solar than coal Tik Root

This uncertainty appears to apply to the majority of GRIP projects, according to Emlyn Bottomley, founder of the consultancy High Road Analytics, which focuses on workforce development, and a former Department of Labor deputy policy director in the Biden administration.

According to his tracking of federal spending, of the roughly $11.4 billion in DOE funds obligated to grid infrastructure and resilience — a category that includes GRIP program funds — $9.1 billion remains ​“at risk,” with funding stalled or timelines for completion shortened. That’s compared with $400 million in grants that have been canceled outright and $1.3 billion not yet disbursed but showing no signs of being stalled.

“It’s a shame these projects are being held up or canceled, especially since the case for them is fairly bipartisan — spanning national security, economic competitiveness, and cost and affordability,” Bottomley said.

All of the GRIP projects required partners to provide matching funds at an amount at least equal to the money DOE is providing, the former DOE official added. ​“You’re talking about folks putting hundreds of millions of dollars on the line. People have skin in the game for these awards.”

The costs of losing federal funding

Many of the GRIP grantees contacted by Canary Media declined to comment, citing ongoing discussions with DOE. Others reported that they are no longer pursuing the projects as described in their grant applications, at least not with the help of DOE money.

The latter is the case for Alliant Energy’s Smart Power Automation in Rural Communities (SPARC) project, which won a $50 million grant in late 2024 to add grid visibility and control devices to 140 grid circuits in disadvantaged and tribal communities served by subsidiary Wisconsin Power & Light — a utility in a blue state.

Those devices could allow the utility to quickly find and isolate faults on its grid, cutting power outages in targeted communities by up to 50 percent. They could also support grid-management software to help integrate more renewable and distributed energy, and potentially expand wireless communications access to these remote areas.

Alliant ​“voluntarily withdrew” from the grant award process in April, six months after its grant was terminated by the DOE, Alliant spokesperson Melissa McCarville told Canary Media. The agency has disbursed no funds to the project, according to federal records.

Read Next The secret to a better grid? Electric vehicles. Matt Simon

Alliant is ​“actively pursuing many of the goals that were outlined in the SPARC project,” McCarville wrote in a May email, but as part of a 10-year strategic plan with no set timeline. ​“While the grant did provide valuable funding, it also required a significant investment, and we want to ensure our contributions are properly prioritized,” she wrote.

Still, at least one grant-funded project in a blue state is proceeding despite the absence of DOE funds. 

That’s the case for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which serves the state’s capitol and environs. In 2023, SMUD won a $50 million grant to support a project to deploy 200,000 smart meters and grid devices and underlying software controls to ​“improve grid reliability, resilience, visibility and efficiency,” utility spokesperson Gamaliel Ortiz told Canary Media in an email. 

SMUD has carried out much of that work, which includes close to $100 million in utility spending, and has received almost $33 million in reimbursements from DOE, according to federal records. However, SMUD ​“has not received reimbursement for any costs incurred after the grant was cancelled on October 10, 2025,” Ortiz wrote. ​“We remain committed to this critical work and stay flexible as we evaluate how the loss of grant funding may impact the project timeline.”

In other blue states, some grants have been canceled and others are still under negotiation. In Oregon, utility Portland General Electric has recently learned that the DOE may reinstate a previously terminated $50 million grant to support next-generation ​“grid edge computing” devices, utility spokesperson John Farmer told Canary Media in an August email. That project had received only $1.2 million in DOE funding, according to federal records.

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

The purpose of the project was to integrate batteries, EVs, and community solar into its grid to ​“improve resilience, enable the integration of distributed energy resources, and maximize customer investments in home energy solutions.”

“PGE is evaluating the benefits and risks of reinstating the grant,” Farmer told Canary Media. The utility ​“recognizes that there are inherent risks of additional and changing demands by the DOE as the administration’s priorities change.”

At the same time, PGE remains in discussion with the DOE on a $250 million grant to build a high-voltage transmission line with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Farmer wrote. ​“Without this funding, we would lose the opportunity to offset those costs with external dollars, which could limit how efficiently we can advance needed grid improvements.”

Red state projects are also being held up because the grantee is located in a blue state. Such is the case of the aforementioned $464 million DOE grant for the Joint Targeted Interconnection Queue project to build new transmission lines between the Midcontinent Independent System Operator and Southwest Power Pool, two grid operators spanning nearly a dozen Midwestern states.

The $464 million GRIP grant was meant to bolster $1.3 billion in matching funds from utilities in the region to enable nearly 30 gigawatts of new generation to be built in Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. All but one of those states voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election — but the Minnesota Department of Commerce, the entity awarded the grant, is in a blue state.

