Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services
The restoration recognises the history and architecture of the heritage-listed buildings.
In Brief:
The Sydney and Melbourne Buildings in Canberra City are being restored.
The restoration project is a joint effort between building owners and the ACT Government.
Consultation on the legislative process for the buildings’ Revitalisation Plan will open soon.
The work to restore the exterior of the iconic Sydney and Melbourne Buildings is picking up pace.
Here’s what you need to know about this project:
What does the work involve?
Repainting has started on the Melbourne Building on the corner of Alinga Street and Northbourne Avenue. This section includes the business frontages of:
Amici Wine Bar and Deli
Bistro Nguyen’s
Smith’s Alternative.
Who owns the Sydney and Melbourne buildings?
The Sydney and Melbourne Buildings are privately owned. They include four individual buildings with about 100 separate land titles. These have multiple owners, and no common management body.
The restoration recognises the history and architecture of the heritage-listed buildings. It is a shared project between the ACT Government and building owners. The work will restore and preserve these Canberra landmarks.
An owner’s outlook
Ravi Sharma is a Sydney Building property owner. “The façade repainting will lift these beautiful buildings and help create a standout feature for visitors to the city,” he said.
“As a building owner, I certainly appreciate the ACT Government’s support to preserve the character of these iconic buildings. The fresh façade will enhance the appeal of the businesses operating within them and be a drawcard for patrons.”
Who is paying for the work?
The ACT Government established a grants program to support building owners to repaint their building façades. Building owners have been offered a grant from the City Renewal Authority. This is to facilitate façade repainting work that is consistent with the cream and white colour scheme specified in the buildings’ Conservation Management Plan.
Over the last five years, the ACT Government has engaged with Canberrans about the potential for legislation to maintain the buildings. This has included:
building owners
businesses
the broader community.
The legislation would allow the Government to carry out and charge for the painting works if the building’s owners do not complete it themselves.
A final round of consultation on the legislative process for the buildings’ Revitalisation Plan will open soon. This will gather any outstanding comments on the plan before legislation to maintain the buildings is tabled with the ACT Legislative Assembly.
The plan has been developed over several years. City Renewal will seek feedback from the buildings’ property owners and interested heritage stakeholders before it is finalised.
When will the restoration be finished?
It is estimated that the façade repainting of both buildings will take 18 months to complete. Repainting of the building façades follows pavement, lighting and infrastructure upgrades to the buildings’ Odgers and Verity Lanes completed in 2023.
Read more like this:
Get ACT news and events delivered straight to your inbox, sign up to our email newsletter:
Overlooking Peel Bay on the Isle of Man. Clint Hudson
The production and use of toxic synthetic chemicals called polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were banned internationally more than 40 years ago. There is a great deal of evidence that they are carcinogens and hormone disrupters in mammals and can cause birth defects.
PCBs can build up in the tissues in increasing amounts over time (bioaccumulate) in long-lived animals and people exposed to them. They also biomagnify in the environment meaning they build up in food chains – smaller animals take them into their tissues, those are then eaten by larger animals (such as fish), which themselves are eaten by humans and marine mammals such as dolphins and seals living in Britain’s waters.
Despite these risks, the Isle of Man government – by its own admission – has been dumping toxic silt containing PCBs into the waters of Peel Bay and unlined landfills over the past decade. This is despite the fact these waters have been declared a Unesco biosphere.
Here, Patrick Byrne, Professor of Water Science at Liverpool John Moores University, questions freshwater scientist Calum MacNeil about why he thinks it is so important that the world, and particularly Unesco, takes notice about what’s being dumped into the sea around the Isle of Man.
When did you live on the Isle of Man and what was your exact role?
I lived on the Isle of Man for nearly 15 years (2004 – 2019) and left at the end of 2019.
From 2004 – 2007, I was the Isle of Man government’s freshwater biologist. From 2007 – 2017, I was the freshwater biologist and enforcement officer, responsible for regulation and enforcement of environmental matters related to controlled waters (all inland waters and coastal waters).
Where is the Isle of Man and what is the Unesco status it has earned?
The Isle of Man is a small island in the middle of the Irish Sea, located almost an equal distance from England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is British but not part of the UK: it is a self-governing dependency of the British Crown with its own government and laws. It is not part of the EU but is signed up to various international agreements on the environment.
Unesco is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. It began the biosphere programme in 1991, concentrating on the care of land, sea and species, as well as culture, heritage, community and economy.
According to the island government’s own fact sheet, biospheres have three functions: promoting sustainable development, conservation and learning. The sea makes up 87% of the Isle of Man Unesco biosphere.
Despite earning this status, evidence in the public domain shows that pollutants have been dumped into the sea. What’s been going on?
The Isle of Man government has been accused of deliberately dumping 4,000 tonnes of toxic silt from harbour dredging, which included synthetic industrial chemicals known as PCBs and heavy metals, in the Irish sea in 2014.
Despite extensive evidence in the public domain, this dumping was not mentioned once in the biosphere nomination documents, dated 2015. The nation’s biosphere website says the nomination process was “several years” in the making and the Unesco biosphere designation occurred in 2016 – only a relatively short time after the deliberate dumping in the Irish Sea.
The government has also allegedly discharged toxic PCB-contaminated effluent – known as called leachate – from an old landfill, called the Raggatt, directly into Peel Bay, an area which has one of the most popular public beaches on the island. Peel is one of three beaches (technically designated as non-bathing areas) on the island that recently failed to meet minimum standards for bathing waters.
I wasn’t aware of the details of the sea dumping of toxic silt until June 2022 when the employment tribunal findings related to the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture’s (Defa) ex-marine monitoring officer Kevin Kenningtonbecame public. This tribunal heard evidence that this was going on before, during and after the Unesco biosphere designation.
The Isle of Man is a signatory to the Oslo-Paris convention for the protection of the marine environment for the north-east Atlantic (Ospar). The convention specifies a maximum level of marine contaminants.
A decade on from its initial application, the Isle of Man is currently bidding to renew its Unesco Biosphere status in 2026.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
There does appear to be a lack of monitoring, at least in the public domain. Given the serious nature of the contaminants, I would expect the environmental regulator to monitor any PCBs detected in the environment and fully inform the public of any exposure risk.
The disposal of thousands of tonnes of contaminated silt into biodiverse waters could have had a serious negative impact on that bid. So, how did you discover that all was not as it seemed with the marine biosphere status?
Shortly after resigning from my post in 2017, I read an article in the local media about how the attorney general of the Isle of Man (the government’s senior legal advisor) believed it might be in the public interest to hold a full investigation into the discharging of potentially toxic material retrieved from an old landfill site that was being transported by tankers and taken to the sea. There were a number of statements made in that article that I found very concerning, such as the two below:
The then Environment Minister Richard Ronan told the House of Keys [the parliament of the Isle of Man] in July last year that levels of a range of metals, ammonia, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and 225 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) identified in the leachate exceed environmental quality standards, making it unsuitable for direct discharge into the River Neb.
The government said the leachate is subject to a large degree of dilution [as] it enters the sea. Samples are analysed regularly and the leachate “does not pose a risk to people swimming in Peel bay”.
To be clear, I knew at the time of reading this article in 2017 that there was no UK or EU environmental quality standard to legally allow a deliberate discharge of PCBs into either freshwaters (rivers and lakes) or to the sea. I knew this because PCBs are massively hydrophobic (water-hating) – meaning you shouldn’t have them suspended in effluent anyway because all they want to do is settle out at the bottom of whatever they are suspended in as soon as possible.
So, if you can detect them suspended in actual effluent you should be very worried about how much is built up or buried in the sediment accompanying that effluent. I knew the deliberate discharge of this was internationally banned and that it shouldn’t be going on into rivers or the sea.
I was even more alarmed when the article quoted a government spokesperson saying the leachate “does not pose a risk to people swimming in Peel Bay”. The government needs to prove that statement legally and scientifically because in the US and Europe there is a “risk averse” approach to PCB release.
This story and the government’s response was very concerning to me as an internationally banned carcinogen was being discharged deliberately to Peel bay, a popular public beach area, while the public were being told it was fine, legal and safe. I didn’t see how this could possibly be legal as regards international agreements.
A few months later, I was concerned about further silt dredging at Peel bay and was curious how Defa as a regulator would deal with avoiding the risk of resuspending previously buried PCBs.
Ospar gives guidance on this, as this is important as PCBs remain toxic for decades and dredging could obviously further increase the risk to the public and environment – resuspending any PCBs that had been previously buried under layers of sediment for decades would result in releasing another source of PCBs into the bay.
Was anyone concerned about possible pollution at the time of the Unesco application?
The Isle of Man government says it spent a great deal of time on the nomination process and the publicly available nomination documents are long and detailed and Defa was heavily involved in the application process and the details provided so they would have to answer that.
I don’t know if any other scientists were raising a red flag at the time, but I do refer you to Kevin Kennington’s tribunal findings which involved dumping toxic silt at sea and Defa officers were aware of this dumping in 2014. None of this was mentioned in the nomination document as far as I have been able to ascertain.
The tribunal found the toxic silt exceeded Ospar guidelines.
When The Conversation put that to Isle of Man government, it did not accept it was in contravention of the rules. But a spokesperson for the UK regulator, Defra told us: “Defra’s internal analysis concluded that the incident constituted actions that were not in accordance with the Ospar convention (Articles 4, and Annex II Art 4) and the 1996 London protocol on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter.”
What laws are involved here?
The 252-page-long nomination forms refer to the Water Pollution Act 1993. This is an act that makes “new provision for the protection of inland and coastal waters from pollution, to control deposits in the sea and for connected purposes”.
Some EU legislation is also applied to the Isle of Man, such as Ospar (the convention for protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic) and the Basel convention which governs how nations, including the Isle of Man, should treat and dispose of hazardous waste, including PCBs, in an environmentally sound way.
What are the most worrying impacts of the pollution here?
In my view, the deliberate tanker discharge of PCBs to Peel bay is extremely worrying from both an environmental and public health risk perspective, as is the dredging up of PCB contaminated silt in Peel harbour.
I’m alarmed by the fact that the Isle of Man government decided that it was not in the public interest to pursue the case for the discharge into the sea, given that international agreements were broken.
What needs to change in terms of governance and law enforcement?
I feel there needs to be international scientific and legal scrutiny of all of this. I believe both Unesco and the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) have a responsibility here as well given the international agreements involved and the biosphere designation. Given the biosphere status surely the Isle of Man government should be acting not just to the letter of the law but the spirit of the law.
What should a biosphere reserve really look like and what needs to change?
Ideally, the government in the world’s only all-nation Unesco biosphere would fully abide by its own principlesand pledges and adhere to international agreements.
For instance, the Isle of Man government set its own environmental quality standards (EQS) for PCBs – now, those won’t be breached by the levels of existing discharges. EQS values for soil, sediment, freshwater and marine environments are derived from years of research showing the maximum concentrations (or quality standards) that cannot be exceeded in order to protect human and environmental health.
As far as I’m aware, there is still no EQS for PCBs in effluent agreed to by the EU. There are PCB guidelines for sediment and biota (animals and plants) at the end of pipelines but these are more concerned with monitoring legacy historic sources of PCBs. I don’t know legally how the Isle of Man was able to do this despite international laws.
The Isle of Man government should be taking a far more precautionary approach to PCBs and potential public exposure, environmental damage and public health risk. They should be doing this anyway, but in the world’s only entire nation Unesco biosphere, I think the moral and legal onus is on them to prove what they are doing is safe. If they are saying it is safe, they obviously need to prove it. I think the onus is also on Unesco to check what is going on in their only all-nation biosphere, especially in the “care” areas of that biosphere.
Calum MacNeil raises some important questions about the very nature of Unesco biosphere status and about the safety of the waters in and around the Isle of Man. The public has a right to clear answers and information. Here are some of the key issues from my perspective as a water scientist.
Long-term health effects
The point about PCB sorption to sediments is a good one. An important study from 2019 estimated that 75% of all PCBs manufactured since 1930 now reside in marine sediment. Marine sediment is literally the waste bin for PCBs. Dilution in rivers is commonly used as a convenient way of masking the mass transport of chemicals through rivers and ultimately to the oceans. So, yes, dilution decreases concentrations locally, but it does not reduce the volume of chemicals transported to or disposed of at sea.
The PCB discharge to Peel bay has been going on since the 1990s which is worrying given possible long-term public health risks and environmental impacts.
Some of the metabolites may leave your body in a few days, but others may remain in your body fat for months. Unchanged PCBs may also remain in your body and be stored for years mainly in the fat and liver, but smaller amounts can be found in other organs as well. Once in our bodies, they can have toxic long-term health effects. Some are associated with fertility issues and they are classed as probable human carcinogens.
Persistence in the environment
Since the 1970’s, the gradual phasing out and banning of PCBs has led to dramatic reductions in their release into the environment. However, despite this, PCBs remain one of the biggest chemical threats to humans and wildlife worldwide. Why is this? Well, we know PCBs are very persistent in the environment, which means they last for decades to hundreds of years. Because of this persistence, they accumulate in living things and we know that at certain concentrations they can be very harmful to us.
It is also because of the widely held belief that “dilution is the solution to pollution”. Sure, dilution of effluent in a river reduces concentrations locally and might allow a government or an industry to meet an environmental quality guideline.
