More beachgoers have been getting an unexpected shock this summer as jellyfish numbers bloom along the Delaware coast, interrupting — but not stopping — the summer fun.
Beach patrol captains reported a dramatic increase in jellyfish activity and stings in July, the most they’ve seen in recent memory. Lewes Beach reported a fourfold increase in stings compared to 2024.
Lion’s manes, which can have 100-foot (30-meter) tentacles, sea nettles and moon jellyfish are some varieties that frequent Delaware’s summertime waters.
Jellyfish blooms have become common from Maine to Florida in recent years. Warming waters can create ideal conditions for jellyfish growth.
Normally, Delaware’s five state parks may report a handful of summer jellyfish stings, said Bailey Noel, a beach patrol captain. But Fenwick Island State Park recently reported 92 stings on a single July day. Three lifeguards were taken to urgent care after swimming in jellyfish-infested waters, Noel said.
The jellyfish at Delaware’s Towers Beach surprised Philadelphia resident Christina Jones, whose two daughters refused to wade back into the water after being stung, she said.
“The jellyfish are pretty bad,” Jones said. “And not only are they a lot in number, but they’re pretty big.”
Delaware State Beach Patrol started tracking jellyfish stings this year due to the rise in cases, said Noel. Most patrol teams do not track the data.
Lewes Beach Patrol treated 295 stings in 2024, the first year the data was collected, but reported over 1,200 cases so far in 2025, said Capt. Strohm Edwards. Lifeguards started carrying vinegar solutions, which can neutralize the venom agents, to help ease pain, he said.
But vinegar solutions may cause microscopic venom-coated barbs known as nematocysts to discharge, according to some research. Those experts recommend a baking soda slurry.
While venomous, stings from Delaware’s lion’s manes and sea nettles typically only cause minor irritation and pain, said Edwards. In cases of severe allergic reactions and symptoms — nausea, vomiting and trouble breathing — lifeguards can help.
Jellyfish blooms, sudden fluctuations in jellyfish populations, are not uncommon, said Gisele Muller-Parker, a retired marine biologist who would count dozens of lion’s mane jellyfish during her daily Lewes Beach walks in July. Temperature, salinity and food availability influence jellyfish breeding, and in favorable conditions, such as warmer waters, populations can explode.
“This year, we’ve never seen anything like this,” Muller-Parker said.
The jellyfish were near the end of their life cycle, finishing their reproductive phase and laying their eggs. Those jellyfish will die once water temperatures cool, said Keith Bayha, a research collaborator with the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History.
The jellyfish boom can harm ecosystems and marine industries, said Bayha, who has studied the animals for more than 20 years and helped identify a nettle species. Fish larvae primarily feed on plankton, but jellyfish can eat both the plankton and the fish. And with few natural predators, the jellyfish food chain is an ecological dead end, said Bayha.
Delaware’s boom this summer is far from alone. Florida’s Volusia County reported hundreds of stings around Memorial Day weekend. Gloucester, Massachusetts, reminded beachgoers to stay safe around jellyfish in mid-July. And in June, Maine’s Ogunquit Fire Department warned beachgoers about the increase in jellyfish after stings were reported.
Jellyfish research is limited, but Muller-Parker hopes more work will be done to assess the ecological ramifications of jellyfish blooms and improve safety advisories.
For now, some unlucky beachgoers will have to rely on home remedies and, in the case of Massachusetts resident Kathy Malloy-Harder’s third-grade nephew, a little bravery.
“When he got stung, he jumped up and started crying and said, ’I’m never coming back to the beach again ever,’” said Malloy-Harder, who had to try two stores to find vinegar for him. But she said that after talking about it “and once the sting subsided, he was interested in coming back and enjoying the beach.”
Conservatives like me spent decades arguing that renewable energy strengthens American energy independence, yet those who once demanded freedom from foreign oil now bristle at homegrown solar and wind power.
I’m a lifelong Republican who has testified before Congress three times in favor of legislation to reform clean energy incentives. Many of my fellow conservatives have sought to suffocate the U.S. renewables industry in their pursuit of energy independence despite both wind and gas turbines being mostly made in America. The industry isn’t blameless: tying itself too tightly to a left-wing climate crusade alienated many on the right.
But surging electricity demand and market forces now offer the industry an opportunity for resurrection: reframe clean energy, not as eco-virtue signaling, but as a core component of U.S. competitiveness and independence.
Political miscalculation
Over 80% of my fellow Republicans supported wind and solar energy in 2020, but by 2025 that share has fallen to around 60%. The erosion of support was the result of a miscalculation: renewable advocates aligned too closely with progressive climate politics, turning an industry once embraced by all into a left-wing cause, alienating conservatives along the way.
MAGA activists found their bette noir, turning “green energy” into an object of scorn. Republican officials who once welcomed renewable projects in their districts now echo anti-renewable talking points. Although 70% of U.S. wind power is generated in red states (Texas alone gets nearly 30% of its electricity from wind), wind energy has become a pariah among the GOP base.
Market opportunity
Dramatically rising electricity demand, driven by AI and electrification, may accomplish what politics hasn’t: make clean energy indispensable. Traditional sources can’t scale fast enough: new nuclear and coal plants take decades, and even natural gas can’t ramp up quickly enough to meet near-term demand.
In contrast, wind, solar, and battery installations can be built in a fraction of the time. Renewables provide zero-marginal-cost power, and a White House study warns that if we fail to add cheap capacity, AI-driven demand could send electricity prices soaring by 2030. In short, renewables are no longer just about climate virtue; they’re essential for keeping the lights on and energy bills low.
