News Feeds

As negotiations among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico continue over the review and renewal of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), U.S. President Donald Trump has ratcheted up his aggressive tariff threats against Canada and other countries. This follows his usual ‘Art of the Deal’ strategy, which is to create chaos, threaten harm, extract concessions (often marginal), and then claim historic victory.

Two sets of new tariffs have been announced in the last week:

• Under Section 388 of U.S. trade law, Trump announced punitive 50% tariffs against over 500 different products from Canada, supposedly in response to ‘discriminatory’ treatment of U.S.-made autos, liquor, and dairy products. His complaints about discriminatory treatment are laughable, since these so-called ‘irritants’ were counter-measures imposed against Trump’s unilateral escalation of tariffs against Canada last year. The tariffs will come into effect August 19, unless some new trade deal between the two countries is reached by then. The products covered by these tariffs constitute about 4-5% of Canada’s exports to the U.S., and there will be no exemption for products qualifying under the existing CUSMA. This will cause an incremental increase in overall weighted-average tariffs on Canadian products. The regional impact of the tariffs is quite diverse: exports from B.C., Ontario,, and Quebec are hit hardest, while exports from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland & Labrador (concentrated in energy and potash, two products which the U.S. desperately needs). Given U.S. interference in the debate over Alberta separatism, many analysts suspect this regional differentiation is quite deliberate, intended to further inflame tensions between the provinces in how to respond to the U.S. attacks.
• Days later, under Section 301 of U.S. trade law, Trump announced new across-the-board tariffs against some 80 countries, including Canada and all other top U.S. trading partners, supposedly to combat the use of forced labour in production of traded products. The affected countries supposedly have not taken adequate measures to prevent use of products made with forced labour in their own supply chains, thus indirectly facilitating the continuation of forced labour. Coming from the country which has by far the weakest protections for labour standards (including the use of prison labour in for-profit companies), this is not believable. In reality, Trump seized on this measure to justify reimposition of the across-the-board ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs that were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year.

In online commentary, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford highlighted the hypocrisy of the U.S. invoking fake concern over labour freedoms to justify these new Section 301 trade attacks:

“The U.S. uses prison labour (incl. for private firms) more than any other country, hasn’t raised its min. wage ($7.25/hr) since 2009, and violates dozens of international labour standards every day. So Trump’s new Section 301 tariffs have nothing to do with concern for labour. They are a laughably transparent effort to replace the Liberation Day tariffs struck down by his own (stacked ) Supreme Court. They apply to all of the U.S.’s top trading partners–INCLUDING those who signed ‘deals’ with him, and those with whom the U.S. runs trade SURPLUSES. So if misery loves company, Canada should feel better. These new tariffs will hurt other U.S. trading partners as badly as the new Section 338 tariffs he announced this week will hurt Canada. But the biggest loser from this entire clown show is the U.S. Inflation, manufacturing job loss, declining real incomes, and general uncertainty will get worse. His war in the Persian Gulf is still going badly. And his mid-term prospects are grimmer than ever (hence his trying to rekindle trade wars).”

Stanford also appeared on CBC News Network’s show Ian Hanomansing Tonight to discuss the new tariffs, and how Canada should respond. He pointed out that at least 80 of the products targeted by Trump’s new Section 388 tariffs against Canada are items that Canada does not export to the U.S. They are thus ‘tariffs on nothing’, reinforcing that the threats are mostly about the theatre of negotiations more than any genuine economic goals. These ‘tariffs on nothing’ are the equivalent for Canada of the ridiculous ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs that Trump imposed in April 2025 on over 100 countries around the world – including uninhabited Antarctic islands!

Stanford also warned that even if Canada reaches a new trade deal with the U.S., we can have no confidence that he would live up to its terms. After all, many of the so-called ‘deals’ which Trump reached with various countries in the last year have been reneged on, or superseded by his new tariffs (such as the new Section 301 tariffs, which apply to all top trading partners of the U.S. – including those, like Australia, with which the U.S. runs trade surpluses). The CUSMA itself we negotiated by Trump himself during his first term, and lauded by him at the time as the greatest trade deal in history, yet he has violated its terms without hesitation in his second term. And U.S. demands to rewrite the contractual terms of the Gordie Howe Bridge (paid for my Canada under an agreement with the U.S. signed ) is further proof that any ‘deal’ with the U.S. is very fragile.

Given the unreliability of U.S. commitments on any trade issue, therefore, it is all the more important for Canadian negotiators to proceed with caution in negotiations around a revised trade deal. Complaints that Canada has not reached a quick deal with the U.S. are misplaced. Other countries which hoped they could avoid the impacts of Trump’s tariffs by giving up concessions in a ‘deal’ (like the EU, Japan, the UK, or India) have been victimized by subsequent U.S. trade actions as badly (or worse) than Canada. As our Centre argued a year ago (in the research paper, A Bad Deal with Trump is Worse then No Deal at All), Canada’s negotiators need to hold firm on the requirement that U.S. tariffs (especially the targeted sectoral tariffs that are traumatizing key industries like auto, steel, and forestry) are removed as part of any comprehensive deal.

 

The post Trump Hits Canada and Others With Still More Tariffs appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

The Centre for Future Work has co-published new research quantifying the economic and fiscal benefits being generated in Ontario from the new Canada Wide Early Learning and Child Care program.

The expansion of affordable child care services in Ontario resulting from that new program has delivered a substantial economic boost to the province. That boost would have been even stronger, if the provincial government had not lagged behind other provinces in implementing the new national program.

The report finds that Ontario’s GDP in 2024 was $13.6 Billion higher than it would have been without the expansion of child care since 2019.

That growth in GDP generated approximately $2.25 Billion in extra provincial revenue in 2024 alone. This amount slightly exceeded the provincial funding to child care that year, indicating the program effectively pays for itself through increased economic activity.

Job Creation: Over 17,000 new jobs have been created in Ontario’s child care sector since 2019, with total sector compensation expected to exceed $3 Billion in 2026.

Empowering Women in the Workforce: Core-age (25-54) female labour force participation in Ontario increased by two full percentage points between 2019 and 2026—outpacing the national trend. This shift, combined with more women moving from part-time to full-time work, added 81,500 full-time-equivalent workers to the provincial economy.

Improved Job Quality: Average weekly earnings for child care workers rose by 39% since 2019, while average weekly hours increased from 26 to 31.

“Affordable, quality child care services are a vital precondition for economic progress,” says Jim Stanford, author of the report and Director of the Centre for Future Work.

“The data confirm that even Ontario’s partial and inconsistent rollout of the national program has been an economic boon. However, the province is leaving billions of dollars in potential growth on the table by failing to meet its targets for new spaces and lower fees”.

The report comes as the Ford and Carney governments continue to negotiate a new child care agreement.

Despite economic gains, the report highlights significant concerns regarding the Ontario government’s commitment to the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care program. Ontario’s current child care agreement is set to expire in March 2027, and Ontario remains 25% behind its target for creating new spaces for children under six. Furthermore, while the national goal is $10aDay, daily CWELCC fees in Ontario currently average $19 with a cap of $22. The report also criticizes the province’s heavy reliance on for-profit providers—accounting for 44% of full-day spaces—which research associates with lower quality of care and higher staff turnover.

The report was co-published with the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care and the Association of Early Childhood Educators Ontario.

The report concludes with urgent recommendations for the Ontario government, including securing long-term funding through 2031, eliminating “child care deserts,” and fulfilling the $10aDay affordability promise.

“If Ontario fails to fully commit to a universal system, these historic economic gains will be squandered,” added Stanford.

Please see the full report here, and a one-page summary of its key findings.

The post New Research Shows National Cild Care Plan Already Driving Economic Benefits In Ontario appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Anne Jellema is executive director of 350.org and David Hillman is director of Stamp Out Poverty.