But where have the pollutants gone? They have not disappeared – remember PCBs may persist for hundreds of years. They have gone out to sea where they accumulate in sediments and living things. And we see the evidence and impacts of this all around us. For example, PCBs and other harmful chemicals are routinely detected in apex predators like orcas and whales and polar bears and we know this is negatively impacting their physiology and reproductive health.
PCBs have been detected in the Arctic and Antarctica and even in the Mariana trench in the deep ocean. This is the cumulative result of decades of PCB discharge into the seas from all around the world. We cannot do anything about PCBs that are already in the sea, but with everything we now know about how harmful and long-lasting these chemicals are, we really cannot knowingly continue discharging them into the sea.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Patrick Byrne receives funding from the UK Natural Environment Research Council.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (1st District of Maine)
In honor of Earth Day, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) reintroduced the Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA), comprehensive legislation that aims to help the U.S. reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural sector by 2040—while giving America’s farmers more tools and resources to increase their profitability.
“From historic droughts and wildfires to devastating floods and extreme weather, America’s farmers are directly impacted by the climate crisis,” said Pingree, a longtime organic farmer and senior member of the House Agriculture Committee. “With the Farm Bill in limbo and the Trump Administration actively undermining farmers’ interests, bold legislation like the Agriculture Resilience Act is more urgent than ever. These goals are ambitious—but they’re achievable. By helping farmers adopt practices that boost resilience and profitability, this bill charts a path to not only create a more sustainable future for America’s agriculture sector, but ensure greater economic viability for our farmers as well.”
“New Mexico’s agricultural producers and rural communities rely on the health of our land and water to sustain their families and communities. They are also the first to feel the impacts of climate change. That is why we need to provide our farmers and ranchers with new tools to not only protect their land and way of life, but also be part of the climate solution,” said Heinrich. “I’m pleased to reintroduce the Agriculture Resilience Act, which sets a national goal of achieving net-zero emissions in agriculture by 2040 through farmer-led, science-based initiatives. I’ll continue working to bring our communities the tools they need to improve soil health, expand conservation programs, increase research into climate-friendly agricultural practices, and support on-farm renewable energy projects.”
To reach net-zero agricultural emissions within the next 15 years, the ARA focuses on six concrete policy areas—and solutions that are rooted in science.
These goals include:
Increasing Research: The ARA would ensure existing agriculture research programs prioritize climate change research, increase funding for USDA’s Regional Climate Hubs, support public breed and cultivar research, and create a new SARE Agricultural and Food System Resilience Initiative for farmer and rancher research and demonstration grants.
Improving Soil Health: The ARA would create a new soil health grant program for state and tribal governments, authorize USDA to offer performance-based crop insurance discounts for practices that reduce climate risk, expand the National Agroforestry Center by authorizing three additional regional centers, and provide more technical assistance and flexibility in USDA conservation programs to support climate-smart practices.
Protecting existing farmland and supporting farm viability: ARA would increase funding for the Local Agriculture Market Program to help keep local farms profitable and create a new subprogram for farm viability and local climate resilience centers to help farmers reach new markets. The bill would also increase funding for the Agriculture Conservation Easement Program to make farmland affordable for the next generation.
Supporting pasture-based livestock systems: The ARA would create a new alternative manure management program to support an array of livestock methane management strategies and establish a new grant program to help small meat processors cover the costs associated with meeting federal inspection guidelines.
Boosting investments in on-farm energy initiatives: The ARA would increase funding for the Rural Energy for America Program to prioritize low-emissions electrification projects and direct USDA to study dual-use renewable energy and cropping or livestock systems.
Reducing food waste: The ARA would standardize food date labels to reduce consumer confusion about the shelf life of foods, create a new USDA program to reduce food waste in schools, and increase federal support for food waste research and outreach, composting, and anaerobic digestion food waste-to-energy projects.
The ARA is supported by dozens of national and local organizations including American Farmland Trust, the World Wildlife Fund, and Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, as well companies like Stonyfield and Organic Valley. Click here for a full list of endorsers.
READ WHAT ORGANIZATIONS ARE SAYING ABOUT THE ARA.
An organic farmer since the 1970s, Pingree has been recognized as a national policy leader on sustainable food and farming. Pingree is the founder of Congress’s first-ever Bipartisan Food Recovery Caucus and is Vice Chair of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition Climate and Agriculture Task Force. In addition to serving on the House Agriculture Committee, Pingree is a member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, where she serves as Ranking Member on the Interior and Environment Subcommittee and on the Agriculture Subcommittee.
TEL AVIV, Israel, April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Enlight Renewable Energy (“Enlight”, “the Company”, NASDAQ: ENLT, TASE: ENLT.TA), a leading renewable energy platform, announced that it has signed an agreement with Vishay Israel Ltd. for the supply of electricity valued at approximately $105m for a period of 12 years, and includes an option to significantly increase consumption volumes over the life of the contract.
Vishay joins other leading entities in Israel that have signed clean electricity supply agreements with Enlight in recent months, including the Weizmann Institute of Science, NTA Metropolitan Mass Transit, Amdocs, Big Shopping Centers, SodaStream, and Applied Materials.
Enlight, which owns the largest portfolio of renewable energy assets in Israel, is leading the transition of the country’s economy to clean power following the electricity market’s deregulation, which allows large consumers to enter into direct supply agreements with power producers.
The agreement with Enlight will help Vishay, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of discrete semiconductors and passive electronic components, to significantly reduce its electricity costs Israel. In addition, the related reduction in emissions will be equivalent to planting approximately 740,000 new trees per year or removing about 17,000 fuel-powered vehicles from the road each year.
Gilad Peled, CEO of Enlight MENA, commented, “Enlight congratulates Vishay, one of the largest electronic component manufacturers in the world, on its decision to switch its plants in Israel to clean and environmentally friendly energy. This deal follows a series of agreements we have reached with some of the highest-quality companies in Israel. These firms have chosen to lead on environmental responsibility, and are an example to the entire economy. In addition to its environmental benefits, the agreement with Enlight will allow Vishay’s plants in Israel to save millions of dollars on their electricity bills, and serves as another example of how renewable energy increases competition and reduces power costs in Israel.”
Boaz Bazak, Director of IEHS, Vishay Israel, commented, “The agreement marks a significant step in our ongoing commitment to sustainability and energy efficiency. This partnership will provide our manufacturing facilities with clean, reliable energy at lower rates, enhancing our operational efficiency and reducing our environmental impact. It aligns perfectly with our mission to promote sustainability and reduce our carbon footprint. By securing renewable electricity at a discounted price, we can continue to grow while supporting global efforts to combat climate change.”
About Enlight Renewable Energy
Founded in 2008, Enlight develops, finances, constructs, owns, and operates utility-scale renewable energy projects. Enlight operates across the three largest renewable segments today: solar, wind and energy storage. A global platform, Enlight operates in the United States, Israel and 10 European countries. Enlight has been traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange since 2010 (TASE: ENLT) and completed its U.S. IPO (Nasdaq: ENLT) in 2023. Learn more at www.enlightenergy.co.il.
About VishayIntertechnology
Vishay manufactures one of the world’s largest portfolios of discrete semiconductors and passive electronic components that are essential to innovative designs in the automotive, industrial, computing, consumer, telecommunications, military, aerospace, and medical markets. Serving customers worldwide, Vishay is The DNA of tech.Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. is a Fortune 1,000 Company listed on the NYSE (VSH). More on Vishay at www.vishay.com.
Contacts:
Yonah Weisz Director IR investors@enlightenergy.co.il
Erica Mannion or Mike Funari Sapphire Investor Relations, LLC +1 617 542 6180 investors@enlightenergy.co.il
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements as contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements contained in this press release other than statements of historical fact, including, without limitation, statements regarding the Company’s expectations relating to the Project, the PPA and the related interconnection agreement and lease option, and the completion timeline for the Project, are forward-looking statements. The words “may,” “might,” “will,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “target,” “seek,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “continue,” “contemplate,” “possible,” “forecasts,” “aims” or the negative of these terms and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, though not all forward-looking statements use these words or expressions. These statements are neither promises nor guarantees, but involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the following: our ability to site suitable land for, and otherwise source, renewable energy projects and to successfully develop and convert them into Operational Projects; availability of, and access to, interconnection facilities and transmission systems; our ability to obtain and maintain governmental and other regulatory approvals and permits, including environmental approvals and permits; construction delays, operational delays and supply chain disruptions leading to increased cost of materials required for the construction of our projects, as well as cost overruns and delays related to disputes with contractors; our suppliers’ ability and willingness to perform both existing and future obligations; competition from traditional and renewable energy companies in developing renewable energy projects; potential slowed demand for renewable energy projects and our ability to enter into new offtake contracts on acceptable terms and prices as current offtake contracts expire; offtakers’ ability to terminate contracts or seek other remedies resulting from failure of our projects to meet development, operational or performance benchmarks; various technical and operational challenges leading to unplanned outages, reduced output, interconnection or termination issues; the dependence of our production and revenue on suitable meteorological and environmental conditions, and our ability to accurately predict such conditions; our ability to enforce warranties provided by our counterparties in the event that our projects do not perform as expected; government curtailment, energy price caps and other government actions that restrict or reduce the profitability of renewable energy production; electricity price volatility, unusual weather conditions (including the effects of climate change, could adversely affect wind and solar conditions), catastrophic weather-related or other damage to facilities, unscheduled generation outages, maintenance or repairs, unanticipated changes to availability due to higher demand, shortages, transportation problems or other developments, environmental incidents, or electric transmission system constraints and the possibility that we may not have adequate insurance to cover losses as a result of such hazards; our dependence on certain operational projects for a substantial portion of our cash flows; our ability to continue to grow our portfolio of projects through successful acquisitions; changes and advances in technology that impair or eliminate the competitive advantage of our projects or upsets the expectations underlying investments in our technologies; our ability to effectively anticipate and manage cost inflation, interest rate risk, currency exchange fluctuations and other macroeconomic conditions that impact our business; our ability to retain and attract key personnel; our ability to manage legal and regulatory compliance and litigation risk across our global corporate structure; our ability to protect our business from, and manage the impact of, cyber-attacks, disruptions and security incidents, as well as acts of terrorism or war; changes to existing renewable energy industry policies and regulations that present technical, regulatory and economic barriers to renewable energy projects; the reduction, elimination or expiration of government incentives for, or regulations mandating the use of, renewable energy; our ability to effectively manage our supply chain and comply with applicable regulations with respect to international trade relations, the impact of tariffs on the cost of construction and our ability to mitigate such impact, sanctions, export controls and anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws; our ability to effectively comply with Environmental Health and Safety and other laws and regulations and receive and maintain all necessary licenses, permits and authorizations; our performance of various obligations under the terms of our indebtedness (and the indebtedness of our subsidiaries that we guarantee) and our ability to continue to secure project financing on attractive terms for our projects; limitations on our management rights and operational flexibility due to our use of tax equity arrangements; potential claims and disagreements with partners, investors and other counterparties that could reduce our right to cash flows generated by our projects; our ability to comply with tax laws of various jurisdictions in which we currently operate as well as the tax laws in jurisdictions in which we intend to operate in the future; the unknown effect of the dual listing of our ordinary shares on the price of our ordinary shares; various risks related to our incorporation and location in Israel; the costs and requirements of being a public company, including the diversion of management’s attention with respect to such requirements; certain provisions in our Articles of Association and certain applicable regulations that may delay or prevent a change of control; and other risk factors set forth in the section titled “Risk factors” in our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and our other documents filed with or furnished to the SEC.
These statements reflect management’s current expectations regarding future events and speak only as of the date of this press release. You should not put undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that future results, levels of activity, performance and events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or will occur. Except as may be required by applicable law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, after the date on which the statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
After more than three years of war, the prospects of peace for Ukraine remain slim. There is no obvious credible pathway even to a ceasefire, given Russia’s refusal to extend a brief and shaky truce over Easter. This, despite the US, UK and Ukraine all signalling their support for this idea.
And even if the considerable hurdles impeding a ceasefire deal could be overcome, a more fundamental problem would remain. None of the key players in the conflict appear to have a plan for an agreement that is likely to be acceptable to Kyiv and Moscow.
Previous plans, such as a joint proposal by China and Brazil in May last year which was supported by a Chinese-led “Friends of Peace” group were primarily focused on a ceasefire as a stepping stone to negotiations about an actual peace agreement.
This and other plans were all light on detail of what a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine would entail but were nonetheless roundly rejected by Ukraine and its western allies as favouring Russia. Given that a ceasefire would simply freeze the front lines and very likely make them permanent with or without a subsequent peace agreement, this was not an unreasonable position.
What Ukraine proposed instead, however – and what its western allies backed, at least rhetorically – was hardly more viable. The peace plan proposed by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in December 2022 was already on life support at the time of the first “Summit on Peace in Ukraine” in Switzerland in June 2024.
Only 84 of the 100 delegations attending the summit (out of 160 invited) supported a watered-down version of Zelensky’s plan in their final communique – and there was no agreement on a follow-up meeting. Ukraine’s peace plan was clearly dead in the water.
Ukraine then proposed an “internal resilience plan”. With its its focus on ensuring that the country can survive a long war of attrition with Russia, this is anything but a peace plan.
