NewzIntel.com

Category: Weather

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia got off on a technicality for its climate inaction. But there are plenty more judgement days to come

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

    This week, the Federal Court found the Australian government has no legal duty to protect Torres Strait Islanders from climate change. The ruling was disappointing, but it’s not the end of the matter.

    The plaintiffs, Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai, hail from the low-lying islands of Saibai and Boigu, near Papua New Guinea. They argued the Commonwealth was negligent for failing to take strong action on climate change.

    While the judge accepted the devastating effects climate change has wrought on the Torres Strait Islands, he found the Uncles did not prove their case of negligence.

    However, the judge found previous Australian governments had not taken the best available science into account when setting emissions reduction targets. The finding tightens the screws on the Albanese government, which is due to announce Australia’s long-awaited targets to cut emissions out to 2035.

    To protect communities in the Torres Strait, and across Australia, the government must set a 2035 target that is in line with the science.

    And the court finding is unlikely to stem the tide of litigation seeking greater government accountability for climate change – especially for those most vulnerable to its harms.

    Limitations of Australian law

    The Uncles’ case did not fail because there was no merit in their allegations. It failed because Justice Michael Wigney ruled negligence law was not the appropriate vehicle to deal with climate change policy.

    Justice Wigney found the Torres Strait Islanders proved much of their case, including that Australia’s emissions targets set in 2015, 2020 and 2021 were not consistent with the best available science. That science dictates national governments should set emissions reduction targets in line with international efforts to hold global temperature rise to 1.5°C.

    The Coalition was in power during the period in question. Justice Wigney found the government of the day “did not engage with or give real or genuine consideration to the best available science” when setting its targets.

    Looking ahead to our 2035 targets

    The Labor government is currently weighing its 2035 emissions reduction target. The Climate Change Authority, which provides independent advice to government on climate policy, is expected to recommend a target between 65% and 75%.

    But evidence suggests this may not be in line with the best available science.

    For example, according to some scientists, emissions reduction of 90% by 2035, based on 2005 levels, would be required to stay in line with the 1.5°C goal.

    Australia’s 2035 targets are not just crucial to the global effort to tackle climate change. They will also affect our standing in the Pacific at a time of deepening geostrategic competition.

    Australia is bidding to host the UN climate talks next year in partnership with Pacific island countries. Our climate policy for the decade ahead will be a powerful signal to our Pacific neighbours about our commitment to the region, and to climate justice.

    A shifting legal landscape

    Tuesday’s court finding left open the possibility an appeal court may revisit the state of the law, and recognise the duty of care claimed by the Uncles.

    This would require an appeal to the full court of the Federal Court. Wigney was a single judge and considered himself bound by past precedent set by the full court.

    Around the world, courts and human rights bodies are holding governments accountable for climate inaction. It is possible for Australian law to do the same.

    International courts and human rights bodies are holding governments accountable for climate inaction.
    Sjoerd van der Wal/Getty Images

    Courts in the Netherlands and Belgium, for example, have recognised government duties to heed the science to address foreseeable harms of climate change.

    Next week, the International Court of Justice – the world’s highest court – will issue an historic legal opinion on the obligations of nations to tackle climate change.

    This opinion will clarify the obligations of countries to prevent human rights harms caused by climate change, and to limit pollution of the Earth’s oceans and climate system. The opinion will be non-binding, but could influence future climate litigation.

    What’s more, attribution science is improving all the time. This field of science examines how greenhouse gas emissions affect a particular weather event or climate pattern.

    Clearer attribution science will provide courts an ever-stronger basis to consider how government policy decisions on emissions cause climate impacts – and resulting harms to people.

    As the legal responsibilities of governments are clarified, further strategic litigation in Australia is likely.

    Change is coming

    In his judgement, Justice Michael Wigney said the law currently “provides no real or effective legal avenue” for people or communities to seek legal recourse for government inaction on climate change. That will remain the case until the law changes, he said.

    To remain legitimate, legal norms must reflect changing social expectations. History shows laws can adapt when they are challenged repeatedly by those who are harmed by the status quo. Eventually, the dam wall breaks, and law is reinterpreted.

    A clear example is the Mabo case of 1992. The High Court of Australia acknowledged the obvious fact that Indigenous peoples have lived on this continent for tens of thousands of years, and that the “terra nullius” (land belonging to no-one) concept was a legal myth.

    The Mabo decision allowed common law to recognise native title. It was a departure from previous rulings which relied on the terra nullius concept to reject native title claims.

    Australia’s legal norms largely pre-date the scientific consensus on climate change. They must evolve to better recognise climate impacts that are harming Australians. While this week might not have been the time, change is inevitable.

    As Justice Wigney said, until the law adapts, the key avenue for change is public advocacy, protest and voter action at the ballot box.

    Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council.

    Riona Moodley 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.

    – ref. Australia got off on a technicality for its climate inaction. But there are plenty more judgement days to come – https://theconversation.com/australia-got-off-on-a-technicality-for-its-climate-inaction-but-there-are-plenty-more-judgement-days-to-come-261305

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Schatz Details Trump Administration’s Destruction Of USAID, Deadly Consequences That Followed As Senate Considers Codifying DOGE Cuts

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz

    WASHINGTON – As the U.S. Senate considers a rescissions package to codify $9 billion dollars in cuts to foreign assistance and public broadcasting, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) spoke out against the Trump administration’s illegal dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the catastrophic consequences the elimination of aid has had on vulnerable people around the world. Schatz, who is the Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations which oversees foreign assistance, noted that over 360,000 people had already died as a result of not having food and medication in the wake of the funding cuts. Schatz also noted that the none of the programs that Republicans have objected to are currently active, and that the funding being rescinded is valid through the end of the next fiscal year and can be reprogrammed by the Trump administration to reflect its priorities.

    “Presidents can save lives. They can also cost lives. And while almost every president has chosen to do the former, Donald Trump, aided by a band of loyalists and ideologues, has chosen instead to inflict death and disease and starvation on the world’s most vulnerable,” said Senator Schatz. “We used to be the indispensable nation that people around the world counted on for help. People would see the American flag, whether on the side of a truck or a sticker on a food parcel, and think, ‘The good guys are here. Help is coming,’ But not anymore. We are causing death now. We are spreading disease now. We are deepening starvation now.”

    Senator Schatz continued, “We are not going to prevent every death – we know that. We’re not going to be able to feed every child – we understand that. We cannot feasibly help every community that needs help – we accept that. But this is something different altogether. This is knowingly and willingly and needlessly inflicting horrific suffering on millions and millions of the most vulnerable people live anywhere on the planet. And for what? To save money? The idea that any of this is about finding savings, while at the same time, Republicans are exploding the national debt by $4 trillion to cut taxes for billionaires just doesn’t pass the smell test. And to top it all off, the administration is about to incinerate – is about to light on fire – 500 metric tons of food aid because they let it expire while sitting in a warehouse for months.”

    “There were a bunch of controversial programs that precipitated this effort to cut USAID. All of those programs were discontinued. This is a budget that was enacted in March. This is Trump’s budget. This is Trump’s State Department. This is economic support funds. This is global public health. This is humanitarian assistance. This is helping our friends in Jordan and elsewhere to maintain the basic stability so that there is not a conflagration in a region. That is what’s being rescinded from this package,” Senator Schatz added.

    A transcript of Senator Schatz’s remarks is below. Video is available here.

    It all started with the stroke of a pen. Within hours of taking office in January, the president signed what can only be called a death sentence to millions of people all over the world. Executive Order 14 169 simply read, “It is the policy of the United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the president of the United States.” The order directed a 90 day pause in payments while foreign assistance was reviewed. But it became clear that this was not a process for reviewing or reforming programs. It was the beginning of the end, a wholesale destruction of the enterprise from top to bottom, in defiance of the law and of logic.

    Presidents can save lives. They can also cost lives. And while almost every president has chosen to do the former, Donald Trump, aided by a band of loyalists and ideologues, has chosen instead to inflict death and disease and starvation on the world’s most vulnerable. We used to be the indispensable nation that people around the world counted on for help. People would see the American flag, whether on the side of a truck or a sticker on a food parcel, and think, the good guys are here. Help is coming.

    But not anymore. We are causing death now. We are spreading disease now. We are deepening starvation now. And it’s not because it’s saving us huge sums of money, or because saving lives somehow stopped being in our national interest. All of this suffering and misery is because a few people were hellbent on ransacking the government and tearing down whatever it is that they didn’t like or they didn’t understand, to hell with the consequences. To them, the lives lost or just the cost of doing business. Move fast and break things is the ethos of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. But when you move fast and you break things in the United States Agency for International Development, tens of thousands of people perish.

    So let’s start with how we got here. Following Trump’s executive order, Secretary Rubio and Peter Marocco, the new director of the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assistance, issued a stop work order on all 6,200 grants and contracts worldwide. They also ordered an immediate pause on new foreign assistance spending. That meant that partners who had already completed work were not getting paid. Contracts that had already been signed couldn’t be executed. Days later, Marocco, along with a bunch of DOGE staffers, including a 19-year-old and a 23-year-old, physically barged into U.S. aid and forced dozens of senior career officials to be put on leave over so-called insubordination. These people were just doing their jobs. His issue seemingly was with payments that had been approved before the executive order and were then making their way through the USAID payment system. Nevertheless, the career civil servants were escorted out of the building and locked out of their emails.

    Anyone who dared to push back or speak up was sidelined, including the acting administrator, who was pushed out to make way for Marocco to become deputy administrator. As he and his team looked for not just savings or efficiencies, but what they called “viral abuse” that would be easy to mock out of context, Fox Mews stepped into the breach to help for days on end. Their chyrons blared: “Viper’s Nest: USAID Accused of Corruption Long Before Trump Administration Took Aim.” “More Ridiculous USAID Spending Revealed.” “Elon Purged DC’s Slush Fund.”

    As the smear campaign kicked into overdrive. DOGE locked out all of the agency’s employees, including those working in conflict zones, from their phones and emails. And in early February, Musk tweeted, “USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.” Days later, after carrying out the destruction, he wrote, “We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the woodchipper.”

    And just like that, one of the United States’ primary instruments of soft power over the last 60 years, which has done everything from curing diseases to thwarting terrorism, was decapitated overnight. USAID’s success in moral, political, economic, and security terms was made possible by scores of public servants who felt a responsibility to alleviate suffering, even if that meant putting themselves in harm’s way. But in the end, it was torn down by a bunch of crazed ideologues who saw foreign assistance as an easy target to test drive their project of crippling the government.

    Perhaps abolishing the health department or the VA in the first few weeks was a bridge too far. But here was money going to help people in, as Madeleine Albright used to say, faraway places with hard to pronounce names. And no matter how much good it was doing for the people whose lives were saved and communities were built, but also for our national security – none of that mattered when all you had to do was make up some lies to justify the vandalism.

    It’s been only a few months and already the loss of USAID and its critical work around the world has been catastrophic. More than 360,000 people have died as a result of the cuts. 360,000 deaths. And so I will be damned if I let a pundit, or Democratic strategist, or Republican strategist tell me that the American people signed up for allowing 360,000 people to die. On purpose. For what? Deficit reduction? And to Patty Murray’s point, two weeks ago, they just blew up the deficit by trillions of dollars. The amount of money that it takes to save a starving child, or to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS from mother to child, is minuscule. And we do this because we’re the good guys. And we do this because it’s cheap. And we do this because when we need something from a friend in a foreign land, they think of us well, because we’re always on the scene to be helpful.

    These are not hypothetical or distant outcomes. We are no longer arguing about what might happen in the future. We are talking about what is happening across the planet right now. People are dying right now, not in spite of us, but because of us. We are causing death. We have gone from being the good guys – flaws, mistakes and all – to being a conduit for death and sickness and hunger.

    A ten-year-old boy named Peter in South Sudan contracted HIV from his mother at birth. His parents died while he was young, but medication through PEPFAR kept him alive. That was until February, when, without access to medication, Peter fell severely sick and later died. The health outreach worker who had cared for him said simply, “If USAID would be here, Peter would not have died.”

    A pregnant woman in a Liberian village hemorrhaged and began to bleed heavily while in labor. But without gas, because of funding cuts, USAID ambulances stood idle, unable to help. And despite her neighbors’ best efforts to carry her ten miles on foot through the jungle to the nearest hospital, she died mid-journey, along with her unborn son.

    Dorcas, a ten-year-old in Zambia, had gotten so used to her routine of taking HIV medication every night with her mom that she was confused when it ran out a few months ago. Her mom recounted: “In the past week, she’ll open up the tin and find that it’s empty. So she’ll run down to the clinic and go check if she can collect her medication, and she’ll come back and say, oh, you’re right, the clinic is closed. They’re not there anymore.”

    In Sudan, which has been ravaged by war and gripped by famine, a mother watched two of her children under the age of three wither from malnutrition and die after a soup kitchen that had been supported by USAID closed overnight. Days before he died, the older of the two children had asked for porridge. “I told him, we don’t have any wheat to make that,” his mother recalled, adding that the soup kitchen’s daily meal – which the family was shared – was a godsend.

    A mother in Nigeria worried about how she would keep her infant alive, having just lost the other twin to malnutrition in the wake of funding cuts. A peanut paste supplement that had been paid for by American foreign assistance had been used to treat her newborns for malnutrition. She wondered about how she’d feed her child. And she said, “I don’t want to bury another child.”

    There are thousands and thousands of gut-wrenching stories just like these – from every corner of the planet; with newborns and children and families and communities. And this is only what’s happened in the last few months. Just imagine what’s going to happen if we codify these cuts.

    We are not going to prevent every death – we know that. We’re not going to be able to feed every child – we understand that. We cannot feasibly help every community that needs help – we accept that. But this is something different altogether. This is knowingly and willingly and needlessly inflicting horrific suffering on millions and millions of the most vulnerable people live anywhere on the planet. And for what? To save money? The idea that any of this is about finding savings, while at the same time, Republicans are exploding the national debt by $4 trillion to cut taxes for billionaires just doesn’t pass the smell test. And to top it all off, the administration is about to incinerate – is about to light on fire – 500 metric tons of food aid because they let it expire while sitting in a warehouse for months.

    They are lighting food on fire. Food grown in the United States, manufactured in the United States, to be sent out to the most vulnerable people on the planet with a sticker with the United States emblem on it. And Making America Great Again, apparently, is doing all of that and then letting it rot in a warehouse and then incinerating it. What the hell are we doing here? You want to have a conversation about debt and deficits? You want to have a conversation about aligning our foreign policy better? You want to have a conversation about whether or not the State Department – not the USAID agency – should have been funding operas and cultural enterprises in foreign countries. Fine. We can have that conversation. But I dare you to justify lighting food on fire.

    It wasn’t so long ago that a Republican senator stood on this very floor, talking about those in his party who claimed that cutting foreign aid was an easy way to save money. “A lot of times people will say, well, ‘Cut foreign aid.’ But foreign aid is less than 1% of our budget. Foreign aid can make a difference when properly used. And if you ever have a chance to travel to the African continent, you will meet people who are alive today because the American taxpayer funded antiviral HIV medications that kept them alive. It is not easy to radicalize people who are alive because of the American taxpayer.” That was Secretary Rubio as Senator Rubio.

    Why is this happening at all? I worry that there is a very specific and rather dark view about what the United States is capable of. It’s a view of our military. It’s a view of our economic power. It’s a view of our cultural power. And it’s a view of our moral authority. Which is the best path forward, as we decline, is to lock it down, is to not engage with the world, is to not project power militarily, culturally, economically, morally.

    We are going from the indispensable nation. And by the way, this is a real thing. If you ever do foreign policy trips, people hang on the words of United States senators who sit on the Foreign Relations Committee. First among equals. People want to know, what’s the United States doing? What’s the United States doing? It doesn’t matter what the issue is. It could be it could be fighting malnutrition. It could be economics and trade. It could be military strategy. Everyone wants to know: what’s the United States doing? You know what has changed in the last six months? They’re moving on from us. They’re not waiting to hear what the United States is doing. They’ve seen what the United States is doing. In Trump 1.0, we could basically be reassuring and say, ‘We’ll be back, don’t worry. We’re going through a rocky time.’

    Now, China is in the breech. China has stepped up. It’s not just that America’s retreat is bad for us. It is really good for China. It is great for Russia. It’s great if you’re Hungary. The Kremlin was nearly instantaneous with its praise calling the dismantling of the foreign aid enterprise a smart move. Autocrats in Hungary and El Salvador also celebrated USAID’s demise. Now there’s a basic principle in political campaigns, which is if you are doing something that your opponent loves, you may want to reconsider whether it’s a good strategy. The moment we did this, all the bad guys were like, ‘Very smart. Good job. We’re very happy for you. Excellent.’ China has seized this opportunity with a little more specificity because they have the opportunity to step into this role. They are working on child nutrition and landmine clearing in Cambodia. Health and education in Nepal. Disaster response in Myanmar. Climate resilience in Mongolia. And it doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to understand what this will look like in a few years’ time. China will become the partner of choice for countries, big and small, all around the world. It will have increased its funding to global bodies like the World Health Organization, enabling it to win leadership posts and rewrite the rules in its favor. And we will have facilitated that process.

    So that’s the background. Now let’s talk about the specifics of what’s in this package. And this point I want to make really clear. And I made this point in the Appropriations Committee. There were a bunch of controversial programs that precipitated this effort to cut USAID. Two points to be made. One, the total dollar amount of all the controversial programs was like in the $100-200 million range. That’s number one.

    Number two is all of those programs were discontinued. This is a budget that was enacted in March. This is Trump’s budget. This is Trump’s State Department. This is Trump’s USAID. And so there is not a single thing that was on that Fox chyron that Marco Rubio is continuing to do. So this rescissions package doesn’t have any of that stuff. And by the way, some of my Republican colleagues who understandably weren’t super engrossed in the details, I had to send them a line-by-line of what these rescissions do. And they’re sitting there going, ‘Where’s the opera in Ecuador? Where’s the cultural exchange program or the parade in South Africa? Where’s all the goofy sounding stuff?’

