News Feeds

I liberated a lobster and got crushed Channel Comment brendan 28th April 2026 Teaser Media

Leave it to this still-repugnant regime to instantly twist a Keystone Cops security breach - not a so-distant-it-was-on-another-floor "assassination attempt" - to their own skeevy purposes: blaming Democrats for "this dark moment," demanding a $400 million gold ballroom for "national security," burnishing the Brave Dear Leader myth of an addled old man who barely registered it, and what gun control issue? Meet the Epstein class: When shots (again) ring out, they get a friggin' ballroom, kids get thoughts and prayers.

The latest "clown show on steroids" - and grim proof of Trump's relentless corrosion of political discourse - unfolded Saturday night at an evidently sloppily unsecured Washington Hilton, where in 1981 John Hinckley shot Reagan, who survived. The already contentious White House Correspondents' Dinner drew the black-tied, preening, profit-driven remnants of a craven legacy media - and a growing right-wing slopaganda brigade - both willing to pretend it was normal to party with an abusive enemy of free speech who's spent years attacking, belittling, suing, bullying and name-calling them as an "enemy of the people" for seeking to do their jobs and tell the truth, thus turning the evening into a queasy "case study in institutional self-abasement."

Even before the vitriolic and incendiary Trump - who led a Jan. 6 riot, urged fans to “knock the crap out” of protesters, bade Proud Boys "stand by," mused "the 2nd Amendment people" could do something" about his opponents, warned of "a bloodbath" if he was defeated, killed schoolgirls and threatened genocide in an illegal war he doesn't know how to end - let loose with what he dubbed "the most inappropriate speech ever made" (which Press Barbie called "shots fired") - before all that came a few muffled thuds of a dud of an assassination attempt, on the floor above, by a suspect who ran past a security checkpoint before being tackled. One shot was fired - it's unclear by whom - and one cop was wounded through a bulletproof vest; he is expected to be okay.

On the floor below, meanwhile, "absolute chaos" reigned. Panicked women in gowns and men in tuxedos hit the floor, flipping over chairs, lunging under tables and sometimes holding phone cameras aloft as a horde of Secret Service agents swarmed the ballroom, leaping on stage, yelling "Get down! Get down!", running in all directions at once, weapons poised and flailing. A crowd of security guys whisked J.D. Vance out of his chair first; then another cluster went for Trump, dazed and stumbling, guys holding him up on both sides. Video later showed alleged FBI head Kash Patel crouching absurdly behind a chair and RFK Jr. heroically leaving his wife behind; an idiotic "USA!" chant that "absolutely nobody wanted to hear" flared briefly before dying a well-earned death.

The suspect was identified as Cole Tomas Allen, 31, a Torrance, CA. mechanical engineer, game developer and teacher with a Masters degree in computer science; on Facebook, he also called himself "an amateur entomologist, casual composter and occasional artist." When he tried to breach the metal detectors above the ballroom, he was armed with a shotgun - loaded with buckshot not slugs "to minimize casualties" - a handgun and several knives. He was charged with two counts: Using a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on a federal officer with a dangerous weapon. Earlier, he'd posted a lucid, relatively mild missive from "a Friendly Federal Assassin" to explain his actions; it began with, "Hello everybody!" and apologies to "everyone whose trust I abused."

He apologized to his parents "for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for 'Most Wanted,'" to his colleagues and students, to "everyone abused or murdered before this or after, any "person raped in a detention camp, fisherman executed without trial, schoolkid blown up, child starved... I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes." As a Christian, he noted, "Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is rather complicity in the oppressor’s crimes." He blasted the "insane" incompetence of the lax security he encountered, said he felt "awful" about what he thought he had to do, and expressed "rage thinking about everything this administration has done...Stay in school, kids."

Despite its placid tone, MAGA world promptly dubbed it "a manifesto" of "anti-Christian bile" from "a depraved crazy person." Press Barbie blasted the "demonization (and) hateful rhetoric directed at Trump...Nobody has faced more bullets and violence." Similarly, nobody in the cult wants to admit they're adamantly declining to acknowledge years of vicious Trump rhetoric that have shaped "an angry, polarized nation," or the role of rabid MAGA responses, say, to AOC noting she's glad everyone was safe - "There is a special place in hell for demons like you," "Go fuck right off with the other Commie losers" - or the "vibes for security" so lax - no photo ID, attendee list, checkpoint to enter the ballroom, basic competence - even attendees and the would-be assassin both denounced it.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Despite faux-thoughtful deadlines - "Stunned Washington Faces Searching Questions About Political Violence" - Trump entirely missed the point, rambling and deflecting in his clueless, bonkers, self-serving way. He said he wanted the dinner to go ahead: The show must go on. He (weirdly) crooned about the "very strong, really attractive law enforcement." He babbled he'd "studied assassinations...The most impactful people, they're the ones they go after. Like Abraham Lincoln. I hate to say I’m honored by that, but I’ve done a lot." He called the presidency "a dangerous profession," worse than bullfighting. He declared the "manifesto" “strongly anti-Christian," and the perp "a very sick person...a lone wolf whack job," though he's an incomparably more dangerous one.

Mostly, relentlessly, he shilled for his ballroom: "This event would never have happened...The conditions that took place, I didn't wanna say it but this is why we have to have it...We need levels of security probably like no one's ever seen...This is exactly the reason our great Military, Secret Service, Law Enforcement and every President for the last 150 years have been demanding a large, safe, secure Ballroom be built," which is bullshit 'cause only he's demanding it. Still, miraculously, within six minutes of the lone shot fired, MAGA pivoted, lockstep, online to the same skeevy, amidst-a-war-and-ravaged-economy-how-is-this-a-thing refrain: This is why Trump needs the ballroom. Also, the lawsuit against it "puts the lives of the President, his family, and his staff at grave risk."

As if the whole corrupt ballroom shtick, "the definition of a non-sequitur,” wasn't grotesque enough, there was the right's virtual ignoring of any recognition of guns as a relevant part of the deadly equation - this, in a country with more guns than people, with 120 mass shootings since the start of the year, with over 3,800 people dead and over 6,500 wounded, with 100 people shot every day, with Trump having dismantled gun safety and mental health measures, with as yet no accountability for Renee Good and Alex Pretti being gunned down in the street, with the awful, prevailing, willfully blind, "gun violence for thee but not for me" admonishment that, "Every few months, Americans are asked to resume their banquet, and pretend a shooting didn’t just happen."

Which is what we regularly ask of our kids. "Last night, powerful people hid," wrote Digital Drumbeat. "Journalists, lobbyists, and politicians dove under tables, pressed against walls, and ran for exits..Secret Service moved. Protocols activated. And within hours, everyone went home. Welcome to the reality American children, teachers, and parents live every single day. Except they do not get the protocols. They do not get the security detail. And not all of them get to go home." It was not "crouching in a locked, darkened classroom for three hours while your phone dies and you cannot call your mother," or a teacher saying "to be very, very quiet," which is "a Tuesday in America." What we can't imagine: "Wanting an entire secure ballroom for one man, and not wanting gun reform for every child."

Other obscenities abound: The billions in ballroom funding from corporations, most of which are seeking billions more in federal contracts; the latest grift of secretly awarding the ballroom-building company a no-bid $17.4 million contract to repair two fountains in Lafayette Park that Biden estimated would cost $3.3 million; the "brazen inversion of reality" that is the MAGA claim criticism of Trump's hateful, violent rhetoric is what somehow incites more violence, when he's done more than anyone in recent history to normalize it; the righteous indignation - Fire Jimmy Kimmel (again) for joking Melania looks like an expectant widow! - when anyone notes the gross hypocrisy. Color America skeptical: "Fuck him, he can only go to the well so many times."

