

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"New research confirms: AI, on sum, is a loser for global climate."
As people across the United States protest against artificial intelligence data centers and their impact on utility bills, the local environment, and the climate, a new study highlights an overlooked way AI is increasing emissions that heat the planet.
Holly Alpine co-founded the nonprofit Enabled Emissions Campaign with her husband, fellow Microsoft alum Will Alpine. For the study, published last week in the journal npj Climate Action, the couple partnered with Purdue University associate professor Maksym Chepeliev and independent researcher Nathan Geldner.
"Most assessments of AI's climate impact are framed as a trade-off between data center energy use and the emissions AI might help avoid," Holly Alpine said in a Tuesday statement. "What's missing entirely is the other side of the ledger for AI's applications: the emissions enabled from the additional fossil fuel production being made commercially viable."
"Our modeling quantifies both, and finds a significant net global emissions increase," she explained. "Until enabled emissions are recognized, measured, and governed, we're only addressing a fraction of AI's climate impact."
In the fossil fuel sector, AI's "applications predominantly expand the pool of economically viable supply by increasing extraction productivity, lowering production costs, and reducing operational risk, thus extending the industry’s economic viability," the study states. It notes that "these applications predominantly" increase emissions, but can also avoid some, such as "through methane leak detection or efficiency gains in power generation."
"Applied to renewables (and other low-carbon generation), AI's applications predominantly avoid emissions," the paper details. "They offer potential to accelerate deployment and optimize generation efficiency, for example, through forecasting, predictive maintenance, and power generation optimization, while also extending the productive life of installed capacity and improving grid integration."
Examining dozens of scenarios, the study's authors found that if AI is used by both the fossil fuel and renewable sectors to boost productivity, global emissions rise by 0.47-1.8 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide annually. They also found that when fossil fuel productivity gains are considered in isolation, the increase for climate-heating pollution is 3.3-13.3 times larger than current data center emissions, and up to eight times larger than those projected for such facilities by 2035.
New research confirms: AI, on sum, is a loser for global climateShort of significant policy to curb fossil fuel interests (ha!), AI will amplify CO2 emissions, not mitigate them, even when considering the prospects of any renewable gains AI buildout could motivatewww.nature.com/articles/s44...
[image or embed]
— Philip Loring (@philiploring.com) August 11, 2026 at 4:44 PM
Putting the study's figures into context, Wired pointed out that "at the low end, the research finds that the additional yearly emissions could be equal to Mexico's; at the high end, AI boosting the fossil fuel industry could add as much greenhouse gas emissions as Russia, the world’s fourth-largest emitter."
Will Alpine, the lead author, said that "I spent years building AI platform tools and have seen firsthand how they're used."
"Like any tool, AI can accelerate whatever it's applied to," he continued. "Yes, it can advance renewable energy, strengthen the grid, and improve efficiency. But it has also been boosting the productivity of the fossil fuel industry for years, and our research shows that effect is asymmetric: It acts as an economic lever that reinforces the viability and dominance of fossil fuels."
As The Guardian reported Tuesday:
Saudi Aramco said last year that it had embedded AI "in everything," increasing productivity and the number of wells, while earlier this summer Equinor attributed 27 discoveries on the Norwegian continental shelf to new seismic technologies and AI. The findings include the Lofn and Langermann oil wells, which the company said was the largest discovery it operated in 2025. "AI was key, from automated data interpretation to efficient well planning," it said in a video at its capital markets day in June.
Rystad Energy, an independent research and energy intelligence company based in Oslo, estimated in May that digitalization and AI would create close to $500 billion (£370 billion) in cumulative value for fossil fuel exploration and production companies between 2026 and 2030—the result of more efficient operations, increased production, and shorter development timelines. "The returns are already visible in the industry," its analysts wrote, citing hundreds of millions of dollars in reported AI-related savings from Equinor and Abu Dhabi's Adnoc.
Welcoming the study, Clara Vondrich, senior policy counsel for the Climate Program at the watchdog group Public Citizen, said that "this research exposes Big Tech as a lead accomplice to the fossil fuel industry in ways we never imagined. It's bad enough that communities are being hammered by rising energy bills as data centers gobble up insane amounts of fossil fuel power, but now we see that those emissions are just a fraction of the climate harms Big Tech is responsible for."
"To be clear, oil companies are not simply using publicly available AI tools: Big Tech is entering into bilateral contracts with oil companies, and selling them proprietary tools specifically designed for the purpose of accelerating oil production," Vondrich stressed. "You can't make this up: Big Tech companies, self-avowed climate champs for decades, are working hand-in-glove with Big Oil to find, dig, and burn more fossil fuels to make a buck."
"AI’s promise as a tool for advancing solutions to the climate crisis is fading as a cruel reality takes shape: Big tech companies are selling AI to the fossil fuel industry to accelerate our demise so they can turn a profit," she added. "These are the perverse outcomes resulting from our rigged market economy: access to cutting-edge AI goes to the highest bidder and Big Oil has some of the deepest pockets in the world. Meanwhile the externalities—runaway climate change manifesting this summer as historic heat domes and fires—are never counted, except as body counts. Today, Big Tech is Big Oil's number one accomplice."