    And the answer is a lot of that stuff was made up in the first place. But even if you stipulate to the idea that there was inappropriate spending, it’s literally not in this package. What’s in this package is stuff that 90 out of 100 of us have asked for. And what do I mean by that? I mean, as the ranking member of the State and Foreign Ops Subcommittee – basically as a chair or ranking member of any of the subcommittees – you get a bunch of letters from your colleagues saying: ‘This program is important to me. Could you please take care of it in the coming appropriation cycle?’ And these letters are private and I will protect the confidentiality of these interactions. But suffice it to say, a lot of the people voting for the rescissions are also privately asking for me to fund the thing that they are defunding. So this is all about the momentum that came from DOGE and Trump and some tweets and some animus – real animus – to the foreign aid enterprise.

    So let’s go through what’s in it. $4.15 billion for economic support and development assistance. Our economic and development assistance is not charity. It is for countering the influence of the People’s Republic of China or promoting regional stability. This work is in our economic and security interests. If this administration disagrees with some of the projects pursued by the previous administration, the good news is they have pretty broad authority to reprogram the money. Like if we’re doing a program, I don’t want to name a country because it’ll have foreign policy implications. If we’re doing a program in a country and this administration says, you know, that’s not as important. They don’t have to rescind the money. They can reprogram it to China or Russia or Ukraine or whatever it is. They have that flexibility. What they are saying is they want less money to counter foreign influence.

    $563 million for treaty dues. Now we’re members of organizations with whom we disagree. That’s kind of the deal, right? Because if we want to be in an international forum, even arguing for our interests, even arguing against other countries, or being frustrated with the body with which we’re interacting, we have two choices. We can either participate. Or if we don’t pay our dues, we relegate ourselves to something called observer status, which basically means we’re on the outside looking in. In order to get in the room, you got to pay your dues to the relevant organization. And that is what we’re doing here. We’re rescinding all the funds for all of the payments to all these international organizations.

    Why? Not because it’s in our foreign policy interests. It’s actually not, but because a bunch of ideologues don’t actually understand how foreign policy works. And that’s the thing here. You can have a different view under whatever it is to have an America First foreign policy. But this isn’t that. This is just vandalism, right? I’m not having a disagreement with Jim Risch about how hawkish to be or how much to prioritize global health versus something else. We’re just literally cutting off our nose to spite our face, because what they want is vandalism to the enterprise. And the tools of foreign policy are being shredded. So this isn’t about policy unless you think the policy is: I wish my State Department were weaker. I wish the tools in our toolkit were more limited. I wish our ability to prevent war and keep nations stable were less well funded. I wish that the only tool in our toolkit was military might.

    And it is not a small thing that many former Secretaries of Defense have said something along the lines of if you defund foreign aid, I’m going to need more ammunition because this is the cheapest way to prevent war.

    $500 million from global health programs. Now, the new Republican proposal protects some of those programs funded by this account, but it leaves out pandemic prevention, family planning, and work on a wide range of issues.

    $1.3 billion for migration and refugee assistance and international disaster assistance. This funding supports our efforts to help refugees and other displaced people in conflict zones around the world. You know, most of us at some point out of the 100 of us do some sort of CODEL, some sort of foreign travel, and this is the kind of stuff we visit. And this is the stuff on a bipartisan basis that we all nod approvingly about. It’s great that we’re doing this. It’s great that we’re providing this kind of assistance. And $1.3 billion for refugee assistance is being cut.

    And I’ll tell you why. It’s because it’s got the word refugee in it. I mean, that’s how they figured out what they wanted to cut, right? They ran word searches. They’re pretending it’s sophisticated. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. But all they were doing was looking for words like gender. Or looking for words like climate. Looking for words like equity. Looking for words like refugee. And if the program was named in such a way that it mentioned it, just use those words. It was out. Just totally preposterous.

    Our contributions to and participate to participation in organizations like UNICEF is being cut. I mean, good luck explaining why you cut UNICEF. I’m pretty good at like imagining what my political competitors on the other side of the aisle would say. But why did you cut UNICEF? Like, are you trying to pretend that some number of hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent starvation among children is like going to do the trick in terms of getting debt and deficits under control? Nobody actually believes that. Why are you cutting UNICEF? If this is about tightening our belts? Why would you cut UNICEF?

    $460 million for the assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia. This account funds a whole bunch of bipartisan foreign policy priorities, including energy security in Ukraine, that will be cut completely if this recession is enacted. If there were programs under the previous administration that the current administration disagrees with, good news: they literally have the authority to reprogram those dollars. This is two-year money. It doesn’t actually have to be spent by the end of the federal fiscal year. They have pretty good authority to reprogram it, but they don’t want to reprogram it to something that they consider important. They want to shred the enterprise.

    $125 million for the U.S. Agency for International Development operating expenses. Now, this administration is illegally dismantling USAID and functionally merging it under the State Department. Here’s the problem with the $125 million. And yes, it’s admin expenses. I’ve been in the nonprofit sector and I’ve been in the grant giving side, and nobody loves the idea of paying for administrative expenses. But I know for a fact the State Department didn’t want this in the rescissions package. Because now that they have merged USAID under the State Department, they literally don’t have the money, and they’ve got to absorb $125 million hit.

    $100 million for the Transition Initiatives in the Complex Crisis Fund. This is flexible funding and contingency accounts that didn’t expire, and the administration can program it in any way they want.

    $83 million for the Democracy Fund. $83 million. Promoting democratic values is directly in our interest and supporting resistance to dictators – resistance to dictators. We’re cutting resistance to dictators. Good for us. Make America Great Again. Ronald Reagan would be proud. The party of Cold Warriors, the party that vanquished the Soviet Union, the party that claims a hawkish mantle is now saying, you know what? This thing which is probably 0.00 whatever of the entire federal spend and an even tinier amount of the debt and deficit of the United States. Let’s defund that, because it’s not our business if dictators maintain power. It’s a real change in policy here.

    $27 million for the Inter-American Foundation. This provides small, cost effective grants and technical support for locally led development projects. Strengthening stability and self-reliance in partner countries is in our interest. And this is another one that I get a lot of letters from these guys saying, ‘Please fund it. Dear Ranking Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Schatz, this program is super important. And would you please fund it in the next appropriations cycle?’ That’s the private letter that we get. The public action is to rescind the money.

    $22 million for the African Development Foundation. The administration says the African Development Foundation’s work is duplicative of the State Department’s work. But the kind of grants and technical support that the African Development Foundation provides is not available through the State Department.

    15 million bucks for the United States Institute of Peace. A creature of statute. A creature of one of the first senators from the great state of Hawai‘i. Mr. Spark Matsunaga.

    The through line between all of this is that there’s no correlation between the rationale provided by the administration for these cuts, and what’s actually in the package. And I’ve talked to Eric Schmidt, with whom I have a reasonable, functional working relationship. But we’re like talking past each other. Because every time I talk about what’s actually in this package, he pivots back to what’s actually not in this package and starts naming line items on things that are not in the eight-page rescissions bill. This is not the BBB which took 11.5 hours to read. This thing is eight pages. You can go and see there is no line item for $1.8 billion for operas and festivals and underwater basket weaving and whatever else nonsense people wanted to characterize as the U.S. foreign aid enterprise. This is economic support funds. This is global public health. This is humanitarian assistance. This is helping our friends in Jordan and elsewhere to maintain the basic stability so that there is not a conflagration in a region. That’s what’s in this package. That is what’s being rescinded from this package.

    I understand that there is some obligation as a party member to oblige the requests of this party’s president. I get it. But we are still a system with separate, co-equal, independent branches of government. The problem is, if you don’t assert your authority, you don’t functionally have it. So it’s true that we hold the purse strings. It’s true that we’re the Article One branch. It’s true that we’re in charge of whether a bill passes or not. But I will tell you, the thing that is most alarming to me is not the bad policy outcomes – and there are terrible policy outcomes. The thing that is most alarming to me is that I have not yet seen in the last six months, in this final term of Donald Trump, what I saw in the first term of Donald Trump. Which is quietly, not rudely, not provocatively, but occasionally, this branch of government, on a bipartisan basis, stood up for itself and said – and those guys would say – ‘Look, we love you, Mr. Trump. We love you, Mr. President. But on this one, I can’t be with you.’

    And on BBB, I understand, like it’s very hard to reject the president’s signature policy accomplishment. But this seemed like one where we could have gotten four no votes. This really did, to me, seem like one where it would be a good opportunity to stand up to the president and just say, like, we’re going to do the appropriating over here. Like, let me show you what Article One says and what Article Two says, and we’re going to defer to you on lots of matters, but not 100% of matters.

    And so my question is if they’re going to have the votes to enact this rescission package. When is it that Republicans are going to stand up for their own prerogatives? And why would you run for office? Would you put your family through all of that? Would you go through the difficulty of a campaign? Would you go through the difficulty of being a public figure and subject to scrutiny and criticism, and all of the late nights and the kind of uncomfortable interactions and all that? It really is a sacrifice. It’s certainly an honor, but it’s also a sacrifice. Why would you do that if you don’t get to make up your own mind?

    I don’t pretend to be able to get into the mind or the position of a Republican colleague of mine. I’m from Hawaii. It’s different. But I do think that there’s a point at which it’s just not worth it to give this guy every single thing that he wants. And it would be important, and it will age well, and your family will be happy and your staff will be secretly happy, at least some of them, if at some point you establish that there are some limits to the executive branch’s power.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: McClellan Introduces Resolution on Extreme Weather’s Threat to Children’s Health and Well-Being

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (Virginia 4th District)

    Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (VA-04) led 32 of her colleagues to introduce a resolution calling on Congress to acknowledge and address the threat extreme weather poses to children’s health and well-being.

    H.Res. 585 urges Congress to develop solutions that account for children’s unique developmental vulnerabilities as they relate to extreme weather conditions and highlights enforceable and adaptive measures, such as timely and accessible public extreme weather alerts; education and training for health care professionals, educators and caregivers; and expanded access to safe places for children and families during extreme weather events. 

    “Just in the past month, extreme weather events have utterly devastated communities across the country — and we know that climate change only accelerates the frequency and intensity of these events,” said Congresswoman McClellan. “As a mother, I am fighting to advance climate and environmental policies that ensure a safe, habitable planet for our children and future generations to thrive. My resolution calls on Congress to implement solutions to comprehensively protect the health and well-being of our nation’s children, who have the most at stake in the decisions we make today.”

    The resolution lays out specific impacts of extreme weather on child and adolescent health, including: 

    • Children’s disproportionate exposure to pollutants in the air, increasing levels of wildfire smoke, and changing dust patterns that negatively impact children’s developing bodies and behavioral patterns;
    • Extreme heat’s link to impairment in children’s cognition, making it harder for them to learn at school, and an increase in schools across the country closing for heat days, disrupting academic performance; and
    • The disproportionate impact of life-altering trauma due to extreme weather disasters, including separation from or harm to caregivers, interruption in education, and other adverse mental health impacts that exacerbate the mental health crisis children and adolescents already face.

    McClellan’s resolution is endorsed by Moms Clean Air Force, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Association of Children and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Medical Informatics Association, American Public Health Association, Association of Community Health Nursing Educators, Association of Public Health Nurses, Children & Nature Network, Children’s Environmental Health Network, Climate Mental Health Network, Climate Psychiatry Alliance, Climate Psychology Alliance, Council of Public Health Nursing Organizations, ecoAmerica, Environmental Defense Fund, First Focus on Children, Green Schoolyards America, Mothers Out Front, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, National League for Nursing, OneGreenThing, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club, Society of Behavioral Medicine, Trust for America’s Health, Virginia Clinicians for Climate Action, and ZERO TO THREE. 

    “Extreme weather events, supercharged by climate pollution, are going to become more frequent, more intense —and more dangerous,” said Dominique Browning, Founder of Moms Clean Air Force. “We are indebted to Representative McClellan for her leadership in protecting our children. With the weather on steroids, we must consider children’s unique vulnerabilities as we create and fund adaptations. Moms Clean Air Force will continue our fight against climate and air pollution. But we must also adapt to the damaging effects now baked into our weather systems, so we can keep our children safe.”

    Read the full resolution text here. 

     

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Moldova – Moldova Launches Agrotek Arena: A New Incubator for Digital Agriculture, Robotics, and FoodTech

    Source: Innovate Moldova Programme

    Chișinău, Moldova – Moldova is taking a decisive step toward the future of agriculture with the launch of a new incubator and pre-accelerator at Agrotek Arena Incubator, an innovation space dedicated to digital agriculture, robotics, and food technology. The initiative is part of the Innovate Moldova Programme, funded by Sweden, and aims to modernize the country’s agri-food sector through innovation, research, and international collaboration.

    On July 9, 2025, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Moldova’s Ministry of Digitalization and Economic Development (MDED), the Technical University of Moldova (UTM), the Innovate Moldova Programme, and the Ukraine-Moldova American Enterprise Fund (UMAEF), marking the start of this strategic partnership.

    The incubator will span 1,300 square meters across two refurbished floors of Agrotek Arena and will host up to 30 residents – startups, student entrepreneurs, researchers, and agri-food businesses. It is projected to benefit over 3,000 students, farmers, and food processors annually by providing access to cutting-edge technologies, prototyping labs, greenhouses, and innovation support programs.

    “Agriculture remains a backbone of Moldova’s economy. Yet, without modern tools and forward-thinking infrastructure, its full potential cannot be realized, Agrotek Arena will serve as a launchpad for innovation, helping us bridge the gap between academia, industry, and global partners.”

    stated Doina Nistor, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Digitalization and Economic Development.

    The incubator is set to open its doors to residents by September 1st, with a structured acceleration program launching in October 2025. Activities will focus on developing viable agri-tech solutions in areas such as precision agriculture, smart irrigation, and sustainable food processing.

    Shared Investment and Global Collaboration

    The $1 million project is built on a shared funding model. Innovate Moldova Programme and UMAEF are supporting the refurbishment of common areas, while UTM is offering rent-free space and managing energy efficiency upgrades. Residents will contribute by equipping their dedicated offices with air conditioning, furnishings, and technical installations.

    Agrotek Arena will also establish strong linkages with European and North American technology providers. Strategic collaborations include:

    Davis Weather Stations for climate-smart farming,
    Biosfera’s GPS AgTech Solutions for resource-optimized agriculture,
    SAS Cropio ERP Systems for real-time farm data analytics.

    These partnerships not only bolster Moldova’s agricultural transformation but also create long-term business opportunities for EU, EFTA and North Atlantic region.

    A Foundation for Moldova’s AgriTech Future

    Located on UTM’s 5-hectare Mircești campus in capital Chișinău and linked to 570 hectares in Criuleni region, Agrotek Arena is the first major milestone in the broader Agrotek Park vision. Future plans include the development of high-tech farming sites, applied R&D centers, and repurposed Soviet-era infrastructure into labs and innovation hubs.

    “This is more than a building—it’s the beginning of Moldova’s transformation into a regional hub for sustainable agri-tech. By fostering ties between startups, universities, and international partners, we are laying the groundwork for high-value job creation and export-ready technologies.”

    said Sergiu Rabii, Programme Director at the Innovate Moldova Programme

    Agrotek Arena will also support Moldova’s alignment with EU standards by integrating sustainable design, ESG practices, and inclusive economic development into its operational model.

    MIL OSI – Submitted News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: UK-Germany landmark agreement to help smash smuggling gangs and boost defence exports

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    UK-Germany landmark agreement to help smash smuggling gangs and boost defence exports

    Brits and Germans alike will benefit from a closer partnership on the issues that matter most to them, as Prime Minister Keir Starmer is set to host Chancellor Friedrich Merz for a comprehensive visit to London.

    • Prime Minister Keir Starmer will welcome Chancellor Merz to London today for his first official visit to the UK as Chancellor
    • The leaders will sign a new Treaty to strengthen their partnership and deliver benefits for UK and German citizens
    • PM set to welcome German commitment to criminalise facilitating illegal migration to the UK this year, as leaders agree to boost joint defence exports

    Brits and Germans alike will benefit from a closer partnership on the issues that matter most to them, as Prime Minister Keir Starmer is set to host Chancellor Friedrich Merz for a comprehensive visit to London today (Thursday 17 July) to revamp the UK-Germany friendship and sign a first of its kind Bilateral Friendship and Cooperation Treaty.

    Alongside the Treaty, Germany is expected to make a landmark commitment to make it illegal in Germany to facilitate illegal migration to the UK with the law change to be adopted by the end of the year. 

    The change will give law enforcement the tools they need to investigate and take action against warehouses and storage facilities used by migrant smugglers to conceal dangerous small boats intended for illegal crossings to the UK. This will bolster efforts to prosecute those involved in smuggling and support the dismantling of the criminal networks driving unacceptable and unlawful journeys through Europe. 

    This significant and long-awaited step is further evidence that the Prime Minister’s approach to working more closely with our European partners is bearing fruit, and demonstrates progress on delivering the Joint Action Plan on Irregular Migration agreed with Germany last year. Through increased cooperation between UK and German law enforcement bodies we are expanding efforts to tackle people smuggling and bring criminal networks to justice. In the last 18 months the NCA has worked with partners across Europe to seize more than 600 boats and engines, with this change expected to drive that number up further.

    It will also complement bolstered UK efforts to smash the criminal gangs responsible for dangerous, illegal journeys to the UK via small boats, through the game-changing pilot returns agreement reached with France last week, and the continued work upstream of the Border Security Command to disrupt and deter criminal smuggling networks.  

    The new Treaty will detail closer collaboration on issues ranging from migration and security to business, commercial and infrastructure links. This joint commitment to pursue a range of ambitious projects demonstrates how closer partnerships with our trusted allies will help deliver the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change. 

    Prime Minister Keir Starmer said:

    “The progress we are making today is further proof that by investing in our relationships with likeminded friends and partners, we can deliver real change for working people.  

    “The Treaty we will sign today, the first of its kind, will bring the UK and Germany closer than ever. It not only marks the progress we have already made and the history we share. It is the foundation on which we go further to tackle shared problems and invest in shared strengths. 

    “Chancellor Merz’s commitment to make necessary changes to German law to disrupt the supply lines of the dangerous vessels which carry illegal migrants across the Channel is hugely welcome. As the closest of allies, we will continue to work closely together to deliver on the priorities that Brits and Germans share.”

    Deepening our security and defence cooperation is also high on the agenda, with the leaders set to discuss their strong shared support for Ukraine. 