But it serves Kyiv’s needs to avoid an unconditional surrender to Moscow. This is also high on the agenda for Ukraine’s European allies who remain committed to supporting Kyiv.
For the emerging European coalition of the willing, it is important to keep Ukraine in the fight while they build up their own defences. They face the possibility of a new international order in which the world might well be carved up into US, Russian and Chinese spheres of influence.
Where the White House stands
Such a carve-up is at the heart of efforts by the US president, Donald Trump. Trump is trying to secure a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine as well as a deal that would give the US privileged access to Ukrainian resources.
The ceasefire deal Trump appears to envisage would divide Ukraine itself into spheres of influence according to a plan recently suggested by Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg. Yet even such a pro-Moscow arrangement that would offer Putin control of 20% of Ukraine continues to elude negotiators.
At present, the Russian president has few incentives to settle for less than his maximum demands and stop a war that he thinks he is still able to win on the battlefield – particularly given Trump’s unwillingness to exert any meaningful pressure on Russia.
At times, it now appears more likely that Trump will simply abandon his efforts to end the fighting in Ukraine. From a Russian perspective, this would be preferable to a ceasefire that freezes the conflict but doesn’t lead to a peace deal reflecting Moscow’s demands.
The likely calculation in the Kremlin is that even if the 2026 mid-term elections in the US water down Trump’s power, that still leaves two more years to conquer more Ukrainian territory. Should Washington then make another push for a ceasefire, Moscow could claim any additional conquests as a price for Ukraine to pay for a settlement.
The simple reason for this is that Russia’s and Ukraine’s positions on an acceptable outcome have not shifted. Putin remains committed to the full annexation of four complete Ukrainian regions as well as retaining Crimea. Zelensky has repeatedly ruled out territorial concessions and is broadly supported by Ukrainians in this stance.
For the west, the reality that a peace agreement is close to impossible on terms satisfying all sides has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. To the extent that there are any joint efforts by Ukraine, the US and the European coalition of the willing, they are completely centred on a workable ceasefire.
At a meeting of foreign ministers and high-level officials in Paris on April 17, discussions were focused on making such a ceasefire sustainable.
While details of how this can be achieved remain unclear, the fact that there now appears to be a more inclusive negotiations track signals progress, at least on the process of negotiations. Whether this will lead to an actual breakthrough towards a sustainable ceasefire, however, will depend on their substance and whether Ukraine and Russia can ultimately agree on terms about disengagement of forces, monitoring, and guarantees and enforcement mechanisms.
This is an already incredibly high bar, and the bar for a subsequent peace agreement is higher yet. In the current stage of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, a ceasefire is clearly a precondition for a peace agreement. But the sole focus on the former will not make the latter any more likely.
What’s more, given Russia’s track record of reneging on the Minsk ceasefire agreements of September 2014 and February 2015, investing everything in a ceasefire deal might turn out not just a self-fulfilling but a self-defeating prophecy for Ukraine and its supporters.
Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.
Tetyana Malyarenko does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Isle of Man government has said it is “fully committed to environmental protection and transparency” regarding its Unesco biosphere status – despite admitting that legacy landfill sites are discharging hazardous chemical contaminants into the sea.
The Isle of Man is a self-governing island in the Irish Sea between the UK and and Ireland. It is not part of the UK or the European Union, but has the status of “crown dependency” with an independent administration. Its population of about 84,000 people are British citizens.
But polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs) – synthetic industrial chemicals once used to make electricals and other materials – continue to be released into the waterways and the sea.
Although the production of PCBs was banned globally in the 1980s, they still exist in many products, like electrical equipment, much of which lingers in landfills and so they continue to pose a risk to ocean health. Research has shown how legacy contaminants such as PCBs can be released from hundreds of thousands of coastal landfills across Europe – and the Isle of Man is no different.
Evidence has been accumulating for years about PCB discharges on the Isle of Man and much of it is on the government’s own website.
For example, 4,000 tonnes of toxic silt from harbour dredging – which included PCBs and heavy metals was dumped in the Irish sea in 2014. This “trial dump” was despite environmental and legal advice from its marine monitoring officer that this would be ignoring international agreements and would be damaging to the environment.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
Then in 2015 – a time when it would have been putting together its Unesco application – the island government compiled a document, titled “the Peel Marina silt questions and answers” in which it discussed further toxic waste dumping options. It states:
Disposing of 18,000 tonnes of contaminated sediments from the marina directly to the sea bed would have had a negative impact on the species involved. Testing carried out by Defa [Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture] officers had already identified the likelihood that earlier disposal of 4,000 tonnes into the sea had contributed to rises in contaminants within commercial fisheries species to levels approaching EU food safety standards.
That batch of 18,000 tonnes of contaminated silt, collected after harbour dredging in Peel harbour, was eventually moved to a sealed pit.
But it is the ongoing situation with legacy landfills which is seeing PCBs continuing to leach into the sea – a situation that the island government admits will not be entirely solved until the construction of a wastewater treatment plant (building is due to start on the plant in April 2025).
But despite its pledges of being a destination with a “fantastic seascape…and coastline”, contaminated leachate from decommissioned landfill continues to drain into the marine environment.
The Isle of Man applied for the biosphere reserve status in 2013, which was awarded in 2016 based on the submission of a comprehensive 250-page nomination document. But there was no mention of toxic landfill leachate or the dumping of thousands of tonnes of contaminated harbour silt which later came to light.
The Isle of Man government told The Conversation that Unesco was aware of the discharges and that “biosphere status is not a hallmark of perfection”. It said its PCB discharges are in line with those of the UK.
But it raises the question of whether such pollution can be in line with the spirit of the biosphere status.
It is important to be clear that the Isle of Man is not unique in the British Islands in having managed disposal or unintentional discharges of legacy industrial wastes to the sea.
My team’s research (Patrick Byrne’s) documents thousands of coastal landfills in England and Wales, many of which discharge hazardous materials to the sea through leachates or erosion.
A Unesco biosphere reserve is not supposed to be perfect – almost nowhere is. But it should be a model for how we protect and sustainably manage our environment, including how we address legacy pollution. Why not highlight the issue of legacy industrial wastes as a challenge to be met?
The Isle of Man government rejects the idea that it misrepresented any of the facts around its environmental credentials.
But when The Conversation put the details to Unesco, it said it had not been made aware of previous dumping of toxic silt containing PCBs in 2014 and added that the first time the issue was raised with them was “in late 2023”.
A spokesperson said: “At the time of the nomination, the International Committee of the Unesco Biosphere Programme was not aware of this issue.”
The government told The Conversation it included “all information relevant for consideration by Unesco” when it made its application, but said certain discharges were not in the “zonation area” and that “nowhere is perfect”.
The major concern is about being open and honest with the public and Unesco about the environmental challenges and potential human health concerns associated with legacy pollutants like PCBs. It is entirely possible that the Isle of Man’s Unesco status would still have been granted if Unesco had been fully aware about the dumping at sea.
Landfills
The Conversation spoke to Calum MacNeil, a freshwater scientist who worked for the Isle of Man government for 13 years. He now works for a research institute in New Zealand but has been flagging concerns about contamination from toxic silt. Together with his help, we spent months gathering all of the evidence, checking the facts and joining the dots between silt dredged from a harbour, landfills and sealed pits aimed at temporarily dealing with this legacy pollution.
On the Isle of Man, historic landfills dating back to the 1940s are unlined so they are not sealed. After heavy rain, pollutants can wash away and leach out into the surrounding environment.
According to a 2017 news report, the government stated that the leachate “does not pose a risk to people swimming in Peel Bay” because it’s diluted by seawater. MacNeil insists that this is “a crucial admission” because he believes that the government cannot scientifically prove that any public exposure to PCB contamination is ever safe.
MacNeil said: “I feel there needs to be international scientific and legal scrutiny of all of this. I believe both Unesco and the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) have a responsibility here as well given the international agreements involved and the biosphere designation. Given the biosphere status, surely the Isle of Man government should be acting not just to the letter of the law but in the spirit of the law.”
Regulations
While various international regulations govern levels of chemical contamination in leachate in and immediately around old landfills, the same rules do not apply to anything that is deliberately dumped or discharged directly into rivers or the sea.
Isle of Man legislation called the Water Pollution Act 1993 outlines that any discharge or dumping must abide by any and all relevant international agreements that apply to the Isle of Man.
MacNeil argues that the onus should be on the Isle of Man government to prove that any discharge of PCBs is legal under international agreements.
Tourists and local residents swim all year round in bathing waters such as Peel Bay, and praise for this nation’s marine conservation achievements is vast. Last summer, the Isle of Man was even nominated for the “most desirable island in Europe” travel award hosted by magazine Wanderlust.
With goals to grow annual visitor numbers to 500,000, a thriving ecotourism industry could contribute an estimated £520 million by 2032. According to the island’s tourism agency, Visit Isle of Man, it aims to be “a leading British ecotourism destination that provides a range of opportunities for visitors to connect with our unique nature and wildlife”.
Contaminated silt was allegedly dredged from Peel harbour and dumped out at sea. Daniel Sztork/Shutterstock
As one 2022 study explains, biosphere reserves are “learning sites for sustainable development”. Researchers point out that a coherent and holistic approach on the Isle of Man is not necessarily easy to achieve, in part because the biosphere is managed by one government department (Defa) with a remit for environment, food and agriculture, resulting in “age-old tensions between farming and conservation”.
The Isle of Man government’s website states: “Our biosphere status encourages us to learn about and cherish what we have in the Isle of Man and safeguard it for the future by making good decisions, as individuals, as organisations and as an island. It tells potential new residents and visitors that we are a special place for people and nature and have a conscience.”
But without openly acknowledging the legacy pollution challenges, they are literally being buried for future generations. This ultimately undermines local, national, and international efforts to learn and move forward in a sustainable way, which is at the heart of the Unesco biosphere philosophy.
A spokesperson for the Isle of Man government said:
“The Isle of Man government remains fully committed to environmental protection and transparency regarding its Unesco Biosphere status. We reject any assertion that the government has acted to misrepresent environmental matters in its Unesco application.
“All relevant data and policies have been developed in line with scientific evidence and regulatory frameworks. The Isle of Man government conducts rigorous environmental monitoring, including assessments of water quality and potential contaminants, to ensure compliance with established safety standards.
“The Isle of Man has legacy landfill sites similar to those found in the UK, Europe and around the world which leach contaminants, including PCBs, into the marine environment. Details of PCB discharges from UK landfills can be found on the UK Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) data sets where the pollutant threshold below which data is not required to be submitted for PCBs in water is stated as 0.1kg.
“The level of PCBs entering the marine environment in the Isle of Man is slightly lower than the average throughout the Irish Sea as determined by sediment and biota samples.
“The leachate discharge from the historic Raggatt landfill, which closed in 1990, is planned to be discharged to Peel Wastewater Treatment Plant which has recently received planning permission and construction expected to commence by April 2025.
“As stated on the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture’s pollution control monitoring webpage: ‘Independent advice from Phoenix Engineering is that this would represent the best available technology to manage and control emissions of PCBs present in Raggatt landfill leachate to the marine environment in Peel.’
“Due to historic mining, heavy metals such as lead are known to flow down the river and accumulate in silt at Peel Marina, which has previously exceeded Cefas action level 2 where sediments are considered unacceptable for uncontrolled disposal at sea without special handling and containment. No further deposits to sea of Peel dredging silt have been made since 2014, and a catchment management plan is currently being developed to reduce this contamination at Peel Marina.
“The aim for all Unesco Biospheres is to improve our environment; something which the Isle of Man has consistently strived to achieve since accreditation in 2016.”
A spokesperson for Unesco said:
“Unesco first received information on this issue in late 2023, which was then relayed to the relevant government authorities for comments. Unesco was informed that the situation appeared to stem from the presence of a UK historic landfill which is being followed through a comprehensive monitoring programme.
“Following Unesco’s request, the UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs confirmed that ‘it is in line with the UK government’s responsibilities under the Ospar convention, and are satisfied the Isle of Man government is taking all possible steps to prevent and eliminate pollution of PCBs from land-based sources entering the marine environment in line with Article 3 of the Ospar convention’.
“In the original application dossier, the Isle of Man committed to ‘take responsibility for overseeing salvage and pollution counter-measures in order to comply with international conventions’. It also committed to observing a range of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).
“As the Isle of Man Biosphere Reserve was designated in 2016, its periodic review is scheduled for 2026. Unesco will make all information available to the Intergovernmental Committee in charge of examining the renewal of the status.”
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Patrick Byrne receives funding from the UK Natural Environment Research Council.
Anna Turns does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
I first spoke to freshwater scientist Calum MacNeil in February 2022. He explained to me that The Isle of Man – a self-governing island in the Irish Sea between the UK and and Ireland – was being cast as world’s only “all-nation” Unesco biosphere reserve.
He explained how, in 2014, before its Unesco designation, contaminated silt was deliberately dumped in the Irish Sea. While designated as a biosphere, contaminated silt dredged from a marine harbour has been contained in a sealed pit but leachate from that has discharged into Peel Bay, where people regularly swim from the sandy beaches.
As an environmental journalist, the story stood out to me and the more we spoke, the more the plot thickened.