"For two decades," said one of the report's authors, "it has documented conditions across the Arctic system, bringing together physical and social sciences with real-world observations/data and consistent updates."
The Trump administration has reportedly decided to yank federal funding from an annual National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report that examined the state of the Arctic, which is warming significantly faster than other regions of the world as continued fossil fuel extraction and use drive up global temperatures.
Politico, which first reported the decision, noted that the move "jeopardizes public dissemination of the report that NOAA has published since 2006. It has previously been available on the agency’s website, requires NOAA staff for its production, and pools data from NOAA scientists for many of its findings."
Zack Labe, a climate scientist who has been an author on NOAA’s peer-reviewed Arctic Report Card since 2020, wrote on social media that the Trump administration's decision "is truly devastating."
"The Arctic Report Card has been one of my favorite scientific endeavors," Labe wrote. "For two decades, it has documented conditions across the Arctic system, bringing together physical and social sciences with real-world observations/data and consistent updates."
Speaking to the science news outlet EOS, Labe warned that "the loss of the Arctic Report Card would be significant not only for the scientific community, but also for decision-makers and the public."
"Written for a broad audience and developed by more than 100 scientists from around the world, the report is an important resource for consistently documenting changes in one of the fastest warming regions on our planet," Labe added. "Discontinuing it would create a significant gap in our ability to track and connect these changes from year to year, with implications for people and communities around the world."
Last year's edition of the report card found that "surface air temperatures across the Arctic from October 2024 through September 2025 were the warmest recorded since 1900."
"The last 10 years are the 10 warmest on record in the Arctic," the report observed.
The Trump administration, packed with fossil fuel industry allies and headed by a climate denier, has worked aggressively to gut federal initiatives designed to track the worsening impact of the global climate emergency. Since taking power last year, the administration has dismissed government scientists, scrubbed climate information from federal websites, stopped updating a database that tracked the country's costliest weather disasters, and picked a climate denier to oversee the federal government's flagship climate report.
Rick Thoman, an Arctic climate specialist, called the Trump administration's latest move "devastating news for Arctic environmental monitoring."
"If we're exceeding records from the Dust Bowl, that says that we're in deep trouble," warned one meteorologist.
While President Donald Trump continued his war on renewables and support for climate-wrecking fossil fuels, the contiguous United States endured the hottest July on record, according to data released Monday by his own government.
"July 2026 averaged 76.9ºF, the warmest month on record (1895-present)," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced. That figure was "3.3ºF above the 20th-century average. This was the warmest July—and warmest month—in the 132-year record, 0.1-0.2ºF warmer than July 1936 and July 2012."
The Associated Press highlighted that last month's average for the Lower 48 eclipsed "the Dust Bowl's July 1936 by an eighth of a degree," a development that meteorologist Jeff Masters of Yale Climate Connections described as alarming.
"It's not good when you’re breaking records from the Dust Bowl, which we are in this case," he told the AP. "And that was a crazy sort of situation where you put tens of millions of people in motion. You had this great migration because of the drought and the heat that hit the center of the US—just a cataclysmic event in US history. If we're exceeding records from the Dust Bowl, that says that we're in deep trouble."
Separately, Masters and fellow meteorologist Bob Henson wrote at Yale Climate Connections that "there's no denying the scorching conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl. An impressive 24 of the 48 contiguous US states have yet to exceed the single hottest readings observed in each of those states during the 1930s."
"However, the Dust Bowl has been misused for years in climate-denial writing and speaking to argue that human activity isn't warming the nation's climate to any great degree. In fact, human influence played a vast part in the Dust Bowl itself," they explained. "Decades of overplowing by European settlers in the Plains and Midwest—in the erroneous belief that 'rain follows the plow'—left the landscape vulnerable when a sequence of multi-year droughts struck. Huge volumes of topsoil simply blew away, and the denuded land heated up far more quickly than better-managed land would have. The Dust Bowl intersected with the Great Depression to make the 1930s a period of profound misery for millions of Americans."
"A 2022 study, 'How the Great Plains Dust Bowl drought spread heat extremes around the Northern Hemisphere,' showed how the Dust Bowl's physical influence extended well beyond US borders," the pair added. "As lead author Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research put it, 'This is a mechanism that arose in a unique way from human influence—not by burning fossil fuels but from plowing up the middle third of the US.'"
We just broke a heat record set during the Dust Bowl. 😬That record has been a favorite talking point of climate deniers. Now it's bitten the dust: yaleclimateconnections.org/2026/08/the-...New from @drjeffmasters.bsky.social and @bhensonweather.bsky.social
[image or embed]
— Yale Climate Connections (@climateconnections.bsky.social) August 10, 2026 at 2:50 PM
Wildfires broke out across Canada and in the United States' Pacific Northwest last month, burning over 140,000 acres in Oregon alone. NOAA found that "daytime maximum temperatures averaged 89.5ºF, 2.9ºF above average, ranking as the sixth-warmest month on record for average high temperatures, while overnight minimum temperatures averaged 64.2ºF, 3.7ºF above average, ranking as the warmest month on record for average low temperatures, surpassing July 2022 by 0.7ºF."