Conservative reframe
To win back conservatives, renewable advocates must recast their message around freedom, security, and free enterprise — values that clean energy can champion.
Freedom: Conservatives prize personal liberty, which should include the freedom to generate your own power — a right already exercised by ordinary homeowners, not just elites.
Security: Domestic renewable energy is a fortress against foreign threats: solar panels generate power for decades, with only clouds and nightfall to worry about. Wind turbines can run for 25 years, and their components are largely U.S.-made. Once installed, no adversary can shut off the supply of sun or wind.
Free Enterprise: Renewable energy often undercuts fossil fuels on cost, and with federal clean energy tax credits expiring in 2027, the playing field will soon level. Policies that block renewables aren’t “pro-market” — if wind and solar are cheaper, let them compete. Far from being a Trojan horse for big government, clean energy exemplifies free enterprise at its best.
Path forward
The clean energy sector is entering a make-or-break period: federal tax credits expire in 2027, leaving a two-year window to build as much capacity as possible while incentives last. This looming deadline has triggered a blitz of development, compressing years of growth into a sprint. Losing subsidies will hurt, but it’s also an opportunity for the industry to prove itself by slashing costs and innovating to compete.
Electricity prices have jumped 13% nationwide since 2022, due in part to a lack of cheap supply — not because of “too much” renewable energy as some claim. Each utility rate hike only makes solar panels and batteries more appealing. If suppliers seize this moment to scale up and drive costs down, they can thrive on merit rather than mandates.
Conclusion
America’s energy future shouldn’t be a partisan battlefield. Our prosperity and security depend on abundant, affordable power from every source, including clean energy. Clean energy isn’t a progressive scam — it’s just plain energy, and it happens to align with conservative values. Let’s end the energy culture war and let free markets fuel the next era of growth so that America wins.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
To tackle what's been called the plastic "epidemic," the UN spun up a committee in 2022 tasked with brokering a legally binding global agreement. This ambitious treaty between UN member states was to address the full life cycle of plastics, from production to disposal: In short, define what counts as plastic pollution and curb the sorts of unchecked production that inevitably leads to it. But across five sessions since, countries have failed to reach a consensus on the text.
What was meant to be the final session ended last year in Busan, South Korea without agreement, and representatives from 175 countries are now set to meet again for part two, this time in Geneva, Switzerland. INC-5.2 will take place from August 5 to 14, during which negotiators will attempt to see eye-to-eye on the points of the draft treaty that have thus far proven most contentious. According to the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), there are over 370 such points.
Scope
Production, the use of chemicals of concern (those considered to be a risk due to toxicity and/or other qualities), product design and the financing of treaty implementation are some of the main points of disagreement. These issues have left countries in a deadlock, according to Cate Bonacini, Communications Manager for CIEL. There are countries that argue health should be excluded from the treaty's scope. These topics will be front-and-center going back into the talks, and UN member states have spent the last eight months "working hard in closed-door meetings to find points of agreement," Bonacini said in an email. "We’ll see the fruits of that labor soon."
"At the heart of the issue," Bonacini said, "there is a large disagreement about what plastic pollution is, and what measures are needed to end plastic pollution." While the commitment focuses on the full life cycle of plastics, there's been much dispute over where that cycle really begins.
"As scientists, we interpret the full life cycle as starting with extraction and production," said Bethanie Carney Almroth, a professor of ecotoxicology at the University of Gothenburg and a member of the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. "That would be fossil fuels and raw plastic production all the way through to product, to use, to trade, to transportation, to waste management, mismanagement and environmental pollution, including remediation of existing legacy plastics. All of it."
While over 100 countries last December were in favor of a treaty that would impose production limits, others including Saudi Arabia and Russia opposed the caps. Ahead of that session, the US reportedly also made the decision not to support production caps, despite earlier indications that it would. Unsurprisingly, the countries that have taken issue with the scope of the treaty are also some of the world's top oil producers.
"There are other actors," Carney Almroth said, "that are trying to narrow that scope to go from plastic products, like water bottles, to waste management, so sort of excluding the outer boundaries of how we define the plastics life cycle so that it would, in essence, become more of a waste management treaty."
Outside influence
In addition to representatives from the participating member states, scientists, environmental organizations and industry lobbyists are present for the negotiation sessions. According to Carney Almroth, who has attended every Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) meeting and is now in Geneva for INC-5.2, increasingly it's been lobbyists who take up the most space.
"At the last round of talks, lobbyists for the petrochemical and plastics industries made up the single largest delegation," wrote Bangor University lecturer Winnie Courtene-Jones, who is also a member of the Coalition, in a recent article for The Conversation. CIEL found that "there were three times more fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists than scientists" at the Busan meetings. Bonacini noted that "plastics are 99 percent fossil fuels, and these companies have a vested interest in continuing to generate fossil fuel-based products, including plastics."
Their influence has played a big role in the stalemate. They "have a lot of power, money and influence," Carney Almroth said, "and their lobbying efforts go beyond the walls of the negotiating space…They have access to decision makers in ways that other observers do not."
"They don't want to look at chemicals," Carney Almroth said. "They don't want to look at production." But the science indicates that looking at chemicals (additives, processing aids, etc.) and production is of utmost importance, not only in the context of environmental sustainability but also human health.
In an editorial for the Bulletin of the World Health Organization in July, a group of scientists pointed to the numerous potential health effects that recent studies have linked to plastics, via exposure to hazardous chemicals and from micro- and nanoplastics. That includes an increased risk of "multiple chronic diseases, including cancer, neurodevelopmental harm and infertility" as well as "respiratory, reproductive and gastrointestinal harm, with potential links to lung and colon cancer."
