Category: Weather

  • MIL-Evening Report: Most bike lanes in inner Melbourne have less than 40% tree cover – that’ll get worse, new maps show

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Judy Bush, Senior DECRA Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

    Unshaded cycling paths mean heat exposure on hot days, particularly for the afternoon commute. Judy Bush, CC BY

    Walking and cycling is good for people and the planet. But hot sunny days can make footpaths, bike lanes and city streets unbearable. Climate change will only make matters worse.

    So city planners and decision-makers need to provide adequate shade for walking, cycling and other forms of active transport – including from good tree canopy cover.

    Unfortunately, our recent research reveals Melbourne’s transport strategy and its separate strategy to increase canopy cover from 22% to 40% by 2040 aren’t currently working together.

    Our research found most bicycle lanes in inner Melbourne today have less than 40% canopy cover. And as the maps below show, future bicycle lanes will have even less. There’s plenty of room for improvement.

    Searching for shady lanes

    We used the City of Melbourne as a case study to explore bikeability, tree cover and health.

    The city council area covers 37 square kilometres, taking in suburbs from leafy Parkville to industrial Fishermans Bend.

    When we mapped tree canopy cover against the active transport network, we found most bicycle lanes have less than 40% canopy cover. Some cycling corridors – such as along Royal Parade and parts of St Kilda Road – stand out with relatively high canopy cover. But they are few and far between.

    Existing bike lanes

    Most bicycle lanes in the City of Melbourne have less than 40% tree cover.
    Crystal Tang

    And it’s about to get worse.

    Bicycle lanes proposed for construction have lower overall tree canopy coverage than existing lanes, particularly in urban renewal areas in post-industrial precincts such as Fishermans Bend and Docklands.

    Along Royal Parade and St Kilda Road corridors, additional bicycle lanes are proposed next to existing lanes. However, in current conditions, the proposed new bicycle lanes have lower canopy coverage than existing bicycle lanes along the same corridor.

    Proposed bike lanes

    Proposed future bicycle lanes have even less tree cover than existing bike lanes.
    Crystal Tang

    The city’s strategies don’t match up

    We also examined the city’s transport and urban forest strategies. The latter includes the council’s ambitious goal to increase canopy cover to 40% by 2040.

    We found both the transport and urban forest policies recognise that they can contribute to the health and wellbeing of city residents, workers and visitors. They also acknowledge the health risks associated with lack of physical activity, such as heart disease, lung disease and diabetes. But there are key gaps.

    The transport strategy broadly refers to climate change, but does not mention urban heat.

    In contrast, addressing urban heat is one of the main stated aims of the urban forest strategy. But there’s only a passing reference to encouraging outdoor activity and exercise.

    There are signs though that this may be changing – in 2022, Melbourne has joined a handful of other cities worldwide in appointing chief heat officers to focus planning and action for cooler cities.

    Planning for more trees

    Trees need sufficient space for healthy growth. This includes space below ground for a strong and stable root system as well as room to grow up and spread out.

    For street trees, extra care must be taken to facilitate this growth. The locations of other infrastructure, both above- and below-ground, need to be taken into account.

    Smaller trees may be more appropriate in some urban areas, particularly where overhead powerlines require clearance, but obviously these trees will provide less canopy. Likewise, healthy tree root development can be disrupted by underground services, unless high quality soil and sufficient space is allocated.

    To ensure trees are still thriving in 50 or even 100 years time, planners also need to select species that can withstand hotter and drier conditions.

    What a difference shade makes

    Street trees cool urban areas by shading surfaces and releasing water into the air. This can lower air temperatures by 1-2°C. But the temperature difference on the ground can be even more substantial. Asphalt can be anywhere from 13°C–20°C cooler under dense tree canopy shade.

    Reducing the amount of heat roads and other hard surfaces absorb eases what’s known as the urban heat island effect, in which cities experience warmer temperatures than green spaces.

    Climate change is increasing the frequency and duration of heatwaves. This adds to the pressure on Australia’s health services, including ambulances and emergency departments. If current rates of climate change continue, Victorians are likely to experience twice the annual number of very hot days by the 2050s, compared with 1985-2005.

    All of this means walking or riding in the absence of shade can expose people to heat-related illness and even premature death.

    Canopy trees create cooler cycling conditions.
    Judy Bush

    Better planning for liveable cities

    Our research shows planning policies must work together more effectively for liveable cities. This is particularly important when it comes to building new infrastructure such as roads, bicycle lanes and footpaths.

    Proactively planning for more trees in these spaces can promote healthy tree growth, with benefits for human health in cooler cities.

    And while we can plant trees next to bike lanes for future shade, the need to protect cyclists from heat now means we should locate bike lanes along existing shaded streets.

    City planners and decision-makers need to ensure the places we live, work and play are designed to promote active transport. That means ensuring transport routes align with our urban forest.

    Acknowledgements: thanks to Bachelor of Design, Urban Planning (Honours) student Crystal Tang who carried out the research that underpins this article.

    Judy Bush is the recipient of a Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (2024-27) from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the Planning Institute of Australia and the Ecological Society of Australia.
    Crystal Tang undertook the data collection and analysis as part of her B.Des (Hons), supervised by Judy.

    ref. Most bike lanes in inner Melbourne have less than 40% tree cover – that’ll get worse, new maps show – https://theconversation.com/most-bike-lanes-in-inner-melbourne-have-less-than-40-tree-cover-thatll-get-worse-new-maps-show-253222

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Newspoll steady but Albanese’s ratings jump; swing to Labor in marginal seats

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

    A national Newspoll, conducted April 7–10 from a sample of 1,271, gave Labor a 52–48 lead, unchanged since the March 31 to April 4 Newspoll. Primary votes were 35% Coalition (down one), 33% Labor (steady), 12% Greens (steady), 8% One Nation (up one) and 12% for all Others (steady).

    Anthony Albanese’s net approval jumped seven points to -4, his best net approval since May 2024. Peter Dutton’s net approval dropped two points to -19, his worst since September 2023. Albanese led Dutton as better PM by 49–38 (48–40 previously).

    Leaders’ ratings changes may imply that future Newspolls will be better for Labor on voting intentions, but this doesn’t always happen. Here is the graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll this term. The plus signs are data points and a trend line has been fitted. Albanese’s ratings have surged from a low of -21 net approval in mid-February.

    This Newspoll is the only new national poll since Friday’s article, but a Redbridge poll of marginal seats had a 1.5-point swing to Labor since the 2022 election, implying that Labor is gaining seats. Here is the national poll graph.

    I believe Donald Trump is most responsible for Labor’s surge in the polls to a clear lead and a probable majority government (they won a majority in 2022 on the same primary vote Newspoll gives them). Albanese’s ratings have probably lifted owing to a favourable comparison between Albanese and Trump.

    Coalition senator Jacinta Price’s use of “Make Australia Great Again” on Saturday, an echo of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan, will damage efforts by the Coalition to distance itself from Trump.

    Asked what type of government they wanted after the election in Newspoll, 32% wanted a Labor majority, 32% a Coalition majority, 21% a Labor minority government and 15% a Coalition minority government. This means 64% wanted a Labor or Coalition majority, while 36% wanted a minority government. The overall 53–47 split for a Labor government nearly matches the 52–48 two-party estimate.

    Redbridge marginal seats poll has swing to Labor

    A poll of 20 marginal seats by Redbridge and Accent Research for the News Corp tabloids was conducted April 4–9 from a sample of 1,003. It gave Labor a 52.5–47.5 lead, a three-point gain for Labor since the late February marginal seats poll. Primary votes were 36% Coalition (down five), 35% Labor (up one), 12% Greens (steady) and 17% for all Others (up four).

    The overall 2022 vote in these 20 seats was 51–49 to Labor, so this poll implies a 1.5-point swing to Labor from the 2022 election. If applied to the national 2022 result of 52.1–47.9 to Labor, Labor would lead by about 53.5–46.5.

    Albanese’s net favourability improved three points since late February to -8, while Dutton’s was down five points to -16. Dutton led Albanese by 27–23 on best to manage the relationship with the US and Trump (31–22 previously). But if people really thought Dutton would be able to prevent Trump’s tariff chaos, voting intentions would not have shifted towards Labor.