This coming week, as record-breaking heat has morphed into killer wildfires, major oil and gas companies will report their second-quarter earnings and are widely expected to announce profits that have doubled or even quadrupled in the last three months. The obscenity of that contradiction is impossible to ignore. 

Oxfam analysis, released as the Q2 earnings season gets underway, shows that the world’s six largest fossil fuel corporations – BP, Chevron, Eni, ExxonMobil, Shell and TotalEnergies – are on course to nearly double their combined net income compared with the first quarter of the year, from $23 billion to around $45 billion.

• Jul 22, 2026 Politics Will new UK PM’s green measures at home cause climate finance pain overseas? Andy Burnham cuts bus fares and household electricity tax in a boost for climate action – some of it paid for by switching the UK’s contribution to a new global forest fund from a grant to a loan Read more
• Jul 21, 2026 Comment Energy transition policymaking must evolve to fit an age of rupture Economic competitiveness, energy security and green industrialisation are driving real-world change – but will this damage our collective mission for a fair green shift? Read more

Their projected full-year profits of $147 billion would exceed everything the six firms made combined over the previous 21 months. Chevron’s profits alone are expected to have quadrupled to $1,200 a second over the last three months; ExxonMobil’s have roughly tripled to $1,800 a second. The juxtaposition of profit on that scale, arriving in the same weeks that communities are counting the cost of deadly heatwaves, forest fires and high energy bills, is increasingly difficult to ignore.

Covering the cost of climate damage

Not long ago, the idea that fossil fuel companies should contribute directly towards the cost of climate damage was dismissed as activist rhetoric. Today it is reflected in legislation, litigation and mainstream policy debate.

Several US states have passed “Climate Superfund” laws requiring major fossil fuel companies to help fund climate adaptation and disaster recovery. Courts are hearing cases seeking compensation for climate harms, while governments across Europe continue to debate the future of windfall taxes on outsized energy profits.

Comment: Major emitting countries knew of climate risks decades earlier than claimed

These developments may appear disconnected, but they reflect a broader shift in public thinking: if societies are paying an ever higher price as our climate warms, should the excessively profitable fossil fuel companies whose products have substantially caused those costs not bear more of the burden of paying for them?

Europe’s heatwaves fuelled by emissions

The events of this summer have only sharpened that question. Europe has experienced repeated heatwaves, with temperatures exceeding 40°C across parts of Spain, Portugal, France and Germany. England recorded its hottest June on record, while wildfires have affected communities across southern Europe and, increasingly, parts of the UK.

According to researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Imperial College London, more than 2,300 heat-related deaths occurred across twelve European cities during one recent ten-day heatwave alone, with climate change estimated to have roughly tripled the number of deaths.

Separate Oxfam analysis of academic data published in Nature goes further, finding that the emissions of just five of these corporations – BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and TotalEnergies – were sufficient to cause around one in four of the heatwaves reported globally between 2000 and 2023: heatwaves that would have been virtually impossible without human-made climate change. 

WHO issues new guidance on heat-health action plans, as El Niño sets in

Nor is Europe unique. There is looming famine in Uganda and India endured prolonged pre-monsoon temperatures above 48°C earlier this year. North America has faced successive heat domes, while smoke from hundreds of Canadian wildfires has periodically produced some of the world’s worst urban air quality, affecting millions of people across Canada and the United States.

Scientists have become increasingly confident in attributing many of these extremes to human-caused climate change. Rapid attribution studies, pioneered over the past decade, now routinely assess how much more likely or more intense individual weather events have become because of greenhouse gas emissions.

‘Polluter pays’ principle in law

Against this backdrop, the “polluter pays” principle is a basic standard of responsible behaviour: if you cause damage, it is on you to pay for it. It is a longstanding concept in environmental law and economics  that those responsible for creating pollution should bear a proportionate share of the costs it imposes on society.

In 2025 a survey found that 81% of people supported increased fossil fuel taxes being directed to help communities most impacted by extreme weather. And it is no longer just a hypothetical prospect.

A mandatory surtax on highly polluting industries is gaining support as part of the UN Convention on International Tax Cooperation, alongside robust measures to prevent jurisdiction-shopping and anchor taxing rights in real economic activity. Governments meeting in New York next month to negotiate the framework convention should seize the moment to get behind both.

Campaigners from Fossil Free London dressed as firefighters while others poured a black liquid resembling oil over their heads, during a protest outside Shell’s global headquarters ahead of its Q2 results announcement, on July 29 2026. (Photo: Fossil Free London) Campaigners from Fossil Free London dressed as firefighters while others poured a black liquid resembling oil over their heads, during a protest outside Shell’s global headquarters ahead of its Q2 results announcement, on July 29 2026. (Photo: Fossil Free London)

The stakes are high because the economics of the energy transition are increasingly clear. Renewable electricity is now among the cheapest forms of new power generation in much of the world. Yet many countries with abundant renewable resources continue to face prohibitively expensive borrowing costs, limiting their ability to invest at the speed required. Meanwhile, massive fossil fuel profits remain only lightly taxed or entirely avoided in many jurisdictions.

Analysis by the Global Alliance for Tax Justice and partners estimated that a 20% surtax on the profits of the world’s 100 largest oil and gas companies could have generated more than US$1 trillion since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015.

Time to design mechanisms for justice

Whether governments choose that particular mechanism is ultimately a political decision. But the analysis illustrates a broader point: claims that public investment in climate resilience or clean energy is unaffordable sit uneasily alongside the scale of profits regularly generated by the fossil fuel industry, profits that, this quarter, are on course to nearly double in three months.

There are legitimate debates about the design of windfall taxes, competitiveness, investment incentives and international coordination. But the wider principle – that those who have benefited most from fossil fuel extraction should pay more towards managing its consequences – is no longer confined to campaign groups.

Extreme heat costing India’s poorest workers 2% of GDP, survey finds

It is increasingly part of mainstream discussions among policymakers, economists and legal scholars and, if well designed, such mechanisms will incentivise investment where it’s needed and strengthen international coordination.

This summer has made that conversation harder to avoid. The question is no longer whether fossil fuel giants should pay for the enormous economic and human costs being suffered by communities every day due to our rapidly warming climate. It is when will governments step up and make them pay, for the damage already done and to build the resilience we need going forward?

The post The case for making polluters pay has moved into the mainstream appeared first on Climate Home News.

Sunset at the Gualala River on July 21, 2026
Photo courtesy of Michael Coustier

Insects are critically important to our world: They bolster the global food supply through pollination, recycle organic waste, support food webs that sustain countless species, and more. Yet they are...

In a special crossover, Green and Red co-host Prof. Bob Buzzanco joins Jason Myles and Pascal Robert on THIS IS REVOLUTION podcast to talk about the Black Political Class and…

Location: In-office position, in Helena, Montana.  Scope: The Administrative and Development Associate will handle general office tasks and administrative duties, such as organizing schedules and events, entering data, maintaining office equipment, providing basic tech support, and other general operations activities.   Reports to: Chief Financial Officer (CFO)  Compensation: MEIC offers compensation commensurate with skills and …

The post Now Hiring: Administrative and Development Associate appeared first on Montana Environmental Information Center - MEIC.

In April, when the Trump administration first announced it wanted to open the Greater Chaco Canyon region in New Mexico to oil and gas drilling, we asked you to speak up. Following an initial scoping period that generated over 100,000 comments in support of maintaining broad protections for this remarkable place, the Department of the Interior has doubled down on its plans and released a formal Environmental Assessment with a brief 14-day public comment period.

