News Feeds

President Donald Trump rescinded two executive orders on Friday evening that aimed to balance off-road vehicle (OHV) use on public lands. The 1972 and 1977 orders, signed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, required federal agencies to minimize ecological damage, harassment of wildlife, and recreational conflicts due to OHV use on public lands. Repealing the orders prioritizes motorized recreation and resource extraction over conservation, increasing the risk of widespread environmental degradation.

The White House called the rescinded orders “outdated and burdensome” hurdles to energy and timber production. Without this guidance, fragile ecosystems—including those inside national parks—are at risk of unmitigated OHV use, which can degrade streams, displace wildlife, and significantly damage soil and vegetation. Beyond ecological damage, allowing more OHV use in the backcountry will increase dust and noise pollution and lead to conflicts between off-roaders and other user groups, like hikers and rafters.

“Rescinding guidance meant to reduce conflicts in the backcountry and protect wildlife habitat isn’t popular; that’s why Trump tried to bury it by putting this order out on a Friday evening,” Center for Western Priorities Communications Director Kate Groetzinger told the New York Times.

Wildfire experts warn of dire fire season to come

Historic drought conditions and an exceptionally light mountain snowpack have left much of the West vulnerable to wildfire this year. Simultaneously, fire experts are deeply concerned about federal management shifts and significant personnel losses within agencies like the Forest Service and Interior department. “I think this is going to be the year,” warned Timothy Ingalsbee, co-founder and executive director of Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology. “The conditions are just ripe for some really bad outcomes.”

Quick hits USGS rolls out national map of public lands and waters

E&E News

Trump Interior Secretary Doug Burgum says says MAGA rally for America’s 250th will be ‘nonpartisan’

Yahoo News

Here’s where the Trump administration plans to allow hunting, fishing on refuge and park service lands

Outdoor Life

Park Service officials raised alarms over Trump administration’s tennis center plan

Washington Post

Forest Service delays public rollout of its proposed repeal of Roadless Rule

Lookout Eugene-Springfield | Bloomberg

How to define ‘access’? Bitterroot property swap sparks public land debate

Missoulian

Column: Make grazing great again?

High Country News

UFC White House fight and race cars take over National Park Service land

Los Angeles Times

Quote of the day

Essentially, this is a hijacking of one of America’s oldest and most well-respected conservation organizations… There are so many very good people at the foundation, with so many years doing real work on behalf of America’s national parks, it’s heartbreaking to watch.”

—Aaron Weiss, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, Los Angeles Times

Picture This

@mypubliclands

Hey parents! Did you know your fourth-grade student is eligible for an annual pass to America’s public lands? With school almost out for the summer, it’s the perfect time to get the pass.

The Every Kid Outdoors pass allows fourth graders and their families to receive free entrance to federal public lands and waters during their fourth grade school year (September-August).

To do this, log on to everykidoutdoors.gov with your student, complete an activity and then download and print your pass voucher. Redeem the printed voucher for the pass at thousands of federal public land sites throughout the country.

 

Feature image: Radar Hill OHV Area, Oregon; BLM/Flickr

The post Trump repeals rules governing off-roading on public lands appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

According to a new report from the research organization Ember, last year solar and wind power accounted for 99 percent of the growth in world electricity supply, while generation using fossil fuels declined.

In the US, 93% of all electricity capacity added in 2026 is set to come from solar, wind and batteries. Just 7% will come from fossil fuels.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/28/trump-clean-energy-progress

The post Solar and Wind Providing 99% of New Global Electricity! first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Image Source: Canva “Green Grass Field Under Blue Sky,” by Dan Blood. (Altered)

Unexpected breakthroughs are making energy produced from sun, wind, and water cheaper, safer, and more efficient than energy produced from fossil fuels. That’s according to a new series of commentaries by LNS senior strategic advisor and co-founder Jeremy Brecher. The series explores this “Greentech revolution,” and ask what it will mean for Americans. According to Brecher, the Greentech Revolution is already transforming the way the world produces and uses energy and it will further transform economics, politics, and society. Here are the first pieces in the series giving the background of the Greentech Revolution globally and in the US:

The Greentech Revolution: A New Strike Series

“Energy runs the world, and how energy is produced and used is undergoing a historic transformation. As UN secretary general António Guterres put it,‘We are on the cusp of a new era. Fossil fuels are running out of road. The sun is rising on a clean energy age.’”

The Greentech Revolution: Energy Production

“The use of sun, wind, and water rather than fossil fuels to produce energy is transforming economies around the world. How far has that transformation already gone and what is likely to be its future?”

The Greentech Revolution: Energy Consumption

“Radical, unanticipated developments in electrification, storage, distribution, and other technologies are transforming not only the way energy is produced but also the way it is used. Like the transformation in energy production, these advances in energy consumption are transforming economies and creating new opportunities to protect the climate and improve our lives.”

The US and the Greentech Revolution

“Greentech technologies that protect and improve the environment are revolutionizing energy production and consumption worldwide. The Greentech revolution has also been under way in the US, but it has been severely retarded by the power of the fossil fuel industry and its allies and the policies they promulgated.”

The post The Greentech Revolution first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Sign On Letter Oppose Rollbacks to ZEV

The post Health Organizations Oppose Rollbacks to Clean Vehicles Standards appeared first on ANHE.

In 2025, the government of Saskatchewan decided to extend the life of its coal-fired power plants from 2030-2050, making it the only Canadian jurisdiction to continue its reliance on coal in the modern electricity era. In addition to the economic and...

The 100% Fish Program, created by the Iceland Ocean Cluster, is working to transform fish byproducts into new economic value chains. The program is committed to using every part of the fish, from eyes to livers to skin, to reduce food waste while helping breathe new life into coastal economies.

Fishing is the pillar of Iceland’s economy, accounting for 40 percent of export earnings, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.

In 1983, Iceland introduced a temporary quota system to protect declining fish stocks, setting a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for the first time. It became permanent in 1990 as an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system, with TACs now issued annually based on scientific research.

While this was great news for the conservation of Iceland’s fisheries, it left fisherfolk and the industry asking “how do we do more with less?” Alexandra Leeper, CEO of the Iceland Ocean Cluster, tells Food Tank.

In 2011, Thor Sigfusson started the Iceland Ocean Cluster. His doctoral research revealed that companies in natural resource industries tended to shy away from networking, preferring to close off markets and keep others out. According to Leeper, Sigfusson wanted to highlight existing work and identify entrepreneurs, fishing businesses, and researchers who could drive further innovation once connected.