Those high temperatures overnight can be dangerous. Masters told the AP that "if you're talking heatwaves, that nighttime low is incredibly important for determining total heat stress... So if it doesn’t cool off at night, your body doesn't have time to readjust to all the heat."
While July set a new record in the United States, because of the fossil fuel-driven climate crisis, "this may be one of the coolest years we’re gonna experience for the rest of our lives," the meteorologist also said. He added that humanity needs "to stop burning so many fossil fuels. We also need to be spending money to adapt to the new climate that we've put in place."
Wildfires also impacted the European Union last month—and NOAA's new numbers came out as the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service announced Monday that worldwide, last month was second warmest July on record, tied with 2024. The agency also found that the average global ocean surface temperature was the hottest ever recorded in July, fueled in part by El Niño conditions.
"Our leaders’ response has to be swifter and stronger than El Niño," argued Anne Jellema, executive director of the advocacy group 350.org. "We already know that global heating is supercharging extreme weather damage, and the public wants polluters to pay for it. With Big Oil's earnings skyrocketing while a global food crisis looms, now is the time to act. The only way to stave off a humanitarian disaster is to make those causing it pay upfront—before even more damage is done."
The Guardian pointed out that "an unusually strong El Niño event, a periodic climate feature where a section of the Pacific Ocean heats up causing weather around the world to alter, is likely to cause next year to be the hottest on record globally, surpassing a record set just in 2024. Some scientists think the developing El Niño could even ensure that this year is the one that breaks the record."
Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the newspaper that "the bottom line... is that we expect to set record global temperatures as long as carbon emissions continue to warm the planet, and typically these records are set during major El Niño events."
"Instead of building a modern, clean energy source to power its increased AI-driven electricity demand, Amazon chose to invest in a massive natural gas power plant to fuel its giant Texas data center."
Amazon is boasting that the new data center it plans to build in Pecos County, Texas will be self-sustaining in its use of electricity, as the company has acquired permits to build a 7.65 gigawatt gas plant to power the massive facility, ensuring it won't raise electricity prices for households in the area.
But the savings on utility bills will likely come at a cost for the US at large and the planet, as well as locals in West Texas.
According to reporting from Cleanview Newsletter on Friday, the site acquired by Amazon, GW Ranch, has a permit from the state allowing the construction of a gas power plant that could emit 33 million tons of carbon pollution, which would make it by far the largest single source of pollution in the US.
The James H. Miller Jr. Power Plant, which burns coal in Quinton, Alabama, is currently the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, sending about 16 million tons of pollution into the atmosphere each year.
Power plants generally emit less than the maximum amount of carbon permitted, but the unprecedented limit for the new plant, which is being developed for Amazon by Pacifico Energy and will have 35 natural gas turbines, means it is likely that the company's project will far exceed the pollution caused by the plant in Alabama.
The permits viewed by Cleanview, which tracks data centers and sustainable energy development, show that the power plant would be disconnected from the state's electricity grid, at least at first, and an Amazon spokesperson said the company "believes in paying the full costs of powering our operations" and would not "raise electricity costs for Texas families."
The on-site power generation will be "designed to transition to grid-connected service as interconnection timelines allow," the spokesperson added—suggesting the data center could ultimately raise household electricity costs as well as supercharging carbon pollution in the area.
The company further tried to allay fears of the impact of the new data center and its dedicated power plant by saying it plans to use brackish water that isn't safe for irrigation or consumption at GW Ranch; along with data centers' impact on utility costs, communities have protested against the facilities across the country due to their massive water consumption.
But the advocacy group Climate Action Campaign said Sunday that in its rush to join the nationwide artificial intelligence data center buildout as President Donald Trump has demanded, Amazon "chose dirty power over clean."
"Instead of building a modern, clean energy source to power its increased AI-driven electricity demand, Amazon chose to invest in a massive natural gas power plant to fuel its giant Texas data center," said Margie Alt, the group's director. "During this excessively hot and dry summer, riddled with forest fires and unbearable air pollution, a move like this is truly unacceptable."
With Amazon pledging to eliminate its pollution-causing emissions by 2040, the company's decision to join Meta, Microsoft, and Google in investing in its own power plant to build a data center was an example of "yet another major corporation dodging accountability," said Alt.
"This isn’t innovation," she said. "Despite its massive resources, Amazon is shirking its own responsibility and the industry’s promises of computing progress without the economic or health burdens to local communities. The result of that broken promise is that communities will pay the consequences with their health and their wallets."
According to Cleanview, Pacifico Energy has plans to eventually build up to 750 megawatts of solar generation and 1.8 gigawatts for battery storage capacity at GW Ranch.
As it potentially doubles the amount of planet-heating carbon emissions that are currently sent into the atmosphere by the James H. Miller Jr. Power Plant, the plant at the GW Ranch site could heighten the risk of developing heart disease, asthma, chronic respiratory illnesses, and other health problems for people living and working in the area.