Also, we're still gonna need those Epstein files. See Trump lash out at CBS' Norah O'Donnell when she quotes Cole Allen's "pedophile, rapist, and traitor": "I was waiting for you to read that (because) you're horrible people..I'm not a rapist...I'm not a pedophile... You're disgraceful." Will Bunch: "This is our country now." The Rude Pundit: "We live in the goddamn United States. We're never far away from someone shooting a gun. It's what we are debased enough to call 'freedom.'" And in the two days before the shooting, Trump made a racist attack against Hakeem Jeffries, called for Hillary and Obama to be arrested, boasted of more war crimes. In brief, "We don't have to pretend that a motherfucker isn't a motherfucker just because someone wanted to kill him."

Update: It seems CBS cut out more paranoid babbling in his "I'm not a rapist" interview. His brain is oatmeal and grievance.

NORAH O’DONNELL: What did security tell you about what may have been his motives?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, see, they– the part– the reason you have people like that is you have people doing No Kings. I’m not a king. What I am– if I was a king I wouldn’t be dealing with you. No, I’m not a king. I– I get– I– I don’t laugh. I don’t– I– I see these No Kings, which are funded just like the Southern Law was– funded– you saw all that? Southern Law is financing the KKK and lots of other radical, terrible groups.

OverviewThe ability to deliver on British Columbia’s (B.C.’s) clean economy ambitions will depend on whether workforce systems can be better aligned across training, labour market planning and economic policy. The global shift to a clean energy...

In a part two episode with journalist and author Will Potter, we discuss his recent book “Little Red Barns: Hiding the Truth From Farm to Fable.” We talk about the…

Registered nurses members of Minnesota Nurses Association and National Nurses United, will gather in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Thursday, April 30 for a rally and community event to press lawmakers for long-term, sustainable financial solutions before the legislative session ends to keep Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC), a vital Level I trauma center, open.

Image: A giant Shell logo in a hospital operating theatre receiving a “Canadian shale reserves” transplant, while executives cheer, climate protesters bang on the glass, and a dusty file marked “2004 RESERVES SCANDAL” sits ominously on the surgeon’s trolley.

Shell’s latest mega-deal for Canada’s ARC Resources is being sold as strategic brilliance. In plain English: the oil giant has gone shopping for fresh reserves — which is rather awkward for a company still haunted by the 2004 reserves scandal that helped blow up the old Royal Dutch/Shell structure PART ONE: THE DEEP DIVE

Shell has announced a blockbuster deal to acquire Canadian producer ARC Resources in a transaction valued at approximately US$16.4 billion including debt, instantly adding about 370,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day of production and around 2 billion barrels of reserves to the company’s portfolio. The acquisition is centred on the Montney formation in British Columbia and Alberta — one of North America’s major shale gas and liquids plays.

So there it is: another glorious chapter in the energy transition, apparently written with a cheque book, a gas field, and a very large shovel.

Shell’s own messaging presents the deal as a strategic accelerator — more production, more reserves, more Canada, more LNG optionality, more “value.” The transaction is expected to lift Shell’s production growth outlook from roughly 1% to 4% annually through 2030, according to contemporary reporting on the deal.

In other words: Shell’s energy transition has once again transitioned beautifully into buying more hydrocarbons.

The deal is also notable because it is Shell’s biggest acquisition since its mammoth purchase of BG Group in 2015 — the move that transformed Shell into a global LNG superpower. Now, with ARC, Shell appears to be doubling down on the raw upstream material needed to feed that gas-heavy future. ARC’s assets sit neatly alongside Shell’s Canadian ambitions, including its stake in LNG Canada.

And the timing? Chef’s kiss.

Shell has spent years polishing its public image with carefully measured transition language, lower-carbon vocabulary, and glossy annual-report prose about resilience, competitiveness and the energy people “need.” Its 2025 Annual Report states that oil and gas will remain a significant part of the global energy system for decades — a sentence that now reads less like analysis and more like a shopping list.

Because when Shell says “resilience,” it often seems to mean: reserves.

When Shell says “energy security,” it often seems to mean: more drilling, preferably somewhere politically convenient.

And when Shell says “lower emissions,” the cynical observer might ask: lower than what — a coal fire in a tyre dump?

THE CANADIAN RESERVE RESCUE MISSION

BNN Bloomberg’s framing — that the Canadian deal is helping rescue Shell’s dwindling oil reserves — gets right to the uncomfortable heart of the story. Shell is not merely buying a company. It is buying reserve life, production growth and strategic breathing space.

That matters because the oil business is brutally simple beneath the corporate poetry: if you produce barrels, you must replace barrels. If you fail to replace barrels, investors start asking rude questions. If investors start asking rude questions, executives discover a sudden passion for “portfolio high-grading,” “disciplined capital allocation,” and other phrases that sound like they were bred in a consultancy laboratory.

ARC offers Shell a convenient answer: a large, established Canadian producer with gas and liquids output, substantial Montney acreage, and the ability to bulk up Shell’s resource base quickly. Reports describe the deal as a mix of cash and Shell shares, with ARC shareholders receiving a premium and Shell assuming debt and lease obligations.

To Shell’s defenders, this is hard-headed industrial logic. To critics, it is another reminder that the company’s climate transition story keeps being escorted off stage by the fossil-fuel expansion story.

The company can say gas is cleaner than coal. It can say LNG supports energy security. It can say Canadian assets are lower-risk than some geopolitically volatile alternatives. But the climate arithmetic remains stubbornly unimpressed by press releases. More long-lived fossil assets mean more production capacity. More production capacity means more dependence on future hydrocarbon demand. And that means Shell is still positioning itself not as a company preparing to shrink fossil fuels, but as a company preparing to sell them more efficiently.

The slogan could almost write itself:

Shell: net zero in the brochure, net more reserves on the balance sheet.

THE GHOST OF 2004: WHEN RESERVES BLEW UP THE HOUSE

There is a deliciously grim historical echo here.

Twenty-two years ago, Shell was engulfed by one of the most damaging corporate governance scandals in its history: the 2004 reserves scandal. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said Royal Dutch Petroleum and The “Shell” Transport and Trading Company overstated 4.47 billion barrels of previously reported proved hydrocarbon reserves. The SEC also said Shell overstated proved reserves in its 2002 Form 20-F by about 23% and later agreed to pay a $120 million penalty, while also settling a UK market-abuse action with the Financial Services Authority.

That scandal helped destroy confidence in the old dual-headed Anglo-Dutch structure — the century-old partnership between Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Transport and Trading. In 2005, the old arrangement was replaced by a unified company, Royal Dutch Shell plc. To say the scandal “killed” the Anglo-Dutch partnership is fair as commentary, provided the point is understood historically: it was not the only corporate reform pressure, but it was a central crisis that helped precipitate the end of the old structure.

And now, in 2026, here we are again: Shell making global headlines over reserves.

Different facts, different circumstances, no suggestion of the same misconduct — but the symbolism is too rich to ignore. In 2004, reserves were the scandal. In 2026, reserves are the shopping list.

Back then, the problem was that Shell had claimed too much. Today, the problem is that Shell apparently wants more.

The old scandal was about whether the cupboard was as full as Shell said it was. The new deal is about Shell racing to refill the cupboard before the market notices the shelves looking thin.

FOLLOW THE MONEY: THE BIG INVESTORS WATCHING THE SHOW

This is not happening in a vacuum. Shell remains a darling of major institutional ownership. Recent ownership data lists BlackRock as a major holder with around 8.27%, Vanguard with around 5.47%, FMR/Fidelity with around 3.46%, and Norway-linked holdings including the Government Pension Fund Global and Norges Bank Investment Management also appearing among significant holders.

