News Feeds

The clean energy industry has learned the hard way that having the law on your side doesn’t always mean you win. 

Since taking office for his second term, President Donald Trump has attempted to delay or cancel dozens of wind and solar projects. These projects all underwent extensive reviews to secure federal approval, but the Department of the Interior and other agencies have frozen their permits for vague “national security” reasons, or with no explanation at all. These attacks have all but tanked the offshore wind industry and have led many developers to take payouts from the administration rather than fight for permits.

This attack is one big reason why solar and wind companies have been supportive of efforts in Congress to negotiate a bipartisan “permitting reform” bill. A group of senators reached a compromise earlier this month on a bill they call the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act. Lawmakers won’t vote on it until after the midterm elections, but the renewable energy sector has hailed it as a win. The bill would speed up environmental reviews for all kinds of energy projects, from transmission wires to oil pipelines, and it also contains a number of provisions that are designed to deter current and future presidents from blocking clean energy. Trump reportedly told aides just before the compromise became public that he would ease up on wind projects in order to reach a deal. 

Cracks are already emerging in the deal. While the renewable energy industry has remained steadfast in its support of the bill, a number of experts and key climate advocates are arguing that the “project certainty” provisions would do little to prevent Trump or another president from blocking solar farms and offshore wind turbines. The Trump administration itself threatened the compromise bill this week when it announced that it would review three permits for wind farms off the Atlantic Coast, including one that is already up and running.

“The administration’s action against [the wind projects] just further demonstrates the lengths they will go to to obstruct clean energy progress, especially offshore wind,” said Elizabeth Klein, who led the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which oversees offshore wind permits, under former president Joe Biden.

The project certainty portion of the Senate bill has two key parts. First, it declares that the federal government “shall not take any new action that would revoke, rescind, withdraw, terminate, suspend, amend, or alter” a project that has already received a permit. This is just a forceful restatement of the status quo, since permits that are issued aren’t supposed to be canceled for no reason. But the bill goes further by offering companies two main remedies if the government does take such prohibited actions. 

One is the reinstatement of the permit — which is somewhat redundant. Judges have already shot down the Trump administration’s past attempts to stop wind projects, but the administration is still seeking to revoke those permits. If the bill passes, all the courts would be able to do is order it in stronger terms to restore them. 

The other remedy is a cash payout. The courts would be able to order the government to refund a project developer between 25 and 50 percent of the costs of their project, which for a big offshore wind farm could reach well into the billions. The money would come from the Judgment Fund, a bank account the federal government uses to pay out legal settlements. This fund typically disburses around $2 billion in settlements per year, and successful claims under the permitting bill could lead to a big spike in payouts.

The other key part of project certainty in the bill is an anti-discrimination clause that would ban “disparate treatment” of any particular energy source, whether it’s solar panels or coal plants. If a wind developer found evidence that the government denied them permits as part of an anti-wind pattern, they could present that evidence to a judge. If persuaded, the judge would then order the government to restore the permit and pay the developer the entire construction cost of the wind farm — albeit only if the developer finished building it. 

Supporters of the bill argue that the promise of financial relief would help lure investors back to the renewable energy industry, which has been in turmoil under Trump. This is most important for offshore wind. Big companies like Ørsted and Equinor spent billions of dollars to build wind farms in the Atlantic under the Biden administration, but their costs ballooned after the pandemic snarled their supply chains and Trump tried to destroy their existing projects. These companies now view the United States as uninvestable, but Northeastern states still need a lot more offshore wind in order to meet their climate goals. 

The cash payout provision is supposed to help make the U.S. seem like a less risky place to invest. The American Clean Power Association, a trade group representing wind and solar developers, said in its analysis of the bill that “greater certainty lowers financing risk before construction and reduces the chance that years of development and investment will be stranded by a later policy reversal.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, gives a press conference about the Trump administration’s connection to fossil fuels. Whitehouse is one of the lead negotiators behind a bipartisan energy permitting bill. Photo by Tasos Katopodis / Getty Images

While the promise of reimbursement from the federal government would be good news for investors, it’s not clear that it would actually lead to more clean energy getting built. Opponents of the permitting reform bill point out that Trump has already been paying to stop renewable power plants from being built, albeit on a smaller scale. The president has worked out several deals to buy back offshore wind leases from energy developers in exchange for those developers committing to build a fossil fuel project elsewhere. These arrangements are being challenged in court, but in the meantime they function as repayments for leases that Trump intended to block.

The project certainty “provisions are unlikely to deter the Trump Administration from continuing to mess with clean energy permits, since this administration has shown an eagerness to use the public’s money to advance its own policy goals,” said Matthew Littleton, a former attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice who worked on environmental law issues. 

Littleton also points out that the anti-discrimination provision may not work as intended. The baseline for calculating “disparate treatment” is the average pace of project approvals over the most recent five years. By the time Trump leaves office, he will have spent four years permitting oil and gas projects while delaying almost all major solar and wind efforts. This baseline would prevent wind developers from making a discrimination claim — while also preventing a future president from walking back support for new oil and gas.

As if to highlight these risks, the White House has said in court filings over the past week that it is seeking to rescind permits for three offshore wind projects on the Atlantic Coast. One of these projects, the 700-megawatt Revolution Wind, is already complete and delivering power to Rhode Island, while the other two are still in the early stages. In each filing, the government has said only that it seeks to “reevaluate … compliance” with federal law.

Over the past year, Democratic negotiators in the Senate have said that this sort of behavior would jeopardize any bipartisan deal. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, one of the authors of the bill, said in the spring that he would not endorse a compromise bill unless the administration stopped blocking wind farms. This week he appeared to change tack, and described the move against Revolution Wind as another reason to pass the bill. “Frankly, we need to get permitting certainty in law, and this proves it,” he said in a statement.

The bill would in fact offer financial protection to a company like Ørsted, ensuring that a president could not wreck billions of dollars worth of investment with no justification at all. The question is whether it could end the government’s prejudicial assault against offshore wind. The answer could determine how millions of people in the Northeast keep their lights on and heat their homes, and right now, it’s up in the air.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Congress has a plan to stop Trump’s attack on offshore wind. It may not be enough. on Oct 16, 2026.

Manuel Pastor, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Sociology and American Studies & Ethnicity at the University of Southern California, currently directs the Equity Research Institute at USC. The inaugural holder of the Turpanjian Chair in Civil Society and Social Change at USC, Pastor’s research has generally focused on issues of the economic, environmental and social conditions facing low-income urban communities – and the social movements seeking to change those realities. He has won countless awards for his scholarship and advocacy and is the author or co-author of many books, including: Just Growth; Solidarity Economics; and, most recently (with Chris Benner), Charging Forward: Lithium Valley, Electric Vehicles, and a Just Future. (usc.edu)

Bioneers’ senior producer J.P. Harpignies spoke to Manuel Pastor this past September 14th. This is an edited version of the transcript of that conversation.

JP HARPIGNIES: Manuel, thank you so much for doing this. We really appreciate it. We were trying to think about what we could possibly add to the conversation before the midterm elections in this incredibly challenging political period, and as we were perusing our extensive networks of brilliant allies and friends, you were the first name that popped up since no one has done as much research and deep thinking as you have over the decades about social movement strategies, and you combine the passion of an activist with the rigor of a scholar, so we were eager to hear your thoughts about current realities.

My first question for you is this: We are obviously in an intensively regressive, reactionary period, both here and in many parts of the world, and much of the progress that we have accomplished over decades, if not centuries, on human rights issues and on the environment are being rolled back in a way that’s frankly shocking, even to the most cynical among us. And this is an oversimplification, but there are two over-arching tendencies that I perceive in our milieus at the moment politically. One tendency says that the historical imperative in this moment is to build as broad an anti-authoritarian movement as possible, similar to what Péter Magyar did in Hungary recently to get rid of Orbán. They say we’re in a sort of early 1930s moment, and so nothing’s more important than to build a coalition that goes from the sane center-right all the way to the far left.

Other people say that progressives should actually push for far more radical perspectives because there’s an opening now due to the sort of intense populist reactivity that seems so widespread in populations around the world. So where do you stand on those? Do you think that’s a false dichotomy – the large coalition vs pushing for more radical policies? Or do you have some miraculous third way that you could offer us?

MANUEL PASTOR: I often say that Americans seem to have difficulty holding two ideas in their heads at the same time. I think the way that we reconcile this is that we do want to build a broad front, but we want to make sure that it doesn’t become a mushy middle, so it needs to have progressive anchors that give it principles, that give it fighting spirit, that give it strategy to be able to move ahead. 

I have been thinking about these things. I have a book coming out next year called How We Rise: Building a Durable Super Majority for the Future We Deserve that argues that what we need is a multi-racial, multi-class, multi-sector, durable super majority for economic and political democracy. Let me spell that out and then come back to your question.

Multi-racial is obvious, that’s who we’re becoming in America, but that’s also been the Achilles’ heel of progressive movements, because the deployment of race and racism has been used to divide us. Multi-class, because while we often romanticize the working class – and I come from that milieu, not just as a person but in terms of my own politics – middle-class and professional people need to be part of this movement. And also, with artificial intelligence, there’s a new precarious proletariat made up of professionals who are about to find that they’re about as replaceable as others have been in the past. Multi-sector, because we need to get the scientists who are upset about climate science being ignored, the faith leaders who are shocked by the disposability of humanity built into the anti-immigrant movement, and many others. Durable, because we’re at a moment in which we need to form a coalition that is as strong as the New Deal coalition, which persisted for decades, was; and the Civil Rights coalition, which was eventually weakened but was broad and strong for a long time. 