Please take action today and help defend the Greater Chaco Region

After decades of advocacy by Tribal Nations and conservationists, federal protections in the greater Chaco region were finally put in place in 2023 with the establishment of a 10-mile buffer zone shielding the Chaco Culture National Historical Park from new oil and gas leasing. The administration is now considering two options, neither of which is acceptable: revoking protections entirely or shrinking the buffer to just 5 miles.

In either scenario, thousands of cultural sites would be exposed to drilling. Although only 15-20% of the area has been surveyed, archaeologists estimate that as many as 12,000 cultural sites lie within the areas the Trump administration plans to open to leasing and exploitation. Indigenous communities already living with the health impacts of over 37,000 nearby wells would face even more industrial development at their doorstep. 

Comments are due this Wednesday, July 29. We encourage you to make your voice heard by using the advocacy action from our friends at New Mexico Wild; they also have a web page where you can learn more about the threats facing Chaco Canyon.

Click here to take action now!

The post Another Chance to Speak Up for Greater Chaco Canyon appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Union Jack, which has interests at Wressle and West Newton, has recommended shareholders vote against a proposal to remove the board.

The company has called a requistioned general meeting for next month (August).

This follows a resolution by two investors holding more than 14% of voting rights to remove the three current directors: David Bramhill, Joseph O’Farrell and Zac Phillips.

The investors, described by Union Jack as requisitioners, are former board members, Craig Howie and John Americanos. They have also tabled a resolution for their reappointment as directors.

In a statement today, Union Jack said:

“The Company will today post a circular to shareholders convening the Requistioned GM [general meeting] and outlining the unanimous recommendation by the Company’s board to directors to vote against all the resolutions to be proposed at the Requisitioned GM.

The statement added:

“The Board believes that the Requisition is misguided, ill-timed and destined to lead to a destruction in value for the Company’s shareholders.”

The requisition notice was dated 7 July 2026, less than a week after a takeover offer by Reabold Resources.

Union Jack’s statement continued:

“by proposing the Resolutions just six days after the announcement of the all share offer by Reabold Resources plc, the Requisitioners are simply being opportunistic by seeking to replace the Board during the Offer process without providing the Company’s shareholders with the opportunity to realise a control premium.”

Union Jack also announced it had reconvened the previously postponed annual general meeting. This was adjourned on the day it was planned, 26 June 2026, because of the Reabold takeover offer. The AGM will now be held after the requistioned meeting.

The requisitioned meeting will be at 11am on 24 August 2026 at the offices of Keystone Law, 48 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JF.

The reconvened AGM will be held on the same date and place, at 12 noon, or as soon as the requisitioned meeting has ended.

Farm Service Agency County committees are a critical component of the day-to-day operations of USDA/FSA and allow grassroots input and local administration of federal farm programs.

The post 2026 FSA County Committee Elections appeared first on RAFI.

As we write this, deadly wildfires are actively burning across Spain, France and many other countries, with tens of thousands of people evacuated and firefighters risking their lives on the frontlines. Our thoughts are with everyone who has lost a loved one, a home, or a community to these fires, and with every firefighter, emergency worker and volunteer out there right now.

When the world burns

A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire that burns through forests, grasslands, or brush, usually started by a spark — lightning, a downed power line, a discarded cigarette, an agricultural burn gone wrong — that finds fuel dry enough and weather hot, dry and windy enough to let it spread. Fire has always been part of many ecosystems. Some landscapes even depend on regular, low-intensity burns to stay healthy. The problem isn’t that fires happen. The problem is how much bigger, faster and more destructive they’ve become.

Data from just this year confirms the trend. Between January and April 2026 alone, wildfires burned more than 150 million hectares of land worldwide — about 20% above the previous record set in 2020, and roughly double the same period in 2024. The fires weren’t confined to one region: they broke out across continents, fed by the same mix of heat, drought, wind and human ignition, all amplified by a warming climate. Forecasters also expect a rapid swing toward El Niño conditions through the rest of the year, a pattern that has historically lined up with severe fire activity in Australia, Indonesia, the Amazon and parts of North America.

This summer, the crisis has moved to Europe, and it is still unfolding. A punishing run of heatwaves has left the Mediterranean tinder-dry, and fires have already killed at least 16 civilians and three firefighters, and forced more than 320,000 people from their homes across Spain and France alone — with more people being evacuated by the day. Both France and Spain have seen the number of wildfires more than double compared to last year: France has already passed 115,000 hectares burned this year, a national record, with the Gironde fire alone consuming around 42,000 hectares — one of the largest fires the country has seen since the Second World War — while Spain is currently fighting one of its largest wildfires on record near Madrid, which had burned more than 111,000 acres as of late July and remains active. The European Union has activated its largest firefighting mobilization ever, with firefighters and aircraft pre-positioned across a dozen countries for a season that is far from over.

The same heat has driven fires across North Africa: in Tunisia, over 900 fires were recorded within 72 hours, and in Algeria, more than 100 people were hospitalised.

Wildfires have spread across Canada too, with smoke reaching large parts of the US. Toronto’s air quality ranked among the world’s worst, and hospitals reported an increase in ER visits related to the fires.

More than just flames

The most obvious damage a wildfire does is the most visible one: homes destroyed, forests reduced to ash, people killed trying to flee or fighting the fire itself. But wildfires kill in a second, quieter way, one that reaches people who never see a flame: smoke.

Wildfire smoke is loaded with fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5, small enough to slip past the body’s defences, enter the bloodstream, and trigger inflammation throughout the body. Globally, wildfire smoke particles are estimated to cause 677,745 deaths every year, with almost 39% of them children under age 5, and the Lancet Countdown 2025 report puts the toll from fine particles at over 100,000 premature deaths a year worldwide, with the burden unevenly distributed between continents. Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia are consistently the hardest-hit regions. The smoke from a single fire season can carry a global cost: Canada’s 2023 wildfires alone were linked to an estimated 82,100 premature deaths worldwide, with smoke drifting across North America and Europe. In the United States, researchers estimate wildfire smoke could contribute to as many as 24,100 deaths every year, and a separate study found that wildfire smoke in California was responsible for over 50,000 deaths between 2008 and 2018, with an economic toll above $430 billion. Scientists have found that almost no system in the body is spared: smoke exposure has been linked to heart disease, stroke, dementia, worsened asthma, complications in pregnancy and even harm to the brain.

Smoke doesn’t respect borders, either. It can travel thousands of miles from its source, blanketing cities that are nowhere near an active fire in a toxic haze. That means the health burden of wildfires falls on far more people than the ones who lose their homes, and it falls hardest on children, older people, outdoor workers and anyone with an existing respiratory or heart condition.

The fire weather triangle

Fires need three things to spread: fuel, oxygen and heat, plus the wind to push them along. Climate change is altering nearly every one of those conditions. Hotter temperatures dry out vegetation faster, turning forests and grasslands into ready-made fuel. Longer, more intense droughts strip moisture from soil and plants months before fire season even starts. Changing rain patterns mean wet seasons that once kept landscapes green are arriving later, or not at all. And in many regions, the same warming atmosphere that’s supercharging heatwaves is also strengthening the winds that carry embers and flames for miles ahead of a fire’s front.

Scientists call this combination “fire weather,” and it’s expanding. Fire seasons are starting earlier and ending later across the Northern Hemisphere, giving landscapes less time to recover between blazes. None of this means every fire is caused by climate change. It means the climate crisis is making the conditions for extreme fires far more likely, far more often, in far more places.

The fossil footprint

Wildfires are becoming more frequent, more intense and harder to contain. Satellite data show that the frequency of the most extreme wildfire events more than doubled worldwide between 2003 and 2023, with the six most extreme years on record all falling within the last seven. A separate global assessment found that the extent of forest fires has grown by around 40% over the past two decades, while the intensity of the world’s most extreme fires has roughly doubled over the same period. This pattern is linked to a hotter, drier atmosphere: warmer temperatures dry out vegetation, lengthen fire seasons and create the conditions extreme fires need to spread. And that hotter atmosphere has a direct, identifiable cause.

