Grist

When Congress approved a $1 billion Energy Resilience Fund for Puerto Rico in 2022, the money was desperately needed. Multiple hurricanes had battered the island’s notoriously fragile electric grid, and lawmakers envisioned the money supporting rooftop solar and battery systems that could provide resilient backup power during emergencies.

The Biden administration’s Department of Energy developed a plan to distribute the funds to about 40,000 low-income Puerto Ricans, many of whom live with health conditions requiring access to reliable power. Biden officials envisioned a network of solar and battery systems that would keep medically vulnerable Puerto Ricans safe during storms and reduce reliance on the island’s unstable grid.

The Trump administration has different ideas.

The plan all but disappeared after President Trump took office last year. Trump’s DOE has since redirected a large share of the funds to the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, or PREPA, the bankrupt utility that operates the island’s grid. The money is now poised to shore up PREPA’s fleet of power plants, which largely run on fossil fuels, and $50 million will fund a new natural gas pipeline. The administration has defended the decision by arguing that PREPA’s infrastructure improvements will ultimately benefit a broader swath of the island’s population.

The process by which Trump’s DOE unilaterally redirected the resilience funds, seemingly against Congress’ intent, has so far been shrouded in secrecy. But public records obtained by Grist under the Freedom of Information Act shed new light on how Trump’s political appointees engineered the change. The documents show that the DOE gave PREPA unusually favorable treatment, in part by soliciting no competing bids for the funds, fast-tracking the review process, and using Trump’s executive order announcing an “energy emergency” as the justification for the award. 

Read Next Trump is trying to kill clean energy. The market has other plans. Matt Simon

Most eyebrow-raising, perhaps, was the way that the DOE waived its typical requirement that grant recipients pony up substantial funding of their own to contribute to project costs. Exceptions are sometimes made for indigent recipients or economically distressed communities, but for large organizations such as PREPA — which has nearly $4 billion in annual revenue — the agency typically requires a 50 percent cost share. 

In PREPA’s case, the DOE accepted just a 1 percent cost share, noting that the utility was under “significant financial stress” and that waiving the cost-share requirement is “necessary in order to provide a more stable foundation for Puerto Rico to begin to perform long-term energy planning and repairs.”

Some critics who have worked at the agency in the past are unsatisfied with this explanation.

“The 1 percent cost share is potentially unprecedented for a DOE award of this size, and to a recipient with this much cash flow,” said a former Biden administration DOE official, who spoke under condition of anonymity due to concerns it would affect their current employment. The former official noted that in order for such an exception to be legal, it must have been made by the secretary of energy, Chris Wright, himself. “Congress decreed that cost-share waivers are only supposed to be available via a secretarial determination. They weren’t intended to be used often, and they haven’t been.” 

A spokesperson with the Office for Electricity at the DOE said that the agency “carefully evaluated procurement options and determined that a noncompetitive, sole-source award to PREPA was justified” and that achieving the goals of the energy resilience fund required the use of PREPA. The spokesperson acknowledged that the “reduction from the standard 50 percent cost share is significant,” but noted that the determination was made under authority provided by the Energy Policy Act. 

“PREPA continues to face severe fiscal constraints while maintaining responsibility for critical generation and transmission infrastructure,” the spokesperson said. “Requiring a 50 percent cost share would not have been feasible and would have delayed urgently needed grid stabilization and repair activities, undermining the core purpose of the Puerto Rico Energy Resilience Fund.”

The agency seemed well aware that its decision to award the funds to PREPA without considering competing applicants — and without seeking congressional approval for reallocating the funds from their intended use — would likely draw scrutiny. A section titled “Sensitivities” in a memo drafted by the head of the agency’s Grid Deployment Office highlighted that the decision to waive a 30-day congressional notice period, not seek other bids, and “the cost-share reduction may generate negative commentary, as the initial monies were planned to fund solar installations for multi-family housing (limited to common areas), community-based healthcare facilities.” The memo also went on to state that the “sole source designation to PREPA may raise objections to fairness, and perceived undue favoritism.” (“Sole source designation” is the term of art for a noncompetitive award to a single vendor.)

Puerto Rico’s electric grid has long been fragile. The average resident on the island experienced more than 70 hours of outages in 2024. When Hurricane Maria made landfall in 2017, the island’s more than 3 million residents lost power for weeks. It took PREPA more than nine months to restore power to some parts of the island. In the aftermath of the deadly disaster, Congress allocated more than $17 billion to modernize the grid. But almost a decade later, PREPA has completed very few projects with that massive influx of funding, and the utility has continued to navigate bankruptcy proceedings since 2017. The resilience funds being redirected to PREPA are in addition to this earlier allocation. The DOE memo acknowledges these issues, noting that “all parties involved are in less than desirable financial condition.” 

“It is really surprising that DOE would plan to send these sums to PREPA itself, given its record of federal spending,” the former Biden administration official added.

Still, Trump’s DOE came to the conclusion that PREPA was best suited to receive the funds. The memo argued that even if the agency had undergone a time-consuming competitive process — one that would have taken 18 months — it would have ultimately selected PREPA because the operator has sole ownership of the island’s grid. “Given the urgency of the situation, there is no other entity in Puerto Rico with the breadth of capability, asset ownership, and legal mandate to execute energy emergency response, grid stabilization, and recovery projects at this scale,” according to the document.

Read Next Solar was poised to help Puerto Ricans survive blackouts — until Trump axed nearly $1B in funding Naveena Sadasivam

Last month, more than 40 congressional Democrats sent Secretary Wright a letter demanding to know why the agency had redirected the resilience funding. The lawmakers asked for a briefing that would detail the agency’s justification for moving funds to PREPA. 

“DOE’s lack of transparency, wasteful reuse of the funding, disregard for congressional intent, and potentially illegal cancellation of contracts — combined with the resulting increase in energy poverty and loss of energy security — raise serious questions about the Department’s uses of the Puerto Rico-Energy Resilience Fund,” the letter said. 

The lawmakers were particularly concerned about the funds being used to build a natural gas pipeline. On its website, the DOE does not detail funding of the pipeline directly but instead refers to the project as “fuel supply security between San Juan and Palo Seco.” In internal documents, however, the DOE plainly notes that it intends to allocate $50 million to construct a natural gas pipeline. According to reporting in El Nuevo Día, a Puerto Rican publication, local authorities have already been working on building a natural gas pipeline connecting power stations in San Juan and Palo Seco, which is about 9 miles away. 

“Trying to force a liquefied methane pipeline project onto the people of Puerto Rico would help lock in the need to import fuels — keeping methane gas prices exorbitant for decades to come, putting ratepayers on the hook for funding it, and adding to already astronomical electricity costs,” the lawmakers’ letter reads. 

toolTips('.classtoolTips7','A powerful greenhouse gas that accounts for about 11% of global emissions, methane is the primary component of natural gas and is emitted into the atmosphere by landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, and wastewater treatment, among other pathways. Over a 20-year period, it is roughly 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Inside the government’s push to divert Puerto Rico solar funds to a bankrupt utility on Jun 17, 2026.

Georgia’s legislature has allotted $2 million for the first year of the Georgia Farmland Conservation Fund. Farm landowners across the state have applied for a piece of that funding to protect their land from development — for housing, warehouses, data centers, and other uses. Applicants will find out in August if they’ve been selected.

Some 30 states have what are known as “purchase of agricultural conservation easement” programs, though the amount of funding varies a great deal from state to state. Texas allocates $2 million annually, while Florida set aside $300 million in 2022 and $100 million in 2024. Georgia’s law, modeled after these initiatives, was passed in 2023, established a formal program to coordinate federal, state, and local match funding, and created an advisory council to review and approve proposals. The legislature passed the initial round of funding in 2024, and the first round of applications closed May 20.

The easements allow landowners to sell the future development rights for their land to an organization, like a land trust. An appraisal process determines the value of those development rights, and the farmer and easement holder negotiate the details of their agreement. The landowner receives an upfront payment, half of which comes from the state funds. The rest is match funding, which could come from a land trust, local government, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which allocates $450 million annually to match dollars in state conservation programs. The landowner can continue farming, growing and harvesting timber, or however else they use their land. They can even sell the land — just not to a developer who will turn it into housing, a strip mall, or an industrial site.

“It’s a compelling alternative to our farming landowners that are feeling a lot of financial crunch and are just being inundated with offers for selling out,” said Katherine Moore, president of the Georgia Conservancy, which advocated for the new state fund.

Those offers to sell can vary widely, depending on location, development plans, and many other factors. Prices in the sale of transitional land — property changing from one use to another — ranged from just over $6,000 to more than $260,000 per acre in 2025, according to a report by Saunders Land, a real estate brokerage and management firm. The value of a conservation easement varies widely too for similar reasons, though a landowner would typically receive less money for an easement than they would in an outright sale, since they’re selling rights rather than the land itself.

One such farmer is Russ Moon, who grows corn, soybeans, and strawberries and raises cattle on his family farm in Madison County, Georgia, outside of Athens. His family has worked that land for four generations, around 100 years. He wants to keep it that way and pass the farm on to his kids one day. Moon said he’s watched more housing and development come to the area over the years. It’s appealing to many, he said, to live near the University of Georgia in Athens and also enjoy the bucolic rural setting. Other farms around him have already sold, he said, and he’s worried that if left unchecked, the development rush will fundamentally change the community.

The irrigation system waters a field on Russ Moon’s family farm outside Athens, Georgia. Russ Moon

“Selling the land is really not an option,” he said of his own plans. “I intend on remaining in agriculture for as long as possible.” 

Moon said he’d only sell if forced to. But that could happen someday, for him or for his kids when they take over. Farming can be an unstable business, subject to weather and changing crop prices and global markets.

“There may be a day where they have to sell, but I don’t want the land to be developed,” he said. “That’s my desire, that’s my family’s desire.”

Some of Moon’s land is in a conservation easement, which he entered into directly with a land trust in 2019. The state’s new conservation fund aims to protect more land in a similar way by providing state funding to help facilitate such deals. 

It’s a critical step, said Moore of the Georgia Conservancy.

“It is unprecedented for Georgia to have such a program, which is a little wild when you think that, you know, agribusiness in total is our number one economic engine in the state,” she said.

Even though agriculture is Georgia’s leading industry, farmers face mounting pressure to sell to developers. The state could lose some 800,000 acres of farmland by 2040, according to the Georgia Department of Agriculture.

“That means 10 percent of our farmland will be gone in the next 15 years or so,” said state agriculture commissioner Tyler Harper. “And that’s a staggering statistic.”

That’s a concern not only because farms provide food and jobs and are a big part of the state’s economy, but also because of the potential climate impacts. 

Converting farmland to other uses can increase greenhouse gas emissions, according to the American Farmland Trust. Topsoil often has to be removed to pave the land, releasing the carbon that’s stored in it. Uses like low-density residential development or industrial operations often produce more emissions than farming. Conservation easements, on the other hand, can encourage farming and management practices that sequester more carbon, and they often protect non-agricultural land adjacent to fields — like woods and wetlands.

State leaders often tout the booming economy, proudly calling Georgia the number one state to do business. But that gives Moon pause.

“The whole time we keep being the number one place to do business, we’re hurting our number one industry,” he said. That damage could be permanent. “Once you develop a piece of property, you’re never going to — it’s never going to go back. You lose farmland, it’s gone forever,” Moon said.

He hopes that getting more farmland into conservation can help maintain some balance before it’s too late.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Georgia is losing farmland fast. Is a state conservation fund enough to save it? on Jun 17, 2026.

The oceanic phenomenon known as El Niño, which increases temperatures worldwide, has officially begun, according to U.S. weather forecasters at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. 

Meteorologists have warned that this could be the strongest El Niño this century. It is expected to drive extreme weather events around the world, including both severe droughts and heavy rainfall, likely leading to major disruptions in agricultural production and food security. 

El Niño is part of a cyclical, naturally-occurring weather pattern that redistributes warm air, surface water temperatures, and moisture across the tropical Pacific Ocean. During El Niño, trade winds that typically blow east-to-west from the Americas to southeast Asia slow down or sometimes reverse. Normally, these winds push warm water along the Equator — but during El Niño conditions, that warm water shifts back east. Although El Niño does not follow a specific timeline, it typically occurs every two to seven years. 

Beginning in the summer, El Niño typically peaks around December or the following January. (The pattern was named El Niño — Spanish for little boy — by fishermen in South America who noticed warmer waters around Christmas time, and associated it with the birth of Jesus Christ.) That means the most significant impacts of the cyclical weather phenomenon may not be felt until months from now. NOAA’s most recent calculations show a high likelihood of a “very strong” El Niño, meaning average surface temperatures in the Pacific jump by more than 2 degrees Celsius. (Some experts are calling this year’s a “super” El Niño, although some agencies, like the World Meteorological Organization, reject this language.)  

Because it impacts a “diverse set of geographies,” said Weston Anderson, a climate scientist at the University of Maryland, so “there is no one set of impacts.” El Niño can contribute to severe droughts in one part of the world and heavy rainfall in others — both of which can disrupt growing seasons in key breadbaskets of the world. 

But the ways in which this year’s El Niño will interact the effects of global warming — and what that means for food security — is something scientists are still actively observing and untangling. 

The typical impacts of El Niño to the continental U.S. and Canada during Northern Hemisphere winter. NOAA

“That question is still really important open science,” said Jennifer Burney, a professor at Stanford’s Doerr School of Sustainability whose work focuses on climate and food security. 

History can give us some examples. In 1877, one of the strongest El Niños ever recorded was associated with historic droughts across Asia, as well as in parts of Brazil and northern Africa. These droughts, “along with colonial policies contributed to famines in many regions which were really devastating,” said Deepti Singh, an associate professor at Washington State University who co-authored a study on this period of global famine. 