Too often we on the left have thought that if I we could get 50% plus one of the voters, that would be enough to take us over the top, but if you want durable change, you need 60 percent or two-thirds. You need a social majority, in part because some people are going to bail on such issues as trans rights because they don’t understand that’s an issue about fundamental dignity.

Economic and political democracy, because there’s a great political scientist, Joan C. Williams, who co-authored a book called Outclassed, and she just did a poll. She asked people to take 30 issues and rank them in terms of order of importance. College-educated, left-leaning folks ranked saving democracy as number two, but it was number 19 for working class people, because democracy has not been delivering on the economy, on material goods, so saving a system that doesn’t deliver is not really all that appealing for them, so we need to have both economic and political democracy, in tandem. In order to get there, we need as broad a front as possible, but it needs to have progressive anchors that are continually pushing so that it’s not a meaningless broad front, but one that builds on what we have in common and continually pushes us to action. 

So, I do think it’s a false dichotomy, and I think that what we need to seek is not the lowest common denominator but the highest common ground. What is it that we don’t quite agree on that we need to push ourselves to agree on rather than just the easy things?

JP: Just as a follow-up to that, isn’t it a little bit tricky? Because precisely, some of these issues that have proven divisive or that the right has used to peel away support for progressive economic policies are third-rails that are really difficult to get working class people or especially white working-class people to come on board with. How do you finesse that? If you’re going to push for the highest octave on all of these fronts, how do you avoid many people peeling away because they don’t support this or that particular position? 

We’ve had those kinds of cleavages for a long time. For example, there are many people in the African-American community who are more conservative and religious on social issues while being very progressive on economic issues. 

MANUEL: That’s also true in the Latino community, as we saw during the last Trump election. I think that first, finessing shouldn’t mean trying to fool people, and it shouldn’t mean thinking that they are deluded and voting against their interests, so what is wrong with them? I think it’s a little bit more trying to understand how to talk about things. 

Right after this election of Trump, I got persuaded to present some research we’ve worked on in Orange County, a place that has long been purple but that is not known for Bay Area-like progressive leanings. It was an equity profile on racial justice issues, and the people who were sponsoring it, the grant-makers’ group there, were very concerned about alienating people, about how local people were going to react, etc. I started the event by saying that equity is fundamentally about opportunity, dignity, and community. 

People want to have the ability to work hard and get ahead. They want to be deeply respected for who they are and what they do, and they want to be able to exist in community. That describes the aspirations of racial minorities. It describes the aspirations of rural people who sometimes feel that they are not awarded dignity or respect. It describes trans people who want the opportunity to live their lives, who want to have their choices accepted with dignity and want to be part of a bigger community. I think when you appeal to those broad values instead of trying to say it’s really just all about the economy, I think you build coalitions that are more lasting.

Similarly, after the raids here in Los Angeles (which are still ongoing, just a bit quieter) in that intense period last summer, I was asked to provide data to immigrant rights activists, and to speak to philanthropy and social justice groups, but I also took the opportunity to forge an alliance with some business groups that realized that the raids were deeply unsettling for economic stability. Most dramatically, I accepted an invitation to speak to the L.A. Rotary Club. Now, interestingly, one person resigned as a result of my appearance, but a lot of others realized, oh my gosh, this is interesting that about a fifth of L.A. County residents are either undocumented themselves or part of a mixed status family; and, wow, I hadn’t realized that about nearly three-quarters of undocumented Angelinos have been in the country for more than a decade; I didn’t realize that more than a third of our frontline construction workers are unauthorized, and I know that we’re not coming back from the fires without them. I think it’s important to take that opportunity to try to find what we do have in common and treat people with respect.

We’re not going to pull over everyone to our point of view, but we should not be applying litmus tests around language and perspectives. We should be trying to figure out if you can be in with us on opportunity, dignity, and community. 

JP: Let’s talk a little bit more about immigration, because obviously that’s one of your domains of expertise, a subject you’ve worked on for a lifetime. It’s really a fundamental issue of our times because it’s been driving so much of the rise of hard right parties throughout the world. We’ve had the rise of the AfD in Germany, the Front National in France, Nigel Farage’s party in the UK, the xenophobic “March and March” campaign in South Africa, the anti-Rohingya forces in Myanmar, and of course the Republicans here, so it’s not just a U.S. problem. It’s been this sort of giant third rail. Even the Spanish government has been under heavy pressure because of what happened recently in Ceuta. 

My question is this: Is the left making, to some degree, a similar error to what occurred when there was enormous right-wing backlash over the law-and-order issue going back into the ‘70s, and the more recent iteration of that with the whole Defund the Police brouhaha. It seems that the issue of immigration has been very successfully used to tap into the rage of the white working class in the U.S. and Europe, and beyond those regions not just white people since, as I mentioned, we find it all over the world in such places as South Africa, India, and Myanmar, to mention only a few.

A lot of this is a very old playbook of demonizing “the other” by authoritarian forces and by capital, and it’s also obviously blowback from centuries of imperialism and capitalism, but clearly this issue is giving the extreme right a lot of fuel. Has the left failed to find a viable, effective strategy to counter that? Is there a politically realistic effective way to push for humane immigration policies that could be supported by majorities, that don’t create openings for the far right? I realize that if you had an easy answer, you’d be extremely rich and famous; this is a problem from hell, but still, if there’s anyone who can help us see the light on this, I think it’s you, Manuel.

MANUEL: I’ve definitely thought a lot about this. I think you’re right that what the right and capital and these tech titans who are trying to steer us to a new authoritarian order have effectively done is persuade people to blame their situation on those by their side rather than on those above them, who are the ones actually helping cause the situation, so the question is: How do you inoculate against that? I don’t think you can do it by ignoring it, by ignoring the need to talk about xenophobia and racism and challenge people’s conceptions and attitudes, nor by ignoring the fact that sometimes lots of immigration can cause real strains on a society. 

I think one of the things that happened during ‘22 and ‘23, when in the post COVID era there was a very big backlog of people coming across the border, it really looked disorderly. The Biden administration tried to make it a little bit more orderly, but roughly two-and-a-half to three million unauthorized immigrants often received fairly quick asylum and crossed the border into the United States. Even undocumented immigrants who’d been here for a long time were asking: “Who are these new people and why are they immediately getting help when I’ve been here for 20 years and nobody helped me?” I think sometimes the left has a sort of honesty problem. We’re sort of willing to call out the other side for the ways in which they run away from the facts—the fact that immigrants contribute a lot to our society, the fact that people do make progress over time, the fact that immigrants actually unionize at a higher rate than the native born and are great allies for the labor movement, etc. We’re willing to call out the right for stuff they say that’s untrue, but we’re sometimes reluctant to admit that, for example, a lot of people crossed the border in a very short period. How can we make that process more orderly? How can we make it so that there are resources for communities to be able to more successfully integrate newcomers? I think that could help. 

We just finished a report called “The Wealth of Welcome.” It’s kind of a play on both the idea of the warmth of welcome and the wealth of nations that argues for comprehensive immigration reform that would create paths to citizenship for the vast bulk of those who are currently here who are unauthorized and would regularize labor flows to bring people in, and then would take the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been devoted to ICE and instead repurpose them to communities so that they could speed up the integration of immigrants and make sure that we have investments in community building. That sort of three-part program – regularize who’s here, create orderly flows for the future, and divert money away from enforcement into integration – that’s the kind of thing we ought to be arguing for.

JP: Another issue that people affiliated with Bioneers really care about is obviously the environment and ecosystem health, and another really difficult political situation at the moment is that as we’re seeing climate change bear down in a way that even the most pessimistic prognostications didn’t predict 20 years ago or so. We in the environmental movement had always thought that when people would be directly affected by fires and floods and hurricanes, then they would come around, so it’s been disconcerting to see a world in which the evidence is off the charts with wildfires everywhere and hundred-year floods happening every three or four years in many places. What would it take to awaken people? Do you have any thoughts on that? Even with the L.A. fires, fires in boreal forests that had been extremely rare happening yearly on immense scales, and what just happened in Nepal, it doesn’t seem to register for voters here, even in this election. When people ask voters how they rank the environment, it comes up something like 20th. Do you have any insight on what could possibly turn this around?

MANUEL: You’re asking me all the easy questions today, JP. 

JP: Yeah, can you please solve all the problems of the world in 20 minutes, Manuel?

MANUEL: How do we turn around authoritarianism? Can we make immigration work? And how do we solve climate change? After I answer these, I think I will run for president….

It is disconcerting. I do think that one of the things that’s going on is that the environmental disparities portion of this still plays a role, so that people who are more privileged and have more power and should be doing something about this are often feeling that it isn’t happening to them…unless they were unlucky enough to live in the Palisades…. 

It has been striking that from something that actually was discussed three or four years ago, it’s gotten much worse, but it’s hardly being discussed in the body politic. Instead, it’s all about affordability, which by the way plays a role, because one of the ways to become affordable is to move away from fossil fuels, to move away from the high insurance costs that come from these disasters, to move away from the expensive fiscal spending that’s going to need to take place as we try to repair from all of this climate damage. I mean, I do think we can think about addressing climate change as a long-term affordability issue in ways that definitely make sense.