The 100% Fish Program began with high-volume, lower-value applications, such as streamlining fillet processing to preserve more meat. It championed drying fish heads for export. Eventually, the cluster began working toward low-volume, high-value innovations, like medical skin grafts, pharmaceuticals, and supplements like Dropi, a cold-pressed fish oil.

“It’s also building on heritage,” says Leeper, pointing to fish skin leather as an example of a traditional product reimagined as a modern textile.

The Iceland Ocean Cluster estimates that in Europe and North America, over 50 percent of a cod’s material weight is wasted in the production process. That waste represents not just lost material but lost economic potential.

“What we calculate today is that there’s about US$5,000 being created from a single fish when we look at all these potential opportunities,” says Leeper. For comparison, in the 1970s one Icelandic cod was worth roughly US$12 in its entirety.

Organizations around the globe reach out to the Iceland Ocean Cluster to launch their own 100% Fish Programs. There are now sister ocean clusters on five continents. Each new ecosystem offers a unique opportunity for the Icelandic team to work alongside local industries, governments, and community partners to tailor the program to their circumstances. 

“The first place we really tested this out and built an understanding of how to adapt the steps and lessons from Iceland and cod to a new, very different ecosystem was in the Great Lakes,” says Leeper.

David Naftzger is the Executive Director of Great Lakes St. Lawrence Governors & Premiers, where, with the support of the Iceland Ocean Cluster, he helped launch the 100% Great Lakes Fish Project. He says there have been significant environmental gains as some of the program’s most immediate and important wins.

Since 2022, more than 40 companies and organizations, representing over 90 percent of the region’s commercial fish production, have signed the 100% Great Lakes Fish Pledge to end landfilling and fully utilize each fish by the end of 2025.

“Environmentally, landfilling organic waste is highly emissions-intensive, generating nearly 400 kg CO₂e per ton,” Naftzger tells Food Tank. “Diverting fish waste from landfill to even a low-value alternative, such as composting, can reduce emissions by roughly 90 percent.”

For the Namibia Ocean Cluster (NOC), which brings together six of the nation’s largest vertically integrated hake fishing companies—including Hangana Seafood and Seawork Seafood—much of the work comes down to building trust. “Generally, all of Namibia’s fishing companies are fiercely competitive, and the culture is one of operating independently,” Pierre Le Roux, Chairperson of the NOC, tells Food Tank.

“In the hake sector alone, at least 30 percent of the fish is lost as waste,” says Le Roux. “In this day and age, how many industries can afford to throw away 30 percent of their product?” He sees collaboration as the key, arguing that if more companies join the NOC, the shared research and marketing costs of developing high-value products from processing waste become manageable for everyone.

These cross-sector connections are one of the program’s greatest assets going forward, Leeper believes. The Iceland Ocean Cluster is currently developing a 100% Fish Program playbook to help disseminate knowledge and build systems that benefit both the environment and the evolving needs of the global fishing economy.

“Sharing these stories,” says Leeper, “and sharing them in unlikely places and connecting with people is hugely powerful.”

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 Ville Oksanen, Wikimedia Commons

The post Zero Waste Seafood Program Drives Program Blue Economy Boom appeared first on Food Tank.

Canada’s newly-released National Electricity Strategy for an electrified Canadian economy highlights how buildings, among other sectors, are a nation-building opportunity for economic growth, affordability, and climate action.It’s an essential step...

Mengapa Bonus Harian Banyak Diminati?

Bonus harian memberikan keuntungan langsung yang bisa dirasakan oleh pemain. Dengan adanya bonus ini, pemain memiliki peluang untuk mendapatkan tambahan modal bermain tanpa harus mengeluarkan biaya ekstra setiap saat.

Selain itu, bonus harian juga membuat aktivitas bermain menjadi lebih seru. Setiap hari ada kesempatan baru untuk mendapatkan hadiah, sehingga pemain memiliki alasan untuk kembali mengunjungi platform favorit mereka. Sistem ini menciptakan pengalaman yang lebih interaktif dan tidak monoton.

Jenis Bonus Harian yang Sering Ditawarkan

Setiap platform biasanya memiliki program bonus yang berbeda-beda. Namun, beberapa jenis bonus berikut menjadi yang paling populer di kalangan pemain slot online:

1. Free Spin Harian

Free spin atau putaran gratis menjadi bonus favorit banyak pemain. Dengan bonus ini, pemain bisa mencoba berbagai permainan slot tanpa menggunakan saldo utama.

2. Cashback Harian

Cashback memberikan pengembalian sebagian dari total permainan yang dilakukan dalam periode tertentu. Bonus ini membantu pemain mengurangi risiko kerugian dan memperpanjang waktu bermain.

3. Bonus Login Harian

Beberapa platform memberikan hadiah hanya dengan melakukan login setiap hari. Semakin rutin login, biasanya hadiah yang diperoleh juga semakin besar.

4. Event dan Misi Harian

Selain bonus langsung, banyak platform menghadirkan misi harian yang dapat diselesaikan untuk memperoleh hadiah tambahan. Sistem ini membuat pengalaman bermain terasa lebih menantang dan menyenangkan.

Tips Memanfaatkan Bonus Harian Secara Maksimal

Meskipun bonus harian terlihat menguntungkan, pemain tetap perlu menggunakannya dengan bijak. Langkah pertama adalah membaca syarat dan ketentuan yang berlaku pada setiap promo. Dengan memahami aturan yang ada, pemain dapat menghindari kesalahpahaman saat melakukan klaim hadiah.

Selanjutnya, manfaatkan bonus sesuai kebutuhan bermain. Jangan hanya tergoda oleh jumlah bonus yang besar, tetapi perhatikan juga bagaimana bonus tersebut dapat digunakan secara efektif. Pengelolaan saldo yang baik tetap menjadi faktor penting dalam menikmati permainan secara nyaman.

Bonus Harian Membuat Pengalaman Bermain Lebih Menarik

Kehadiran bonus harian menjadi salah satu alasan mengapa slot online semakin populer di berbagai kalangan. Selain memberikan keuntungan tambahan, bonus ini juga menghadirkan sensasi baru setiap hari yang membuat permainan terasa lebih hidup.

Bagi pemain yang ingin mendapatkan pengalaman bermain yang lebih seru, memilih platform dengan program bonus harian yang konsisten bisa menjadi pilihan yang menarik. Dengan memanfaatkan berbagai promo yang tersedia secara bijak, pemain dapat menikmati permainan dengan lebih maksimal sekaligus memperoleh berbagai keuntungan tambahan yang ditawarkan setiap harinya.