    On whether the US is a reliable partner and friend for Australia, 61% said it had been a reliable partner and friend, but less so now than it was, 18% said the US is still a reliable partner and friend, and 12% said it was never a reliable partner or friend.

    Dutton may be trailing in Dickson, and other seat polls

    Dutton won the Queensland seat of Dickson by 51.7–48.3 against Labor in 2022. The Poll Bludger reported Saturday that a uComms poll of Dickson for the Queensland Conservation Council, conducted April 9–10 from a sample of 854, gave Labor a 52–48 lead over Dutton.

    In other Dickson seat polls, the Coalition said their own polling by Freshwater gave Dutton a 57–43 lead, a uComms poll for Climate 200 gave Labor a 51.7–48.3 lead and Labor’s polling had it tied 50–50. Seat polls are unreliable.

    In the Western Australian Liberal-held seat of Forrest, a poll for Climate 200 gave a teal candidate a 51–49 lead over the Liberals. In the Tasmanian Labor-held seat of Lyons (50.9–49.1 to Labor in 2022), a uComms poll for the Australian Forest Products Association gave Labor a 50.9–49.1 lead over the Liberals.

    In other seat-specific news, in the Victorian seat of Macnamara, Labor incumbent Josh Burns won’t recommend preferences on how to vote material between the Liberals and Greens. Previously Labor has recommended preferences to the Greens. It will be more difficult for the Greens to win Macnamara if the final two candidates are the Liberals and Greens.

    Candidate nominations declared

    Candidate nominations were declared on Friday. The Poll Bludger said there were 1,126 total candidates for the 150 House of Representatives seats, an average of 7.5 candidates per seat. That’s down from 1,203 total candidates in 2022, an average of 8.0 per seat.

    Labor, the Greens and the Coalition will contest all 150 seats, One Nation 147 (all except the three ACT seats), Trumpet of Patriots 100 (down from contesting all seats under UAP in 2022), Family First 92, Libertarians 46 and Legalise Cannabis 42. There are a total of 132 independent candidates, up from 98 in 2022.

    Adrian Beaumont 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. Newspoll steady but Albanese’s ratings jump; swing to Labor in marginal seats – https://theconversation.com/newspoll-steady-but-albaneses-ratings-jump-swing-to-labor-in-marginal-seats-254445

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Global: Terminations at U.S. government agencies that monitor extreme weather events will have negative effects

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gordon McBean, Professor Emeritus, Department of Geography and Environment, Western University

    A weather station in Santa Cruz, Calif. Cuts to government agencies monitoring the weather will increase the impacts of extreme weather events. (Shutterstock)

    In August 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report confirmed that the climate is warming and the impacts will be widespread and more intense than anticipated.

    In 2023, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released the Weather, Water, and Climate Strategy (2023-27) for the United States and around the world.

    The strategy addresses the risks to lives, property, economies and ecosystems that are increasing at an alarming rate due to the warming planet. It highlights that U.S. citizens are in harm’s way, infrastructure is increasingly outdated and at risk and, in many places, not designed for new environmental realities and extreme weather events.

    In February 2025, Donald Trump’s administration reduced the government’s size. The NOAA was severely affected, experiencing budget cuts and the termination of about 800 employees’ positions. NOAA is a critically important government organization, and includes the National Weather Service (NWS).

    Recent developments regarding science and scholarship in the U.S., including major reductions in federal research funding and censorship around topics such as climate change and gender, are forcing many U.S. science agencies and research organizations to abruptly suspend normal operations.

    As former assistant deputy minister of the Meteorological Service of Environment Canada between 1994 and 2000, I regularly met with my colleagues at the NWS and other weather agencies. We worked together to share information to provide the best weather services possible in our countries.

    Climate and misinformation

    In January of this year, the World Economic Forum released its Global Risks Report. This ranked the global risks that could have major impacts on the global population, GDP or natural resources in the short term (two years) and long term (10 years).

    For the short term, the top risk identified is “misinformation and disinformation,” with “extreme weather events” being the second-highest risk. Extreme weather events include storms, floods, wildfires, heat and others, with a warming climate leading to more severity and impacts. By geography, extreme weather events is ranked as the highest risk for Northern America and most other regions.

    The risks due to misinformation and extreme weather events are interconnected. If an extreme weather event is about to occur and people are not informed, or are misinformed, about the occurrence and risks, they do not take actions to reduce exposure and vulnerability, resulting in higher impacts.

    Impacts of layoffs

    Because of the importance of the NOAA, NWS and other climate research bodies, many have spoken out about the negative impacts of these job terminations and budget reductions.

    The NWS has developed leading weather forecast models by working with the academic and global science communities, and partners with others beyond national borders to share their data. The multi-year development and implementation of these weather systems has led to high quality and reliable information for weather, climate and ocean situations.

    One example is science journalist Andy Revkin, who referred to Trump’s actions as “The Dangerous Trump Purge of Weather and Climate Expertise.” In his Substack, Revkin writes:

    “There’s an enormous, and justified surge of criticism from private-sector and academic meteorologists from across the political spectrum over the purge of expertise and supporting staff under way at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Weather Service.”

    Meteorologists Jeff Masters and Bob Henson wrote that “cuts to U.S. weather and climate research could put public safety at risk… and slow emergency disaster response and weaken resilience efforts.”

    Ilan Kelman, professor of disasters and health at University College London, stated that the “mass job termination” will have major negative impacts across the U.S. and nearby countries, such as Canada. This will be due to reduced aviation and shipping safety; lack of information for communities to respond to severe weather; safety assessments for search-and-rescue; and other concerns.

    Alarming increases

    With a warming climate, the impacts of extreme weather events are rising around most of the world. The year 2024, the warmest on record, was also the single-most expensive year on record in terms of Canadian insurance payouts of C$8.5 billion, with the number of catastrophe claims exceeding 273,000. Disaster costs in the U.S. also increased with many billion-dollar events.

    On Oct. 17, 2024, NOAA shared initial imagery from the GOES-19 lightning mapper showing lightning activity in two extremely hazardous hurricanes – Helene and Milton — on Sept. 24.
    (GOES-19/NOAA)

    In September 2024, Hurricane Helene caused 228 deaths and economic losses assessed at US$78.7 billion. In advance of Helene’s landfall, states of emergency in Florida and Georgia were declared by the National Hurricane Center (NHC).

    The U.S. Air Force Weather Reconnaissance Squadron provided information for the NHC to upgrade the storm to Tropical Storm Helene. Follow-up research by the World Weather Attribution concluded with “high confidence” that Helene was made worse by climate change.

    Reliance on observation and collaboration

    Forecasting extreme weather events relies on observational systems that provide weather information over a significant area which extends beyond a country. In North America, the U.S. weather forecasts rely on information from Canada, Mexico and countries across the Gulf of Mexico, and vice versa.

    The World Meteorological Organization, the UN’s lead agency on weather and climate, co-ordinates international co-operation for the free and unrestricted exchange of data and information, products and services in real time. This is critical for the safety and security of society, economic welfare and protection of the environment.

    With the NOAA’s reductions in resources, there will be negative impacts across all services in the U.S. and on the effective sharing of data between internationally collaborating weather services.

    These cuts to NOAA also relate to broad concern about impacts on science. The European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities has expressed grave concern over the escalating threats to academic freedom, both in the U.S. and beyond.

    Gordon McBean receives funding from Western University and the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction to undertake research on building climate resilient communities. None of my affliations are relevant to this paper.

    ref. Terminations at U.S. government agencies that monitor extreme weather events will have negative effects – https://theconversation.com/terminations-at-u-s-government-agencies-that-monitor-extreme-weather-events-will-have-negative-effects-251314

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Humanity depends on the ocean — Here is what we need to prioritize for immediate ocean science research

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Brad deYoung, Robert Bartlett Professor of Oceanography, Memorial University of Newfoundland

    Humankind is inextricably dependent on the ocean. Many of our greatest civilizations have thrived on the rim of the ocean. Today, we are more reliant than ever on the ocean for our economic, social and physical well-being.

    Maritime activities, from global trade to tourism, exceed US$3 trillion annually. The “ocean economy” is the fourth largest in the world. Furthermore, our global economic vitality is largely due to the cost-effective nature of ocean transportation, which contributes to the reduced price per ton of shipped goods.