I’m optimistic by nature. I think people who are into Bioneers are often also optimistic by nature. They come to the conferences and/or listen to the podcasts hoping to find tools they can take away to help change the world. I think we can fight this moment of authoritarianism. I’m convinced that we can build a broad front that has a progressive anchor. I’m convinced that we can weaken the power of fossil fuel and the tech titans; that we can shift to speaking about our economy vs the economy. I am optimistic that we can challenge the disease of personal racism, which is inflicted upon us by structures that want to allocate privilege and obscure the truth of who really holds power. 

But I also think it behooves us to be realistic about the world we are likely to inherit after this Trump era is over (and I hope it will be). It’s a world that will be in ashes. There will be immigrant lives and families that have been shattered. There will be a planet a little bit warmer and a lot riskier. There will be artificial intelligence that has not been held back. There will be a shift of income away from workers to those on top. We will have an even bigger government debt and fiscal deficit, constraining what it is that government can deliver even in a moment when it absolutely needs to deliver. 

We need to be sober as we think about the next world we’re trying to build, but hopeful as we  remember earlier examples, such as what got built after the Civil War, that too brief attempt at Reconstruction that emerged in the ashes of a South that had burned down, or, in many ways, had burned itself down by its attachment to white supremacy; or of the New Deal that started in the Great Depression and provided some degree of stability, not for everyone – many people of color were written out of the details of the New Deal – but in which government was willing to intervene and created an era in which wages rose at the bottom, middle and top, in which Social Security got expanded, and in which we finally got to Medicare and Medicaid, not for all, but somewhere in that direction. That all emerged out of a Great Depression in which a quarter of the people lost their jobs, in which fascism was a real possibility here and a real reality in Europe, in which a world war got waged about our future.

So, I ask those who are watching or listening or reading to have hope, to dig deep for the strength that we need in this moment to come together, to build that big tent and continually push it further and further left, but also understand that the world we’ll be inheriting will be one that will be in ashes, and we will need to be thinking about not just the world we want but how it is we actually rebuild.

JP: Thank you so much, Manuel. Words of wisdom. We really appreciate it. Just what we needed to hear. 

MANUEL: Thank you, JP. Thank you, Bioneers.

The post Building a Durable Super Majority for Economic and Political Democracy appeared first on Bioneers.

Fact-checked by Kenn Kaufman, field editor, Audubon magazine. We don’t have a lot of pink birds in North America. In fact, even if we get generous with the definition of pink and count rare...

The Northwest needs a SMART standard for data centers Meredith Connolly Fri, 10/16/2026 - 10:27 am

The Western Arctic’s wetlands, lakes, and tundra provide essential habitat for millions of migratory birds and other wildlife, sustain Indigenous subsistence livelihoods, and store vast amounts of...

Written by Leo Chan Gaskins.We’ll start off with the problem to solve – unfortunately, many marsh birds are in decline in the Great Lakes due to habitat loss and degradation. Marsh bird...

New FEC filings show the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, has become the dominant funder of the Senate Leadership Fund, the leading Republican Senate super PAC. Musk was responsible for 58% of the fund’s third-quarter fundraising, and his latest contributions bring his total giving to the Republican group to $168 million. His contributions to a single party super PAC appear poised to exceed the previous record by approximately $100 million.

In response, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said:

“Elon Musk is pouring unprecedented sums of money into Republican super PACs, giving him extraordinary financial leverage over the party’s political future, in an attempt to sway the midterm results with his net worth. The current state of our campaign finance system allows one billionaire to supply the overwhelming share of a major party’s political funding. This is undemocratic and flat-out wrong. America should be a nation where the voices of regular people are heard just as loudly as the ultrawealthy. And where the billionaire class is prevented from consolidating political power.”

Musk also has his own pet super PAC, which he has given $126 million according to recent analysis by Public Citizen. In 2026, Musk has contributed a total of $366 million to super PACs and other political groups in an effort to help Republicans win in November.

When Albert Betoudji’s family—who are from Chad—visited him in Utah, he took them to his farm. They were surprised to see maize, squash, okra, and other familiar Central African crops growing so far from home.

“My mom was very, very happy,” says Betoudji. “They showed me [how to farm] at a young age, and I continue doing the same thing here in the United States.”

Growing up in Chad, Betoudji’s grandparents taught him to plant seeds and harvest crops when he was just five years old. He would later return home during school breaks to farm with his parents, learning to pay attention to and time planting around the seasons’ climates.

But in 1979, civil war forced Betoudji to leave Chad, and he traveled to West Africa in search of safety. He eventually settled in Burkina Faso, where he earned his high school diploma, studied management accounting at the University of Ouagadougou, and started teaching accounting. And in 1999, he emigrated to the United States.

For several years, Betoudji helped other refugee families settle into life in their new communities—everything from navigating public transportation systems to using American kitchens and toilets. Then in 2005, he began growing food again, starting simply with corn, tomatoes, and peppers in his backyard.

Betoudji soon became one of the first farmers in a Salt Lake County, Utah, community farming effort that would eventually become the International Rescue Committee’s New Roots program, which supports refugee and immigrant farmers as they build sustainable livelihoods through agriculture.

Betoudji was able to expand to growing crops he remembered from home, including okra and roselle, a type of hibiscus native to Africa that cannot fruit in Utah’s cooler climate, but he grows it for its edible leaves.

Eventually, with help from the New Roots staff, he began selling produce to stores and restaurants and at farmers’ markets. There, Betpoudji says, he and fellow refugee and immigrant farmers sell food while sharing the stories behind it—where they come from, how they arrived in the United States, and how to eat the crops they grow.

The income from farming can be limited, Betoudji says, but the work is meaningful: “Working at the farm makes me happy, because it is a physical activity; you use all your body.” This includes not only the arms and legs but the mind, Betoudji says, which “helped me with my mental and physical health.”

The farm also connects Betoudji to a community of people who, like him, have arrived in Utah from different places and backgrounds: “I came to Utah as a refugee, and I met other refugee families with different backgrounds, different cultures, but we farm together.”

For him, these relationships are at the heart of New Roots: The name reflects the experience of people who have left one place and built lives in another, bringing their knowledge, traditions, and foodways with them.

“We come from different backgrounds, but we farm together in the same place, and we grow food for family and for community,” says Betoudji.

Watch Betoudji’s story below and find others from our farmer storytelling events on Food Tank’s YouTube channel.

This article is part of Food Tank’s ongoing Farmer Friday series, produced in partnership with Niman Ranch, a champion for independent U.S. family farmers. The series highlights the stories of farmers working toward a more sustainable, equitable food system. Niman Ranch partners with over 500 small-scale U.S. family farmers and is committed to preserving rural agricultural communities and their way of life.

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

The post For Refugees in Utah, Farming Is a Connection to Home appeared first on Food Tank.

“The Hub” is a weekly round-up of transportation related news in the Philadelphia area and beyond. Check back weekly to keep up-to-date on the issues Clean Air Council’s transportation staff finds important.

Are you ready to vote on November 4th? Find Voting & Election information here.

Image Source: Metro Philadelphia

Metro Philadelphia: New SEPTA Regional Rail schedules start Sunday – Current SEPTA Student – Sunday, October 18 will see the start of new Regional Rail schedules for SEPTA. Daily parking rates will also be reduced at all SEPTA parking garages, from $4 to $2 per day, through December 31, 2026. The new schedules can be viewed here.

Image Source: Transit Forward Philadelphia

Transit Forward Philadelphia: Week Without Driving 2026 – This year’s annual Week Without Driving challenged Pennsylvanians that normally drive to go car-free as much as possible from September 30 through October 6. More than one-third of people living in the United States are nondrivers. Advocacy groups with Transit Forward Philadelphia challenged Philly to go beyond one week. They advocated for affordable and reliable transit, expanded student fare cards, accessible transit stops, and building out the Transit Access Fund to expand SEPTA for all Philadelphians.

Image Source: Philly Voice

Philly Voice: City Council makes bike lane around City Hall permanent a year after it was installed by PennDOT – The existing bike lane surrounding City Hall was codified into a bill by City Council approval this week. The bike lane was installed by Pennsylvania Department of Transportation last year but was considered a pilot program. The bill, introduced by Councilmember Jeffrey Young Jr., keeps the lane in place. Cycling advocates submitted a 1,200-signature petition and sent over 400 emails in favor of the lane. The bill awaits the mayor’s signature, but was passed unanimously by City Council, meaning it can become law with or without the signature.

Other Stories

BillyPenn: Less honk, more handlebar: Philly Bike Ride rolls back into town

Philadelphia Today: Why Philadelphia Ranked as America’s Worst City to Drive in 2026

PennDOT: Seven Day, 24-Hour Work Begins October 19 on the Dolby Street Safety Improvement Project

CBS Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Regional Transit announces plans to permanently close the Wabash Tunnel

6ABC: AC Expressway widening project aims to improve safety and reduce congestion

In the wake of LCMC’s “Spirit of Charity Gala” last week, Registered Nurses from University Medical Center (UMC) in New Orleans, La., will hold a press conference on Friday, Oct. 16, to highlight their patient safety concerns, including short-staffing, high turnover, and wage theft.

URGENT ALERT: Mining pushes through in Palawan, local resistance rises

The Barricade at Linao, Brooke’s Point Palawan

Yes to Life No to Mining calls for the immediate withdrawal of Calmia Nickel Inc. from private indigenous lands in Palawan

Calmia Nickel Inc. (CNI) has crossed every line. At dawn on October 1, heavily armed guards illegally entered private coconut land in sitio Linao, Brooke’s Point, fencing it with barbed wire to force their way into the uplands — land that is part of the ancestral domain of the Pala’wan people.