Burning fossil fuels — coal, oil and gas — causes that increase in carbon (CO2) which drives global heating. No other source can account for it: not volcanoes, not clouds, not solar cycles. Methane is the same story: fossil fuel extraction and use cause around 35% of human-caused methane emissions, with agriculture and waste accounting for the rest. The emissions of these both gases is clearly driven by fossil fuels: this is no longer a matter of  debate.

The coal, oil and gas industries have massively profited from an economic model that forces people to use fossil fuels, and they continue to profit from it. Reports have proven that they knew the damage they were causing since at least the 1970s, and that, instead of abandoning their business model, they actively worked to disinform the public. They still do. We keep burning fossil fuels because they choose (and they chose then) to use their power for that purpose.

While we may not be able to stop wildfires completely, we can reduce their severity and frequency by stopping the fossil fuel industry. We must demand our governments to switch to cleaner energy, and cut the financial flows that allow this industry to still exist. If you haven’t yet, join us in these demands!

More from the Fossil Fuels Did This series:

• Fossil Fuels Did This: Heatwaves
• Fossil Fuels Did This: Tropical Cyclones
• Fossil Fuels Did This: Floods
• Fossil Fuels Did This: Drought

The post Fossil Fuels Did This: Wildfires appeared first on 350.

This is a re-post from The Climate Brink

A graph has been making the rounds on social media showing the average number of days per weather station above 95F, 100F, and 105F across the contiguous US since 1895. It comes from CFACT analyst Chris Martz, drawing on raw data from NOAA’s Global Historical Climatology Network daily dataset (GHCNd), and it shows the 1930s towering over everything since. The implication is that extreme heat in the US is nothing new, and that all the recent fuss about record temperatures is overblown.

It is a compelling figure. The 1930s Dust Bowl really was an extraordinary period of extreme heat in the US, and no amount of correction for changes in measurement techniques over time makes it go away. But the graph is also a case study in why you cannot naively count threshold exceedances in raw daily station data and call it a climate record. Its results rest on two well-documented thermometer problems that artificially depress modern hot day counts, plus a station network that happens to be oversampled where the Dust Bowl happened.

Reproducing the viral chart

To start with, let’s reproduce the figure properly. Rather than averaging whatever stations happen to be reporting in a given year (the station network grew from a few hundred stations in 1895 to many thousands today, with big shifts in where they are located), I selected the 543 GHCNd stations in the contiguous US with long, near-continuous maximum temperature records over the full 1895-2025 period,1 gridded them to 2x2 degree cells, and computed an area-weighted national average.

Average number of days per year at or above 95°F, 100°F, and 105°F over the contiguous US, 1895–2025, from 543 long-record GHCN-Daily stations (raw, unadjusted TMAX), averaged on a 2°×2° grid with cos(latitude) area weighting.

Here we see the same basic story as the viral version: a huge spike in the 1930s (1936 alone averaged 33 days at or above 95F across these stations), elevated values through the mid-1950s, and nothing since that comes close. So the Martz figure is not fabricated, and its shape is not an artifact of the changing station network. To be fair to its author, counting hot days in raw data really does produce this picture.

The problem is what “raw” means here.

Two thermometer problems, both pointing the same way

Raw sounds virtuous, like unfiltered honesty. But the US cooperative observer network has changed in two important ways over the past century, and both changes bias hot day counts downward in recent decades relative to earlier ones.

The first is time of observation bias. Volunteer observers read and reset their max/min thermometers once a day. In the early 20th century most did so in the late afternoon, near the hottest part of the day. An afternoon reset means a very hot afternoon can get counted twice: once for the day it happened, and again the next day if the following afternoon is cooler, since the thermometer still holds yesterday’s peak. Over the 20th century the network gradually shifted to morning observations (better for measuring precipitation), which does not double count heat. Vose et al (2003) documented how this shift alone imparts a spurious cooling trend of a few tenths of a degree in US records, and the double counting directly inflates hot day counts at afternoon-observing stations.

The second is the thermometer switch. In the mid-1980s NOAA replaced liquid-in-glass thermometers in wooden Cotton Region Shelters with electronic maximum-minimum temperature sensors (MMTS) at most cooperative stations. Quayle et al (1991) showed the new sensors read maximum temperatures around 0.4C (0.7F) cooler than the old shelters. This produced a one-time step change at thousands of stations that landed right at the start of the modern warming era. When your threshold is a hard cutoff like 95F, a step down of nearly half a degree C removes a lot of days.

Homogenization algorithms (like NOAA’s pairwise method, Menne and Williams 2009, or the Berkeley Earth approach, Rohde et al 2013) detect and correct these breakpoints by comparing each station to its neighbors. Our 2016 paper validated these adjustments against the pristine, purpose-built US Climate Reference Network and found they perform well. While NOAA does not have daily homogenized data (they only provide monthly homogenized data), Berkeley Earth does. So let’s compare the raw hot day count to the same metric computed from Berkeley Earth’s homogenized daily maximum temperature fields.

Days per year at or above 95°F over the contiguous US. Top: raw GHCN-Daily data from 543 long-record stations, gridded and area-weighted. Bottom: Berkeley Earth homogenized daily TMAX (1°×1°, area-weighted over CONUS), with the dashed line showing the same calculation restricted to the grid cells containing the long-record stations. Absolute values differ because gridded fields smooth out local extremes; the shapes are the meaningful comparison.

The two datasets agree that the 1930s were exceptional. Where they disagree is the modern era: in the homogenized data, recent decades rival the Dust Bowl years CONUS-wide, with 2011 (16.1 days) actually edging out 1936 (14.0 days) as the biggest year in the Berkeley Earth series.

We can make the comparison cleaner by putting each series relative to its own 1951-1980 average:

Days ≥95°F, 11-year running means, with each series shown relative to its own 1951–1980 average. Red: raw GHCN-Daily long-record stations. Blue solid: Berkeley Earth homogenized daily TMAX over the full CONUS. Blue dashed: Berkeley Earth restricted to the grid cells sampled by the long-record station network.

The raw and homogenized series track each other closely for the first 85 years, through the Dust Bowl peak and the cool 1960s and 70s. Then, right around 1980 (just when the MMTS transition began), they split. The homogenized data rises to around 1.4 times its mid-century baseline while the raw data stays flat at roughly 1.0. The raw data does not exaggerate the 1930s, but rather erases the last 40 years of increases in extreme heat.

The dashed and solid blue lines in the figure are also worth a closer look. The dashed line averages the Berkeley Earth data over only the 130 grid cells where our long-record stations actually sit; comparing it to the raw series is the fair like-for-like test, since the places are the same and data adjustments are the only difference. The solid line averages over the whole country, and the gap between the two exposes a sampling problem rather than a data problem. Century-old stations cluster in the Midwest and East, which is precisely where the 1930s heat was centered and where extreme daytime heat has increased the least since. Averaged over the long-lived station locations, even in homogenized data, puts the 1930s roughly 45% above the last two decades. If we average over the full contiguous US, however, that gap shrinks to about 10%.

Locations of long-lived weather stations used in the reproducing the viral Martz figure. Note that these tend to oversample the Midwest region where dust bowl temperature extremes were most pronounced. A Dust Bowl story, not a national one

There is a second, subtler issue with interpreting the viral graph: geography. Long-record stations are heavily concentrated in the Midwest and East (only 116 of our 543, around a fifth, sit west of 100W), which happens to be exactly where the 1930s heat was centered. Let’s break the country into NOAA’s nine US climate regions and look at each one separately, using the spatially complete Berkeley Earth data.