    Building on the landmark Trinity House Agreement on Defence signed in October, the leaders will unveil a new agreement to boost world-class UK defence exports such as Boxer armoured vehicles and Typhoon jets, with the two countries set to pursue joint export campaigns for jointly produced equipment. The agreement is likely to lead to billions of pounds additional defence exports in the coming years – excellent news for the UK economy and thousands of highly skilled defence industrial workers. 

    The leaders are also set to make a new commitment to deliver their new Deep Precision Strike capability in the next decade. The rapid development of this capability will safeguard the British public and reinforce NATO deterrence, while boosting the UK and European defence sectors through significant industrial investment. The new capability is set to have a range of over 2,000 km, and will be among the most advanced systems ever designed by the UK. 

    The Treaty also includes the establishment of a new UK-Germany Business Forum in order to improve business and investment relationship between the UK and Germany, with trade between the two countries already accounting for 8.5% of all UK trade and supporting almost 500,000 jobs. This is further illustrated by a series of commercial investment announced today worth more than £200 million and creating more than 600 new jobs. 

    One such example is German defence tech company, STARK, which has announced a landmark investment in the UK, marking its first production expansion outside of Germany. The move will create over 100 highly skilled jobs in the UK within the first year, including through STARK’s new 40,000 square feet facility in Swindon.

    Mike Armstrong, Managing Director of STARK UK, said: 

    “The UK and Germany are world-leaders in new technology that will define the battlefields of the future. We need rapid and scalable production to protect our people, defend our sovereignty and deter aggression. That means resilient supply chains stretching across Europe. 

    “That is why STARK has chosen the UK as our first production location outside of Germany – taking advantage of the vast technological, industrial and defence expertise that exists here to create AI-powered, unmanned systems to defend Europe and NATO.”

    Other announcements from German companies in the UK today include:

    • Conversational AI firm Cognigy plans to invest £50 million in the UK, expanding its team from 13 to 150.
    • AI ESG platform osapiens plans to invest £30 million in the UK, creating 150 high-skilled jobs.
    • Siemens Energy is creating 200 new jobs as well as 100 new apprentices and graduates starting this autumn.
    • Venture Capital fund, HV Capital, has the ambition to deploy around £150 million in the UK as part of their next fund generation.

    Updates to this page

    Published 16 July 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Padilla, Chu, Colleagues Join Union Workers to Announce Legislation to Protect Workers from Extreme Heat

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

    Padilla, Chu, Colleagues Join Union Workers to Announce Legislation to Protect Workers from Extreme Heat

    WATCH: Padilla pushes for enforceable workplace heat stress protections after hottest year on record

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, on the heels of another harsh heat wave across California, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Representative Judy Chu (D-Calif.-28) joined union workers from the United Farm Workers (UFW), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and United Steelworkers to announce their bipartisan, bicameral legislation to implement federal enforceable workplace heat stress protections.

    Co-leads of the legislation include U.S. Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), and Representatives Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.-03), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, and Alma Adams (D-N.C.-12).

    To address the increasing risks from extreme temperatures, the lawmakers introduced the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act, legislation to protect the safety and health of indoor and outdoor workers who are exposed to dangerous heat conditions in the workplace. The legislation would protect workers against occupational exposure to excessive heat by requiring the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to establish an enforceable federal standard to protect workers in high-heat environments with commonsense measures like paid breaks in cool spaces, access to water, limitations on time exposed to heat, and emergency response for workers with heat-related illness. The bill also directs employers to provide training for their employees on the risk factors that can lead to heat illness and guidance on the proper procedures for responding to symptoms.

    The bill is named in honor of Asunción Valdivia, who died in 2004 after picking grapes for 10 hours straight in 105-degree temperatures. Mr. Valdivia fell unconscious, but instead of calling an ambulance, his employer told Mr. Valdivia’s son to drive his father home. On his way home, he died of heat stroke at the age of 53.

    “Asunción Valdivia’s death was completely preventable, yet his story is sadly not unique. As the planet continues to grow hotter, there is still no federally enforceable heat safety standard for workers. That’s not just dangerous for the farm workers and construction workers who work all day outside in the sun — it’s also dangerous for the factory and restaurant workers in boiling warehouses and kitchens,” said Senator Padilla. “Every family deserves to know that even on the hottest day, their loved one will come back home. A national heat safety standard would provide that peace of mind and finally give workers the safety they deserve.”

    “Even as heat waves become more frequent, longer-lasting, and more severe, red state politicians are rolling back heat protections and child labor protections across the country. It’s not rocket science—you cannot be pro-worker if you are anti-heat protection,” said Senator Markey. “Our legislation would provide workers with basic, effective protections: access to water, access to shade, time limits on high heat exposure, and procedures for emergency medical response. Every worker deserves to know when they clock in that they will return home safe at the end of their shift.  The thermometer is rising and the clock is ticking. Republicans want to sacrifice working Americans. Let’s save our workers instead.”

    “From farmhands to construction workers, America’s essential workforce is doing important work while under extreme heat conditions,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “Temperatures continue to reach record highs in Nevada and across the United States. We must act now to protect our communities’ vital workers.” 

    “As we continue to experience record-breaking summer heat waves, we’re also seeing a distressing increase in cases of workers collapsing and even losing their lives due to excessive heat. I will never forget people like Asunción Valdivia or Esteban Chavez Jr., who passed away in Pasadena, California in 2022 after a day of delivering packages in 90-degree heat in a truck without air conditioning. Unfortunately, their tragic deaths were entirely preventable,” said Representative Chu. “Whether on a farm, driving a truck, or working in a warehouse, workers like Asunción and Esteban keep our country running while enduring some of the most difficult conditions—often without access to water or rest. To protect our workforce and save lives, we must pass this bill into law and establish comprehensive and enforceable federal standards addressing heat stress on the job.”

    “This summer, Americans across the country are grappling with some of the hottest temperatures on record. Yet workers in this country still have no legal protection against excessive heat—one of the oldest, most serious, and most common workplace hazards. Heat illness affects workers in our nation’s fields, warehouses, and factories, and climate change is making the problem more severe every year,” said Ranking Member Scott, House Committee on Education and Workforce. “This legislation will require OSHA to issue a heat standard on a much faster track than the normal OSHA regulatory process. I was proud to advance this important bill in 2022, and I urge Chairman Walberg and Committee Republicans to do so again this Congress. Workers deserve nothing less, particularly as heat-related illnesses and deaths rise.”

    “As we face record temperatures, it has never been more important that we protect our workers facing extreme heat in the workplace,” said Representative Adams. “Last year, a North Carolina postal worker Wendy Johnson lost her life to heat illness after spending hours in the back of a postal truck on a 95-degree day with no air conditioning. Her death was entirely preventable, and Wendy should still be with us today. I’m proud to introduce this bill so we can honor her memory and ensure every worker has the protections from extreme heat that Wendy deserved.” 

    According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2024 was the warmest year on record for the United States. The past decade, including 2024, was the hottest on record, marking a decade of extreme heat that will only get worse. Heat-related illnesses can cause heat cramps, organ damage, heat exhaustion, stroke, and even death. Between 1992 and 2017, heat stress injuries killed 815 U.S. workers and seriously injured more than 70,000. The Washington Center for Equitable Growth estimates hot temperatures caused at least 360,000 workplace injuries in California from 2001 to 2018, or about 20,000 injuries a year. The failure to implement simple heat safety measures costs U.S. employers nearly $100 billion every year in lost productivity.

    From 2011-2020, heat exposure killed at least 400 workers and caused nearly 34,000 injuries and illnesses resulting in days away from work; both are likely vast underestimates. Farm workers and construction workers suffer the highest incidence of heat illness. And no matter what the weather is outside, workers in factories, commercial kitchens, and other workplaces, including ones where workers must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), can face dangerously high heat conditions all year round.

    The Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act has the support of a broad coalition of over 250 groups, including: Rural Coalition, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, UNITE HERE!, Communication Workers of America, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, Sierra Club, United Farm Workers, Farmworker Justice, Public Citizen, International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Union of Concerned Scientists, United Steelworkers, National Resources Defense Council, American Lung Association, and Health Partnerships.

    “Every worker safety rule in America is written in blood,” said UFW President Teresa Romero. “The UFW has been fighting for heat safety protections for decades. Over 20 years later, Asuncion Valdivia’s death still hurts. There are so many other farm workers — many whose names we do not know — who have also been killed by extreme heat on the job in the years since. Enough is enough. Every farm worker deserves access to water, shade, and paid rest breaks — it’s past time for Congress get this done.”

    “Too many workers – including AFSCME members – have lost their lives on the job as a result of blistering heat waves and record-breaking temperatures,” said AFSCME President Lee Saunders. “As the number of heat-related illnesses and fatalities continue to rise, it is well past time we adopt nationwide safeguards to better protect the workers who maintain our infrastructure, keep our streets clean, harvest our food, and keep our economy moving. We at AFSCME thank Senator Padilla and Representative Chu for introducing the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act, which will ensure essential workers who brave the heat can do their jobs safely and effectively, and most importantly, make it home alive.”

    “For the Steelworkers Union, we represent workers in manufacturing settings and in a host of other areas where not only is it hot outside, but the areas that they work around are as hot as up to 3,000 degrees and they must wear protective equipment. The Asunción Valdivia Heat, Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act is important because it will provide a basic standard for not just outdoor, but indoor workplaces as well to ensure that there is proper rest breaks and the ability to stay cool. The Steelworkers are absolutely supportive of this bill and are going to work with Republicans and Democrats to ensure that heat illness is the last thing a worker should worry about,” said Roy Houseman, Legislative Director of United Steelworkers. 

    “Everyone deserves safe working conditions, but powerful corporations have not done enough to protect their workers from hot working environments, exacerbated by the climate crisis,” said Liz Shuler, President of the AFL-CIO. “Extreme heat is increasingly causing indoor and outdoor workers to collapse or even die on the job, and our union family has already lost too many members to preventable, work-related heat illness. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) must issue a strong heat rule, not a weak one, to ensure workers have specific protections they need and to be able to raise unsafe working conditions without fear of retaliation.”

    “It’s long past time for meaningful legislation to protect Teamsters and other workers from the effects of prolonged heat exposure and dangerous heat levels while at work,” said Teamsters General President Sean M. O’Brien. “Paid breaks in cool spaces, access to water, and limitations on time exposed to heat are simple common sense steps that should be mandated immediately. Waiting to implement these measures is unacceptable and will result in the further loss of lives.”

    “Workers in America are facing unprecedented dangers from climate-driven heat and extreme weather, and things are only getting worse. It is far past time for a strong national standard to protect workers from illness and death caused by exposure to extreme heat. The provisions mandated in this bill, including temperature triggers, acclimatization, water, shade and paid rest breaks, would save countless lives. They represent a common sense and common decency approach that employers could quickly adopt. American workers deserve no less, and they urgently need it. Today, OSHA is in the final stage of issuing a final rule on this issue. It is imperative that the rule maintain the integrity and high standards called for in the Asuncíon Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act. We applaud Senators Padilla, Markey, and Cortez Masto and Representatives Chu, Adams, and Scott, as well as the dozens of Senators and Congresspersons who have joined them in this long effort. It’s time to bring a high quality, protective standard to the finish line for American workers,” said Ernesto Archila, Climate and Financial Regulation Policy Director, Public Citizen.

    “Every summer high temperature records get broken in states across the country, and while public health officials urge residents to stay inside and stay safe millions of workers have to report for work. From fields to warehouses, airports to schools, construction sites to manufacturing plants, and many more industries, too many workers are at risk of not getting home safely at the end of the day due to exposure to heat on the job. We know how to prevent these dangers. In fact, both outdoor and indoor workers in states like Oregon, California, and Maryland have strong, enforceable protections in place already. And in Washington, Colorado, and Minnesota at least some categories of workers are being kept safe from heat. But millions labor in other states where there are no protections; worker safety is left to the federal government in these states, and absent strong rules workers are left to protect themselves and hope for the best. We must extend workplace protections from heat to all workers. The National Employment Law Project thanks Senator Padilla and Representative Chu, as well as the dozens of Senators and Congresspersons who have cosponsored the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act of 2025,” said Anastasia Christman, Senior Policy Analyst, National Employment Law Project.

    The bill is cosponsored by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

    Senator Padilla has acted urgently to address the threats posed by extreme heat as the climate crisis becomes more severe. Padilla successfully called on OSHA to establish the first-ever federal safety standard to protect workers from the severe risks of excessive heat, implementing key provisions from the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act. Padilla and his colleagues also led 112 members of Congress in calling on the Biden Administration to implement a workplace federal heat standard as quickly as possible. The letter urged OSHA to model the standard after the provisions in the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act. Additionally, Padilla and Markey’s Preventing Health Emergencies and Temperature-related (HEAT) Illness and Deaths Act advanced out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation last year.

    Padilla previously joined union members and workers from UFW and the Kern, Inyo, and Mono Counties Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO in Forty Acres, California in 2023 to announce his legislation to implement an enforceable federal workplace heat standard.

    A one-pager on the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act is available here.

    A section-by-section of the bill is available here.

    Full text of the bill is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Jayapal, Schakowsky, Raskin, Senate Colleagues Fight for Children’s Fundamental Right to a Healthy, Livable Planet

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (7th District of Washington)

    WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Representatives Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), and Jamie Raskin (MD-08) led over 40 Representatives in the introduction of a new resolution to protect the fundamental rights of the nation’s children to a safe, habitable environment in the face of climate chaos’ increasingly destructive and deadly impacts.

    “Every single one of us — no matter our age, our background, our race, our income — has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But those rights are in jeopardy, because the future of our planet is in jeopardy. I applaud the young people who are taking their futures into their own hands and standing up to the Trump administration’s efforts to sell out our clean air and water to the highest fossil fuel bidder. Inaction is not an option and we all must stand up for climate justice and a future where we can all thrive,” said Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal.

    “There is no room for debate: climate change is real, and as this crisis grows, our increasingly paying the price. The movement to protect our planet is more important than ever before because we have a president who continues to ignore the science and cozy up to the fossil fuel industry,” said Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. “I am introducing the Children’s Fundamental Rights to Life and a Stable Climate System Resolution to emphasize that we as leaders have a duty to ensure that all people, especially our young people, are protected from the existential threat of climate change. Our children and grandchildren should not be forced to suffer the consequences of our lack of action. Together we can save our planet.”

    “Children have a right to live and therefore a right to a livable planet,” said Congressman Jamie Raskin. “But the Trump Administration wants to carve out more giveaways to the Carbon Kings rather than protect the climate for children and future generations of Americans. Our Resolution with Representatives Jayapal and Schakowsky and Senator Merkley is about uplifting the voices of those who will be most affected by this climate irresponsibility and corruption—young people and children—and sounding the alarm on America’s accelerating climate disaster. The time to act for public accountability is right now. I salute everyone involved in this important campaign.”

    The resolution — led in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) — responds to the Trump Administration’s ‘Polluters over People’ agenda that has enriched Big Oil, fueled climate chaos, and increased energy costs for working families. The resolution calls for leadership to put the United States on a trajectory to avoid the worst impacts of climate chaos.

    “Every child in America deserves a healthy and prosperous future, but the Trump Administration is selling out our health, safety, planet, and future to make billionaire corporate polluters even richer,” said Senator Jeff Merkley. “We stand with these courageous young activists in Oregon and across the country who are taking matters into their own hands with immediate and decisive steps to fight for themselves and future generations, address climate chaos, and tackle environmental injustice.”

    The resolution highlights the principles underpinning Lighthiser v. Trump, a youth-led lawsuit that was filed by 22 young plaintiffs from five states, challenging the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders that “unleash fossil fuels” and endanger the lives of children and future generations.

    In addition to Reps. Schakowsky, Jayapal, and Raskin, cosponsors of the resolution include Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Summer L. Lee, Shri Thanedar, Delia C. Ramirez, Yassamin Ansari, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Andre Carson, Nydia M. Velázquez, Nanette Barragán, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Dina Titus, Maxwell Frost, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Steve Cohen, Mary Gay Scanlon, Lateefah Simon, Jerrold Nadler, Kathy Castor, Kevin Mullin, Danny Davis, Julia Brownley, Dave Min, Sara Jacobs, Judy Chu, Maxine Dexter, David Scott, Mark Takano, Gabe Amo, Jared Huffman, Sydney Kamlager-Dove, Valerie Foushee, Becca Balint, Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr., Ro Khanna, Alma S. Adams, Ritchie Torres, James P. McGovern, Jill Tokuda, Darren Soto, Stephen F. Lynch, LaMonica McIver, Val Hoyle, and Jahana Hayes.

    Issues: Environment

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Climate Policy Radar

    Source: UNISDR Disaster Risk Reduction

    Mission

    Climate Policy Radar is a not-for-profit organisation building open databases and research tools so people can discover, understand and generate data-driven insights on climate law and policy. Our data and tools help governments, researchers, international organisations, civil society, and the private sector to understand and advance effective climate policies and deploy climate finance.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – EU climate target for 2040 – E-002269/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission has adopted the proposal to amend the European Climate Law to include the net 90% 2040 climate target on 2 July 2025, following substantial engagement with Member States, European Parliament Groups, stakeholders, civil society and citizens, launched with the Commission’s recommendation on the target in February 2024.

    The proposal provides for a limited number of flexibilities and supports the creation of the right enabling environment to implement the target.

    The flexibilities include a possible limited contribution towards the 2040 target of high-quality international credits starting from 2036, the use of domestic permanent removals in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), and enhanced flexibility across sectors to help achieve targets in a cost-effective way.

    It provides for the Commission to ensure that these flexibilities are appropriately reflected in designing the post-2030 legislation needed to achieve the 2040 target, and the future architecture should be based on robust impact assessments.

    In February 2024, the Commission presented a recommended target for 2040, based on a detailed impact assessment[1]. The proposal is based on that impact assessment, which provided a detailed analysis of different levels of net greenhouse gas emissions in 2040 and the associated sectoral pathways bridging 2030 to climate neutrality by 2050.

    Following the setting of the target for 2040, and in line with the foreseen reviews and based on impact assessments, the Commission will prepare a policy architecture beyond 2030.