"Progress shouldn’t come at the expense of the rest of us just to power billionaires’ ambitions," said Alt. "Shame on you, Amazon!”
The project, Kathryn Guerra, a campaign director at the watchdog group Public Citizen, told The New York Times, will "absolutely have a huge impact on the environment, and on public health."
The project was made public weeks after Trump insisted that "smart" communities want data centers to be built in their vicinity—but numerous polls have shown the facilities, which offer few long-term jobs as they raise costs for families, are sparking outcry from across the political spectrum.
About 70% of respondents to a Gallup poll in March said they would oppose the construction of a data center in their area. About half of those who expressed opposition said they were mostly concerned with the environmental impact associated with data centers, or the potential for resources to be gobbled up by the facilities.
New data from Copernicus Climate Change Service, said one campaigner, shows that the "natural systems we depend on are being pushed closer to their limits.”
Last month's average global ocean surface temperature was the hottest ever recorded in the month of July, fueled in part by uniquely intense, fossil fuel-driven El Niño conditions that have wreaked deadly havoc around the world this summer.
The European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said Monday that last month—which ranked as the second warmest July on record—"saw exceptionally high temperatures for the month across a large portion of the tropical Pacific, an area where El Niño conditions are present and forecast to further strengthen in the coming months." Average global sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were 20.96°C last month, surpassing the July 2023 record of 20.89°C.
"Around Europe, SSTs reached record highs for July along the Atlantic coast and western Mediterranean, associated with widespread strong or severe marine heatwave conditions," C3S said.
Brian O'Donnell, director of the Campaign for Nature, said the latest Copernicus data "is more than another climate milestone; it is a warning that the natural systems we depend on are being pushed closer to their limits."
"Governments have become very good at documenting these records. Now they need to become much better at safeguarding the forests, wetlands, and oceans that help regulate the climate and protect communities from the impacts of warming world," said O'Donnell. "With land and ocean temperatures across Europe breaching records, governments should be investing far more and delivering on their global commitment to protect at least 30% of land and ocean by 2030."
The new analysis was released as western Europe and other regions faced deadly heat, wildfires, drought, and other extreme weather as the international community, including the US and other leading polluters, fails to rein in fossil fuel use—and as oil and gas giants reap record profits.
“Our leaders’ response has to be swifter and stronger than El Niño," Anne Jellema, executive director of the environmental group 350.org, said Monday. "We already know that global heating is supercharging extreme weather damage, and the public wants polluters to pay for it. With Big Oil’s earnings skyrocketing while a global food crisis looms, now is the time to act. The only way to stave off a humanitarian disaster is to make those causing it pay upfront—before even more damage is done.”
Scientists have characterized this year's El Niño, which officially began on June 11, as historically strong and dangerous, earning it the informal "Super El Niño" label.
The Washington Post reported Monday that the 2026 El Niño is "on track to become the strongest ever recorded, with cascading effects on global climate peaking late this year and into next."
"El Niño’s effects have already been felt around the planet," the Post observed. "The higher frequency of heat domes worldwide, the nonstop temperature records in Peru and deadly storms in Chile can all be linked to this pattern. As can the destructive typhoons in the western Pacific Ocean and the relative calm of the Atlantic hurricane season so far."
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned in remarks to reporters last month that El Niño is no longer just "on our doorstep."
"It is inside the house—and turning up the heat," said Guterres. "We have already endured a summer of extremes—record-shattering heat domes, apocalyptic wildfires raging in Spain, France, and far beyond. Thousands of lives lost in the scorching conditions.”
“But according to the latest science," he added, "this is only a warm-up act."
The untested practice will further disrupt already fragile ecosystems, creating increased pollution from discarded sediments, sharp increases in noise, and other potential dangers to the marine environment and food security of Arctic Peoples.
In July, the US launched the first of three controversial 2026 deep-seabed mining lease sales in the waters of American Samoa, to be finalized in August; the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, to be finalized in November; and Alaska, to be finalized in December. Once the lease sales are sold, it is nearly impossible to reverse the sales unless they are purchased back from the federal government.
In Alaska, fishing is not just a sport; it is a critical element of food security for many Alaskans. As the Arctic faces increasing pressure on fish stocks, including but not limited to overfishing, marine pollution, and rising ocean temperatures, the US is now debating issuing deep-sea mining permits in Alaska waters, the use of which could further harm our marine ecosystems affecting everything from phytoplankton to whales.
Proponents of deep-sea mining argue that the minerals extracted from the seabed are critical to strengthening modern supply chains for technological advancement and national security. At this time, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is assessing the potential for Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to mine cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements.
At Pacific Environment, we are deeply concerned about the permits that BOEM is considering selling. Deep-sea mining isn’t just about sticking a vacuum on the ocean floor to surgically suck up particular minerals. It also involves large-scale exploration and extraction that will further disrupt already fragile ecosystems, creating increased pollution from discarded sediments, sharp increases in noise, and other potential dangers to the marine environment and food security of Arctic Peoples.