These institutions are not casual spectators. They are the financial scaffolding around the modern fossil-fuel giant.

They can issue stewardship reports. They can vote on climate resolutions. They can talk about responsible investment until the PDF server needs a lie down. But when Shell spends billions expanding its upstream resource base, the question is brutally simple:

Are the world’s biggest asset managers funding the transition — or merely holding the ladder while Big Oil climbs into another gas basin?

Shell will argue, no doubt, that this is exactly what disciplined capital allocation looks like: buy quality assets, grow cash flow, support shareholder returns, and feed the LNG machine. Investors who like dividends and buybacks may find that music soothing.

But for anyone expecting Shell to wind down its fossil-fuel empire at anything like the pace demanded by climate science, the ARC deal looks less like a transition and more like a corporate vow renewal with hydrocarbons.

Something borrowed, something blue, something drilled, something due.

ENVIRONMENTAL REALITY CHECK

The Montney formation is not a wind farm with better branding. It is a major shale gas and liquids region. Development involves drilling, infrastructure, water use, methane-risk management, land disturbance and long-term fossil-fuel production. Shell and ARC may emphasise operational efficiency and lower emissions intensity, but “lower intensity” does not mean “no impact.”

That distinction matters. A company can reduce emissions per barrel while still increasing total fossil-fuel output. It can polish the carbon intensity of each unit while expanding the number of units. That is not a paradox. It is the oldest trick in the hydrocarbon hymnbook: make each barrel look cleaner while selling more barrels.

Shell’s defenders will say gas has a role in displacing coal and backing up renewables. Critics will counter that new gas expansion risks locking in infrastructure and delaying the phase-down of fossil fuels. Both arguments now collide in this Canadian deal — and Shell, unsurprisingly, has chosen the one with the larger reserve base.

The corporate message is: “We are helping meet global energy demand.”

The satirical translation is: “We found another giant fossil-fuel pantry and brought a trolley.”

THE WIDER CONTEXT: SHELL’S STRATEGY IN 2026

The deal lands in a period when energy security, geopolitical instability and LNG demand are again being used as industrial permission slips for fossil-fuel expansion. Shell has repeatedly positioned LNG as central to its future. ARC’s gas-heavy production base fits neatly into that strategy.

It also fits the broader pattern under CEO Wael Sawan: tighter spending, stronger shareholder distributions, selective retreat from weaker assets, and unapologetic focus on returns. In public-relations language, that is discipline. In climate-politics language, it is Shell stepping further away from the idea that a supermajor should voluntarily become much smaller in oil and gas.

This is the heart of the contradiction.

Shell wants to be seen as modern, pragmatic and transition-aware. But its biggest strategic moves keep telling the same old story: hydrocarbons remain the core business, the profit engine and the boardroom comfort blanket.

The company has not abandoned the future. It has simply decided the future still contains a very profitable amount of gas.

CONCLUSION: THE RESERVES MACHINE ROLLS ON

Shell’s ARC deal is not a minor portfolio tweak. It is a multibillion-dollar declaration of intent.

It says Shell wants more production.

It says Shell wants more reserves.

It says Shell sees Canada’s Montney formation as a major pillar of its next chapter.

And it says, with all the subtlety of a drilling rig at a climate summit, that the fossil-fuel giant still knows exactly where its bread is buttered — and where its barrels are buried.

For critics, the irony is almost operatic. The company once shaken to its foundations by a reserves scandal that helped bring down a century-old Anglo-Dutch corporate structure is now making headlines for buying a vast new reserves cushion.

Shell has changed its structure. It has changed its branding. It has changed its slogans. It has changed its registered headquarters.

But the old obsession remains intact:

Find the reserves. Book the reserves. Replace the reserves. Defend the reserves.

And if anyone asks whether this is really compatible with a climate-safe future?

Expect a very expensive answer, delivered in fluent corporate.

PART TWO: SPOOF SHELL PR/SPIN SECTION Shell Announces Bold New Climate Strategy: Buying More Gas, But Politely

Shell today proudly confirmed that its commitment to the energy transition remains absolutely unwavering, which is why it has decided to spend billions acquiring a major Canadian shale producer.

A spokesperson who definitely did not say “reserves panic” explained that the acquisition demonstrates Shell’s deep commitment to “lower-carbon energy,” by which the company means fossil fuels with better adjectives.

“This transaction strengthens our ability to provide the energy the world needs,” the imaginary spokesperson added, while standing in front of a giant screen reading: MORE BARRELS, BUT MAKE IT RESPONSIBLE.

Asked whether buying a major gas producer might appear inconsistent with climate-transition rhetoric, Shell’s fictional Department of Strategic Vocabulary issued the following clarification:

“Not at all. This is not fossil-fuel expansion. This is future-facing molecule optimisation.”

The department then asked whether everyone could please stop mentioning 2004.

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION

ClimateBot3000:
Shell says the deal supports the transition. Translation: the transition from having fewer reserves to having more reserves.

InvestorBot:
Dividends detected. Ethical discomfort temporarily suspended.

HistoryBot:
Reminder: Shell and reserves have met before. It was not a rom-com.

GreenwashDetector:
Phrase “energy security” located. Deploying scepticism.

MontneyBot:
Congratulations Canada, you have been promoted to Shell’s next strategic fossil-fuel heartland.

GovernanceBot:
2004 called. It says: “Try not to make reserves awkward again.”

PRBot:
This is not drilling. This is “responsible subsurface value unlocking.”

RealityBot:
Still gas. Still oil. Still Shell.

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary based on publicly available news reports, regulatory material and company information. It is satirical in tone but intended to remain grounded in verifiable facts. It is not financial advice, investment advice, legal advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Shell Buys Itself a Canadian Reserve Transplant: $16.4 Billion Says “Energy Transition,” But the Drill Bit Says Otherwise was first posted on April 27, 2026 at 10:22 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

The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Price field office is proposing to authorize aircraft takeoffs and landings in the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness by designating the unauthorized Keg Knoll backcountry airstrip as open for aircraft use. The airstrip is located on the west side of Labyrinth Canyon and north of Canyonlands National Park.

Please tell the BLM to protect the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness area by not authorizing aircraft use at the Keg Knoll backcountry airstrip.

The Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness was designated by Congress in 2019. While the Wilderness Act gives the BLM some discretion to allow (or prohibit) continued use at airstrips that were legally established prior to wilderness designation, it does not allow the agency to authorize aircraft use when the airstrip was not legally open prior to the wilderness designation. That’s the situation here.

The Price office’s 2008 management plan—the land use plan in effect when the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness was established—specifically lists five “existing and currently used backcountry airstrips” for continued noncommercial and limited commercial aviation use; Keg Knoll is not on the list. And for good reason, as it was unused and reclaiming at the time. The agency’s 1999 wilderness inventory of Labyrinth Canyon confirms as much, noting “abandoned airstrips” in the Keg Knoll area. The airstrip was also never identified on the legislative map that accompanied the 2019 bill designating the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness.

Click here to tell the BLM that aircraft use at Keg Knoll is unnecessary and unlawful.

Near the airstrip site in the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness. © Ray Bloxham/SUWA

Backcountry airstrips and aircraft use conflict with the reasons most people seek out wilderness in the first place: solitude, natural soundscapes, wildlife, and an experience of remoteness that often can’t be found on other public lands. What’s more, there are plenty of backcountry airstrips throughout Utah that don’t impact designated wilderness areas (only around 4% of BLM land in Utah is designated wilderness).

The BLM is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) and is intending to issue a decision in mid-May. At the Trump administration’s direction, the agency is not planning to release a draft EA to the public or hold a formal public comment period—so please submit your comments as soon as possible.

The Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness is a gem of the American West and should be managed for the benefit and enhancement of the wilderness values it was designated to protect. With your help, we can ensure that the BLM takes seriously its obligation to protect this world-class wilderness area.

Thank you for your support.

The post Tell BLM: No Active Airstrip in the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness! appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Clean steel production will require an enormous amount of clean energy. Producing green hydrogen, operating high-temperature gas heaters, and powering electric arc furnaces will dramatically increase electricity demand at primary steel mills in the United States, and demand could reach gigawatt scale for individual commercial facilities. Therefore, every unit of energy (electrical, heat, or chemical) avoided or reused reduces the scale and cost while accelerating the speed of the renewable buildout required to support commercial-scale near-zero steel production. Improving energy efficiency is sometimes viewed as primarily a strategy for making incremental improvements to legacy infrastructure, but it will also be foundational to making new, deeply decarbonized pathways competitive and viable.

Finding hidden efficiencies

For more than a century, industrial manufacturers have understood the value of efficiency. Steel, cement, and chemical producers have long sought to recycle waste heat, byproduct gases, and residual materials, though not primarily for climate reasons, but because doing so lowers costs and improves competitiveness. Industrial recycling has often been, at its core, an energy strategy. Facilities routinely investigate opportunities to capture value from solid, liquid, and gaseous streams through onsite reuse or external sales.

Yet one major waste stream has largely eluded this efficiency-driven approach: carbon dioxide (CO₂) rich flue gas. In conventional ironmaking, carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H₂), derived from coal or natural gas, reduce iron ore (FeOₓ) into metallic iron (Fe), producing CO₂ and water in the process. These gases are typically vented to the atmosphere, representing not only a major source of emissions but also lost molecular value and embedded energy.

From flue gas to value

Unlike scrap steel or waste heat, flue gas emissions have historically been viewed as unavoidable and unusable. Flue gas streams are often diluted and contaminated with particulate matter, water vapor, and other impurities. CO₂ itself is chemically stable and does not readily participate in further reactions without significant energy input. For these reasons, it has long been treated as waste rather than as a resource that could be recaptured and reused, but that is starting to change.

Researchers at the Hydrogen and Electrochemical Research for Decarbonization, or HERD Lab, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison are developing a system designed to recycle steelmaking flue gas. Using solid-oxide electrolyzers (SOE), the team converts streams of CO₂ and water (traditional flue gases) back into carbon monoxide and hydrogen (recycled top gases in Exhibit 1). These regenerated molecules can then be reintroduced into the iron reduction process, creating a near-closed-loop system that minimizes waste and maximizes energy productivity.

In addition to the HERD lab the project team is comprised of several others, including industry partners Cleveland-Cliffs (Cliffs), FuelCell Energy (FCE), and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and partners in research and academia, i.e., Laboratorio Energia Ambiente Piacenza (LEAP), University of California, Irvine (UCI), Politecnico di Milano (PoliMi), and University of Wisconsin-Madison (UWM). Cliffs works as the Toledo iron plant operator and system integrator, while FCE is the SOE manufacturer and balance of plant integrator. LEAP and PoliMi are responsible for system design, flexible operation and carbon utilization, while UCI is responsible for developing SOE system control strategies. EPRI focuses on techno-economic analysis and life-cycle analysis of the full-scale system.

Electrolyzers are not new, but what distinguishes SOE systems is their ability to operate efficiently at the high temperatures common in steel production. SOEs can leverage industrial heat and pressure conditions to improve the thermodynamic efficiency of hydrogen production. When integrated into a direct reduced iron facility, this approach can dramatically reduce overall fossil fuel consumption and decrease typical electrical energy demand for electrolysis by leveraging available heat energy.

In practical terms, that means fewer installed renewable megawatts are required to produce a ton of near-zero steel. By reducing total energy intensity and recycling key molecules within the process, technologies like this can shrink the renewable energy burden associated with deep decarbonization and make the transition more achievable in the near term.

Exhibit 1: Integrated SOE-DRI configuration

We recently sat down with Dr. Luca Mastropasqua, who leads the HERD Lab research team, and RMI steel expert Nick Yavorsky to discuss how this technology works, what it could mean for steelmakers and regional economic development, and what comes next. The conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

RMI: Dr. Mastropasqua, what excited you the most about the potential for this technology?

Dr. Mastropasqua: This technology is one of the few able to reduce ironmaking emissions by more than 94% compared to typical natural gas DRI systems (~500 kgCO₂/tDRI vs ~30 kgCO₂/tDRI) and 98.5% compared to coal-based blast furnace basic oxygen furnace production. At the same time, this technology will minimize the use of total energy inputs (either fossil or renewable sources). This technology shows energy savings of approximately 40% against traditional natural gas DRI (11 GJ/tDRI vs 8 GJ/tDRI) and 10% compared to other hydrogen DRI systems (9 GJ/t DRI vs 8 GJ/t DRI).

One of the most synergistic aspects of this technology is that we are not only doing thermal integration, in the form of waste heat recovery, but also chemical integration. We are recovering chemical content and upgrading it to a more valuable stream, rich in hydrogen, that can be repurposed to displace additional natural gas.

RMI: How does your research and technology demonstration advance from where it is today?

Dr. Mastropasqua: The SOE technology must be demonstrated at the megawatt scale in real industrial sites before commercial-scale systems can be deployed. This is key to developing the necessary manufacturing capacity to cut manufacturing costs. We need to build gigafactories in the same way we did for Li-ion batteries. This will allow us to convince the steel industry (as well as many other industrial sectors) that SOE systems can be utilized for behind-the-meter, on-site hydrogen and syngas generation at the scale required by current plants (i.e., 100s MW of equivalent hydrogen, and GW-scale electrical capacity).

I expect that, if the main US manufacturers of SOE systems continue with their capacity build-up, we should be able to get to full commercial scale in the next 5-8 years.

RMI: Globally, we expect DRI production to increase in the coming decades. Can you explain how greenfield deployment of your technology has different implications than retrofits at existing assets?

Dr. Mastropasqua: The main difference between brownfield and greenfield deployment for this application is connected to the primary energy source of choice, i.e., fluctuating energy source like solar or wind versus firmed resource like fossil fuels, grid, geothermal, or nuclear. Since ironmaking plants want to operate at steady state close to their nominal design point for 8,000 hours a year, coupling with an intermittent resource requires large buffer systems: hydrogen storage, syngas storage, or thermal storage. On the other hand, existing brownfield systems could install an SOE plant to upgrade their reducing stream without the need for large-scale storage facilities, if their primary electricity source comes from the grid. However, this solution does not guarantee the same degree of decarbonization, given that most of the US electric grids don’t have a sufficiently low carbon intensity yet. As far as the shaft furnace technology is concerned, they have already been demonstrated to be able to operate with pure hydrogen.

RMI: How does your proposed technological solution compare to carbon capture and storage (CCS) or other forms of retrofitted decarbonization technologies at steel mills?

Dr. Mastropasqua: Some CCS technologies have a breakeven cost of carbon that is competitive with current cap and trade systems in EU. In the United States, the 45Q tax credits provide a real incentive to install CCS systems for enhanced oil recovery or permanent storage. However, most CCS systems (post-combustion, pre-combustion, or oxyfuel) have a specific primary energy consumption per unit of CO₂ avoided (SPECCA index) that varies between 2-4 MJ/kgCO₂. This means that plant owners must consume between an additional 2-4 MJ of primary energy relative to their usual consumption to capture every kg of CO₂. This translates into additional energy supply costs. With an SOE, the SPECCA index would be negative! We would be able to avoid the emission of CO2 and reduce the primary energy consumption at the same time.