The fatalities associated with these famines, upwards of 50 million people, said Singh, “are humbling to think about.”

The last El Niño occurred in 2023 and 2024. It was one of the five strongest El Niños ever recorded, according to the World Meteorological Organization, or WMO, and is considered to have contributed to the historic temperatures in 2024, making it the hottest year on record. 

That year came with devastating consequences for growers, especially in arid regions where agricultural producers primarily rely on rainfall to irrigate their crops. Droughts driven by El Niño across southern Africa contributed to increased food insecurity and malnutrition in several countries. 

Burney noted that in some vulnerable regions, local governments may have adaptive strategies in place to grow key crops earlier in the growing season or to increase imports during El Niño years, which can help offset food insecurity. But even in those cases, local farmers who depend on growing and selling crops to support themselves and their families may still experience economic setbacks. In other words, certain policies may ensure there’s “enough food,” but “that’s not going to take care of the people whose livelihoods depend on” agriculture, Burney said. 

This year, El Niño conditions are expected to impact a number of growing areas — another setback for agricultural producers who have faced higher input costs stemming from the Iran War. Although the United States and Iran are potentially set to unveil an agreement to reopen the all-important Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world’s oil flows, farmers worldwide have already been impacted by fertilizer shortages and price hikes since the passage closed this spring. 

Weather variability fueled by El Niño will add to growers’ woes. India, where the majority of the world’s rice comes from, is projected to have a weaker monsoon season, which could reduce yields. Drier, hotter conditions could lead to diminished maize production in southern Africa. The southern U.S. states, from California all the way to the eastern seaboard, will experience a wetter year than normal, which could lead to flooding and upend crop production. 

But the exact way that this El Niño will unfurl is yet unknown. As El Niño interacts with the additional warming and moisture currently in our atmosphere caused by climate change, “there is likely to be a change in which regions are likely to be affected” by extreme weather, said Singh. Still, she added, we can expect “the severity, extent, and likelihood” of extreme weather events like droughts “to be higher” in today’s warmer climate.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The ‘super El Niño’ is here. What happens next could upend food systems worldwide. on Jun 16, 2026.

When investor Phil Tagami first proposed building an export terminal in Oakland, California, more than a decade ago, he probably didn’t anticipate the firestorm of litigation and controversy that would follow, in a saga that has now spanned three presidential administrations. There were early rumors that the terminal would export coal, much to the consternation of local residents, but Tagami said in a newsletter that the naysayers were “misinformed.” It was all downhill from there.

Tagami and others entered into a development agreement with the city of Oakland in 2013 after the city decided to redevelop a defunct army base on the city’s west side. At the time, Tagami was adamant that the developers were interested in building an all-purpose bulk terminal and capturing some of the traffic that Oakland was losing to other West Coast ports. But two years later, Oakland residents and environmental groups had their suspicions confirmed when the Salt Lake Tribune reported that the developers had quietly entered into an agreement to use the terminal to ship coal from Utah to buyers overseas. The revelation sparked intense backlash in the progressive city, and the ensuing conflict has put both the developers and the city on the hook for million-dollar losses at various times, though litigation is ongoing. 

Now, in the latest twist, the U.S. Department of Energy has stepped in to provide up to $75 million for building the terminal. The funding is the latest effort by the Trump administration to prop up the country’s coal industry — the Energy Department’s announcement last week also included over $400 million in support for coal-fired power plants — even as the fossil fuel’s role in generating U.S. electricity continues to collapse. Over the last year, the administration has loosened regulations that apply to the country’s coal fleet, ordered aging plants scheduled for retirement to keep running, and shifted the responsibility of overseeing coal contamination to states. 

The administration also argues that homegrown coal is still valuable abroad.

“For too long, limited West Coast export capacity has constrained America’s ability to move coal and other energy resources to global markets,” said Energy Secretary Chris Wright in a press release announcing the funding. Investing in the terminal would help in “advancing American energy dominance,” he added. 

Critics counter that the federal funding is the latest attempt to prop up a dying industry.

Ben Eichenberg, an attorney with the San Francisco Baykeeper, an environmental group in the Bay Area, said that terminal construction “really hasn’t gone anywhere because there’s no money to build” the facility. “The Trump administration stepping in and saying they’re going to supply that money gives it a new lifeline,” he said. “This terminal project was drowning, and they’ve just been thrown the life preserver.”

The Energy Department’s Hail Mary is unlikely to end the embattled terminal’s long saga. After Oakland officials learned a decade ago that the developers intended to transport coal through the terminal, they held public hearings and eventually passed an ordinance and adopted a resolution that barred the storage of coal anywhere in the city. That set the stage for the first round of lawsuits against the city.

Oakland’s development agreement stated that it would provide regulatory certainty for the terminal backers by locking in the regulations that existed at the time. In other words, the city wasn’t allowed to change the rules about what the terminal could be used for after development started. The developers sued Oakland on these grounds, claiming that the city had violated the terms of the agreement by passing the new anti-coal-storage ordinance, thereby affecting the developers’ ability to proceed with their project. 

The agreement did, however, make an important exception. New rules can be applied to the terminal if the city determines that the absence of those rules would put the people of Oakland in “substantial danger.” The city had held public hearings and collected evidence of the threat posed by coal dust, but the developers argued that the record was insufficient — and ultimately the judge overseeing the case agreed. He found that “the record is riddled with inaccuracies, major evidentiary gaps, erroneous assumptions, and faulty analyses, to the point that no reliable conclusion about health or safety dangers could be drawn from it.”

Crucially, the judge did not claim that the transport of coal through Oakland does not pose a threat to residents, or that the city didn’t have the right to pass an ordinance banning coal. A higher court also agreed with that decision and affirmed the ruling. 

“The fight was not about whether coal is safe or dangerous, but it was about the terms of the development agreement,” said Colin O’Brien, an attorney with Earthjustice, the nonprofit that represented the San Francisco Baykeeper and the Sierra Club as an intervenor in the proceedings. 

After suffering a loss in the courts, the city tried a different tack. The developers had signed a lease with the city, which required them to meet certain construction milestones. Because of the years spent litigating the terms of the development agreement, the developers hadn’t begun construction. Oakland officials cancelled the lease on these new grounds, dragging the city into its next round of legal battles. The developers sued in state court in 2018, arguing that the city’s own decisions had prevented them from meeting the construction deadlines. The court once again sided with the developers, as did a higher court on appeal last year.

By then, Insight Terminal Solutions, the company that was slated to operate the terminal, had filed for bankruptcy in Kentucky and decided to pursue claims against the city. During the bankruptcy proceedings last year, the company claimed that the protracted legal battles with Oakland were to blame for its financial woes — and that it was owed more than $650 million in damages. A sympathetic bankruptcy court judge agreed with the firm’s rationale, but on appeal in a federal district court, the ruling was vacated late last year, much to the historically cash-strapped city’s relief. 

Despite the influx of federal support for the terminal, the project’s backers still have a long road ahead. The terminal needs to secure a range of permits, including air quality permits from the Bay Area Air Quality District, and local advocates have already mounted a campaign to require stringent regulations for the facility. (Tagami and another representative of California Capital & Investment Group, the lead developer of the project, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

For their part, environmental groups are keeping a close eye on the permitting process.

“We’re going to do everything in our power to protect the community in San Francisco Bay from the pollution that this coal terminal represents,” said Eichenberg. “We’ll be evaluating all of those permits and any additional action that we can take to protect the community and fulfill our mission.”

Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Even $75M from Trump may not save Oakland’s embattled coal terminal on Jun 15, 2026.

Last year, Marie Tai needed a better way to keep her condo cool. Her window air-conditioning units were borderline ineffective, even running at full blast. Summers have been getting more intense in Tai’s Boston neighborhood because of a rapidly warming climate, and she had just adopted a 16-year-old cat named Mittens, who was still recovering from being hit by a car.

Tai had already been considering a heat pump, an all-electric appliance that heats and cools spaces and lets homeowners ditch polluting fossil fuels. But three contractors had quoted her prices ranging from about $28,000 to $40,000. Tai, who heads finance and administration at Harvard University’s Project Zero, thought those estimates seemed excessive for her 1,000-square-foot, two-bedroom place. So she had hit pause on the project.

But with Mittens’ well-being front of mind, Tai renewed her heat pump search last spring. Through Facebook, she found an opportunity to participate in a program that aggregates demand, organized by Laminar Collective, a local startup that does research on the tech and coordinates installations.

These heat pump group-buy initiatives let installers purchase equipment in bulk and spend less time chasing leads, accruing savings that they can pass on to customers. Tai, tantalized by Laminar’s menu of low prices for a heat-pump setup, decided to give it a shot.

Read Next American homes need heat pumps, not space heaters Matt Simon

After a representative from the startup visited her home to check what heat pump size and configuration would fit her needs, Tai signed up for a ductless minisplit system for $20,000 — thousands less than even her lowest initial quote. She then also took advantage of an additional $8,500 state rebate and eight-year financing with 0% interest.

The new equipment has been life-changing, Tai said.

She no longer has to buy fuel oil for heating in the winter, and the heat pump is so efficient that last year she saved roughly $1,300 on her energy bills. In contrast to the old, noisy window ACs, the new system’s wall-mounted, air-filtering indoor units ​“are so quiet,” she said. Her allergy symptoms have improved. And Mittens is comfortable and doing well, she noted. ​“I couldn’t be happier.”

Like Tai, homeowners in communities across the U.S. are signing up for an unusual way of buying heat pumps: together. Companies, nonprofits, and local governments are increasingly offering programs that coordinate consumer demand to secure meaningful discounts of around 10% to 20%, which can translate to roughly $3,000 to $6,000 per installation. It’s like a group buying a pack of muffins at Costco rather than each buying a muffin at Starbucks.

The bulk-buy approach is taking off as the Trump administration demolishes electrification incentives. Last year, the Republican-led Congress eliminated a $2,000 federal tax credit for home heat pumps. Late last month, the administration said that it won’t allow home energy-efficiency rebates to be used by people looking to get off gas.

Read Next What’s behind your eye-popping power bill? We broke it down, region by region. Naveena Sadasivam & Clayton Aldern

While heat pumps reduce pollution and typically cut owners’ energy bills, they can be a pricey proposition up front. Whole-home installations typically range from $17,000 to $30,000, depending on the property size, insulation, climate, and many other factors, according to electrification advocacy nonprofit Rewiring America.

“Even though homeowners often save significantly over time, the first quotes can bring real sticker shock,” said Cole Merrick, founder and CEO of VoltHub, an online heat-pump installation marketplace.

VoltHub and heat-pump general contractor Vayu organized a California group-buy program this spring to serve the counties of Los Angeles and Orange and the greater San Francisco Bay Area. They’re offering another one this summer.

Most heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning replacements are emergencies, and these jobs will continue to make up the majority of Vayu’s business, said founder and CEO Shreyas Sudhakar. But for households that can hold off on getting a heat pump installed, group buys are ideal, he noted.

The process entails a waiting period, which can be several weeks to about six months, as the slots fill up and the installer determines the final pricing. The installer then confirms individual quotes with customers — who can decide not to move forward without penalty — and schedules the work.

Heat pump group buys come in different forms. They can be organized at the grassroots level, offered by a contractor, or run by a third party that aggregates demand over a limited time window. Through a competitive bidding process, the third party vets qualified installers and chooses one or more to carry out the jobs.

Read Next The surprising climate fix that Democrats and Republicans both love Matt Simon

The collective bargaining approach has succeeded in the past. Nonprofit Solar United Neighbors has led similar group buys for rooftop solar since 2007, helping thousands of households net deals on installations.

Now, the organization is partnering with iChoosr, an international company that helps households electrify, in order to get group deals for heat pumps, too. Using iChoosr’s Switch Together platform, people in select areas can sign up to unlock group discounts for the all-electric appliance, as well as solar and batteries. Since 2023, more than 5,100 U.S. homeowners have gotten their solar panels or batteries via iChoosr, which earns a fee from participating vetted installers for jobs they get through the platform, said Fred Wu, a director of community engagement for the company.

iChoosr was already running successful bulk-purchasing programs for heat pumps in the U.K. and the Netherlands, and launched its first offerings in the U.S. last year with Solar United Neighbors. They opened one program in the Colorado Front Range and another in the Washington, D.C., area in July, closed those lists in September, and finished up the installations — for about 90 households — by the end of the year.

On the heels of that success, iChoosr reran group buys in both regions this spring. More than 1,000 households have signed up expressing interest so far.

This year, the company will also launch new programs in the metro areas of Houston and Dallas, Chicagoland, and northern Arizona around Flagstaff, partnering with nonprofits and local governments at no cost to them, Wu said.

For contractors, these bulk-buy initiatives are a boon.

They cut down on the installers’ sales and marketing costs, thanks to word of mouth and publicity from third parties like iChoosr. Home electrification contractor Elephant Energy, which is working with iChoosr to deploy the Colorado heat-pump installations, saves about $300 per project, said CEO and co-founder DR Richardson. Elephant has also run its own community bulk buys across its California, Colorado, and Massachusetts markets, he noted.

Group-buy initiatives smooth out demand by allowing for planned installations when business naturally slumps. Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning work is highly seasonal, with most people calling an HVAC technician during the first heat wave or cold snap.

“For a lot of businesses, two months will make up 70% to 80% of the revenue for the year,” said Sudhakar of Vayu. ​“So to be able to have some guaranteed revenue that is on the books and [can] fill downtime is really valuable.”