Indigenous landowners immediately built their barricade, refusing to let mining equipment advance. Within hours, dozens of Pala’wan families gathered in solidarity. Vice Mayor Mary Jean Feliciano, SB Member Jaymart Naigue, former IP councillor Victor Colili, Church leaders, and civil society stood with them.

Calmia’s rush uphill is already destroying decades-old coconut groves, uprooting fruit trees and threatening the primary forest next. The Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) has been alerted as communities witness their livelihoods being bulldozed.

 

 

Company armed mining guards at the barricade

Pala’wan representatives from Linao and nearby barangays are now demanding transparency from Calmia and the pro‑mining IPDO BICAMM regarding royalty funds — questions that remain unanswered. But the violations run deeper:

• Calmia is operating without a Mayor’s Permit. 

• Mining activities overlap a CADT area application, where indigenous communities hold legal rights. 

• Tenements intrude into the Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (MMPL). 

• FPIC processes led by NCIP were not based on consensus, as required by the Indigenous Peoples Right Act (IPRA law), but on majority voting — a direct violation of customary law. 

Once again, NCIP, the agency meant to defend Indigenous rights, is siding with the oppressors.

Global solidarity is growing. The Rainforest Rescue petition against mining in Palawan and Brooke’s Point is nearing 49,000 supporters.

Coconut plantation being flattened by Calmia

Since 2016, mining permits in Palawan have allowed 321,066 trees to be cut or earth‑balled — a devastating trend worsening water scarcity as El Niño intensifies across the Philippines.

It is time for the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) to uphold its mandate, and for DENR–MGB to revoke Calmia’s permit before more irreversible damage is done.

Defending the Pala’wan people and one of the Philippines’ last great forests is not optional — it is imperative.

Defending the Barricade

Is your community, organization, or network interested in becoming a YLNM member? Would you like to know more about us? Please send an email enquiry to membership[at]yestolifenotomining.org

Subscribe to our bi-monthly newsletter Suscríbase a nuestro boletín

Yes to Life No to Mining global solidarity network since 2012 | Contact Us

• Follow
• Follow
• Follow
• Follow

The post PALAWAN: MINING PUSHES THROUGH, LOCAL RESISTANCE RISES appeared first on Yes to Life No to Mining.

“The only current restriction on getting American gas is our ability to get the gas to market and the infrastructure bottlenecks,” FERC Chairman Laura Swett said.

Yesterday, the New York Times revealed that Elon Musk has spent at least $366 million to sway the results of the midterms. I suppose that makes today as good a moment as any to reflect on the harm that Elon Musk and his DOGE cronies have caused over the last two years.

Scores of people dead. By some estimates Musk’s boastful dismantling of USAID has resulted in the deaths of at least half-a-million children. If accurate, that would mean the world’s richest man caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of the world’s poorest children. 

Explosive diarrhoea. As this fired FDA worker warned, months before the cyclosporiasis outbreak that resulted in “exploding diarrhea” for tens of thousands of Americans, DOGE’s gutting of the government’s food safety programs made such an outbreak far more likely.  

Stealing from every living American. Whistleblowers have gone on the record, alleging that a DOGE staffer stole the sensitive personal data of every living American and told colleagues he wanted to share it with a private corporation. 

It’s no wonder that Musk and his cronies are terrified that they’re going to face real consequences and accountability in the new Congress. And Musk’s fears must be growing. 

Since our Investigate DOGE campaign launched, 17 Members of Congress have responded to our campaign. Here’s a snapshot of what they’re saying:

 

“There needs to be accountability for Elon Musk (…). They don’t talk about the 4.5 million children around the world who he possibly sentenced to death by dismantling USAID. He needs to answer for that. He needs to be subpoenaed. He needs to face investigation. He needs to answer for what he did with DOGE.”

– Rep. Ro Khanna (CA)

“Elon Musk and DOGE slashed the VA, gutted Social Security and undermined dozens of lifesaving federal programs – all in the name of ‘savings.’ Unsurprisingly, their math doesn’t add up. DOGE’s actions need to be investigated, and the Privacy Act needs to be updated so these failures can’t happen again.”

– Rep. Lori Trahan (MA) – MA-3, August 10, 2026

“I strongly support efforts to investigate the full extent of DOGE’s actions, including any coordination between DOGE and election deniers or other non-governmental organizations that have sowed chaos and distrust in our government’s institutions.”

– Senator Cory Booker (NJ), July 28, 2026

“Elon Musk needs to testify under oath. DOGE gutted the federal workforce and fired experts we need to keep America safe. He must answer for the damage he caused.”

– Rep. James Walkinshaw (VA) – VA-11

 

On November 4th, we’ll find out what the new Congress looks like. But no matter the results, this age of impunity for billionaires needs to come to an end, and first and foremost that means Elon Musk being held accountable. 

 

To join the Investigate DOGE campaign and make sure you get the latest updates, join 38,000 others and send your Members of Congress an email now. 

 

In Solidarity
– Alec Connon, Stop the Money Pipeline, coalition director

News & Updates from the Coalition

– STMP is Cleaning House

Stop the Money Pipeline launched in January 2020 as a coalition of 32 organizations. We grew rapidly to be a network of 230+ groups. However, since then some groups moved on to other work, fallen out of touch, or no longer even exist. (A lot can happen in 7 years.)

That’s why we’re currently running a coalition recommitment process – inviting existing coalition partners to formally recommit to the network and inviting new organizations to consider joining. So far, nearly eighty organizations have recommitted to being a part of the coalition.

So this seems like a good time to say, if you’re a member of a community group that might be interested in joining the Stop the Money Pipeline network, complete this interest form and we’ll be in touch. (Please note: this is only for organizations interested in joining the network; not individuals)

– Developing the climate movement’s leadership

Perhaps the single most important element of successful social movements is their commitment to continually developing leadership. That’s why, over the last nine months, we’ve run the Local Leads, Global Impacts program, putting a dozen climate movement campaigners through a rigorous nearly year-long training and mentoring program.

This month, we wrapped up the cohort. Here’s what one cohort member, 350 Seattle’s Aki Chatterji, who’s leading the critical Make Polluters Pay WA campaign, had to say about the program:

“The cohort gave me frameworks, language, and practical tools I know I’ll keep returning to, and the weekly 1:1 mentorship has been absolutely invaluable in developing my skills, navigating thorny challenges, and managing the day-to-day of running a campaign.”

As the cohort comes to an end, we’re excited to see how Aki and all of this talented group of campaigners put these skills to use in the real world, building power and leading campaigns to end the fossil fuel industry.

 –As the rest of the world ditches coal, Wall Street – and Citibank – doubles down

At the Glasgow climate talks in 2021, the world’s governments made a landmark commitment to phase-out coal. A new analysis from Urgewald shows that since then coal financing has flatlined, but banks are moving in very different directions. 

Since 2022, European banks have slashed their financing of coal in half, and banks across Japan, India, and South-East Asia have cut funding for the dirtiest of fossil fuels. At the same time, US banks have increased their financing of coal by 23%. Citibank was among the worst offenders.

So, all the more reason to keep the pressure up on Costco, one of Citibank’s largest clients, demanding it break ties with the coal-loving bank. Which is exactly what we’ve been doing: over the last month, activists across the Gulf South have been visiting Costco warehouses, demanding it drops Citibank as its co-branded credit card partner.

And wherever you are, you can take action with the Costco: Clean Up Your Credit Card campaign by taking any of these simple actions.

 – Aligning your money with you values:

Our partner Third Act is hosting a training series on how you can align your money with your values.

Next up, they are sharing how you can ensure that your home and auto insurance isn’t with a company that’s fueling the flames of the climate crisis. Join the session on October 19th at 1PT/4ET. 

– Energy is growing for real solutions to the climate-driven insurance crisis

During NY Climate Week, we partnered with RAN and NYCC to bring together state legislators, policy experts, and community leaders to talk about the climate-driven insurability crisis and what we can do about it.

We heard powerful stories from New Yorkers who have faced real financial hardship when insurers raised rates, and denied claims. We also heard all about how the insurance industry is making record profits, as it passes the costs of the climate crisis onto everyday people.

Most importantly, we plotted out how we can pass the Insure our Communities Act, the country’s strongest piece of legislation to jointly tackle the insurance industry and the fossil fuel industry’s role in the climate crisis. If you want to nerd out on all of this & more, watch the entire panel here.

And if you’re in New York and you have a story about insurance industry malpractice, we’d love to hear from you. 

– Polluters must be made to pay

Last month, Big Oil tried to move its “legal immunity bill” through the House of Representatives. Thankfully, after thousands of you contacted your Members of Congress to demand they stop the bill, the legislation stalled before the House went out on recess.

But we need to be vigilant. We expect Big Oil’s puppets in Congress to try and move the legislation forward again in the lame duck session after the midterms. So if your Members of Congress haven’t heard from you on this yet, make sure they do. 

And on that note, it seems appropriate to close with the words of the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres when he addressed world leaders in New York last month: polluters must pay.

The next learning session is on Monday, Sept 14th at 1PT/4ET. RSVP here.

The post October Newsletter: Musk’s Reckoning is Coming. appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

Marcia Ciro
Pause
Charles River, Dover, Massachusetts
Infrared photography
© copyright Marcia Ciro

“I’m not sure of the species, just got ‘ray-finned fishes’ on apps. I’ve been exploring local underwater environments in nearby rivers and lakes. I am fascinated by the complexity that lurks just below the surface.” Image taken with a digital camera modified to shoot infrared images.