Headline News:

• “In Venice, A Growing Flamingo Population Finds Refuge In Recovering Wetlands” • Flamingos started showing up in the vast Venetian Lagoon in the early 2000s, but they were rare enough that the local dialect has no word for them. Last year, climate change brought the number of wintering flamingos in Venice to a record of nearly 24,000. [ABC News]

Flamingo (Gislane Dijkstra, Unsplash)

• “The Race To Build The World’s Largest Solar Farms” • As panel prices fall and governments worldwide look to diversify their energy mix, some developers are launching mega-projects to meet the growing demand. One in China will have 16.9 GW of capacity. California plans a 21 GW solar project with batteries. They aren’t the largest. [OilPrice.com]
• “Wind Power Sets A Clear Course For Shipping’s $1 Trillion Energy Transition” • Conflict in the Middle East is driving fuel price uncertainty. Scientific validation shows that fuel saved by wind propulsion can be predicted with greater confidence and consistency than the commodity markets can. The value of the transition could be $1 trillion. [Energy Voice]
• “Ford Mustang Mach-E Cheaper than Ford Escape! (5-Year Total Cost of Ownership)” • The Ford Mustang Mach-E is clearly a superior vehicle to the Ford Escape. It’s got better tech, better driving quality, better acceleration, and a cooler look. It comes at a higher price. Nevertheless, its 5-year total cost of ownership is quite a lot lower. [CleanTechnica]
• “Energy Giant Switches On First Phase Of $1.1 Billion Texas Solar Farm Set To Power AT&T And Toyota” • Sequoia Solar, in Callahan County, Texas, has brought its first 400 MW of capacity online. That first phase is now operating, while a second 415-MW phase is due online before the end of the year. The two phases combine to 815 MW. [Yahoo Finance]

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

By Ismail Wolff

On 26 May, investors, government representatives and financial actors gathered in Rotterdam to discuss the future of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), a controversial forest finance proposal that continues to raise serious concerns among Indigenous Peoples, forest-dependent communities and civil society organisations worldwide.

Yet despite the significance of the meeting, very little public information has emerged about what was actually discussed, proposed or agreed behind closed doors.

What commitments were made to investors? What governance arrangements are being negotiated? What safeguards for Indigenous Peoples’ rights and community land tenure were discussed? Were civil society concerns meaningfully addressed? And why do affected communities continue to remain largely outside these conversations?

The lack of transparency surrounding the Rotterdam meeting reflects a broader problem that has characterised the development of the TFFF from the beginning.

A recent roundup by REDD-Monitor, “Tomorrow’s Tropical Forests Forever Facility”, provides an important overview of the growing debates surrounding the mechanism and the increasing involvement of financial actors. As the TFFF gains traction in international finance circles, independent scrutiny and public oversight become increasingly essential.

Can the TFFF actually deliver on its promises?

While promoters of the TFFF present it as an innovative mechanism capable of mobilising billions for tropical forest conservation, serious doubts remain over whether the proposal can realistically deliver the funding it promises.

In recent months, even analysts broadly supportive of market-based forest finance approaches have begun acknowledging major weaknesses and uncertainties surrounding the initiative.

A recent article published by the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), while generally supportive of the TFFF concept, nevertheless raises significant concerns about the mechanism’s financial architecture, political feasibility and long-term viability. The article openly questions whether the facility will actually be able to mobilise the scale of donor and investor funding required and warns that the model depends heavily on uncertain financial market conditions. This is a crucial point.

The TFFF has repeatedly been promoted as capable of mobilising up to USD 125 billion in combined public and private finance, generating billions annually for tropical forest countries. Yet concrete commitments remain far below these figures, and it remains unclear whether governments and investors are genuinely willing to provide funding at the scale required.

Even supporters of the initiative now acknowledge this challenge. The IDOS analysis notes that it remains uncertain whether the targeted donor contributions can realistically be mobilised and concludes that, because of the TFFF’s “design flaws” and “inadequate donor commitments,” it is doubtful the mechanism will deliver the “quantum leap” in tropical forest protection that its promoters promise.

Other commentators have also warned that the TFFF’s promised forest payments ultimately depend on volatile financial markets and complex investment structures that may fail to generate the expected returns.

This raises a fundamental question: why should the future of the world’s tropical forests, and the livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities, especially women and youth, depend on the confidence of private investors and the performance of global financial markets?

The danger is not only that the TFFF could create new risks and inequalities. It is also that the initiative could consume enormous political attention, institutional energy and public resources while ultimately failing to deliver meaningful protection for forests at all.

Another false solution for forests?

The Global Forest Coalition (GFC) and many allied organisations have repeatedly warned that the TFFF risks becoming yet another false solution, one that allows governments and corporations to continue destructive economic models while packaging forests as financial assets for investors.

For decades, forest peoples and civil society have witnessed a succession of market-based forest schemes promoted as “win-win” solutions to climate change and biodiversity loss. From carbon offsetting to REDD+, these initiatives have often failed to address the structural drivers of deforestation while creating new pressures and conflicts for Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, and youth.

In many cases, they have enabled continued pollution elsewhere, commodified forests and nature, weakened customary governance systems and concentrated power and decision making in the hands of financial institutions and corporate actors.

The TFFF appears to follow many of these same dangerous pathways.

One of the central concerns is that the mechanism could further entrench the financialisation of forests by transforming standing forests into investment vehicles linked to financial returns. Rather than supporting systemic transformation and direct rights-based and gender-responsive support for forest peoples, the TFFF risks prioritising investor confidence and market logic over ecological integrity, justice and community governance.

Who is the TFFF really designed to serve?

The growing role of private investors in shaping the TFFF raises urgent questions about whose interests are driving the initiative.

Is the priority to support forest peoples and address the root causes of deforestation? Or is the mechanism increasingly being designed around the expectations of international investors seeking new “green” financial opportunities?

GFC and allied organisations have also warned that the TFFF lacks sufficient guarantees regarding Indigenous Peoples’ rights, land tenure, participation, decision-making, and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). Forest conservation cannot succeed without securing collective territorial rights and supporting the leadership of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, and youth who have consistently proven to be the most effective guardians of forests worldwide.

Another major concern is the lack of transparency and democratic oversight surrounding the development of the facility. Key decisions continue to be discussed primarily among governments, multilateral banks and private financial actors, while civil society participation remains limited and many affected communities remain excluded from meaningful engagement.