    From submarine cables to shipping, fisheries and aquaculture, we are increasingly reliant on the blue economy. Roughly 20 per cent of the animal protein that we eat comes from marine fish.

    The ocean has changed dramatically in the past century, and we expect more change to come. Collapses of fisheries, coral reefs, shark populations and other species — along with increased dead zones, red tide blooms and invasive species — have followed increased human development, industrial use of the sea, climate change and pollution.

    Humanity is at a social, political, environmental and scientific nexus point.

    We are a group of researchers and experts who served on a committee of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to advise the National Science Foundation on forward-looking approaches to investing in ocean science research, infrastructure and workforce development.

    We considered the question: What vital research must we pursue now, and what investments must we make to achieve ambitious research goals?

    Our scientific efforts must focus on the key gaps in our predictive knowledge, and on the critical pathways and thresholds for ocean change. We should support ocean science to prepare for the future.

    Readying ocean science

    Given limited resources and rapid changes, we need to consider how to set priorities. Our committee offered a distinction between urgent and vital research: urgent research is time-sensitive, with immediate relevance to emerging regional and global issues, while vital research transforms our ability to grapple with rapid changes in the ocean and the Earth system.

    Our ability to observe, model and understand the ocean has greatly increased in recent years.

    For example, Argo — an ocean weather observing system — provides a global view of water properties around the planet. Argo has expanded our understanding of the global ocean and has significantly improved weather forecasts.

    In addition, research on the impact of climate shifts on ocean species is more accurate, helping us to understand the impact of these shifts on carbon sequestration, shoreline protection from storms and tipping points in interconnected ocean systems.

    The growing focus on links between the chemical, physical, geological and biological states of the ocean, and planetary climate states, provides a much-improved structure for forecasting the state of the ocean.

    Healthy oceans, healthy people

    A focus on human well-being and its dependence on ocean processes can provide an important connection that places ocean sciences in key conversations related to human health.

    When it comes to understanding the importance of ocean and climate, we need to determine how the ocean’s ability to absorb heat and carbon dioxide will change. While the ocean presently absorbs 90 per cent of global heat and roughly 30 per cent of carbon dioxide, changes in the physical and biological ocean will likely slow these rates, leading to accelerated atmospheric warming.

    Related to this climate question, how will marine ecosystems respond to changes in the Earth system? Declining ecosystem resilience will likely have strong negative impacts on food supplies and livelihoods.

    Can we develop new understanding that will support model forecasts to determine the effects of warming, acidification and de-oxygenation on marine life?

    Another challenge is to improve our ability to forecast extreme events driven by ocean and seafloor processes. Marine earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and storm surges are natural processes that pose serious risks to human well-being. Societal vulnerability to these extreme events can be profound.

    As our built coastal infrastructure expands, and climate change shifts patterns of such extreme events, it is critical to improve our ability to observe, understand and forecast extreme events.

    Investing in ocean futures

    Ocean research depends on continued funding of basic studies and investment in key ocean science infrastructure. We must integrate emerging technologies, artificial intelligence and expanded use of existing ocean infrastructure such as globally ranging research vessels, global drifters that float on the ocean surface and gather information, underwater communication cables and coastal marine laboratories.

    International co-operation is needed since few of these challenges are truly local. A move towards more collaborative, transdisciplinary research is necessary, alongside an expanded ocean science workforce with training and knowledge well beyond those of traditional disciplines.

    Our assessment of the state of ocean science in the United States identified key infrastructure required to address these challenges.

    For example, while advances in autonomous vehicle technology offer many opportunities, there will remain a need for specialized research ships that can operate in coastal and deep-sea waters and ice-covered regions to drill for** seafloor samples. Globally, there has been a decline in available ships to support ocean research.

    Likewise, nearly 100 marine laboratories dot U.S. coastlines, providing training, access and research for thousands of students each year. The development of this infrastructure offers opportunities for international collaboration and cooperation with private sector partners. It may also be that some of the existing infrastructure, such as the Ocean Observatories Initiative, needs to be reconsidered in light of shifting priorities and developing technologies.

    An ocean glider deployed at sea.
    (B. DeYoung), CC BY-ND

    Collective action

    We differentiate between urgent and vital ocean science research priorities.

    While the urgent will continue to demand our attention — the next coral bleaching event, the latest fisheries collapse — it is our commitment to the vital research priorities identified in the report that will ultimately determine our ability to steward rather than merely react to complex changes in the oceans.

    Our work offers a compass, but navigation requires collective action. Research institutions must transform their approach: restructuring tenure and promotion criteria to reward transdisciplinary investigations, supporting reskilling and upskilling of faculty, and preparing an innovative, adept workforce.

    Policymakers must create frameworks that value long-term investigation. And citizens must advocate for sustained investments in ocean science that transcend political cycles. The ocean’s future — and our own — depends on our willingness to pursue what is vital.

    Kristen St John receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation. She is the author of a lab book Reconstructing Earth’s Climate History: Inquiry-Based Exercises for the Lab and Class, and an in press textbook Earth’s Climate: A Geoscience Perspective.

    Mona Behl receives funding from U.S. National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautic and Space Agency, and the U.S. Department of Commerce. She is affiliated with the American Meteorological Society, and the Oceanography Society.

    Peter Girguis receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, Schmidt Sciences, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. He is affiliated with Harvard University, Schmidt Sciences, and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution .

    Richard W Murray has received funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation and other U.S. federal agencies.

    Stephen Palumbi receives funding from NSF, The Pew Charitable Trusts among other sources. He is affiliated with The Ocean Conservancy as a Board member, and is a member of the National Academies of Sciences. He has been vocal about the value and fun of bringing ocean science to the general public in book like The Extreme Life of the Sea and the upcoming book Born Predators.

    Brad deYoung 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. Humanity depends on the ocean — Here is what we need to prioritize for immediate ocean science research – https://theconversation.com/humanity-depends-on-the-ocean-here-is-what-we-need-to-prioritize-for-immediate-ocean-science-research-252247

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Accra is a tough city to walk in: how city planners can fix the problem

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Seth Asare Okyere, Visiting lecturer, University of Pittsburg and Adjunct Associate Professor, Osaka University, University of Pittsburgh

    Humans are walking beings. Walking is intrinsically linked to our physical development from childhood and enables our connections with people and places. We can say it is essential to our physical and mental well-being.

    Walking can also help create inclusive and sustainable cities. Most western cities incorporate this need in their spatial planning.

    In African countries like Ghana, however, the fact that most people walk doesn’t always mean they prefer to. They need to walk because it’s cheaper than using motor vehicles. But many African cities are not friendly to pedestrians.

    More than 70% of the urban population in Africa walk daily for various purposes. To deal with the challenges pedestrians encounter, some African cities have incorporated policies and strategies for walking into their motorised transport policies. For instance, in Nigeria, the Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority has developed a policy that aims to create a safe and pleasant network of footpaths, greenways and other facilities that serve everyone in the city.

    In Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), a similar policy was developed. Its objective is to increase the number of people who walk by investing in walking facilities and improving connectivity to public transport.

    The strategies in these documents are commendable, but they have met practical challenges like funding, public perception and technical capacity.

    Ghana also has several transport and local development planning policies. Yet most urban areas in Ghana don’t have walking infrastructure and a safe walking environment.

    As scholars interested in sustainable urban development planning and policy, we reviewed some of these policies to explore how they treat walking as a way of getting around. The research also assessed institutional perspectives and residents’ everyday lived experiences of walkability in Accra, the capital city. We found that both policies and urban plans paid little attention to making the walking experience enjoyable.


    Read more: City streets: why South Africa should design more people-friendly spaces


    The study

    The Ghana Transport Survey Report indicates that over three-quarters (75.3%) of the country’s population make up to ten daily trips on foot, and most urban areas lack walking infrastructure. Pedestrians account for about 42% of road deaths in Ghana.

    We chose two study sites in Accra, the capital, where many come to find work. The sites represented inner-city and suburban areas. The research used in-depth and semi-structured interviews with 80 people to capture the perspectives of institutional representatives and community residents. We explored walking experiences in terms of accessibility, safety and enjoyment.