Deep-sea mining would deploy mining equipment in some of the deepest and least understood areas of the ocean such as hydrothermal vents and seamounts. The wildlife that inhabit these areas—including plankton, corals, fish, and marine mammals—often exist only in those places and nowhere else on the planet. When damaged, these ecosystems are slow to recover, and the damage is likely to be permanent. Sea mining activities also result in massive sediment plumes that smother marine life on the bottom and in the water column.
When BOEM opened a commenting period for the public to weigh in on deep-seabed mining, over 90,000 comment letters poured in from individuals and groups opposing the sale of leases for this largely untested technology.
It is proven that noise in the ocean disrupts whale communication and migration and may also impact other communities of ocean life. Deep-sea mining will increase noise pollution in ways that are yet to be studied because it is challenging and costly to study deep ocean ecosystems.
Alaskans are already seeing declines in our salmon populations, creating a fishing crisis along the Yukon River and elsewhere, empty smokehouses, and Indigenous communities without a primary protein resource and with cultural traditions unpracticed. We are seeing whale strikes and die-offs along the Northwest coast of the United States, further negatively impacting coastal communities. We watch as the ocean warms; Arctic sea ice melts at a faster and faster pace and a critical tipping point for nitrogen—a critical element of ocean life—has passed.
When BOEM opened a commenting period for the public to weigh in on deep-seabed mining, over 90,000 comment letters poured in from individuals and groups opposing the sale of leases for this largely untested technology. These comments highlight concerns about the lack of understanding of the long-term impacts these leases will have on Arctic waters that depend on intricate balances to support marine life.
While arguments can be made that we need to secure additional access to critical minerals, the risks of what we could lose are very significant. Arctic ocean ecosystems are fragile, not well understood, and already under intense pressure as the region warms four times faster than the rest of the planet. Alaska, and the world, depend on the marine environment for so many things; it makes no sense to jeopardize this sensitive ecosystem for an unproven and largely untested technology.
This piece was first published on the Pacific Environment blog.
The system that has failed Disabled people during Nigeria's security crisis is the same system that fails us here in not just natural disasters like hurricanes or wildfires, but active shooter situations, and immigration detention as well.
Hurricane season is upon us, and for many Disabled people across the US, it means a renewed sense of insecurity and uncertainty around their well-being. So often, Disabled folks are too often left behind in emergency preparedness and response efforts, and are ultimately treated as afterthoughts. With the 21st anniversary of Hurricane Katrina approaching and a continued climate crisis with no end in sight, this glaring oversight is ever present in the minds of Disabled people nationwide.
This isn’t an issue that’s unique to the US, however. It’s something that Disabled communities face on a global scale, and it’s time we took a hard look at what countries across the world can do to center Disabled people in ensuring the safety and security of their citizens.
Take Nigeria, for example. A new investigation from Deaf Nigerian filmmaker and journalist Alexander Ogheneruemu, "Forgotten People," tells, in part, the story of Ayoade Beyioku-Alase, a Deaf man who was nearly killed as a child in Kano because the violence closing in on his house came with no siren, no interpreter, no warning he could access. "A Deaf person can walk right into the middle of danger," he says in the piece.
It’s easy for those of us in the US to read a story like this and feel far away from it. It’s easy to think, ,“This isn’t us.” The truth is that, whether we want to accept it or not, it is us. It just looks a little different.
Disabled people in the United States are two to four times more likely to die or be critically injured in a disaster than nondisabled people.
As a Disabled person who has worked in this space for many years, I can tell you that the system that has failed Disabled people during Nigeria's security crisis is the same system that fails us here in not just natural disasters like hurricanes or wildfires, but active shooter situations, and immigration detention as well. The threat might be different, but we have more in common with these failings than you’d be led to believe.
The alarm itself is the most direct parallel. Federal guidance from the Department of Justice acknowledges that most emergency warning systems in this country were built for people who can hear and see. Sirens, radio, television, flashing lights are all assumed to be visible to everyone. Tornado sirens across the Midwest and South are audio only, offering nothing to a Deaf person indoors when weather becomes a threat. The National Association of the Deaf has told emergency management agencies for years that mass notification systems don’t reach people who rely on video instead of standard calls. This is a serious and blatant example of ableism, where Disabled people are treated as an afterthought in emergency planning.
In Ogheneruemu’s "Forgotten People,” produced by the Disability Justice Project, the journalist says that 4,654 lives were lost in Nigeria's insecurity crisis last year. Our own numbers are just as alarming. Research compiled by the Center for American Progress and the Partnership for Inclusive Disaster Strategies puts it bluntly: Disabled people in the United States are two to four times more likely to die or be critically injured in a disaster than nondisabled people.
During Hurricane Katrina, people over 60 years old, who included many Disabled folks, made up 73% of storm-related deaths in Louisiana. According to the National Council on Disability, 68 of those victims died in nursing homes, some abandoned by staff who left rather than arrange evacuation. Twenty years later, not much has changed. When the Eaton Fire tore through Los Angeles in January of 2025, at least 3 of the 27 people killed were Disabled, and NBC News reported that Disabled people displaced by disaster are almost twice as likely not to return home.