The Rotterdam meeting only deepens these concerns. If governments and financial institutions genuinely believe the TFFF represents a positive and transformative proposal, why is there still so little publicly available information about its negotiations, investor expectations and potential impacts?

What solutions are being ignored?

At the same time, the TFFF debate risks diverting political attention and public resources away from solutions that are already proven to work.

Around the world, Indigenous Peoples, peasant communities, women’s rights groups and grassroots organisations are already protecting forests through collective governance systems, agroecology, territorial defence and biodiversity-based livelihoods. Yet these approaches remain chronically underfunded compared to large-scale financial schemes and market-based mechanisms.

Real solutions to deforestation do not lie in creating new speculative financial instruments. They lie in recognising and securing rights, ending extractivism and industrial agriculture, reducing overconsumption, transforming food and energy systems, cancelling unjust debt burdens driving systemic change in sectors that heavily contribute to biodiversity destruction and directly supporting community-led forest conservation and restoration, including women and youth.

If governments truly wanted to protect tropical forests, these measures could already be scaled up today, without creating another global financial mechanism dependent on investor confidence, debt markets and speculative returns.

Forests are not financial assets

As the TFFF continues to evolve through investor meetings and high-level negotiations, continued public oversight is essential. Civil society organisations, journalists, researchers, women’s rights groups, and social movements must continue closely monitoring developments, asking difficult questions and challenging attempts to present the TFFF as a simple or inevitable solution. Forests are not financial assets. They are living territories, homes, cultures and ecosystems that cannot be reduced to investment portfolios or payment mechanisms.

At a time of accelerating climate breakdown, biodiversity collapse and escalating attacks on environmental defenders, the world cannot afford another false solution that protects investors’ profits while failing forests and forest peoples. Instead of repeating the mistakes of past market-based mechanisms, governments and international institutions must prioritise approaches grounded in rights, gender and all forms of justice, territorial governance and systemic transformation. The future of the world’s forests depends on it.

Further reading

• “Tomorrow’s Tropical Forests Forever Facility” by REDD-Monitor
• “No to TFFF, Yes to Forest Rights” – Global Forest Coalition
• “The Tables Turn Against the TFFF” – Global Forest Coalition
• “Tropical Forests Forever or Deforestation Forever?” – Global Forest Coalition
• “New Report on TFFF” – Global Forest Coalition

Canada in the World: Settler Capitalism and the Colonial Imagination by Tyler Shipley (2020, Fernwood Press). Tyler A. Shipley’s book Canada in the World: Settler Capitalism...

The post Colonialism, capitalism and Canada  first appeared on Spring.

The latest addition to Seattle’s already impressive public transit system opened to great fanfare this spring when more than 200,000 people rode the Crosslake Connection light rail line.

Its March 28 debut was second only to the parade that followed the Seahawks’ Super Bowl victory as Sound Transit’s busiest day ever. Trains now glide across Lake Washington on what is believed to be the world’s first electric rail line that spans a floating bridge, linking the city with Bellevue and Redmond, and doubling the frequency of stops in the heart of Emerald City.

Those same tracks will carry tens of thousands of fans downtown to Lumen Field for the six World Cup matches the city will host between June 15 and July 6. Kirk Hovenkotter, who leads the transit advocacy organization Transportation Choices Coalition, has no doubt that Seattle’s sustained commitment to public transit helped it become a host city.

This summer’s spotlight follows an earlier snub. When the World Cup came to the United States in 1994, Seattle hoped to host matches at Husky Stadium but came away empty-handed.

In the 32 years since, the metropolitan area has grown from 2.5 million people to more than four million. Its transportation infrastructure has boomed as well. Steady investment that began with voter approval of the Sound Move transit package in 1996 helped launch light rail in 2008 and turn Seattle into one of the country’s most ambitious builders of public transit. This summer’s World Cup became the deadline for opening the Crosslake Connection.

“Our region hasn’t been preparing for the World Cup for 18 months,” Hovenkotter said. “It’s been preparing for 18 years.” 

Seattle is one of 16 cities, 11 of them in the U.S., that will host matches in a tournament FIFA, the sports’ sanctioning body, expects to draw more than five million fans. Several are using the event as an opportunity to open rail lines, redesign bus networks, and make other changes that will benefit residents long after the final match. Some cities used the tournament as a deadline. In others, it helped build support for projects or push delayed efforts over the goal line. 

These investments come as rail and bus systems nationwide continue recovering from the steep ridership decline sparked by the pandemic while confronting aging infrastructure and a dire financial outlook. In a country that is less supportive of mass transit than other nations, the World Cup has become an unusual catalyst for change.

Plenty of stadiums remain disconnected from public transportation, of course. But what’s happening in places like Seattle and Atlanta shows that a mega-event like the World Cup can strengthen transit systems — if the investment starts long before kick-off.

The World Cup’s infrastructure legacy has often been more cautionary than celebratory. Past tournaments have raised questions not only about human rights violations and environmental harm, but about whether host cities deliver the public benefits they promise. Brazil and South Africa, for example, failed to fulfill the mass transit commitments they made.

Such disappointments often reflect a broader problem: Host cities plan first for the event, then for the people who live there, said Simon Kuper, who wrote World Cup Fever and has attended nine World Cups. He likens it to hosting a wedding. “Let’s say it’s at the house,” he said. “You paint the house, you fix the toilet, you fix the door that wasn’t working, you redo the kitchen.” 

But the transit needs of 80,000 fans differ from those of residents. “You risk overinvesting in the route to the stadium and not in what makes residents’ lives better every day.”

Seattle followed a different plan. The $1 billion Crosslake Connection was not built for the World Cup –– the money came from a funding package voters approved in 2008, 14 years before Seattle’s selection as host city ––  but Sound Transit used it as a deadline for finishing a project that was three years behind schedule.

“It was like, ‘We’re going to do everything. We’re going to move heaven and earth. We’re going to be working every shift to make sure that when the world is here, our flagship bridge and our double capacity are ready to run passengers,’ and they were,” said Henry Bendon, a public information officer with the agency. 

The $1 billion Crosslake Connection was not built for the World Cup, but Sound Transit used it as a deadline for finishing a project that was three years behind schedule. Courtesy of Sound Transit

Building infrastructure matters, but so does helping people use it. Brian McCullough, who lived in Seattle from 2014 until 2020 and is now an associate professor of sport management at the University of Michigan, said communication will be key to the system’s success. 