The authors called on delegates to prioritize these concerns in the upcoming negotiations and work toward a treaty that would end production of toxic chemicals in plastics, ban the recycling of plastics containing those chemicals and reduce plastic production overall. Their letter comes alongside a separate study published this summer in the journal Nature that identified over 4,200 chemicals of concern in plastics, out of the 16,325 total known plastic chemicals. The researchers argue that, on top of establishing transparency around the makeup of plastics and removing chemicals of concern, plastics must be simplified if they're going to be made safer.
The many chemicals that go into plastics "can be released throughout the entire plastic life cycle, from feedstock extraction and production to use and waste," the authors write. "Specific end-of-life treatments, such as uncontrolled landfilling or incineration, can further exacerbate chemical releases." The UN has warned that the negative effects at every stage in the life cycle of plastics disproportionately harm vulnerable populations worldwide, including indigenous peoples, low income families and rural communities.
Where things stand
Today, plastic is more or less inescapable — microplastics can even be found in Antarctica now. And research increasingly suggests we aren't fully aware of how bad pollution levels really are.
Global plastic production has more than doubled in the last 25 years, with upwards of 450 million metric tons now estimated to be produced annually. Recycled plastics make up just 6 percent of that total, a figure that's expected to stay the same even as global plastic use and waste generation are projected to rise 70 percent by 2040, according to the international Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). And each year, tens of millions of tons of plastic waste is disposed of in ways considered to be environmentally unsound, ending up in uncontrolled dumpsites, burned openly or accumulating on land and in bodies of water.
A study published this summer, led by researchers from Utrecht University and the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, found that there may be far more plastic in the oceans than previously thought when accounting for particles even smaller than microplastics. The team collected water samples from 12 locations across the North Atlantic Ocean and measured the concentration of nanoplastics (plastic particles under 1 micrometer) at different depths. By the researchers' estimate, there could be as much as 27 million metric tons of nanoplastic in the North Atlantic alone. That's in the ballpark of previous global estimates for larger plastic waste across all of the ocean.
In another new study, researchers from France's University of Toulouse found we may be breathing in up to 100 times more microplastic particles indoors than previous estimates, based on measurements of airborne microplastics in the researchers' own apartments and car cabins.
The situation is urgent, especially for vulnerable populations, said Carney Almroth. "The amounts of plastics we're producing today and the amount of plastic in the environment are astronomical," said Carney Almroth. As of a few years ago, "we had twice the mass of plastic on the planet as the mass of all the animals on land, in water, including insects, and we have produced far more plastic since then."
Plastics are "overwhelming any and all of our waste management infrastructure, so we are not able to prevent pollution. We're not able to mitigate harm," Carney Almroth said. "The impacts of plastics in the environment are very large scale, to the point where they're destabilizing vital Earth functions like climate, like nutrient cycling, like biodiversity. And then we have the human health impacts on top of that. It's an acute problem."
The logistics of averting catastrophe
But, as the past five sessions have illustrated, reaching an agreement on how to solve that problem isn't going to be easy. The trouble, in part, boils down to how the decisions are being made. So far, it's all being done by consensus rather than voting, Carney Almroth and Bonacini explained. That approach allows "a single country veto power over decisions," Bonacini said.
Petrochemical countries including Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, India and Brazil have reportedly latched onto this, using "obstructionist tactics" to drag out the negotiations. Some have insisted "without legal basis," according to CIEL, "that decisions can only be made by consensus." Consensus, however, isn't the only option.
The draft Rules of Procedure allow for majority voting in the event a consensus can't be reached, but whether that will happen is yet to be seen. "There are opportunities to force that rule," Carney Almroth said. But, a country (or countries) would have to step up and invoke it.
At this stage of the negotiations, there is a risk that countries will compromise on key provisions for time's sake, Bonacini said, which would ultimately weaken the treaty. And once a treaty is finalized, "it can take years, if not decades, to make amendments to the original text," so getting it right the first time is crucial. International agreements that have taken a softer approach to addressing environmental issues, like the Paris Agreement — which lets countries set their own targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions — have been criticized for being insufficient in the face of rapidly rising global temperatures and climate change.
In June at the UN Ocean Conference, representatives for 95 countries that are part of the INC reaffirmed their commitment to a treaty that addresses the full life cycle of plastics, phases out "the most problematic plastic products and chemicals of concern," improves product design to reduce environmental and health impacts and employs effective means of implementation. "A treaty that lacks these elements, only relies on voluntary measures or does not address the full lifecycle of plastics will not be effective to deal with the challenge of plastic pollution," the group — which includes Canada, Australia, Colombia, Zimbabwe, the UK and Germany — wrote in a joint statement. These countries added that "the treaty should provide for the possibility of decision-making, through regular UN procedures if all efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted."
If an agreement isn't reached this time around, there are a number of ways the next steps could play out. The talks could be stretched even further into another meeting, or countries could decide to take the matter somewhere else.
"Many countries are considering alternatives if negotiations fail," Christina Dixon, Ocean Campaign Lead for the Environmental Investigation Agency told Mongabay. "Options include returning to the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) to establish a new expanding mandate, creating a convention outside the UN for committed countries to move forward or adopting a protocol under an existing convention." The UNEA meets next in December.