I spent hours of my spare time digesting the evidence he sent me – all of it in the public domain. Government reports, online pollution policies, local news coverage, the biosphere nomination documents.
MacNeil, who worked for the Isle of Man government between 2004 and 2017, knew what he was talking about.
But the more I looked into this, the more I felt up against smoke and mirrors. Beautiful beaches, clean seas and a thriving ecotourism destination (according to the government’s tourism marketing). Contrast that with contaminated waste ending up in the ocean.
Three years on, and The Conversation’s Insights team and I have been working closely with Professor of Water Science at Liverpool John Moores University, Patrick Byrne. He has analysed and interpreted the consequences of this pollution.
While pollution is rife around the world to a certain extent, this instance is particularly shocking, he explains.
Now, The Conversation is proud to present our exclusive Insights investigation, Leaked, in two key parts. An introductory news article written Byrne explains the backstory and highlights the prominence of Isle of Man’s Unesco biosphere status.
Further analysis unfolds in an in-depth Q&A between Byrne and MacNeil. Byrne explains the gravity of legacy contamination from synthetic toxic chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and why transparency is so key.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Residents and businesses are being invited to share their views on a proposal to expand York’s existing Smoke Control Area to cover all areas within council boundaries.
In a Smoke Control Area, it is an offence to emit smoke from a chimney of a building. Correctly seasoned wood, timber or logs should only be burnt in a Defra approved appliance and authorised ‘smokeless’ fuels must be used in any other appliances that are not Defra approved.
Most residential areas within York’s outer ring road and Haxby and Wigginton, are already included within York’s Smoke Control Area.
The new proposal to expand the area across York will not ban people from burning solid fuel. Instead, it will require all residents and businesses to take responsibility for the fuel they burn – to minimise smoke and air pollution and improve health and wellbeing.
Houseboats are not covered by the existing Smoke Control Areas and are not proposed to be covered by the expanded area. Garden bonfires, outdoor barbecues, chimineas and firepits are also not covered by Smoke Control Area rules.
The Council has previously consulted on measures to improve local air quality and reduce the impact of burning solid fuels such as wood (AQAP4). Burning of wood contributes to a type of pollution called fine particulate matter (PM2.5) both inside and outside the home. Around a third of PM2.5 emissions in York are caused by burning wood for heating.
Cllr Jenny Kent, Executive Member for Environmentand Climate Emergency, said:
“Everyone can be affected by air pollution, but children, older people and those with heart and lung conditions are especially at risk.
“We are committed to improving the health and wellbeing of the local community and improving local air quality is one way in which we are working to achieve this.
Cllr Steels-Walshaw, Executive Member for Public Health, said:
“Emissions of fine particulate matter present in smoke are particularly harmful to health as their size means they can get deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream to be transported around the body.
“Expanding the Smoke Control Area willprovide cleaner air for all and provide a level playing field across the city.”
Any complaints of chimney smoke will be investigated in line with the Council’s current enforcement policy, which initially requires the Council to provide advice on the use of suitable appliances and fuels. Residents struggling with the cost of heating will be signposted to advice on accessing financial and practical help on heating their homes.
Following advice, Council officers can issue penalties of up to £300 where they witness the emission of smoke from a chimney in a Smoke Control Area. Those found to be selling or buying unauthorised fuel for use in an appliance that’s not approved by Defra can also face fines of up to £1,000.
A Des Moines Water Works employee takes samples from a nearby river for analysis. The regional water utility delivers drinking water to more than 500,000 Iowans.AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall
Before Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, U.S. factories and cities could pipe their pollution directly into waterways. Rivers, including the Potomac in Washington, smelled of raw sewage and contained toxic chemicals. Ohio’s Cuyahoga River was so contaminated, its oil slicks erupted in flames.
That unchecked pollution didn’t just harm the rivers and their ecosystems; it harmed the humans who relied on their water.
The Clean Water Act established a federal framework “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”
As an attorney and law professor, I’ve spent my career upholding these protections and teaching students about their legal and historical significance. That’s why I’m deeply concerned about the federal government’s new efforts to roll back those safeguards and the impact they’ll have on human lives.
A fire of an oil slick on the Cuyahoga River swept through docks at the Great Lakes Towing Company site in Cleveland in 1952, one of several times that pollution in the river caught fire. Bettman/Getty Images
Amid all the changes out of Washington, it can be easy to lose sight of not only which environmental policies and regulations are being rolled back, but also of who is affected. The reality is that communities already facing pollution and failing infrastructure can become even more vulnerable when federal protections are stripped away. Those laws are ultimately meant to protect the quality of the tap water people drink and the rivers they fish in, and in the long-term health of their neighborhoods.
A few of the most pressing concerns in my view include the government’s moves to narrow federal water protections, pause water infrastructure investments and retreat from environmental enforcement.
Diminishing protection for US wetlands
In 2023, the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of “waters of the United States.” In its decision in Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency, the court determined that only wetlands that maintained a physical surface connection to other federally protected waters qualified for protection under the Clean Water Act.
Wetlands are important for water quality in many areas. They naturally filter pollution from water, reduce flooding in communities and help ensure that millions of Americans enjoy cleaner drinking water. The Clean Water Act limits what industries and farms can discharge or dump into those waterways considered “waters of the U.S.” However, mapping by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that upward of 84%, or 70 million acres, of the nation’s wetlands lacked protection after the ruling.
The Sackett ruling also called into question the definition of “waters of the U.S.”
The Trump EPA, in announcing its plans to rewrite the definition in 2025, said it would make accelerating economic opportunity a priority by reducing “red tape” and costs for businesses. Statements from the administration suggest that officials want to loosen restrictions on industries discharging pollution and construction debris into wetlands.
Toxic algae blooms fueled by farm, urban and industrial runoff can trigger fish kills and shut down beaches for days, harming tourism businesses. Joe Raedle/Getty Images
This marks a shift away from the federal government protecting wetlands for the role they play in public health and resilience. Instead, it prioritizes development and industry – even if that means more pollution.
Pausing investment for rebuilding crumbling infrastructure
Public water systems across the country have been falling into disrepair in recent decades due to aging and sometimes dangerous infrastructure, as cities with lead water pipes have discovered.
The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s drinking water, stormwater and wastewater infrastructure grades of a C-minus, D and D-plus, respectively, in its 2025 Infrastructure Report Card. The group estimates that America’s drinking water systems alone need more than $625 billion in investment over the next 20 years to reach a state of good repair.
Jackson, Miss., volunteers distributed bottled water to residents in 2022 after the aging water system failed. AP Photo/Steve Helber
Congress passed the Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act to help pay for updating drinking water, wastewater and stormwater systems. That included replacing lead pipes and tackling water contamination, especially in the most vulnerable communities. Many of the same communities also have high poverty and unemployment rates and histories of racial segregation rooted in government discrimination.
These aren’t abstract problems; they’re happening right now, in real communities, to real people.
Dropping lawsuits meant to stop pollution
The Trump administration’s decision to drop from some environmental enforcement lawsuits filed by previous administrations is adding to the risks that communities face.
The administration argues that these decisions are about reducing regulatory burdens – dropping these lawsuits reduces costs for companies.
However, stepping back from these lawsuits leaves the communities without a meaningful way to put an end to the long-standing harms of environmental pollution. Few communities have the resources to litigate against private polluters and must rely on regulatory agencies to sue on their behalf.
Real lives are affected by these changes
What America is seeing now is more than a change in regulatory approach. It’s a step back from decades of progress that made the nation’s water safer and communities healthier.
President Donald Trump talked repeatedly on the campaign trail about wanting clean air and clean water. However, the administration’s moves to reduce protection for wetlands, freeze infrastructure investments and abandon environmental enforcement can have real consequences for both.
At a time when so many systems are already under strain, it raises the question: What kind of commitment is the federal government really making to the future of clean water in America?
Jeremy Orr works for Michigan State University College of Law and Earthjustice.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jay Rickabaugh, Assistant Professor of Public Administration, North Carolina State University
Last year was a record year for disasters in the United States. A new report from the British charity International Institute for Environment and Development finds that 90 disasters were declared nationwide in 2024, from wildfires in California to Hurricane Helene in North Carolina.
The average number of annual disasters in the U.S. is about 55.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency provides funding and recovery assistance to states after disasters. President Donald Trump criticized the agency in January 2025 when he visited hurricane-stricken western North Carolina. Though 41% of Americans lived in an area affected by disaster in 2024, according to the institute’s report, the Trump administration is reportedly working to abolish or dramatically diminish FEMA’s operations.
But I believe the current discussion about FEMA handling U.S. disasters puts the emphasis in the wrong place.
As a scholar who researches how small and rural local governments cooperate, I believe this public debate demonstrates that many people fundamentally misunderstand how disaster recovery actually works, especially in rural areas, where locally directed efforts are particularly key to that recovery.
I know this from personal experience, too: I am a resident of Watauga County, in western North Carolina, and I evacuated during Hurricane Helene after landslides severely impaired the roads around my home.
When disaster strikes
Here, in short, is what happens after a disaster.
Federal legislation from 1988 called the Stafford Act gives governors the power to declare disasters. If the president agrees and also declares the region a disaster, that puts federal programs and activities in motion.
Yet local officials are generally involved from the very start of this process. Governors usually seek input from state and local emergency managers and other municipal officials before making a disaster declaration, and it is local officials who begin the disaster response.
That’s because small and rural local governments actually have the most local knowledge to lead recovery efforts in their area after a disaster.
Local officials determine conditions on the ground, coordinate search and rescue, and help bring utilities and other infrastructure back online. They have relationships with community members that can inform decision-making. For example, a county senior center will know which residents receive Meals on Wheels and might need a wellness check after disaster.
However, small towns cannot do all this alone. They need FEMA’s money and resources, and that can present a problem. The process of applying and complying with the requirements of the grants is incredibly complex and burdensome. According to FEMA’s website, there are eight phases in the disaster aid process, composed of 28 steps that range from “preliminary damage assesment” to “recovery scoping video” to “compliance reviews” and “reconciliation.” Getting through these eight phases takes years.
Larger cities and counties frequently have dedicated staff that apply for disaster aid and ensure compliance with regulations. But smaller governments can struggle to apply for and administer state or federal grants on their own – especially after a disaster, when demands are so high.
That’s where regional intergovernmental organizations come in. Every region has its own name for these entities. They’re often called councils of government, regional planning commissions or area development districts. My colleagues and I call them RIGOs, for their initials.
What is a RIGO?
No matter the name, RIGOs are collaborative bodies that allow local governments to cooperate for services and programs they might not otherwise be able to afford. Bringing together local elected officials from usually about three to five counties, RIGOs help local officials cooperate to address the shared needs of everyone in their area. They do this in normal times; they also do this when disasters strike.
RIGOs operate throughout most of the U.S., in big cities and rural areas, in turbulent times and in calm. They serve different needs in different regions, but in all cases, RIGOs bring together local elected officials to solve common problems.
One example of this in western North Carolina is the Digital Seniors project, launched during COVID-19. Here, the local RIGO is called the Southwestern Commission. In 2021, the RIGO area agency on aging coordinated with the Fontana Regional Library to help dozens of elders who had never been connected to the internet get online during the pandemic. The Southwestern Commission used its relationships with the local senior centers to identify people who needed the service, and the library had access to hot spots and laptops through a grant from the state of North Carolina.
In rural areas, RIGOs work alongside regional business and nonprofits to allow local governments to offer regular services and programs they might not otherwise be able to afford, such as public transportation, senior citizen services or economic development.
Part of that work is helping member governments navigate the maze of federal and state funding opportunities for the projects they hope to get done, often by employing a specialized grant administrator. Each small local government may not have enough work or revenue to justify such a staff member, but many together have the workload and funding to hire someone specially trained to abide by the rules of funding from states and the federal government.
This system helps small local governments receive their fair share in federal grant money and report back on how the money was spent.
Transparency, technical compliance and action
Disasters rarely respect borders. That’s why governments generally work together to distribute grant money for rebuilding communities.
Similarly, after disastrous flooding hit Vermont in 2023 and 2024, another RIGO, the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission, jumped into action. It quickly provided emergency communication to the 23 small villages and towns in its region and has since supported local governments applying for grants and reimbursements.
Rebuilding after a disaster is a long, arduous process. It begins after national journalists and politicians have left the area and continues for years. That would be true no matter how Trump restructures emergency aid: The damage is massive, and so is the repair.
For example, here’s how western North Carolina looks six months after Helene: Most businesses have reopened, most folks have running water again, and people can drive in and out of the area.
But many roads are still full of broken pavement. Mud from landslides presses up against the sides of the highway, and condemned housing teeters on the edge of ravaged creek beds.
It is, in other words, too soon to see the full impact of local government efforts to rebuild my region. But RIGOs across the region are hiring additional temporary staff to help local governments get federal money and comply with complex guidelines. Their support ensures that decisions affecting North Carolinians are voted on by the city and county leaders they elected – not decreed by governors or handed down from Washington, D.C.
Locally led rebuilding is slow and difficult work, yes. But it is, in my opinion, the most community-responsive way to deal with disaster.
Jaylen Peacox, a graduate student in public administration at North Carolina State University, contributed to this story.
Jay Rickabaugh receives grant funding from the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
LIBERTY LAKE, Wash., April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Power Over Energy®, an energy literacy initiative backed by Itron, is celebrating Earth Day and its 12th anniversary with the launch of a new website, new interactive educational content, and continued growth around the world.