Then there's our own man-made violence. Nigeria's crisis comes from armed conflict, and ours also often comes from gun violence. More than 100 US school shootings have happened since Sandy Hook in 2012, and the response drilled into an entire generation of children is to run and hide. Inherently, this completely excludes Disabled kids. The Washington Post and The Mighty have both documented children left alone in hallways, forgotten in therapy rooms, and locked out of safe zones during lockdowns because there wasn’t a plan that accounted for them. New Jersey only recently passed legislation forcing districts to build disability-specific evacuation plans after families spoke out. The message we’re sending to Disabled kids here is that they’re on their own.
The Disability Justice Project's own reporting has already shown us what this looks like at our own border: a Deaf asylum-seeker was held for five months in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention without a sign language interpreter, ultimately unable to explain to anyone why he was afraid to go home. If disability access can vanish inside a US federal detention facility, we have no standing to act shocked that it vanishes during a flood or a fire.
This isn’t the kind of thing that’s unknowable, either. The data is out there, and the stories are plentiful. It’s simply not prioritized by those in power, and more often than not it’s unfunded. Disability still makes up just 2% of philanthropy, despite Disabled people comprising about 25% of the US population. Every dollar that goes toward disaster response, school safety, or immigration oversight without disability at the center is putting more Disabled folks in harm’s way. And even if that isn’t you, it could be your mother, father, child, friend, or neighbor. That’s why funding disability is more important than ever. We don't need another report to tell donors and policymakers that Disabled people die preventable deaths in emergencies.
Instead, we need them to stop treating that fact as new information every single time it happens. Funders, just like lawmakers and others in positions of power, need to wake up and see for themselves just what the disability community is up against.
If we can learn one thing from the security crisis in Nigeria, it’s that Disabled people deserve the same protections and safeguards that nondisabled people have in dangerous and precarious situations. It’s already too late, but in the US, in Nigeria, and in countless other countries, there’s still time to save many more Disabled lives.
Big Tech has done the impossible—they’ve united people from across the political spectrum around a singular issue: against data centers and AI.
If I told you that Big Tech billionaires have accomplished something rare in our incredibly divided country, you might laugh and assume I’m joking. But I couldn’t be more serious.
Through the data center buildout boom, Big Tech has done the impossible—they’ve united people from across the political spectrum around a singular issue: against data centers and AI. More than 70% of Americans oppose a data center being built near them.
There was a right way to roll out data center expansion and build support locally and nationally with a few basic but essential ingredients: transparency; local benefit; clean energy; and respect for peoples’ wishes to not be subjected to pollution, noise, added expenses, and wasteful water use. Like the best recipes, this would have been a little slower, deliberate, and less prone to burning.
But this sector—run by the mega rich, unconcerned with the struggles of everyday Americans—has instead delivered a masterclass on how to manufacture dissent.
Our communities, waterways, parks, and kids’ futures are not for sale.
How did they build such intense opposition so quickly?
Let’s start with secrecy. Tech companies—including the giants Microsoft, Amazon, OpenAI, and Google—have forced local elected officials across the country to sign non-disclosure agreements while they pursue data centers. The first time local residents hear about a data center being built in their hometown is often after it is already a done deal.
Communities get no say, but they do get higher utility bills. That is the next move in Big Tech’s playbook: increasing costs for communities when life is already unaffordable, so billionaires can become trillionaires.
Next comes round-the-clock noise from cooling fans that emit a constant low hum. When diesel backup generators are being tested or used continuously, it’s like living beside a helicopter taking off. And it’s not just the noise—communities suffer from air pollution impacts too. While many Big Tech companies were formerly champions of clean renewable energy, the Trump era has seen them embrace fossil fuels and power their data centers mostly with coal and methane gas. A Caltech and University of California Riverside study projects that data centers could contribute to 1,300 premature deaths and 600,000 asthma cases across the US in 2028.
Case in point: Microsoft, which just released its 2026 “environmental sustainability report”—quite the Orwellian title given the company’s ballooning pollution. Microsoft’s real-world emissions from powering its data centers have grown 178% from the start of the AI boom in 2020 to 2025, with a 2 million ton increase in carbon dioxide since just last year. That doesn’t include the estimated 15.5 million tons of carbon pollution expected to be emitted by just three mega data center projects announced this year. Microsoft’s voracious appetite for energy reached 37 million megawatt hours (MWh) in 2025—equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of Ireland. That’s what partnering with Chevron gets you.
Trying to spin these numbers into a climate-friendly narrative just adds fuel to the fire—as Microsoft’s chief sustainability officer Melanie Nakagawa saw firsthand recently at a PNW Climate Week event at Seattle City Hall. Audience members posed question after question challenging Nakagawa on the company’s talking points, while protesters chanted, “Microsoft, you can’t hide. We can see your dirty side.”
As if all this was not enough to fuel public backlash, it is clear that our children’s future job prospects are also in jeopardy. Collectively, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon have already laid off tens of thousands of employees thanks to AI. It is no wonder that executives delivering commencement speeches about the wonders of AI have been booed off the stage.