 

 

 

 

Marcia Ciro
Untitled
Ipswich River, Ipswich, Massachusetts
Infrared photography
© copyright Marcia Ciro Both photos were taken with a digital camera modified to shoot infrared images. Marcia Ciro’s website is papertracestudio.com if you want to see more of her work, including more landscapes in color and infrared.

 

 

 

 

Barri Hitchin
Alien Visitor
Somerset Levels, United Kingdom
Inspiration: Surreal Wetland
Photograph
© copyright Barri Hitchin

 

 

 

 

Karl J. Findling
Hell’s Canyon, Oregon
Oregon Pack Works
Bend, Oregon
© copyright Karl J. Findling

 

 

 

 

 

María Isabel Dabrowski
SSSSlithering Through the Jungle
Bocaracá
Eyelash palm pitviper/Bothriechis schlegelii
La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica
© María Isabel Dabrowski

“While at La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica for a training, I met a lovely wildlife biologist who is studying this species at La Selva to learn more about what, if anything, impacts the color variation of the Bocaracá. While we were admiring this bright yellow danger noodle from a respectful distance, the snake began moving along the tree branch; as this species mostly moves at night, the wildlife biologist we were with was super excited to watch the Bocaracá’s tongue-flicking and branch-wending in daylight.”

 

 

 

 

 

Lizann Michaud
Black-Tailed Rattlesnake (Crotalu molossus)
Mule Mountains of southeastern Arizona
© 2026 Lizann Michaud

“We knew this small black-tailed rattlesnake was there only when it began to move (and we of course hopped back a safe distance in reply). It didn’t rattle, and appeared remarkably relaxed, so I took a golden sunset-lit photo of this curious beauty.”

 

 

 

 

 

Stephen Reed
Colorado Columbine and Greenback Trout
Rocky Mountain National Park
© copyright Stephen Reed

“Here’s an unintentional double exposure from Rocky Mountain National Park. It shows the state flower (blue columbine) and the state fish (greenback trout) in a tribute to the 150th anniversary of the state of Colorado.”

 

 

 

 

Stephen Reed
Bison Profile
©copyright Stephen Reed

“Here’s a bison profile taken with a 300mm telephoto lens near Soda Butte Creek in Yellowstone. What caught MY eye was the knot of fur near the nose (shaped like a false eye) that makes that nose look like a monkey face within the image. I cannot un-see it…”

 

 

 

 

Kate Chabarek
European Black Bee on Teasle
Basque Country, Spain
Photography, edited with Adobe Lightroom Classic (manual tools only)
© copyright Kate Chabarek

“My three-year-old son and I saw the European Black Bee by the Urumea River, near the town of Hernani, where we live. He warned me quite strenuously about the “erlea” (bee) and how it would “mina eman” (give pain), in the Basque language. I want to encourage him to be interested in nature, and I enjoy talking with him about plants and animals in English, so he can talk to his grandmother in the United States about them.”

 

 

 

 

Puffball
The Adirondacks in Northern NY
© copyright Kate Chabarek

 

 

 

 

 

Red Eft or eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens)
© copyright Kate Chabarek

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Ross
Wildlife Observing the Wildlife Photographer
Red foxes
Dean Hill Road, Wellsboro, Pennsylvania
Canon Powershot SX70 HS
© copyright Robert Ross Robert Ross
Wildlife Observing the Wildlife Photographer
Red foxes
Dean Hill Road, Wellsboro, Pennsylvania
Canon Powershot SX70 HS
© copyright Robert Ross

“While trying to get good photographic evidence (for the 3rd Pennsylvania Breeding Bird Atlas) of a mother Bobolink feeding its young in a hayfield, I noticed a family of red foxes watching me the whole time from their upscale home nearby. These moments are what makes the project well worth the time spent.”

 

 

 

 

Candace Galen
Complementary Colors
Little blue butterfly (Icarica) on a purple aster
Hoosier Ridge — part of the Continental Divide just north of Hoosier Pass in central Colorado.
Photography, using a Sony Alpha II camera with telephoto lens and a continuous shoot setting so as not to disturb the butterfly.
© copyright Candace Galen

“Though tiny, these are truly the smallest of butterflies, their luminescent blue color is a showstopper. This one, flitting from flower to flower in an alpine meadow was irresistible.

An interesting fact: this species was given its scientific name by the Russian writer, Vladimir Nabokov, better known for his literary contributions (for example, Lolita). Exiled from Russia in the 1940s, he hired on as Curator of Lepidoptera at the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology.”

 

 

 

 

Linda Carroll
Moth Feasts on Sunflower
© copyright Linda Carroll

“I confess I don’t know the moth species. The photo was taken in Spokane, Washington. I went out to water the plants one summer morning and was taken by the beauty of the moth and the grouping of bright colors. I took a number of photos, moving closer each time but trying to do so without the moth noticing me. It wasn’t easy because the sun was behind me and I didn’t want to create a shadow, which would have disturbed the moth and spoiled the photo. This was the closest I got and the best shot. Shortly thereafter, the moth became annoyed with me and flew away.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guidelines to get your masterpiece into the Revelator Gallery:

• • Original photos and art from you
  • No AI-generated or enhanced images
  • Images can be horizontal, square, or vertical
  • We accept only .jpgs and .png files
  • No limit on submissions
  • No people in the images, just wildlife and landscapes (animals, plants and trees, insects, sea life…)

Send your submissions to ccrary@biologicaldiversity.org with the following information:

• • Your name
  • Title of image (if applicable)
  • Species of wildlife
  • The location (where it was created)
  • A brief description of what inspired you to capture or create this image
  • Medium: Photography (many types, be specific), painting, drawing, pottery, sculpture, textiles/fabric art, mixed media, glass, etc.
  • Let us know if you want us to include a specific copyright notice “©”

All submissions are considered intended for publication; submission does not guarantee publication. Monthly galleries will be distributed to our partner publications under a Creative Commons license, but you retain the copyright on your individual images. There’s no prize or payment, just  bragging rights.

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy.

 

The post The Revelator Gallery: October 2026 Exhibit appeared first on The Revelator.

CALGARY— DAVID PICKUP, director of the Electricity program at the Pembina Institute, made the following statement in response to new offshore wind investment by the federal government and a new data centre project powered in part by onshore wind:...

Burning plastic waste releases toxic gases including dioxins and furans, as well as CO2 emissions, making plastic incineration one of the hidden drivers of the climate crisis. When plastic burns, it does not disappear — it transforms into airborne poisons that settle in the lungs, soil, and bloodstreams of the communities living closest to the smoke.

People living near incinerators have a right to know what they are breathing. This explainer delves into what is released when plastic is burned in incinerators (sometimes called “waste-to-energy”), why it worsens the climate crisis, and who is statistically most impacted by these facilities.

Plastic incineration is the burning of plastic waste — whether in an open pit, a backyard barrel, or a large incineration or “waste-to-energy” facility — to dispose of it and/or generate energy. While often marketed as a solution to the plastic crisis, it is anything but.

What toxic gases does burning plastic waste release?

Burning plastic releases a cocktail of hazardous compounds. According to GAIA’s research in The Hidden Climate Polluter: Plastic Incineration, these emissions include some of the most dangerous pollutants known to science.

The primary toxic gases and pollutants released when plastic is burned include:

• Dioxins and furans — persistent organic pollutants that build up in the food chain and are linked to cancer and reproductive harm.
• Particulate matter — microscopic particles that lodge deep in the lungs and enter the bloodstream.
• Hydrogen chloride — a corrosive acidic gas produced when PVC and chlorinated plastics burn.
• Heavy metals and volatile organic compounds — released due to plastics’ additives, dyes, and stabilizers.

Dioxins and furans are among the most toxic chemicals ever studied — they persist in the environment for decades and accumulate in living tissue.

These are not trace emissions. They are the predictable byproducts of setting synthetic, fossil-fuel-derived materials on fire.

Why plastic burns dirty

Plastic is made from fossil fuels. When you burn plastic, you are burning oil and gas in one of the most polluting ways possible. The additives that make plastic flexible, colorful, and durable become airborne toxins the moment they combust.

Why plastic incineration is a hidden climate polluter

Plastic incineration is a climate problem, not just an air quality problem. Because plastic is fossil-based, burning it converts stored carbon directly into carbon dioxide — while releasing the toxic gases named above.

Waste-to-energy incineration is frequently sold as a clean way to handle waste. GAIA’s research documents that these facilities contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollution rather than reducing them. The “energy” recovered is dwarfed by the climate cost of burning material that could have been reduced, reused, or composted.

The framing matters. Every ton of plastic sent to an incinerator is a ton that was never prevented at the source — and a fresh release of climate-warming and health-harming emissions into the air.

The health impacts on frontline communities

The communities living nearest to incinerators and open burning sites breathe the consequences first. These are disproportionately low-income neighborhoods and communities of color — the frontline of what environmental justice advocates call sacrifice zones.

Exposure to the toxic gases from burning plastic is associated with serious health effects, including respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress, and elevated cancer risk from long-term dioxin exposure. Children, older adults, and pregnant people face the greatest danger.

This is not an abstract risk. It is the daily reality for people who never chose to host a facility that turns the world’s plastic waste into the air they breathe.