Here, too, Seattle has a blueprint. When it hosted the 2018 Special Olympics USA Games, McCullough helped with a campaign encouraging athletes, coaches, and caretakers to use alternative transportation. The plan included providing them with free rides on the city’s expansive light rail system. It worked: Initially, 78 percent of participants planned to rent a car, but in the end, only 7 percent did. Sound Transit has an extensive messaging campaign geared toward soccer fans, including signage in the languages of the countries playing in Seattle.

That lesson is shaping preparations for the World Cup that could further benefit residents, too. Sound Transit expanded its airport bus service to provide 24-hour rides to and from Seattle. The Legislature funded an intercity bus between Pasco, a city in the state’s rapidly growing southwestern corner that is hosting a tournament event, and Spokane, which is hosting an Egyptian team with one of the sport’s biggest stars. It also increased frequency on other routes throughout the state. Hovenkotter hopes those improvements are here to stay. 

“It’s going to be hard to disinvest in this once these start running and people start benefiting from it,” he said.

Some 2,600 miles to the southeast, another city is preparing for an influx of soccer fans. The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, or MARTA, is rolling out a major redesign of its bus network and preparing new railcars with expanded capacity, moves that will move more people more often during the event — and long after it.

Like Seattle, Atlanta did not make the list of 1994 World Cup host cities. But two years later, it faced a bigger transportation challenge: the 1996 Summer Olympics. MARTA added 7 miles of rail to ensure everyone got around efficiently. 

Today, the system, which typically carries more than 5 million passengers per month, has 48 miles of track and more than 1,500 miles of bus network.

Soccer fans will discover a system overhauled first and foremost to serve residents. Beginning in 2021, MARTA started working with the community on the first revamp in 40 years. The remake launched in April, and although it cut the number of bus lines from 113 to 81, the agency said the change increased the number of residents who live within a quarter mile of a stop. It also nearly tripled the number of residents living near a route with buses that arrive every 15 minutes, according to MARTA.

MARTA also added a rapid transit line in downtown Atlanta and introduced 12 on-demand “microtransit zones” in which vans provide short rides within each zone.

Among other things, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority overhauled its bus system in a makeover that nearly tripled the number of residents living near a route with buses that arrive every 15 minutes. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

The rail system saw similar changes. MARTA plans to update all 224 train cars, some of which have been in service since the 1980s, with more spacious interiors starting in June. Each four-car train will carry 752 passengers, a 13 percent increase. That will be a boon during the tournament, given that four stations are within walking distance of Mercedes-Benz Stadium. 

The World Cup provided an incentive to move quickly. “Folks around here figured out if I want to get my projects some priority … I need to say ‘I want to do this for the World Cup,’” said Rhonda Allen, the agency’s deputy general manager. 

Not everyone is convinced these projects will benefit the community, however. Bakari Height, co-founder of the transit advocacy group MARTA Army, said transit has stagnated since the Olympics, with only two stations added. He called the new trains a “subtle upgrade” and the bus redesign a “sour point” because it cut routes. He doubts the system will handle the World Cup. 

“I don’t know if they’re really ready,” he said, “and for sure, not ready for these crowds.”

In some cities, the changes are smaller, but still practical.

The Massachusetts Bay Transit Agency will open an expanded station near Gillette Stadium in Foxboro this month. The $35 million project adds an additional platform that improves accessibility and allows the station to handle more cars. Caitlin Allen-Connelly, executive director of the advocacy group Transit Matters, said the upgrades will benefit people headed to New England Patriots games and concerts long after the tournament ends. “There was definitely a need to make beautification and accessibility standards to be able to accommodate this level of service for the World Cup,” she said.

That said, moving all those soccer fans around will impact residents.  The MBTA is also reducing commuter rail service on most lines during the tournament. The transit agency said it has “made some minor reductions and adjustments” to service on non-game days to account for the need to reconfigure trains and make other changes to suit the influx of riders to the stadium to watch matches.

Kansas City Streetcar extended its southern service by 3.5 miles last fall and opened a 0.7-mile northern extension in May. While the line does not reach Arrowhead Stadium, it will help soccer fans reach the “Fan Fest” events that accompany matches. Shuttle buses will carry fans from there to the stadium. Tom Gerend, executive director of the Kansas City Streetcar Authority, said the city highlighted the growing system in its host-city bid and that the tournament provided additional pressure to finish projects. “We’re certainly using the World Cup as motivation to make progress and to have these services up and running in time,” he said.

Whether transit projects for the World Cup provide lasting gains often depends on who pays for them — and whether cities keep investing after the tournament ends.

So far, the federal government has done little to help host cities with this. The Department of Transportation allocated $100 million in March, or roughly $10 million per city — far too little to transform most transit systems. FIFA does not contribute anything toward transportation costs. That’s forced cities to seek funding elsewhere, including the fare box. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority plans to charge $80 for round-trip train tickets to each World Cup match in Boston, while NJ Transit will charge $98 for round-trip tickets to games in New York.

Balsam Nehme, director of sustainability at Sidara Collaborative, a firm that advises on large-scale infrastructure and sustainability projects, said the World Cup can bolster greener transit if cities use it to test new ideas and accelerate existing plans. That can mean short-term fixes like shuttle buses or long-term investments like light rail, she said, so long as they fit broader sustainability goals. The priority, she said, should be “long-term system-level thinking.”

For Gerend, the most important question was what would be useful after the fans left. Kansas City, he said, avoided spending big on permanent event services with little long-term value. That meant using the World Cup as a deadline, not a blueprint. “Let’s invest our resources in permanent solutions that are part of a long-standing, regional plan that will have staying power.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline US host cities made transit improvements a World Cup goooooooal on Jun 1, 2026.

Power lines across the country weren’t designed for a changing climate, with much of the nation’s grid built more than half a century ago. Today, stronger storms and heavier precipitation cause hundreds of outages a year, many because of trees falling on above-ground power lines.

In northern Michigan, some utilities want to change that.

In March 2025, a devastating ice storm hit the region, knocking down trees and snapping utility poles. Thousands of people lost power for weeks.

During the blackout, Lewiston, Michigan, resident Wanda Whiting suddenly had to get her husband, Dave, to the hospital. He was having heart trouble. The side of the highway was littered with downed wires and broken poles. The streets were so dark, she said, that she got lost on familiar roads.

“I still can’t get over how astonished I was, how much we rely on street lights,” Whiting said.

At one point, she had to drive over thick cables that had fallen across the road. Downed wires are dangerous; they can still be live even if the power is out. The couple made it to the hospital and Dave Whiting recovered. But the power in the area didn’t come back on for another two weeks.