But heat pump group-buying programs aren’t ubiquitous yet. Wu of iChoosr recommends that homeowners who are interested but not in a rush contact city and county leaders to let them know that they’d like to get a bulk deal going in their area.

“We’re continuously trying to expand the program,” Wu said. ​“The first thing we need … is a local government that wants to bring this to their constituents.” These partnerships lend credibility and visibility to the group initiatives, since local governments help promote them.

Tai in Boston was grateful to be part of Laminar Collective’s heat-pump bulk buy. It not only helped her save money but also provided her time to get her questions answered without the sales pressure she felt from one-on-one solicitations. ​“It’s empowering,” she said. After she told her neighbor about her experience, they got their heat pump that way, too.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Want a deal on a heat pump? Team up with your neighbors. on Jun 14, 2026.

Millions of people around the world are having their lives upended by floods, storms and heatwaves worsened by the climate crisis. Those forced to flee their home countries, however, are finding that the door to the US is more firmly shut than ever.

Neither US nor international law recognizes environmental hazards, such as climate-related displacement, as a valid cause to claim asylum or gain entry through other migration pathways, despite the mounting toll of disasters caused by an overheating planet.

But those who have managed to get to the US through other means after being displaced in this way now find themselves in an even more precarious position following Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, with little hope of a new system to help others forced from their homes by climate impacts.

For some, that pathway to the US has been particularly perilous. When Hurricane Mitch crashed into Honduras, killing 7,000 people, one affected family surveyed the unsalvageable ruins of their home and realized they had a lifeline – to move to the US.

Read Next The biggest climate migration problem may be that there’s not enough of it Julian Hattem

Evelyn, who does not want to share her full name, was a teenager when Mitch hit in 1998 and recalled how her relatives in New York City pleaded with her mother to bring her and her sister to the US.

“There were bodies and dead animals floating in the water, the house was messed up, the furniture was all gone – doors, windows gone. It was so, so sad,” said Evelyn. “I got sick because of the mosquitoes and didn’t have any services to rebuild the house because our country is very poor. My uncle and aunt were just like, ‘OK, just bring the kids over here, don’t stay. It’s dangerous.’”

Storms of the deadly ferocity of Mitch are even more likely now because of a hotter atmosphere and ocean that has rapidly heated up from the burning of fossil fuels.

Yet Trump’s migration crackdown has made it far harder for people like Evelyn to flee to the US now. “Every day it’s more barriers,” said Evelyn, who still lives in New York and has two daughters, one studying to be a lawyer, the other a doctor. “It’s sad to know that people will not be able to apply for a status or something to help their situation and also help the people back home.”

Some migrants in the US have faced living in countries rocked by climate shocks and conflict.

“I was invited to come here and be part of this country and now all of a sudden you try to make me go back after establishing a life here?” said a doctor from Sudan, who moved to the US several years ago and did not want to be named. The doctor faces the prospect of deportation under a new Trump administration edict that has blocked all entry to the US from Sudan and dozens of other countries.

Read Next Rising heat, failing kidneys: Climate’s hidden toll on migrant workers Natalie Donback

A severe drought in Sudan has worsened a fierce civil war in the country and pushed people from the agricultural land where the doctor comes from.

“People have had to abandon their lands because there isn’t enough water, millions have fled,” he said. “There is climate change and the difficulty of people sharing resources and the conflicts are affected by that. I would rather stay home and do my medical training here but many factors forced me to leave the country.”

Droughts are being exacerbated by rising global temperatures, researchers have found, and a leading cause of the 250 million people worldwide who have been displaced by environmental factors in the past decade, according to the United Nations.

Displaced people in certain countries can also be affected by wars or fall victim to gangs or other violence as a result of their movement. These secondary impacts are often the ones that compel them to flee over international borders and gain sanctuary elsewhere.

“It was always hot, no rain,” said another man, from Somalia and now applying for asylum in the US, about the drought in his own country. Somalia, like Sudan, has been racked by civil war.

“People from the farming lands, they’re dying, with no water,” he added. “Also the animals, they die because when it’s not raining, everything will dry, people die, animals die, and all the people they run from the farm and come to the city. So everything can get hard.”

Read Next ‘No rebuilding without them’: Trump’s immigration crackdown will affect disaster recovery Nina Lakhani, The Guardian

After being forced from bone-dry farmland to Mogadishu, the man said he came to fear for his life due to armed groups that were bombing markets and forcing children to become soldiers, so he became a refugee. He now faces new fears in the US after the Trump administration effectively shut down the asylum system, other than to white South Africans.

“Now we are getting a lot of attacks from the government,” the man said. “I don’t know why. I don’t understand what the problem is. It’s scary with the government here, how they are treating people.”

People uprooted from countries like Sudan and Somalia now face an almost impossible situation in terms of entry to the US, according to Felipe Navarro, associate director of policy and advocacy at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies.

“If you were displaced by climate change, that door is closed,” he said. “I don’t think climate displacement comes into the administration’s thinking; it’s probably not intentional. They just have a general hatred for certain nationalities and races. This administration doesn’t really care about climate change at all.”

Some Democratic lawmakers have in recent years attempted to introduce a climate-related visa that would cover people fleeing extreme weather disasters. However, with the political mood swinging strongly against migrants, advocates’ hopes of reform have dwindled, even as the number of displaced has ballooned.

“It’s hard to predict the long-term effects of these policies,” said Navarro. “When we close doors, though, people always find another path to move.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Every day it’s more barriers’: how the US is shutting out climate refugees on Jun 13, 2026.

For decades, American politicians have been slow to take on climate change and curb carbon dioxide emissions, under the assumption that doing so might pass along costs to their voters. Ironically, their failure to rein in fossil fuel emissions has yielded the same result: Expenses for everyday Americans have soared as a result of more extreme flooding, fires, and heat.

“What’s striking is that already, households are bearing serious costs,” said Kimberly Clausing, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. She co-authored a paper from earlier this year finding that families were paying between $400 and $900 more each year because of the effects of climate change, with the costs above $1,300 in the 10 percent hardest-hit counties, many of them found in Florida, Louisiana, Nebraska, Colorado, and California. 

On Wednesday, the Commerce Department reported that the annual inflation rate reached 4.2 percent in May, the highest rate in three years. Though the war in Iran is mostly responsible for this recent increase, a surprising number of Americans are attributing the general economic pinch they’re feeling to the changing climate. Two-thirds of U.S. voters agree that global warming is affecting the cost of living to some degree, according to new survey data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, including most Democrats and moderate Republicans. Of those two-thirds, a majority of them said that climate change was driving up what they pay for groceries, utility bills, and home insurance.

Rising energy prices were at the top of people’s lists, a concern that some climate advocates are tapping into ahead of the midterm elections this November. On Monday, the LCV Victory Fund, a political action committee, announced that it will target “energy bill voters” with messages about how clean, affordable energy can trim their monthly expenses, and how Republicans have held back renewable power. That follows successes for Democrats in the off-year elections in 2025, where energy prices played a role in state races in Georgia, New Jersey, and Virginia.

There are many factors pushing up electricity prices, but in some parts of the country, efforts to revamp the electric grid to handle more extreme weather is the primary reason. In California, utilities are upgrading their infrastructure to reduce wildfire risk; in the Southeast, they are rebuilding after hurricanes and flooding and billing their customers for it. In Arizona, residents are cranking up the air conditioning during scorching heat and paying more for power simply because they’re using more AC.

Technicians conduct maintenance at electric facilities among the ruins of beachfront structures after the January 2025 wildfires in Los Angeles.
Qian Weizhong / VCG via Getty Images

Even Republican-leaning voters — 42 percent of conservative Republicans, and 57 percent of moderate ones — are linking their rising costs to global warming, according to the Yale survey. “It makes perfect sense that they would do so, given the results from our study, which show that the geographically rural areas are actually facing some of the highest costs,” Clausing said. From wildfires to hurricanes, rural areas are often facing the brunt of the damage. Her study found that the largest household costs occurred in parts of the West, the Gulf Coast, and Florida.

Utility bills, despite being a top political issue, are actually one of the smaller price-point impacts of climate change, according to Clausing’s research: Households are spending an average of about $35 more on electricity per year, compared with an extra $356 on homeowners’ insurance premiums, the biggest cost. Clausing, who owns a house in Portland, Oregon, said the insurance premium on her home skyrocketed from around $1,000 five years ago to about $2,200 today — an increase that her insurance company said was to help recoup the costs of wildfire damage in Oregon.

Another major category of costs in Clausing’s study was the health effects of climate change. As wildfire smoke grows more common, exposing people to harmful particulate matter, it’s leading to early deaths. The estimated economic damage of these premature deaths works out to $103 for every household in the United States each year. That’s not to mention the other ways climate change damages the public’s health, from lengthening allergy seasons to expanding the geographic spread of infectious diseases as temperatures warm, allowing ticks and mosquitoes to explore new territories. 

But it seems like many Americans haven’t made the connection: Only 35 percent of those in the Yale survey who agreed that climate change was driving up prices saw a link to higher health care costs. That’s because these health risks haven’t been adequately communicated to the public, said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “Health is one of the most powerful ways we have of saying, ‘Actually, this affects our lives right here, right now. It’s already affecting the people and places and things that we love,’” he said.

Read Next What’s behind your eye-popping power bill? We broke it down, region by region. Naveena Sadasivam & Clayton Aldern

Though most of the respondents thought climate change made groceries more expensive, it’s hard to measure the effect of extreme weather on food costs, according to Catherine Wolfram, a co-author of the study and a professor of applied economics at the MIT Sloan School of Management. That’s mainly because the United States’ food supply comes from all over the world, mitigating the impact of, say, a drought in Brazil or a heat wave in the Great Plains. Still, other research has found that hot summers can lead to higher food prices, with more increases projected as the world warms. 

As the effects of global warming grow more extreme, it’s becoming clear that they’re posing a problem for the budgets of lower-income Americans. Clausing is studying ways to design policies that tackle climate change without burdening poor families, through rebates or other mechanisms that can offset costs. 

“I’m glad people are connecting the dots,” Clausing said. “I think, at the moment, if you pursue better climate policy, the benefits to households, for the country as a whole, would exceed the costs.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What’s driving up your expenses? Many Americans say climate change. on Jun 12, 2026.

Travis Terry lives in Forest Hills, a neighborhood in Queens about 5 minutes from an abandoned rail line. He describes the tracks, last used in 1962, as a “blight” plagued by illegal dumping. “It’s been sitting there for 65 years now,” he said, “and those of us in the community, we got tired of what it had become.” 

Terry has long seen great potential for a green space that would allow people to easily bike to Forest Park, the borough’s third largest park. He’s pursued this vision since 2011, advocating for a proposal, called QueensWay, to convert the 3.5 miles of idle railway into a 47-acre park.  

But some would rather the tracks, once the Rockaway Beach Branch of the Long Island Rail Road, become a subway line running north-south through New York’s largest borough. 

Andrew Lynch doesn’t see why it can’t be both. “When I saw this debate, I was like, ‘Man, none of you guys want to work together. Let me show you what’s up,’” Lynch told Grist. He wrote a blog post in 2016 outlining a project with rail service and green space. That led to the formation of QueensLink, a proposal to extend the subway’s M Train line and create 33 acres of parkland. 

All these years later, the two ideas remain at odds, a dispute that mirrors debates in other cities over how to repurpose such infrastructure — whether as transit, green space or some combination of the two. Nationwide, more than 25,000 miles of rail have been converted to recreational trails. The Atlanta Beltline is among the most prominent examples with its 22-mile loop of trails and parks, though plans to include light rail have stalled.

The debate in New York is happening even as the city continues expanding its subway system. It is spending $5.5 billion on the Interborough Express to connect Queens and Brooklyn, and $7.7 billion on phase two of Manhattan’s Second Avenue Subway. Queens, meanwhile, has shown steady growth since the pandemic, and residents make more commutes by car than those in any other borough. New York also has a history of ambitious rail-to-trail projects, including The High Line, and officials have spent more than a decade investing in equitable park access.

This long-running question now confronts Mayor Zohran Mamdani. While QueensWay’s first phase is expected to begin construction later this year, supporters of QueensLink are urging city and state officials not to foreclose the possibility of restoring rail service.

As an assemblyman representing parts of Queens, Mamdani expressed support for QueensLink in 2023. As mayor, however, he included $43 million for the QueensWay park project in his $124.7 billion annual budget. “The City remains committed to expanding green and open space across the boroughs and is actively exploring all available funding options to make that a reality,” a mayoral spokesperson told Grist.

Lynch said QueensLink supporters were “miffed” and “shocked” by that decision. A City Hall official told Grist the decision to finance the park does not preclude building the rail line as well.

Phase one of QueensWay, which would create a 5-acre linear park, is set to begin later this year. Phase Two, which would have added a 1.3 mile extension, was to be paid for with a $117 million grant from the federal Reconnecting Communities initiative, but Congress rescinded funding for that program when it passed the Big Beautiful Bill. 

Read Next Your local park is bringing in the green (and by that, we mean money) Matt Simon

Mamdani’s staff recently told QueensLink supporters that the park project’s first phase is too far along to stop, according to Lynch, and said the administration will not rezone the land as park space. That preserves the possibility of also building the subway line, a point former Mayor Eric Adams’ administration made when it said one does not preclude the other. However, Lynch thinks the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or MTA, which operates much of the region’s transit network, would balk at building a line on park land. 

Lynch said QueensLink is looking for Governor Kathy Hochul, who appoints the MTA’s board and plays a major role in drafting its budget, to support the project. Her office directed Grist to the MTA and New York City Hall for comment. 