Days per year at or above 95°F for each of NOAA’s nine US climate regions, 1895–2023, from Berkeley Earth homogenized gridded daily TMAX (1°×1°), area-weighted within each region. Thin lines are annual values; bold lines are 11-year running means. Note that the y-axis scale differs by region.

The Dust Bowl turns out to be a story about three regions. In the Upper Midwest the 1930s averaged around 15 times as many 95F days as the last two decades (3.4 vs 0.2 per year), in the Northern Rockies and Plains around 9 times (2.8 vs 0.3), and in the Ohio Valley around 4 times (8.7 vs 2.1), with 1936 the record year in all three.

Everywhere else the present rivals or beats the past: the South is essentially tied (22.4 days in the 1930s vs 22.7 over 2000-2023, with 2011 the biggest year in the record), while the Southeast (14.7 vs 11.1 days), Southwest (4.9 vs 3.9), and West (4.6 vs 3.6) all see more 95F days now than in the 1930s, with the two western regions peaking in 2020. (The remaining two regions, the Northeast and Northwest, average less than one 95F day per year throughout the record, too few for meaningful comparisons.)

The mid-century spike in that average comes almost entirely from three regions in the middle of the country. This makes physical sense: the Dust Bowl heat was tied to a specific regional catastrophe, a multi-year drought amplified by human-induced land degradation (Cook et al 2009), with bare, desiccated soils driving daytime temperatures to levels those same fields have not approached since. A record set during an ecological disaster in one part of the country is not evidence that the whole country, much less the planet, was hotter. The national chart is really being driven by a distinct regional anomaly.2

Meanwhile, the thermometers all agree it is warming

Finally, it is worth stepping back from the hottest afternoons of the year, which are a noisy, bias-sensitive sliver of the temperature record, and looking at what US temperatures as a whole are doing. The figure below shows annual average maximum, minimum, and mean temperatures for the contiguous US from NOAA’s homogenized nClimDiv dataset.

Contiguous US annual average daily maximum (TMax), minimum (TMin), and mean (TAvg) temperature anomalies relative to 1901–2000, from NOAA nClimDiv, 1895–2025. Thin lines are annual values; bold lines are 11-year running means.

All three are unambiguous. Since 1970, maximum temperatures have warmed at 0.52F per decade, minimums at 0.51F per decade, and the average at 0.51F per decade (all p < 0.0001), with the last decade roughly 2F above the 20th century baseline. The 1930s show up here too, but as a modest bump in maximum temperatures far below present (as the dust bowl event was largely limited to summer TMax temperatures, with a much smaller effect on the remainder of the year). Extreme daytime heat in summer is one of the places where the US warming signal is weakest (a real and interesting scientific result, related in part to agricultural intensification and irrigation in the Midwest (Mueller et al 2016), but it is not representative of the climate system as a whole.

Zooming all the way out

One last piece of context. The contiguous US covers less than 2% of the Earth’s surface, and as we saw above, even within the US the Dust Bowl signal is regional. So what does the very same chart look like for the planet as a whole? The figure below reproduces the design of the viral graph (days at or above 95F, 100F, and 105F) using the Berkeley Earth daily data over global land. To avoid mixing climate changes with changes in the locations we measure (global station coverage grew from under 40% of land area in the 1890s to essentially complete today), I restrict the average to the grid cells with continuous century-long records, covering 42% of global land.3

Average number of days per year at or above 95°F, 100°F, and 105°F across global land, 1895–2023, from Berkeley Earth homogenized gridded daily TMAX (1°×1°), area-weighted by cos(latitude) and land fraction. Restricted to grid cells with complete data in at least 90% of years over 1895–2023 (42% of global land area), so that changing station coverage does not affect the trend.

Globally there is no 1930s spike at all: 1936, the year that towers over the US record, comes in at 15.1 days at or above 95F, less than a day above the surrounding years. The Dust Bowl, extraordinary as it was in Kansas, barely registers when averaged over the world’s land. Instead, hot days hold roughly steady until around 1980 and then climb: days at or above 95F are up around 70% between the early 20th century (1895-1924) and the last decade (12.8 to 22.1 per year), days at or above 100F have more than doubled (3.0 to 7.5), and days at or above 105F have nearly quintupled (0.3 to 1.6). The hotter the threshold, the faster the rise, which is exactly what you expect when a whole temperature distribution shifts upward. All ten of the warmest years by the 95F metric have occurred since 1998, and the six most recent years in the series (2018-2023) are all among them.

The US Midwest is one of the few places on Earth where the hottest days of the mid-20th century still stand; picking it as your yardstick for global warming is, to put it charitably, a choice.

So what are the takeaways here?

First, the Dust Bowl was real, and it remains the benchmark for multi-year extreme daytime heat in the central US, in adjusted and unadjusted data alike. Anyone claiming the 1930s heat is purely an artifact of bad data is simply wrong.

Second, it was a regional phenomenon. Break the country into NOAA’s nine climate regions and the 1930s is only exceptional in only three of them (the Upper Midwest, the Northern Rockies and Plains, and the Ohio Valley, at roughly 4 to 15 times recent levels). The four regions where hot days are the most common (the South, Southeast, Southwest, and West) all match or exceed the Dust Bowl today, with record years of 2011 and 2020, not 1936.

Third, raw daily data is the wrong tool for this question. Time of observation changes and the 1980s switch to MMTS sensors both suppress modern hot day counts relative to the past, and the raw and homogenized series diverge almost exactly when the instrument transition happened. In homogenized data, recent decades rival the 1930s even averaged nationally.

Fourth, hot days above a fixed threshold are a narrow and noisy way to look at the data. The overall US warming trend (around 0.5F per decade since 1970 in max, min, and mean temperatures) is robust in every dataset, raw or adjusted, satellite or surface. And globally, days above 95F have been climbing steadily for a century, with no Dust Bowl bump at all: the central US is one of the few spots on the planet where the mid-20th century still holds the record for extreme daytime heat.

The viral chart is built from real measurements, and the heat it shows was real too. But it takes a regional catastrophe, fails to account for changes in instruments and observation times, and presents the result as a national climate verdict. Accounting for the thermometers and the geography, and the US looks a lot like the rest of the planet: the hottest days on record are increasingly the ones we are living through now.

I’ve included a more detailed writeup of the methods and code to reproduce this analysis on my GitHub here.

1 Specifically: stations whose GHCNd TMAX record spans at least 1900 through 2024, keeping station-years where at least 80% of April-October days have a valid, quality-controlled observation, and keeping stations valid in at least 85% of years over 1895-2025. Hot day counts are averaged within 2°×2° grid cells and combined with cos(latitude) area weighting over the 130 cells with near-complete records. The results are insensitive to these choices: stricter completeness screens shrink the network but leave the series essentially unchanged (details and robustness checks are available in the methods writeup on my GitHub). A map of the station network is also available in the repo; note that coverage is much denser east of 100W, a point that becomes important later in the post.

2 This also explains most of the difference between the dashed and solid blue lines in the “days ≥95°F, 11-year running means” figure. The long-record station network oversamples the region where the 1930s were most extreme and undersamples the South and West where recent warming has added the most 95F days.

3 This matters a lot. Computed naively over whatever area has data each year, the global days above 95F triple from ~12 to ~37 days per year, but much of that rise is an artifact of hot regions (the Sahara, the tropics, interior Australia) entering the dataset over time. On the fixed network the increase is a still-substantial ~75% (from ~13 to ~22 days per year). The fixed-coverage region is disproportionately Northern Hemisphere midlatitude land, so this series should be read as “hot days where we have century-long records” rather than a true global land average.

Liz Slooten couldn’t believe how many dead dolphins she was seeing. It was 1984, and the New Zealand-based zoology student was just beginning to study the smallest and rarest dolphins in the world. Now corpses were washing ashore in alarming numbers. Most were found entangled in fishing nets. For others, the cause of death was a mystery.