We are, as Courtene-Jones wrote in The Conversation, at "a critical crossroads." That's something advocates for a strong, science-based treaty all seem to agree on. "There are a lot of places where we can really do a lot to make a difference, and make things better," said Carney Almroth. "Countries need to be ambitious, and need to stand up and demand this."
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/science/will-the-un-finally-broker-a-treaty-to-end-plastic-pollution-130022025.html?src=rss
Big Oil has taken over the Environmental Protection Agency.
Last Tuesday, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin made official his plan to overturn a 16-year-old ruling allowing the government to protect the country and economy from the greenhouse gas pollution fueling the climate crisis. The announcement effectively gifts the largest and most dangerous polluters in the country the right to unregulated emissions. People around the world will be harmed for generations.
It is truly Orwellian to see the EPA—an agency signed into existence by Richard Nixon to protect the public from environmental degradation—divesting itself of the responsibility to address the ravages of the climate crisis during a summer of extreme weather and following the hottest year in recorded history.
But it is not surprising.
Zeldin has made no secret of his ambitions to use the EPA as a means for deregulation and driving “a dagger straight into the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring back auto jobs to the U.S. and more.” He is of course wrong on every point.
The more-than 10,000 businesses committed to science-based emissions reductions should be outraged. These businesses will be left between government mandates—or lack thereof—and market momentum. Corporate leaders are already overwhelmingly invested in climate programs because they’re good business and build resilience, but an erratic regulatory environment throws those practices into question.
Performative orders like this leave businesses scrambling to understand what it means for them. Add in legal challenges to the directive, and businesses will be stuck in limbo as cases play out in court. While the administration frames this as a rebuke against an ideology, companies worldwide will feel the effects.
Deregulation to this level will only add to the skyrocketing costs caused by the climate crisis on our collective bottom line. Whether a company has emissions targets or not, extreme weather disasters are increasingly affecting more businesses. The Census Bureau found that nearly one out of 10 businesses experienced monetary loss because of extreme weather. In total, reporting businesses lost 32% of revenue due to the events. In 2024 alone we suffered $182.7 billion in economic damage from 27 individual billion-dollar climate disasters. More than 1,500 people lost their lives in climate disasters in the past three years.
Yet the Trump administration would have us believe the greenhouse gases that directly contribute to intensifying storms and fires do not pose a danger to the public.
Taken in tandem with the targeted evisceration of the renewable energy industry, Zeldin is indeed “driving a dagger”— twisting it in the back of years of stability, investments, science, facts, progress, and protections for businesses and people that deserve clean air, clean water, and some degree of security.
So who benefits? The administration’s powerful fossil fuel benefactors. For them, a reversal that undermines years of hard work, investment and time from the public and private sector to protect us counts as a win.
The simplest response to the turmoil this policy will cause is to continue doing the work. If you’ve made climate commitments, don’t back down. The widespread corporate “greenhushing”—or when businesses are afraid to reaffirm their bottom-line-driven climate action policies for fear of drawing the administration’s ire—must end. To compete globally and create long-term stability, we must speak out. We are past the point of corporate “optics.” The climate crisis will worsen whether Zeldin and the Trump administration believe it or not. No executive order, law or statement can wish it away.
For our part at Patagonia, we will stay the course. We will continue to invest in decarbonization. It is good for business, customers and community. It is also staying true to our purpose.
A committed corporate sector can prove this administration’s invitation to irresponsible behavior will not undermine commitments to shareholders, employees and customers. Our businesses and communities depend on it. If anything, this moment must become a call to the business community to show Zeldin and the federal government just how powerful the market can be.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
Swedish megabrand Ikea’s affordable self-assembly furniture has made Scandi style the go-to look for homes, hotels and Airbnbs all over Europe. More than 30 million of its ubiquitous Poang armchairs, for example—curious-but-memorable names also being an Ikea speciality)—have been sold since launch in 1977, making it one of the most popular furniture products ever.
But the company has another, less well-known claim to fame. Since 2009 it has invested over €4.2 billion ($4.9 billion) in renewable energy, which now provides 75% of the electricity used by the business to make, transport and retail all that furniture. “Today, it turns out that we are also a mid-sized utility company, although to be honest that was not part of the strategy,” deadpans Jesper Brodin, CEO of Ingka (the largest Ikea franchisee, responsible for 90% of group sales).
It’s only half a joke: if their output was sold on the power market, the 49 wind farms and 26 solar parks owned by Ingka do produce enough low carbon electricity to meet the needs of 1.47 million EU households.
The investment has certainly paid off in carbon terms. The firm’s CO2 emissions—scope 1,2 and 3—are down 30% since the Paris Agreement of 2015, while sales have grown by 24% over the same period. Yet what started out as a desire to do the right thing for the planet and the brand (68% of Ikea customers think that climate change is the most serious global challenge, says Brodin) has morphed into an unexpected source of competitive advantage.
$4.9 billion
Ikea’s investment in renewable energy since 2009
“When we set out to invest, we were not sure that it would be smart from an economic point of view. But our energy bills are down 27% [from 2015] so we have saved a lot of money. Over a three-to-five-year period, renewables come out at about half the price [of fossil fuel generated power]. People think that renewable energy will come at a financial premium, but actually it’s the opposite.”
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine caused a two-year spike in wholesale gas prices, a similar change of emphasis has occurred in Brussels. The EU Commission’s latest plan for its carbon economy—the Clean Industrial Deal, announced in February—has dropped previous appeals to the collective consciences of business leaders to help save the planet, in favor of focusing on the competitiveness advantages of further adopting renewable power across the continent.
Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has said that the deal will “cut the ties that still hold our companies back, and make a clear business case for Europe”.
Alongside reforms to electricity and gas markets designed to cut energy costs, the Clean Industrial Deal aims to mobilize €100 billion of EU funding to support low-carbon manufacturing, particularly in hard-to-abate industries like metals, chemicals and cement that rely on hydrocarbons for their highly energy-intensive processes. The Commission predicts the policy program will create over 500,000 new jobs, and ample opportunities for European businesses looking to carve a competitive, low-carbon niche.
Green steel start-up Stegra is one such company. It has raised a total of €6.5 billion (including a €250 million grant from the EU innovation fund) to build a plant at Boden in the north of Sweden which will use 100% renewable energy to produce 5 million tonnes of homegrown ‘green’ steel per annum by 2030, with a carbon footprint 95% smaller than a traditional ‘brown’ steel plant.
Stegra’s process uses renewable power to generate hydrogen, which is then used not as a fuel but as a chemical reagent. Production will begin at a lower level in 2026, and despite a 25%-30% price premium over brown steel, it is already proving popular: the firm has forward-sold around 1.25 million tonnes—half of its initial production target—to customers eager to get in on the green steel ground floor.
“Our customers are planning ahead, they see that brown steel will eventually be more expensive than green steel once the full cost of carbon is included. They are not buying it for branding or marketing purposes, it’s pure economics,” says Henrik Henriksson, Stegra’s CEO.
High costs, big barriers
If von der Leyen’s vision of secure, green growth is to be realized at scale for more companies, Europe needs to ramp up the transition to renewables significantly, at the same time as bringing down costs.
By the end of 2023, Europe (excluding Russia) had 786 gigawatts of installed renewable generation capacity, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). That’s an increase of 79% since 2014, and the pace has continued since, with a record increase of 65.6 gigawatts in the EU alone last year and another record predicted this year.
However, it still leaves a long way to go to reach the EU’s ambitious targets of 69% of electricity consumption and 42.5% of total energy coming from renewables by 2030. According to the European Commission’s 2022 REPowerEU plan to end reliance on Russian fossil fuels, the EU would need to nearly double its capacity to 1,236 gigawatts to achieve this goal. Some estimates suggest this will cost around €1.5 trillion.
Then there’s the need to update Europe’s grids, not just to handle the greater peak loads from these investments, but also to cover the distance between the best sites for renewable generation (solar in southern Europe, wind in coastal western Europe) and distant urban centers. So far, network investment has considerably lagged investments in renewables themselves.
“Because of the variability of wind [and solar], there is an urgent need for more interconnectors, and more investment in grids,” says Christophe Zipf, spokesperson for WindEurope, the trade body for the EU wind energy industry. One such mooted project is the North Sea Renewables Grid, a £20bn project to link 400 wind turbines in the North Sea, to facilitate the exchange of wind power between countries on both sides of the water. “Where there are such clusters it makes sense to link them to more than one country—the U.K., Denmark and Belgium for example,” Zipf says.
But where will the money come from? Given the right regulatory environment, there is capital ready to move, says Francecso Starace, partner at EQT, the world’s third largest private equity investor, which has invested €17 billion in renewables in Europe over the past 15 years. There is already quite an appetite for investment in the grid and distribution networks. The networks need to be restructured for the modern world, not for the world of 50 years ago when they were built.
“Regulators have a major role to play, but they need to understand that more money needs to be invested into the networks. Network operators need regulation that incentivizes investment rather than discouraging them from doing that, which has been the case for many years,” says Starace, a former CEO of Enel.
In practice, pro-investment regulation can mean several things: improvements in investor returns, relaxation of planning restrictions and greater central coordination of national transmission upgrade schemes.
Even if all that happens, what of the days when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing? Renewables may be homegrown, but their output is inherently unpredictable.
“Network operators need regulation that incentivizes investment rather than discouraging them from doing that, which has been the case for many years”
Starace, former CEO of Enel
As a result, Starace believes the next big thing will be grid-scale battery storage. “We believebatteries will be the next source of explosive growth. Battery storage can deal with fluctuations, and batteries are becoming pervasively competitive and a compelling investment.”
Battery infrastructure on this scale would also require substantial capital, of course, altogether making the idea of cheaper power by 2030 seem rather less likely: whether through bills or taxes, someone’s got to pay.
But relying on fickle global gas markets no longer seems an option once your main supplier turns into an adversary, and in the long term the economic logic is there: once the infrastructure is built, the marginal unit cost of renewable power is far lower. In the meantime, as companies like Ikea and Stegra are showing, European businesses are increasingly looking for opportunities from the transition itself, rather than just waiting for the light at the end of the tunnel.
A new Department of Energy report “fundamentally misrepresents” climate research and leaves out key context, multiple scientists cited in the report tell WIRED.
New AI regulations suggested by the White House mirror changes to environmental permitting suggested by Meta and a lobbying group representing firms like Google and Amazon Web Services.
The Pacific island nation of Tuvalu could be submerged in 25 years due to rising sea levels, so a plan is being implemented to relocate its population to Australia.
In a landmark ruling, the International Court of Justice declared that failure to act on climate change can be an “internationally wrongful act”—meaning countries could face legal consequences for harming the planet.
Google has announced that it has signed a global commercial partnership with Milan-based startup Energy Dome and has also invested in its long duration energy storage (LDES) tech for renewable energy. The deal, its first investment in LDES tech, entails using Energy Dome's carbon dioxide battery for the grids that power Google’s operations around the world. Batteries are used to keep excess energy generated by renewable sources, such as solar and wind, during peak production and when demand is low. But lithium-ion batteries can only store and dispatch energy for fours hours or less.