    • [1] COM(2024) 63 final, SWD/2024/63 final.
    Last updated: 16 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murray Slams Republicans’ Rescissions Package on Senate Floor

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    FACT SHEET: Trump’s Rescission Package Would Shutter Local Public Radio, TV Stations Across America

    FACT SHEET: Trump’s Rescission Package Would Gut Bipartisan Foreign Policy Investments

    ICYMI: Vought Refuses to Rule Out More Illegal End-Runs Around Congress & Refuses to Detail How Trump Will Execute Cuts If Rescissions Bill Passes

    ***WATCH: Senator Murray’s floor remarks***

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor slamming Senate Republicans for moving forward with President Trump’s devastating rescissions package and continuing to urge a no vote on final passage:

    [LAUGHABLE CLAIMS OF “FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY”]

    “Two weeks ago, Republicans were jamming through the most expensive bill in the history of the country. And now, they say they are worried about the debt.

    “Two weeks ago, Republicans said four trillion bucks in tax cuts for the richest people in the world was nothing—literally. And now, they are saying a truly tiny fraction of that for rural radio is just too much.

    “So, I have to ask: Is this a joke? Are they really that bad at math?

    “First, Republicans were saying trillions in tax cuts were free. Get real.

    “And now, they are pretending to be fiscal hawks by shutting down local news, and letting epidemics go unchecked around the world.

    “Well, here’s another math lesson for my colleagues, Republicans could cut every dollar ever spent on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting since it was created—down to the last dime—and it still would not cover the cost of the bill Republicans just jammed through.

    “Republicans could actually cut every dollar we have spent on foreign aid since World War II—and that would still fall short compared to the cost of the Republican tax cuts.

    “Republicans could even cut the amount in this first rescissions bill—every single day for a year—and it still would not equal their tax cuts to help their rich donors.

    “So, make no mistake, if Republicans choose to do Trump’s bidding, if they push through this package to rip away funding for emergency alerts and global health programs, it is not because they take the debt seriously.

    [MORE REQUESTS COMING]

    “And that will be just as true for the next package, because let’s be clear, if Republicans go along with this package, despite the fact they clearly have issues with it, and despite the fact Russ Vought has refused to answer the most basic questions—even from the Republican Chair of the Appropriations Committee—about which programs he is going to cut.

    “If all of that is not enough to give Republicans just some pause, and they let Russ Vought steamroll them through this package, don’t be surprised when he sends more cuts down the pike.

    “It could be medical research, and after school programs, maybe heating assistance, workplace safety, road maintenance. Everything is going to be on the chopping block. And all of our time here in the Senate is going to be spent on those requests.

    [SPENDING PRIORITIES]

    “And here’s the kicker—no matter how many rescissions Russ Vought sends, no matter how many rescissions Republicans roll over and let pass, they will never offset the trillions in tax cuts they just passed without blinking an eye.

    “Because you could rescind the entire FY25 spending bill—twice over—and it still would not cover the four trillion in tax cuts Republicans just showered on the richest people in this country.

    “So, however this vote goes, expect to hear more from me on this every time Republicans try to pretend we don’t have money for child care, or medical research, or other programs that our families rely on.

    “Now, M. President. I’ve said a lot about how patently absurd it is for Republicans to pretend they are passing these cuts because they care about the debt. But I do not want to lose sight of the larger issues. It’s not just that Republicans’ play acting about the debt is absurd, the bigger problem here is that these cuts would be devastating for our communities and for American interests around the globe.

    [SHUTTING DOWN LOCAL STATIONS]

    “When it comes to local news, these cuts could force local stations that people know and trust—know and trust—off the air. This isn’t just about a program or two taking a haircut. Trump wants to slash every penny of federal funding that supports over 1,500 local TV and radio stations.

    “Those stations, and those funds, reach 98% of all Americans. And they are especially crucial for serving our rural areas and Tribal communities. Dozens of these stations rely on these investments for half of their funding, some rely on it for as much as 99 percent!

    “If these cuts go through, these stations go dark. Weather forecasters communities have turned to for years, news anchors that are trusted voices, local reporters who track down answers their communities need and hold their officials to account, will be sent packing. And those stations will go silent.

    “Do we want our farmers to have good local coverage of weather, and market conditions? Do we want our tribal communities to know what is going on at the state capitol? Do we want families to have updates about the local school board, or community events?

    “Because this package of cuts throws all of that in jeopardy.

    “To say nothing of emergency alerts. These stations can be a lifeline when disaster strikes. They are a trusted source of information, and sometimes the only source people have access to.

    “When the devastating wildfires hit southern California earlier this year, public radio broadcasts let millions of people know how to stay safe. When Hurricane Helene battered North Carolina, a local public radio station was the only source of information for many people.

    “And, in fact, many stations use their towers to actually deliver emergency alerts to people’s cell phones when cell towers go down. This funding supports stations who play an integral role in many states’ emergency planning.

    “Do you think our communities should have less warning in an emergency? Do you want to leave folks back home with less information when they are in harm’s way?

    Well, I guess you vote for this bill if that’s how you feel. Want you to know, I’m a hard no.

    [SIDE DEAL TO ROB PETER TO PAY PAUL]

    “And let’s not pretend a secret deal from Trump and Vought, to reallocate $10 million dollars, is somehow a serious fix to this. It is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the massive cuts being pushed through here. In fact, it’s less than 1% of the overall funding that this package would rip away for public broadcasting and those alerts.

    [KIDS PROGRAMMING]

    “And don’t forget, these cuts are going to impact some of our kids’ and parents’ favorite educational shows. Sesame Street, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, Daniel Tiger, PBS Kids has a long track record of creating shows that are beloved.  

    “Not just because they keep kids entertained, but because they are thoughtfully crafted to help them learn and grow, to stoke their curiosity, to teach them caring and empathy. Any parent will tell you that is a worthwhile investment.

    “And any parent will also warn you, if you take away shows like this that gets kids engaged and gets them thinking, take that away, then there is an avalanche of brain-rot television that’s waiting to fill that void. Content that is crafted, not to get kids thinking, but to keep them watching at all costs.

    “We have to save Sesame Street. We have to tell Trump and Vought, Big Bird is not on the chopping block in this country. And we have to send this rescissions package to Oscar’s place—AKA the trash can.

    [AMERICAN INTERESTS ABROAD]

    “And M. President, I want to talk as well about the devastating cuts this package proposes to foreign assistance. I thought America’s leadership was important to Republicans?

    “But apparently, they want to penny pinch when it comes to keeping our commitments across the world, apparently, they want to save money by letting families starve, and kids die of preventable diseases. Because that is what this package will do.

    “And this isn’t some thought exercise—we have already seen how the first round of reckless DOGE cuts are working out.

    “There’s already a growing death toll and a huge leadership void that our competitors are racing to fill, people who needed health care—but Elon Musk shut down the only clinic for miles, kids contracting diseases like HIV and Malaria—because Trump totally upended our global health response, and let’s not forget, they’re going to destroy contraceptives we’ve already purchased rather than distribute them.

    “And people are starving to death while food supplies from American companies are sitting rotting in ports. That’s another part of why America’s farmers are coming out in opposition to this bill by the way.

    “This week, 500 tons of high energy biscuits expired. Food that we already paid for. Food that was meant to save lives. And because Trump and Elon Musk blasted USAID to smithereens and couldn’t be bothered to fix the mess that they caused, this food is now going to be incinerated—even as people we promised to help watch their kids starve.

    “That is outrageous, and it is infuriating.

    “Is that what Republicans think of as world leadership? Is it leadership to Republicans when Trump fires thousands of State Department workers who keep our nation safe, and make our voice heard in the world?

    “Is it leadership to Republicans when we pull investments out of international organizations, and create a void that our adversaries like China will be all too happy to fill?

    “We already know the DOGE cuts were devastating. We know that! What I don’t know is why on earth Republicans are getting ready today to double down and codify them by passing this bill. And no—‘because Trump said so’—is not a good answer.

    “Especially when it’s clear Russ Vought is the one steering this particular ship. I’m not even sure Trump knows what a rescission is! But I’m sure Republicans know better than to think these cuts will make our nation strong.

    “I know that because we passed these investments in a bipartisan way. And because I have heard them speak out about how much they hate these cuts. You can go back and watch our hearing on this, many of our colleagues across the aisle during that hearing voiced deep concern with these cuts, that they now intend to pass today.  

    “Because we all know these investments benefit American businesses who help feed the world.

    “They help stop outbreak, they stop diseases abroad before they spread and threaten us here at home. They help promote stability and avoid chaos and conflict that can put our interests—and our servicemembers—in harm’s way.

    “They help us advance America’s interests and keep our country safe and prosperous.

    “That’s the smart thing to do. It’s the smart thing to do. And of course, it is also the right thing to do.

    “So, it’s worth saying, cutting these investments is just down right wrong.

    “We should not be voting to let children starve or die from preventable diseases. We should not be voting to go back on our word to the world.

    Saving a couple pennies is not worth losing our credibility or causing millions of needless deaths across the globe.

    “It is not even close.

    [DOESN’T NEED TO BE THIS WAY]

    “And M. President. I want to impress upon one final point. And that’s this, it did not have to be this way, and it still does not have to be this way.

    “In fact, if Republicans come to their senses, and vote this thing down, we still can go a different route. We can do what we have always done and consider bipartisan rescissions as part of our annual appropriations process. That offer has always been on the table. And it still is.
    “I’ve heard Republicans say they don’t like this package, in fact they are trying to dial it back the tiniest bit. I’ve also heard that they don’t want to spend the next several months processing these requests out here on the floor, instead of focusing on our annual funding bills—or any number of other pressing priorities.

    “So: don’t vote for it!

    “Work with us to write bills that make targeted rescissions on a bipartisan basis. You don’t work for Donald Trump. You don’t work for Russ Vought. You actually work for your constituents. You can put them first. And you can vote this package down.

    “That has some real benefits compared to going down the path of this unprecedented—unprecedented— partisan rescissions.

    “I am serious—I want my Republican colleagues to think about that. And I mean really think about it.

    “For one thing, if we do things the normal, bipartisan way, you get to assert your say as a Senator about what is getting targeted, it’s not just ‘this is what Russ Vought says—take it or leave it.’ You can actually be a part of the discussion and speak out for what is important to you.

    “For another thing: If we go the bipartisan route, you don’t have to get jammed by this deadline. 

    “Instead of rushing through cuts this week without fully getting to consider and debate them, instead of being told ‘No, you can’t change this, we don’t have time.’ We can all sit down, make thoughtful decisions, and maybe even worthwhile changes as we go.

    “And here’s an important point, if we do rescissions together through our appropriations bills, instead of just letting Trump and Russ Vought jam through whatever they want, my colleagues would actually know what in the world they are voting for.

    [NO INFORMATION ON WHAT WILL BE CUT]

    “Because let’s get one thing straight, Republicans don’t actually know what programs are going to get cut if they pass this package.

    “We don’t know! It’s one of the great outrages of this package. Russ Vought is just outright refusing to tell us what programs he is going to cut if this package passes.

    “At our hearing with him, he refused to go into detail. He stonewalled us. We asked and we asked. The Chair, the Republican Chair, even asked him about this.

    “But OMB would not tell us! The question is: What will you cut? The answer has been: Pass it, we’ll see.

    “That is why the Republicans decided to protect just a handful of programs without actually reducing the funding associated with them, because they do not know the impact.

    “So, they preserve funding for Jordan, Egypt, and a few university partnerships. What about our allies in the Indo-Pacific? What about the implementers of these programs in our states?

    “None of us should accept not having those answers. And I’m sure my colleagues were told their priorities won’t be impacted, but Director Vought cannot keep that promise given the scale of these cuts. The math simply does not add up!

    “Even if you believe we should make cuts, you should be joining us to demand we actually know what is being cut. And, if we do this the right way, the bipartisan way, we would know. Because we would be writing the bill.

    “Now, doesn’t that sound a lot better, than just passing this pandora’s box, and finding out later what got cut?

    [IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SENATE]

    “Finally, I have said this before, several times, but I want to warn my colleagues once again, if you keep going down this path you are going to further undermine our bipartisan process. 

    “We have never, never before seen bipartisan investments, slashed through a partisan rescissions package. Do not start now. Not when we are working, at this very moment, in a bipartisan way to pass our spending bills.

    “As I said earlier, bipartisanship doesn’t end with any one line being crossed, it erodes, it breaks down bit by bit, until one day there is nothing left.

    Sure, a few members may be willing to stick it out and work as hard as they can to get a result.

    “But this Senate doesn’t work off a few members—it works off consensus building. And the more bridges you burn, the fewer paths you leave to get things done.

    “So, M. President, why go down this partisan path? Why vote to spend the next many weeks considering more of these packages? And why do it for a set of cuts that are so damaging? A set of cuts, many of you have serious concerns with?

    “We are at the table right now, the Appropriations Committee, writing bipartisan spending bills. And we can and absolutely discuss bipartisan rescissions.

    “Why don’t you join us and make that work easier, instead of making that work harder by passing this bill and setting a very painful new precedent.

    “I urge my colleagues to join me in voting NO.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Washington state sues Trump administration for unlawfully cutting billions in disaster mitigation funding

    Source: Washington State News

    SEATTLE — Attorney General Nick Brown today led a coalition of 20 states in suing the Trump administration over its decision to illegally shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) bipartisan Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, designed to protect communities from natural disasters before they strike.  

    For the past 30 years, the BRIC program has provided communities across the nation with resources to proactively fortify against natural disasters. By focusing on preparation, the program has protected property, saved money that would have otherwise been spent on post-disaster costs, reduced injuries, and saved lives. 

    The impact of the BRIC program’s termination has been devastating, with communities across the country being forced to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of mitigation projects depending on this funding. Projects that have been in development for years, and in which communities have invested millions of dollars are now threatened. And now, Americans from coast to coast face a higher risk of harm from natural disasters.

    “This illegal cut endangers the communities most vulnerable to natural disasters,” Brown said. “Communities and states face devastating consequences when the federal government doesn’t meet its obligations to the public, and I will hold the Trump administration accountable for abandoning their safety.”

    Responding to the catastrophic losses resulting from Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, Congress passed a law stating FEMA must protect communities through four interrelated functions — mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery. The BRIC program is the core of FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation efforts. A recent study concluded that every dollar FEMA spends on mitigation saves an average of six dollars in post-disaster costs. 

    The BRIC program supports often difficult-to-fund projects, such as constructing evacuation shelters and floodwalls, safeguarding utility grids against wildfires, protecting wastewater and drinking water infrastructure, and fortifying bridges, roadways, and culverts. 

    Over the past four years, FEMA has selected nearly 2,000 projects to receive roughly $4.5 billion in BRIC funding nationwide. In Washington state, there are 27 open BRIC projects that total $182 million and nearly three quarters of that funding goes to small towns and rural communities. This money funds projects like constructing levees and floodwalls in Aberdeen and Hoquiam and generating electricity in Klickitat County for hospitals and school districts if the power goes out during wildfires and severe weather.

    The coalition of attorneys general argue that FEMA’s decision to abruptly terminate the BRIC program is in direct violation of Congress’s decision to fund it. The executive branch has no lawful authority to unilaterally refuse to spend funds appropriated by Congress. They also assert that shutting down the BRIC program violates Separation of Powers and the Administrative Procedure Act, and violates the Appointments Clause because Cameron Hamilton, who acted as FEMA Administrator and gave the directive to terminate the BRIC program, was never appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate and therefore was acting as an administrator unlawfully. 

    With this lawsuit, the coalition of attorneys general are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the Trump administration from spending BRIC funds for other purposes and a permanent injunction to reverse the termination of the BRIC program and require the restoration of these critical funds to the communities relying on them.  

    Joining Washington state in filing this lawsuit, are attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

    The complaint can be found here.

    -30-

    Washington’s Attorney General serves the people and the state of Washington. As the state’s largest law firm, the Attorney General’s Office provides legal representation to every state agency, board, and commission in Washington. Additionally, the Office serves the people directly by enforcing consumer protection, civil rights, and environmental protection laws. The Office also prosecutes elder abuse, Medicaid fraud, and handles sexually violent predator cases in 38 of Washington’s 39 counties. Visit www.atg.wa.gov to learn more.

    Media Contact:

    Email: press@atg.wa.gov

    Phone: (360) 753-2727

    General contacts: Click here

    Media Resource Guide & Attorney General’s Office FAQ

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why drones and AI can’t quickly find missing flood victims, yet

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Robin R. Murphy, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University

    The landscape In the aftermath of a flood makes it challenging to spot victims. AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

    For search and rescue, AI is not more accurate than humans, but it is far faster.

    Recent successes in applying computer vision and machine learning to drone imagery for rapidly determining building and road damage after hurricanes or shifting wildfire lines suggest that artificial intelligence could be valuable in searching for missing persons after a flood.

    Machine learning systems typically take less than one second to scan a high-resolution image from a drone versus one to three minutes for a person. Plus, drones often produce more imagery to view than is humanly possible in the critical first hours of a search when survivors may still be alive.

    Unfortunately, today’s AI systems are not up to the task.

    We are robotics reseachers who study the use of drones in disasters. Our experiences searching for victims of flooding and numerous other events show that current implementations of AI fall short.

    However, the technology can play a role in searching for flood victims. The key is AI-human collaboration.

    Drones have become standard equipment for first responders, but floods pose unique challenges.
    Eric Smalley, CC BY-ND

    AI’s potential

    Searching for flood victims is a type of wilderness search and rescue that presents unique challenges. The goal for machine learning scientists is to rank which images have signs of victims and indicate where in those images search-and-rescue personnel should focus. If the responder sees signs of a victim, they pass the GPS location in the image to search teams in the field to check.

    The ranking is done by a classifier, which is an algorithm that learns to identify similar instances of objects – cats, cars, trees – from training data in order to recognize those objects in new images. For example, in a search-and-rescue context, a classifier would spot instances of human activity such as garbage or backpacks to pass to wilderness search-and-rescue teams, or even identify the missing person themselves.

    A classifier is needed because of the sheer volume of imagery that drones can produce. For example, a single 20-minute flight can produce over 800 high-resolution images. If there are 10 flights – a small number – there would be over 8,000 images. If a responder spends only 10 seconds looking at each image, it would take over 22 hours of effort. Even if the task is divided among a group of “squinters,” humans tend to miss areas of images and show cognitive fatigue.