Read Next How Ann Arbor, Michigan, is creating its own clean energy utility Carey L. Biron

In May, the Minnesota Department of Commerce announced that the DOE ​“will honor its $464 million grant,” which will ​“unlock more than $1 billion in additional private investment and provide communities across the region with economic and infrastructure benefits.”

A DOE spokesperson told Canary Media in a July email that the DOE has conducted its review of GRIP projects based on a ​“number of criteria,” including whether it has ​“achieved the milestones set forth in the terms of the award,” whether it ​“remains technically and economically feasible,” and whether it ​“continues to effectuate the purpose of the program or the Department’s priorities.”

The spokesperson added that ​“none of the termination decisions were based on political considerations.” That statement is belied by court testimony reported by The New York Times last month, in which a DOE lawyer stated that none of the October grant terminations were ​“based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction or performance-based factor,” and that all but one of them ​“had a recipient location and/​or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing senators.”

During a series of congressional hearings in April, Energy Secretary Chris Wright stated that the DOE’s review of more than 20,000 grants was almost complete, and that more than 80 percent of grantees had received notice that their awards could proceed as is or with modifications.

But an Alumni Network analysis of DOE data shared with Congress showed that the DOE’s review both failed to restore the vast majority of projects caught up in the ​“blue state” termination action in October and failed to address the hundreds of projects that have never been officially terminated but remain unable to secure funds.

The revelation of the DOE’s explicit targeting of blue states for grant termination spurred 39 Senate Democrats to sign a letter to Wright and Vought demanding the immediate restoration of funding for DOE projects terminated in October.

“Once an administration begins punishing Americans for how they vote,” the senators wrote, ​“the threat extends far beyond these projects: no state, community, business, or worker can trust that the federal government will apply the law fairly.” 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump is blocking billions of dollars of grants that would fix the grid on Aug 8, 2026.

Headline News:

• “US Battery Storage Capacity Averaged 70% Growth Over The Last Three Years” • Battery storage capacity in the US grew a lot over the last three years, with an annual average growth rate of 70%. By the end of 2025, the US had battery storage capacity of 43.6 GW operating. Over the first six months of 2026, operators added another 8.3 GW. [CleanTechnica]

Growth in utility batteries (EIA image)

• “Wildfires Keep Raging As Europe Swelters Under Extreme Heat” • Firefighters were battling multiple wildfires in Serbia on Friday, as temperatures remain extremely high. Serbia was not the only country affected, however. Days of extreme heat with temperatures reaching 40°C (104°F) fueled wildfires in several Balkan countries. [Euronews]
• “Rising Temperatures Could Keep More Flights From Taking Off On Time” • Airline passengers know to expect possible flight delays when forecasts call for rough weather. But extreme heat also disrupts flights. On the hottest days, thinner air can make it harder for aircraft to get off the ground safely. Airlines might even remove passengers to save weight. [ABC News]
• “California Produced Over Half Its May Electricity From Solar, A World Record” • California hit a major milestone in May, with over half its electricity coming from the sun. It is believed to be a global first, according to analysis from Ember. And in the first five months of 2026, California made more electricity from solar than from natural gas. [Arizona Daily Sun]
• “New Hampshire Law Empowers Homeowners With ‘Balcony’ Solar Panels” • A state law set to go into effect on January 1, 2027, gives Granite Staters an ability to install so-called “balcony solar” panels. DIY solar power users still need to do their homework to understand the technology, safety requirements, the potential for their home, and possible limits. [NH Business Review]

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

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

United States Restores Some Health Aid

After the sudden elimination of humanitarian assistance last year, the United States is taking steps to restore some global health aid, the New York Times reports.

The latest funds—US$600 million—will go to Gavi an organization helping low-income countries secure essential childhood immunizations. In total, the U.S. government has made nearly US$2 billion in recent pledges to support international organizations tackling hunger and malnutrition, epidemic preparedness, disaster response, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and malaria.  But the amount is still far below what the U.S. spent on foreign assistance in the past.

According to officials who have been a part of State Department conversations, public health threats including the recent Ebola outbreak, are one of the main drivers of this shift. And with the U.S. Agency for International Development gone, the infrastructure no longer exists for the U.S. to handle the humanitarian assistance itself. They must now partner with large international agencies to work at the scale needed. 

The reality of past decisions may be “sinking in,” says Mark A. Green, President of the ONE Campaign. He adds, “The good news is that Secretary Rubio clearly realizes that global health is what we do, and we’re really good at it. That’s why you’re starting to see more money moving.”

Countries Adopt First Global Framework on Sustainable Livestock Management

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Members have approved the first globally negotiated framework to sustainably transform the livestock sector. It marks a “a major achievement for FAO and all livestock stakeholders,” says Thanawat Tiensin, FAO Assistant Director-General, Chief Veterinarian and Director of the Animal Production and Health Division.