The nonprofit Trust for Public Land has supported the park project since 2011. Tamar Renaud, its New York State director, said QueensWay will boost equity by eventually serving four of the 20 neighborhoods with the least amount of accessible park acreage. With 28 schools around the rail line, it would improve recreation for kids, while making the area more bikeable and walkable. “It was really about reconnecting communities that had been separated through these big infrastructure projects,” she said. 

QueensWay supporters see their project as more practical. A 2019 MTA report found that the QueensLink rail line would cost $8.1 billion, but the agency has since revised that to $5.9 billion and estimated it would serve 39,000 daily riders. “Reactivating the Rockaway Beach Branch with NYCT service has a high cost and serves a relatively modest number of riders,” the agency concluded. “This project would reduce auto usage and provide additional rail connections, but compared to other projects, the benefits are average for sustainability and resiliency.”

Advocates for the park project, on the other hand, put its cost at around $350 million. “I think we all recognize that after all these studies there wasn’t going to be a train,” Terry said.

Railway supporters argue the MTA’s cost estimate is high and its ridership estimate low. They hired the consulting firm Transportation Economics & Management Systems to evaluate the report; it placed the cost closer to $3.5 billion. A New York University report estimated it would serve around 75,000 daily riders; another found it would take 14,800 cars off the road each day. 

Eric Goldwyn, an expert on public transit project costs at the NYU Marron Institute, said QueensLink might not hugely boost ridership but that it would benefit operations by allowing busy trains on Queens Boulevard to run at a higher capacity. 

In Goldwyn’s view, QueensLink is the project that harmonizes rail and park. Like Lynch, he thinks the advancement of QueensWay would not be a good sign for QueensLink. “Once that first spade of dirt is turned over, the odds become… longer,” he said. “It’ll be harder and harder to envision QueensLink in the way that it’s been proposed.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What is the best use for old railroad tracks? New Yorkers have opinions. on Jun 12, 2026.

This story is made possible through a partnership between Grist and The Flatwater Free Press, Nebraska’s first independent, nonprofit newsroom focused on investigations and feature stories.

Applause echoed through the halls of the Gage County courthouse. The county board had just approved new, more stringent wind energy regulations, and the overflow crowd of residents couldn’t contain themselves. 

Few in the crowded courthouse that day in September 2020 beamed brighter than Larry Allder. The Cortland-area resident helped lead the yearslong charge against wind energy’s looming expansion into the county. 

“It’s been a long road,” he told The Voice News after the vote.

Now six years later, another historically controversial energy source — nuclear power — could be coming. Last month, the Nebraska Public Power District, or NPPD, announced a list of four potential sites for a new nuclear power plant. Gage County, south of Lincoln on the border with Kansas, is on it. This time, though, Allder has no plans to mount an opposition.

“I think that’s a great idea. I like nuclear energy,” Allder said. “I think it’s the way of the future.”

Despite a legacy that often invokes fear, there are signs nuclear development won’t face the backlash that other energy sources, especially renewables, have generated for Nebraskans in recent years. “They were just trying to stick the wind turbines really close to my property, and I do not like wind energy,” Allder said. He considers the turbines to be “ugly.” More substantively, Allder thinks that wind and solar projects produce “very inefficient and very costly and very intermittent power.” Nuclear, however, he said, is “clean and it doesn’t take up much land space.”

Grist spoke with leaders in the four communities identified by NPPD — Beatrice, Sutherland, Norfolk, and Brownville— and most said their communities are open to a new nuclear project.

“I think the general consensus is still that we’re supportive of nuclear energy,” Madison County Commissioner Troy Uhlir said. “There’s definitely more people speaking up and saying, ‘No, not here,’ (but) it’s not overwhelming.”

Beatrice Mayor Bob Morgan said his community is excited to be in the top four site options.

In Sutherland, a few residents have voiced questions on safety, said Scott Meyer, chairman of the village board. Both Uhlir and Meyer believe those concerns can be calmed by education. 

“What I find pleasing and reinforcing is that there is a lot of support out there,” NPPD CEO Tom Kent told Grist. “Those communities are really interested in hosting and being a location for this kind of development, and Nebraska has always been a state that’s been very supportive of nuclear power.”

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

Nationally, lawmakers in both parties have begun embracing nuclear power, as have everyday people like Allder. It also is being eyed by utilities, lured — amid growing demand for electricity — by its ability to generate large amounts of power without spewing climate-warming greenhouse gases.

Technological advancements offer another selling point. The next generation of nuclear power plants aims to solve problems the industry has historically grappled with, including their high costs, lengthy constructions, and safety concerns.

Proponents of nuclear say that advanced reactor plants like small modular reactors, or SMRs, could solve those problems that have long beset the industry. These reactors are also expected to be flexible, generating more or less power as needed, which can work well with renewables, said Joseph Giitter, a former senior executive at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And the latest innovation wave has generated a massive amount of support from private tech companies and investors who are betting on nuclear as a solution for the spike in electricity demand from data centers. 

While projects involving new nuclear designs have started in Tennessee, Wyoming, and Washington, Nebraska is probably a decade away from seeing a new nuclear plant, which is why it’s important to start research now, Kent said. 

“When nuclear takes off, it’s going to take off quick. So we want to be ready to be in that first set of fast follower orders, right? Or we’ll miss the middle of the next decade,” he said.

NPPD was recently awarded over $27 million in cost-shared funding by the Department of Energy to apply for a federal permit needed to site a new nuclear plant. According to Kent, the funding will cover less than half of the application costs. In terms of designs, Kent says NPPD is considering designs similar to the small reactors being tested in Wyoming and Tennessee. But it remains to be seen whether this next generation of nuclear reactors can deliver what its proponents promise. 

The utility is also open to large-scale reactors, like the ones installed at Plant Vogtle in Georgia — a cautionary tale for Nebraska.

Georgia’s two new nuclear reactors started producing power in 2023 and 2024, 15 years after the utility applied for a license, according to the Associated Press. These reactors are more advanced than most operating in the U.S.. The project wrapped up years behind schedule and, at more than $30 billion, was over budget. In the end, the new reactors led to rate hikes for power customers, which fueled public backlash. 

Southern Company’s CEO, Chris Womack noted its subsidiary Georgia Power faced unique obstacles, including a nearly nonexistent workforce and supply chain, complications posed by the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011 and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and the bankruptcy of the design contractor. 

But nuclear projects have historically run into significant delays and gone way over budget, said Edward Kee, CEO of Nuclear Economics Consulting Group. Large or small, these projects in the U.S. can be a gamble for utilities and their rate payers.

For context, NPPD’s Cooper Nuclear Station, which opened in 1974 and is the state’s only commercial nuclear plant in operation, cost about $313 million to build. Adjusted for inflation, that price tag translates to roughly $2.1 billion in today’s dollars. Omaha Public Power District’s now-retired Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station, which started operating in 1973, cost about $165 million to build. That would be roughly $1.2 billion today.

Sometimes, that gamble pays off, as happened in south Texas where, 20 years later, customers are experiencing lower power rates, Kee said. But in other cases, the projects never made it to completion. Since 2010, there have been at least 11 canceled commercial nuclear power reactor plans, according to the NRC. 

While new advanced reactors may minimize issues seen in Georgia, they too carry financial risks because they haven’t been tested, Giitter said. 

“The promise of the technology is there, but it hasn’t been proven yet,” Giitter said.

toolTips('.classtoolTips3','Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases that prevent heat from escaping Earth’s atmosphere. Together, they act as a blanket to keep the planet at a liveable temperature in what is known as the “greenhouse effect.” Too many of these gases, however, can cause excessive warming, disrupting fragile climates and ecosystems.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Nuclear in my backyard: A Nebraska utility is skirting the public backlash that plagues wind and solar on Jun 12, 2026.

Even if you don’t like eating mushrooms, you’re in debt to fungi. One group of them, known as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, form vast subterranean networks of tubes called hyphae, hooking up with the roots of plants to exchange nutrients. Earth is so verdant in large part thanks to these partnerships, as this expansive infrastructure is associated with nearly three-quarters of all plant species. But because the network sprawls underground, it’s been difficult for scientists to determine just how much arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is out there. (Good luck digging everywhere on the planet and taking samples.)

Scientists have developed a workaround, which has produced some astonishing numbers. Using machine learning models, they’ve estimated that worldwide, the arbuscular mycorrhizal network stretches for 110 quadrillion kilometers, almost a billion times the distance from Earth to the sun. (Scoop up just a teaspoon of soil and you might find 10 meters of fungal strands.) Every year, these fungi shuttle around 4 billion metric tons of carbon, equal to 11 percent of humanity’s CO2 emissions. 

Because scientists have already taken thousands upon thousands of samples around the world, the researchers could train the models to build maps (you can play with them here) that predict where these fungi are more or less concentrated, even in the most remote environments. “We have started to have a clear picture of the full extent of these hidden living infrastructures that circulate carbon and nutrients in the soils beneath our feet,” said Toby Kiers, executive director of the Society for the Protection of Underground Networks and coauthor of the new paper, which published today in the journal Science.

In this map, brighter yellow spots indicate higher densities of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
Courtesy of the Society for the Protection of Underground Networks

There are two major classes of mycorrhizal species. The ectomycorrhizal fungi grow as sheaths around a plant’s roots, especially conifer trees, whereas the arbuscular ones in this new paper penetrate them. Either way, these fungi act as an extension of the roots, helping them absorb more water and nutrients. “Just as a circulatory system moves resources through a body, these sort of microscopic fungal pipes are connected to plants,” Kiers said. 

In exchange, mycorrhizal species get energy in the form of carbon that the plants have drawn from the atmosphere. They help the plants grow to sequester still more carbon, a mutually beneficial partnership that benefits humans, too, as it keeps the planet from warming even further.

However, the density of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi isn’t uniform across the planet’s biomes. You might assume that it would be highest in tropical rainforests, but in fact grasslands account for 40 percent of the predicted global arbuscular biomass, the study found. That might be because herbaceous plants like grasses tend to allocate more carbon to their symbiotic fungi than trees do. You can’t see it, but grasslands have vast root systems, meaning there’s loads of hidden biomass. “Even if grasslands get burned above ground, that carbon tends to remain underground, and they can come back again, which is different than forests,” Kiers said.

Yet, Kiers added, just 5 percent of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal biodiversity hot spots lie in environmentally protected areas. The idea with these new maps is for scientists and policymakers to identify where fungi might be thriving, and protect them. That will simultaneously support plant life and biodiversity overall — all kinds of birds, insects, and herbivores depend on this vegetation, too — and capture still more carbon in the soil. (Some savannas, like Brazil’s cerrado, also store enormous amounts of carbon underground in peat, or dead plant material that resists decay and accumulates over centuries.)

Toby Kiers and Merlin Sheldrake take soil samples in the mountains of Bhutan. Courtesy Tomás Munita

At the other end of the spectrum, the study found that in areas with large-scale agriculture, fungal network densities are about 50 percent lower on average. That may be because synthetic fertilizers provide crops all the nutrients they need, easing their reliance on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Tillage also tears fungal networks apart at the end of a growing season. (Other research has found that tilling also disrupts soil’s ability to retain water.) “Maybe we can do better to have more fungal biomass in our agricultural systems, and in our terrestrial ecosystem as a whole, and capture more carbon dioxide,” said ecologist Smriti Pehim Limbu, who studies mycorrhizal fungi at Dartmouth College but wasn’t involved in the new paper.

Humanity has to feed itself, of course. But with this new data in hand, it can also take steps to protect these critical species hidden underground. “This map is for mycorrhizal fungi what the first detailed maps were for, I don’t know, ocean currents or river systems,” Kiers said. “Where you go from knowing a system exists to knowing where it is, how dense it is, and where it’s threatened.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline This unfathomably huge fungal network keeps Earth cool and green on Jun 11, 2026.

Some groups that do research and collect data on the Great Lakes are facing existential threats as the annual budgeting process for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gets underway.

A proposed budget request from President Donald Trump would zero out programs that scientists say are the foundation of weather observations, water quality, maritime safety, and recreation on the Great Lakes. The president wants to cut NOAA’s budget by $1.3 billion, or one-third of current funding levels, to better match priorities related to halting climate research.

“The investment that we make pays off in terms of safer water, public safety, public health, as well as economic activity,” said Gregory Dick, director of the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research, or CIGLR, a partnership between the University of Michigan and NOAA.

Researchers at CIGLR work closely with NOAA to conduct work on lake water levels, ice dynamics, and harmful algal blooms on Lake Erie. Data is used by state managers, fishers, boaters, and the regional shipping industry.

“That’s the kind of data that you want at your fingertips,” Dick said. “That’s what’s at risk with cuts like the ones we’re talking about.”

Beyond the potential loss of this data, Dick is worried about long-term research on how climate change is affecting the Great Lakes. Water levels are fluctuating and Dick said understanding those dynamics is important for future planning geared toward development projects and the economy.

Another at-risk program is the Great Lakes Observing System, or GLOS, a regional network that coordinates data collection on wave heights, water temperatures, ice, wind, and more. The network makes real-time data available to the public, and it’s often used by boaters, fishers, and other people who spend time in and on the lakes.

“If you want to visit a beach, if you want to take your dog and let it run in the lake, it’s really important to know beforehand if there’s a bloom there or dangerous surf conditions,” said Jennifer Boehme, CEO of GLOS. The system is one of 11 NOAA-funded observation networks across the country that maintain data from oceans and coasts.

In a memo released with the budget proposal, the White House said that “President Trump is committed to eliminating funding for the globalist climate agenda while unleashing American energy production.” The proposed NOAA budget will cut climate research and save taxpayer money, according to the memo.