CCS technologies certainly have a role in decarbonizing heavy industries, and we have worked on electrochemical carbon capture and storage technologies applied to the steel sector that show SPECCA values close to zero, i.e., do not introduce any energy penalty compared to a non-CCS system. One should also consider the availability of CO₂ storage sites, which can become a limiting factor, considering the amount of CO₂ that the steel sector alone cumulatively emits.

RMI: Nick, how does this type of facility upgrade impact the workforce onsite for DRI facilities? What kind of impact could it have on the long-term steel workforce in the US?

Nick Yavorsky (RMI): As highlighted by Dr. Mastropasqua, the energy efficiency implications for an integrated SOE system at primary steel production sites are immense, but its potential to provide regional economic value for those who choose to implement is also considerable. As a retrofit system, this technology could introduce anywhere from 100 to 400 additional full-time employees, depending on integration and automation. This does not include the several hundred construction workers required to implement the retrofit system or the thousands of workers needed to construct, operate, and maintain the hundreds of megawatts of upstream renewable energy resources needed to supply the SOEs with clean power.

In addition to the regional workforce growth potential, these types of systems will help US steelmakers produce more valuable products. Potentially accessing a higher price via a market premium while responding to high demand globally, production of near-zero DRI or crude steel products would support the continued operation of US assets for decades to come, with ample opportunity for expansion and continued reinvestment.

Greenfield sites offer the best opportunity to realize the market potential for this technology. Although it can be applied at existing facilities, new plants can likely achieve the greatest energy demand reduction as key systems can be designed intentionally from the start. As indicated by Dr. Mastropasqua’s1 energy and emissions reductions estimates, sites where thermal and chemical integration are paired with energy storage capacity and flexible operation schemes are positioned to become the most attractive for producers looking to maximize profits and compete against other global near-zero emissions approaches.

Fundamentally, deploying energy, cost, and climate-efficient systems like this one can help to revitalize the dwindling US primary steel production base and the economic prosperity it brings.

RMI: Are there any other groups exploring similar technology pathways?

Nick Yavorsky (RMI): Yes, in addition to the research being conducted at the HERD lab, the team at Helix Carbon is also exploring the reuse potential of steel production off-gases as a means of reducing energy demand onsite. That’s good news, because energy efficiency innovations that increase the cost competitiveness of clean industrial solutions are greatly needed, and the more arrows in the technological quiver, the better.

With both groups producing promising modeling results backed by extensive lab testing, the hunt for commercial partnerships and deployment opportunities is on. Incumbent steel manufacturers in the US and abroad will soon be clamoring to incorporate these types of systems to reduce operating costs and help clean up their production.

RMI: What are some of the remaining challenges with continuing and scaling your work?

Dr. Mastropasqua: There are still quite a few research and development questions that must be addressed to increase the lifetime of these systems, especially when expected to operate with “dirty” feedstocks typical of the ironmaking sector.

Some exciting research avenues show that we can tailor the operation of the SOE system to match specific compositional targets for integration in DRI systems. This will make these electrolysis systems a drop-in replacement for the conventional steam reformers generally used for syngas production.

Public funding and support are key to demonstrating continued interest in US manufacturing industries that need to scale up capacity. Similarly, investment in R&D at universities is needed to support overcoming longer-term material degradation challenges, as well as educating future workers on electrochemical technologies.

Finally, an ecosystem of industry, national labs, philanthropies, and academia working in collaboration to demonstrate these technologies at industrial scale can further accelerate impact.

The big idea

Efficiency improvements have long been leveraged at industrial sites. Now, it is time for the next generation. Technologies like this point to a pathway where energy savings and emissions reductions go hand in hand, reducing overall energy use, making the scale of the challenge easier to solve, and ultimately unlocking a faster, more competitive future for iron and steelmaking over the next century.

The post Maximizing the Efficiency of Clean Steel Production and Achieving Cost Competitiveness appeared first on RMI.

We talk with Kaleb Lay from Oregon Rural Action about how people living in a rural Oregon “sacrifice zone” end up with poisoned well water, and a widening wealth gap. We explore environmentalist claims that industrial farming, combined with a rapid build-out of Amazon data centers is compounding deadly nitrate contamination while communities fight for testing, transparency, and accountability.

Spending plan lacks detailed reporting on spending and project implementation BATON ROUGE, La. (April 27, 2026) – The Louisiana Legislature approved the state’s FY27 Annual Plan for Coastal Protection and Restoration, which outlines the state’s coastal priorities and funding strategy for the next fiscal year. Restore the Mississippi River Delta, a coalition of four national and local conservation groups working to advance meaningful, large-scale coastal restoration, released the following statement: “The plan contains many worthwhile individual projects, but this year’s ...

Read The Full Story

The post Louisiana’s new coastal spending plan passes, but questions remain appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

In January, the Audubon Center for Birds of Prey became part of a global network for tracking bird migration with the installation of a Motus station on our property. As spring migration approached...

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear former Ohio House speaker Larry Householder’s appeal of his 2023 bribery conviction and 20-year prison sentence tied to his corrupt passage of the HB 6 law that bailed out two coal-burning power plants.

The court didn’t state its reasons for denying the appeal Monday. It also rejected former Ohio Republican Party chairman Matt Borges’ appeal.

Householder led the fundraising campaign in which FirstEnergy funneled some $60 million through surreptitious channels to Householder, who used it to push for the bill’s passage in 2019.

A Republican, Householder is expected to seek a pardon from President Trump, who has granted multiple pardons for public officials convicted on corruption charges. The president was convicted of 34 felony counts in New York in 2024.

Ray Locker is the executive director for Checks & Balances Project, an investigative watchdog blog holding government officials, lobbyists, and corporate management accountable to the public. Funding for C&BP is provided by Renew American Prosperity and individual donors.

You may also want to read:

PUCO let utility redact information from audit examining electricity prices
OVEC power plants were losing between $150,000 and $175,000 a day, emails show
Utility agrees to disclose audit details highlighted by C&BP

Share Post Share

The post Supreme Court rejects Householder appeal appeared first on Checks and Balances Project.

Summer camps at Rowe Sanctuary have long been foundational to its identity, helping place the sanctuary on the map as a local leader in environmental education. It isn’t rare for Rowe Sanctuary...

We need clean, renewable energy to protect our health and to drive down energy costs. As organizations representing public and environmental health as well as frontline healthcare professionals, including the American Lung Association, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Concerned Health Professionals of New York, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, we urge Governor Hochul and the New York State Legislature to ensure that renewable energy investments remain a central priority in this year’s state budget negotiations.

At a moment defined by rising energy costs, worsening air quality, and increasing climate-driven health risks, failing to fully fund wind, solar, and geothermal energy would be a profound mistake; one that New Yorkers cannot afford. Our organizations see firsthand how pollution and climate instability harm our communities. Fossil fuel combustion remains a leading contributor to increasing asthma attacks, worsening COPD exacerbations, cardiovascular disease, and premature death across New York State. Rising temperatures and poor air quality have led to more emergency room visits and hospitalizations. These burdens fall disproportionately on low-income communities, communities of color, children, and older adults, populations who already face systemic health inequities.

The fossil fuel-based energy system has created both a climate crisis and a public health crisis that demands courageous and equitable policy action now. Renewable energy is a public health intervention that can help improve patient outcomes. Expanding wind, solar, and geothermal infrastructure will reduce harmful air pollutants, decrease hospitalizations, and improve quality of life for millions of New Yorkers. At the same time, renewable energy is one of the most effective ways to bring down long-term energy costs for everyday residents. Unlike fossil fuels, which are subject to volatile global markets and geopolitical disruptions, renewable sources like wind and solar provide stable, predictable pricing once infrastructure is in place. Investing in these technologies now will shield New Yorkers from future price spikes while reducing reliance on imported fuels.