    The ideal solution is an AI system that scans the entire image, prioritizes images that have the strongest signs of victims, and highlights the area of the image for a responder to inspect. It could also decide whether the location should be flagged for special attention by search-and-rescue crews.

    Where AI falls short

    While this seems to be a perfect opportunity for computer vision and machine learning, modern systems have a high error rate. If the system is programmed to overestimate the number of candidate locations in hopes of not missing any victims, it will likely produce too many false candidates. That would mean overloading squinters or, worse, the search-and-rescue teams, which would have to navigate through debris and muck to check the candidate locations.

    Developing computer vision and machine learning systems for finding flood victims is difficult for three reasons.

    One is that while existing computer vision systems are certainly capable of identifying people visible in aerial imagery, the visual indicators of a flood victim are often very different compared with those for a lost hiker or fugitive. Flood victims are often obscured, camouflaged, entangled in debris or submerged in water. These visual challenges increase the possibility that existing classifiers will miss victims.

    Second, machine learning requires training data, but there are no datasets of aerial imagery where humans are tangled in debris, covered in mud and not in normal postures. This lack also increases the possibility of errors in classification.

    Third, many of the drone images often captured by searchers are oblique views, rather than looking straight down. This means the GPS location of a candidate area is not the same as the GPS location of the drone. It is possible to compute the GPS location if the drone’s altitude and camera angle are known, but unfortunately those attributes rarely are. The imprecise GPS location means teams have to spend extra time searching.

    How AI can help

    Fortunately, with humans and AI working together, search-and-rescue teams can successfully use existing systems to help narrow down and prioritize imagery for further inspection.

    In the case of flooding, human remains may be tangled among vegetation and debris. Therefore, a system could identify clumps of debris big enough to contain remains. A common search strategy is to identify the GPS locations of where flotsam has gathered, because victims may be part of these same deposits.

    A machine learning algorithm identified piles of debris large enough to contain bodies in an aerial image of a flood aftermath.
    Center for Robot-Assisted Search and Rescue and University of Maryland

    An AI classifier could find debris commonly associated with remains, such as artificial colors and construction debris with straight lines or 90-degree corners. Responders find these signs as they systematically walk the riverbanks and flood plains, but a classifier could help prioritize areas in the first few hours and days, when there may be survivors, and later could confirm that teams didn’t miss any areas of interest as they navigated the difficult landscape on foot.

    Robin R. Murphy receives funding from the National Science Foundation. She is affiliated with the Center for Robot-Assisted Search and Rescue.

    Thomas Manzini is affiliated with the Center for Robot Assisted Search & Rescue (CRASAR), and his work is funded by the National Science Foundation’s AI Institute for Societal Decision Making (AI-SDM).

    – ref. Why drones and AI can’t quickly find missing flood victims, yet – https://theconversation.com/why-drones-and-ai-cant-quickly-find-missing-flood-victims-yet-261035

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: In Burkina Faso, cashew cultivation is a lever for sustainable and inclusive rural development

    Source: APO

    Launched in 2017 and completed in 2024, the Cashew Development Support Project in the Comoé Basin for REDD+ (PADA/REDD+) exemplified sustainable development. The project combined poverty reduction, ecological transition and the empowerment of women and young people, achieving a remarkable implementation rate of 95 percent.  It has revitalised the cashew nut industry, Burkina Faso’s third largest agricultural export after cotton and sesame.

    The PADA/REDD+ project received support from the African Development Bank, which granted a loan of $4 million, and the African Development Fund, the Bank Group’s concessional funding window, with a grant of $1.39 million, representing 61 percent of the total project cost of $8.82 million. The government of Burkina Faso and the beneficiaries provided the remaining funding.

    The project mobilised the necessary resources to contribute to the sustainable transformation of the Cascades, Hauts Bassins and South-West regions, with significant participation from women. It enabled producers to reduce maintenance costs, improve soil fertility and structure, and increase cashew productivity and incomes in a sustainable manner.

    Climate action combined with agricultural production

    The first component of the PADA/REDD+ focused on carbon sequestration. This resulted in the creation of seven tree parks, the production of more than 1.6 million improved seedlings and the development of approximately 27,000 hectares of agroforestry plantations. One-third of these plantations are maintained by women, underlining the project’s commitment to promoting social inclusion. A total of 35,340 producers, including 6,047 women, were trained in good agricultural and organic practices.

    This capacity-building approach for producers and processors equipped each stakeholder with the skills required to meet their needs and expectations, particularly in mastering technical production and processing methods.

    Adama Patrick Sombié, a cashew nut processor in Bérégadougou, confirms his satisfaction: “Before the project, there were no cashew tree parks in the village, only forest and a few orchards. When the project offered plots to promoters, I signed up and received two hectares.”

    Access to finance and modernization of processing

    The second component of the project focused on strengthening value chains. Long hampered by limited access to finance, the sector’s development has benefited from an innovative partnership with the umbrella organisation of Burkina Faso’s Caisses populaires banks, alongside savings and loan cooperatives.

    This mechanism enabled investment loans to be granted based on a sliding scale of interest rates, financing 103 microprojects for a total of 888 million CFA francs, or approximately $500,000. The project also created 9,580 additional “green” jobs, 92.66 percent of which were for women, by financing micro-investment projects.

    Thanks to the funding provided, seven processing units were modernised. A new unit called “Tensya” was established in the commune of Toussiana, and three warehouses were built, one of which is reserved for women. The project also enabled the purchase of 12 trucks and 45 tricycles, training in good practices for 631 people, strengthening the environmental skills of 477 stakeholders, and the construction and equipping of infrastructure such as a cooking and shelling centre for women in Diéri, entirely subsidised by the African Development Bank.

    An inclusive and sustainable impact

    These microprojects reached nearly 18,000 people, 61 percent of whom were women, further strengthening the inclusive approach of PADA/REDD+. “This project is a blessing for us. Thanks to the income generated, we can send our children to school and keep them healthy. Before, we used to sell our products at rock-bottom prices, but now, with our own processing units, we control the entire value chain,” says Aramatou Barro, a processor in Diéri.

    Christiane Koné, a processor in Toussiana, confirms this postive impact: “Thanks to the project, we have been able to purchase six automatic shelling machines, which are twice as fast as our 25 manual shelling tables.”

    At the same time, the project structured supply networks, ensured that 96 cooperatives complied with OHADA (Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa) standards and implemented an environmental management plan. Working conditions have improved significantly. Isso Kindo, a trader in Bobo-Dioulasso, says: “Transport was our main obstacle. Today, thanks to the truck financed by the project, I can transport up to 60 tonnes of nuts from the towns of Banfora and Mangodara.”

    The impact of PADA/REDD+ can also be measured in terms of job creation for young people and rural entrepreneurs. In Orodara, Arzouma Zougouri, a producer and business owner, explains that “the project’s support has enabled me to better equip my processing unit. I’ve gone from 200 to 300 employees,” he says proudly.

    By structuring the cashew nut sector sustainably, increasing productivity and strengthening local processing, PADA/REDD+ achieved its objectives whilst laying the foundations for more resilient rural development. Its contribution to carbon sequestration through agroforestry plantations strengthens its environmental impact. Perennial plantations, modernised agricultural practices, a strengthened local processing network and better access to finance were the pillars of this success.

    Distributed by APO Group on behalf of African Development Bank Group (AfDB).

    Media files

    .

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Financial news: Monitoring of enterprises: growth of business activity has slowed.

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: Central Bank of Russia –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    The Bank of Russia’s Business Climate Indicator (BCI) stood at 1.5 points in July, down from 3.0 points a month earlier. Current production and demand estimates, as well as short-term expectations, were below the June level. Business price expectations increased slightly after 6 months of decline. Companies’ investment activity grew more slowly than in Q2 2025.

    Read more in the July issue of the information and analytical commentary “Monitoring of enterprises”.

    Starting from this issue, the Bank of Russia will regularly publish data on the main indicators of enterprise monitoring by macroregions. In addition, survey data on types of economic activity and groups of enterprises in time series format are now available inData retrieval service (API).

    Preview photo: Eric Romanenko / TASS

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: SPC Tornado Watch 517 Status Reports

    Source: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    Search by city or zip code. Press enter or select the go button to submit request
    Local forecast by”City, St” or “ZIP” 

    SPC on Facebook

    @NWSSPC

    NCEP Quarterly Newsletter

    Home (Classic)SPC Products   All SPC Forecasts   Current Watches   Meso. Discussions   Conv. Outlooks   Tstm. Outlooks   Fire Wx Outlooks     RSS Feeds   E-Mail AlertsWeather Information   Storm Reports   Storm Reports Dev.   NWS Hazards Map   National RADAR   Product Archive   NOAA Weather RadioResearch   Non-op. Products   Forecast Tools   Svr. Tstm. Events   SPC Publications   SPC-NSSL HWTEducation & Outreach   About the SPC   SPC FAQ   About Tornadoes   About Derechos   Video Lecture Series   WCM Page   Enh. Fujita Page   Our History   Public ToursMisc.   StaffContact Us   SPC Feedback

    Watch 517 Status Reports

    Watch 517 Status Message has not been issued yet.

    Top/Watch Issuance Text for Watch 517/All Current Watches/Forecast Products/Home

    Weather Topics:Watches, Mesoscale Discussions, Outlooks, Fire Weather, All Products, Contact Us

    NOAA / National Weather ServiceNational Centers for Environmental PredictionStorm Prediction Center120 David L. Boren Blvd.Norman, OK 73072 U.S.A.spc.feedback@noaa.govPage last modified: July 16, 2025
    DisclaimerInformation QualityHelpGlossary
    Privacy PolicyFreedom of Information Act (FOIA)About UsCareer Opportunities

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Improving climate governance in West Africa: Three calls for inclusive climate action in Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, and Senegal

    Source: APO

    Climate change is a growing threat across Africa, with West Africa feeling its effects especially intensely. According to the ND-GAIN index, Burkina Faso (162nd out of 182), Senegal (144th), and Côte d’Ivoire (134th) rank among the most vulnerable countries. They face a dangerous mix of low capacity to adapt and high exposure to climate hazards.

    This vulnerability shows up in more extreme weather, worsening food insecurity, and growing precarity—particularly harming women and young people.

    To tackle this urgent challenge, the Union of Economic and Social Councils and Similar Institutions of Africa (UCESA), supported by the African Development Bank, has developed three national advocacy papers. These papers promote participatory climate governance that reflects citizens’ real needs. They also aim to strengthen the role of Economic and Social Councils in shaping national climate policies.

    “These advocacy plans put citizens back at the centre of climate action,” said Arona Soumare, Principal Climate Change and Green Growth Officer at the African Development Bank. “By giving them full backing, the African Development Bank is reiterating its commitment to inclusive, equitable climate governance rooted in local realities. These initiatives lay the foundations for sustainable and resilient development in Africa.”

    According to Abdelkader Amara, current head of UCESA and President of the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE) of Morocco, “UCESA is aware of these challenges and consequently intends to promote and support actions taken by African Economic and Social Councils and similar institutions that help to integrate sustainability and resilience into the frameworks for defining, implementing, and evaluating relevant institutional and policy mechanisms.”

    Burkina Faso: 

    Building resilience in a Sahelian setting

    Located in the middle of the Sahel belt, Burkina Faso is one of the countries that is most vulnerable to climate change. This fragility is exacerbated by a limited ability to adapt, which is particularly pronounced among women and young people. The advocacy effort developed by the Economic and Social Council of Burkina Faso, aided by technical support from UCESA, reflects citizens’ perceptions of the real effects of climate change. It proposes responses rooted in local realities, with a view to steering public policies towards a more inclusive, participatory and community resilience-oriented approach.

    Côte d’Ivoire:

    Towards citizen-centred climate governance

    Côte d’Ivoire lies in a region highly vulnerable to climate shocks. This vulnerability is compounded by the limited involvement of women, especially in rural areas, and the still marginal role of civil society. The national advocacy paper, developed through extensive consultation, captures citizens’ expectations and offers clear recommendations for more equitable climate governance. It underscores the importance of fully including people’s voices in decision-making processes—an essential element for effective climate action.

    Senegal:

    Citizen participation and climate resilience

    Senegal, a country in the Sahel-Sudan region, is already bearing the brunt of climate change. The national advocacy campaign draws on a citizen perception survey to inform a participatory discussion on future policy directions. Led by Senegal’s Economic, Social and Environmental Council, in partnership with UCESA and the African Development Bank, the resulting document calls for a unified effort from civil society, researchers, NGOs, and policymakers to create climate strategies that are inclusive, locally grounded, and capable of sustainably strengthening national resilience.

    A regional dynamic

    These three advocacy papers are part of a regional dynamic propelled by UCESA, with the support of the African Development Bank. They demonstrate a shared commitment to rooting climate action in citizen participation, stakeholder synergy, and regional solidarity. Through this initiative, the Economic and Social Councils are re-asserting their role as a strategic interface between civil society and public authorities in responding to the continent’s climate challenges.

    Distributed by APO Group on behalf of African Development Bank Group (AfDB).

    Media files

    .

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: £390k boost for Acomb Explore library

    Source: City of York

    Acomb Explore library will receive a £390,000 boost to improve facilities for local residents.

    The plans, which were approved by City of York Council’s Executive yesterday [15 July], include creating a larger children’s library; increasing the capacity and accessibility of the indoor café area; new quiet spaces for work and study; improved toilet facilities; a larger area for books and improved meeting rooms and IT suite.

    The plans have been developed in response to direct feedback from local residents and have been funded in part by £100,000 from the council’s Future Libraries Investment Fund (£100k). The £7.7m fund was originally set up in 2022 to deliver three key library projects in order: creating a new library for Haxby & Wigginton, providing a new library learning centre in Clifton, and improving Acomb Explore.

    Additional funding for Acomb Explore – the first Library Learning Centre to open in the city, in 2007 – has been secured from the Arts Council, Libraries’ Investment Fund (£250,000); and a total grant of £40,000 from the Mayoral Renewables Fund for renewable energy generation projects (match funded with £14,000 from the council’s Climate Change budget).

    Local residents shared their views on what improvements were needed to the library space in 2023, citing bigger children’s space, more indoor café space and quiet space for work or study as their top three priorities, requests which have been matched by the plans.

    Jenny Layfield, Chief Executive, Explore York Libraries and Archives said:

    “Acomb was our first Explore centre and a blueprint for our vision of libraries shaped by and for their communities, so it is great news that, with this investment from the Arts Council, the Mayoral Renewables Fund and the Council we will be able to make the improvements to Acomb Explore in line with the priorities identified by local people.

    “Acomb Explore is already a vibrant place, well loved by its community, and supported by a committed team of staff and volunteers. These improvements will make a brilliant library even better!”

    Cllr Pete Kilbane, Deputy Leader of City of York Council and Executive Member for Economy and Culture, said:

    “The plans for Acomb form the third and final part of our Future Library Investment Programme, which has already delivered new libraries in Haxby & Wigginton and Clifton, bringing benefits for local communities and library users across the city.

    “Securing significant external grant funding for the Acomb project has made it possible to put forward plans which will enable us to meet the need and priorities set out by local residents.”

    Luke Burton, Director Libraries, Arts Council England said:

    “The Libraries Investment Fund enables library services to invest in the upgrade of buildings and technology, so they are better able to respond to the changing ways people are using them.

    “I’m delighted that investment of £250,000 will contribute to the redevelopment of Acomb Library resulting in the creation of a bigger children’s library and improved facilities so that everyone in the community can enjoy and benefit from what the library has to offer.”

    The delivery timetable will be finalised when plans have been approved and a construction partner appointed. It’s likely that the library will need to close for a 12-week period over the next 6-9 months for work to be completed, with options that minimise disruption to the public, prioritised.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Ship Manager Pleads Guilty to Dumping Oily Waste into U.S. Waters Off Coast of New Orleans

    Source: United States Attorneys General 7

    Note: View factual basis here.

    Eagle Ship Management LLC (ESM), based in Stamford, Connecticut, pleaded guilty yesterday to violating the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) by deliberately polluting U.S. waters off the coast of New Orleans from the M/V Gannet Bulker, a foreign-flagged bulk carrier. If approved by the court, ESM would pay a criminal fine of $1,750,000 and serve a four-year term of probation that includes external audits by an independent technical expert.

    The chief engineer of the Gannet Bulker was prosecuted in a separate case and sentenced to serve a year and a day in prison for his role in the discharge of oil and obstructing justice.

    The Coast Guard launched its investigation after a crew member sent a message via social media on March 14, 2021, indicating that the engine room had flooded and that the resulting oil-contaminated bilge waste had been deliberately pumped overboard at night. Flooded bilges can pose a serious threat to the safety of the ship and crew, including creating a risk of electrocution, loss of power, and inability to steer.

    At the time, the Gannet Bulker was at an anchorage near the Southwest Passage of the Port of New Orleans, near the mouth of the Mississippi River. According to court records, the intentional overboard oily discharge into U.S. waters involved approximately 39 cubic meters (approximately 10,303 gallons), and was done without the use of required pollution prevention equipment or required recordkeeping

    “The Department of Justice vigorously prosecutes violations of the laws that protect U.S. ports and waters,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD). “The criminal conduct involved here was serious, including intentional pollution and a deliberate coverup.”

    “Today’s announcement sends a clear message intended to deter deliberate pollution,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Michael M. Simpson for the Eastern District of Louisiana. “This office will continue to work with our agency partners to enforce the laws that were designed to protect U.S. ports and waters.”

    “The United States Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Investigative Service remain steadfast in our commitment to enforcing maritime environmental laws to protect U.S. waters and ensure compliance with international regulations,” said Special Agent in Charge Damon J. Youmans of the Coast Guard Investigative Service’s Gulf Field Office. “We will continue to hold accountable those who violate these laws and endanger our marine environment.”

    In pleading guilty, ESM admitted that its crew engaged in a variety of obstructive acts to conceal the internal flooding that was caused by a botched repair. The obstructive acts included retaliation against the whistleblower whose identity was known. Senior ship officers and crew also lied to the Coast Guard and destroyed evidence including a printout from the engine control room computer that contained key information. Additionally, senior ship officers created false and backdated personnel evaluations intended to discredit the whistleblower.