    Findings

    Accessibility: The national transport policy seeks to provide dedicated, safe, reliable and appropriate facilities for users across all transport modes. What we found, however, was an absence of infrastructure to enhance pedestrian access to facilities and services.

    One resident commented:

    The roads are not only in poor condition but they have no sidewalks. It is not hard to assume that these were built for car owners, not pedestrians’ everyday use.

    Safety: The research revealed a chasm between policy ambitions for walking and realities at the community level. Municipal development plans don’t say how they will address the frequent crashes that result from commuters, vendors and motorists competing for space. The most at risk are pedestrians, who represent 42% of transport-related fatalities. This is because of noncompliance with bylaws that regulate activities on the roads and pedestrian pathways.

    One municipal official said:

    Look at the streets: Motorists, street vendors, school children on the same street space. There is encroachment, reckless driving, illegally parked cars on road shoulders. School children and the disabled face constant risks. But the plan aims to make the neighborhoods walkable. Just words as always.

    Enjoyment: Enjoyment was the least considered aspect of walkability in both national policy and municipal development plans. The absence of facilities and infrastructure that offer comfort, aesthetics and other pleasures for pedestrians provides a clear indication of this.

    A community leader complained:

    Flooding and poor sanitation create an unpleasant walking environment. Clogged waste, poor drains, and rubbish along streets and alleyways are a problem. There is nothing pleasant about walking: the smell, the dust, the noise and the heat. You walk because you have no choice.


    Read more: New forms of urban planning are emerging in Africa


    Towards cities that are walkable

    The deep gulf between what the policies say and everyday experiences in our study calls for new ways of thinking and implementation within the urban transport in Ghana’s development planning regime.

    We suggest that there is a need for transport planners, urban and development planners, and policymakers to consider coproduction strategies in identifying, framing, developing, and implementing interventions. This will help harness the potential for walking as a social equaliser and its contribution to healthy, safe, equitable cities and communities.

    Here, action-oriented collaborative strategies like workshops that consider communities as partners can transition African urban residents from captive walkers to walkers who enjoy it.

    – Accra is a tough city to walk in: how city planners can fix the problem
    – https://theconversation.com/accra-is-a-tough-city-to-walk-in-how-city-planners-can-fix-the-problem-253636

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-Evening Report: Fresh details emerge on Australia’s new climate migration visa for Tuvalu residents

    ANALYSIS: By Jane McAdam, UNSW Sydney

    The details of a new visa enabling Tuvaluan citizens to permanently migrate to Australia were released this week.

    The visa was created as part of a bilateral treaty Australia and Tuvalu signed in late 2023, which aims to protect the two countries’ shared interests in security, prosperity and stability, especially given the “existential threat posed by climate change”.

    The Australia–Tuvalu Falepili Union, as it is known, is the world’s first bilateral agreement to create a special visa like this in the context of climate change.

    Here’s what we know so far about why this special visa exists and how it will work.

    Why is this migration avenue important?
    The impacts of climate change are already contributing to displacement and migration around the world.

    As a low-lying atoll nation, Tuvalu is particularly exposed to rising sea levels, storm surges and coastal erosion.

    As Pacific leaders declared in a world-first regional framework on climate mobility in 2023, rights-based migration can “help people to move safely and on their own terms in the context of climate change.”

    And enhanced migration opportunities have clearly made a huge difference to development challenges in the Pacific, allowing people to access education and work and send money back home.

    As international development expert Professor Stephen Howes put it,

    Countries with greater migration opportunities in the Pacific generally do better.

    While Australia has a history of labour mobility schemes for Pacific peoples, this will not provide opportunities for everyone.

    Despite perennial calls for migration or relocation opportunities in the face of climate change, this is the first Australian visa to respond.

    How does the new visa work?
    The visa will enable up to 280 people from Tuvalu to move to Australia each year.

    On arrival in Australia, visa holders will receive, among other things, immediate access to:

    • education (at the same subsidisation as Australian citizens)
    • Medicare
    • the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)
    • family tax benefit
    • childcare subsidy
    • youth allowance.

    They will also have “freedom for unlimited travel” to and from Australia.

    This is rare. Normally, unlimited travel is capped at five years.

    According to some experts, these arrangements now mean Tuvalu has the “second closest migration relationship with Australia after New Zealand”.

    Reading the fine print
    The technical name of the visa is Subclass 192 (Pacific Engagement).

    The details of the visa, released this week, reveal some curiosities.

    First, it has been incorporated into the existing Pacific Engagement Visa category (subclass 192) rather than designed as a standalone visa.

    Presumably, this was a pragmatic decision to expedite its creation and overcome the significant costs of establishing a wholly new visa category.

    But unlike the Pacific Engagement Visa — a different, earlier visa, which is contingent on applicants having a job offer in Australia — this new visa is not employment-dependent.

    Secondly, the new visa does not specifically mention Tuvalu.

    This would make it simpler to extend it to other Pacific countries in the future.

    Who can apply, and how?

    To apply, eligible people must first register their interest for the visa online. Then, they must be selected through a random computer ballot to apply.

    The primary applicant must:

    • be at least 18 years of age
    • hold a Tuvaluan passport, and
    • have been born in Tuvalu — or had a parent or a grandparent born there.

    People with New Zealand citizenship cannot apply. Nor can anyone whose Tuvaluan citizenship was obtained through investment in the country.

    This indicates the underlying humanitarian nature of the visa; people with comparable opportunities in New Zealand or elsewhere are ineligible to apply for it.

    Applicants must also satisfy certain health and character requirements.

    Strikingly, the visa is open to those “with disabilities, special needs and chronic health conditions”. This is often a bar to acquiring an Australian visa.

    And the new visa isn’t contingent on people showing they face risks from the adverse impacts of climate change and disasters, even though climate change formed the backdrop to the scheme’s creation.

    Settlement support is crucial
    With the first visa holders expected to arrive later this year, questions remain about how well supported they will be.

    The Explanatory Memorandum to the treaty says:

    Australia would provide support for applicants to find work and to the growing Tuvaluan diaspora in Australia to maintain connection to culture and improve settlement outcomes.

    That’s promising, but it’s not yet clear how this will be done.

    A heavy burden often falls on diaspora communities to assist newcomers.

    For this scheme to work, there must be government investment over the immediate and longer-term to give people the best prospects of thriving.

    Drawing on experiences from refugee settlement, and from comparative experiences in New Zealand with respect to Pacific communities, will be instructive.

    Extensive and ongoing community consultation is also needed with Tuvalu and with the Tuvalu diaspora in Australia. This includes involving these communities in reviewing the scheme over time.

    Dr Jane McAdam is Scientia professor and ARC laureate fellow, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Sydney. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Global: Accra is a tough city to walk in: how city planners can fix the problem

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Seth Asare Okyere, Visiting lecturer, University of Pittsburg and Adjunct Associate Professor, Osaka University, University of Pittsburgh

    Humans are walking beings. Walking is intrinsically linked to our physical development from childhood and enables our connections with people and places. We can say it is essential to our physical and mental well-being.

    Walking can also help create inclusive and sustainable cities. Most western cities incorporate this need in their spatial planning.

    In African countries like Ghana, however, the fact that most people walk doesn’t always mean they prefer to. They need to walk because it’s cheaper than using motor vehicles. But many African cities are not friendly to pedestrians.

    More than 70% of the urban population in Africa walk daily for various purposes. To deal with the challenges pedestrians encounter, some African cities have incorporated policies and strategies for walking into their motorised transport policies. For instance, in Nigeria, the Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority has developed a policy that aims to create a safe and pleasant network of footpaths, greenways and other facilities that serve everyone in the city.

    In Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), a similar policy was developed. Its objective is to increase the number of people who walk by investing in walking facilities and improving connectivity to public transport.

    The strategies in these documents are commendable, but they have met practical challenges like funding, public perception and technical capacity.

    Ghana also has several transport and local development planning policies. Yet most urban areas in Ghana don’t have walking infrastructure and a safe walking environment.

    As scholars interested in sustainable urban development planning and policy, we reviewed some of these policies to explore how they treat walking as a way of getting around. The research also assessed institutional perspectives and residents’ everyday lived experiences of walkability in Accra, the capital city. We found that both policies and urban plans paid little attention to making the walking experience enjoyable.