NOAA programs focused on the Great Lakes are already adapting to cuts from the previous year. The Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab (which houses CIGLR), for example, lost about 40 percent of its staff last year after rounds of layoffs and early retirements, according to Dick.

GLOS is also in a more vulnerable position this year, Boehme said. The program is up for a contract renewal with NOAA, which happens every five years, and it still has yet to receive all of its appropriated funds from last year.

“Each lapse makes the next one worse, and rebuilding isn’t just a matter of writing another check. The relationships and the seasonal schedules that make the network function can take years to reconstruct,” she said.

Still, the president’s budget is more a signal of priorities than a binding mandate, said Alex Eastman, the Great Lakes program manager at the Northeast-Midwest Institute, a nonprofit policy research group. Appropriations are ultimately decided by Congress, which is currently in the middle of that process.

This year, the House Appropriations Committee passed a bill that would fund most NOAA programs at $1.3 billion more than the president’s budget proposal, ignoring his calls for steep cuts. The regional observation networks, including GLOS, would see an 18 percent increase in funding. Still, the bill is $300 million short of last year’s funding. The Senate hasn’t passed its version of the appropriations bill yet.

Congress ultimately funded these Great Lakes research programs last year after Trump proposed similar cuts, likely because lawmakers know the value they provide for the region and country, Eastman said.

“I do think that the more that Congress pushes back, the more the executive branch and the president will see that they’re not gaining anything by continuing to try to impose draconian cuts,” he said.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What federal cuts to science funding could mean for the Great Lakes on Jun 11, 2026.

Ten U.N. officials are calling on Russia to immediately release Daria Egereva, an Indigenous international climate advocate, and her colleague Natalia Leongardt, both of whom have been jailed for six months on terrorism charges, ahead of a key court hearing this week. 

Egereva, who is Indigenous Selkup from Russia, is co-chair of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change, which represents Indigenous peoples’ perspectives at United Nations gatherings. Russian authorities arrested her and Leongardt on December 17, just weeks after Egereva returned from the COP30 climate conference. Leongardt, a former intern at the U.N. headquarters in Geneva, has spent her career working on educational programs for Indigenous peoples in Russia.

The two face accusations of participating in a terrorist group due to their past involvement in the Aborigen Forum, an informal network of Indigenous advocates that the Russian government shut down two years ago. But U.N. experts say they’re concerned the arrests are reprisals for participating in U.N. meetings and are part of a broader shift in Russia to crack down on civil society freedoms including Indigenous activism. 

“We urge your Excellency’s Government to immediately and unconditionally release Ms. Egereva and Ms. Leongardt from detention, to drop all charges against them as stemming from their peaceful human rights activities, and to ensure that they are able to continue their legitimate human rights work and their cooperation with the United Nations’ bodies and mechanisms without fear of intimidation or reprisals,” read the letter from the U.N. officials, who included the U.N. special rapporteurs for the environment, Indigenous peoples, and human rights in the context of climate change. 

Their letter, sent in April, was made public last week by the U.N. Russian officials do not appear to have responded. Egereva and Leongardt are expected to appear in court on Thursday in Moscow, where they could be sentenced to as long as two decades in prison. Their imprisonment has brought international condemnation, with more than 100 organizations calling for their release at April’s U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York City. 

Egereva in particular has been a fixture in international climate discussions and was arrested in December shortly after returning from COP where she spoke publicly on the importance of having more Indigenous women participate in climate talks. “Women are one of the most vulnerable groups within Indigenous peoples, so we are working to ensure that Indigenous women are included in all climate negotiations affecting their rights, and their interests, and their priorities,” she said at COP on November 21.

Read Next The uncertain future of the UN’s leading voice on Indigenous rights Anita Hofschneider

Egereva was expected to be in Germany this week for the Bonn Climate Change Conference, where officials are preparing for another COP climate gathering this fall. Her incarceration prompted the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change to vote Tuesday to extend Egereva’s term, making her a third co-chair until her release. That unprecedented move was made in solidarity with her detainment, as typically there are only two co-chairs.

The U.N. officials wrote that since her arrest in December, Egereva has been denied regular phone calls and visits with her husband and children. “Over recent months, she has only been able to see her husband at three court hearings, during which Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia (FSIN) officers prohibited any personal communication or contact,” their letter said. 

The same officials are worried not only about the conditions that Egereva and Leongardt are enduring, but also the impact their detainment could have on U.N. participation. “We are concerned about the chilling effect on Indigenous advocacy, international cooperation and engagement with the United Nations, and human rights defenders’ work that their prosecution is prone to generate,” the letter states. 

Friends and colleagues of Egereva and Leongardt say that their work exemplified routine advocacy on behalf of Indigenous peoples and was not extremist or reflective of the “terrorism” allegations. 

“We want everyone to see that they are part of a huge network and that the work they’ve been doing is completely legitimate, completely within regular diplomatic channels,” said Kate Finn, a citizen of the Osage Nation and executive director of the Tallgrass Institute who has worked with Egereva at the U.N. “It’s being framed by the Russian government as terrorist activity, but it’s activity that Indigenous women do every day for the U.N. system these days.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline UN officials urge Russia to free Indigenous climate advocate on Jun 10, 2026.

Solar energy just provided more electricity in the United States than coal for the first time on record — marking a milestone for the rise of renewables in America. 

While gas and nuclear plants still lead the country’s energy mix, solar contributed 12.8 percent of the nation’s electrons in May, according to an analysis of government data by Ember, an energy think tank. Coal, meanwhile, provided just 12.2 percent. Just five years ago, solar was less than half of its current levels and coal was at 20 percent. 

“Overtaking coal for the first month on record shows just how far solar has come, from a niche contributor to the third-largest and fastest-growing source of power in the U.S. electricity system,” said Nicolas Fulghum, senior data analyst at Ember, in a press release. “From Texas to California, markets across the U.S. are betting on solar to meet rising power needs.”

The turnaround comes even as political headwinds have shifted against renewable energy. 

Last summer, Congress passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which rolled back enormous swaths of former President Joe Biden’s landmark climate change legislation, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. And President Donald Trump has actively sought to hinder renewable energy development, even offering to pay at least one oil company $1 billion to stop building its offshore wind projects. 

The latest electricity data comes the same month that the Trump administration announced $700 million in funding for investments in the coal industry. It included money for what would be the country’s first new coal-fired power plants in 13 years — sourced from funds previously dedicated to reducing the country’s dependence on fossil fuels, not deepening it. 

“Today we’re taking historic action to bring down the price of energy and the cost of living for all Americans with the power of clean, beautiful coal,” said Trump, who campaigned on the coal-friendly slogan ‘dig, baby, dig.” 

Ember’s analysis found that coal generation in May was actually up slightly from April, when it hit an all-time low. Its share of the grid will also likely tick up in the summer, as cooling needs peak. But the steady downward trend over the last several years suggests that even all the president’s men might not be able to put the coal industry back together again. 

“Spending $700 million to bail out the coal industry is like throwing a lifeline to a ship that has already sunk,” Lena Moffitt, executive director of the environmental group Evergreen Action, told the Associated Press. Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association disagreed, telling the AP that coal generation helps shield consumers from the impacts of volatile energy prices and supply challenges exacerbated by AI.

Regardless of what coal does, experts believe the solar market will continue its upward march. While installations dropped in 2025 compared to 2024, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association, it still accounted for more than half of all newly installed electricity capacity. Even MAGA influencers are promoting it. 

“We’re going to just keep seeing more and more renewables brought onto the grid,” said Patrick Drupp, director of climate policy at the Sierra Club. “That’s good for people’s wallets, it’s good for their health, it’s good for the planet.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline For first time, Americans are getting more of their electricity from solar than coal on Jun 10, 2026.

In April 2026, California farmer Terri McCall stood on the steps of the Supreme Court at a rally protesting pesticide use, telling the story of how her husband and dog both died of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a disease she believes was caused by pesticides. Her husband, Jack, had used Roundup for more than three decades on their 20-acre ranch before dying of cancer in 2016.

Over 57,000 pesticide products are currently registered for use in the United States, ranging from powerful chemicals used in conventional agriculture, to common insect repellents approved for use on children. Scientific evidence is accumulating that some of them are linked to illnesses ranging from cancer to Parkinson’s disease. 

But beginning in 2024, a powerful coalition of chemical manufacturers and industry groups launched a coordinated national effort to pass “immunity laws,” bills designed to shield companies from potential legal claims tied to harms from their pesticide products. Over the past three years alone, industry lobbyists attempted to pass pesticide immunity legislation in 15 different states.

The battle over ‘failure to warn’

At the center of the industry’s lobbying effort is a key legal question: What responsibility do pesticide companies have to warn users and consumers about potential health risks from their products? In many states, individuals can currently bring “failure to warn” claims if they believe a company withheld information about harms associated with a pesticide.

The chemical makers advocating for pesticide immunity laws argue that companies should be protected from those lawsuits as long as they use labels approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But opponents say that standard is dangerously inadequate.

There are longstanding concerns about the EPA’s pesticide review process. For example, the official EPA labels for glyphosate still do not carry a cancer warning, despite mounting evidence that it may cause cancer and other groups like the World Health Organization calling it “probably carcinogenic.” 

“The science is pretty clear,” said Daniel Hinkle, the senior counsel for policy and state affairs at the American Association for Justice. “The evidence continues to accumulate, and the pesticide makers continue to lose in the courtroom.”

Meanwhile, a growing body of research links a broad range of health harms to commonly used pesticides, including neurodevelopmental impacts, respiratory problems and reduced IQ in children, health problems like liver and metabolic diseases, and cancer.

The pesticide lobbyist’s playbook

Several landmark court cases have found chemical makers responsible for illnesses like cancers and neurological diseases, resulting in billions of dollars in payments from pesticide makers. Bayer alone has paid over $11 billion in cancer settlements linked to its products. In response, the chemical industry has poured millions of dollars into lobbying for pesticide immunity laws at the state and federal levels, and in the courts. “It’s very clear that this is a coordinated campaign by the industry to absolve themselves of legal liability for health harms from these chemicals,” said Hinkle.

In the last three years, advocates fought against proposed immunity bills in 15 different states. While defeated in a dozen states, the bills passed in Georgia, North Dakota and Kentucky. “The states where these bills are passing have some of the highest cancer rates in the nation,” said Joy Reeves, the director of policy and strategic development at the Rachel Carson Council. “The reality now is, if you’re a farmer and get sick, you have fewer options to hold the pesticide companies accountable.”

Environmental and legal advocates say the campaign behind the pesticide immunity laws is both sophisticated and well-funded. Hinkle says a central driver of the effort is the Modern Ag Alliance (MAA), a lobbying and public relations group founded by Bayer, the maker of Roundup, in 2024. 

While many states do not make lobbying expenditures easy to track, those that do show huge sums are being spent on pesticide immunity legislation. According to public filings, MAA spent roughly $1.6M lobbying in Tennessee in 2025. Reporting by the Idaho Sun found that MAA was the top outside spender in Idaho politics that same year. 

What pesticide immunity could mean for families

As industry groups push for legal protections around pesticide injury, there are growing concerns about what these bills could mean for public health, accountability, and local input.

In 2012, on a warm July afternoon in Iowa, organic farmer Rob Faux was working in his poultry yard. He heard an airplane roar overhead, and then droplets began raining over him and his chickens and turkeys. A crop duster kept the sprayer on as it passed over Faux’s farm twice, covering them with fungicides and insecticides. 

Subsequently, Faux was diagnosed with cancer. Recent data shows that Iowa, which has one of the highest rates of pesticide use in the country — in 2025, 53 million pounds of pesticides were used in the state — also has the second-highest cancer rate in the nation.

Faux is now the communications manager and resident farm expert for the Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN). He says that many products that people use every day, from ant bait to mosquito repellent, will similarly fall under the scope of the new immunity laws. 

“If these laws pass, and someone sells a mosquito repellent for children that makes them sick, for example, these pesticide immunity bills will eliminate pathways for families to hold the makers accountable,” he said. 

He also points to the loss of local control as a key concern. “If I live in a town where the drinking water comes from a local lake, but pesticide applicators are using chemicals that are getting into the water, the community should be able to protect people,” he said. Many of the proposed immunity bills would prevent that, because local or state governments wouldn’t be allowed to set pesticide rules that are stricter than federal standards.

A pivotal moment in the pesticide immunity fight

These concerns brought together a broad coalition spanning left-leaning environmental advocates and members of the Make America Healthy Again network. Protestors gathered outside the Supreme Court for a rally the last week of April as the justices inside heard opening arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell. The closely-watched case could reshape the future of pesticide litigation nationwide.

The case centers on whether federal pesticide labeling laws and EPA labels override state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits. A ruling in Monsanto’s favor could dramatically weaken legal pathways for people alleging harm from pesticide exposure. “This is a case that is largely about states’ rights,” said Reeves. “It will affect states’ ability to regulate pesticides.”

Just a few days later, federal lawmakers overwhelmingly rejected an effort to insert pesticide immunity language into the Farm Bill. Seventy-three Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the pesticide immunity provision. 

“It was a pretty astounding defeat,” said Max Sano, a senior policy and coalitions associate with Beyond Pesticides who helps organize a national coalition of farmers, farmworkers, scientists, and advocacy groups. “But these bills are still popping up everywhere [on a state level], so we can’t afford to slow down.” His organization is currently monitoring newly proposed pesticide immunity legislation in 10 states.