Energy Dome explained that its CO2 battery can store and continuously dispatch energy for 8 to 24 hours, so Google can rely on renewable power more even when there's no wind or sun. Its technology uses carbon dioxide held inside dome-shaped batteries, which you can see in the image above. When there's excess renewable energy being generated, the batteries use that power to compress the carbon dioxide gas inside them into liquid. And when that energy is needed, the liquid carbon dioxide expands back into a hot gas under pressure. That gas spins a turbine and generates energy that's fed back into the grid for a period lasting up to a whole day.
Google said that Energy Dome's technology has the potential to "commercialize much faster" than some of its other clean tech investments, and it aims to "bring this technology to scale faster and at lower costs." It also said that it believes the partnership and its investment in Energy Dome can help it achieve its goal of operating on renewable energy 24/7 by 2030.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-invests-in-carbon-dioxide-battery-for-renewable-energy-storage-140045660.html?src=rss
Activists around the world are calling attention to harassment they’ve faced on Meta’s platforms. More than 90 percent of land and environmental defenders surveyed by Global Witness, a nonprofit organization that also tracks the murders of environmental advocates, reported experiencing some kind of online abuse or harassment connected to their work. Facebook was the most-cited platform, followed by X, WhatsApp, and Instagram.
Global Witness and many of the activists it surveyed are calling on Meta and its peers to do more to address harassment and misinformation on their platforms. Left to fester, they fear that online attacks could fuel real-world risks to activists. Around 75 percent of people surveyed said they believed that online abuse they experienced corresponded to offline harm.
“Those stats really stayed with me. They were so much higher than we expected them to be,” Ava Lee, campaign strategy lead on digital threats at Global Witness, tells The Verge. That’s despite expecting a gloomy outcome based on prior anecdotal accounts. “It has kind of long been known that the experience of climate activists and environmental defenders online is pretty awful,” Lee says.
Left to fester, they fear that online attacks could fuel real-world risks
Global Witness surveyed more than 200 people between November 2024 and March of this year that it was able to reach through the same networks it taps when documenting the killings of land and environmental defenders. It found Meta-owned platforms to be “the most toxic.” Around 62 percent of participants said they encountered abuse on Facebook, 36 percent on WhatsApp, and 26 percent on Instagram.
That probably reflects how popular Meta’s platforms are around the world. Facebook has more than 3 billion active monthly users, more than a third of the global population. But Meta also abandoned its third-party fact-checking program in January, which critics warned could lead to more hate speech and disinformation. Meta moved to a crowdsourced approach to content moderation similar to X, where 37 percent of survey participants reported experiencing abuse.
In May, Meta reported a “small increase in the prevalence of bullying and harassment content” on Facebook as well as “a small increase in the prevalence of violent and graphic content” during the first quarter of 2025.
“That’s sort of the irony as well, of them moving towards this kind of free speech model, which actually we’re seeing that it’s silencing certain voices,” says Hannah Sharpe, a senior campaigner at Global Witness.
Fatrisia Ain leads a local collective of women in Sulawesi, Indonesia, where she says palm oil companies have seized farmers’ lands and contaminated a river local villagers used to be able to rely on for drinking water. Posts on Facebook have accused her of being a communist, a dangerous allegation in her country, she tells The Verge.
Ain says she’s asked Facebook to take down several posts attacking her, without success. “They said it’s not dangerous, so they can’t take it down. It is dangerous. I hope that Meta would understand, in Indonesia, it’s dangerous,” Ain says.
Other posts have accused Ain of trying to defraud farmers and of having an affair with a married man, which she sees as attempts to discredit her that could wind up exposing her to more threats in the real world — which has already been hostile to her activism. “Women who are being the defenders for my own community are more vulnerable than men … more people harass you with so many things,” she says.
Nearly two-thirds of people who responded to the Global Witness survey said that they have feared for their safety, including Ain. She’s been physically targeted at protests against palm oil companies accused of failing to pay farmers, she tells The Verge. During a protest outside of a government office, men grabbed her butt and chest, she says. Now, when she leads protests, older women activists surround her to protect her as a security measure.
In the Global Witness survey, nearly a quarter of respondents said they’d been attacked on the basis of their sex. “There’s evidence of the way that women and women of color in particular in politics experience just vast amounts more hate than any other group,” Lee says. “Again, we’re seeing that play out when it comes to defenders … and the threats of sexual violence, and the impact that that is having on the mental health of lots of these defenders and their ability to feel safe.”
“We encourage people to use tools available on our platforms to help protect against bullying and harassment,” Meta spokesperson Tracy Clayton said in an email to The Verge, adding that the company is reviewing Facebook posts that targeted Ain. Meta also pointed to its “HiddenWords” feature that allows you to filter offensive direct messages and comments on your posts and its “Limits” feature that hides comments on your posts from users that don’t follow you.
Other companies mentioned in the report, including Google, TikTok, and X, did not provide on-the-record responses to inquiries from The Verge. Nor did a palm oil company Ain says has been operating on local farmers’ land without paying them, as they’re supposed to do under a mandated profit-sharing scheme.
Global Witness says there are concrete steps social media companies can take to address harassment on their platforms. That includes dedicating more resources to their content moderation systems, regularly reviewing these systems, and inviting public input on the process. Activists surveyed also reported that they think algorithms that boost polarizing content and the proliferation of bots on platforms make the problem worse.