    Sentencing has been scheduled for Oct. 16.

    The Coast Guard Criminal Investigations Division and the Coast Guard Heartland District investigated the case.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney G. Dall Kammer for the Eastern District of Louisiana and Senior Litigation Counsel Richard A. Udell of the ENRD’s Environmental Crimes Section are prosecuting the case.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: When big sports events expand, like FIFA’s 2026 World Cup matches across North America, their climate footprint expands too

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Brian P. McCullough, Associate Professor of Sport Management, University of Michigan

    Lionel Messi celebrates with fans after Argentina won the FIFA World Cup championship in 2022 in Qatar. Michael Regan-FIFA/FIFA via Getty Images

    When the FIFA World Cup hits North America in June 2026, 48 teams and millions of soccer fans will be traveling to and from venues spread across the United States, Canada and Mexico.

    It’s a dramatic expansion – 16 more teams will be playing than in recent years, with a jump from 64 to 104 matches. The tournament is projected to bring in over US$10 billion in revenue. But the expansion will also mean a lot more travel and other activities that contribute to climate change.

    The environmental impacts of giant sporting events like the World Cup create a complex paradox for an industry grappling with its future in a warming world.

    A sustainability conundrum

    Sports are undeniably experiencing the effects of climate change. Rising global temperatures are putting athletes’ health at risk during summer heat waves and shortening winter sports seasons. Many of the 2026 World Cup venues often see heat waves in June and early July, when the tournament is scheduled.

    There is a divide over how sports should respond.

    Some athletes are speaking out for more sustainable choices and have called on lawmakers to take steps to limit climate-warming emissions. At the same time, the sport industry is growing and facing a constant push to increase revenue. The NCAA is also considering expanding its March Madness basketball tournaments from 68 teams currently to as many as 76.

    Park Yong-woo of team Al Ain from Abu Dhabi tries to cool off during a Club World Cup match on June 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C., which was in the midst of a heat wave. Some players have raised concerns about likely high temperatures during the 2026 World Cup, with matches scheduled June 11 to July 19.
    AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

    Estimates for the 2026 World Cup show what large tournament expansions can mean for the climate. A report from Scientists for Global Responsibility estimates that the expanded World Cup could generate over 9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, nearly double the average of the past four World Cups.

    This massive increase – and the increase that would come if the NCAA basketball tournaments also expand – would primarily be driven by air travel as fans and players fly among event cities that are thousands of miles apart.

    A lot of money is at stake, but so is the climate

    Sports are big business, and adding more matches to events like the World Cup and NCAA tournaments will likely lead to larger media rights contracts and greater gate receipts from more fans attending the events, boosting revenues. These are powerful financial incentives.

    In the NCAA’s case, there is another reason to consider a larger tournament: The House v. NCAA settlement opened the door for college athletic departments to share revenue with athletes, which will significantly increase costs for many college programs. More teams would mean more television revenue and, crucially, more revenue to be distributed to member NCAA institutions and their athletic conferences.

    When climate promises become greenwashing

    The inherent conflict between maximizing profit through growth and minimizing environmental footprint presents a dilemma for sports.

    Several sport organizations have promised to reduce their impact on the climate, including signing up for initiatives like the United Nations Sports for Climate Action Framework.

    However, as sports tournaments and exhibition games expand, it can become increasingly hard for sports organizations to meet their climate commitments. In some cases, groups making sustainability commitments have been accused of greenwashing, suggesting the goals are more about public relations than making genuine, measurable changes.

    For example, FIFA’s early claims that it would hold a “fully carbon-neutral” World Cup in Qatar in 2022 were challenged by a group of European countries that accused soccer’s world governing body of underestimating emissions. The Swiss Fairness Commission, which monitors fairness in advertising, considered the complaints and determined that FIFA’s claims could not be substantiated.

    Alessandro Bastoni, of Inter Milan and Italy’s national team, prepares to board a flight from Milan to Rome with his team.
    Mattia Ozbot-Inter/Inter via Getty Images

    Aviation is often the biggest driver of emissions. A study that colleagues and I conducted on the NCAA men’s basketball tournament found about 80% of its emissions were connected to travel. And that was after the NCAA began using the pod system, which is designed to keep teams closer to home for the first and second rounds.

    Finding practical solutions

    Some academics, observing the rising emissions trend, have called for radical solutions like the end of commercialized sports or drastically limiting who can attend sporting events, with a focus on fans from the region.

    These solutions are frankly not practical, in my view, nor do they align with other positive developments. The growing popularity of women’s sports shows the challenge in limiting sports events – more games expands participation but adds to the industry’s overall footprint.

    Further compounding the challenges of reducing environmental impact is the amount of fan travel, which is outside the direct control of the sports organization or event organizers.

    Many fans will follow their teams long distances, especially for mega-events like the World Cup or the NCAA tournament. During the men’s World Cup in Russia in 2018, more than 840,000 fans traveled from other countries. The top countries by number of fans, after Russia, were China, the U.S., Mexico and Argentina.

    There is an argument that distributed sporting events like March Madness or the World Cup can be better in some ways for local environments because they don’t overwhelm a single city. However, merely spreading the impact does not necessarily reduce it, particularly when considering the effects on climate change.

    How fans can cut their environmental footprint

    Sport organizations and event planners can take steps to be more sustainable and also encourage more sustainable choices among fans. Fans can reduce their environmental impact in a variety of ways. For example:

    • Avoid taking airplanes for shorter distances, such as between FIFA venues in Philadelphia, New York and Boston, and carpool or take Amtrak instead. Planes can be more efficient for long distances, but air travel is still a major contributing factor to emissions.

    • While in a host city, use mass transit or rent electric vehicles or bicycles for local travel.

    • Consider sustainable accommodations, such as short-term rentals that might have a smaller environmental footprint than a hotel. Or stay at a certified green hotel that makes an effort to be more efficient in its use of water and energy.

    • Engage in sustainable pregame and postgame activities, such as choosing local, sustainable food options, and minimize waste.

    • You can also pay to offset carbon emissions for attending different sporting events, much like concertgoers do when they attend musical festivals. While critics question offsets’ true environmental benefit, they do represent people’s growing awareness of their environmental footprint.

    Through all these options, it’s clear that sports face a significant challenge in addressing their environmental impacts and encouraging fans to be more sustainable, while simultaneously trying to meet ambitious business and environmental targets.

    In my view, a sustainable path forward will require strategic, yet genuine, commitment by the sports industry and its fans, and a willingness to prioritize long-term planetary health alongside economic gains – balancing the sport and sustainability.

    Brian P. McCullough does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. When big sports events expand, like FIFA’s 2026 World Cup matches across North America, their climate footprint expands too – https://theconversation.com/when-big-sports-events-expand-like-fifas-2026-world-cup-matches-across-north-america-their-climate-footprint-expands-too-259437

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Call for bids: Building peaceful interethnic relations in Mostar

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    World news story

    Call for bids: Building peaceful interethnic relations in Mostar

    British Embassy Sarajevo is inviting bids by 6 August 2025 for a project to strengthen peaceful interethnic relations in Mostar and surrounding areas.

    Old Bridge, Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Introduction

    A stable and less divided Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) is a top priority of the UK government. Recent scoping and engagement across the country has identified that ethnic tensions remain high, often localised and in some instances, communities are severely divided.

    Mostar, the largest city in the Herzegovina region, is a stark example of this division with communities living in de facto segregation. For this reason, the UK has invested in peace and reconciliation efforts in Mostar – including a flagship project to support the rejuvenation of public spaces between 2022 and 2024.

    The project achieved significant engagement from the public, and ‘increased interpersonal connections through establishing a participatory process to identify which and how public spaces should be rejuvenated. (This was the most cited reason for why citizens believed that relations between citizens was better than they were a year ago in the end of line survey).

    Building on this success, we are now commissioning for a short-term follow-on project (until 31 March 2026) that uses public spaces to bring individuals together, across ethnic divisions through activities that directly support peaceful interethnic relation, community cohesion and societal resilience.

    Activities should deliver for Mostar but can additionally work with neighbouring areas (for example Stolac) if it supports the project objective. Proposals must focus on one or several of the following goals and clearly identify which ones they are seeking to address:

    • using sport as a method to bring people, including women and girls, together from all backgrounds, particularly those more resistant to inter-ethnic engagement, and promote common values and undermine divisive narratives
    • using music as a method to bring people together from all backgrounds, particularly those more resistant to inter-ethnic engagement, and promote common values and undermine divisive narratives
    • addressing and countering inter-ethnic tensions in Mostar related to football hooliganism
    • enabling inter-religious cooperation in promoting interfaith and interethnic cooperation and collaboration to reduce tensions and divided living

    Detailed information

    Only not-for-profit organisations are invited to bid. This includes international organisations (IOs), international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) and local civil society organisations (CSOs), who can also apply in a consortium of CSOs.

    Successful projects should have sustainable outcomes and should clearly identify their intended impact. They may also build on projects by other organisations, complementing their efforts. All bids should make clear how they complement existing activities in Mostar supported by other donors and international partners.

    The minimum indicative funding for projects is £120,000 and maximum £250,000. This may be in addition to co-funding and self-funding contributions. Co-funded projects will be regarded favourably.

    Projects must be completed by the 31 March 2026. Where appropriate, bidders are encouraged to describe how their project could be further scaled up if additional funding became available.

    All project management, project administration, and overhead costs should be detailed and not to exceed 12% of total budget. Budgeting overheads as a flat percentage is not supported, and any such costs should be fully detailed in the budget.

    We are unable to fund academic courses or English language courses. The purchase of IT and other equipment over £500 per item will require prior approval of the embassy, but such procurement should not constitute a significant part of the overall project budget.

    The British Embassy Sarajevo will carry out due diligence of potential grantees, including seeking references, as part of the selection process.

    Bidding is competitive and only selected project/s will receive funding. The embassy reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids without incurring any obligation to inform the affected applicant(s) of the grounds of such acceptance or rejection. Due to the volume of bids expected we will not be able to provide feedback on unsuccessful bids.

    Bidding process

    Bidders should fill in a standard project proposal form (Annex A) and include a breakdown of project costs in the activity-based budget (ABB) (Annex B).

    Annex A: Project Proposal Form

    ODT, 29.2 KB

    This file is in an OpenDocument format

    Annex B: Activity-Based Budget (ABB)

    ODS, 12.5 KB

    This file is in an OpenDocument format

    Budgets must be Activity Based Budgets (ABB), all costs should be indicative, in GBP. Successful implementers should be able to receive project funding in either BAM or GBP.

    Successful bids must have a clear Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) objective explicit in the project documentation and an explanation of a positive impact of the project on advancing gender equality and social inclusion.

    All projects or activities must align with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and assess climate and environmental impact and risks, taking steps to ensure that no environmental harm is done and, where relevant, support adaptation.

    An information session will be held at at 10am (BiH time) on 23 July 2025. Email meliha.muherina@fcdo.gov.uk to receive the meeting invitation.

    Proposals should be emailed to emma.fowler@fcdo.gov.uk by 5pm (BiH time) on 6 August 2025. Include the name of the bidder in the email subject line.

    Successful bids are expected to start on 1 September 2025 and conclude on 31 March 2026. Successful shortlisted bidders will be informed by mid-August.

    Evaluation criteria

    • the proposal should clearly state which of the listed goals it is seeking to address and how it will measure whether the activity is contributing to the goal
    • quality of project: how well defined and relevant the outcome is and how outputs will deliver this change; ability to leverage bigger funding would be an advantage
    • value for money: the value of the expected project outcomes, the level of funding requested and institutional contribution
    • local knowledge and previous experience: evidence of the project team’s understanding the context, socio-political challenges, previous experience of implementing similar activities/related fields with evidenced results, ability to manage and deliver a successful project. Evidence of how the project will learn from tested experiences, respond to opportunities and changing political circumstances
    • fluent understanding of the local language
    • gender-sensitive approach
    • alignment with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change
    • demonstrated experience of working with conflict affected communities
    • ability for the project to engage and leverage relationships with all societal tracks (including but not limited to local authorities, civil society actors, academia, law enforcement agencies, the private sector and media)

    Background information

    The UK’s commitment

    The successful project will be funded via British Embassy Sarajevo, from the Western Balkans Freedom and Resilience Programme (FRP). The FRP has 2 outcomes.

    • improved reconciliation and peacebuilding outcomes for conflict-affected communities, with a focus on building connections across conflict divides and strengthening access to transitional justice processes
    • empowerment of women and girls through tackling CRSV, GBV and promoting women’s meaningful participation in decision-making processes

    The embassy in BiH commits to delivering for these outcomes by supporting initiatives which put BiH on a positive pathway to achieve long term and inclusive peace for all citizens. It acknowledges this can only be achieved by locally owned activities that ultimately contribute to conflict prevention, reconciliation and peacebuilding.

    Thematic background

    The demographic of BiH was fundamentally changed by the war in the 1990s, with many communities now ethnically homogenous. Mostar remains one of the few genuinely multi-ethnic cities.

    Yet true peace and reconciliation has not been achieved, memories and traumas of the conflict endure, with deeply held engrained views of accepting a divided reality. Assessment shows the divided school system is fostering further societal division, together with external influences stoking tensions within the city.

    To reverse the trend of division, group activities like football or music have an opportunity to facilitate interethnic engagement. Moreover, whilst there are activities for young people, groups engaged with are not including the hardest to reach factions. Participants in cross community activities are predominantly those who have public will for a multi-ethnic way of life, failing to reach the truly divided and problematic elements within the community.

    Activities of hooligan groups can be major trigger points for destabilisation in general, but in BiH this is exacerbated by an unresolved conflict. In Mostar, the two football clubs have long had distinct ethnic links, playing into tribalism and identity politics. There is a live risk of individuals being manipulated to extend behaviour to violence and political extremism. This is then multiplied with social media through the spreading of hate speech and extremist behaviours and ideologies.

    Religion is woven within ethnic divides in BiH. Despite this, religious leaders in Mostar have pioneered their own initiatives and demonstrate positive engagement both as a group and as a unifying voice with key decision makers. This has supported progress in supporting minority voices and facilitating increased dialogue across ethnicities.

    Building on success

    The project should build on the success of ‘Project Mostar’ which worked with local communities to rebuild public spaces and which addressed shared civic, social, and economic needs. Project sites include various open public spaces, such as Bunica and Trimuša park, as well as numerous indoor spaces, such as museums, cultural centres, puppet theatres etc.

    The project contributed to integration of marginalised groups, including persons with disabilities and women and girls, into mainstream cultural and social life, breaking down barriers and normalising their participation. While evidence of cross-community engagement in cultural spaces is still emerging, the project did demonstrate other impacts such as job creation through women’s empowerment, improved work conditions in cultural institutions and care centres, and potential boosts to tourism.

    The initial ‘project Mostar’ focused on providing spaces and using a participatory process to ensure increased community ownership of public spaces. This call for bids seeks to reinforce the success of the previous project by supporting activity in public spaces which facilitates interethnic interaction and understanding of shared principles.

    Successful projects will have time bound and realistic outputs that focus on engaging communities across the divide through activity whilst being underpinned by a clear understanding of how activity is contributing to the relevant outcome. Implementers are required to apply conflict sensitivity to all elements of project design, implementation and monitoring and evaluation.

    Updates to this page

    Published 16 July 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Sues FEMA for Cutting Bipartisan Funding for Natural Disasters

    Source: US State of New York

    EW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today joined a coalition of 19 other states in suing the Trump administration over its deadly decision to illegally shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) bipartisan Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which has supported critical infrastructure to protect communities from disasters before they happen. Since the 1990s, FEMA has provided billions of dollars to state and local governments to support infrastructure improvements to prepare for natural disasters. These funds have been proven to save lives, protect property, and reduce the cost of rebuilding after a disaster strikes. While BRIC has received bipartisan support and funded projects in all 50 states, the administration abruptly and illegally terminated the program earlier this year, jeopardizing billions of dollars intended to help communities prepare for disasters nationwide. With this lawsuit, Attorney General James and the coalition are seeking a court order to stop the termination of the BRIC program and prevent the administration from illegally reallocating its funds.

    “This administration’s decision to slash billions of dollars that protect our communities from floods, wildfires, and other disasters puts millions of New Yorkers at risk,” said Attorney General James. “New Yorkers depend on quality roads, floodwalls, and other vital infrastructure to keep them safe when disaster strikes. This administration has no authority to cut this program that has helped save countless lives, and I will continue to fight to ensure New York gets the support we need to prepare for dangerous natural disasters.”

    The BRIC program provides financial and technical assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to implement new measures that protect communities from natural disasters. The program’s grants cover up to 75 percent of a project’s costs, and can rise to 90 percent for small rural communities, making them a critical lifeline. BRIC funding supports the construction of evacuation shelters and flood walls, protections for water and power infrastructure, and improvements to roads and bridges. Over the past four years, FEMA has selected nearly 2,000 projects from every corner of the country to receive roughly $4.5 billion in funding. Due to the unique threats they face, coastal communities have received the largest allocations over the past four years, with New York among the states receiving the most BRIC funding. 

    New York has 38 BRIC projects throughout the state totaling over $380 million that are all in jeopardy as a result of the termination of the program. New York City, which is particularly vulnerable to flooding, is expecting to receive BRIC funds for 19 different projects. This includes $50 million for the Central Harlem Cloudburst Flood Mitigation Project, which is designed to provide flood protection measures to over 45,000 city residents vulnerable to flash flooding of the Harlem River. 

    Multiple studies have shown that BRIC funds more than pay for themselves by preventing costly damage during disasters. Each dollar spent on mitigation saves an average of $6 in post-disaster costs, with some investments saving even more. BRIC program funds have helped avoid over $150 billion in costs and saved lives in communities throughout the country.

    Despite the program’s success and longtime bipartisan support, the Trump administration unlawfully terminated the program in April 2025, diverting over $4 billion out of FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation fund and into funds for post-disaster grants. This abrupt termination has jeopardized critical projects throughout the country. Communities have been forced to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of projects that depend on BRIC funding. Projects that have been in development for years, and in which communities have already spent millions of dollars for planning, permitting, and environmental review are now threatened. As a result, Americans across the country face a higher risk of harm from natural disasters.