Consumer energy literacy is more important than ever for building a cleaner energy future. Consumer education plays a crucial role in the adoption of energy-efficient technologies and participation in energy-saving programs. According to an Itron Resourcefulness Report, 43% of utilities believe consumers play a critical role in speeding the clean energy transition by understanding the importance of sustainable energy, adopting more energy efficient appliances, participating in demand response programs and changing their daily consumption behavior to align with grid needs.
This year’s Earth Day theme, “Our Power, Our Planet,” underscores the importance of individual action and collective responsibility—an idea at the heart of Power Over Energy’s mission. The campaign’s focus on improving energy literacy directly supports this call to action, empowering people to make smarter energy choices that contribute to a more sustainable future.
Since its launch in 2013, Power Over Energy has been dedicated to increasing awareness about the impacts of energy and water consumption, climate disruption and inspiring people with hope through innovative solutions and personal actions to help create a more resourceful world. The literacy initiative has reached 276 million consumers around the world and gained a global following across Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and X.
Power Over Energy’s new website showcases energy and climate challenges and solutions through blog posts, videos and the new and wildly popular Power Play Quiz Game. The initiative educates and inspires followers through monthly educational campaigns, newsletters, and social media posts on topics including the challenges posed by climate disruption; solutions that span clean energy, conservation, smart cities, transportation and water; and opportunities to take action.
The new website expands its Power Play Quiz Game to include five new versions, each aligned with a key solution area from the website: Smart Cities, Clean Energy, Transportation, Water, and Conservation. These interactive quizzes engage users in a fun, educational way, empowering them with knowledge to take meaningful action toward a more sustainable future.
“It’s been gratifying to see the momentum and following that the Power Over Energy initiative has achieved,” said Marina Donovan, Itron’s vice president of global marketing, ESG and public affairs. “Power Over Energy is dedicated to educating consumers about the impacts of energy and water consumption. The new website helps consumers better understand the challenges of climate disruption and the solutions to help us adapt to our changing world. As we recognize and celebrate Earth Day, unveiling Power Over Energy’s new website reaffirms our commitment to educate people how to create a more resourceful world.”
“Energy and water are both critical resources, and what most people don’t realize is that they depend on each other. If there is a shortage or constraint in one, it leads to a shortage and constraint in the other. Educating consumers about the importance of protecting these resources and inspiring the next generation of innovators to address these challenges is crucial. With Power Over Energy’s new website and more Power Play Quiz Games, the initiative creates an engaging environment for educating website visitors,” said Dr. Michael Webber, Sid Richardson Chair in Public Affairs and the John J. McKetta Centennial Energy Chair in Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin.
About Power Over Energy Power Over Energy is an energy literacy initiative dedicated to increasing awareness about the impact of our current energy and water consumption, the benefits of energy efficiency, the interconnectedness between energy and water, and the importance of modernizing the electricity grid and deploying smart city technologies. Explore the new website at poweroverenergy.org and test your knowledge by playing the Power Play Quiz Game.
About Itron Itron is a proven global leader in energy, water, smart city, IIoT and intelligent infrastructure services. For utilities, cities and society, we build innovative systems, create new efficiencies, connect communities, encourage conservation and increase resourcefulness. By safeguarding our invaluable natural resources today and tomorrow, we improve the quality of life for people around the world. Join us: www.itron.com.
Itron® and the Itron Logo are registered trademarks of Itron, Inc in the United States and other countries and regions. All third-party trademarks are property of their respective owners and any usage herein does not suggest or imply any relationship between Itron and the third party unless expressly stated.
For additional information, contact:
Itron, Inc.
Alex Morin Corporate Communications Specialist PR@Itron.com
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Trevor Swerdfager, Practitioner-In-Residence, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, University of Waterloo
Canada’s biodiversity is in decline. Globally, climate change, urbanization, overexploitation of resources and habitat loss are combining to drive biodiversity loss across all ecosystems.
Laws matter. They codify societal values and priorities, define acceptable behaviours and establish the government programs and institutions needed to tackle complex problems. Canadian biodiversity law is neither meeting today’s challenges nor positioning us for the future.
Over the years, important additions to these acts include habitat and sustainability provisions to the Fisheries Act in 1977 and 2019 respectively, and a 2011 amendment to the CNPA, requiring that National Parks be managed to ensure their “ecological integrity.”
Nevertheless, several of the laws are pre-date the Second World War and all pre-date the internet, climate change and current biodiversity science.
Whooping cranes are considered endangered, and are protected under the Species at Risk Act. (Shutterstock)
Disconnected approach
Canadian biodiversity laws evolved through multiple unconnected legislative events over 150 years. They legislatively fragment the environment into separate components and fracture accountability into multiple agencies. They entrench program silos fostering conflicting departmental priorities and operational inefficiencies.
They establish no biodiversity goals, reporting mechanisms or mandates for biodiversity science. Their structures impedes public data sharing and transparency, dissuades Indigenous engagement and consistently sparks federal-provincial tensions.
Nothing on the horizon suggests that these shortcomings will be addressed through new leadership, new policy or plain old good luck. On the contrary, these laws seem destined to yield the same sub-optimal outcomes.
The Jefferson salamander is listed as endangered by both federal and provincial legislation. (iNaturalist/evangrimes), CC BY
Meeting the challenge
If we are to meet current and future biodiversity conservation challenges, we must develop a new legislative approach. This approach should support the creation of modern biodiversity programs and institutions and drive integrated, transparent and inclusive decision-making.
Our work suggests that we need a single unified law for biodiversity: a Canadian Biodiversity Conservation and Protection Act (CBCPA). A new act of this kind would replace the existing nine laws and could usefully include:
Principles requiring — not just encouraging — nature-positive programs emphasizing biodiversity, science, ecosystems, transparency, accountability and inclusivity.
Mandated biodiversity target and objective setting, including those of the Global Biodiversity Framework. This should also include reporting measures that offer actionable insights into program effectiveness and delivery improvement opportunities.
Requirements for the use and public documentation of science in decision-making, including the requirement that all government biodiversity data should be made available to the public.
Establishment of governance arrangements embracing Indigenous rights and interests, as well as mechanisms to bring conservation communities together around collective actions, facilitated by a new Biodiversity Conservation Fund.
Creation of a Biodiversity Conservation Agency to fuse the existing four agencies into one, and establish clear ministerial accountability and a stronger voice for biodiversity in Cabinet.
Operational elements governing the establishment and operation of protected areas, the management of fish and migratory birds, and the protection and recovery of species at risk in a cohesive and mutually reinforcing manner.
A CBCPA would dramatically improve policy and regulatory certainty for industry. It would drive program cohesion and efficiency, build trust in government decision-making and facilitate intra- and inter-governmental collaboration. It would remove key obstacles to biodiversity conservation success and create the societal conditions so urgently needed to reverse biodiversity decline in Canada.
This would obviously be an ambitious legislative project replete with substantive policy and political challenges. But the importance of biodiversity to Canada’s ecological, economic and social well-being is difficult to overstate. Maintaining the legislative status quo or adopting minimalist incrementalism is unwise.
As we transform our economic and trade systems in Canada to grapple with climate change, a fundamental shift in how we conserve and protect biodiversity is equally vital. This is a time for ambition, not apathy.
Derek Armitage has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Trevor Swerdfager does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Headline: Rosneft Continues Research into Rare Bird Species
1 April is International Bird Day, established to raise awareness of the need to conserve the diversity and numbers of birds in their natural habitats.
Environment protection is an integral part of the Company’s corporate culture and operation principles. The Company is particularly committed to the study of birds.
As part of the new Tamura Biodiversity Conservation Programme, a major expedition to the Brekhovsky Islands and adjacent areas of the Gydan Peninsula in the north of Krasnoyarsk Territory was organised during the 2024 field season. In the ornithological area of international importance, 60 species have been recorded, among them: the peregrine falcon, the barnacle, the water scoter and the long-tailed duck, as well as the Siberian chiffchaff, the red-winged thrush and the brown thrush. Scientists have noted movements of tundra swans, geese, ducks and gulls in these areas. The work will clarify the abundance and species composition of the herds.
The company supports research on red listed birds in the Sakhalin region and Khabarovsk territory. For example, the Komsomolsk refinery (part of Rosneft’s oil refining complex) and scientists from Zapovedniy Priamurye continue to implement the Under the Strong Wing project to protect Steller’s sea eagles, the largest member of the eagle family. On the territory of the Komsomolsky Nature Reserve, photo and video cameras have been installed, which make it possible to observe bird families in summer and early autumn. During the previous stages of the project, ornithologists identified the location of the birds’ nests. A five-day snowmobile expedition was organised to install the camera traps. Scientists are also planning to use quadrocopters to survey the eagle population in the Komsomolsky Reserve, and a five-day snowmobile expedition has been organised to install the camera traps.
In addition, as part of the Under the Strong Wing project, its participants carry out environmental education activities for young people in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. On International Bird Day, the reserve’s specialists gave an informative talk with a quiz for children.
Samara’s oil workers are helping ornithologists to preserve another member of the eagle family — the white-tailed eagle. This year, Rosneft’s Samara Group of Enterprises summarised the results of the first stage of a grant competition for research projects to study this rare bird in the region. Scientists from Samarskaya Luka National Park carried out a series of activities aimed at studying the habitats and increasing the population of the red-listed bird. They identified nesting areas, recorded nest locations and key demographic indicators — the number of eggs in the clutch and the number of chicks hatched. Today, work is underway to create a map of the white-tailed eagle’s habitat in the Samara region.
With the support of RN-Uvatneftegaz, the white-tailed eagle is also being studied in the Tyumen region. In 2024, the results of a grant project to study the population of this species were summarised there, and with the support of RN-Uvatneftegaz, the white-tailed eagle is also being studied in the Tyumen region. As part of the project, scientists from Tyumen State University created a biotechnical programme aimed at increasing the number of white-tailed eagles and prepared an e-book «Birds of the Southern Tyumen Region». Ornithological work of this kind in the south of the Tyumen Region was carried out for the first time.
RN-Vankor supported a scientific expedition to the Taymyrsky Dolgano-Nenetsky District of Krasnoyarsk Territory, where scientists studied wild goose populations, including those listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation. The large amount of data collected during the fieldwork will provide an overview of the current population status and nesting sites of geese species.
In addition, since 2020, Rosneft, together with the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, has been conducting extensive research on the white gull, a rare bird species listed in Russia’s Red Book. Expeditions were carried out to hard-to-reach areas on the islands of the Kara Sea — Wiese, Golomyanny, Sredny and Domashny. Scientists carry out aerial surveys, ring adult white gulls, install GPS trackers and collect biological material from the birds.
Department of Information and Advertising Rosneft April 1, 2025
The Government of Jersey has launched its Financial Services Competitiveness Programme, a major strategic initiative aimed at strengthening Jersey’s position as a globally attractive and forward-looking International Finance Centre (IFC).
This comprehensive programme is designed to support and enhance Jersey’s financial and related professional services (FRPS) sector – the Island’s largest employer and the most significant contributor to tax revenues that fund public services. It brings together several government departments, the Jersey Financial Services Commission (JFSC), Jersey Finance, Digital Jersey, and representatives from across the financial and professional services industry.
The Financial Services Competitiveness Programme will deliver clear, actionable recommendations focused on improving Jersey’s regulatory and business environment, enhancing its global positioning, and preparing the sector for future opportunities and challenges.
The programme is governed by a Ministerial Working Group, chaired by the Minister for External Relations with responsibility for Financial Services, Depuy Ian Gorst, with the Chief Executive Officer, Dr Andrew McLaughlin, acting as the Senior Responsible Officer. They will be supported by a cross-government team of officials.
Deputy Ian Gorst said: “Jersey’s financial services industry is a key growth engine of our economy. It is central to Jersey’s prosperity and our ability to reinvest in and regenerate the Island. Through the Financial Services Competitiveness Programme, we are setting out a bold, coordinated plan to ensure Jersey remains an attractive, agile, and forward-looking International Finance Centre.
“This initiative shows that we are not content to stand still – we are proactively investing in the Island’s future, and working in partnership across government, industry, and the regulator to deliver sustainable, long-term success.
“Jersey has a proud 60-year history as a trusted, stable, and innovative IFC. However, global economic shifts, regulatory changes, tax policy evolution, Brexit, post-pandemic recovery, and rapid technological advancement mean that IFCs around the world – including Jersey – must continuously adapt to stay competitive. The Financial Services Competitiveness Programme is Jersey’s response: a future-focused, evidence-led strategy to sustain and expand the Island’s most vital economic sector.”
Programme structure and key workstreams
The programme is built around four core workstreams, which will be managed in a phased approach.
International Tax Strategy – Led by Revenue Jersey, this will focus on maintaining Jersey’s strong position through a forward-looking tax policy.
Business & Regulatory Environment – Led jointly by the Government and the JFSC, this aims to improve the ease of doing business, delivering quick-win reforms as well as medium- and long-term changes to enhance the Island’s appeal to global investors.
External Growth Strategy – A global market analysis to inform Jersey’s external engagement strategy, identifying future value pools and Jersey’s competitive positioning, led by the Government with expert support from Jersey Finance Ltd.