“There are a number of choices that platforms could make,” Lee says. “Resourcing is a choice, and they could be putting more money into really good content moderation and really good trust and safety [initiatives] to improve things.”
Global Witness plans to put out its next report on the killings of land and environmental defenders in September. Its last such report found that at least 196 people were killed in 2023.
Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA) and President Donald Trump during the inaugural Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh on July 15. | Photo: Bloomberg via Getty Images
At an AI and fossil fuel lovefest in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania last week, President Donald Trump - flanked by cabinet members and executives from major tech and energy giants like Google and ExxonMobil - said that "the most important man of the day" was Environmental Protection Agency head Lee Zeldin. "He's gonna get you a permit for the largest electric producing plant in the world in about a week, would you say?" Trump said to chuckles in the audience. Later that week, the Trump administration exempted coal-fired power plants, facilities that make chemicals for semiconductor manufacturing, and certain other industrial sites from Biden-era a …
Lucid EV owners will soon have full access to Tesla’s Supercharger network, which is something that's been in the works since 2023. This goes live on July 31, allowing folks to juice up at more than 12,000 Supercharger stations throughout North America. Some of the company's vehicles can already use these charging stations, with the Gravity SUV gaining access earlier this year.
That leaves the Air line of luxury EV sedans. These vehicles will be able to roll up to a Tesla Supercharger for a top-off at the end of the month, but there are some major caveats. First of all, Lucid Air EVs will require an official adapter that costs $220, as they don't ship with a built-in NACS ports. This adapter won't work with V1 or V2 charging stations, which whittles down the convenience factor a bit.
There's another problem for Air owners. The adapter is limited to a 50kW peak charge rate, which provides around 200 miles of range per hour of charging. The Air can typically achieve a 300kW peak charge rate. Not only is this hobbled charge rate bad for Lucid Air devotees, it's also annoying for people that own other EVs. Remember, the Air will have to sit at the charger for an entire hour, which will increase traffic at the station.
Luckily, there are other charging stations available that make use of that 300kW peak rate. Air owners can use stations by Electrify America, EVgo and ChargePoint for a quick jolt. It's good to know that the Tesla Superchargers will be there in a pinch, which could come in handy during a road trip.
The company also recently unveiled the 2026 lineup of Air EVs. There's the Lucid Air Pure, which is a relatively streamlined option. Prices for this one start at $70,900. The Lucid Air Touring boasts an estimated range of 431 miles per charge, which is a decent metric. It starts at $79,900. Finally, the Lucid Air Grand Touring is the baddest of the bunch, with an estimated range of 512 miles per charge. Prices start at $114,900, but the seats offer a massage feature.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/transportation/evs/lucid-owners-will-get-full-access-to-teslas-supercharger-network-on-july-31-184020050.html?src=rss
Loop Biotech’s “Living Cocoon” is a casket made from mycelium, the root structure of mushrooms.
"I'm probably the only architect who created a final home," Bob Hendrikx tells The Verge. Tombs and catacombs aside, Hendrikx might be the only one to make a final home using mushrooms.
Hendrikx is the founder and CEO of Loop Biotech, a company that makes caskets out of mycelium, the fibrous root structure of mushrooms. This June, the first burial in North America to use one of Loop Biotech's caskets took place in Maine.
"He always said he wanted to be buried naked in the woods."
The mushroom casket gives people one more option to leave the living with a gentler impact, part of a growing array of what are supposed to be more sustainable …
An aerial view of flash flood damage along the banks of the Guadalupe River on July 11th in Kerrville, Texas. | Photo: Getty Images
Flash floods have wrought more havoc in the US this week, from the Northeast to the Midwest, just weeks after swollen rivers took more than 130 lives across central Texas earlier this month. Frustrations have grown in the aftermath of that catastrophe over why more wasn't done to warn people in advance.
Local officials face mounting questions over whether they sent too many or sent too few mobile phone alerts to people. Some Texans have accused the state of sending out too many alerts for injured police officers in the months leading up to the floods, which may have led to residents opting out of receiving warnings. And hard-hit Kerr County …
Amazon’s decarbonization goals are being undermined by its push to be a leader in generative AI. Its most recent sustainability report concedes its overall carbon emissions grew for the first time since 2022. It reported a six percent increase in its carbon footprint across 2024, laying much of the blame at the feet of its data center rollout.
The reported increase is significant given Amazon’s method of reporting its own environmental impact. Critics have suggested the mega-retailer “dramatically undercounts” its impact by excluding common metrics. In 2022, Amazon revised its climate reporting methodology which also led to the company’s figures falling dramatically.
In addition, the company reported an increase in emissions tied to the purchase of power from outside sources. “The increased energy demand is from AI chips,” says the report, which “require more electricity and cooling than traditional chips.” As well as the power to run and cool those chips, Amazon is building big to increase its server capacity. Data center construction, as well as fuel use by logistics contractors, led indirect emissions to increase by six percent. That said, the company’s own fossil fuel emissions increased by seven percent in 2024, which is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Amazon is a co-founder of The Climate Pledge, an initiative to reach net zero emissions by 2040. The initiative now has 549 signatories, including MasterCard, Sony and Snap.inc.
In February, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy pledged to invest $100 billion across 2025, with CNBC reporting the bulk of that cash would be spent on Amazon Web Services (the company’s data center and web hosting arm). Given the increase in construction, it’s likely Amazon’s report for 2025 will follow this same upward trend.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/general/amazons-ai-push-is-undermining-its-sustainability-goals-160156136.html?src=rss
Palo Alto, CA, USA - Feb 18, 2020: The Amazon logo seen at Amazon campus in Palo Alto, California. The Palo Alto location hosts A9 Search, Amazon Web Services, and Amazon Game Studios teams.