“We started asking the question, what the hell’s going on here?” Slooten remembers.

More than 40 years later, she’s still asking uncomfortable questions.

Recently retired from the University of Otago, Slooten is a leading expert on the endangered Hector’s dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori). As of 2024, there are only 15,000 of these miniature dolphins left. A closely related subspecies, Māui’s dolphin (C. h. maui), teeters on the brink of extinction with fewer than 50 remaining.

An endangered male Hector’s dolphin, around five feet long, jumps out of the water off the coast of South Island in New Zealand. Credit: Steve Dawson, New Zealand Whale and Dolphin Trust

There has long been debate whether Māui and Hector are separate species, but a 2002 study presented genetic analysis confirming that Māui is a subspecies of Hector’s with a bigger skull.

Māui live in the shallow water along the northwest coast of New Zealand’s North Island, at least 100 miles away from the home waters of Hector’s dolphins, in the shallows off South Island.

Both mammals still face the threat of entanglement from set nets and trawling, as fishing has grown into a multibillion-dollar industry in New Zealand, according to a recent report from the International Whaling Commission.

Established in 1946, the International Whaling Commission recommends conservation measures for both whale and dolphin populations. Its scientific committee also conducts population estimates on animals, including Māui dolphins, who are listed as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Just this March a dead juvenile Māui dolphin appeared along the shore of Port Waikato, a rural coastal town on the North Island of New Zealand just over 90 kilometers (56 miles) from Auckland. The remains were so decomposed that officials were unable to determine a cause of death and were initially unclear on whether it was a Hector or, as DNA later confirmed, a Māui.

“It was heartbreaking and really concerning,” says Christine Rose, the founder and chair of Māui and Hector’s Dolphin Defenders, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting both the country’s endemic dolphins. “We feel it in a visceral sense every time we get a report of a dolphin dying or being killed. Those small populations, with Māui in particular, it’s particularly tragic.”

Both dolphin subspecies, known for their fins shaped like Mickey Mouse ears, are protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act passed in 1978. This New Zealand law works to preserve all animals in the country’s waters, prohibiting people from harming or killing them without a permit.

On-Board Monitoring

In October 2023, as Māui and Hector’s populations reached dire levels, New Zealand turned to alternative conservation methods by introducing electronic monitoring or cameras on board to watch for dolphins caught in nets.

That bycatch appears to be increasing. In the first year, fishermen reported 12 Hector’s dolphins found dead in trawling nets, later confirmed through camera footage. This is a stark increase: In the 30 years before cameras were put on board, onboard observers reported only two Hector’s dolphins in trawling nets and a single Māui caught in 2012.

The new figure may even be an undercount. Officials often rely on reports from fishermen before reviewing camera footage, and many fishermen do not report when a dolphin is caught, so bycatch numbers may be a conservative estimate, according to the International Whaling Commission report.

While fishermen are required to report when they find a dolphin in their net, they are exempt from “accidental capture.” They only face penalties if they are caught lying to officials in their report. Last March officials charged one South Island fisherman $5,000 after camera footage documented him cutting his nets and allowing a dead Hector’s dolphin to sink to the ocean floor. Initially, he told officials he had not caught any protected species.

This occurred years after the government declined to follow repeated advice from the IUCN and a request from the IWC to expand the no-net zone as far as 20 miles offshore and ban trawling in all dolphin habitats.

Despite calls to ban trawling in dolphin habitat, another former commercial fisherman, Nathan Hines, says, “As a fisherman, there’s never really any hate towards the dolphins themselves.” Hines started his fishing career by working on a wide range of fishing trawlers. During the past 10 years, he owned his own fishing vessel, where he was fishing the “heart of Hector dolphins’ habitat.”

“They’re always a highlight of my day,” Hines says. Lately, he’s been using dolphin acoustic deterrent devices, which are attached to fishing gear, releasing sounds and alerting marine mammals in hopes of reducing bycatch.

There are no requirements to use these devices in New Zealand, though.

Preserving the Subspecies

To try and push the government for stricter conservation efforts, a new generation of researchers is turning to genetic analysis, seeking better strategies for both dolphins. In a 2025 study, an Otago-based team reported it had sequenced the genomes of both dolphins and found no evidence they are interbreeding — an alarming conclusion for the much smaller Māui population.

“We’ve known that the Māui’s dolphin [has] been in trouble for many years,” says study co-author Sebastián Alvarez-Costes, a doctoral student at Otago. “Now we have evidence that they are completely separated. The authorities need the most evidence that you can give them about the populations to then act and protect them.”

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Kaila McCreesh (@k.mccreature)

Māui’s dolphins split from Hector’s as global sea levels began to rise after the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago, when the passage between New Zealand’s two main islands became too deep for the dolphins to comfortably traverse, according to the study.

Despite the extensive genetic evidence that Māui’s and Hectors are separate subspecies, Shane Jones, a member of parliament and the New Zealand Fisheries Minister, continues to deny Māui’s existence, a claim he first stated in 2020.

“There is no Māui’s dolphins,” Jones reiterated on NewstalkZB, a New Zealand-based radio network in September 2025.

That same month Jones implemented an overnight three-month blanket ban on set-net fishing along the Otago coastline on the Southern half of the South Island to reduce the amount of bycatch of another endangered species also endemic to the country, the yellow-eyed penguin, known as hoiho. He then extended the ban an additional nine months.

On the radio show, Jones said the issue of Māui’s conservation is different, because “there is no such thing,” despite evidence showing otherwise. Jones did not respond to The Revelator’s request to comment.

Māui’s dolphins are slightly larger than Hectors and 40% less genetically diverse due to their isolation and small numbers, the study found. This makes them highly susceptible to the risks of inbreeding, including reproductive failure and diseases like toxoplasmosis. The International Whaling Commission report did find that the threat of toxoplasmosis, which killed two Māui’s dolphins in 2013, is declining.

The population is now so small, though, that “every single dolphin mortality is significant,” says Chris Parsons, an independent dolphin researcher who was not involved in the study.

The tragedies go beyond the dolphins themselves. They are regarded by the Indigenous Māori people as Taonga, a word meaning “treasure” that the Māori apply to anything that carries cultural significance.

“The Tribes have responsibilities of looking after the dolphins,” says Alana Alexander, a dolphin researcher and study author who has Tribal lineage and says this influences her work. “It heightens my sense of obligations to making sure that what I do is both useful for the dolphins but also for the Tribes.”

To try and push for better efforts beyond the conservation efforts that got their start in 1986 — largely based on research by Slooten, who was just starting her doctoral studies at the time — Rose’s group is now taking matters internationally. This January Māui and Hector’s Dolphin Defenders filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade to push the U.S. government to enforce the Marine Mammal Protection Act and ban the importation of seafood from any foreign fishery that harms or kills marine mammals in excess of U.S. standards.

Protecting these dolphins is a multigenerational effort. Back when Slooten first started her studies, her team autopsied 61 dolphins between 1984 and 1986. Ten were found on beaches with no known cause of death, and 51 dolphins were caught in fishing nets. Interviews with fishers confirmed the problem.

“It became immediately clear: There was no way that that was sustainable,” Slooten says.

The rules that Slooten originally helped instill have helped somewhat, slowing population decline, and the remaining Māui dolphins are younger, a median age of eight years old as of 2021, a hopeful sign of population recovery, according to Rochelle Constantine, another study author. But overall population levels haven’t rebounded.

Part of the problem is that these dolphins, which researchers thought primarily stayed within seven miles of the coast, now stray as far as 20 miles offshore in some areas — beyond the government-determined protected areas — where they are threatened by all sorts of fishing-related activities, including gill, set and trawling nets, as well as seismic testing, mining, and tourism.