For example, geothermal systems offer households consistent, efficient heating and cooling, cutting utility bills significantly over time. Leaving these investments out of the state budget would mean locking families into higher, less predictable energy costs for years to come. Renewable energy development drives economic growth and job creation across the state. From offshore wind projects along our coasts, to solar installations in rural and urban communities alike, these investments support thousands of good-paying jobs while strengthening local economies. They also reduce strain on our healthcare system by preventing illness before it begins, an often overlooked but critical form of cost savings.

New York has already positioned itself as a national leader in climate action through the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). But leadership requires follow-through. If renewable energy funding is weakened or omitted from the state budget, it will not only delay progress toward our climate goals, it will also jeopardize the health and financial stability of New Yorkers. Governor Hochul and state legislators face a clear choice. Invest in a cleaner, healthier, and more affordable energy future, or allow short-term budget decisions to undermine long-term wellbeing.

The evidence is overwhelming. Renewable energy saves lives, reduces healthcare costs, and puts money back into the pockets of working families. For the sake of public health, economic stability, and environmental justice, New York must not leave renewable energy behind.

Authors:

Max Micallef, NYS Advocacy Manager – Clean Air Initiatives, American Lung Association
Bryanna U. Patterson, MS, FNP, RN-BC, Fellow, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
Carmi Orenstein, MPH, Program Director, Concerned Health Professionals of NY
Zach Williams, MPH, Associate Director, Environment & Health, Physicians for Social Responsibility

The post For Public Health and to Save Money, New York Needs Renewable Energy appeared first on ANHE.

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Jeff Masters

October 28, 2025, was a very bad day to be in Jamaica. That morning, Category 5 Hurricane Melissa intensified into the strongest hurricane ever observed in the Atlantic: 190 mph (305 km/h) winds, a tie with Hurricane Allen of 1980. That afternoon Melissa powered ashore in Jamaica, causing a catastrophic $8.8 billion in damage, equivalent to 41% of Jamaica’s GDP.

Melissa came close to its maximum potential intensity

The maximum potential intensity of a tropical cyclone is the maximum strength a storm can achieve based on the existing atmospheric and oceanic conditions. Potential intensity theory was pioneered in 1987 by MIT hurricane scientist Kerry Emanuel, who showed that human-caused global warming will increase the maximum strength that a hurricane can achieve. Hurricanes are heat engines that take heat energy out of the ocean and convert it to the kinetic energy of wind, so it makes sense that the winds of the strongest hurricanes will get stronger as the oceans heat up.

Melissa’s 190-mph winds were very close to its maximum potential intensity: The hurricane’s maximum potential intensity was about 197 mph (317 km/h), according to the SHIPS model, and about 200 mph (320 km/h), according to a graphic available at the University of Wisconsin’s CIMSS (Fig. 1). It is quite rare for a hurricane to come this close to its maximum potential intensity — all conditions have to be perfect, and the atmosphere and ocean make up a complex system where perfection is rarely achieved.

Figure 1. The maximum potential intensity (MPI) of Hurricane Melissa on Oct. 28, 2025, was about 175 knots (200 mph). (Image credit: University of Wisconsin’s CIMSS)

Given the less-than-ideal conditions for intensification – light to moderate wind shear of 5-15 knots, a very slow forward speed of less than 5 mph that allowed upwelling of cooler water from the depths to affect it, and interaction with the rugged terrain of Jamaica – Melissa came remarkably close to its maximum potential intensity. (The formula for maximum potential intensity does not include wind shear and slow hurricane motion.)

So how strong could Melissa have gotten if everything were going its way? Melissa formed in late October, when ocean temperatures were about 30 degrees Celsius (86°F). Six weeks earlier, during the early- to mid- September peak of sea surface temperatures, ocean temperatures in the central Caribbean were near 31 degrees Celsius (88°F). According to a 2023 paper, the maximum potential intensity increases 5-7% per degree Celsius of sea surface temperature increase. Thus, Melissa’s maximum potential intensity would have increased by about 11-15 mph (18-25 km/h) had it formed during the September peak in sea surface temperatures. If we assume the other factors limiting its intensification were not present, Melissa could have peaked with 215 mph (345 km/h) winds.

This is the same intensity achieved by the strongest known hurricane in world history, 2015’s Hurricane Patricia. Patricia formed off the Pacific coast of Mexico over record-warm waters of 30.5-31 degrees Celsius (87-88°F). And though the difference between 180 mph and 215 mph may not seem like much, it would actually represent about a fourfold increase in damage potential, according to NOAA.

Figure 2. The strongest tropical cyclones observed globally, 1972-2025, using windspeed ratings from the National Hurricane Center for the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific and from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center elsewhere.

How strong can a hurricane get?

The global list of tropical cyclones during the satellite era (1972-present) with winds as strong or stronger than Melissa is a short one: just 11 storms (Fig. 2). (There were 19 Western Pacific typhoons from 1955-1966 that “officially” have winds of 195 mph or higher, but hurricane experts agree that the intensities assigned to typhoons during that pre-satellite period suffered from a high bias and are not reliable.)

For most of the Northern Hemisphere’s tropical cyclone-prone areas, September will be the month with the highest possible maximum potential intensity, since that is when sea surface temperatures peak. Emanuel, the MIT hurricane scientist, created maps of the top 10% maximum potential intensity expected within 1,000 km of a given point during September, using climate data from the period 1982-1995 (Fig. 3). In the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico and western Caribbean have the highest values: 224 mph (100 m/s) or higher. In the Pacific, the southern Philippines, Mexico, and most of Central America also have a top 10% maximum potential intensity of 224 mph (100 m/s) or higher.

Figure 3. Top 10% maximum potential intensity winds within 1,000 km of a given point for tropical cyclones expected during September, using climate data from the period 1982-1995. The only places with an MPI in excess of 110 m/s (246 mph) are the ocean areas of the Middle East. (Image credit: Kerry Emanuel)

Emanuel also created a table showing the top-10% maximum potential intensities for individual cities across the globe. All of these numbers (and the ones in Fig. 3) need to be adjusted upward because the climate has warmed significantly since the 1995 cutoff of the historical data used. A 2022 paper, A potential explanation for the global increase in tropical cyclone rapid intensification, reported that between 1982 and 2017, potential intensity during August-September-October in the Northern Hemisphere tropics increased by 2.3-2.4 mph per decade, or 8.6 mph over the 36-year period (1.02-1.06 m/s per decade). During that same period, Northern Hemisphere tropical sea surface temperatures increased by 0.17-0.23 degree Celsius per decade, or 0.6-0.8 degree Celsius over the 36-year period. A 2021 paper, Poleward expansion of tropical cyclone latitudes, reported similar numbers, with larger increases in potential intensity observed in the eastern Caribbean and western Gulf of Mexico.

These results suggest that the maximum potential intensity numbers in Fig. 3 and in Emanuel’s table should be adjusted upward by about 9 mph (4 m/s). Here are the adjusted numbers for the U.S. from Emanuel’s table showing the top-10% maximum potential intensities for individual cities:

Boston: 78 mph (35 m/s), Cat 1
Honolulu: 186 mph (84 m/s), Cat 5
Miami: 226 mph (101 m/s), Cat 5
Galveston: 220 mph (98 m/s), Cat 5
New Orleans: 231 mph (103 m/s), Cat 5
New York City: 112 mph (50 m/s), Cat 2
San Diego: 72 mph (32 m/s), Tropical Storm
Washington D.C.: 105 mph (47 m/s), Cat 2

Note that for cities like Boston and Washington, D.C., fast-moving storms coming from the south – where they typically move over warmer waters – can arrive at these cities at a strength higher than the local maximum potential intensity. This is why there is a separate entry in Emanuel’s table for the highest maximum potential intensity within 1,000 km of each city. I didn’t show this quantity in the list above, though it is plotted in Fig. 3.