    Read more:
    City streets: why South Africa should design more people-friendly spaces


    The study

    The Ghana Transport Survey Report indicates that over three-quarters (75.3%) of the country’s population make up to ten daily trips on foot, and most urban areas lack walking infrastructure. Pedestrians account for about 42% of road deaths in Ghana.

    We chose two study sites in Accra, the capital, where many come to find work. The sites represented inner-city and suburban areas. The research used in-depth and semi-structured interviews with 80 people to capture the perspectives of institutional representatives and community residents. We explored walking experiences in terms of accessibility, safety and enjoyment.

    Findings

    Accessibility: The national transport policy seeks to provide dedicated, safe, reliable and appropriate facilities for users across all transport modes. What we found, however, was an absence of infrastructure to enhance pedestrian access to facilities and services.

    One resident commented:

    The roads are not only in poor condition but they have no sidewalks. It is not hard to assume that these were built for car owners, not pedestrians’ everyday use.

    Safety: The research revealed a chasm between policy ambitions for walking and realities at the community level. Municipal development plans don’t say how they will address the frequent crashes that result from commuters, vendors and motorists competing for space. The most at risk are pedestrians, who represent 42% of transport-related fatalities. This is because of noncompliance with bylaws that regulate activities on the roads and pedestrian pathways.

    One municipal official said:

    Look at the streets: Motorists, street vendors, school children on the same street space. There is encroachment, reckless driving, illegally parked cars on road shoulders. School children and the disabled face constant risks. But the plan aims to make the neighborhoods walkable. Just words as always.

    Enjoyment: Enjoyment was the least considered aspect of walkability in both national policy and municipal development plans. The absence of facilities and infrastructure that offer comfort, aesthetics and other pleasures for pedestrians provides a clear indication of this.

    A community leader complained:

    Flooding and poor sanitation create an unpleasant walking environment. Clogged waste, poor drains, and rubbish along streets and alleyways are a problem. There is nothing pleasant about walking: the smell, the dust, the noise and the heat. You walk because you have no choice.




    Read more:
    New forms of urban planning are emerging in Africa


    Towards cities that are walkable

    The deep gulf between what the policies say and everyday experiences in our study calls for new ways of thinking and implementation within the urban transport in Ghana’s development planning regime.

    We suggest that there is a need for transport planners, urban and development planners, and policymakers to consider coproduction strategies in identifying, framing, developing, and implementing interventions. This will help harness the potential for walking as a social equaliser and its contribution to healthy, safe, equitable cities and communities.

    Here, action-oriented collaborative strategies like workshops that consider communities as partners can transition African urban residents from captive walkers to walkers who enjoy it.

    Seth Asare Okyere receives funding from the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations.

    Daniel Oviedo receives funding from University College London and the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations.

    Louis Kusi Frimpong receives funding from the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations (VREF) funding program

    Mariajose Nieto receives funding from Volvo Research and Educational Foundation

    Matthew Abunyewah and Stephen Leonard Mensah 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. Accra is a tough city to walk in: how city planners can fix the problem – https://theconversation.com/accra-is-a-tough-city-to-walk-in-how-city-planners-can-fix-the-problem-253636

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-Evening Report: Accra is a tough city to walk in: how city planners can fix the problem

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Seth Asare Okyere, Visiting lecturer, University of Pittsburg and Adjunct Associate Professor, Osaka University, University of Pittsburgh

    Humans are walking beings. Walking is intrinsically linked to our physical development from childhood and enables our connections with people and places. We can say it is essential to our physical and mental well-being.

    Walking can also help create inclusive and sustainable cities. Most western cities incorporate this need in their spatial planning.

    In African countries like Ghana, however, the fact that most people walk doesn’t always mean they prefer to. They need to walk because it’s cheaper than using motor vehicles. But many African cities are not friendly to pedestrians.

    More than 70% of the urban population in Africa walk daily for various purposes. To deal with the challenges pedestrians encounter, some African cities have incorporated policies and strategies for walking into their motorised transport policies. For instance, in Nigeria, the Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority has developed a policy that aims to create a safe and pleasant network of footpaths, greenways and other facilities that serve everyone in the city.

    In Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), a similar policy was developed. Its objective is to increase the number of people who walk by investing in walking facilities and improving connectivity to public transport.

    The strategies in these documents are commendable, but they have met practical challenges like funding, public perception and technical capacity.

    Ghana also has several transport and local development planning policies. Yet most urban areas in Ghana don’t have walking infrastructure and a safe walking environment.

    As scholars interested in sustainable urban development planning and policy, we reviewed some of these policies to explore how they treat walking as a way of getting around. The research also assessed institutional perspectives and residents’ everyday lived experiences of walkability in Accra, the capital city. We found that both policies and urban plans paid little attention to making the walking experience enjoyable.




    Read more:
    City streets: why South Africa should design more people-friendly spaces


    The study

    The Ghana Transport Survey Report indicates that over three-quarters (75.3%) of the country’s population make up to ten daily trips on foot, and most urban areas lack walking infrastructure. Pedestrians account for about 42% of road deaths in Ghana.

    We chose two study sites in Accra, the capital, where many come to find work. The sites represented inner-city and suburban areas. The research used in-depth and semi-structured interviews with 80 people to capture the perspectives of institutional representatives and community residents. We explored walking experiences in terms of accessibility, safety and enjoyment.

    Findings

    Accessibility: The national transport policy seeks to provide dedicated, safe, reliable and appropriate facilities for users across all transport modes. What we found, however, was an absence of infrastructure to enhance pedestrian access to facilities and services.

    One resident commented:

    The roads are not only in poor condition but they have no sidewalks. It is not hard to assume that these were built for car owners, not pedestrians’ everyday use.

    Safety: The research revealed a chasm between policy ambitions for walking and realities at the community level. Municipal development plans don’t say how they will address the frequent crashes that result from commuters, vendors and motorists competing for space. The most at risk are pedestrians, who represent 42% of transport-related fatalities. This is because of noncompliance with bylaws that regulate activities on the roads and pedestrian pathways.

    One municipal official said:

    Look at the streets: Motorists, street vendors, school children on the same street space. There is encroachment, reckless driving, illegally parked cars on road shoulders. School children and the disabled face constant risks. But the plan aims to make the neighborhoods walkable. Just words as always.

    Enjoyment: Enjoyment was the least considered aspect of walkability in both national policy and municipal development plans. The absence of facilities and infrastructure that offer comfort, aesthetics and other pleasures for pedestrians provides a clear indication of this.

    A community leader complained:

    Flooding and poor sanitation create an unpleasant walking environment. Clogged waste, poor drains, and rubbish along streets and alleyways are a problem. There is nothing pleasant about walking: the smell, the dust, the noise and the heat. You walk because you have no choice.




    Read more:
    New forms of urban planning are emerging in Africa


    Towards cities that are walkable

    The deep gulf between what the policies say and everyday experiences in our study calls for new ways of thinking and implementation within the urban transport in Ghana’s development planning regime.

    We suggest that there is a need for transport planners, urban and development planners, and policymakers to consider coproduction strategies in identifying, framing, developing, and implementing interventions. This will help harness the potential for walking as a social equaliser and its contribution to healthy, safe, equitable cities and communities.

    Here, action-oriented collaborative strategies like workshops that consider communities as partners can transition African urban residents from captive walkers to walkers who enjoy it.

    Seth Asare Okyere receives funding from the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations.

    Daniel Oviedo receives funding from University College London and the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations.

    Louis Kusi Frimpong receives funding from the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations (VREF) funding program

    Mariajose Nieto receives funding from Volvo Research and Educational Foundation

    Matthew Abunyewah and Stephen Leonard Mensah 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. Accra is a tough city to walk in: how city planners can fix the problem – https://theconversation.com/accra-is-a-tough-city-to-walk-in-how-city-planners-can-fix-the-problem-253636

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Australia: New EVs join government fleet

    Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services

    Electric vehicles take advantage of the ACT’s 100 per cent renewable electricity supply to help reduce emissions from transport.

    In brief:

    • The ACT Government has added 10 more electric vehicles to its fleet.
    • Electric vehicles are better for the environment and cheaper to run.
    • Making your next car electric could save you money.