Why this is an environmental justice issue

Waste infrastructure is rarely built in wealthy neighborhoods. The burden of plastic incineration falls on communities with the least political power and the fewest resources to fight back. Centering these voices is central to GAIA’s mission for a just, zero waste world.

Why burning plastic won’t solve the plastic crisis

Burning plastic is a false solution — a strategy that appears to solve the problem while deepening it. GAIA’s analysis in Burning Plastic Won’t Solve the Plastic Crisis shows why incineration is a dead end.

Here is the core logic:

1. It does not reduce plastic production. Incineration creates demand for a steady stream of waste to burn, which locks in more plastic, not less.
2. It trades one crisis for another. Solid waste becomes toxic air and ash.
3. It undermines real solutions. Money spent on burners is money not spent on reduction, reuse, and community-led zero waste systems.

The real answer is to stop making so much plastic and to build community-led systems that keep it out of both landfills and incinerators. That is the work GAIA and its global network advance every day.

Frequently asked questions about burning plastic What gases does burning plastic release?

Burning plastic releases dioxins, furans, particulate matter, and hydrogen chloride, along with heavy metals and volatile organic compounds. Dioxins and furans are especially dangerous because they persist in the environment and accumulate in the food chain.

Is burning plastic worse than coal?

Burning plastic is a fossil-fuel-based combustion process, so it releases climate-warming carbon dioxide much like burning coal or oil. It also releases toxic pollutants such as dioxins and hydrogen chloride, which is why GAIA classifies plastic incineration as a climate and health threat rather than a clean energy source. The EU excludes general waste-to-energy incineration from sustainable finance taxonomy lists.

What health effects does plastic smoke cause?

Exposure to plastic smoke is linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress, and increased cancer risk from long-term dioxin exposure. Frontline communities living near incinerators and open burning sites face the highest risk, with children and pregnant people most vulnerable.

Why is plastic incineration called a false solution?

Plastic incineration is called a false solution because it appears to dispose of waste while creating new toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It also locks in continued plastic production instead of reducing it at the source, undermining genuine zero waste alternatives.

Take action against burning plastic

The science is clear: burning plastic waste poisons the air and accelerates the climate crisis. The good news is that community-led, zero waste solutions already exist — and they work.

Share this explainer with your network, learn more about GAIA’s work on plastic, and join the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration. Every voice makes the movement to end plastic incineration stronger.

The post Burning Plastic Waste: The Toxic Gases and Health Risks first appeared on GAIA.

Communities can refuse incineration by organizing early, demanding air-quality monitoring, and advancing zero waste plans before waste-to-energy contracts are signed. That single sequence — organize, monitor, propose an alternative — is how residents have stopped proposed incinerators from breaking ground.

To refuse incineration means treating burning waste not as an inevitable “solution” but as a false one that can be blocked through collective action, legal pressure, and a credible zero waste plan. This guide equips organizers and residents facing a proposed incinerator or waste-to-energy (WTE) facility with the concrete steps to fight back — and win.

Anti-incineration protest in Chile. © Oren Langelle

What does it mean to refuse incineration?

To refuse incineration is a community strategy: residents reject the burning of waste — including WTE, plastic-to-fuel, and chemical recycling — and organize to stop proposed facilities before contracts are signed.

Waste incineration is often marketed as “waste-to-energy,” a green-sounding label for burning trash to generate electricity. It is a false solution. Incineration of waste releases toxic air pollutants, undermines recycling and composting, and locks communities into decades-long contracts that require a constant stream of garbage to feed the burner.

Refusing incineration is not only about saying no. It is about saying yes to something better — a zero waste plan that reduces waste at the source, protects public health, and keeps decision-making in the hands of the community rather than the industry.

Incineration is not a climate solution. GAIA’s research documents that zero waste approaches cut climate pollution more effectively than burning trash, without the air-quality harm that falls hardest on frontline communities.

How to Refuse Incineration: A Step-by-Step Community Guide

Here is a practical, extractable sequence communities have used to refuse incineration and stop proposed facilities.

1. Organize early — before the contract is signed. The window to stop an incinerator is widest before permits are issued and financing is locked in. A core group of 5–10 committed residents can map local decision-makers and draft a campaign timeline. The goal is to begin before any permits are submitted.
2. Map the proposal and the permits. Identify the developer, the proposed site, and every permit the project needs. Incineration permits typically require environmental and air-quality approvals from local and national regulators — request every public document. Knowing exactly which agencies hold approval power tells you where to concentrate legal and public pressure.
3. Demand independent air-quality monitoring. Do not accept the developer’s own data. Push for community-led air monitoring and independent review, and make air quality the center of your public case. Independent data is often the most persuasive evidence in permit hearings and media coverage.
4. Expose the false-solution framing. Waste-to-energy, plastic-to-fuel, and chemical recycling are marketed as green. Document what they actually emit and who bears the harm. GAIA’s webinar on incineration as a false solution breaks down the arguments organizers can use. Sharing this evidence early shapes media coverage and public opinion before the developer’s narrative takes hold.
5. Build a coalition rooted in environmental justice. Incinerators are disproportionately sited near low-income communities and communities of color. Center the voices of directly impacted residents, and bring in health professionals, waste pickers, unions, and faith groups. A broad, visible coalition signals to decision-makers that opposition is not a fringe position.
6. Intervene in the legal and permitting process. File public comments, request hearings, and — where the case supports it — challenge permits in court. Legal pressure has delayed and defeated projects, as in Chile’s Araucanía region. Even interventions that do not immediately block a project create delay, raise costs for developers, and generate public record.
7. Put a zero waste plan on the table. Refusing incineration is strongest when paired with a credible alternative. Present a zero waste plan that shows decision-makers a better path (see the section below). A concrete alternative removes the “no other option” argument that developers rely on.
8. Keep the pressure public and sustained. Rallies, media coverage, petitions, and testimony keep the issue visible until the proposal is withdrawn or rejected. Decision-makers are more likely to act when they know the community is watching and will not disengage between official hearings.

Local groups protest incinerator plans in Indonesia. Source: WALHI

Building a zero waste plan as the alternative

A zero waste plan is a community roadmap to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost the maximum amount of waste — so there is nothing left to burn or bury.

This is the yes that makes the no credible. When residents refuse incineration without an alternative, decision-makers claim there is “no other option.” A zero waste plan removes that excuse.

A strong community zero waste plan usually includes:

• Source separation and organics diversion — composting food and yard waste, which is the largest and most burnable fraction of the waste stream.
• Reuse and repair systems that cut waste before it is generated.
• Integration of waste pickers and recyclers as recognized workers, not an afterthought.
• Producer accountability that shifts the cost of packaging and plastic back onto the companies that create it.

GAIA’s Zero Waste Academy has trained more than 500 participants across regions from Africa to Latin America to build exactly these kinds of plans. Learn how communities design zero waste systems through GAIA’s work on zero waste for all communities and the evidence that zero waste beats incineration in cutting climate pollution.

Communities that refused incineration and won

Communities have refused incineration and won by combining early organizing, legal action, and zero waste alternatives — from Canada to Chile. For more examples, explore 20 Inspiring Stories of Victory Against Incinerators, GAIA’s Global Week of Action series spotlighting communities that stopped incinerators around the world.

GAIA’s case documentation on stopping waste-to-energy in Canada records how community and civil-society pressure has challenged proposed WTE projects and pushed decision-makers toward waste reduction instead of burning.

In Chile, residents in the Araucanía region carried their fight into the courts. GAIA’s coverage of the case — WTE Araucanía awaits the tribunal’s resolution — documents how the community used the legal system to contest a proposed incineration project, demonstrating that permitting and tribunal processes are real leverage points for refusing incineration.

The pattern across these cases is consistent: organize before the contract is signed, make air quality and public health the core argument, and offer a zero waste plan as the alternative.

These are not isolated wins. They are part of a global movement in which residents, waste pickers, and organizers refuse to accept incineration as the price of managing waste.

Frequently asked questions about stopping incinerators Can a community legally stop an incinerator?

Yes. Communities can legally stop an incinerator by intervening in the permitting process, filing public comments, requesting hearings, and challenging permits in court. In Chile’s Araucanía region, residents took a proposed WTE project to a tribunal, showing that legal channels are a real path to refuse incineration.

What is a zero waste plan?

A zero waste plan is a community roadmap to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost the maximum amount of waste so that little or nothing needs to be burned or landfilled. It typically includes source separation, organics composting, reuse systems, integration of waste pickers, and producer accountability.

How long does it take to block an incinerator?

It varies. Some campaigns win in months by mobilizing before a contract is signed; others take years of sustained legal and public pressure. The earlier a community organizes — ideally before permits and financing are locked in — the shorter and more winnable the fight tends to be.

What agencies regulate incineration permits?

Incineration and waste-to-energy facilities generally require environmental and air-quality permits from local and national regulators. The exact agencies depend on the country and region, so a key early step is to map every permit the project needs and request all public documents.

Refuse incineration with us

Burning waste is not inevitable — and it is not a solution. Communities everywhere are proving that incineration can be refused and replaced with community-led zero waste. You don’t have to fight alone.

Join the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration. Take part in the Global Week of Action to connect with organizers, access campaign resources, and help build the zero waste alternative in your community.

The post How Communities Can Refuse Incineration and Win first appeared on GAIA.

If your community is being pitched a “waste-to-energy” incinerator as a clean, modern fix for its garbage, this page equips you to evaluate that claim with evidence rather than industry marketing.