“But why stop there?” tech barons seem to ask. How about a data center that threatens the actual river from A River Runs Through It? Yes. Native American land? Sure. National Parks? Certainly. The Great Salt Lake in Utah, a refuge to 12 million migrating birds? Of course. Each overstep brings legions more into the big tent of data center resistance.
Finally, when protest reaches a fever pitch, criminalize it. The US Department of Justice seems to be targeting people who oppose data centers. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella have all embraced President Donald Trump, making this deeply unpopular sector even more despised.
If the tech sector wants these built, they need to do the opposite of everything they’ve done so far. Data centers must be done right, or not at all. Otherwise, community opposition will continue to grow and local politicians will fall in line with public opinion—as we’ve seen in hundreds of jurisdictions across the United States. And if AI’s purpose is to steal our kids’ jobs, create new demand for fossil fuels, and make the rich even richer, there is little hope for a recovery.
Our communities, waterways, parks, and kids’ futures are not for sale. The tech sector has demonstrated incalculable greed and adopted radically antidemocratic practices. It needs to now, somehow, convince people that it cares even a little about communities and our country. If they don’t change course fast, the dissent they manufactured will crush them and their data centers.
After RWE disclosed its new gas investments as part of the deal, one climate campaigner declared that "committing to reinvest over $1 billion in fossil fuels is a disastrous mistake."
Despite climate concerns and high prices from President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran, his administration continued its assault on offshore wind this week, using another "taxpayer-funded bribe" to convince a company to instead invest in fossil fuels.
The German company RWE announced Thursday that it had reached a settlement with the US Department of the Interior to relinquish offshore wind leases off the coasts of New York, California, and Louisiana for $1.22 billion.
"After careful consideration, it was determined there is no path forward to permit these projects in the US for the foreseeable future," the firm said in a statement. "The company determined that this resolution best serves the interests of its stakeholders and allows it to direct resources toward energy projects that can be advanced with certainty."
RWE also disclosed that it would put $900 million toward an indirect 16% stake in a Louisiana liquefied natural gas project, and $300 million toward turbines for a pipeline of 15 natural gas peaking projects across target US markets.
Reuters reported that the deal is "the fifth, and largest, the administration has entered into this year as part of its wide-ranging effort to stop development of US offshore wind projects," which Trump has fought against since before becoming president. His current term has featured various moves collectively condemned as a "war against renewables."
The RWE deal was ripped by climate and labor advocates, as well as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who said that "everything the Trump administration does can be summed up in four words: CORRUPTION AT YOUR EXPENSE."
"Trump is again spending billions of taxpayer money to limit the US energy supply in favor of exporting more energy to countries like China," Schumer wrote on social media. "This will only make your utility bill MORE expensive."
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum fired back at Schumer, claiming that "your climate extremist energy 'transition' was actually energy SUBTRACTION," and "ZERO taxpayer money will be spent. It's a dollar-for-dollar repurposing of RWE's own money."
RWE explained that it had "invested more than $1 billion toward the leases and the development of these projects," and the new agreement resolves the company's "legal claims and provides $1.22 billion in settlement funds."
House Natural Resources Committee Democrats Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) joined Schumer and other critics in railing against the deal, saying Friday: "Trump just paid RWE over $1 BILLION in taxpayer money to walk away from offshore wind projects—including a project off Humboldt in my district—and invest in fossil fuels instead."
"This fake, illegal settlement kills good-paying jobs, raises electricity costs, and rewards Big Oil with taxpayer dollars," he continued. "When the accountability comes, and I promise you it's coming, everyone involved in these deals will answer for it."
This potential settlement has been feared for months. In May, over 50 US groups "alarmed to learn that RWE was contemplating a deal" sent a letter urging CEO Mark Krebber to resist the Trump administration's "bullying" and "vendetta against offshore wind."
Among those organizations was Friends of the Earth US, whose senior energy campaigner Raena Garcia declared Friday that "committing to reinvest over $1 billion in fossil fuels is a disastrous mistake."
"The Trump administration won't be around forever, and any company that cuts a deal like this should expect accountability eventually," Garcia added.
The BlueGreen Alliance, which brings together environmental groups and labor unions, has a webpage tracking the costs of the buyouts, which so far include $3.9 billion in taxpayer money, 21.15 gigawatts of anticipated energy, and over 57,000 projected jobs.
"The Trump administration is relentless in its war on offshore wind," alliance executive director Jason Walsh said of the latest deal. "Billions of taxpayers' dollars have gone to waste along with tens of thousands of lost potential jobs. At a time when energy demand and costs are rising, we are disheartened by this latest buyout. Now working people on three coasts will no longer get to reap the benefits of the clean and reliable energy that would have come from these projects."
The settlements still face legal hurdles. New York Attorney General Letitia James announced in June that she is leading a coalition that includes AGs from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont in a lawsuit seeking to block one of them. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has sent a notice of intent to sue over another deal.
Despite Big Oil-backed Trump's attacks on renewables and support for climate-wrecking fossil fuels, new data shows that the United States is generating more power from the sun and wind than ever, as Common Dreams reported earlier Friday.