The Global Plan of Action for Sustainable Livestock Transformation (GPA) recognizes livestock as a key source of protein and other nutrients as well as the sector’s ties to zoonotic diseases, biodiversity loss, and greenhouse gas emissions. Its 85 recommended actions are designed to help countries promote healthy diets, control animal diseases, encourage climate mitigation and adaptation practices, improve animal welfare, and boost farmers’ livelihoods.

Food Companies Slow Efforts to Improve Public Health

Food corporations are costing countries billions of dollars in healthcare and legal costs by hindering the adoption of public health measures, according to the World Health Organization’s Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) make up half the calories consumed by eaters in countries including the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. 

As governments try to implement programs and initiatives that help people adopt healthier diets, food corporations say they support these actions. But an investigation by The Guardian finds that these same corporations are quietly trying to overturn, weaken, or delay them. 

Between 2010 and 2025, corporations brought 235 lawsuits forward in five countries in response to policies targeting UPFs. Even though the companies lost around three-quarters of these cases, they were still successful in slowing the rollout of legislation and discouraging other countries from pursuing similar policies. 

Tedros recognizes that some food products are being reformulated to be made healthier, but stresses more must be done: “These efforts are welcome, but they are not sufficient on their own to meet the scale of this global health crisis. To contribute meaningfully to the solution, companies should also end litigation and other tactics that strain limited government resources and hinder efforts to protect public health.”

RFK Jr. Launches New Cooking Show

Last week, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced the launch of a new cooking show. Kennedy states that he will travel across the country, connecting with chefs to show families “how to cook delicious, nutritious meals with real ingredients all at affordable prices.”

In the first episode of “The Real Food Show,” available on YouTube, Kennedy and Chef Andrew Gruel prepare salmon cakes with an arugula and white bean salad. 

Each recipe is designed to come out to US$5 or less per portion whenever possible but some experts question whether that’s possible. Registered dietitian Juliana Vocca says, “RFK Jr.’s cooking show may be promising in terms of educating the public on how to cook healthy.” But, she adds, “I’m not sure everyone can afford some of his recipes.”

Food prices in the U.S. are 33 percent higher than they were in 2019, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Tool Helps Women Farmers Unlock Water Security

A new tool known as the Agriculture Water InSecurity (AgWISE) module is tracking the realities of women facing water stress in coastal Bangladesh, helping decision makers develop gender-inclusive water governance and climate policies. 

Women are increasingly impacted by water stress, from increased flooding to erratic rainfall. At the same time, they are taking on larger roles in agriculture. But they remain largely excluded from decisions impacting water management and infrastructure.

AgWISE aims to change this by collecting information to understand the physical and emotional toll of water insecurity. A pilot study with 800 respondents revealed how age, class, land ownership impact a household’s vulnerability. 

By translating everyday experience into actionable evidence, the tool is supplying decision makers with the information they need to create policies. The insights from AgWISE are now being used to shape revisions to Bangladesh’s National Women Development Policy and guide discussions with the Ministry of Finance to integrate the tool into Gender Responsive Budgeting initiatives across climate hotspots. 

CGIAR sees this as an adaptable tool that can be used to support smallholder farming communities around the world.

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

Photo courtesy of Wietse Jongsma, Unsplash

The post Food Tank’s Weekly News Roundup: U.S. Restores Health Aid, Companies Block Action on UPFs, New Tool Boosts Water Security appeared first on Food Tank.

Sepak bola tidak lagi hanya menjadi tontonan selama 90 menit. membuat pertandingan semakin mudah diikuti, termasuk melalui layanan sportsbook yang menyediakan pilihan taruhan pada berbagai kompetisi. Bagi sebagian penggemar, sportsbook menjadi bagian lain dari pengalaman menikmati pertandingan. Namun, daya tarik tersebut tetap perlu diimbangi pemahaman mengenai risiko dan mekanisme permainan.

Mengapa Sportbook Sepak Bola Banyak Diminati?

Popularitas sportsbook sepak bola bertumpu pada satu hal sederhana: pertandingan memiliki banyak aspek yang dapat dianalisis. Kondisi tim, performa pemain, statistik pertemuan, posisi klasemen, hingga perkembangan terkini bisa menjadi bahan pertimbangan.

Data Menjadi Bagian Penting

Pengguna yang memahami sepak bola biasanya tidak sekadar melihat nama besar sebuah klub. Mereka memperhatikan tren permainan, produktivitas gol, catatan kandang dan tandang, serta kemungkinan perubahan susunan pemain.

Pendekatan berbasis data membuat aktivitas tersebut terasa lebih terukur. Meski begitu, statistik tidak pernah mampu menjamin hasil pertandingan. Sepak bola memiliki terlalu banyak variabel yang dapat berubah dalam hitungan menit.