The short version: a waste-to-energy incinerator is not renewable, not cheap, and not clean. It is one of the most expensive ways to manage waste, locks cities into decades of burning materials that should be reduced, reused, and composted, and releases pollutants into the neighborhoods least able to fight back. If that weren’t bad enough, it’s a climate disaster, emitting almost twice as much CO2 per unit of energy than coal. Zero waste solutions cut climate pollution, cost less, and create more jobs.

This is GAIA’s evidence base for policymakers, community organizers, and journalists assessing incineration proposals. It draws on GAIA’s more than two decades of research and community organizing across the global zero waste movement. Read it, share it, and download the full brief to bring the receipts to your next council meeting.

What is a waste-to-energy incinerator?

A waste-to-energy incinerator is a facility that burns municipal solid waste at high temperatures to produce heat, which drives a turbine to generate electricity. “Waste-to-energy” (often shortened to WTE) is the industry’s preferred name for what is, at its core, mass-burn incineration.

The term is a marketing frame. Burning trash to make a small amount of power does not make incineration a clean or circular technology. It converts discarded materials — much of which could be recycled or composted — into ash, air pollution, and greenhouse gases.

How waste-to-energy incineration actually works

Mixed municipal waste is fed into a combustion chamber and burned at roughly 850°C or higher. The heat boils water into steam, the steam spins a turbine, and the turbine generates electricity. Whatever is left becomes bottom ash and fly ash, both of which require disposal — often in a landfill.

This is the detail the industry rarely leads with: incineration does not make waste disappear. It transforms one waste stream into three — air emissions, toxic fly ash, and bottom ash — while destroying the material value of everything it burns.

Why “energy recovery” is a misleading label

The amount of energy recovered from burning waste is low relative to the energy that was embedded in producing those materials in the first place. Recycling an aluminum can or a plastic bottle saves far more energy than burning it ever recovers.

Burning waste for a modest electricity yield destroys that embedded energy permanently. GAIA’s research shows that a zero waste approach — reduce, reuse, recycle, compost — retains far more value and cuts far more climate pollution than any “energy recovery” from an incinerator.

Why incineration of waste harms the climate and communities

The incineration of waste harms the climate because it emits more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than coal, and it harms communities because it releases hazardous air pollutants into the neighborhoods surrounding the plant.

Waste-to-energy incinerators emit 1.7 times as much greenhouse gases (GHGs) per unit of electricity produced compared to coal-fired power plants. They also emit more air pollutants than other sources of energy.

That single comparison dismantles the “clean energy” claim. A technology that out-pollutes coal per megawatt-hour cannot credibly be sold as a climate solution. GAIA’s peer analysis found that zero waste beats incineration in cutting climate pollution, and the emissions math is the reason why.

The pollutants a waste-to-energy incinerator releases

GAIA’s WTE Facts and Figures brief documents that waste-to-energy incinerators release a range of hazardous pollutants, including dioxins, furans, mercury, lead, and particulate matter. These are not trace nuisances — they are among the most toxic substances in industrial air pollution.

Dioxins and furans are persistent, bioaccumulative, and linked to cancer and reproductive harm. Mercury and lead are neurotoxins. Fine particulate matter penetrates deep into the lungs and is associated with heart and respiratory disease. The exact pollutant profile of any given plant depends on what is burned and how emissions are controlled.

Environmental justice: who lives next to the smokestack

Incinerators are not distributed evenly. They are disproportionately sited in low-income communities and communities of color — the same communities that have historically had the least political power to refuse them.

This is the heart of GAIA’s objection. A waste-to-energy incinerator does not just produce emissions; it concentrates them where the people breathing them did not consent. Community air-quality monitoring by GAIA members repeatedly documents this pattern. That is why more than 100 organizations have urged UN-Habitat to stop promoting waste-to-energy as a false solution.

The true cost of waste incineration vs. zero waste

Waste-to-energy incineration is one of the most expensive waste management options available — incinerators carry very high upfront capital costs, long-term debt, and “put-or-pay” contracts that lock cities into feeding the burner for decades. For a detailed breakdown, see GAIA’s resource on the high cost of waste incineration.

That one sentence is the answer most policymakers are searching for: what does a waste-to-energy incinerator cost? It costs more than nearly any other disposal method — and the bill lasts far longer than a single budget cycle.

Why incinerator cost is higher than it looks

The sticker price of an incinerator is only the beginning. A full accounting of incinerator cost includes capital financing over decades, ongoing operations and maintenance, pollution-control equipment, ash disposal, and the health and environmental costs borne by nearby residents.

Because the facilities are so expensive to build, they are financed with long-term debt. To service that debt, operators need a guaranteed volume of waste to burn. That is where the trap closes.

The put-or-pay trap

Many incinerator contracts include “put-or-pay” clauses. A put-or-pay clause is a contractual guarantee that a city will supply a minimum tonnage of waste — or pay a penalty as if it had.

This creates a direct financial disincentive to reduce, reuse, recycle, or compost. Once a city signs, cutting waste means paying penalties. The incinerator’s economics actively fight against the zero waste progress a community wants to make.

What communities get instead when they choose zero waste

Zero waste systems require far less capital, scale incrementally, and create more jobs per ton of material handled than incineration. Recycling and composting infrastructure can be built in stages, funded without decades of debt, and adjusted as a community’s needs change.

Crucially, zero waste keeps money and materials circulating in the local economy rather than sending them up a smokestack. It is the flexible, lower-cost, community-controlled alternative that a put-or-pay incinerator contract forecloses.

Zero waste alternatives that beat incineration

Zero waste alternatives — waste reduction, reuse, expanded recycling, and organics composting — cut climate pollution, cost less, and create significantly more jobs than a waste-to-energy incinerator. They are not aspirational; they are already working in cities across the GAIA network.

Reduce and reuse first

The cheapest, cleanest ton of waste is the one never created. Waste reduction and reuse — refillable systems, repair, product redesign, and bans on the worst single-use items — shrink the waste stream at the source before disposal is ever a question.

This is why incineration and zero waste are fundamentally incompatible. An incinerator needs a steady diet of waste; zero waste is designed to starve that diet down to nothing.

Recycling and separate collection

Separating materials at the source keeps recyclables clean and valuable. When waste is mixed and burned, that material value is destroyed forever. When it is separated and recycled, it displaces the far larger energy and emissions cost of producing materials from scratch.

GAIA’s global network has documented zero waste cities that have driven diversion rates high enough to make incineration unnecessary — proof that the model scales in the real world.

Composting and organics

Organic waste — food scraps and yard trimmings — is wet and heavy, which makes it a poor fuel and a major driver of an incinerator’s inefficiency. Diverted to composting instead, that same material becomes soil, sequesters carbon, and supports local agriculture.

Removing organics from the waste stream is one of the fastest ways to cut both landfill methane and incinerator emissions at the same time.

The trans-local model behind the movement

GAIA supports these alternatives through a trans-local organizing model — distributed leadership across regional communities rather than a single top-down blueprint. Programs like GAIA’s Zero Waste Academy equip citizens, policymakers, and organizations with the scientific knowledge and political frameworks to build community-led systems that make incineration obsolete.

Frequently asked questions about waste-to-energy Is waste-to-energy renewable?

No. Waste-to-energy incineration is not renewable. It relies on a continuous supply of discarded materials — much of it fossil-based plastics — and emits 1.7 times as much greenhouse gas per megawatt-hour as coal-fired power plants. Burning finite materials to make power is the opposite of a renewable cycle.

Is incineration better than landfill?

No — framing the choice as “incinerator or landfill” is a false dilemma. Both are disposal methods that destroy material value, and incineration adds hazardous air emissions and toxic ash on top. The real alternative is zero waste: reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost so that far less material needs disposal at all.

What does a waste-to-energy incinerator cost?

A waste-to-energy incinerator is one of the most expensive waste management options, with very high capital costs and long-term contracts that often lock cities in for decades. The full picture — including financing, operations, ash disposal, and health costs — is detailed in GAIA’s the high cost of waste incineration.

Does waste-to-energy reduce waste?

Not really. Incineration reduces the volume of waste but leaves behind bottom ash and toxic fly ash that still require disposal, and it destroys recyclable and compostable materials in the process. It converts one waste stream into three — air emissions, fly ash, and bottom ash — rather than genuinely eliminating waste.

Are waste-to-energy emissions regulated?

WTE incinerators are subject to air-quality regulations, but regulation does not make them safe. Emission limits vary widely between countries, monitoring is often intermittent, and pollutants like dioxins, furans, mercury, and lead are hazardous even at low, “permitted” concentrations. Community air-quality monitoring by GAIA members frequently reveals gaps between what is permitted and what communities actually breathe.

Take action against waste incineration

Waste-to-energy incineration is a false solution — more polluting than coal, more expensive than the alternatives, and a decades-long lock-in that punishes communities for choosing zero waste. The evidence is clear, and the movement to stop it is growing.

Download the full WTE Facts brief to bring GAIA’s complete data set — emissions figures, cost analysis, and pollutant profiles — to your next hearing, article, or campaign. Enter your email and we will send you the brief and updates from the movement.

Add your name to GAIA’s campaign against waste incineration. Communities across the global GAIA network are refusing incineration and building zero waste systems that work. Join the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration, and help make the next proposed incinerator the one that never gets built.

See the evidence from twenty incinerators worldwide in GAIA’s Burn Book, and read GAIA’s new report on waste-to-energy in Africa.

The post Waste-to-Energy Incineration: The Facts, Costs & Risks first appeared on GAIA.