Stellantis, the automotive giant behind Chrysler, Citroen, Fiat, Jeep and Peugeot, is pulling out of hydrogen. The company said it’s killing its fuel cell development program in the face of “limited availability of hydrogen refueling infrastructure, high capital requirements and the need for stronger consumer purchasing incentives.” To put that another way, it’s realized hydrogen EVs are facing the same set of challenges it’s not been able to overcome in the last two or three decades.
It’s a stark shift in tone from January 2024, when the company promised to roll out a fleet of commercial fuel cell vehicles. Stellantis sells many of Europe’s most popular panel vans including the Citroen Jumper, Fiat Ducato, Opel Movano and Peugeot Boxer. Back then, it said we’d see hydrogen versions of all those vehicles (as well as its smaller siblings) with maximum ranges of 500km (310 miles).
The decision to pull the plug came relatively late, with the company saying it was due to begin production at its plants in France and Poland “this summer.” It added the decision to kill the range will not impact staffing in production or R&D, with employees transferred to other projects. It will, however, have to delicately negotiate its exit with Symbio, the fuel cell maker it bought a one-third share of back in 2023.
Stellantis isn’t the first company that pledged to put its weight behind fuel cells only to pull back. Toyota has thrown a lot of time, effort and money behind hydrogen, believing fuel cells would be preferable to battery electric vehicles (BEVs). Sadly, as time progressed, the company has had to cede more and more of the market to batteries, and only advertises its third-generation fuel cell as a power unit for heavy industrial vehicles.
Hydrogen was, and has been for some time, an article of faith for fossil fuel companies, the car industry and even some countries that lack their own energy reserves. After all, the promise of being able to pull (theoretically limitless), emission-free energy out of water is the stuff of dreams. Not to mention, it requires much of the same knowledge and infrastructure used by the traditional oil and gas industry, and refueling can only take place at a commercial site.
Had hydrogen made more of an impact, it would have likely preserved the status quo or something much like it, for those industries long into the future. But while the hope was that hydrogen could be a cleaner, greener substitute for oil and gas, its inherent flaws always made that a non-starter.
For instance, hydrogen is far less energy dense than oil and gas, and far less physically dense — it’s so prone to leaking that you have to go above and beyond to seal it in. It’s difficult to mass produce cleanly, especially if you want to power every car in the world, unless you use a dirty process like the steam reformation of methane. So, rather than moving away from fossil fuels and emissions, you’d be further entrenching them into the system and adding to the problem.
And if you did want to just use renewable energy to pull hydrogen from water, then you’d require an unprecedented amount of investment. Back in 2021, I asked Tim Lord, who had previously been in charge of the UK’s decarbonization strategy, about that sort of industrial-scale hydrogen generation. He said that you’d essentially need to double your whole electricity generation output to get close.
That’s before you get to the other factors, like hydrogen’s efficiency as a store of energy or the investment necessary to equip every gas station on the planet with a hydrogen tank. Which is not likely going to pay off given that Toyota’s Mirai, arguably the flagship hydrogen fuel cell EV, has only sold 28,000 models since its launch in 2014. In the US market, there's only the Mirai, the Hyundai Nexo and the Honda CR-V e-FCEV knocking around, nothing compared to how many BEVs are on sale. I think it’s time for everyone to admit that we’re done with hydrogen fuel cell EVs and focus their attention elsewhere.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/transportation/another-big-car-company-gives-up-on-hydrogen-133011978.html?src=rss
A lineup of Stellantis-owned vans from different marques that would have promised fuel cell EV versions but for the project's late-in-the-day axing. There are four fans in a line parked outside a factory, with the sun just pushing out from behind the clouds.
Google has closed a $3 billion deal to secure 3,000 megawatts of hydroelectric power, as it looks to meet the data demands of its growing AI and cloud computing platforms by harnessing low-cost clean energy. Brookfield Asset Management's renewables division says that its deal with Google is the largest deal of its kind for hydroelectricity. The first phase of this deal will provide Google with 670MW of carbon-free electricity from Brookfield’s Holtwood and Safe Harbor plants in Pennsylvania.
The Hydro Framework Agreement (HFA) allows Google to upgrade or develop the existing facilities as it sees fit in an ongoing commitment to adding more power to the grid. At the outset, Google’s efforts will largely be focused on the PJM, the largest grid in the US with 65 million customers, which is currently struggling to keep up with the data demands of big tech’s seemingly insatiably power-hungry AI projects. In time, the new partners will have the option of expanding into other regions in the country. Google said in a statement that it was dedicated to "responsibly growing the digital infrastructure that powers daily life for people, communities and businesses."
Google’s latest energy deal comes in the same week that AI rival Meta said it will spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a number of gigwatt-sized data centers, as part of its quest to create better-than-human-level "superintelligence" in all of its AI domains. The new campuses will be among the largest on earth, with the first to arrive being the Ohio-based Prometheus at some point next year.
A typical data center consumes around 500,000 gallons of water each day, but the emerging AI-focused complexes being built by tech giants could reportedly push this figure into the millions, as recently reported by The New York Times. When the volume of water needed to power these facilities eclipses what is readily available, local communities often bear the brunt through rising prices and potential water shortages in the future.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-spends-%C2%A33-billion-on-securing-energy-for-its-data-centers-and-ai-expansion-145145966.html?src=rss
Login