A 300-mph (134 m/s) tropical cyclone is possible in the Persian Gulf

Globally, the highest maximum potential intensities are found in the ultrahot waters of the Middle East. There has never been a tropical cyclone observed in the Persian Gulf because it is narrow and prone to high wind shear and dry air. 

Figure 4. Category 1 Tropical Cyclone Gulab makes a bid at entering the Persian Gulf on Oct. 3, 2021. (Image credit: NASA World View)

However, for their eye-popping 2015 paper, Grey swan tropical cyclones, Ning Lin and Kerry Emanuel performed modeling showing that strong tropical cyclones can move through the Persian Gulf, representing an underappreciated threat to major cities like Dubai. The modeling showed that a sea surface temperature of 35 degrees Celsius (95°F) can create a maximum potential intensity of 296 mph (132 m/s) in the Persian Gulf. Their worst-case 1-in-30,000-year storm was a 257 mph (115 m/s) Category 5 beast with a central pressure of 784 mb that brought a colossal storm surge of 24 feet (7.5 meters) to Dubai.

The study used the climate of 1980-2010, and sea surface temperatures in the Persian Gulf have warmed significantly since then. Over the period 1981-2012, the Persian Gulf had peak summer sea surface temperatures of 32-35 degrees Celsius (90-95°F). But in July 2020, those temperatures hit 37.6 degrees Celsius (99.7°F). More recently, in August 2023, sea surface temperatures above 36 degrees Celsius (97°F) were measured over portions of the Persian Gulf. Thus, an even stronger storm – with winds over 300 mph (134 m/s) – would be possible in today’s climate.

There has been a recent close call for a strong tropical cyclone entering the Persian Gulf: In 2021, Category 1 Tropical Cyclone Gulab (Fig. 4) entered the Gulf of Oman, which connects to the Persian Gulf. A four-day forecast from the HWRF model (Fig. 5) predicted Gulab would pass over Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, enter the Persian Gulf, and then intensify into a Category 2 storm with a central pressure of 958 mb. Fortunately, Gulab ended up weakening into a tropical storm and making landfall in Oman, near the entrance to the Persian Gulf.

Figure 5. Four-day windspeed forecast from the HWRF model made on Oct. 1, 2021, for Tropical Cyclone Gulab. The model predicted Gulab would be a Category 2 storm with a central pressure of 958 mb in the Persian Gulf. Purple colors correspond to Category 1 winds (74 mph or greater). (Image credit: Levi Cowan, Tropical Tidbits)

Sources of real-time maximum potential intensity data

Kerry Emanuel’s website
University of Wisconsin CIMSS (for active storms)
SHIPS model (for active storms)

For years, farmers and ranchers in the state have been facing rising costs of inputs. Now, as a consequence of the...

The post New Bill Aims to Support CA Farmers Facing Fertilizer and Water Shortages  appeared first on CalCAN - California Climate & Agriculture Network.

A new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) finds that the expansion of US sanctions against Cuba beginning in 2017 were likely the primary cause of a major increase in infant mortality in Cuba. The report, by Alexander Main, Joe Sammut, Mark Weisbrot, and Guillaume Long examines the unprecedented increase in Cuba’s infant mortality rate (IMR), which soared by 148 percent from 2018 to 2025. During this time, US unilateral economic coercive measures against Cuba were greatly tightened by President Trump and then largely maintained under President Biden before being tightened even further during the second Trump administration. Had Cuba’s IMR remained stable over the last eight years, then approximately 1,800 deaths of infants would not have occurred.

“The Trump policy of ‘maximum pressure’ on Cuba has killed a lot of babies — and, although we don’t yet have data for the last few months, it’s highly likely that more babies are dying now, and at an even higher rate than last year as a result of the current US fuel blockade targeting Cuba,” CEPR Director of International Policy and report coauthor Alexander Main said. “The question is how many more babies will have to die before the current economic siege against Cuba is lifted.”

The report notes that “In Cuba, where for decades the state has invested substantially in health care services, the IMR was … among the lowest in the Western Hemisphere, and lower than in the US,” but that “Since 2018 … Cuba’s IMR has increased from an annual rate of 4.0 per 1000 live births to a rate of 9.9 as of 2025.”

The paper also notes that Cuba, unlike its neighbors in the region, has not rebounded economically from the COVID-19 pandemic, averaging just 0.4 percent annual per capita GDP growth from 2020 to 2024, versus 3.2 percent for the Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole.

The report looks at the economic and social effects of the hardening of US sanctions since 2017, focusing in particular on the impact on Cuba’s health-care sector. Trump administration pressure on Cuba has included restrictions that have sharply diminished the island’s important tourism sector; severely limited exports of goods to Cuba — including essential medication and medical equipment; cut Cuba’s access to international financial markets by putting the country back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list; curbed remittances; pressured countries to end their partnerships with Cuba’s medical missions, and notably imposed a recent fuel blockade that prevents Venezuelan oil from reaching the island.

“US sanctions have targeted Cuba’s key sources of export earnings, such as tourism, remittances from Cuban Americans to their family members, and even by putting pressure on other countries to end primary care programs staffed by Cuban doctors. These measures sharply reduced Cuba’s capacity to pay for needed food and medicines,” CEPR International Research Fellow and coauthor Joe Sammut said. “Cutting off medical services exports is doubly cruel as these programs mostly serve marginalized communities in poorer countries, while bringing in foreign currency revenues to Cuba in a mutually beneficial trade. As such the increasing US sanctions have a negative health-care spillover even beyond the island of 10 million people.”

As the report discusses, recent research has shown that unilateral, broad economic sanctions are as deadly as armed conflict, killing some 564,000 people annually, according to a study by CEPR economists Francisco Rodríguez, Silvio Rendón, and Mark Weisbrot published in August in The Lancet Global Health. More than half of these deaths are children under five, and deaths of infants are even more disproportionate, since they are three-quarters of the under-five population.

“The sanctions on Cuba starkly illustrate how these economic sanctions work: they target the civilian population, often with the goal of provoking regime change,” said Mark Weisbrot, CEPR Co-Director. “This can dramatically increase death rates, as shown statistically in the Lancet Global Health study of economic sanctions throughout the world. The increased mortality in Cuba fits this pattern, and the causality is visible.”

The US Senate may vote as early as Tuesday, April 28, on a War Powers Resolution introduced by Senators Tim Kaine, Adam Schiff, and Ruben Gallego to “to prevent [US] Armed Forces from engaging in hostilities [against Cuba] unless authorized by Congress.”

“This legislation pending in Congress right now argues persuasively that the current blockade constitutes a military participation in hostilities that is unlawful according to the US Constitution and law because it has not been authorized by Congress,” Weisbrot said.

“The collective punishment of civilians is prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention when there is armed conflict, and can be prosecuted as a war crime. This would appear to be applicable now that the current naval blockade involves the US military.”

The report also describes the vulnerability of newborn babies in Cuba to the impact of blackouts and fuel scarcity — as recently reported by The New York Times. “The blockade has had a particularly dire effect on Cuba’s health-care infrastructure, with frequent power outages interrupting the use of critical equipment for the treatment of patients, including incubators for premature babies, and ventilators to help sick newborns breathe,” Guillaume Long, CEPR Senior Research Fellow and coauthor said.

The report notes: “Given the effects of the US energy blockade, it is highly likely that Cuba’s infant mortality rate has increased significantly since December of 2025, when it had reached 9.9 per 1000 live births. Other key health indicators, such as life expectancy and maternal mortality have also very likely deteriorated since the beginning of the year.”