The rise of a new pesticide reform movement

As momentum grows against pesticide immunity laws, Reeves described the current moment as “today’s Silent Spring movement,” referencing Rachel Carson’s landmark 1962 book that helped ignite the modern environmental movement. “Today, the pesticide reform movement is diverse,” Reeves said. “It’s cross-partisan. It’s far-reaching.” 

Advocates like Reeves, Sano, and Hinkle are taking a multi-pronged approach to fighting pesticide immunity laws: organizing national coalition calls, educating lawmakers, tracking bills across states, mobilizing grassroots campaigns, and coordinating legal and public awareness efforts.

And individuals can have a deep impact on the fight, too, Hinkle said. “It is incredibly important to be in communication with your lawmaker,” he said. “Every single call or email matters. Concerned constituents and grassroots organizing have really been the decisive forces in holding off this onslaught.”

Reeves echoes him, saying, “If you care about your family and your community, you should engage on this issue. It affects us all.”

The Rachel Carson Council (RCC), founded in 1965, is the national environmental organization envisioned by Rachel Carson to carry on her work after her death. We promote Carson’s ecological ethic that combines scientific concern for the environment and human health with a sense of wonder and reverence for all forms of life in order to build a more sustainable, just, and peaceful future. The Rachel Carson Council is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

LEARN MORE

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The quiet push to shield pesticide makers from lawsuits on Jun 9, 2026.

Last month, nearly a dozen wildfires erupted across southern California, sending plumes of smoke and particulate matter into the air. Public health officials in Los Angeles issued a multiday air quality advisory for the county, warning of “potential direct smoke impact” and advising everyone who could see or smell smoke to “avoid unnecessary outdoor exposure and to limit physical exertion.”

The red zone on the map included Los Angeles Stadium — also known as SoFi Stadium — one of the venues for the World Cup, soccer’s marquee event, which begins on Thursday. Between June 12 and July 10, Los Angeles will host eight games and is expected to draw tens of thousands of fans and scores of players. 

As dry, hot, conditions persist, more fires are possible and smoke could once again loom over the stadium. The same risk exists for a number of the 15 other World Cup host cities. But, despite the documented health impacts of smoke exposure, FIFA, the international governing body for soccer, doesn’t appear to have a plan if the air quality deteriorates. 

“FIFA has basically almost done nothing,” said Nicholas Watanabe, a professor of sport and entertainment management at the University of South Carolina. “They are lagging behind even minor leagues in North America.”

The National Women’s Soccer League, or NWSL; the Canadian Football League; and the NCAA, which oversees college sports, all have at least some guidelines outlining what to do if the Air Quality Index reaches certain thresholds. Other leagues — from Major League Baseball to the Women’s National Basketball Association — have postponed games because of wildfire smoke, notably when plumes spread across Canada and North America in June 2023. 

The Sandy Fire burned through heavy brush and sent smoke into the air as it moved through California’s Simi Valley in May 2026.
Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

The Air Quality Index, or AQI, a measure of common pollutants in the air, ranges from 0 to 300+, with “unhealthy” levels starting at 101 and “very unhealthy” and “hazardous” warnings after that. Experts say that wildfire smoke often causes spikes that could be harmful to both players and fans. “They might get a burning throat, a cough, and a headache,” said Mary Johnson, who researches environmental health at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Some groups can be particularly sensitive, including children, older individuals, and people with respiratory conditions such as asthma.

“Climate-related risks are assessed as part of overall tournament planning and managed in close coordination with host cities, stadium authorities, and national agencies,” FIFA wrote in a statement to Grist. It detailed extensive protocols related to extreme heat, including mandatory water breaks for players (fans, meanwhile, will not be permitted to bring refillable water bottles into stadiums) but didn’t mention air quality. It did mention a “tournament-wide preparedness exercise” for severe weather, without providing further details. The organization did not respond to follow-up questions and declined multiple interview requests.

For now, FIFA seems to be betting the air will stay clear. While that gamble could very well pay off, wildfire smoke has become an increasingly common feature of North American summers, raising questions about whether organizers are prepared for conditions that are no longer unusual. “It’s sort of ridiculous that the biggest sporting event in the world doesn’t have anything,” said Watanabe, about even a minimum AQI threshold for canceling matches. “We’re one bad Pacific Northwest wildfire away from some very big concerns.”

All indicators point to a dangerous 2026 fire season. The National Interagency Fire Center projects that, after a warm winter and with a potentially record-breaking El Niño incoming, large swaths of the West will be at an elevated risk of wildfire this summer. Canadian officials have made similar predictions. Because smoke can blow thousands of miles, it puts virtually all of FIFA’s sites at potential risk.

“There are very few places in North America that are immune to these effects,” said Dominik Kulakowski, a geographer who studies wildfires at Clark University. He noted that the warning time for smoke events can sometimes be as short as a matter of hours. “It would make sense for FIFA to think ahead and implement some air quality standards that would trigger some decisions about whether or not to play.”

John Quindry, a professor of physiology at the University of Montana, said that, although a lack of a plan likely doesn’t mean “putting people in early graves,” he does think organizers should be prepared. There are things FIFA could do to help mitigate risk from wildfire smoke, he said, ranging from playing at times of days when the air quality tends to be better to postponing or relocating matches. “You should have a decision tree and algorithm that’s baked into the process,” he said, comparing air quality events to thunder storms. “People certainly call games for lightning and nobody argues with it.”

When the AQI hits 101, the air is considered “unhealthy for sensitive groups” and the NWSL starts to add hydration breaks for players. At 180, which falls into the “unhealthy” range for everyone, the league starts to consider rescheduling games. Cancellation or postponement is mandatory above 200, when AQI is “very unhealthy.” The league did not respond to a request to confirm whether this policy, which The New York Times reported in 2023, remains current. But it aligns with guidelines from USA Soccer. The NFL’s 2022-2023 game operations manual also says the league “will be prepared to relocate a game if there is definitive evidence that the AQI will remain consistently above 200 for a significant period of time, including the day of the game being played in the affected stadium.” Once AQI passes 300, the NCAA requires that organizers move events indoors or cancel them.

Watanabe said that some of the World Cup venues are enclosed, with modern filtration systems that could help mitigate poor air quality. That includes Mercedes Benz stadium in Atlanta, a city that already experienced bad air quality due to wildfire smoke this year. But many others can’t be closed, including those in Los Angeles, Seattle, and Vancouver — all places historically prone to wildfire smoke. Grist reached out to local organizing committees and public health officials in host cities, the U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association, and the White House Task Force for the World Cup. Of the handful of responses, most redirected questions to FIFA. 

“There are no specific AQI levels that would automatically trigger suspension of FIFA events,” said James Garrow, a spokesperson for the public health department in Philadelphia, which is a 2026 World Cup site. Instead, he said, the city would monitor air quality and “consider possible recommendations.”

For FIFA, though, the issue is not simply whether wildfire smoke can affect health, but how to balance those risks against the logistical and financial demands of a multiweek global tournament. As Quindry put it: “There is a lot of money at stake.”

Whatever happens at this year’s World Cup, Kulakowski said it’s only a matter of time before FIFA and other sports leagues are going to have to reckon with a smoky future. “Having to think about smoke from wildfires and how that affects athletes, athletic ability, and sporting events is a new thing,” he said, but it’s becoming an increasingly common issue across North America, Europe, and elsewhere. “We’re seeing wildfires become a larger part of life.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The World Cup is one wildfire away from an air quality disaster on Jun 9, 2026.

A bill aimed at increasing the number of wood pellet mills in Louisiana has sailed through the state’s Legislature — despite some lawmakers, including the bill’s sponsor, acknowledging they know little about the controversial industry.

State Representative Chuck Owen, a Republican from Vernon Parish in west Louisiana, said he proposed House Bill 670 in February shortly after learning about the industry, which exports about $1 billion worth of pellets from Louisiana each year. Nearly all the production comes from two British-owned mills in central and north Louisiana that emit large — and sometimes illegal — quantities of air pollutants linked to cancers and other serious illnesses. 

Owen, whose district spans one of the state’s most timber-rich regions, said the goal of his bill is to make Louisiana a “premier location for wood pellet manufacturing.” 

The legislation gives a state agency, Louisiana Economic Development, broad direction to develop new incentives for pellet manufacturers, potentially including new tax breaks, state-funded workforce training programs, and port upgrades tailored to the industry’s needs. It also instructs state regulators to streamline permitting for pellet mills and review environmental and public safety rules that “impose unnecessary burdens on this emerging industry.”

For Owen, talking during a meeting ahead of the vote, the rationale behind expanding pellet manufacturing is simple: “We have a lot of trees in Louisiana, and north of Bunkie, that’s about all we have,” he said, referring to a town in central Louisiana. “There’s a market craving wood pellets, and I think we should get further into it.” 

But when a fellow legislator asked him to describe one of the mills and “what exactly it produces,” Owen admitted he was only vaguely familiar with it. “I do not know a lot about it,” he said. “No, sir, I do not. I know they’ve had some struggle in recent years, but I know that they’re there.”

Despite that uncertainty, Louisiana’s House and Senate passed Owen’s measure unanimously. The bill is expected to be signed into law by Governor Jeff Landry, a Republican who has backed similar measures aimed at boosting industrial growth in the state. 

Louisiana State Representative Chuck Owen wants to expand the wood pellet industry throughout the state. Allison Allsop / Louisiana Illuminator

The British energy company Drax operates the two large pellet mills in Louisiana: one in Urania, a small town in the central part of the state, and another near Bastrop in the northeast corner. Together with a nearly identical Drax facility in Gloster, Mississippi, the mills churn out billions of wood pellets to meet demand in the United Kingdom for electricity generated by wood, what the industry markets as “sustainable biomass.” 

In the U.K. and several other European countries, wood pellets are classified as a renewable energy source, making the industry eligible for large subsidies typically given to solar and wind projects. While Drax promotes itself as a purveyor of green energy, communities in the Deep South that host the pellet mills pay a high cost from air pollution, dust and noise, said Kadin Love, a community organizer with the Dogwood Alliance, an environmental group in North Carolina opposed to wood pellet manufacturing. 

“This is an industry that doesn’t have a clean history,” Love said. “This bill opens doors to the industry that we might not be able to close.”

Drax has paid nearly $6 million in fines and settlements for hundreds of pollution violations in Louisiana and Mississippi over the past six years. Despite some facility upgrades aimed at reducing pollution, the company has continued to rack up violations.  

In Gloster, where Drax has operated the longest, several residents are suing the company over what they say is a decade of exposure to toxic chemicals, including formaldehyde, acrolein, and methanol. In the mostly Black, low-income town, about 40 miles north of the state Legislature in Baton Rouge, many people blame widespread health problems, including cancer and respiratory illnesses, on the mill’s pollutants.   

In a motion to dismiss the case, Drax’s lawyers argued that the lawsuit fails to show “particularized injury that is traceable to [the mill’s] conduct.”

When asked about Owen’s bill, Drax expressed gratitude to Louisiana lawmakers for supporting the industry but declined to address pollution concerns raised by Love and other critics. “We appreciate the engagement of lawmakers and our community partners in Louisiana,” a company spokesperson said in a statement. “We remain focused on operating responsibly and transparently, working constructively with regulators, and continuing to support jobs and economic activity in the communities where we operate across Louisiana.”

Tommy Barbo, manager of Drax’s wood pellet mill in Urania, Louisiana, tosses a few pellets while inspecting machinery. Eric J. Shelton / Mississippi Today

During the recent deliberations over Owen’s bill in the state House, none of the representatives mentioned concerns about pollution. Like Owen, most legislators were unfamiliar with the industry and asked only basic questions. 

“Are we talking about the wood pellets you put in the smoker, or do you build stuff with these wood pellets?” asked Representative Candace Newell, a Democrat from New Orleans. “What do they look like?”

The only expert testimony came from Scott Roe, a consultant who produced a feasibility study on pellet mills in Louisiana. Roe described pellet burning as “cleaner” than other fossil fuels and said the industry could eventually use technology that “releases nothing at all.”

“So, it’s clean-burning,” said Newell, who voted in favor of the bill. “You can’t build anything with it — just clean-burning clean energy.”

But several scientists say that’s far from the truth. Drax’s wood-fueled power station in rural England emitted more than 14 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2024, making it the largest single source of CO2 in the U.K., according to a report last year from the climate research group Ember. That amount is more than the combined emissions from the country’s six largest gas plants and more than four times the level of the U.K.’s last coal plant, which shut down in 2024. 

The most contentious discussions about the bill concerned the industry’s potential use of carbon capture and storage technology, or CCS, which allows emitters to inject carbon dioxide underground rather than release it into the atmosphere. Tax credits and other incentives are available to industries that integrate CCS into their operations, but a growing number of Louisiana legislators oppose the technology; several pending bills would restrict CCS projects amid concerns about health and safety risks at storage sites and along pipelines that transport the gas.

During the discussion over his bill in the state House, Owen sought to distance his bill from CCS, or the “C-word,” as he called it. 

Drax, however, has pledged heavy investment in CCS technology. In 2023, the company established a new office in Houston focused on pairing biomass with CCS projects across North America. “The U.S. Gulf Coast has emerged as a major hub for carbon capture and sequestration investment and technology, a key component of the company’s plans to expand clean electric generation from renewable resources,” Drax CEO Will Gardiner said at the time.

Some members of the Louisiana Legislature wanted assurances that the bill wouldn’t help Drax reach its CCS goals. Owen promised to kill his own bill if the Senate tried to insert language supporting the technology. 

“If, on the [Senate] side, they try to make it pro-carbon capture, will you pull it?” asked Representative Robby Carter, a Democrat from St. Helena Parish. 

“Pull it,” Owen responded.  