For example, in May, solar generation eclipsed every other source of electricity in Utah for the first time. Weber State University physics professor Dan Schroeder said that is "wonderful news for air quality, it's wonderful news for the climate, and it's wonderful news for jobs and the economy."
"Wind plus solar is on a tear right now," said one expert.
Despite the Trump administration's staunch support for the climate-wrecking fossil fuel industry and equally aggressive attacks on renewable energy, the US is generating more power from the sun and wind than ever, according to the latest figures on the matter.
Updated state-level data confirmed this week that solar generation eclipsed every other source of electricity in Utah for the first time in its history, with photovoltaic panels producing nearly 1 terawatt-hour in May. That's enough to power roughly 90,000 homes for an entire year, according to the US Department of Energy.
That amount represented nearly one-third of all electricity generated in Utah that month, according to data from the global energy think tank Ember. Natural gas generated 32% of Utah's electricity in May, while coal produced 28%, and wind 2%.
“The trend of more and more solar in Utah is wonderful news for air quality, it’s wonderful news for the climate, and it’s wonderful news for jobs and the economy,” Dan Schroeder, a physics professor at Weber State University in Ogden, told Grist in an article published on Thursday.
Meanwhile, California achieved an even more significant milestone. Solar was already the largest source of electricity generation in the Golden State. In May, solar produced 51% of California's electricity, the first time a renewable energy source generated more than half of a state's power for an entire month. Solar also outproduced natural gas in every month of 2026 through May, the last month confirmed.
Also in May, solar supplied more of the nation's electricity than coal for the first time, and solar and wind combined generated the majority of electricity in seven states and more than 30% of power in 20 states.
Good morning with good news: Solar & wind generated more than 50% of electricity in 7 US states & more than 30% in 20 states in May 2026! Top 10 S&W states:IA 67%SD 64%NM 63%CA 58.9%KS 58.3%MA 56.9%CO 51.8%VT 49%OK 48.6%ME 45.7%S&W generated 24.2% of US power in May.#energysky
[image or embed]
— John Hanger (@jrfhanger.bsky.social) August 7, 2026 at 4:42 AM
“We’re going to see milestones like this increasingly happen,” Logan Mitchell, a climate scientist and energy analyst with Utah Clean Energy, told Grist.
According to the US Energy Information Administration, approximately 51% of new utility-scale electricity generation in the United States is projected to come from the sun this year, as the nation is expected to add another 43.4 gigawatts of solar, compared to 6.3 gigawatts of natural gas generation and no new coal.
More broadly, the US produced nearly three times as much solar, wind, and geothermal power in 2025 than it did in 2016, with renewables accounting for more than 20% of the nation's power production, as shown by the recently launched State of Renewable Energy online dashboard published by Environment America Research & Policy Center and Frontier Group.
Renewables accounted for 21.4% of national retail electricity sales in 2025, up from just 8% in 2016. South Dakota led the nation by generating the equivalent of 95% of its retail electricity from wind, solar, or geothermal.
“In 2026, America is getting more power from the sun and wind than ever,” Wendy Wendlandt, president and chairwoman of Environment America Research & Policy Center, said in May. “Renewable energy is reliable, resilient, and shows up for free every day. When we replace polluting energy sources with solar and wind, it delivers a cleaner, healthier future for all Americans.”
The surge in renewables comes amid efforts by the administration of President Donald Trump—who ran on a "drill, baby, drill" energy platform during a 2024 presidential campaign generously supported by the fossil fuel industry—to boost oil, gas, and coal and roll back clean power initiatives.
At times, the Trump administration's animus toward renewables has been downright inane, like when Interior Secretary Doug Burgum—a billionaire who has personally profited from an oil lease on family land—infamously trashed solar by saying that "when the sun goes down, you have a catastrophic failure called sunset and there’s no solar energy produced," prompting some observers to question whether he's aware of batteries or how they work.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law by Trump last year includes billions of dollars in handouts for the fossil fuel industry, boosts drilling on millions of acres of public lands, mandates oil and gas lease sales, and imposes new fees on renewable development. A report published last month by BlueGreen Alliance revealed that "23 manufacturing, clean energy, and industrial projects are already facing cancellations and delays representing at least $82.8 billion in capital investment, which could cost 111,765 jobs."
Last month, Common Dreams reported that Trump's rollback of clean energy policies will cost American consumers $650 billion in additional energy bills by 2040, based on figures from the San Francisco-based energy and climate policy think tank Energy Innovations.
Trump has also twice withdrawn the US from the Paris Agreement, rolled back Environmental Protection Agency rules, signed pro-fossil fuel executive orders—including one declaring what critics say is a "phony" energy emergency—resumed and accelerated approvals for new natural gas export terminals following a moratorium enacted during the Biden administration, and paid billions of taxpayer dollars to kill clean energy projects around the world.
The “energy emergency” has been invoked to fast-track fossil fuel permits, including for extraction projects on public lands. This, despite overwhelming evidence that burning fossil fuels is the leading driver of the climate emergency.
Still, clean energy advocates are buoyed by recent reports of rising renewables.
"Wind plus solar is on a tear right now," said Mitchell. "We may have achieved liftoff."