Future Competitiveness & Regulation – Bringing together insights from all workstreams, this phase will culminate in a report by an independent panel of global experts.
The first phase, which is underway already, will focus on improvements to Jersey’s business and regulatory environment. This will involve making positive changes to improve the ease of doing business and to help maintain and grow the Island’s FRPS sector as it competes in the market today. As recent global economic volatility has demonstrated, it is more important than ever that Jersey invests in optimising its business and regulatory environment to increase its competitive edge.
The Government will publish a report on progress in delivering the programme together with an action plan on next steps in spring 2026.
Industry engagement
The Government will engage regularly with stakeholders through:
Industry events and “roundtable” discussions
Updates at Financial Services Advisory Board meetings
Briefings for States Members and Scrutiny Panels
Ongoing consultation and feedback channels
Stakeholders are encouraged to engage with the programme team via growthfs@gov.je.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand is moving Auckland City, Waitematā and Counties-Manukau Districts back to an open fire season from 8am on Wednesday 23 April, until further notice.
An open fire season means people planning to light fires outdoors no longer need to apply to Fire and Emergency for authorised permits.
The exceptions are the Hauraki Gulf Islands – populated islands will move to a restricted fire season, with permits needed from Fire and Emergency before lighting outdoor fires, and Department of Conservation islands remain in a prohibited fire season, with all outdoor fires banned.
Te Hiku Region Manager Ron Devlin says a steady amount of rain across the Auckland region in the last few days and continued cooler forecasts have triggered the fire season changes.
“The damper autumn conditions means there is now less of a fire risk throughout Tāmaki Makaurau,” he says.
“However, we do still ask people to take care when lighting any fires, and to check the requirements for your location oncheckitsalright.nz.
“Make sure your fires are fully extinguished and keep checking for reignition in the following days and weeks.”
Northland District changed to an open fire season last Friday.
Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
The all-Russian online voting for improvement projects will last until June 12. Residents of the country will be able to choose the territories that will be improved next year. The voting is being held within the framework of the federal project “Formation of a comfortable urban environment”. This was reported by Deputy Prime Minister Marat Khusnullin.
“Improvement of courtyards and public areas changes the appearance of populated areas, improves the quality of life of citizens in municipalities. Thanks to this work, new points of attraction for people are created in the regions, which also stimulates the development of small and medium-sized businesses, the creation of new jobs, and the growth of domestic tourism. It is important that the initiators of changes and the formation of a comfortable urban environment are the residents themselves. All-Russian voting for improvement objects has started on the platform suburban medium. It will be held until June 12. This event has been held since 2021 as part of the federal project “Formation of a Comfortable Urban Environment”. It is included in our new national project “Infrastructure for Life”. This year, more than 6 thousand objects from about 1.7 thousand municipalities were submitted for the all-Russian online voting. Compared to last year, the number of objects has increased by 630,” said Marat Khusnullin.
Both improvement projects and specific design projects for spaces that were previously selected in the region are put up for voting. The list of objects put up for voting is formed by municipalities taking into account proposals from residents. Any person over 14 years of age can vote for a specific project.
“For the fifth year now, voting has united the residents of our country and given them the opportunity to make a unique contribution to the development of their region. This year, the number of municipalities represented in the all-Russian vote has increased by 81. Last year, 17.2 million people took part in the vote. This shows the growing interest of citizens in the processes taking place in their regions. Every vote matters, and it is thanks to the active participation of residents that we can identify the most pressing needs and implement them,” said Minister of Construction and Housing and Public Utilities Irek Faizullin.
For the fifth time, the all-Russian online voting will be held with the participation of volunteers. Every year, the number of volunteers involved is growing thanks to the support of the platform for good deeds “Dobro.RF”. If in 2021, just over 11 thousand volunteers were involved in the project, then last year there were already more than 200 thousand. The main tasks of the volunteers are to talk about the areas planned for improvement, help residents vote and answer basic questions about voting. This year, to further involve citizens in voting, volunteers will use a special mobile application “Gosuslugi. Volunteer”.
“We see great interest from volunteers in participating in this project. Last year, they collected more than 70% of residents’ votes, which is a very significant contribution. Through the all-Russian vote, residents actually participate in the development of their cities and the transformation of territories, and volunteers in this regard fulfill an important mission of conductor of initiatives that change our lives and the environment of Russian cities for the better,” emphasized Artem Metelev, Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Youth Policy and Chairman of the Board of the Dobro.RF Association.
You can also take part in the voting with the help of volunteers in public places, as well as in the mobile application “Gosuslugi. Let’s Decide Together”.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Dmitry Patrushev held a working meeting with the Governor of Stavropol Krai Vladimir Vladimirov. The topics of discussion were the development of the region’s agro-industrial complex and the implementation of national projects in the field of ecology.
Federal state support for the agro-industrial complex this year has increased by 1 billion rubles compared to the previous year and amounted to almost 5 billion rubles. Stavropol Krai demonstrates growth in a significant part of indicators in the field of agriculture. For example, milk production in 2024 amounted to almost 570 thousand tons, which is higher than a year earlier. Almost 60 thousand were produced in January – March of this year, which is 12% higher than in the same period last year.
Vladimir Vladimirov noted that spring field work is currently being actively carried out in the region, farmers are sowing early spring crops. Almost 450 thousand hectares have been sown – this is corn and sunflower. Sugar beet is currently being sown. The majority of winter crops are in good and satisfactory condition. Farmers in the region are provided with everything necessary for the sowing campaign.
One of the key tasks in agriculture is import substitution. Vladimir Vladimirov noted that when sowing grain crops, farmers use 100% domestically produced seeds.
The meeting also discussed work in the environmental protection sphere. Within the framework of the national project “Ecology” from 2019 to 2024, the events of three federal projects were implemented in Stavropol Krai: “Clean Country”, “Integrated System for Handling Municipal Solid Waste” and “Forest Preservation”. The total funding amounted to more than 1.3 billion rubles. Within the framework of the new national project “Environmental Well-Being”, Stavropol Krai takes part in the federal projects “Closed-loop Economy”, “Water of Russia” and “Forest Preservation”.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Source: Saint Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering – Saint Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering –
Students of SPbGASU demonstrated a high level of knowledge and skill at the final stage of the Open International Student Internet Olympiad in the discipline “Descriptive Geometry and Engineering Graphics”, profile “Specialized (with in-depth study of the discipline)”. Our students took prizes, confirming the high level of training that they receive at the Department of Descriptive Geometry and Engineering Graphics.
Gold medals of the Olympiad were awarded to Alexander Korobov (first-year student of the Faculty of Engineering Ecology and Urban Management, majoring in Heat and Gas Supply and Ventilation) and Matvey Matveyev (first-year student of the Faculty of Construction, majoring in Construction of Unique Buildings and Structures). Victoria Dreeva (second-year student of the Faculty of Engineering Ecology and Urban Management, majoring in Heat and Gas Supply and Ventilation) was awarded a silver medal.
“We are proud of our students, who have once again confirmed their high level of training in descriptive geometry. The victory in the Olympiad is a natural result of our joint work aimed at developing students’ spatial thinking, design skills and engineering culture,” noted Elena Denisova, Head of the Department of Descriptive Geometry and Engineering Graphics at SPbGASU.
“Participation in the Olympiad is a great opportunity to test your knowledge and skills, as well as communicate with other students who are passionate about engineering. I am very glad that I was able to represent my university with dignity!” – shared his impressions Alexander Korobov.
Congratulations to the winners!
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
The City and Family Immunisation & Travel Specialists (FITS) Clinic have partnered together to provide a satellite “pop-up” travel immunisation clinic for the wider Greater Bendigo community on Monday May 26 at the Strathdale Community Hub.
City of Greater Bendigo Acting Manager Community and Environment Sue Harrison said the satellite clinic will specifically provide local access to BCG (Bacillus Calmette–Guérin) vaccine, a live vaccine used to prevent tuberculosis (TB) particularly in babies and young children, without the need to travel to Melbourne.
“These types of immunisations are recommended for those travelling to countries with a high incidence of tuberculosis,” Ms Harrison said.
“People living in regional Victoria normally need to travel to Melbourne to get their travel immunisations as this service is not offered in regional Victoria.
“So this is a fantastic opportunity for parents with young children who are intending to travel overseas to these countries in the future, to receive the necessary travel vaccines in Greater Bendigo.
“FITS is Victoria’s largest private travel clinic for kids, comprising a team of paediatricians and immunisation nurses who specialise in travel medicine and immunisation and there will be costs associated with receiving the BCG vaccine.
“Families will also have access to the free, regular National Immunisation Program and flu vaccines provided by the City of Greater Bendigo at the satellite clinic in Strathdale.”
The clinic will take place between 9am and 4pm on Monday May 26 at the Strathdale Community Centre, 155 Crook St, Strathdale.
Patients must obtain a referral from their own doctor to attend the clinic and must book online as soon as possible.
Headline: Panasonic in Numbers: Over 1 Million Trees Planted in Just 3 Years by Panasonic Vietnam
Panasonic Vietnam has planted over 1 million trees in only 3 years, making it the fastest foreign company in Vietnam to achieve this goal. Based on estimates from Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture & Environment (MOAE), the initiative, which planted 1,071,300 trees in 20 provinces, is expected to reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 108,000 tons over ten years. Totally, Panasonic Vietnam has planted 1,346,390 trees in 11 years.
Besides actively promoting environmental activities as part of Panasonic’s global ECO RELAY project, Panasonic Vietnam launched the “Live Wellness, Contribute Green” tree planting program in 2022, which invited customer contribution through a scheme: a tree is planted each time a customer buys a Panasonic product under Wellness category.
Panasonic Vietnam will continue to support the Panasonic Group’s long-term environmental vision “Panasonic GREEN IMPACT” and contribute to creating a bright future of wellness for Vietnamese people through healthy living and sustainable development.
The content in this website is accurate at the time of publication but may be subject to change without notice.Please note therefore that these documents may not always contain the most up-to-date information.Please note that German, French and Chinese versions are machine translations, so the quality and accuracy may vary.
The Government is improving the way the state of New Zealand’s environment is measured and reported on, Environment Minister Penny Simmonds says. “Having data and information about our changing environment means we can make informed decisions that protect our homes, build a strong and enduring economy, and ensure New Zealand is best prepared for the future,” Ms Simmonds says. The Environmental Reporting Act 2015 plays an important role in making sure New Zealanders have access to robust and credible environmental data and research. “The recently published Our Environment 2025 report – jointly produced by the Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ under the Act – is a clear example of how this kind of reporting helps us better understand the state of New Zealand’s environment,” Ms Simmonds says. “However, the Act’s inflexible structure means the reporting programme is inefficient, and the impact of the reports in supporting New Zealand’s decisions about the environment is limited.” Ms Simmonds says changes to the Act will increase efficiency; improve data quality and make it more accessible and useful; ensure that reports provide timely and relevant information; and strengthen data and environmental research. An expert panel will provide independent advice on matters related to environmental science, economics, health and monitoring and reporting. The changes will include reducing the frequency of environmental reports from six-monthly to annually and introducing ‘drivers’ and ‘outlooks’ into environmental reporting. Drivers are factors that cause pressures on the environment – such as human influences and natural conditions that drive environmental change. Outlooks describe how the environment may change in the future. “Reducing the frequency of reports to better align with the pace of environmental change will enable the Ministry for the Environment to focus on improving the quality of the data it collects, rather than maintaining the cycle of continual reporting required under the current legislation,” Ms Simmonds says. “Reporting on drivers will help decision-makers understand the causes of pressures on the environment. Meanwhile, reporting on outlooks will support understanding of the future impact of decisions. “These additions will ensure greater consistency in reporting over time, enable more comprehensive reporting on the environment, and bring New Zealand in line with reporting practices in other OECD countries.”
Police are urging the public to prepare for the worst before heading outdoors this long holiday period following two land rescues in the Kaimai Ranges.
The first call for help came around 3.30pm on Friday 18 April, when Police were notified of two people having not returned from their hike.
The pair were located at around 7pm near a river that had flooded and blocked their exit.
Police kept in contact with the pair overnight before Search and Rescue, and Swift Water Rescue teams assisted them in getting back home safe the next day.
On Monday 21 April at around 6.45pm, Police were called to an area near Rataroa Stream where a hiker got stuck while walking a four hour hike. The person was located around two hours later.
Although we are pleased to have provided a swift response in both these incidents and help the three people return home safe, these incidents are a reminder to the public to prepare for any situation that may arise.
New Zealand’s environment and weather can be unpredictable, and with the recent wet weather, our rivers and streams are flooded, fast flowing, and high. It will take a few days for the rivers to return back to normal levels once the rain has completely stopped.
Your safety is your responsibility in the outdoors, by preparing for the worst-case scenario, you can enjoy your trip knowing you will be okay if anything goes wrong.
Even the most experienced people can get caught up in situations where they need assistance, and any day trip has the potential to turn into an overnight situation.
If you are going outdoors, no matter if it is hiking, hunting, or climbing, please follow the five simple steps of the Land Safety Code,
Choose the right trip for you. Learn about the route and make sure you have the skills for it. It is important to choose a trip that suits everyone in your group. When you are looking at options, make sure to think about everyone’s fitness levels and experience in the outdoors.