The Senate steered clear of the CCS debate and passed the bill with only a few minor wording changes on May 27.

The bill gained support largely because of its promises to boost the state’s struggling forest products sector. Several pulp and paper mills have shut down in Louisiana, leaving many small communities with few jobs and empty downtowns. Backers argued that the pellet industry could help fill that void. Low-grade pine once used for paper production can instead be made into pellets, creating a new market for Louisiana trees and potentially revitalizing the state’s forestry economy.

“What this bill is about is employing people,” Owen said during deliberations. 

But the three Drax mills each employ about 70 people, which is far fewer than the hundreds employed by many of the older mills. 

Louisiana has granted Drax generous tax breaks aimed at boosting employment. Through the state’s Industrial Tax Exemption Program, Drax has avoided paying about $75 million in property taxes that would otherwise support local school districts and local government operations, Verite News and Grist found in a review of estimates from Louisiana Economic Development. 

The industry’s growth looks uncertain as European countries are increasingly skeptical of the claim that burning wood is better for the environment than relying on other energy sources. The U.K. government recently decided the current subsidies for Drax would be cut in half next year. 

There have been other signs of trouble for the industry. Enviva, once the world’s largest wood pellet producer, filed for bankruptcy in 2024. Drax has also scaled back some of its North American expansion plans and recently shuttered its two Arkansas mills after only a few years in operation.

Love, from the Dogwood Alliance, said he was stunned that Louisiana’s legislators rushed to pass Owen’s bill unanimously despite having only a superficial understanding of the industry and without much, if any, consideration of the environmental and economic risks.

“If you’re making a state law that exclusively benefits one industry, I’d hope they’d do some homework on it,” Love said. “The fact that they’re not doing the due diligence of researching this industry is incredibly concerning.”

toolTips('.classtoolTips0','A technology that catches carbon dioxide at the point of release, preventing it from escaping into Earth’s atmosphere. CSS systems typically are installed on industrial or energy facilities, like coal-burning power plants, where the greenhouse gas is captured, compressed, and then buried deep underground.
');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Louisiana lawmakers rush to support an industry they ‘do not know a lot about’ on Jun 9, 2026.

As the midterm elections approach, something strange has happened: Democratic politicians who once talked about climate change as the defining crisis of our time now barely mention it at all. The phrase has begun disappearing from their speeches, social media posts, and podcast appearances. The main exception is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who has given some version of his “Time to Wake Up” speech on the dangers of climate change more than 300 times over the past decade and a half. He’s accused “climate hushers” of pushing the party to stop talking about the overheating planet.

If you had to pinpoint the moment that “climate hushing” began, the 2024 presidential election would be the obvious contender. After President Donald Trump beat former Vice President Kamala Harris in all seven swing states, Democrats were left scrambling to figure out where they went wrong. One popular theory was that they were too busy harping on social justice and planetary problems at the expense of everyday concerns voters cared more about, like the rising cost of living. Whitehouse, however, sees global warming as a piece of that conversation, rather than a distraction from it.

“Climate change is right now raising costs for families across the country through higher property insurance premiums, grocery and electric bills, and health care expenses,” Whitehouse said in a statement to Grist.

The idea that talking about climate change is a liability for Democrats has become conventional wisdom. Last year, the Democrat-aligned think tank Searchlight Institute issued the advice “Don’t say climate change.” A recent op-ed in The New York Times concluded, “When it comes to climate change, for now, it might be better to say nothing at all.” An early draft of the Democratic National Committee’s autopsy report of the 2024 election, released under pressure in May, posited that messages about climate change and shifting to green energy “created anxiety among workers in traditional industries worried about job losses.”

“It’s very zeitgeisty to assume right now that it’s really important not to talk about climate, or that Democrats have paid a political cost for talking about climate,” said Matto Mildenberger, a professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara. But there’s no hard evidence that discussing climate change hurts Democrats in elections, Mildenberger and other experts told Grist. If anything, it rewards candidates with a modest boost among voters, studies and surveys show. 

The basis for thinking that Democrats should avoid the subject comes from polls asking voters about their top priorities: Climate change ranks number 24 out of 25 when Americans are asked which issues will be very important to their vote, according to data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication last year. That’s mainly because other concerns have risen in importance, with liberal Democrats more concerned about things like protecting democracy, government corruption, and the treatment of immigrants than before the 2024 election. It’s a logical leap, however, to assume that talking about climate change is a political liability simply because voters don’t name it as one of their top issues.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse speaks during a Senate Committee on Finance confirmation hearing in 2025. Andrew Harnik / Getty Images

Some commentators argue that you can achieve climate action just by getting Democrats elected, regardless of whether they’re bringing it up. But deemphasizing climate change as part of their political platform could have long-term consequences: Without real discussion of it, you lose momentum for action and send a signal that it’s not important. “You actually need to have conversation and attention to an issue to slowly build the coalition and policy work necessary to address it,” Mildenberger said.

In effect, Democrats are ceding rhetorical ground to their opponents, he argues, even as polling shows that Trump’s agenda — blocking the construction of wind farms, scrubbing public information about global warming from government websites, and pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement — is broadly unpopular. “All of this is, frankly, doing the service of the fossil fuel industry, ultimately, because it’s helping climate delay,” Mildenberger said.  

Whitehouse has argued that Democrats are “poll-chasing,” parroting what voters say they want to hear with bland, backward-looking messages. “Many Americans don’t believe Democrats are fighters,” Whitehouse said. “The best way to shed that label is to actually step into the arena and fight. Our climate messaging has long been terrible, but it would be malpractice to shy away from a fight with Central Casting villains (the fossil fuel industry climate denial fraud and dark money corruption operations) with such high stakes for the economic well-being of American families.” As people in the U.S. struggle with rising costs and surging gas prices, oil giants are raking in billions from the Iran war, a dissonance that Democrats could tap into.

Matt Burgess, an economist at the University of Wyoming who studies how to find common ground on the environment, agrees with the broader sentiment that Democrats alienated voters on cultural issues and lost sight of concerns around affordability, and that progressive messaging about climate change was a piece of that. But he said it’s wrong to assume that climate change is a losing issue. “There are lots of different lines of evidence that suggest that climate change as an issue overall helps the Democrats and hurts Republicans,” Burgess said. A study he co-authored in 2024 found that in a hypothetical world in which climate change hadn’t been an issue in the 2020 election, Republicans could have gained somewhere around a 3-percent swing in the popular vote, enough to hand the White House to Trump instead of Joe Biden.

“If you have any issue that moves the needle a little bit in your favor in a super-close election, it can make the difference between winning and losing,” Burgess said.

Exit polling suggests there’s little reason to believe that climate change was a problem for Democrats in 2024, as opposed to other issues playing a larger role. Swing voters considered “U.S. efforts to fight climate change” a reason to support Harris over Trump by 21 points, according to a survey of 5,000 voters from Navigator Research just before and after the election. Trump won by large margins on inflation, the economy, and immigration — concerns that were top-of-mind for voters. “The very simple version is, Trump winning those voters won the election,” said Bryan Bennett, who runs the independent consulting practice Loft Beck strategies, advising Democrats and progressives, and who directed the post-election survey in his previous role at Navigator. 

Harris, in other words, didn’t lose because she mentioned climate change a few times, or even because Democrats passed climate policies under the Biden administration. Federal investments in infrastructure and manufacturing projects were, on a county level, linked to a very small improvement in the vote share for Harris, an analysis from the Center for American Progress found. If anything, the problem was that voters didn’t know enough about the federal government’s involvement to give the administration credit.

Read Next The planet is overheating. Why is the news looking away? Kate Yoder

Even if climate change is not an electoral problem for Democrats, they might have other reasons for staying quiet about it. The media ecosystem now is fractured, with many people getting their news from TikTok, YouTube, and podcasts as opposed to traditional news sources, meaning that it’s harder than ever for politicians to make their preferred narrative heard, Bennett said. In recent years, the Democratic Party has gotten more serious about “message discipline,” the practice of sticking with a central message, to try to cut through the noise.

“So much of the oxygen in the room is taken up by, ‘How do Democrats deal with, and how do progressives deal with, talking about the economy in a way that really meets voters where they are?’” Bennett said. “And I think that inherently detracts from basically every other issue, regardless of whether it’s a good thing to talk about or not.”

The Democratic politicians who are still mentioning climate change have tended to do so indirectly, arguing that clean energy is “cheap energy” and tying it to rising electricity bills. Polling suggests that voters have an appetite for more: Last fall, 41 percent of those surveyed by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication said they wanted political candidates to talk about efforts to reduce global warming more often, almost double the number who wanted to hear about it less. The trend of climate-hushing could stem from a misperception: Studies show that politicians and the public at large tend to vastly underestimate Americans’ appetite for taking action on climate change, from carbon taxes to expanding renewable energy. 

“We have this tension where, I think, empirically, talking about climate change provides a net benefit. It’s a very small net benefit, but it is a net benefit,” Mildenberger said. “But we have a discourse that somehow says that it’s this massive cost.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why are so many Democrats going quiet on climate change? on Jun 8, 2026.

As the U.S. faces an aging farmer population, communities are looking for ways to shore up the next generation of growers. But high upfront costs, access to land, and a shifting climate can make entry into the field feel out of reach for many people looking to get into the business.

Tucked on farmland at the southern edge of Traverse City, Michigan, one program wants to solve some of these problems by letting aspiring farmers learn by doing.

The Great Lakes Incubator Farm attracts students from all over the country. Over the course of seven months, a three-student cohort learns about topics like pest management, how to drive a tractor, and what to include in a farm business plan.

“Nobody gets into farming for sane reasons, other than the sanity of knowing where your food comes from and just general health,” said Rachel Greenberg, a 33-year-old student farmer from Indianapolis. “The challenges are pretty never-ending.”

Read Next While Zach Galifianakis finds peace in gardening, I’m at war with raccoons Matt Simon

Farm bankruptcies were up 46 percent last year, according to a National Farm Bureau report. As land prices have risen due to demand from developers, more than 50,000 acres of farmland have been lost in the last two decades, research has found.

Despite the headwinds, the student farmers said they’re driven by wanting to know where their food comes from, to contribute to local communities, and to teach others to do the same.

The farm training program — a project of the Grand Traverse Conservation District — has fewer economic pressures than running a farm business, Greenberg said. The fruits and vegetables that students grow will go to local residents who have already committed to buying the season’s produce, and leftovers will be donated to food-rescue operations. Unlike a traditional business, the goal isn’t to make a profit.

“The whole incubator idea is something you see a lot in the world of entrepreneurship, and it’s beautiful that somebody saw that and was like, ‘Why don’t we just do that with farming?’” Greenberg said.

Troy Saruna, 28, said at a time when climate change is driving more severe weather, he wants to better understand his impact on the natural world. Saruna worked in conservation around the country prior to the program and has no farming experience.

The training program focuses on teaching regenerative agriculture, a method of farming that focuses on soil health and reduces the amount of heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere.

Student farmer Shanaya Holmes of Alabama poses by a row of spinach at the Great Lakes Incubator Farm in northern Michigan.
Vivian La / IPR News

“Our food systems are just so inextricably tied to the health of the planet,” Saruna said. “I’m just really interested in striking up a new balance where I can understand, interpret, and just develop some new instincts in terms of feeding myself and having thriving communities that also support wildlife.”

Farmers with some experience also find the program helpful to more deeply develop their skills. Shanaya Holmes, 49, runs a small 4-acre farm in Alabama.

She’s looking to learn how to grow food in a different climate than the South and to improve her record-keeping — tracking what’s been planted, what soil was used, or how much money was spent on equipment.

“It’s a challenge to switch that button off to come inside and do bookwork, bookwork, bookwork when you’re so used to outside, outside, outside,” she said.

Read Next The USDA canceled $300M in farm grants, citing fraud. Did it make up the evidence? Ayurella Horn-Muller

Adam Brown, the farm’s manager and instructor, said the farmer training program is meant to be a stepping stone.

“It’s really built for anybody who can then filter out and work anywhere in the food system, either manage a farm, start their own business, or any rung of that ladder where people can just help out in the food system,” Brown said.

Brown, whose background is in ecology, wouldn’t have pursued farming himself if it wasn’t for a similar training program he did 15 years ago on the West Coast. 

“I can pay it forward, my lessons, and all the wisdom that I learned throughout my years of farming, and be a mentor to these other people, and I feel like it’s super important,” he said.

The training program, now in its second year, is one of the only of its kind in northern Michigan, according to data from Michigan State University. Around the country, there are roughly 100 similar programs, according to a group at Tufts University that coordinates a national network of training farms, though no comprehensive list exists.

The Great Lakes Incubator Farm relies mostly on a nearly $700,000 federal grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture aimed at supporting beginner farmers. That grant ends after the harvest season in October. Brown plans to reapply for USDA funding again this year but said he’s looking for backup options because of how competitive the grant program is.

In 2025, the USDA canceled $148 million in grants — including some in the beginner farmer program — to comply with President Donald Trump’s early executive orders targeting climate action, environmental justice, and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Adam Brown sits on a tractor at the Great Lakes Incubator Farm. Vivian La / IPR News

Brown said that besides the USDA grant, there aren’t many large pools of money available that support efforts to train the next generation of farmers. (The Great Lakes Incubator Farm is also supported by some state grants.)

Lack of consistent funding is a big reason there aren’t more of these training programs, said Jon LaPorte, a farm business management educator for Michigan State University Extension, which put together a beginner farmer’s guide in partnership with the USDA last year.

“It’s almost like a double-edged sword that they’re trying to help people get started, but then they’ve got the same struggles of staying sustainable themselves,” he said.