    Attorney General James and the coalition argue that the abrupt termination of BRIC is unconstitutional and illegal. Congress has written into law that disaster preparedness is a core part of FEMA’s mission and has appropriated funds for BRIC. Congress has also specified that the executive branch cannot alter this mission or reduce FEMA’s ability to carry out any of its core functions unless the law changes. FEMA also cannot refuse to spend congressionally appropriated funds in violation of the Constitution. In addition, Attorney General James and the coalition argue that President Trump’s FEMA administrator and his successor, who carried out BRIC’s termination, were not lawfully appointed to run FEMA and lack the authority to shut down the program.

    With this lawsuit, Attorney General James and the coalition are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from spending BRIC funds on other purposes and a permanent injunction to reverse the termination of the BRIC program and require the restoration of these critical funds to the communities relying on them.

    Joining Attorney General James in filing this lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governor of Pennsylvania.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Sues FEMA for Cutting Bipartisan Funding for Natural Disasters

    Source: US State of New York

    EW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today joined a coalition of 19 other states in suing the Trump administration over its deadly decision to illegally shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) bipartisan Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which has supported critical infrastructure to protect communities from disasters before they happen. Since the 1990s, FEMA has provided billions of dollars to state and local governments to support infrastructure improvements to prepare for natural disasters. These funds have been proven to save lives, protect property, and reduce the cost of rebuilding after a disaster strikes. While BRIC has received bipartisan support and funded projects in all 50 states, the administration abruptly and illegally terminated the program earlier this year, jeopardizing billions of dollars intended to help communities prepare for disasters nationwide. With this lawsuit, Attorney General James and the coalition are seeking a court order to stop the termination of the BRIC program and prevent the administration from illegally reallocating its funds.

    “This administration’s decision to slash billions of dollars that protect our communities from floods, wildfires, and other disasters puts millions of New Yorkers at risk,” said Attorney General James. “New Yorkers depend on quality roads, floodwalls, and other vital infrastructure to keep them safe when disaster strikes. This administration has no authority to cut this program that has helped save countless lives, and I will continue to fight to ensure New York gets the support we need to prepare for dangerous natural disasters.”

    The BRIC program provides financial and technical assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to implement new measures that protect communities from natural disasters. The program’s grants cover up to 75 percent of a project’s costs, and can rise to 90 percent for small rural communities, making them a critical lifeline. BRIC funding supports the construction of evacuation shelters and flood walls, protections for water and power infrastructure, and improvements to roads and bridges. Over the past four years, FEMA has selected nearly 2,000 projects from every corner of the country to receive roughly $4.5 billion in funding. Due to the unique threats they face, coastal communities have received the largest allocations over the past four years, with New York among the states receiving the most BRIC funding. 

    New York has 38 BRIC projects throughout the state totaling over $380 million that are all in jeopardy as a result of the termination of the program. New York City, which is particularly vulnerable to flooding, is expecting to receive BRIC funds for 19 different projects. This includes $50 million for the Central Harlem Cloudburst Flood Mitigation Project, which is designed to provide flood protection measures to over 45,000 city residents vulnerable to flash flooding of the Harlem River. 

    Multiple studies have shown that BRIC funds more than pay for themselves by preventing costly damage during disasters. Each dollar spent on mitigation saves an average of $6 in post-disaster costs, with some investments saving even more. BRIC program funds have helped avoid over $150 billion in costs and saved lives in communities throughout the country.

    Despite the program’s success and longtime bipartisan support, the Trump administration unlawfully terminated the program in April 2025, diverting over $4 billion out of FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation fund and into funds for post-disaster grants. This abrupt termination has jeopardized critical projects throughout the country. Communities have been forced to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of projects that depend on BRIC funding. Projects that have been in development for years, and in which communities have already spent millions of dollars for planning, permitting, and environmental review are now threatened. As a result, Americans across the country face a higher risk of harm from natural disasters.

    Attorney General James and the coalition argue that the abrupt termination of BRIC is unconstitutional and illegal. Congress has written into law that disaster preparedness is a core part of FEMA’s mission and has appropriated funds for BRIC. Congress has also specified that the executive branch cannot alter this mission or reduce FEMA’s ability to carry out any of its core functions unless the law changes. FEMA also cannot refuse to spend congressionally appropriated funds in violation of the Constitution. In addition, Attorney General James and the coalition argue that President Trump’s FEMA administrator and his successor, who carried out BRIC’s termination, were not lawfully appointed to run FEMA and lack the authority to shut down the program.

    With this lawsuit, Attorney General James and the coalition are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from spending BRIC funds on other purposes and a permanent injunction to reverse the termination of the BRIC program and require the restoration of these critical funds to the communities relying on them.

    Joining Attorney General James in filing this lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governor of Pennsylvania.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Zonal pricing is dead – here’s how the UK should change its electricity system instead

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cassandra Etter-Wenzel, DPhil Candidate in Energy Policy, University of Oxford

    Marcin Rogozinski/Shutterstock

    The UK government has decided against setting different prices for electricity based on the locations of consumers.

    Zonal pricing would have categorised Britain into distinct zones, each with wholesale electricity prices that reflect how much power is generated locally, and how much demand there is for it. It would have raised prices in areas with lots of demand but low generation, like London, and lowered them where supply outstrips demand, such as in the turbine-rich Scottish Highlands.

    This might have caused an immediate increase in the energy bills of already vulnerable households in some high-demand, low-generation areas, such as Tower Hamlets in London and Blackpool in north-west England.

    But the idea was to encourage the construction of renewable energy to meet high demand in higher-priced zones, and prompt big electricity consumers to move to where electricity is cheaper. It was also intended to ease the need for new infrastructure to transmit electricity over long distances, like pylons. Australia, Norway and several EU nations already use this method.

    The ultimate goal of zonal pricing was to make the price of electricity more accurately reflect generation and transmission costs. However, one thing has significantly inflated electricity prices in recent years, which this pricing method wouldn’t have addressed on its own: gas.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Gas is expensive, even more so since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Britain’s electricity system operator brings power plants onto the system to meet demand in order of the lowest to highest marginal costs.

    The point at which supply meets demand forms the wholesale price of electricity. Renewable sources, like wind and solar, have zero or very low marginal costs. But most of the time the wholesale price is set by gas plants, because they can readily fill a gap in supply but have high and erratic marginal costs (largely tied to what they pay for fuel).

    We need another, cheaper technology to set the wholesale price of electricity. Batteries, which can store electricity over several hours, and options capable of storing energy for longer, such as compressed air and low-carbon hydrogen, could be just the thing.

    The idea is simple: batteries can be charged at times when there is a lot of surplus electricity generation (on a bright, windy day, for example) and discharge it at times of peak demand (or when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow). This would entail grid operators (and ultimately, consumers) not having to pay gas plants to fire up when renewable generation cannot meet the shortfall.

    Unfortunately, batteries comprised just 6% of Britain’s total electricity capacity in 2024. Investment in energy storage has lagged behind what the government forecasts is necessary to meet its 2030 clean power goals, but it is at least increasing.

    Research shows that the more money that is invested in batteries, the more associated costs come down. If used instead of gas to stabilise the grid, energy storage could significantly lower the wholesale cost of the UK’s energy over time, and with the right balance of policies, household bills too. This would require subsidies to cover some of the cost of making and installing batteries, and planning mandates to build new renewables alongside new batteries.

    Affordable and fair

    The government could also try alternatives to zonal pricing. Wholesale electricity prices could reflect the “strike” price in renewable energy contracts. This is the price at which developers have agreed to build clean electricity generation projects, like wind farms. This would mean that gas no longer sets the wholesale price, but stable, predictable prices agreed years in advance, which would help to regulate the retail costs consumers pay.

    Solar arrays installed on farmland in Devon, southern England.
    Pjhpix/Shutterstock

    These types of reforms can help set efficient energy prices, which the government usually talks about as the price needed to encourage investment in new energy technologies. But just because prices are efficient, it doesn’t mean they’re fair. Some households struggle to afford their energy bills even when markets are working efficiently. So, when prices change to encourage cleaner energy, it can hit them harder.

    The government should implement new policies and expand eligibility for existing measures to take the burden off energy-poor households. These include social tariffs, which offer discounted rates to vulnerable consumers, and discounts for blocks of electricity use when renewables are generating a lot of it.

    Transition funds could help poorer households meet bills, while schemes to encourage home insulation and other improvements could see more homes with rooftop solar panels and battery storage.

    This support, combined with increasing investment in energy storage and renewables, will lower the wholesale price of electricity over time – and make energy more affordable (and fair) for everyone.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Anupama Sen has previously received funding from the Quadrature Climate Foundation and Children’s Investment Fund Foundation.

    Cassandra Etter-Wenzel and Sam Fankhauser do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Zonal pricing is dead – here’s how the UK should change its electricity system instead – https://theconversation.com/zonal-pricing-is-dead-heres-how-the-uk-should-change-its-electricity-system-instead-260985

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: MethaneSat: The climate spy satellite that went quiet

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Vincent Gauci, Professorial Fellow, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham

    Satellites circling the Earth have many different functions, including navigation, communications and Earth observation. About 8%-10% of all active satellites are military or “dual use” serving intelligence or reconnaissance functions as spy satellites.

    But it was a climate satellite serving as both spy and “name and shame” police officer in the sky that recently caught the world’s attention when it went quiet.

    MethaneSat was developed to spot emission hot spots or plumes of invisible methane pollution from space. Built by the US non-profit, the Environmental Defense Fund with Nasa’s support, it tracked methane leaks from oil and gas sites, farms and landfills across the globe.

    These are among the biggest human-caused emission sources. But methane emissions are traditionally hard to spot because they come from so many relatively small point sources or plumes.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    This specialist observation satellite was developed and deployed because methane acts differently to other greenhouse gas emissions. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that, over 20 years, is more than 80 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

    Since 1750, additional human-caused methane emissions have contributed directly and indirectly, to around 60% of the global warming of carbon dioxide over that time.

    Methane also has a short lifetime. Where carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for in excess of 100 years, relying on plant uptake for its removal from the atmosphere and conversion into other carbon forms, methane is broken down in the atmosphere by molecules known as hydroxyl radicals. These are nicknamed “the atmosphere’s detergent”, because they effectively remove methane from the atmosphere in less than ten years.

    A gas flare at an oil refinery – one of many pinpoint sources of methane emissions.
    hkhtt hj/Shutterstock

    This combination of short lifetime and high global warming potential (a measure of the climate strength of the gas relative to carbon dioxide) makes methane both a problem and an ideal target for reduction. In fact, growth in atmospheric methane is occurring at such a rate that it is placing us dangerously off track from meeting our Paris agreement obligations to stay within 1.5°C of climate warming by 2050 and 2°C by 2100.

    Eyes in the sky

    But how can we achieve these reductions and what was the role of MethaneSat in seeking to meet this objective?

    There are two ways atmospheric methane concentrations can be reduced. A recent and more challenging proposition is that methane is actively removed from the atmosphere.

    This is difficult because it relies on technological advances that are at their earliest stages (although growing more trees can go some way to achieving this). Another more realistic approach is to reduce emissions and then to let atmospheric chemistry do the work of removing excess methane in the atmosphere.

    The global methane pledge was announced in 2021 at the UN climate summit, Cop26, in Glasgow. This aimed to reduce human-caused methane emissions by 30% on 2020 levels by 2030. More than 150 countries have now signed up to this pledge. If successful, it could reduce warming by up to 0.2°C by 2050. That’s why MethaneSat was so useful.

    MethaneSat is fitted with a hyperspectral sensor – which can record sunlight reflected off Earth in hundreds of narrow colour bands across the spectrum, far beyond what our eyes can see. It’s capable of picking up concentrations of methane in air at minute quantities.

    This sensor allowed the satellite to spot individual plumes of methane, so it had a crucial role in identifying those problem areas. Given that these are dispersed but also individual point sources, it was invaluable in intervening in the leaks, permitting identification of those responsible so they could be held to account and so address the problem.

    No one instrument can cover what MethaneSat could do with freely available data. It had high precision, high spatial resolution and, critically, global coverage and it was particularly useful at identifying plumes in nations that don’t have the resources for the sort of regional surveys using aircraft mounted systems that can fill the gap in developed regions.

    Now that MethaneSat is no longer operational, there are some other tools to identify small anthropogenic emissions sources, but they tend to be regionally focused like the aircraft measurements mentioned.

    Other satellites gather similar data but that data sits behind commercial paywalls, whereas MethaneSat data was freely available. Collectively, these drawbacks mean that it’s just going to be that much harder to spot the emissions MethaneSat was so good at tracking.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Vincent Gauci receives funding from the NERC, Spark Climate Solutions, the JABBS Foundation and has received funding from the Royal Society, Defra and the AXA Research Fund.

    – ref. MethaneSat: The climate spy satellite that went quiet – https://theconversation.com/methanesat-the-climate-spy-satellite-that-went-quiet-261022

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI: Cority Continues to Be a Leader in the Sustainability Software Market, According to Prominent Industry Analyst Report

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TORONTO, July 16, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Cority, the sustainable performance software company, has been named a leader in the 2025 Verdantix Green Quadrant for ESG & Sustainability Reporting Software. The report highlights Cority’s ability to provide a unified platform for EHS+ and sustainability, which enables organizations to move beyond compliance reporting to data-driven sustainability performance management.

    As demand for trustworthy, auditable sustainability data accelerates, Cority’s unified platform stands apart. Verdantix highlighted Cority’s strength in unifying compliance, risk, and operational performance data with sustainability metrics. Cority’s integrated approach enables organizations to consolidate this data within a single system, ensuring consistent, high-quality data flows that support forecasting, target-tracking, and regulatory reporting, according to Verdantix.

    The report reinforces Cority’s long-held belief that sustainability performance can’t be managed in isolation. It must be integrated with the full scope of operational and EHS data to drive real results—particularly in moderate to risk-heavy industries such as manufacturing, energy, chemicals, and industrial operations.

    “Cority is uniquely positioned to help organizations not only meet their sustainability reporting obligations, but also to operationalize their data and drive real-time improvements,” said       Alex Hardwick, director of sustainability planning & enablement at Cority. “This recognition by Verdantix underscores the value of our integrated platform for enterprises navigating complex, fast-moving sustainability requirements.”

    Meeting the Market’s Moment

    The sustainability software market is maturing fast, driven by evolving regulations such as the EU’s Omnibus proposal reshaping the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and California’s Climate disclosure laws, along with voluntary reporting frameworks often aligned with the ISSB standards and rising investor scrutiny. According to the Verdantix report, nearly 60% of firms now use software for ESG and sustainability reporting—a sharp rise from 40% just three years ago.

    Organizations are increasingly seeking platforms that unify operational, risk, finance, and sustainability data to meet these growing demands. Verdantix highlights this shift:

    “The demand for more performance monitoring may also be the impetus for various software tools, such as sustainability reporting, EHS, and carbon management, to come together in one platform.”

    Cority is the only enterprise-grade solution recognized for this integrated approach in the 2025 Green Quadrant. Its converged EHS+ platform, CorityOne enables global firms to not only report on sustainability performance but also to trace sustainability metrics back to source operations, allowing proactive adjustments that improve outcomes across the value chain.

    Key Highlights from the Report:

    • Top Scores: Cority received top scores for Data Acquisition & Architecture, Data Management, Organizational Structure, User Interface, and Customer Success.
    • Data Integrity & Scale: Cority earned high marks for scalable, high-integrity data management, essential for large, multinational organizations.
    • Advanced Functionality: The platform’s ability to integrate ESG and EHS data in a single environment supports forecasting, compliance, and operational decision-making.
    • Market Position: Positioned among the leading providers, Cority stands apart from most competitors with clear separation from the pack.

    Verdantix also specifically cited Cority’s acquisition strategy and expanding functionality across key solution areas as strengths. The report also noted Cority’s partnerships with firms like Arcadia to streamline AI-powered data ingestion—further reducing manual data burdens.

    The Verdantix Green Quadrant is one of the industry’s most comprehensive, evidence-based
    assessments of ESG and sustainability reporting software. The 2025 edition evaluates 21 of the most prominent providers based on rigorous functional and market momentum criteria.

    The complete report can be downloaded at https://www.cority.com/reports/green-quadrant-esg-reporting-and-data-management-software/

    About Cority
    Cority is the sustainable performance software company, helping customers transform operating risks into a performance advantage. Our flagship platform, CorityOne, merges deep industry expertise with intelligent software so customers can engage their workforce to see and prevent risks that impact people, the environment, and performance. For 40 years, Cority has been the trusted solution for thousands of organizations in a range of operationally complex industries worldwide, including oil & gas, chemicals, food & beverage, utilities, manufacturing, and healthcare. To learn more, visit www.cority.com

    Media Contact
    Natalie Rizk
    RiotMind
    natalier@theriotmind.agency

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Ken Henry urges nature law reform after decades of ‘intergenerational bastardry’

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phillipa C. McCormack, Future Making Fellow, Environment Institute, University of Adelaide

    Former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry has warned Australia’s global environmental reputation is at risk if the Albanese government fails to reform nature laws this term.

    In his speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday, Henry said reform was needed to restore nature and power the net zero economy.

    Speaking as chair of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation, Henry said with “glistening ambition”, Australia can “build an efficient, jobs-rich, globally competitive, high-productivity, low-emissions nature-rich economy”.

    The speech comes at a crucial time for nature law reform in Australia. The new Environment Minister Murray Watt has committed to prioritise reform, after the Albanese government failed to achieve substantial changes to these laws in the last parliament.

    On Wednesday, Henry condemned previous failed attempts to reform the laws. He described delays in improving environmental management as “a wilful act of intergenerational bastardry”.

    The need for fundamental reform

    The Albanese government abandoned efforts to pass important reforms in its first term.

    Environment Minister Murray Watt has committed to achieving reforms within 18 months, acknowledging “our current laws are broken”.

    In his speech on Wednesday, Henry agreed with this sentiment. He described the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act as “a misnomer, if ever there was one”.

    Henry is both a former Treasury Secretary and former chair of National Australia Bank. He also wrote Australia’s most important white paper on tax reform.

    Henry has previously said environmental law reform could be a template for other essential, difficult law reform, such as fixing Australia’s broken tax system.