Three storms at once

Today is World Food Day. This year it finds African farmers caught between three storms at once: a super El Niño, a war in Europe and a war in the Gulf.

None of these storms began in Africa. Africa did not heat the Pacific Ocean. It did not start the war in Ukraine or the war around the Strait of Hormuz. Yet it is African farmers, pastoralists, fisherfolk and families who will pay the highest price, in empty granaries, dead livestock and children going to bed hungry.

That is what I want to say plainly today. These crises are not creating Africa’s vulnerability. They are exposing it. And that vulnerability was not an accident. It was built.

A super El Niño that hits Africa hardest

The El Niño now under way is one of the strongest on record. The World Food Programme warns it could push at least 49 million more people into acute hunger by the end of 2027. Around 24 million of them are in Africa: more than 18 million in East and Southern Africa, and nearly 6 million in West and Central Africa.

The damage is already visible. The June to September rains failed across Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan and Uganda’s Karamoja. South Sudan and Karamoja are on track for their driest year on record. Now the Horn of Africa faces the opposite danger: heavy rains and floods along Somalia’s rivers, where famine is a real risk.

In Southern Africa, forecasters expect late, poor rains and long dry spells over the season that is starting now. Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia, Angola, Madagascar and Lesotho are of greatest concern. The worst hunger will come not now but in the lean months of 2027 and early 2028, when the food from a failed harvest runs out.

For a farmer who depends on rain, one failed season can mean selling the last goat, pulling a child out of school or eating seed meant for next year. A family can take years to recover.

Wars far away, hunger at home

The war between Russia and Ukraine has entered a new phase on the Black Sea. Both sides are now striking each other’s grain ports. Russian wheat exports fell by more than half in August. The FAO Food Price Index reached its highest level since November 2022. African and Middle Eastern countries, among the biggest buyers of Black Sea wheat, are low on stocks and will have to buy at higher prices.

The war in the Gulf has hit even closer to the farm. Since 28 February, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has been largely blocked. About a third of the world’s seaborne fertiliser normally passes through it. Urea more than doubled in price, from about US$400 to over US$850 a tonne in April.

World prices have since eased, but African farmers have not felt the relief. In July, urea still cost about US$975 a tonne in Malawi and US$933 in Tanzania, more than double the world price. Weak currencies, freight costs and port delays keep it high.

Fuel tells the same story. Ethiopia lost more than 180,000 tonnes of fuel deliveries, halving its daily diesel supply. In Kenya, record fuel price rises pushed transport fares up by about a quarter. Zimbabwe’s fuel import costs rose 40% in under a month.

Every one of these numbers reaches the farm. Diesel moves the harvest to market. Fertiliser that a farmer cannot afford means a smaller harvest next season. And the bread, rice and cooking oil that city families buy cost more each week.

Same storm, different shelter

The same shocks are hitting the whole world. What differs is who has shelter.

When fertiliser prices jumped, India raised its fertiliser subsidy by 11%, to 415 billion rupees for the summer season alone. The European Union proposed €540 million in emergency relief for its farmers, which member states can top up to about €1.5 billion. France added its own fertiliser aid. These governments had the money, the institutions and the political room to act within weeks.

Most African governments did not. Many entered this year already squeezed by debt. In nearly four in five sub-Saharan African countries, governments now pay more in interest than they spend on health or education, according to the World Bank. A treasury that sends its money to creditors cannot shield its farmers. Countries such as Ghana, Malawi and Sudan could not even pay cash for fertiliser imports.

So the shock that a rich country absorbs as a budget line falls on an African family as hunger. That is not a difference in weather. It is a difference in power.

A vulnerability that was built

Africa is not weak by nature. Its vulnerability was built over generations, and it is still being built today.

• Colonialism reshaped African farming for export. The best land, roads, railways and research went to cotton, coffee, cocoa and groundnuts for European factories. Food for Africans came second. Many of those patterns remain.
• Structural adjustment dismantled our defences. From the 1980s, loan conditions pushed governments to close grain reserves and marketing boards, cut extension services and open markets to subsidised imports. We lost the buffers that once carried us through bad years.
• We were taught to import our food. Sub-Saharan Africa’s food import bill was projected to reach about US$65 billion in 2025. Every rise in world prices and every weak currency now lands directly on our tables.
• We were taught to import our soil fertility. A farming model built on purchased fertiliser and hybrid seed ties the fertility of African soils to gas fields and shipping lanes thousands of kilometres away. The Strait of Hormuz has shown what that means.
• Debt keeps the cycle going. Money that should build irrigation, storage and rural roads goes to pay interest. Climate finance, when it comes, too often arrives as loans, adding new debt to repair damage Africa did not cause.
• The rules are written elsewhere. Trade rules, seed laws, intellectual property regimes and credit ratings are largely set by and for the powerful. They narrow the policy space African governments need to protect their own farmers.

These are not separate problems. They are one system, and it was designed to keep Africa supplying raw materials and buying finished goods. El Niño and the wars did not create this system. They have simply shown us, once again, how it works.

What must change

This year’s World Food Day theme is “Innovate today. Nourish tomorrow.” The innovation Africa needs most is not another imported package. It is the courage to rebuild food systems that Africans control.

1. Act now on El Niño. Governments and agencies must move before the lean season, not after it. Pre-position food, protect livestock and seed, and get cash to families early.
2. Rebuild public food reserves. National and regional grain reserves, run in the public interest, are a basic defence that structural adjustment took away.
3. Invest in agroecology and healthy soils. Compost, manure, legumes, trees and diverse crops build fertility that no blockade can cut off. Public money now spent on imported fertiliser should shift steadily towards them.
4. Protect farmers’ seed. Farmer-managed seed systems hold the drought-tolerant varieties we need. Laws that criminalise saving and exchanging seed must change.
5. Feed Africa from African farms. Support territorial markets, local processing and public procurement, including school meals, that buy from our own producers.
6. Cancel unjust debt and pay climate finance as grants. No country should have to choose between paying creditors and feeding its people. Adaptation finance must reach farmer organisations directly.
7. Give Africa its policy space. Trade and investment rules must allow African governments to protect their farmers and their food.

Africa can feed itself

Africa has the land, the water, the seed, the knowledge and the farmers to feed itself. Our small-scale producers already grow most of the food Africans eat, often with little or no public support.

What we lack is not ability. It is control over our own food systems, and freedom from the debts, rules and dependencies that keep us exposed to every storm.

On this World Food Day, I call on African governments, the African Union and our international partners to stop treating each crisis as a surprise. The next El Niño, the next war and the next price shock will come. Let them find Africa ready, fed by its own farmers and standing on its own soil.

Million Belay (PhD)
General Coordinator, Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)
16 October 2026

Vegetable farms and solar farms both need lots of sunlight and open space. But how do we divide our limited lands between these two priorities? One elegant solution is to put crops and solar panels on the same land—and share the broad spectrum of incoming sunlight between them.

A new study in Cell Reports Physical Science does this with photovoltaic cells that are semi-transparent: They capture some wavelengths of sunlight to make electricity, while letting the wavelengths most critical to photosynthesis pass through and reach the plants below. The new study suggests that broccoli can be grown in the magenta shade of these solar panels—without sacrificing the harvest.

Agrivoltaic schemes—putting plants and solar on the same land – could help us avoid clearing more land for human use. Climate studies suggest that this might work especially well across a wide sunbathed swath of the United States, from Texas up to Nebraska and west to California. Devoting just one percent of U.S. farmland to agrivoltaics could cover up to 20 percent of the nation’s electricity needs.

But traditional photovoltaic panels are opaque—and by shading plants, they can reduce crop yields. So engineers are trying to create new photovoltaic cells that divide the spectrum of sunlight between plants and electricity generation—similar to how governments segment different frequency bands for television, radio, cell phones, and other uses.

A 2020 study looked at panels that allow red wavelengths, critical for photosynthesis, to pass through—while harvesting green and blue wavelengths to make electricity. Basil grown under these panels produced similar yields, while spinach yields decreased. But the researchers estimated that by selling both electricity and crops, farmers growing spinach could generate 35 percent more income from the same land.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:New study compares growing corn for energy to solar production. It’s no contest.

 

In the newest study, scientists evaluated a different kind of semi-transparent panel that lets most red and some blue wavelengths pass through—casting a magenta light on the plants—while converting much of the rest to electricity.

Broccoli cultivated under them grew more slowly, requiring an additional 25 days for harvest, but produced roughly the same yield. Meanwhile, these magenta sunscreens improved the microclimate below, reducing the “vapor pressure deficit”—a measure of when plants need to halt photosynthesis to avoid excessive water loss. This may have improved the plants’ efficiency in converting sunlight into plant biomass, which increased by 2.8- to 4.5-fold compared to unshaded plants.

The shaded plants’ levels of macronutrients such as calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus were either higher than or similar to unshaded plants, while levels of some micronutrients such as iron, copper, and zinc were slightly lower.

This was only a preliminary study. Future studies should look at larger plots, farmed across multiple seasons, and in different locations with varying climate and sunlight. It suggests that for now, the future of agrivoltaics might be best seen through rose-colored glasses.

Lu et al. “Evaluating land productivity with semi-transparent colored CdTe thin-film PV and broccoli cultivation in agrivoltaic systems.” Cell Reports Physical Science, 2026.

Image: Broccoli growing beneath semi-transparent, colored solar panels at the experimental site at Kärrbo Prästgård farm in Sweden. ©Silvia Ma Lu