That means even as the share of young people in farming grows, programs to support them might be harder to come by, LaPorte said. In Michigan, farmers under the age of 45 increased by about 20 percent between 2017 and 2022, according to the USDA’s census. Sustaining that growth will be a challenge, he said.

“Because of those hurdles, they don’t all stay in, and what we want to see is more of those people being able to stay in, having more farms, more diversity of farms,” LaPorte said. “More people involved in agriculture at that level is really, really important.”

Brown, the farm manager, said students in his training program learn that the growing season doesn’t always go smoothly — and challenges, like frost damage on plants, are just part of the job.

“This is a great space for failure too, right? Because there’s not a whole lot of risk here,” he said. “It’s a perfect, experimental type of atmosphere.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Becoming a farmer is hard. This Michigan program wants to help. on Jun 8, 2026.

President Donald Trump is using wartime presidential authority to hand $700 million to coal-fired power plants in the U.S., the latest move by the president to bolster what he called “clean, beautiful coal,” despite it being the dirtiest of fossil fuels.

“Today, we’re taking historic action to bring down the price of energy and the cost of living for all Americans with the power of clean, beautiful coal,” he said at a press conference on Thursday.

Trump is using the Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era statute used to accelerate American industrial output in times of national need, to provide grants to more than a dozen existing coal plants across the U.S., including facilities capable of exporting coal.

“As a result of the $700 million investment that I’m announcing today, we will protect 14 coal plants and 42 coalmines, a tremendous number, and build two new coal plants and one massive new export terminal,” Trump said.

Read Next Why the government is trying to make coal cute Kate Yoder

The funds will be used to bring a new coal export terminal online in Oakland, California, and to restart an existing facility in Maryland.

They will also keep online plants across 10 states: West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. Each of those 10 states voted for Trump, the president boasted on Thursday. “We won them all,” he said.

The two new coal plants will be in Alaska and West Virginia.

Trump has long been a champion of reviving the United States’ ailing coal industry. Thursday’s White House event featured supportive governors and lawmakers from coal-rich states such as Wyoming and West Virginia.

In the past year, the Trump administration has doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to the coal industry, signed orders forcing ratepayers to pay extra for aging plants to stay open, and dismantled environmental rules that limit toxins from coal leaching into Americans’ shared air and water.

The administration’s attempts to provide a cuddly rebranding to coal have even extended to creating a new mascot with giant eyes, called Coalie, and gushing social media posts that include an image of a lump of coal wearing sunglasses as if it were on the TV show Love Island.

Read Next Solar to overtake coal on Texas grid for the first time ever this year Julian Spector, Canary Media

“You’re not allowed to say ‘coal’ within the Trump administration unless it’s preceded by the words ‘clean, beautiful,’” Trump said on Thursday. “Complicates our life, but it’s good.”

Regardless of such terminology, coal is not clean. It is the most carbon-dense fossil fuel and therefore a leading cause of the climate crisis when burned. Coal also gives off tiny toxic particles that sicken miners and trigger widespread respiratory and heart health problems across the U.S. — research has estimated that as many as 460,000 deaths in the U.S. from 1999 to 2020 were attributable to air pollution from coal plants alone.

Environmental groups strongly criticized the administration’s latest aid for coal. “It is disgusting and reprehensible that the president of the United States is giving away our taxpayer dollars to deadly and expensive coal plants that will make Americans sicker and drive up electricity prices even more,” said Patrick Drupp, climate policy director of the Sierra Club.

“This handout betrays everything Donald Trump promised and only serves his big coal buddies who stroke his ego and hand him shiny trophies.”

Though Trump on Thursday claimed that his pro-coal actions will lower energy bills and that wind power is “the most expensive energy,” experts say coal plants are more expensive to build and operate than renewable power sources.

Read Next In coal country, black lung surges as federal protections stall Kate Morgan

Trump’s attempts to revive the coal industry, while at the same time seeking to stymie the rapid growth of clean energy such as solar and wind, have so far floundered. The number of people working in coal has declined by more than 90 percent in the past century, with more people now working in Waffle Houses across the U.S. than in coal.

U.S. coal production is currently less than half of what it was in 2008, with coal recently declining as both a fuel for electricity and as an input for manufacturing materials such as iron and steel. Cheap, abundant gas has helped displace coal from power grids, with even cheaper renewable energy also now taking off in the U.S. despite the administration’s efforts to kill it off.

“What’s next, a taxpayer bailout to build new phone booths?” said Kit Kennedy, a senior climate campaigner at the Natural Resources Defense Council, of the new round of support for coal. “This is going to mean higher bills and dirtier air. What a waste.

“Propping up coal billionaires with taxpayer money is one more way for the Trump administration to put polluters first and put the rest of us at risk.”

The coal industry applauded Trump’s new order, arguing that ramped-up coal production will help the U.S. meet a historic spike in electricity demand caused by the surging artificial intelligence sector.

“Coal generation shields consumers from the impacts of volatile energy prices and supply challenges,” said Rich Nolan, chief executive of the National Mining Association.

The Environmental Protection Agency also announced plans to change an Obama-era emissions reductions plan that would have shuttered the Dave Johnston Unit 3 power plant in Wyoming.

Trump railed against Obama and Joe Biden for working to scale back coal power.

“Under four years of Sleepy Joe Biden and the radical left Democrats in Congress, not a single permit was approved for a new coal mining project, but in over one year of our administration, we’ve already approved 76 permits for clean, beautiful coal,” Trump said.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump uses wartime powers to dole out $700 million to ‘clean, beautiful’ coal on Jun 7, 2026.

A federal agency will offer tens of thousands of acres in northwestern Colorado that the nation’s largest elk herd relies upon for migration, foraging, and winter habitat to oil and gas companies for lease in the state’s biggest such sale in modern history.

More than 100 parcels included in a June 16 lease sale by the Bureau of Land Management encompass elk, pronghorn, and mule deer migration corridors that extend into southern Wyoming. Many sit in Moffat County, which bills itself as the “Elk Hunting Capital of the World” and relies on the pastime in part for its economic stability.

About two-thirds of the acreage in the 156,000-acre lease sale is just south of Dinosaur National Monument, a remote park that’s among the country’s over 40 certified International Dark Sky Places — areas with exceptionally dark night skies. Tourism officials in Moffat, who saw inquiries drop by more than half this spring, voiced concern that bright lights and truck traffic that accompany fossil fuel extraction could imperil this hard-won designation.

“Things like that could put that status in jeopardy,” said Tom Kleinschnitz, the county’s director of tourism. “In the long run, I think it’s important to keep these areas as pristine as possible.”

The record June lease sale contradicts the Bureau of Land Management’s stated strategy for the national monument, as well as the 2024 amendments to area plans for northwestern Colorado that strengthened habitat protections for ungulates like elk and deer and at-risk birds such as the Gunnison sage-grouse.

Read Next ‘I need Chevron’: The oil company at the center of the California governor’s race Jake Bittle

Risks to big game and Dinosaur National Park are just a few examples of what’s at stake for the environment, the economy, and public health. A 2,360-line spreadsheet compiled by Denver-based nonprofit Rocky Mountain Wild enumerates 17 rare plants and endangered species whose habitat could be imperiled by fossil fuel exploration and extraction. 

These include the black-footed ferret, wolverine, boreal toad, and Colorado pikeminnow, and threatened plants such as the Colorado hookless cactus and Parachute penstemon. The lease sale includes acreage relied upon by other species such as the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage-grouse, ferruginous hawk, and swift fox — all identified by state wildlife officers as being of special concern.

The June event is one of four large lease sales in Colorado since Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed a bill in 2025 that included provisions to encourage drilling on the nation’s public lands. This agenda lies in stark contrast to the pattern of leasing activity during President Joe Biden’s term — with just six sales in Colorado during his four years in office. Just several hundred acres were offered during that period.

The 2025  H.R. 1 legislation prioritized fossil fuel extraction over other uses such as recreation and conservation; mandated that federal officials hold a minimum of four lease sales each fiscal year in Alaska, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming; shortened public comment times; and reduced the discretion land managers hold over whether to offer acreage for lease or not.

The law also decreased oil and gas royalty rates, making it cheaper to extract fossil fuels on public lands and reducing the share of profits from such natural resources to taxpayers. Colorado alone could lose $148 million in revenue from future production from about 81,000 acres that sold in 2026, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog organization.

Read Next Once a climate leader, Canada is now doubling down on oil Jake Bittle

The push to lease tens of thousands of acres to oil and gas companies comes as bipartisan polling conducted as part of Colorado College’s State of the Rockies Project found a majority of voters in eight Western states want their congressional representatives to prioritize conservation over energy development on public lands.

About 21 million acres of public lands overseen by the Bureau of Land Management are leased for oil and gas development already, according to fiscal 2025 statistics on the agency’s website. Only 12 million of those acres are actually producing fossil fuels. 

This discrepancy underscores a concern of conservation groups that during the decade that energy companies hold federal oil and gas leases, the parcels by law cannot be managed for other uses such as sensitive habitat, wilderness character, or recreation.

“Folks need to understand the long-term impacts of a rush to lease so much public land,” said Peter Hart, legal director of the Wilderness Workshop, which works to conserve wildlife and the wilderness. 

“Once those leases are issued they are very hard to get rid of — they stay on the land for a long time, even if they aren’t developed.”

In response to issues raised in a 106-page comment letter filed March 13 by the Wilderness Workshop and 17 other organizations, the Bureau of Land Management wrote in an environmental assessment that it would conduct additional site-specific analysis of each parcel in the Colorado sale if a company files for a drilling permit. 

Read Next The Trump administration wants to take an ax to the East’s last great forests Grist staff

The agency also pointed out repeatedly in its 646-page report that “risks are reduced through the careful review of drilling and completion plans for proposed wells by both the BLM” and Colorado’s Energy and Carbon Management Commission.

Federal officials removed four parcels and reduced a fifth, for a total of about 4,800 acres, from the initial sale offering, citing a recent decision by the Interior Board of Land Appeals. These parcels included habitat for the greater sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse as well as high priority habitat for big game. Numerous other parcels with similar characteristics remain in the sale.

The environmental assessment also noted that agency officials would apply stipulations to leases issued for sensitive parcels aimed at protecting animals, plants, cultural resources, and fish.

Even so, conservation groups that closely monitor what’s at stake in oil and gas lease sales said that federal land managers have significantly less leeway at the permitting stage to move oil and gas operations, add conditions of approval, or to cancel a lease altogether. Together with these limitations is an inability for these officials to remove parcels that were deferred from past sales because they included habitat for sensitive species.

“During the first Trump administration, there was a sale that was initially proposed to be much larger than this and the state Bureau of Land Management was able to use its discretion to defer parcels that were inappropriate because of greater sage-grouse conflicts,” said Alison Gallensky, a conservation geographer at Rocky Mountain Wild.

“Now, they are being forced to offer a much larger sale than that one turned out to be,” she added.

Read Next Utah’s fragile desert could feel like the Sahara if America’s biggest data center gets built Leia Larsen

Greater sage-grouse are very sensitive to oil and gas infrastructure — even if it’s moved farther away from their habitat — and intuitively sense a winged predator could land on such equipment. They won’t breed if they feel that they are in danger, Gallensky said.

In addition, provisions developed to protect the birds listed in the environmental analysis for the June lease sale, such as requiring an oil and gas company to build a pad farther away from nesting locations, relies on operators to follow through — something that the federal government isn’t always staffed to monitor, she said.

Acreage included in the June sale also marks the continuation of a trend that began with last year’s federal oil and gas lease sales in Colorado. Typically, such sales offer public lands to energy companies in more remote parts of the state. 

Yet in September, the agency leased a parcel near the Aurora Reservoir, which is bordered by a densely populated Denver suburb, for about $5.6 million. The acreage is part of the Lowry Ranch Comprehensive Area Plan — a more than 150-well project approved by state regulators and strongly opposed by nearby residents.

Many of the more than 340 individual comments the agency received for the June sale urged the agency not to lease similar parcels near the reservoir. Residents and conservation groups wrote that emissions from oil and gas development on this acreage would worsen pollution in an area that’s already out of compliance with federal air quality rules.

In addition, the agency estimated in its analysis for the June sale that several parcels listed in Weld County, home to the state’s largest and most productive oil field, could result in up to 150 wells. Emissions from these wells would worsen smog in a region that already fails to meet national standards, conservation groups wrote.

“BLM’s implication that this lease sale ‘would result in no emission increase’ or that emissions are not reasonably foreseeable enough to perform a conformity determination are thus entirely baseless,” said numerous organizations in the March 13 comment letter to the agency.

Federal officials responded in the environmental analysis that the agency would conduct a “project-specific emissions inventory” if companies file for drilling permits on the parcels after leasing them. Permit requests would include details such as how many wells are proposed, a drilling and completion schedule, and a list of the equipment to be used, allowing the agency to conduct a more thorough analysis, officials wrote.

In Moffat County, on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains where much of the acreage in the June oil and gas lease sale is concentrated, community representatives noted a need to balance pollution and environmental concerns with the economic reality that rising grocery and gas prices are hitting rural areas hard. Some residents in this sparsely populated region, where 80 percent of voters cast ballots for Trump in 2024, rely in part on royalties from drilling to make ends meet, said Kleinschnitz, the county’s director of tourism.

“Many people in outfitting have agricultural businesses, and hunting is incredibly important to keeping people on those landscapes,” he said. “And some of them make royalties from oil and gas and have benefited greatly from having those.”

Copyright Capital & Main 2026

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Federal agency to open tens of thousands of acres of Colorado wilderness to oil drilling  on Jun 6, 2026.