    He understands Australia’s broken environmental laws. In 2022-23, he led an independent review into nature laws in New South Wales. That review found the laws were failing and would never succeed in their current form.

    At the start of his speech on Wednesday, Henry came close to tears when he acknowledged Greens Senator Sarah Hansen-Young’s support for those who look after injured and orphaned native animals.

    As a bureaucrat in Canberra, Henry also used to rescue injured animals and nurse them back to health.

    Logging and land clearing for development destroys koala habitat.
    Pexels, Pixabay, CC BY

    Big challenges ahead

    As Henry noted on Wednesday, Australia faces enormous challenges. These include the need to rapidly build more housing and triple renewable energy capacity by 2030.

    But before building suburbs, wind farms, transmission lines, mines and roads, projects need to be assessed for their potential to harm the environment.

    Henry on Wednesday called for sweeping changes, drawing on Graeme Samuel’s 2019-20 review of the EPBC Act. The changes include:

    • genuine cooperation across all levels of government, industry and the community
    • high-integrity evidence to inform decision making
    • clear, strong and enforceable standards applied nationwide
    • an independent and trusted decision-maker, in the form of a national Environment Protection Authority
    • a natural capital market, which – if well-designed – could provide a financial incentive for nature restoration and carbon storage in the form of tradable credits.

    Without the reforms, Henry said, Australia would not “retain a shred of credibility” for two global commitments: reaching net zero emissions, and halting and reversing biodiversity loss.

    The net zero commitment is at risk because existing laws are not sufficient to protect carbon sinks, such as forests. The roll out of renewable energy is also being slowed by inefficient approvals processes.

    Henry said the concept of “ecologically sustainable development”, which seeks to balance economic, social, and economic goals, needs serious rethinking. This concept has been the foundation of environment policy in Australia, including the EPBC Act, for the past 30 years.

    Henry wrote the first Intergenerational Report for the federal government in 2002. He has criticised governments for allowing environmental destruction that will leave future generations worse off.

    He has variously described Australia’s failure to steward our natural resources as an intergenerational tragedy, as intergenerational theft, and a wilful act of intergenerational bastardry – claims he repeated on Wednesday.

    Making money grow on trees

    Henry grew up on the Mid North Coast of NSW where his father, a worker in the timber industry, helped log native forests.

    Land clearing is the main threat to Australian biodiversity, and preventing native vegetation loss would also cut greenhouse gas emissions.

    The foundation Henry chairs advocates for the protection and restoration of Australia’s native forests. Henry has previously backed a plan to store carbon in native forests, which would mean trees were protected and not cut down.

    In his Press Club address, Henry lamented ongoing land clearing, poor fire management in remnant forests, and logging of habitat for endangered species such as the koala and the greater glider. He also called for nature laws that enable projects to be delivered in a way that not only protects but also restores nature. For instance, he said carbon credits could help fund the Great Koala National Park proposed for NSW.

    Logging continues in old growth native forest.
    Chris Putnam/Future Publishing via Getty Images

    What’s the Australian government doing?

    Despite Murray Watt’s stated commitment to nature law reform, there are signs the environment may again come off second-best.

    At a recent meeting with key stakeholders, including industry and environment groups, Watt said compromise was needed. He warned environmental protections must come with streamlined project approvals “to improve productivity”.

    Henry on Wednesday acknowledged faster approvals were needed, saying:

    We simply cannot afford slow, opaque, duplicative and contested environmental planning decisions based on poor information mired in administrative complexity.

    But he said faster approvals should not come at a greater cost to nature. In his words:

    with due acknowledgement of the genius of AC/DC, there is no point in building a faster highway to hell.

    Henry said the current parliament has time to put the right policy settings in place. The remedies also enjoy broad stakeholder support. “We’ve had all the reviews we need,” he said. “All of us have had our say. It is now up to parliament. Let’s just get this done.”

    Phillipa C. McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Natural Hazards Research Australia, the National Environmental Science Program, Green Adelaide and the ACT Government. She is a member of the National Environmental Law Association and affiliated with the Wildlife Crime Research Hub.

    – ref. Ken Henry urges nature law reform after decades of ‘intergenerational bastardry’ – https://theconversation.com/ken-henry-urges-nature-law-reform-after-decades-of-intergenerational-bastardry-261167

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Ken Henry urges nature law reform after decades of ‘intergenerational bastardry’

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phillipa C. McCormack, Future Making Fellow, Environment Institute, University of Adelaide

    Former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry has warned Australia’s global environmental reputation is at risk if the Albanese government fails to reform nature laws this term.

    In his speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday, Henry said reform was needed to restore nature and power the net zero economy.

    Speaking as chair of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation, Henry said with “glistening ambition”, Australia can “build an efficient, jobs-rich, globally competitive, high-productivity, low-emissions nature-rich economy”.

    The speech comes at a crucial time for nature law reform in Australia. The new Environment Minister Murray Watt has committed to prioritise reform, after the Albanese government failed to achieve substantial changes to these laws in the last parliament.

    On Wednesday, Henry condemned previous failed attempts to reform the laws. He described delays in improving environmental management as “a wilful act of intergenerational bastardry”.

    The need for fundamental reform

    The Albanese government abandoned efforts to pass important reforms in its first term.

    Environment Minister Murray Watt has committed to achieving reforms within 18 months, acknowledging “our current laws are broken”.

    In his speech on Wednesday, Henry agreed with this sentiment. He described the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act as “a misnomer, if ever there was one”.

    Henry is both a former Treasury Secretary and former chair of National Australia Bank. He also wrote Australia’s most important white paper on tax reform.

    Henry has previously said environmental law reform could be a template for other essential, difficult law reform, such as fixing Australia’s broken tax system.

    He understands Australia’s broken environmental laws. In 2022-23, he led an independent review into nature laws in New South Wales. That review found the laws were failing and would never succeed in their current form.

    At the start of his speech on Wednesday, Henry came close to tears when he acknowledged Greens Senator Sarah Hansen-Young’s support for those who look after injured and orphaned native animals.

    As a bureaucrat in Canberra, Henry also used to rescue injured animals and nurse them back to health.

    Logging and land clearing for development destroys koala habitat.
    Pexels, Pixabay, CC BY

    Big challenges ahead

    As Henry noted on Wednesday, Australia faces enormous challenges. These include the need to rapidly build more housing and triple renewable energy capacity by 2030.

    But before building suburbs, wind farms, transmission lines, mines and roads, projects need to be assessed for their potential to harm the environment.

    Henry on Wednesday called for sweeping changes, drawing on Graeme Samuel’s 2019-20 review of the EPBC Act. The changes include:

    • genuine cooperation across all levels of government, industry and the community
    • high-integrity evidence to inform decision making
    • clear, strong and enforceable standards applied nationwide
    • an independent and trusted decision-maker, in the form of a national Environment Protection Authority
    • a natural capital market, which – if well-designed – could provide a financial incentive for nature restoration and carbon storage in the form of tradable credits.

    Without the reforms, Henry said, Australia would not “retain a shred of credibility” for two global commitments: reaching net zero emissions, and halting and reversing biodiversity loss.

    The net zero commitment is at risk because existing laws are not sufficient to protect carbon sinks, such as forests. The roll out of renewable energy is also being slowed by inefficient approvals processes.

    Henry said the concept of “ecologically sustainable development”, which seeks to balance economic, social, and economic goals, needs serious rethinking. This concept has been the foundation of environment policy in Australia, including the EPBC Act, for the past 30 years.

    Henry wrote the first Intergenerational Report for the federal government in 2002. He has criticised governments for allowing environmental destruction that will leave future generations worse off.

    He has variously described Australia’s failure to steward our natural resources as an intergenerational tragedy, as intergenerational theft, and a wilful act of intergenerational bastardry – claims he repeated on Wednesday.

    Making money grow on trees

    Henry grew up on the Mid North Coast of NSW where his father, a worker in the timber industry, helped log native forests.

    Land clearing is the main threat to Australian biodiversity, and preventing native vegetation loss would also cut greenhouse gas emissions.

    The foundation Henry chairs advocates for the protection and restoration of Australia’s native forests. Henry has previously backed a plan to store carbon in native forests, which would mean trees were protected and not cut down.

    In his Press Club address, Henry lamented ongoing land clearing, poor fire management in remnant forests, and logging of habitat for endangered species such as the koala and the greater glider. He also called for nature laws that enable projects to be delivered in a way that not only protects but also restores nature. For instance, he said carbon credits could help fund the Great Koala National Park proposed for NSW.

    Logging continues in old growth native forest.
    Chris Putnam/Future Publishing via Getty Images

    What’s the Australian government doing?

    Despite Murray Watt’s stated commitment to nature law reform, there are signs the environment may again come off second-best.

    At a recent meeting with key stakeholders, including industry and environment groups, Watt said compromise was needed. He warned environmental protections must come with streamlined project approvals “to improve productivity”.

    Henry on Wednesday acknowledged faster approvals were needed, saying:

    We simply cannot afford slow, opaque, duplicative and contested environmental planning decisions based on poor information mired in administrative complexity.

    But he said faster approvals should not come at a greater cost to nature. In his words:

    with due acknowledgement of the genius of AC/DC, there is no point in building a faster highway to hell.

    Henry said the current parliament has time to put the right policy settings in place. The remedies also enjoy broad stakeholder support. “We’ve had all the reviews we need,” he said. “All of us have had our say. It is now up to parliament. Let’s just get this done.”

    Phillipa C. McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Natural Hazards Research Australia, the National Environmental Science Program, Green Adelaide and the ACT Government. She is a member of the National Environmental Law Association and affiliated with the Wildlife Crime Research Hub.

    – ref. Ken Henry urges nature law reform after decades of ‘intergenerational bastardry’ – https://theconversation.com/ken-henry-urges-nature-law-reform-after-decades-of-intergenerational-bastardry-261167

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Four York parks awarded coveted Green Flag Award

    Source: City of York

    Four of City of York Council’s parks have been awarded the prestigious Green Flag Award after achieving international quality mark for parks and green spaces.

    The council and Friends of Groups – resident organisations who help maintain and improve the parks – are celebrating after receiving a Green Flag Award for Rowntree Park, West Bank Park, Glen Gardens and Clarence Gardens.

    The parks are some of 2,250 in the UK to achieve the award, which is the international quality mark for parks and green spaces.

    Rowntree Park (pictured) has taken back the award this year, having missed out on applying last year due to the extended flooding in spring.

    Cllr Jenny Kent, Executive Member for Environment and Climate Emergency at City of York Council, said:

    We’re absolutely delighted that four of York’s beautiful parks have received the Green Flag Award.

    It’s a real tribute to the dedication and hard work of our staff, volunteers and local Friends groups who care so passionately for these much-loved green spaces.

    “As well as these awards, we are working towards achieving Green Flag status for Hull Road Park in the future.

    “Spending time outdoors is vital for everyone’s health and wellbeing, and Parks and gardens like these are so important as free places to exercise, meet friends or simply enjoy nature – now more than ever.”

    Green Flag Award Scheme Manager, Paul Todd MBE, said:

    Congratulations to everyone involved in York who have worked tirelessly to ensure that it achieves the high standards required for the Green Flag Award.

    “Quality parks and green spaces like these make the country a heathier place to live and work in, and a stronger place in which to invest.

    “Crucially all of these parks in York are a vital green space for communities in the city to enjoy nature, and during the ongoing cost of living crisis it is a free and safe space for families to socialise. It also provides important opportunities for local people and visitors to reap the physical and mental health benefits of green space.”

    The Green Flag Award scheme, managed by environmental charity Keep Britain Tidy under licence from the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, recognises and rewards well-managed parks and green spaces, setting the benchmark standard for the management of green spaces across the United Kingdom and around the world.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI China: Award offers 1M yuan for young scientists’ sustainable research

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    A global award offering up to 1 million yuan ($139,000) in prize money is now accepting applications from scientists under age 45 to compete for recognition of their contributions to sustainable development.

    The 2025 Young Scientist Sustainable Development Goals Award, with an application deadline of July 31, seeks researchers developing solutions aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

    Initiated by the World Association of Young Scientists (WAYS), the Wenzhou Growth Foundation for Young Scientists and the Global SDGs and Leadership Development Center, the award aims to recognize young scientists who have made breakthroughs that advance sustainable development.

    The award welcomes applications related to any of eight areas from the United Nations SDGs: SDG3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), SDG13 (Climate Action), SDG14 (Life Below Water), SDG15 (Life on Land), and SDG Interaction (Multiple SDGs).

    Winners will receive 1 million yuan (pre-tax) and access to professional support, including participation in high-level international platforms such as the U.N. Climate Change Conference and the International Renewable Energy Agency Assembly, according to organizers. Additional benefits include support for research applications, talent development, and opportunities to serve as U.N. science communication ambassadors for sustainable development.

    Eligibility is open to individuals of any nationality born on or after Jan. 1, 1980. Applicants must demonstrate notable contributions in fundamental research that advances the SDGs or technological and engineering innovations with demonstrated social or environmental impact. All submissions must adhere to research integrity and Open Science principles.

    Scientists can apply directly or be nominated by a recognized expert or institution. The deadline is 11:59 p.m. (GMT+8) on July 31, 2025.

    According to organizers, the award serves as a global platform for emerging scientific changemakers, connecting innovation with international cooperation to help young researchers elevate their work and drive progress toward a sustainable future.

    For full details and to apply, visit the official website of the 2025 Young Scientist Sustainable Development Goals Award at https://www.ways.science/html/WAYS/en/OurWork/YoungScientistSDGsAward/index.html.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) Announces 20th Plenary Assembly in Rwanda

    Source: APO – Report:

    The Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) (https://SECAM.org) is pleased to announce its 20th Plenary Assembly, scheduled to take place from 30 July to 4 August 2025 in Kigali, Rwanda, under the theme: “Christ, Source of Hope, Reconciliation and Peace.” This Assembly, coinciding with the Jubilee Year, offers a moment of deep ecclesial grace to evaluate the life and mission of the Church in Africa and to set forth a visionary roadmap for the next 25 years (2025–2050).

    A Continental Ecclesial Milestone

    The Plenary Assembly of SECAM is the most important gathering of the Catholic Church in Africa and its Islands. Held every three years, it brings together a significant number of Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, priests, religious men and women, and lay faithful from across the continent and beyond. This 20th edition is expected to host approximately 250 participants from all 54 African countries and its islands, along with invited dignitaries and Church partners from other continents, making it a truly continental and global ecclesial event. It will serve as a privileged moment of reflection, communion, and decision-making for the life and mission of the Church in Africa.

    The Assembly will be presided over by His Eminence Fridolin Cardinal Ambongo Besungu, Archbishop of Kinshasa and President of SECAM. Building on the mandate of the 19th Plenary Assembly in Accra (July 2022), the Kigali Assembly will evaluate progress in strengthening synodality, institutional autonomy, theological foundations, and regional collaboration across the Church in Africa.

    Advancing a Shared Vision

    Since 2022, SECAM has worked through its Standing Committee and Secretariat to promote greater communion and mission through:

    • Advancing synodality and participation at all levels;
    • Strengthening institutional and financial self-reliance;
    • Enhancing theological reflection and pastoral care;
    • Fostering intercontinental and ecumenical partnerships;
    • Raising Africa’s voice on global issues such as climate change, justice, and peace.

    Addressing Pastoral and Cultural Realities

    One major issue under review will be the pastoral accompaniment of Catholics in polygamous unions, a complex cultural reality in African societies and beyond. SECAM has engaged theologians across the continent to explore this topic theologically and pastorally.

    The Assembly will also feature key presentations, including:

    • A theological reflection on the theme: “Christ, Source of Hope, Reconciliation and Peace”
    • A draft document entitled: “The Vision of the Church–Family of God in Africa and its Islands: 2025–2050”
    • A pastoral document on “Accompaniment of Persons in Polygamous Situations”

    These will be complemented by plenary discussions, working groups, liturgical celebrations, departmental reports, and a concluding message to the Church and society.

    The Twelve Pillars of the Church’s Future

    Earlier this year, in preparation for the Assembly, SECAM held a high-level seminar in Accra (April 2025) to develop a long-term vision for the African Church. Discussions centered around twelve key pillars:

    1. Evangelization (Catholic education and theological formation)
    2. A self-reliant Church;
    3. Family-based models of leadership;
    4. Missionary discipleship and synodality;
    5. Care for creation;
    6. Youth engagement and ecclesial renewal;
    7. Justice, peace, and integral human development;
    8. Ecumenism and interfaith dialogue;
    9. Digital evangelization;
    10. Health and well-being of God’s people;
    11. Liturgical life in African contexts;
    12. Church and political engagement.

    This strategic vision document will be presented for discussion and possible adoption by the bishops at the Kigali Assembly.

    Engaging Africa’s Socio-Political Challenges

    In keeping with its prophetic mission, SECAM will also assess current political and social dynamics across the regions of Africa, with a focus on:

    • Governance and public leadership;
    • Human rights and social justice;
    • Poverty and debt;
    • Climate and environmental stewardship;
    • Dialogue, peacebuilding, and interreligious relations;
    • Safeguarding and youth protection.

    – on behalf of Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM).

    For media inquiries or further information, please contact:
    communications.secam@gmail.com
    www.SECAM.org

    Rev. Fr. Rafael Simbine Júnior
    Secretary General, SECAM
    Accra, Ghana

    About SECAM:
    Founded in 1969 during Pope St. Paul VI’s historic visit to Africa, SECAM is the continental structure of the Catholic Church in Africa and Madagascar. Its mission is to foster communion, promote evangelization, and be the moral and spiritual voice of the Church across the continent.

    Its key departments include:

    • Commission for Evangelization;
    • Justice, Peace and Development Commission (JPDC);
    • Department of Social Communication.

    In addition, SECAM operates a Liaison Office to the African Union based in Addis Ababa to ensure Church participation in continental policymaking and advocacy.

    SECAM is composed of eight regional episcopal bodies:

    • ACEAC (Central Africa), ACERAC (Central Africa), AHCE (Egypt), AMECEA (Eastern Africa), CEDOI (Indian Ocean), CERNA (North Africa), IMBISA (Southern Africa), RECOWA-CERAO (West Africa).
    Media files

    .

    MIL OSI Africa –