Understand the weather. New Zealand weather can change fast. Check the forecast and change your plans if needed. Weather can make or break a trip. It is one of the most important things to consider when going into the outdoors.
Park warm clothes and extra food. Prepare for bad weather and an unexpected night out. Any trip, even if it is short and easy, need preparation. Packing the right things can make trips safer and more enjoyable.
Share your plans and take ways to get help. Telling a trusted person about your trip details and taking a personal locator beacon can save your life. We all want our trips to go as planned – but sometimes they don’t. If you get hurt or lost on your trip, how would you get help?
Take care of yourself and each other. East, drink, and rest, stick with your group and make decisions together. The best way to enjoy your experience in the outdoors and make it home safely is to look out for one another.
Distress beacons can be hired for as little as $10 from many Department of Conservation Visitor Centres, and outdoor tramping and hunting stores.
If you have purchased a beacon, make sure to register it at www.beacons.org.nz.
DOC’s Acting Taranaki Operations Manager Phil Melgren says the visitor centre building was identified as needing replacement several years ago, due to its age and condition. Through an agreement between DOC and Te Atiawa, the iwi will lead on demolition of the existing building and construction of the new facility.
Phil says the current visitor centre will close at 3.30pm on 27 April 2025 – at the end of the current school holidays.
“The visitor centre will be closed for a minimum of three days during the transition period. A DOC staff member will be on site to provide information to visitors.”
The temporary visitor centre building is on site and is being readied to be opened on 2 May. It is in the upper car park along with new visitor toilets. The temporary visitor centre and toilets have been designed with ramps to be fully accessible.
Phil says the temporary visitor is expected to operate for two years while the new facility is constructed. It will have the same opening hours – 8.30 am to 3.30 pm seven days a week – with the same services for information, hut tickets and some retail offering, particularly gear to help visitors keep safe and warm on the maunga.
Demolition of the old visitor centre will start in the middle of May. The first thing visitors will see is some vegetation clearing and fencing going in place.
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
ICYMI: In New Op-Ed, Padilla Outlines Bipartisan Approach to Mitigating Wildfire Risk
LA Daily News Op-Ed
LOS ANGELES — U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Wildfire Caucus, published an op-ed in the Los Angeles Daily News highlighting his bipartisan push to address wildfires in the aftermath of the devastating Southern California fires.
In the piece, Padilla discusses the Senate version of the Fix Our Forests Act, which he recently introduced alongside Senators John Curtis (R-Utah), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), and Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.). The Senate version of the legislation would help combat catastrophic wildfires, restore forest ecosystems, and make federal forest management more efficient and responsive.
A list of Senate Fix Our Forests Act provisions particularly impactful for California is available here.
Full text of the op-ed is available here and below.
“California can’t wait for the political winds to shift. My bipartisan wildfire bill would save lives.”
By Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
No matter how many times you’ve seen it, nothing can prepare you for the devastation you find in the aftermath of a wildfire.
Nothing.
I’ve visited the Forest Service’s Incident Post in Quincy as fire crews battled the raging Dixie Fire in 2021.
And I toured what’s left of the Pacific Palisades and Altadena neighborhoods that were hit worst by this winter’s fires. What I’ve seen is heart wrenching.
Car wheels melted into the sidewalk.
A sea of embers and ashes, interrupted only by chimneys and fireplace mantels where family photos once rested.
In some cases, brick sidewalks and doorways that once led to baby cribs and kitchen tables, that now lead to nowhere.
No one could walk away after seeing what I’ve seen, year after year in California, and still deny the threat of climate change.
We have to do more.
That begins with listening to our climate scientists and working to reduce emissions to protect our planet in the long term.
But reducing emissions alone won’t save your house or keep your neighborhood from burning down.
As long as massive wildfires continue to burn, we’ll see those same greenhouse gases pouring out into the atmosphere — just as we did in 2020, when wildfires alone emitted enough to wipe out nearly 20 years of California’s emissions reduction progress.
This isn’t a choice between addressing short-term wildfire risk and combatting climate change. We must do both.
It may seem like an impossible task in our current political environment — Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. That means we face an uphill battle to passing any law that address the impacts of climate change.
But whether it’s political division in Washington, or wildfires raging in Los Angeles — Californians can’t afford to wait.
Since January, I’ve convened a bipartisan group of senators from Western states willing to work towards a comprehensive wildfire bill that could pass both chambers of Congress.
It’s been hard, but I’ve been driven by that image I have of the Californians who would do anything they could to save their homes, their property, and their families.
That’s why, I was proud to announce our Senate version of the Fix Our Forests Act.
It starts with a basic premise: The status quo isn’t working. Wildfires are getting worse. To protect our communities, we have to reassess how we prevent and mitigate wildfires.
That means increasing the speed and scale of our prevention and mitigation efforts, while making sure no one exploits this crisis to compromise our natural resources.
We’ve worked to make sure our Senate bill will protect both communities close to forests AND those in non-forested, urban areas like Los Angeles and Santa Rosa.
Here’s how:
Our bill would allow us to responsibly speed up the removal of hazardous fuels from our forests that serve as kindling for mega wildfires. Think dry branches, leaves, and dead and diseased trees that can pile up and spread fires very easily.
It would make it easier for land managers and utilities to build “fuel breaks.” These strips of thinned out trees can serve like a gap in a long line of falling dominos which can allow firefighters to gain a foothold or even stop a growing wildfire in its tracks.
It would help neighborhoods become more resilient to wildfires, with guidance to help Americans build or retrofit their homes with more fire-resistant materials and landscaping plans. And it would allow for prescribed burns to proactively clear hazardous fuel — just as Native American tribes have done for countless generations.
Finally, it would create the first-ever Wildfire Intelligence Center to streamline our wildfire preparedness and response — similar to what the National Weather Service does for storms.
These are exactly the types of tools firefighters and state, tribal, and local agencies have been asking for.
That’s why our bill is already supported by Governor Gavin Newsom, CAL FIRE Chief Joe Tyler, California Natural Resources Agency Secretary Wade Crowfoot, and the International Association of Fire Chiefs, along with environmental groups like The Nature Conservancy, Audubon, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the National Wildlife Federation.
Of course, the Senate version of the Fix Our Forests Act may not stop every wildfire. Nothing could.
But if these measures can prevent just one more community from having to experience the same heartbreak felt by families in Santa Rosa, in Paradise, and now in the Palisades and Altadena, then our efforts will have been worth it.Alex Padilla represents California in the United States Senate.
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order that would block state laws seeking to tackle greenhouse gas emissions – the latest salvo in his administration’s campaign to roll back United States’ climate action.
Under Trump, the US has clearly abdicated climate leadership. But the US has in fact obstructed climate action for decades – largely due to damaging actions by the powerful fossil fuel industry.
In 20 years studying attacks on climate science and the powerful forces at work behind the scenes, I’ve come to think the United States is simply not going to lead on climate action. The fossil fuel industry has so poisoned the well of public debate in the US that it’s unlikely the nation will lead on the issue in our lifetimes.
Australia, on the other hand, has enormous potential.
I recently visited Australia from Harvard University for a series of publictalks. This nation is very close to my heart. I trained as a mining geologist and spent three years in outback South Australia, before returning to academia.
The vacuum Trump has created on climate policy provides a chance for other countries to lead. Australia has much more to gain from the clean-energy future than it stands to lose – and your climate action could be pivotal.
The climate crisis: a long time coming
Scientists first warned against burning fossil fuels way back in the 1950s. When the US Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, the words “weather” and “climate” were included because scientists had already explained to Congress that carbon dioxide was a pollutant with serious — even dire — effects.
In the late 1980s, scientists at NASA observed changes in the climate system that could only be explained by the extra heating effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The predictions had become reality.
The scientists informed their managers of the risk of catastrophic damage if the burning of oil, gas and coal continued unabated. They even suggested the company might need a different business model – one not so dependent on fossil fuels.
But managers at ExxonMobil made a fateful decision: to turn from information to disinformation. Working in tandem with other oil, gas and coal companies, as well as automobile and aluminium manufacturers, ExxonMobil launched an organised campaign, sustained over decades, to block climate action by casting doubt on the underlying science.
They ran ad campaigns in national and local newspapers insisting the science was too unsettled to warrant action. They created “astroturf” organisations that only pretended to be green, and funded “third-party allies” to argue that proposed remedies would be too expensive, cost jobs and damage the economy.
The company funded outlier scientists to publish papers claiming atmospheric warming was the result of natural climate variability. They pressured journalists to give equal time to “their side” of the story in the name of “balance”.
Over the next three decades, whenever any meaningful climate policy seemed to be gaining traction, the industry and its allies lobbied Congress and state legislatures to block it. So, neither Democratic nor Republican administrations were able to undertake meaningful climate action.
While people were dying in climate-charged floods and fires, the fossil fuel industry persuaded a significant proportion of the US population, including Trump, that the whole thing might just be a hoax.
Rise up Australia
In a matter of weeks after becoming president, Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming, shut down government websites hosting climate data, and withdrew support for research that dares to mention the word “climate”.
This has created a vacuum that other countries, including Australia, can step up to fill.
Few countries have more to lose from climate change than Australia. The continent has already witnessed costly and devastating wildfires and floods — affecting remote areas and major cities. It’s not unreasonable to worry that in coming years, significant parts of Australia could become uninhabitable.
Like the US, Australia has a powerful fossil fuel industry that has disproportionately influenced its politics. Unlike the US, however, that industry is based mainly on coal for export, which Australians do not depend on in their daily lives.
And Australia is truly a lucky country. It has unsurpassed potential to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.
More than 15 years ago, Australian researchers in the Zero Carbon Australia project offered a blueprint for how the country could eliminate fossil fuel use entirely. Since then, renewable energy has only become cheaper and more efficient.
Across Australia, the share of renewable electricity generation is growing. Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are vying for second place after SA. It’s fascinating to watch the National Electricity Market balance supply and demand in real time, where a large proportion of the electricity comes from rooftop solar.
For decades, the fossil fuel industry has told the public our societies can’t manage without fossil fuels. Large parts of Australia have proved it’s just not so. The rest of the nation can follow that lead, and model the energy transition for the world. Here’s your chance.
Over the past two decades, Naomi Oreskes has received grant funding from various governments and non-government organisations to support the research upon which this piece is based. She serves on the board of The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which works to protect the integrity of climate science, and climate scientists, from politically motivated attacks. The Fund is a registered 501 c(3) non-profit organisation, meaning it does not engage in political activities. She is also an emerita board member of Protect our Winters, a 501 c (3) that works with the winter sports community to educate people about climate change and the threat it poses to winter sports. Naomi serves on the board of the Kann-Rasmussen foundation (Denmark), a non-profit foundation that works “to support the transition to a more environmentally resilient stable, and sustainable planet”.
Naomi currently serves as a consultant to a number of groups pursuing climate litigation in the United States, and recently submitted an expert report to the International Court of Justice on behalf of Vanuatu. She also receives speaking fees and book royalties for talks and publications on the history of climate science and climate change denial. Co-author, with Erik M. Conway, of Merchants of Doubt (2010) and The Big Myth (2023).
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11)
(NEW YORK, NY) –Congresswoman Malliotakis issued the following statement regarding the U.S. Department of Transportation’s final warning to Governor Kathy Hochul to comply with its order to halt congestion pricing by May 21 or face consequences.
“I applaud President Trump and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy for taking action to hold the MTA and Governor Kathy Hochul accountable for not complying with federal law and their directive to end the congestion tax in New York City. Today’s warning should serve as a wake-up call that the federal government will not stand idly by as Hochul and the MTA continue to rip off hardworking taxpayers and commuters.
The city’s Congestion Pricing plan did not receive the scrutiny and environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — a clear violation that underscores the need for federal intervention. If this illegal cash grab continues, we will hold the State and MTA accountable by freezing advanced construction authorizations, NEPA approvals or federal funding for projects within Manhattan’s congestion zone.”
overnor Kathy Hochul today announced $4.85 million in grants is being awarded to municipalities across the state to support the installation of electric vehicle chargers as part of the State’s Municipal Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Grants program. The funded projects support New York’s ongoing efforts to advance clean transportation, expand publicly available electric vehicle chargers, and help reduce pollution including greenhouse gas emissions for a cleaner and greener environment.
“My Administration is committed to advancing the transition to a cleaner and healthier future for our environment benefitting all New Yorkers,” Governor Hochul said. “Our continued investments in electric vehicle infrastructure encourages more drivers to switch to electric, reducing pollution and emissions across the State and improving the health and well-being of our residents and communities.”
The Municipal Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Infrastructure Grant program administered by the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) prioritizes clean transportation investments in communities most affected by pollution and climate change. The program includes a variable local match requirement based on the municipality’s median household income (MHI) and whether the ZEV infrastructure is located in a disadvantaged community, based on the disadvantaged communities criteria developed by the State’s Climate Justice Working Group. Of the awards announced today, approximately $885,000 were granted to municipalities located in disadvantaged communities in New York State.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Acting Commissioner Amanda Lefton said, “New York continues advancing the state’s transition to clean transportation with investments in municipal electric vehicle chargers to encourage the switch to plug-in hybrids and EVs. DEC’s Municipal ZEV Infrastructure Grant program is expanding New York’s EV charging station network and supporting municipalities statewide taking climate action, investing in electric transportation, and helping realize the clean energy economy of the future.”