This virtual training session is designed to equip you with the essential tools and strategies of powerful nonviolent direct action. Whether you consider yourself new to taking action or a seasoned action taker with expertise to share, this webinar will deepen your understanding and sharpen your skills.

The post Register today for CELDF’s Nonviolent Direct Actions Skills with Lina Blount on May 20th from 7 to 9pm ET appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

The United States government has entered a new era of financing critical minerals projects, deploying tools that go far beyond the grants, loans, and tax incentives that have dominated US industrial policy for decades. Over the past year, the federal government has ramped up its investment strategy with a series of equity stakes in private critical mineral projects and companies.

These investments underscore the importance of critical minerals to the US economy and national security and demonstrate the lengths to which the US government is willing to go to diversify supply chains. Critical minerals are key inputs to defense, energy, and AI technologies. If the US wants to meet rising electricity demand  while creating more secure energy supply chains, it needs a more reliable supply of critical minerals.

Diversifying critical mineral supply chains will require investment, and government equity is emerging as a favorite tool of the Trump administration to de-risk and stabilize the sector. US critical mineral production is costlier than China’s, and new projects require high up-front capital costs and long lead times. While up-front investment from the federal government can help push projects forward, their long-term success will ultimately depend on market stability and sustained product demand. So far, critical minerals projects that have received equity investments have experienced jumps in their stock prices and additional private sector investment.

Yet, while equity deals can shore up or kick-start projects, it is yet to be seen whether they can create the market signal required for a sustainable operating environment. To build a durable US critical mineral industry, federal supply-side investment, like equity, must be paired with demand-side support to create a sustained market.

In the meantime, developing a Congressionally authorized program that follows the critical mineral equity investment framework proposed in this article can strengthen deals and create a suite of coordinated investments that help stabilize the critical minerals market.

Why is the critical mineral industry attracting government investment?

Critical minerals are significant inputs to a broad array of technologies in different industries, including semiconductors, permanent magnets, electric motors, transmission, batteries, solar photovoltaic cells, wind turbines, and advanced industrial equipment. Key minerals to the energy transition include copper, gallium, nickel, rare earth elements, graphite, lithium, and cobalt. These minerals are used in everything from chips to cooling systems in data centers to actuators and alloys in specialized defense equipment.

The critical mineral market is concentrated in a few countries, creating the potential for supply disruption, with China dominating the critical mineral mining and refining market. The US Geological Survey found that the US relies on China for 24 mineral commodities, and China is the leading producing nation for 30 critical minerals globally. China controls the global production of approximately 77% of natural graphite, 70% of rare earth elements, and 98% of gallium.

Market concentration in China has created complex trade dynamics and market uncertainty. In 2023, China announced export controls including permit requirements for exports of gallium and germanium and a ban on rare earth extraction and separation technologies. In the spring of 2025, the US announced import tariffs on China, and China announced export controls on seven heavy rare earth elements. US investment in critical minerals would reduce dependence on China by creating a new steady supply.

Government critical mineral equity deals

The US government has historically invested in critical mineral companies to spur domestic industry, promote innovation, and stockpile key national security inputs. These investments have mainly been grants and loans managed by the Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, and the US International Development Finance Corporation.

Tax credits have also been used to incentivize domestic production of critical minerals and battery components, such as the Advanced Manufacturing Production Tax Credit (45X), the Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Credit (48C), and the now phased out complementary New Clean Vehicle Credit, which required domestic critical mineral and battery inputs to increase domestic demand.

In 2025, we saw a series of announcements from the US government providing up-front capital to acquire equity stakes in critical mineral mine projects. While equity investments are not new for the US government, the quantity of equity-based investments in the critical mineral sector is, with 7 projects being announced over the past year.

These critical minerals deals have taken stakes in companies or specific projects, such as through a special purpose vehicle, a legal entity created for one specific project separate from a parent company. The deals have included equity stakes, preferred stock, warrants for future stock purchases, and in some cases minority positions on boards, price floors, and offtake agreements.

Historically, federal equity investments have been used relatively sparingly and often in response to specific economic or strategic circumstances. However, US government equity stakes in private companies have crossed sectors and administrations. In 2008, the US Department of the Treasury purchased preferred stocks in several banking and automotive companies through the Troubled Asset Relief Program to stabilize the US financial system. In 2025, the US government made equity investments in sectors beyond critical minerals, such as Intel and Nippon Steel.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

What trends do we see in critical mineral deals passed so far?

• Many of the projects are already in development or actively under construction.
• The majority of projects are funded by the Department of Defense.
• Many of the projects are financed by more than one federal agency.
• The US government is restructuring existing funding from previously awarded grants and loans into these new deals.
• Deals have been announced alongside already committed private investment. Three deals had subsequent offtake agreements or investments with private companies.
• The majority of projects are for facilities based in the United States. The exception is the Alcoa Sojitz Gallium Recovery Project to build a gallium refinery in Western Australia. This project was a joint investment with Australia and Japan.

The MP Materials deal stands apart because the equity investment is complemented by a guaranteed price floor and an offtake commitment. For 10 years the US government will purchase at $110 per kilogram the rare earth elements product neodymium-praseodymium or price match if purchased by another company for a lower price. The deal also included a 10-year commitment to purchase 100% of the magnets produced at a proposed facility. This sets a powerful demand safeguard to ensure the increased output has a market that can keep the company afloat.

At the time of the deal, China had implemented a tariff of 125% on US imports, including rare earth concentrates from the Mountain Pass mine. Rare earth materials are critically important to defense, and the US government stepped in to ensure the facilities were kept online.

The deals that have succeeded MP materials have not included offtake agreements or price floors. In February this year, the White House launched a new US Strategic Critical Minerals Reserve, Project Vault, to store critical minerals for civilian industries at facilities across the United States, backed by the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM).

A framework to finance the future

As a key input to energy, the US government should bolster investments in critical mineral supply chains to increase domestic capacity and diversify global supply. Equity investments are one financing mechanism that with careful design could help stabilize the critical minerals market.

A congressionally authorized program that provides equity investments in critical minerals projects would codify some of the benefits of government stakes with the purpose of strategically building a portfolio of investments that support long-term market stability. A congressional program would set safeguards to protect market stability and taxpayer funds. Whether establishing a new program or consolidating deals into an existing one, a centralized federal program could sharpen the government’s understanding of the long-term impacts of equity investments while allowing it to build out expertise to better support potential board representation and eventual exit strategies. The program could be cross-sector, covering projects to support acute energy and infrastructure supply chain risks or targeted at critical mineral projects.

With more dedicated resources to evaluate projects, the program could consider the following project framework to maximize market-wide impact and strengthen critical mineral supply chains.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

So far, deals have been financed by the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Energy. A new program could either sit in one of these existing departments or in a new, more targeted organization.

Going beyond equity deals

Equity deals demonstrate the US government’s willingness to intervene more directly in critical mineral supply chains. They can catalyze investment, accelerate projects, and stabilize strategically important facilities.

To secure the production of minerals essential to energy, defense, and digital infrastructure, the United States should pair capital with predictability and build a coherent, transparent, and strategic program capable of steering investment where it has the greatest impact.

While equity deals provide strong up-front capital, equity alone is not enough. Without demand-side policies that guarantee buyers, stabilize prices, or provide incentives for domestic sourcing, even well-capitalized projects may fail to thrive.

The New Energy Industrial Strategy Center

The NEIS Center is a thought partner, funder, and community builder that helps create advanced energy systems that support competitive economies and power the industries of the future.

The post Securing Energy Supply Chains: One Critical Mineral Deal at a Time? appeared first on RMI.