Wanda and Dave Whiting stand outside their home in Lewiston, Michigan.
Vivian La / IPR News

For Michiganders, the ice storm was a reminder of the power grid’s vulnerabilities during severe weather. The state already sees some of the longest power outages in the country.

Climate change could make that worse. Research suggests northern Michigan will see more freezing rain instead of snow and possibly more destructive ice storms. Communities need to plan for a different future, said Richard B. Rood, a professor emeritus at the University of Michigan who studies climate change adaptation.

“You can’t think of what we’re experiencing as, ‘This is how it used to be, and this is where it will be,'” Rood said. “You are right in the middle of the change here.”

The biggest challenge to undergrounding power lines is cost. Consumers Energy, one of the largest utilities in Michigan, says it hears from customers “consistently” about burying more lines. The company estimates that undergrounding 1 mile of line in the state can cost $400,000. In some urban areas that cost can swell, with estimates ranging from $2 million to 3 million per mile, according to a report from the Michigan Public Service Commission.

In contrast, installing overhead lines is typically a fraction of that cost.

Instead of undergrounding existing wires, burying new lines during construction is generally easier and cheaper, because crews can install power lines alongside other utilities like water or gas.

Tony Chartrand, director of electric engineering and operations for Traverse City Light & Power, which serves around 42,000 people, said utilities face a balancing act. “Part of that solution is undergrounding lines,” he said. “But it’s not necessarily undergrounding everything.”

Tony Chartrand, director of electric engineering and operations for Traverse City Light & Power, stands next to a conduit containing an underground wire in Traverse City. Vivian La / IPR News

Great Lakes Energy, the state’s largest electric co-op serving 26 counties across northern Michigan, has announced plans to bury all new power lines. The new policy came in response to last year’s ice storm, which caused more than 66,000 power outages for the electric co-op and cost about $150 million in damages.

Even so, burying new lines will be expensive, said Shari Culver, chief operating officer for Great Lakes Energy. It can cost 3 to 5 times more than putting up an overhead line, and costs will be passed onto ratepayers. But, she said, “I think there’s reliability benefits for our membership, because it’s going to help prevent outages over the long term.”

The utility isn’t planning on burying all its existing overhead lines. That’s when expenses for construction, labor, and materials can add up quickly.

Besides the cost, there are other challenges with burying power lines. Any problem often requires digging up sidewalks to reach wires, Chartrand said. For utilities, that can be a balancing act.

“Part of that solution is undergrounding lines. But it’s not necessarily undergrounding everything,” he said. “It’s trying to balance that cost with the benefit.”

Michigan utilities aren’t alone in addressing the problem of downed lines during intense storms. Across the country, Americans are experiencing longer and more frequent power outages due to severe weather.

Read Next The winter storm exposed the grid’s real weakness: Lots of old poles Rebecca Egan McCarthy & Jake Bittle

Utilities nationwide are looking to bury more lines, said Andrew Phillips, vice president of transmission and distribution infrastructure at the Electric Power Research Institute.

But expensive electricity bills are another concern, as utilities balance upgrades to an aging grid and increasing demand.

“If the utility wants to make any investment, this money doesn’t come from nowhere,” said Tao Sun, a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford University who studies the impact of extreme weather on power systems. “They have to pass on those costs to their customers.”

That can be a hard sell.

Sun said utilities need to plan ahead, identify the areas that would see the most benefit from undergrounding, and get buy-in from local communities for rate increases — ideally before any major disaster.

Right now, he said, those changes typically happen after disaster strikes.

Electric poles and wires along M-32 near Gaylord, Michigan. Wanda Whiting recalls that poles like this were snapped in half during the March 2025 ice storm.
Vivian La / IPR News

“We will only take actions after local customers feel or experience those events that are really severe or disrupt their lives,” Sun said.

For instance, California’s largest utility, PG&E, is in the middle of the country’s largest undergrounding project — in response to destructive wildfires.

A year after the devastating ice storm in northern Michigan, residents like Wanda Whiting are still recovering. There are now new poles and wires near her home. But Whiting can’t help wondering how these power lines will hold up in the next storm — and whether there’s a better solution.

“If it means going underground,” she says, “Then by God, go underground!”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A simple — yet expensive — way to climate-proof the grid: Bury the power lines on Jun 1, 2026.

Leah Atwood was rattled. It was the tail end of March, and for days she and her colleagues at Agroecology Commons had been fielding dozens of emails alerting them to grant terminations targeting a $300 million U.S. Department of Agriculture program. One after another, within a single week, 49 of the 50 grantees received notices from the USDA informing them that their grants were canceled. 

By the end of the month, Agroecology Commons still hadn’t gotten a notice from the USDA. While their peers were figuring out how to pick up the pieces, it seemed as though their $2.5 million grant, structured largely to help farmers of color acquire and sustain land, remained untouched. All they could do was wait. Resignation settled in — after all, they’d been in this position before.

Shortly after President Donald Trump returned to office last January, his administration launched a sweeping campaign to eliminate initiatives it has deemed wasteful or misaligned with its political agenda. At the USDA, that has meant slashing billions in grants and gutting a mix of newer and longstanding federal programs that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has repeatedly framed as the administration’s attempt to “stop wasteful spending.”

During the administration’s first year, Agroecology Commons lost multiple grants amidst the USDA’s funding purge. In response, the nonprofit filed a joint lawsuit against the agency, claiming that the grants were terminated unlawfully. In August, a judge granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction that restored their access to some of the money until the court makes its final determination based on the merits of the case. 

All 49 other recipients of the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access grants received termination emails from the USDA during that week in March. In their written cancellations, which gave grantees two business days’ notice, Steven Peterson, the associate administrator of the USDA’s Farm Service Agency, explained to the grantees that their programming didn’t align with the agency’s priorities and that its funding structure was not in keeping with the intent of Congress. He used the same language about cutting waste and discontinuing DEI efforts that had become routine for the administration. But whereas the administration tended to be vague about its claims of waste and fraud, Peterson’s letter was surprisingly specific. 

“Instances of excessive or frivolous expenditures,” he wrote, “such as purchasing gazebos, massages, a camper/RV, and oversized office supply budgets (in one case, over $130,000) — instead of land are an affront to taxpayers.” 

Through it all, Agroecology Commons still hadn’t heard a thing. 