New York State Research and Development Authority President and CEO Doreen M. Harris said, “Through clean transportation initiatives such as DEC’s Municipal Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure program, the State is helping counties, cities, towns, and villages install more public charging stations for zero-emission vehicles across New York. Congratulations to these municipalities for their leadership and making it easier for residents and visitors alike to choose cleaner vehicles with the confidence they’ll be able to charge their cars where and when they need to.”
Assemblymember Didi Barrett said, “This funding will help New York’s smaller municipalities, in the Hudson Valley and beyond, be part of the state’s electric vehicle charging infrastructure network build out. The four new Level 2 electric charging ports in the Town of Hyde Park will reduce range anxiety for residents and visitors alike.”
State Senator Pete Harckham said, “Encouraging motorists to drive zero-emissions vehicles is the best way to ramp up our fight statewide against the climate crisis and improve public health. These new state infrastructure grant awards announced by Governor Hochul for EV charging stations show New York is committed to a steady and inclusive transition to a clean energy economy that will benefit residents in many ways. The partnership between the governor and the state legislature in making a transition to clean transportation is a strong one and will continue to make New York an environmental leader.”
2024 Municipal ZEV Infrastructure Grant Awards include:
Capital Region
City of Rensselaer – $233,000 for one DCFC pedestal
Finger Lakes
Village of Brockport – $188,825 for 10 Level 2 charging ports and one DCFC pedestal
Village of Dundee – $24,200 for four Level 2 charging ports
Town of Farmington – $225,620 for 24 Level 2 charging ports and one DCFC pedestal
Town of Huron – $43,200 for four Level 2 charging ports
Village of Interlaken – $124,470 for one DCFC pedestal
Village of Le Roy – $20,605 for four Level 2 charging ports
Village of Oakfield – $24,380 for four Level 2 charging ports
County of Ontario – $309,100 for 14 Level 2 charging ports and two DCFC pedestals
Village of Palmyra – $222,250 for two DCFC pedestals
Village of Warsaw – $148,500 for one DCFC pedestal
Village of Waterloo – $238,900 for 12 Level 2 charging ports
Long Island
Town of Huntington – $326,000 for four Level 2 charging ports and six DCFC pedestals
City of Long Beach – $296,080 for four Level 2 charging ports and two DCFC pedestals
Mid-Hudson
Town of Hyde Park – $32,480 for four Level 2 charging ports
Town of Orangetown – $46,352 for four Level 2 charging ports
Town of Putnam Valley – $29,822 for four Level 2 charging ports
Town of Shawangunk – $26,587 for two Level 2 charging ports
Village of South Blooming Grove – $250,000 for three DCFC pedestals
North Country
Town of Colton – $76,318 for four Level 2 charging ports
Village of Constableville – $21,222 for two Level 2 charging ports
Town of Diana – $159,150 for one DCFC pedestal
County of Essex – $55,008 for four Level 2 charging ports
Town of Jay – $206,403 for two Level 2 charging ports and one DCFC pedestal
County of Lewis – $298,728 for two DCFC pedestals
Village of Lowville – $93,312 for 12 Level 2 charging ports
Village of Saranac Lake – $482,164 for 30 Level 2 charging ports
Southern Tier
Town of Danby – $11,400 for two Level 2 charging ports
Western New York
City of Dunkirk – $53,400 for 14 Level 2 charging ports
Village of Springville – $248,000 for one DCFC pedestal
Town of Tonawanda – $285,007 for 16 Level 2 charging ports and one DCFC pedestal
Village of Wilson – $49,648 for two Level 2 charging ports
More information about the DEC Municipal ZEV Infrastructure Grant program, as well as the DEC Municipal ZEV Rebate program, is available on DEC’s website. For questions about the Municipal ZEV program, email [email protected] or call DEC’s Office of Climate Change at 518-402-8448.
New York State’s nearly $3 billion investment in electrifying its transportation sector has supported a range of initiatives aimed to increase access to electric vehicles (EVs) and charging while improving air quality and health outcomes for all New Yorkers. These programs include today’s Municipal ZEV Infrastructure Program grants and many other programs, including EV Make Ready, EVolve NY, Charge Ready NY 2.0, the Drive Clean Rebate, the New York Truck Voucher Incentive Program, the New York School Bus Incentive Program, and the Direct Current Fast Charger program. The State invests in charging infrastructure and EVs to benefit all New Yorkers, and its efforts have been successful at increasing the number of EVs and charging stations across all regions of New York – with, over 280,000 EVs on the road statewide and over 17,000 public chargers- more public chargers than any other state except for California. Additionally, there are more than 4,000 semi-public charging stations at workplaces and multifamily buildings across the state.
New York State’s Climate Agenda New York State’s climate agenda calls for an affordable and just transition to a clean energy economy that creates family-sustaining jobs, promotes economic growth through green investments, and directs a minimum of 35 percent of the benefits to disadvantaged communities. New York is advancing a suite of efforts to achieve an emissions-free economy by 2050, including in the energy, buildings, transportation, and waste sectors.
ADVISORY – SCHUYLKILL COUNTY – Shapiro Administration Will Announce Opening of Next Round of Growing Greener Grants
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Acting Secretary Jessica Shirley will be at the site of a restored stream, the Swatara Creek Floodplain Restoration project, to celebrate Earth Day and announce the opening of the next Growing Greener Grant round.
Growing Greener is the largest single investment of state funds in Pennsylvania’s history to address critical environmental concerns.
WHAT: Celebrating Earth Day and announcing the opening of 2025 Growing Greener Grant Program applications.
WHEN: April 22, 2025 at 2:00 PM
WHERE: 40.55903, -76.39103; Whispering Pines Blvd (Behind the Boyer’s Food Market in Pine Grove)
For more information, visit the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s website, or follow DEP on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, or LinkedIn.
Broomfield, Colo. — Today, Governor Polis and the Colorado Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Drought and Climate Resilience Office (ADCRO) announced new grant opportunities to support climate resilience projects within the state’s agricultural sector.
“In Colorado we are committed to mitigating the risk associated with climate change, by investing in innovative clean energy technologies, and providing economic avenues for our farmers and ranchers to continue to provide healthy and fresh produce to all Coloradans for generations to come,” said Governor Polis.
Climate resilience is the ability to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from hazardous events, trends, or disturbances related to climate. The Climate Resilience Grants are designed to provide crucial financial assistance to farmers and ranchers who have experienced adverse effects due to climate change-induced disasters and are seeking to enhance their resilience against future climate-related challenges.
“Dealing with extreme weather, resulting from climate change, and an increasingly dry environment is an everyday challenge for Colorado’s farmers and ranchers,” said Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture Kate Greenberg. “This funding will help producers who have experienced these challenges or are at risk for worsening climate disasters to be better prepared to withstand these events now and into the future.”
This is the first grant opportunity at CDA focused on helping producers who have experienced a disaster. Specifically, this funding addresses a critical need producers have to ensure their operations are resilient and can better withstand future climate pressures.
Climate change affects all sectors of agriculture, from workforce and the supply chain, to livestock and farm and ranch profitability. This funding will help tackle issues throughout the supply chain and invest in leaders around the state, who can later serve as positive examples or resources for their neighbors. Climate-related disasters are only increasing, and this funding can create demonstrations on what it means to recover in a resilient way. CDA will select a few priority climate impacts to focus on each funding cycle, based on needs around the state. This year, priority projects will be those that address impacts of drought, snow events, and wildfire. In future years, CDA will work with partners to determine priorities based on needs. Other disasters that are exacerbated by climate change include flooding, extreme heat, and severe storms.
Farmers and ranchers are eligible, as are producer-facing organizations, tribes, and local governments. Grant applications must demonstrate how producers will benefit, how the grant deliverables will address future climate disasters, and feasibility of the project. Matching funding is not required, though applicants will receive more points if they use matching funds. The maximum grant award is $30,000.
The online application is available on the ADCRO website. Grant applications are due on May 29.
The ADCRO team will hold an informational webinar on Wednesday, May 7, at 2:00 p.m., and interested participants can register via Zoom or find the registration link on the ADCRO website. The informational session staff will present an overview of the eligibility criteria and application process and answer producer questions.
This initiative represents a significant step forward in supporting Colorado’s agricultural sector in adapting to and mitigating the impacts of climate change and fostering a more resilient and sustainable agricultural landscape for the future. These grants also align with CDA’s strategic priorities, especially Direction Three: Environmental Stewardship and Climate Resilience. These grants will work with other CDA programs to create healthy and resilient farms, ranches, and food supply chains.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daniel Horen Greenford, Lecturer and postdoctoral researcher in Ecological Economics and Climate Policy, Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University
With a federal election on the horizon, economic policy is once again taking centre stage. Yet missing from the national debate is a serious reckoning with the failures of neoliberalism and the urgent need for alternatives.
Liberal Leader Mark Carney, with his experience across banking and global finance, is one figure who could potentially steer that shift. Carney’s career, spanning Morgan Stanley, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England and Brookfield Asset Management, has exemplified his competence within the bounds of economic orthodoxy.
As the Bank of Canada’s governor, Carney pre-emptively cut interest rates to cushion the blow of the 2008 financial crisis. Standard measures like interest rate cuts and quantitative easing are meant to keep economies afloat during downturns. While necessary, these steps remained squarely within the bounds of conventional economic thinking.
Today, however, those old tricks aren’t enough. The twin crises of climate collapse and socioeconomic inequality demand bolder policy and braver leadership from policymakers.
MMT scholars argue that countries that issue their own currency, like Canada, have monetary sovereignty. These governments don’t need to rely on bond markets for funding; instead, they can create money directly through public spending. And, when they do sell debt, there’s never a shortage of demand for it.
From this perspective, the real constraint isn’t money, but productive capacity: materials, energy and labour. Public debt is neither inherently dangerous, nor is it “owed” to anyone.
MMT also argues the “tax and spend” perspective is backwards — taxes are not needed to fund public spending. In its view, governments spend first, then tax to remove money from circulation to keep inflation under control.
Inflation risk stems not from government spending, but from economic over-demand or supply constraints. During periods of low growth, spending is not just safe — it’s essential, as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inflation during the pandemic was driven predominantly by supply chain disruptions and gas price spikes, not overspending. Strategic taxation can be used to curb demand and reduce inequality when inflation emerges.
MMT’s job guarantee
The hallmark policy of MMT is a job guarantee — a public option for employment that would employ anyone wanting to work. This would effectively end structural unemployment while improving conditions for those employed in the private sector through competition.
Such an initiative would help unlock productivity needed to revitalize and decarbonize housing, transport, energy and other critical infrastructure.
Yet instead of embracing such ideas, centrist parties like the Canadian Liberal Party and United Kingdom’s Labour Party cling to outdated concerns over “fiscal responsibility,” echoing debates that have been outdated since the end of the gold standard in the 1970s.
The cost of playing it safe
Carney appears to have retreated into political caution and has avoided challenging fiscal conservatism in any substantive way. Immediately upon taking office, he capitulated to misleading narratives promoted by politicians like Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, and cut the consumer carbon price.
According to the government’s own analysis, only the top 0.13 per cent of Canadians stood to lose from a modest increase in the inclusion rate for taxing unearned income.
During the Liberal leadership race, Carney advocated for using public investment to attract private capital during a CBC News interview. Sidestepping a direct answer about whether he’d balance the overall budget, he instead committed to balancing “operational spending.” When pressed, he said he would run deficits when necessary to “invest [in] and grow Canada’s economy.”
Carney’s approach frames public spending as a way to mobilize private capital, rather than as a driver of public-led economic transformation. True to his background, his language casts the government as a shrewd investor, not a driver of structural change.
Carney also framed public investment as “borrowing,” which MMT clarifies is a misnomer: unlike a household or a business, a currency-issuing government doesn’t need to borrow in the traditional sense and faces no risk of running out of its own currency.
A bolder path forward is needed
Canada needs more than cautious tweaks to the status quo. A climate jobs program, like a Youth Climate Corps, could guarantee well-paid, meaningful work in communities across the country for anyone ready to contribute. Public opinion is already there: more than half of Canadians support a climate corps.
Public-sector competition in industries like housing and renewable energy could keep private firms efficient and accountable. During World War II, engineer and businessman C.D. Howe became Minister of the Department of Munitions and Supply and oversaw the creation of 28 Crown corporations that drove wartime production.
Canada already has a Crown corporation mandated to support affordable housing: the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This agency could be expanded to not only finance, but also tender contracts and build housing. It could be a federal landlord, with long-term goals of community management and ownership.
The more affordable units kept out of an increasingly profit-driven market, the more accessible housing will be. This would stabilize the market and provide a floor (and roof) for affordability.
Some MMT scholars and social movements have even called for a homes guarantee — a federally-funded program to guarantee a place to live for anyone squeezed out of the housing market.
Critics might say bold investment is politically infeasible. But is it? Or could one of Canada’s federal parties champion policies that inspire instead of capitulate? Traditionally, the NDP would pick up this mantle, but they ceded their place as the progressive vanguard after former NDP Leader Tom Mulcair promised to balance the budget in 2015.
The real risk isn’t ambitious reform, but relying on outdated tricks in a world that demands new solutions.
Daniel Horen Greenford receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