    Canberra continues to lead the nation in supporting the uptake of electric vehicles (EVs).

    About 10 new electric vehicles are coming onto ACT roads every day. In fact, you might spot a few new ACT Government EVs out and about this spring, including:

    • a ute
    • two tipper trucks
    • a litter picking truck
    • a delivery van.

    These vehicles will join the City Services fleet as a trial to see how the ACT Government can continue to provide essential services in a more environmentally friendly way. An additional four electric passenger vehicles have also joined the fleet in the past month. These vehicles join more than 400 electric, plug-in hybrid or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles already in the ACT Government fleet.

    The trial will showcase the variety and availability of EVs for commercial use and promote their benefits to local industry and community. The new vehicles have been funded through the ACT Government’s Social Cost of Carbon Fund and Zero Emission Government Fund. These funds aim to reduce emissions produced by government activity.

    Making the switch

    Zero emission vehicles, like EVs, are better for the environment and quieter than petrol and diesel vehicles. They’re also much more affordable to run.

    Making your next car electric could save you around $18,000 in running costs over 10 years. It could also reduce your greenhouse gas emissions by around 3 tonnes per year.

    The ACT Government offers multiple incentives for people and businesses when they purchase an EV. And with new public chargers being installed all over the city, charging your EV is quick and easy.

    Canberran’s are embracing EVs at a rapid pace, with over 9,100 EVs currently registered. If you’re thinking about making your next car electric, but not sure where to start, check out this handy guide on EVs for beginners.

    Transport contributes over 60 per cent of the ACT’s emissions. This means electric vehicles have the potential to make a big difference as the ACT continues towards our goals of net zero emissions by 2045.

    For more information about zero emissions vehicles in the ACT, visit the Everyday Climate Choices website.


    Get ACT news and events delivered straight to your inbox, sign up to our email newsletter:


    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Patrick Harvie Spring Conference speech 2025

    Source: Scottish Greens

    Patrick Harvie gave his final conference speech as Co-Leader of the Scottish Greens, urging his party to present a bold and inspiring alternative to a broken status quo and the far right Reform party.

    Now as you know, I’ve given more than a few co-leader speeches at our conferences, and I can’t really begin today without recognising that I’m turning the page now, both for myself and for the party.

    I’m want to say how grateful I am to everyone who has offered kind words since I announced that I won’t be standing for re-election as Co-Leader.

    And I want to thank everybody who has given me the opportunity to serve the party as co-convenor and then as Co-Leader; and everyone I’ve worked with across the party over many years.

    And naturally, having made that decision, I’ve been reflecting on the journey we’ve all been on.

    I think back to the public perceptions, and the internal reality, of the party I joined in 2001.

    A party with just one MSP, no councillors, and a handful of members. A party so strapped for cash that it only narrowly escaped being bankrupted by a photocopier contract. A party with so little profile or recognition that when you said told people you were a member, people thought you meant Greenpeace.

    I think back also to my experience of becoming part of our new parliamentary group in 2003, when we suddenly jumped up from one seat to seven. It was an exciting time, of course, but we knew that to most voters, to most politics watchers and to most of the media, we were an unknown quantity at best. 

    The Daily Mail knew what to make of us. As the first MSP to be elected as an out candidate, when I started talking about equal marriage and civil partnership, they splashed a front page with the headline “Green threat to the family.”

    In the article that followed, they fretted “describing himself as bisexual, enjoying relationships with both men and women!”. I mean if they’d written “hoping for…” it would at least have been accurate.

    And not long after that I was dubbed the voice of the “irresponsible left led anti family anti-Christian gay whales against the bomb coalition.” Because they hadn’t thought of the word woke by then.

    But even beyond the odd worldview of the Mail, much of the media saw us as nothing more than a novelty act, something to do with the environment, something a bit eccentric, but nothing like a serious political force.

    We wanted to change that perception. And slowly and surely, by taking our jobs seriously, and taking parliament seriously, we started to make others take us seriously. We built credibility. But that early success didn’t have a strong foundation.

    Though our national membership was still measured in the hundreds, we had run a decent campaign, on half a shoestring, but in truth the electoral weather had been very kind to us. We did need to build that political credibility, but we hadn’t yet built the strong campaigning party in the country that we would need when we faced a tougher election. 

    In 2007 we just about held on by our fingernails. We lost most of our seats, most of our staff, most of our profile, and most of our ability to achieve change.

    I never want that to happen to the Scottish Green Party again.

    We began the slow process of rebuilding the party, and because Parliament was so tightly balanced we did manage to find opportunities to keep making change happen, from funding climate work in communities, to passing hate crime laws. 

    But it was 2014, and in fact the few years running up to it, that changed everything.

    As soon as it was clear that Scotland would be making this historic decision on independence, we saw the opportunity not only to set out why independence fits with the Green vision, but why the Green vision is the path to making independence work – why a sustainable independent Scotland, able to move quickly and fairly away from the fossil fuel age, is the best future we can choose. 

    Some independence voices hadn’t yet moved on from “it’s Scotland’s oil.” To be honest, a few still haven’t even today. But we saw, and we seized, an opportunity to change the debate, and change the story of Scotland’s future.

    More than that, we wanted to show that people could debate that choice in good spirit, and that people can disagree and still be friends. And that positive ideas and vision are of more value than fear, opportunism, or insults. That Scotland was capable of the standard of debate we deserved.

    Our message reached more people than ever before, and more people than ever before decided to join. 

    There are people here today who joined in that surge, who attended branch meetings in the wake of the referendum, meetings where the overspills rooms needed overspill rooms.

    With the capacity and the profile that we gained in that period, 2016 restored our parliamentary group, and with the SNP returning to minority government we were able to achieve real change; passing legislation, winning the case for progressive tax reform, and forcing policy change from government, but – critically – building out political relevance; and we laid the groundwork for our best ever result in 2021.

    And on the back of that result, the opportunity to become part of the government presented itself. In the biggest and most participative democratic process our party has ever undertaken, our members first shaped and then approved the Bute House Agreement.

    Doing that was a clear statement that we’re here to make change happen, and that we were ready to step up and do the hard work that’s necessary to make change on a far bigger scale than ever before.

    Clearly, it was shorter lived than it could have been, and now some of our most important work is being undone or watered down by the SNP. But even without the chance to complete a lot of the work we got started, we made a bigger difference in people’s lives than ever.

    It’s the reason three quarters of a million young people today have a bus pass in their pocket today, making public transport an affordable and natural first choice. 

    It’s the reason investment in climate and nature hit record highs, investment that was needed because for far too long politicians had been setting targets and then blocking the action needed to reach them; and it’s the reason why better planning policies ensured that Loch Lomond has been protected from the damage threatened by FlamingoLand.

    This commitment to making change happen instead of only talking about it went well beyond the environmental agenda that Green politics is most strongly rooted in. The actions we took showed how Green ideas apply to social and economic policy, in ways that other parties have shied away from.

    It’s the reason tenants across the country were spared thousands of pounds in avoidable extra rent rises during a cost of living crisis.

    It’s the reason Scotland has continued on the path of more progressive taxation to help protect public services from the austerity first of the Conservative and now of a UK Labour Government.

    And it was also the reason that more people than ever before gave us their support. While the SNP’s legal woes and Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation led to a decline in their support, we saw the highest sustained period of polling in our party’s history, and an election in 2022 that exceeded all expectations.

    I’ll never forget the frustration of some of the SNP’s right wingers, furious at their own party for working with us, desperate to blame their loss of support on Green policies, but looking at our growing success with utter bewilderment. 

    So what now? How do we build on that success, and take Green politics forward in Scotland?

    In this party, it has never just been leaders who answer questions like that, but I’ve no doubt that over the coming months as we choose the leadership team for the 2026 election, these are the questions we will debate. 

    And I want that debate to be a positive, collaborative debate; just like that positive debate that we aimed for about the country’s future, that’s what our party deserves as we debate our own future.

    At any time, but especially now with basic democratic values facing new and very real threats, political parties should be willing to ask ourselves – why do people vote for us?

    For the Greens, many people see us as the political wing of the environment movement. That’s fundamental to our origins and our purpose, but it was never the whole of the answer

    Some people might vote for specific policies; whether that’s on climate & nature, housing, transport, independence, or anything else.