Future of Conservation

For Māui’s dolphins the situation has never been more dire. Even standard efforts like captive breeding may be too risky to implement, as the stress of capturing the animals can sometimes kill them, as it did during a tragic incident with critically endangered vaquita dolphins, according to Slooten.

Researchers say we need to stop using fishing nets in Hector’s and Māui’s habitat. If we do not, the ultimate risk is extinction, which could have cascading effects on food webs in coastal waters.

“You [are] basically removing one of the most important predators,” Alvarez-Costes says. “You are losing history and a species that is sacred for the local community.”

Hines says he thinks we could develop better deterrent devices. “I believe with the right research and the right money put into it, it wouldn’t be hard to get that interactions with Hector’s dolphins down to zero, and then everyone wins.”

It’s unclear if the government will move forward with these recommendations. A few months ago, Slooten and other researchers met and discussed the dolphins’ risk assessment. With their findings, they could implement new conservation efforts, but the next International Whaling Commission meeting isn’t until 2028, two years from now.

Māui dolphins do not have time to wait.

“They could go extinct at any time. They’re just treading water,” Constantine says.

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator:

The Te Awa Tupua Act: An Inspiration for Communities to Take Responsibility for Their Ecosystems

The post Another Māui Dolphin Dies as Scientists Search Their DNA for a Path to Survival appeared first on The Revelator.

Opinion By KAY MATTHEWS

The article in the July 25 New Mexican, “U.S. defense bill would accelerate plutonium pit production, with possible increase at LANL,” states that “All three New Mexico representatives voted against the defense bill, which has become a flashpoint over the war in Iran. Only six Democrats in the House voted for the bill. Members of New Mexico’s congressional delegation didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment Friday about the plutonium pit provision.”

The New Mexico delegation voted against the bill because it ignores the resolution they voted for to stop funding the Iran War and because the bill included Section 219 that combines or “integrates” the Israeli military with the U.S. military, compromising U.S. sovereignty. The bill awards $1.5 trillion to the Defense Department, a 60 percent increase. Kudos for them for the negative vote.

But they wouldn’t respond to the question about the plutonium pit production because, to my knowledge, no New Mexico congressional member has ever questioned, or god forbid, opposed pit production at LANL. I often refer to Pete Domenici, New Mexico Senator from 1973 to 2009, as LANL’s biggest cheerleader. Apparently, his nickname was “Saint Pete” among staff and reporters.  He chaired the Senate Budget Committee and the Senate Energy Committee and made sure funding made its consistent way to LANL.

But Domenici served before the decision to change LANL from a research lab to a pit production lab. That credit goes to the entire New Mexico delegation back in 2017— Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich and Representatives Michelle Lujan Grisham and Ben Ray Lujan. When the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) was doing an initial assessment about how to restart the production of pits after the closure of Rocky Flats, the only pit production facility, the agency initially gave LANL a negative assessment. Udall, Heinrich, and Lujan wrote a letter to NNSA claiming the assessment was flawed and that LANL was the appropriate lab for pit production. Lujan, on the Armed Services Committee, put language in the defense bill that LANL would produce 30 pits per year, with surge capacity beyond that. When NNSA ultimately decided on a two-site plan of LANL and Savannah River, in South Carolina, all the of delegation, including Lujan Grisham, objected to NNSA halting the long-planned modular expansion of LANL’s facilities and urged it to abandon the Savannah River option in favor of investing fully in LANL’s modular facilities as originally endorsed by both Congress and the Nuclear Weapons Council.

The only time I know that a New Mexico congress person spoke up about LANL’s weapon mission was when Tom Udall, then a New Mexico representative running for Senator Pete Domenici’s seat, was criticized for voting for a reduction in weapons-related funding for LANL. Seventy percent of LANL’s budget was then spent on “core nuclear weapons research and production programs.” Udall called for diversified mission at the Lab that included “renewable” energy programs, for which the House had recently allocated an additional $638 million to the energy budget for renewable energy research and production at LANL. But then Tom got elected Senator and joined the chorus of unlimited funding for weapon production at LANL.

In the March 2025 issue of La Jicarita, Suzie Schwartz interrogated the February LANL release of its Economic Impact Study, where it painted a rosy picture of all its economic development initiatives and programs that help stimulate business growth and create jobs. Ironically, the results of a previous study by the University of New Mexico Bureau of Business and Economic Research, commissioned by LANL to show the lab’s economic impact on northern New Mexico, contains data demonstrating the Lab had a negative fiscal impact on Santa Fe, Taos, and especially Rio Arriba County. LANL requested those statistics be removed from the final study.

Both National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews of projects that will determine the extent of  pit production, the Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for LANL and the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for both LANL and Savannah River, have received overwhelming opposition from New Mexicans. At all the public hearings for both projects, those who commented were opposed to new pit production and the escalating nuclear arms race that the Trump administration is pursuing. When will the New Mexico congressional delegation, all Democrats, stand up in support of their constituents? The rationale of LANL as the economic engine of New Mexico is a lie and the congressional delegation’s support of endless funding for LANL is revelatory of its complicity in that lie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bureau of Land Management has approved an AI data center on national public land that was originally approved for a solar energy project, without conducting a new review or taking public comment on the switch. The project is believed to be the first data center approved on BLM-managed public lands. However, the project is relying on prior approval for not a data center but a solar energy project, swapping out an energy-generating project for one that would consume more energy than the entire neighboring community of Boulder City, Nevada.

Townsite Solar 2, LLC, the project developer, originally received approval in 2023 to build a solar energy and battery storage project on a BLM-managed parcel within the city limits of Boulder City. Earlier this year, TS2 amended its application to develop a data center instead, which the BLM approved without seeking public comment on the new proposal. “We’ve had no conversations, there’s been no chance for the community or for the city to provide any input to the federal government,” said Boulder City spokesperson Lisa LaPlante. “This feels so unprecedented for us to have a project placed in our city without the chance to weigh in.”

The BLM justified its approval by claiming that a solar project and a data center are “substantially the same,” noting similarities in acreage, perimeter, construction time, and the size and shape of the facilities. Relying on this rationale, the BLM used a Determination of NEPA Adequacy to transfer the 2023 analysis and approval to the amended project. “It’s an extraordinary and liberal interpretation of existing law and regulations,” said Mike Ford, a former high-level official at the BLM.

According to reporting by Heatmap, the bait-and-switch approval may have had some help from the Bernhardt Group, the lobbying firm led by former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt. Lobbyists from the Bernhardt Group were hired by Arevon, one of Townsite Solar’s financial backers, around the time when Townsite Solar 2 was preparing to shift from a solar project to a data center, though Arevon denies hiring lobbyists for the Townsite Solar project specifically.

“This was a bait and switch,” said Olivia Tanager, director of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club. “If we allow this precedent to stand, the fear is that this could promulgate throughout not just Nevada, but all over the country in the interest of expediting data centers.”

Quick hits Pueblo leaders, New Mexico lawmakers speak out to protect Chaco Canyon

High Country News | Source NM

This desert oasis is a biological wonderland. Trump’s border wall threatens to destroy it

The Guardian

The U.S. has acknowledged Bears Ears and Grand Staircase as sacred for over a century, but keeps stripping away protections

The Conversation

Trump admin eyes massive coal reserves under federal lands

Inside Climate News

Lawmakers propose blocking controversial quarry expansion that threatens hot springs

Colorado Sun | Denver Post | Grand Junction Daily Sentinel | Westword

As climate lawsuits advance, the oil industry enters ‘panic mode’

Grist

Colorado River reservoirs hit record lows as Trump admin threatens major cuts

CBS News | USA Today

Cheatgrass is invading the best sagebrush left in the West. How can Wyoming hold the line?