Questions swirled throughout the grantee network, but no one could explain why Agroecology Commons’ project alone was spared. Atwood’s team presumed their grant wasn’t terminated because of the ongoing litigation. Now, they continue to wait to see whether their funding will abruptly disappear, too. 

“We are trying to accomplish as much as we can in the time that we have, because we don’t know when it’s going to be canceled,” said Atwood. “It’s a strange reality.” 

Read Next Following the USDA’s food and farm funding: Here’s what’s been canceled and frozen, and resources for those affected Ayurella Horn-Muller & Lyndsey Gilpin

Neither Agroecology Commons nor any of the other grant recipients that Grist spoke to seems to know who may have made those expenditures. 

Kavita Koppa helps run RAFI, a farming organization based in North Carolina that was one of the 49 grants that was canceled; they’d been awarded $8.5 million to help agricultural producers in North Carolina, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Koppa says RAFI was just about halfway through its five-year contract with USDA and had spent roughly $1.1 million when the termination notice came. From the beginning, almost $2.3 million of their total award had been set aside for grants to support farmer land acquisition and market access, with around $400,000 of that set aside for RAFI to acquire land parcels on behalf of farmers. Another $1.9 million was budgeted for project management costs, which included the fees associated with verifying financial compliance in federal audits, attorneys for farmland acquisition, and translation fees; and then $350K for a bucket of miscellaneous project activities, such as paying guest speakers at workshops, contracting report writers, and mass distributing hard copies of farmer resources. The last $3.9 million was budgeted for technical assistance, a figure that encompassed the full budgets of the five subawardees that RAFI was working with on the project. 

“Under the guise of increasing land access for producers, the ILA program included no minimum requirement for direct producer support,” a USDA spokesperson told Civil Eats in March. “Instead, the program permitted the abuse of federal funds, including expenditures on the purchasing of a barbeque smoker, construction of a gazebo, massages, and for one awardee, a $20,000 budget for ink pens alone. To no surprise, a peek behind the curtain of this Biden-era program revealed the egregious misuse of taxpayer dollars to the tune of nearly $300 million dollars.” 

Koppa says she has never seen the budget items that the USDA cited. “The details were shocking,” she said. “We didn’t do those things. Why are we being treated as if we did something unethical or wasteful?”

Breanna Horsey, executive director of Sustainable Iowa Land Trust, who led another land access project working to expand Iowa’s fruit and vegetable farmers ability to secure permanent and affordable land access, is also adamant that her $1.8 million grant had no carve-outs for the expenditures detailed in their termination notice. Viva Farms’ Anna Chotzen, project manager of another ILCMA project that was awarded a $2.5 million grant to help beginning and historically underserved farmers in two Washington counties access farmland, said the same. Her team has no idea where those budget items came from. All she knows is that it wasn’t them.

Gloria Montaño Greene, former Deputy Undersecretary of the USDA’s Farm Production and Conservation in the Biden administration who helped oversee the creation of the ILCMA program, questions the validity of the excessive spending claims. 

“If that dollar amount for $20,000 in pens was put in there, did they show proof of that?” said Montaño Greene. “Show the proof, right?”

Read Next Inside the program cuts, workforce purges, and secretive reorganization of the USDA Ayurella Horn-Muller

Throughout April, at least 45 of the 49 terminated grantees — including two subgrantees — filed appeals against the termination to the National Appeals Division, an independent office of the USDA, Grist has learned. According to Amanda Koehler, a consultant on the land access program, all but two were informed that their award terminations are not appealable because the decision to terminate “was a matter of general applicability and not based on the individual application of specific program criteria.” (The outstanding two, said Koehler, have not heard back yet.) 

That finding by NAD should put the USDA’s justification for cancellation under closer scrutiny, she added, because it “underscores, in my opinion, that terminations were not based on anything the awardees did or didn’t do.” To her knowledge, none of the grantees — including Agroecology Commons — had budgets that included any of the claims USDA has made concerning wasteful or fraudulent spending. 

“This termination doesn’t seem like it was rooted in anything about our conduct with this grant,” said RAFI’s Koppa. “It seems to be part of some sort of larger motivation where we were not being treated fairly.”

JohnElla Holmes, who oversees the Kansas Black Farmers Association, which was awarded a land access grant of $8.4 million to help Black producers acquire farmland across Kansas, Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Nebraska, says that roughly 62 percent of the organization’s grant was intended to go directly to farmers. She alleges that, following the administration change, the USDA took nearly a year to supply her team with the necessary approvals required by the grant’s built-in budgetary structure to award payments to farmers. Last November, Holmes says they finally heard from FSA staffers who requested changes to their paperwork. Over the next two months, she worked with them to submit all the revisions and additional documentation the agency asked for. Then, after another period of waiting on USDA, the grant was canceled.

Other grantees and sources close to the program also say that the USDA obstructed the distributions of funding to farmers with its scarce and severely delayed communication, lack of institutional support, and, crucially, the absence of necessary budgetary approvals over the last year. 

The USDA declined to comment for this story. 

On Tuesday, 24 other ILCMA grantees joined the lawsuit that Agroecology Commons filed last year. The plaintiffs are seeking another preliminary injunction, with the aim of reversing the grant cancellations and restoring grantees’ access to the funds. 

While it still has its money, Agroecology Commons plans to move forward with the land access grant. Atwood’s team, though, is proceeding cautiously — holding off on making longer-term investments into hiring or programming, and scrambling to fundraise against the possibility of a sudden cutoff. 

“When you talk about wasteful spending — the years and years that went into getting this program to even exist, and then to just terminate it,” Atwood said incredulously. That, to her, “seems like the real waste.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The USDA canceled $300M in farm grants, citing fraud. Did it make up the evidence? on Jun 1, 2026.

Global heating has “fundamentally altered” the climate of Mecca, Saudi Arabia, and is exposing millions of hajj pilgrims to extreme and dangerous heat even in months outside summer, a new analysis has found.

Read more on E360 →

The “data-centre boom” is driving a surge in gas investment in the US, pushing its fossil-power spending ahead of China, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

As Trump’s Iran war devours billions, a Connecticut town closes a public school and shuffles vulnerable kids to plug a budget gap. Drawing on Eisenhower’s warning about “guns” stealing from the hungry and cold, this piece discusses how runaway U.S. militarism quietly wrecks local lives and communities.

Small farms rarely make a decent living in commodity markets. It’s time to stop chasing scale and start building resilient, relationship-based food systems instead.

Some are already calling it a “Super El Niño”. But what exactly is El Niño and what does it have to do with the fossil fuels driving the climate crisis? Here’s everything you need to know.