    These policy stances really matter, of course; they matter most if we can actually make them happen. And we should never lose sight of the need to build a reputation for actually turning ideas into reality; all those achievements we’ve made – Scotland is a fairer, better, and greener place because of this work; they are the achievements that are only possible thanks to the political credibility we’ve earned and the support people have given us at election time.

    But it’s a common error for people in politics to think these individual policy issues are what drive most people to the ballot box.

    For far more people, it’s more about who we are.

    We’re a party that’s always tried to be hopeful, even when that is hard work. We’re a party that’s always tried to be constructive – challenging others by putting forward better ideas, but also seeking out the common ground where cooperation can happen – and that’s ever more important in these dangerously polarised times.

    These have been parts of our political character that people really value.

    And I’m truly sorry to say that there have been times recently when I’ve had to ask if we really live up to those values? Times when instead of speaking up in an open and democratic way, a small minority of members have taken to anonymous leaks, smears, insults, undermining the work of fellow members and damaging our whole party and our reputation by doing so.

    I want to appeal to everyone, lets make sure that the next few months see a positive campaign that lifts our party up, one that lives up to the best of our values, not one that descends to the factionalism and toxicity that characterises too much of political debate.

    The vast majority of our members and our voters have had more than enough of that. I’m asking everyone in our party to call it out when they see it, and show those who behave that way that it’s not welcome in this party.

    Ours has to be a movement that offers vision, ambition, and clarity. It’s only if we do so that we will deserve the trust of voters; and our message is even more urgent and important in these unsettling times.

    Green politics could hardly be more of a contrast with the rise of dangerous forces in today’s political climate; the far right threat is very real, and too much of the political spectrum is still behaving as though it can be defeated by imitation.

    They tried that with anti-immigrant and anti-asylum prejudice, making policy ever more hostile and brutal. It harmed people, and it also didn’t work.

    They tried it with Brexit, parroting meaningless slogans like ‘make Brexit work’ even though they knew that it never could. It harmed people, and it also didn’t work.

    They are now doing the same thing with the so-called culture war agenda, with transphobia and the right wing’s attempt to redefine free speech. It’s harming people, and it also cannot work to defeat the far right – playing into their agenda will only ever give the far right more political space.

    Their ideas can only be defeated by openly and consistently challenging them, never by imitating them. 

    And that goes for the right’s contempt for democracy too – undermining trust in the democratic process is easy, and utterly destructive. Greens have a harder job to do, but a far more important one. We have to rekindle belief that in the idea that democratic politics is capable of making our society better, fairer and more liveable. 

    For much of our party’s early history, people might voted Green as a bit of a protest. That’s not enough. It’s not enough to win the chance to make change happen. It should never be enough to satisfy us.

    Green politics must be about making a difference in the real world, because the challenges, and crises, that we exist to face are far too urgent.

    Not just during my time in a leadership role, but throughout the two and a half decades of the devolution era, that’s what we’ve built – the capacity and the credibility to make change happen.

    It took hard work, by many people over many years, to build this party into a political force in Scotland that’s capable of making the country a better place, and that can now point to a track record of doing it and not just talking about it.

    So that’s still the task before us – to take Green politics forward, to achieve more positive change in people’s lives, and to live up to our values in the way we do our politics, because that’s the only way to truly deserve people‘s trust, not just for ourselves, but for democracy.

    So as I close my last speech as Co-Leader, I look forward to our party having the debate we truly deserve in the coming months, the debate we need, about how to build on the most impactful period in our party’s history, and go forward to achieve even more positive change for people and for planet.

    Thank you once again for the opportunity to serve.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Helping Canberra’s community gardens take climate action

    Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services

    Community gardens give easy access to fresh produce and increase the resilience of local food production.

    Twelve Canberra projects have received a grant through the Community Garden Grants Program.

    They will each receive a share of $100,000 in total funding.

    The benefits of community gardens

    Community gardens offer opportunities for local climate action.

    The program also helps Canberrans connect and learn in a shared space.

    The gardens give easy access to fresh produce and increase the resilience of local food production.

    Havelock Community Garden

    The Canberra Student Housing Co-operative is a 2024 recipient.

    They plan to use their grant funds to turn the Havelock Community Garden in Turner into a communal food production space.

    This will make it a place for community connection and socialising.

    They also see it as a means of engaging and educating the student community on growing and maintaining a garden.

    “Education is a big part of what we’re trying to do. Through the grant, we can carry out all these projects we wouldn’t have been able to do before,” Cooperative Director Benjamin Mason said.

    While volunteers and skills are plentiful, cost has been a barrier.

    “This grant means we will be spending less of our budget on the inventory required to run the garden. It means we can now start gardening,” Benjamin said.

    Growing their own food will bring substantial cost benefits, as well as environmental and social ones.

    “We have our own bulk food storage that all residents can access as part of the housing co-operative. The overarching plan is to eat the food from the garden, but anything we can’t eat fresh will be used in our pickling program,” he said.

    2024 Community Garden Grant funding streams

    There are two funding streams in 2024.

    In Stream 1, there is a total of $40,000 to:

    • improve and enhance existing gardens
    • build non-food-related gardens.

    In Stream 2, there is a total of $60,000 to:

    • set up large-scale food production community gardens
    • build significant infrastructure to increase food production in existing gardens.

    2024 grant recipients

    Stream 1:

    • Canberra Environment Centre: $7,835.76 to boost capacity to produce food in their community garden and increase resilience to climate change
    • Canberra Organic Growers Society Inc: $2,000.00 to buy zero-emission power tools for the Charnwood Community Garden
    • Holy Spirit Parish, Gungahlin: $2,641.79 to enhance the productivity and sustainability of their existing gardens
    • The Food Cooperative Shop: $2,872.72 to install vertical garden infrastructure and hold composting workshops
    • Red Hill Primary School P&C: $4,068.65 to plant a bush tucker garden and enhance existing food gardens
    • Church of Christ Ainslie ACT Inc: $3,922.60 to improve seed raising capabilities, build more garden beds and create a frog bog along with native plantings
    • Canberra Student Housing Co-operative: $2,239.00 to convert the Havelock Community Garden into a communal food production space
    • Miles Franklin Primary School P&C: $8,000.00 to build the Gambara Garden, complete with fruit trees and vegetable gardens
    • Scullin Community Group Inc: $2,832.84 to plant an edible sensory hedge at the Scullin Shops.

    Stream 2:

    • Old Narrabundah Community Council: $18,947.00 to install secure fencing around their newly renovated gardens
    • Canberra Muslim Community Inc: $22,000.00 to build the GM Multicultural Community Garden at Gungahlin Mosque
    • SEE Change Belconnen: $22,470.41 to build the demonstration verge garden network. This will build verge gardens in five locations across Belconnen.

    The Community Garden Grants Program began in 2015. It has since supported 87 community garden projects.

    Find more information on the Community Garden Grants program and this year’s recipients at the Everyday Climate Choices website.

    The Canberra Student Housing Co-operative plans to use their grant funds to turn the Havelock Community Garden in Turner into a communal food production space.


    Get ACT news and events delivered straight to your inbox, sign up to our email newsletter:


    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for April 12, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on April 12, 2025.