WyoFile

Quote of the day

The question before us is simple: What kind of legacy will we leave? Will we choose short-term extraction, or will we choose to protect one of the most important Indigenous cultural landscapes in North America, a place whose meaning reaches far beyond any single administration?”

—Cochiti Pueblo Governor Phillip Quintana, High Country News

Picture This

@usinterior
High in the Olympic Mountains, the alpine tarns of Upper Royal Basin reflect some of the most rugged scenery at @Olympic_nps.
Jagged peaks and clear water = not a bad place to stop and stare for a while.
Photo by Hwei Ling Ng @thenomadicartist Featured image: Aerial view of Boulder City, Nevada, and nearby Lake Mead, Doc Searls/CC BY 2.0

The post Trump admin swaps out solar project for data center on BLM land appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Blue foods can be complex; consumers can easily be overwhelmed. With so many species, preparation methods, and marketing claims. Because of size, scale, and accessibility, the ocean remains a largely invisible part of the food system for many consumers. Not everyone can walk down to the dock and watch a local fisherman coming in with the catch of the day.

And yet, the importance of blue foods for people and the planet is simple: we must navigate complexities by educating consumers while encouraging science-based fishery management and transparent verification along the seafood supply chain.

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) recent State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) 2026 report paints a complex but encouraging picture on the state of our wild capture fisheries. While overfishing persists as a serious global challenge—with the share of fish stocks classified as biologically sustainable declining slightly to 62.4 percent—the report also demonstrates that we already have a solution: sustainable management of fisheries.

The SOFIA report shows more than one-third of the global population gets at least one-fifth of their animal protein from blue foods. The report indicates that global trade in aquatic animal products reached $184 billion, rivaling the value of all other animal proteins combined.

Simultaneously, new data from the world’s largest survey of more than 20,500 seafood consumers revealed increased awareness and optimism about the state of the world’s oceans. The survey, done in partnership with the Marine Stewardship Council and GlobeScan, details environmental and seafood awareness and understanding from consumers in 23 countries.

The data show that consumers appear to increasingly understand the challenges and opportunities facing oceans and fisheries. While 58 percent of Americans correctly recognize that overfishing is more widespread today than it was 50 years ago, 17 percent believe fish populations can never recover from overfishing, and another 25 percent remain unsure.

The reality is that fish populations can and do recover when fisheries are managed sustainably. Around the world, there are countless examples of depleted fisheries rebuilding through science-based catch limits, strong monitoring programs, and collaboration among fishers, scientists, governments, and environmental organizations.

Seafood consumers have increased confidence that positive change is possible; 51 percent believe our oceans can be saved from irreparable damage over the next 20 years, up from 41 percent in 2024.

And consumers in the United States increasingly want to be part of that future. The survey found that 58 percent of U.S. seafood consumers say purchasing products with ecolabels aligns with their personal values. Participants report taking actions such as reducing plastic use and seeking seafood they believe to be sustainably sourced. Shoppers are increasingly noticing ecolabeled products, rising from 28 percent in 2024 to 40 percent in 2026. Awareness of the MSC blue fish label similarly increased from 28 percent to 35 percent.

As consumers navigate increasingly complex and crowded seafood aisles, independent certification and ecolabels help provide confidence that sustainability claims have been verified by a credible third party. 60 percent of seafood consumers say ecolabels increase their trust in brands, while sustainably sourced seafood continues to rank among the most important purchase considerations, following quality, health, and price.

And consumers recognize their choices can make a difference. Market demand for responsibly sourced seafood sends important signals throughout the supply chain, rewarding fisheries that invest in sustainable practices and encouraging broader adoption of effective management.

At the same time, concern about ocean health remains high, with nearly nine in ten U.S. seafood consumers worrying about the state of the world’s oceans. And that concern is warranted. Overfishing persists in many regions, and the SOFIA report highlights significant disparities between areas with strong management systems and those where management capacity remains limited.

The challenges facing our oceans are real, but so are the solutions. Science-based fisheries management, independent verification, robust monitoring, and collaborative action have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to rebuild fish populations and support thriving fishing communities.

Awareness and optimism are essential ingredients for the long-term work of protecting oceans and ensuring that sustainable seafood remains part of our future. The survey data represents a win for fisheries and businesses and all partners prioritizing healthy oceans and sustainable seafood for future generations. This awareness and optimism can buoy us, knowing we are making a difference, and sending positive market signals to fisheries. After all, a rising tide lifts all boats.

The benefits of blue foods are simple: they provide sustainable protein to a growing global population, foster global food security, and secure and provide livelihoods, among many other benefits. The onus is on us to produce and use these resources sustainably to ensure we have them for the future.

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 Geoff Trodd, Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | Blue Foods Already Feed the World: In the U.S., Awareness and Optimism Grow appeared first on Food Tank.

In a summer of record heat waves, France and Spain are now facing wildfires that have forced the evacuations of more than 300,000 people. Scientists say that a sharp swing from wet to dry weather, a signature of climate change, helped fuel the blazes.

Read more on E360 →

People have three weeks to comment on the controversial Rosebank development, Britan’s biggest undeveloped oil and gas field.

A public consultation by the government runs until 17 August 2026.

The Rosebank field, 80 miles north west of Shetland, was granted a licence by the Conservatives. But this was ruled unlawful by Scottish courts in January 2025.

That decision followed the landmark Finch Ruling at the Supreme Court, which established that environmental impact assessment for fossil fuel projects must account for the emissions produced when extracted fuel was burned.

These emissions, known as scope 3 or downstream, were included in a resubmitted document for Rosebank in 2025.

The new energy secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, is expected to decide whether to grant consent for the field after the consultation. Her decision will be based on the revised environmental impact assessment.

Rosebank is estimated to hold more than 480 million barrels of oil. Some estimates suggest it would release emissions totalling 254 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent over its lifetime. This is said to be equivalent to nearly 70% of the UK’s entire annual emissions in 2024. This would make it incompatible with the UK’s legally-binding climate commitments, campaigners have said.

Opponents have argued that the field would not lower UK energy bills or improve energy security because 90% of reserves are oil destined for international markets. They have stated that the field’s small gas reserves could reduce UK gas import dependency by just 1%, if none were exported.

At the weekend, the Guardian reported that production at Rosebank, if approved, could be delayed after equipment from a rig was accidentally dropped into the North Sea in April 2026.

The field operator, Adura, now expects production would be delayed from the end of this year to sometime in 2027, the Guardian reported.

The Rosebank development is in two phases.

• Phase 1 involves drilling four production and three water injection wells.
• Phase 2, dependent on results of phase 1, involves drilling a further 3 production and 2 water injection wells.

Wells would be connected by new flowlines to a redeployed Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessel (FPSO). Gas would be exported from the FPSO to a new gas export pipeline connecting to the existing West of Shetland Pipeline Systems. Oil will be offloaded using tankers.

Consultation details

Official notices of the consultation were published in Shetland Times, Aberdeen Press & Journal and the Daily Telegraph earlier this month.

All representations should quote reference number ES/2022/001 and be made to:

• OPRED@Energysecurity.gov.uk
• Business Support Team Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment & Decommissioning Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, AB1 Building, Crimon Place, Aberdeen AB10 1BJ

The energy secretary’s decision will be published here (see link).

Rosebank is currently owned by Adura (a joint enterprise of Shell and Equinor 80%) and Ithaca Energy (20%). Energy Voice reported last week that Adura has called for voluntary redundancies among staff at its Aberdeen headquarters. It is not known how many job cuts are planned.

Links to government notices and official documents on Rosebank

Guide to Rosebank by the campaign organisation, Uplift

• A public consultation on the Jackdaw gas field, also owned by Adura, is due to finish on 10 August 2026. The Guardian reported earlier this month that, if approved, Jackdaw would create just 27 direct full-time jobs.