What is El Niño?

Every two to seven years, the surface waters of the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean warm significantly above their normal temperature, and when they do, it throws the entire planet’s weather off balance. This phenomenon is called El Niño.

The science

Normally, trade winds in the Pacific act like a giant fan blowing across the tropics, pushing warm surface water westward toward Australia and Indonesia — bringing rainfall, healthy monsoons, and productive oceans. Meanwhile, cold, nutrient-rich water rises to the surface in the east, keeping fisheries alive and climates stable along the coasts of Peru and Ecuador in South America. But every few years those trade winds weaken, warm water stops being pushed west, and the eastern Pacific heats up. And when it happens, that balance collapses: Australia and Indonesia face drought, South America faces floods, and weather systems that billions of people depend on are thrown into disarray across the entire planet.

El Niño develops through the warming of the surface water in the Pacific.  (Getty Images)

The name El Niño, Spanish for “the boy child”, refers to the baby Jesus. It was originally coined by South American fishermen who noticed a warm ocean current off the coasts of Ecuador and Peru around Christmas time as far back as the 1600s.

El Niño is one phase of a larger natural climate cycle called ENSO (El Niño–Southern Oscillation). Its counterpart, La Niña (meaning “girl child”), is the opposite: a cooling of the same Pacific waters, with strengthened trade winds. Together, El Niño and La Niña swing global weather patterns like a pendulum. El Niño brings drought to South and Southeast Asia, Australia, and southern Africa, while delivering heavier rainfall to parts of South America. And La Niña brings the reverse of many of those patterns.

Neither event is a disaster by itself, rather they have been part of Earth’s natural climate rhythm for thousands of years. The problems start when they become extreme, especially when the world they arrive in is already stressed.

What’s happening right now?

This year, something different is happening. The Pacific has just swung out of a La Niña cooling phase, and El Niño is developing unusually fast. The question is just how big it gets.

For an El Niño to be officially declared, ocean temperatures only need to rise 0.5°C above average. But the United States’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, now puts an 82% chance of El Niño developing by July 2026, and this one is already looking far more serious than its predecessors. 

A “Super El Niño” is when temperatures surge 2°C or more above normal. That threshold has only been crossed a handful of times in recorded history — in 1982, 1997, and 2015. Each time, it triggered droughts, floods, and record temperatures across multiple continents. But the El Niño in 1876-78 is considered one of the strongest on record, and led to a global famine that killed around 50 million people across India, China, Brazil, and southern Africa. That was about 1 in every 28 people alive at the time. It remains the benchmark for worst-case El Niño events in human history. 

Right now, forecasts are warning that this El Niño could push ocean temperatures 2°C or even 3°C above normal by the end of 2026. Three of the world’s top forecasting agencies project El Niño 2026 will likely match, or surpass, the 1878 El Niño in ocean temperature. And unlike 1877, this one is arriving in a world that is already hotter, with more people to feed and less room for error. Many scientists are already predicting 2027 will be the warmest year ever recorded.

Impacts

The human stakes are quite high, and they look different depending on where you live. Africa faces some of the worst exposure: drought in the Sahel and southern Africa threatens staple crops like maize, while East Africa faces major flooding. The last major El Niño left over 30 million people needing humanitarian assistance in southern Africa alone. In Asia, a weaker monsoon puts India’s rice, wheat, and cotton harvests at risk, while drought conditions threaten crops across Southeast Asia and Australia. In Latin America, Central America faces prolonged drought and food insecurity, while Peru, Ecuador, and southern Brazil face the opposite: intense rainfall and flooding. The crops most people depend on — maize, rice, and wheat — all tend to fall globally during strong El Niño years. In wealthy countries, that means higher food prices. In others, it means hunger.

And this is all hitting a world already under strain — fertilizer shortages, energy price spikes, and sweeping cuts to foreign aid have stripped away the buffers that once helped vulnerable communities absorb these shocks.

Why fossil fuels make El Niño impacts so much worse

Here’s the critical point that often gets lost in the headlines: El Niño itself is not caused by climate change. But the climate crisis, driven by burning fossil fuels, is making its effects dramatically worse.

Think of it this way. El Niño temporarily releases enormous amounts of heat stored in the ocean into the atmosphere. That has always caused disruption. But today, that heat is being released into a world already running hotter than it has in human history. So when El Niño pulses on top of that elevated baseline, the consequences are more severe than any comparable event from decades past.

“Global warming is giving more energy to the whole system to be unearthed by these El Niño events when they occur.”

–  Dr Daniel Swain, climate scientist

In other words, global heating acts as a fuel that amplifies El Niño’s natural force — and that extra energy has real consequences: heavier downpours and more destructive storms, faster-spreading wildfires as higher temperatures dry out vegetation, more severe droughts in regions already vulnerable during El Niño years, and record-breaking temperatures. 

Some research also suggests that warming oceans may be making individual El Niño events stronger, though scientists are still working to fully understand that link. What is clear is that the baseline the world is dealing with has already shifted. Fifty years ago, a strong El Niño caused serious damage. Today, that same event would be far more destructive because the climate crisis has already raised the stakes.

Researchers also warn of a vicious cycle: strong El Niño events hit hydropower-dependent regions with droughts, forcing them to burn more coal and gas for electricity — which in turn pumps more carbon into the atmosphere and drives further heating. El Niño and fossil fuels then go on to reinforce one another’s worst effects. 

What this means for the climate fight

A Super El Niño is not a reason to panic, but more so a reason to act. These events come and go. What doesn’t go away is the underlying warming driven by fossil fuels. Every fraction of a degree that burning coal, oil, and gas adds to the global baseline makes the next El Niño more destructive.

Some climate models now show a meaningful chance that 2026 or 2027 could see global monthly temperatures briefly exceed 2.0°C above preindustrial levels for the first time in recorded history. They are the temperatures at which weather systems break down, crops fail, and the precarity built up by decades of climate inaction becomes catastrophic.

We know exactly what to do. The technology exists. The knowledge exists. The path forward is a rapid, just phase-out of fossil fuels, and a shift to renewable energy that doesn’t leave vulnerable communities behind.

El Niño will pass. The climate crisis won’t, unless we end the era of fossil fuels.

Join 350’s Great Power Shift campaign to phase out fossil fuels, usher in renewables and hold the polluters accountable.

The post El Niño 2026: what’s happening? appeared first on 350.

Revolution, climate denial, invasive species, planetary history, ecocivilization, and the war makers

Source