Karena itu, informasi sebaiknya digunakan untuk memahami pertandingan, bukan dianggap sebagai alat untuk memastikan kemenangan.

Pilihan Pasar yang Beragam

Salah satu hal yang membuat sportsbook bola terlihat menarik ialah variasi pasar yang tersedia. Selain memilih pemenang pertandingan, beberapa platform menawarkan pasar seperti jumlah gol, handicap, atau hasil pertandingan tertentu.

Variasi tersebut memberi ruang bagi pengguna untuk menentukan pilihan berdasarkan pertandingan yang ingin mereka ikuti. Akan tetapi, semakin banyak pilihan bukan berarti semakin besar peluang memperoleh keuntungan.

Kenali Aturan Sebelum Bermain

Pemahaman terhadap aturan menjadi dasar penting. Pengguna perlu mengetahui cara kerja odds, ketentuan taruhan, batas transaksi, serta kebijakan pembayaran yang diterapkan sebuah platform.

Aspek keamanan juga tidak boleh dikesampingkan. Platform yang digunakan sebaiknya memiliki informasi operasional yang jelas, ketentuan layanan yang mudah dibaca, serta mekanisme perlindungan akun dan data pengguna.

Kejelasan informasi merupakan salah satu indikator yang lebih masuk akal untuk diperiksa dibanding sekadar janji keuntungan besar.

Menempatkan Hiburan di Atas Ekspektasi

Sportbook sepak bola pada dasarnya tetap merupakan aktivitas berisiko. Hasil pertandingan tidak dapat diprediksi secara pasti, bahkan oleh pengamat yang memiliki pengetahuan luas tentang olahraga tersebut.

Pengelolaan Batas Menjadi Penting

Pengguna perlu menetapkan batas dana dan waktu sejak awal. Dana untuk kebutuhan sehari-hari tidak semestinya digunakan untuk aktivitas taruhan. Begitu pula ketika mengalami kekalahan, keputusan untuk mengejar kerugian dengan taruhan berikutnya justru dapat meningkatkan risiko.

Pada akhirnya, daya tarik sportsbook bukan semata-mata terletak pada kemungkinan hasil akhir. Pengalaman mengikuti pertandingan, membaca statistik, dan memahami dinamika permainan juga menjadi bagian dari ketertarikan tersebut.

Dengan pengetahuan yang memadai, sikap kritis, serta batas yang jelas, penggemar dapat melihat sportsbook sepak bola secara lebih realistis: sebagai aktivitas berisiko yang membutuhkan pertimbangan, bukan jalan pintas untuk memperoleh keuntungan.

By Henry Taylor

On Wednesday, August 5, the Chatham County Board of Commissioners held a special meeting to hear the thoughts and concerns of residents regarding a proposed natural gas pipeline from the utility company Enbridge. More than 300 people who are against the development attended, and 50 of them spoke directly to the board.

The pipeline would stretch 28 miles from Siler City to Moncure and pass through the private property of residents. While Enbridge says it would be used to support the county’s growing population and industry, many residents fear the environmental impacts, the negative effect on property values and that the pipeline would be used to support a proposed data center. Some have already received notice from the company that their property could soon host an easement. Enbridge plans to use eminent domain laws to survey and ultimately create 50-foot-wide easements on private property in order to complete the 12-inch wide pipeline.

“Fossil fuels are not the future, they are truly fossils, dinosaurs of the past,” said Susie Crate, a Professor of Anthropology in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at George Mason University who lives in Bynum. “We need to preserve and protect the precious farmland and heritage that is remaining in our county. And we need to listen to the residents, both long-term and newly arrived, who are speaking out and saying no.”

…

Another speaker at the meeting was Sara Heilman, the clean energy strategist at NC WARN, a nonprofit which advocates for environmental causes across North Carolina. She said while the state is rapidly developing, a natural gas pipeline would cause more harm than good.

“Any investment that North Carolina makes into fossil fuel infrastructure is one that further entrenches us in a fossil fuel future,” said Heilman. “If we do in fact need more power to fuel growing businesses in the state, I think it’s important that we fuel those  businesses with clean energy. Local solar installations, battery installations…these are faster to install, cheaper, much more equitable and less polluting than these proposed fossil fuel projects.”

She said both her organization and the Haw River Assembly are urging the county to ask the state to require an environmental impact statement. They also want the county to ask the state to require individual permitting for any area where the pipeline would cross water sources, rather than allowing Enbridge to use one permit for the whole project. These are ultimately state-level decisions – as Chatham County Commissioner Amanda Robertson shared in a written statement from the board.

Continue reading

The post Chatham County Residents Speak Out Against Proposed Enbridge Gas Pipeline — Chapelboro appeared first on NC WARN.