    Pacific climate activists join 180+ groups calling on COP30 hosts Brazil to end fossil fuel dependence
    RNZ Pacific Pacific climate activists this week handed a letter from civil society to this year’s United Nations climate conference hosts, Brazil, emphasising their demands for the end of fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy. More than 180 indigenous, youth, and environmental organisations from across the world have signed the letter, coordinated by the

    Election Diary: Labor breaks practice of preferencing Greens to protect Jewish MP Josh Burns
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra It takes a bit for Labor not to preference the Greens but on Friday it was announced that in the Melbourne seat of Macnamara, where Jewish MP Josh Burns is embattled, the ALP will run an open ticket. Macnamara, which

    ‘Delusional’ Treaty Principles Bill scrapped but fight for Te Tiriti just beginning, say lawyers and advocates
    By Layla Bailey-McDowell, RNZ Māori news journalist Legal experts and Māori advocates say the fight to protect Te Tiriti is only just beginning — as the controversial Treaty Principles Bill is officially killed in Parliament. The bill — which seeks to redefine the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi — sparked a nationwide hīkoi and

    Coalition plan to dump fuel efficiency penalties would make Australia a global outlier
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Mortimore, Lecturer, Griffith Business School, Griffith University The Coalition has announced it would, if elected to government, weaken a scheme aimed at cutting car emissions. The scheme, known as the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES), was introduced by the Albanese government and was due to take

    Peter Dutton’s climate policy backslide threatens Australia’s clout in the Pacific – right when we need it most
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney Australia’s relationship with its regional neighbours could be in doubt under a Coalition government after two Pacific leaders challenged Opposition Leader Peter Dutton over his weak climate stance. This week, Palau’s president Surangel Whipps Jr

    Could changing your diet improve endometriosis pain? A recent study suggests it’s possible
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia ovchinnikova_ksenya/Shutterstock Endometriosis affects around 10% of women of reproductive age. It’s a chronic inflammatory condition that occurs when tissue similar to the lining of the uterus (the endometrium) grows outside the

    Kids cheering ‘chicken jockey!’ at A Minecraft Movie isn’t antisocial – it creates a chance for us to connect
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sophia Staite, Lecturer in Humanities, University of Tasmania Courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures Social media is ablaze with reports of kids going wild at screenings of A Minecraft Movie. Some cinemas are cracking down. There are reports of cinemas calling in police to deal with rowdy theatregoers

    Traded like assets, expected to be loyal: the unique double standard of being an Australian footy player
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hunter Fujak, Senior Lecturer in Sport Management, Deakin University Few issues in Australian sport generate as much media noise or emotional fan reactions as player movement, especially in our major winter codes the National Rugby League (NRL) and Australian Football League (AFL). Contract negotiations, trade whispers and

    We study ‘planktivores’ – and found an amazing diversity of shapes among plankton-feeding fishes
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isabelle Ng, PhD candidate, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University A couple of whip coral goby (_Bryaninops yongei_). randi_ang/Shutterstock Swim along the edge of a coral reef and you’ll often see schools of sleek, torpedo-shaped fishes gliding through the currents, feeding on tiny plankton from

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Pacific climate activists join 180+ groups calling on COP30 hosts Brazil to end fossil fuel dependence

    RNZ Pacific

    Pacific climate activists this week handed a letter from civil society to this year’s United Nations climate conference hosts, Brazil, emphasising their demands for the end of fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy.

    More than 180 indigenous, youth, and environmental organisations from across the world have signed the letter, coordinated by the campaign organisation, 350.org.

    A declaration of alliance between Indigenous peoples from the Amazon, the Pacific, and Australia ahead of COP30 has also been announced.

    The “strongly worded letter” was handed to COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago and Brazil’s Environment and Climate Change Minister Marina Silva who attended the Acampamento Terra Livre (ATL), or Free Land Camp, in Brasília.

    “We, climate and social justice organisations from around the world, urgently demand that COP30 renews the global commitment and supports implementation for the just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy,” the letter states.

    “This must ensure that solutions progressively meet the needs of Indigenous, Black, marginalised and vulnerable populations and accelerate the expansion of renewables in a way that ensures the world’s wealthiest and most polluting nations pay their fair share, does not harm nature, increase deforestation by burning biomass, while upholding economic, social, and gender justice.”

    ‘No room for new coal mines’
    It adds: “The science is unequivocal: there is no room for new coal mines or oil and gas fields if the world is to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — especially in critical ecosystems like the Amazon, where COP30 will be hosted.

    “Tripling renewables by 2030 is essential, but without a managed and rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, it won’t be enough.”

    350.org’s Fiji community organiser, George Nacewa, said it was now up to the Brazil COP Presidency if they would act “or lock us into climate catastrophe”.

    “This is a critical time for our people — the age of deliberation is long past,” Nacewa said on behalf of the group that call themselves “Pacific Climate Warriors”.

    “We need this COP to be the one that spearheads the Just Energy Transition from words to action.”

    COP30 will take place in Belém, Brazil, from November 10-21.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Collins Announces Penobscot Nation DOI Funding Restored

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Maine Susan Collins

    Washington, D.C. – Following a meeting last month with Chief Kirk Francis of the Penobscot Nation and further consultation with the Administration, today, Senator Collins announced that her office has received notice from the Department of the Interior (DOI) that $4 million in previously paused federal funding for the Nation has resumed.

    “This funding was awarded to support the acquisition of lands in the Penobscot River watershed, returning it to the Penobscot Nation,” said Senator Collins. “Restoring access to these lands is an important step in preserving the Penobscot Nation’s cultural and environmental heritage. I am pleased the Department has reversed course and is honoring its previous commitment to the Nation.”

    The Penobscot Nation was awarded $4 million through the DOI Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Tribal Climate Resilience Program in Fiscal Year 2024 to acquire 30,000 acres of critical habitat in the Penobscot River watershed, creating an important ecological corridor and protecting culturally significant lands. This investment will help safeguard vital wetlands, streams, and habitats for species of high conservation need while promoting the Nation’s long-term role of ecological stewardship in the region.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Countries reach historic deal to cut shipping emissions

    Source: United Nations MIL OSI b

    By Vibhu Mishra

    Climate and Environment

    After years of intense negotiations, countries on Friday reached a landmark deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping, setting mandatory fuel standards and introducing an industry-wide carbon pricing mechanism.

    The framework – agreed during the UN International Maritime Organization (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee – aims for net-zero emissions from the sector by 2050 and will be formally adopted in October before coming into force in 2027.

    They will apply to large ocean-going vessels over 5,000 gross tonnage, which collectively account for 85 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions from the marine shipping fleet.

    IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez hailed the breakthrough, emphasising the collaborative spirit that led to the deal.

    “The approval of draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI mandating the IMO net-zero framework represents another significant step in our collective efforts to combat climate change, to modernize shipping and demonstrates that IMO delivers on its commitments.”

    MARPOL Annex VI refers to provisions in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, specifically addressing air pollution.

    It already includes mandatory energy efficiency requirements for ships and has 108 Parties covering roughly 97 per cent of the world’s merchant shipping fleet by tonnage.

    Intense negotiations

    Negotiations – which culminated on Friday in London – were particularly challenging.

    According to media reports, around a dozen countries – including the United States – were opposed to the framework. The proposal was ultimately put to a vote and passed.

    A turning point for the shipping industry

    The framework introduces a dual approach: a global fuel standard that will progressively lower the annual greenhouse gas fuel intensity of marine fuels, and a greenhouse gas pricing mechanism requiring high-emitting ships to pay for their excess pollution.

    Under the new system, ships that exceed emissions limits will need to acquire remedial units to offset their excess pollution. Meanwhile, vessels operating with zero or near-zero emissions will be eligible for financial rewards, creating a market-driven push toward cleaner maritime transport.

    © IMO

    A cargo ship moored at a port in Europe.

    Supporting vulnerable countries

    A key element of the new framework is the IMO Net-Zero Fund, which will collect revenues from the carbon pricing mechanism.

    These funds will support innovation, research, infrastructure and transition initiatives in developing countries.

    It will also be used to mitigate negative impacts on vulnerable nations, such as small island developing States (SIDS) and least developed countries (LDCs), which bear the brunt of both climate change and economic pressures in the shipping sector.

    Next steps: Adoption and implementation

    The draft regulations will undergo formal adoption in October 2025.

    If ratified during the IMO session, as expected, the measures will enter into force in 2027, giving the industry time to adapt to new requirements and invest in alternative fuels and technologies.

    The International Maritime Organization

    The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the UN specialized agency responsible for the safety and security of global shipping and the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by ships.

    Established in 1948 and headquartered in London, it develops international treaties, such as the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) or the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Wyden, Salinas, Pingree, Tokuda Lead Colleagues in Slamming Trump Administration for Censoring Agricultural Research Crucial to Rural Communities

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore)

    April 11, 2025

    Leaked Agricultural Research Service memo contains a sweeping list of banned words, including “climate,” “affordable housing,” and “safe drinking water.”

    Washington, D.C. U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and U.S. Representatives Andrea Salinas, D-Ore., Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, and Jill Tokuda, D-Hawai’i, warned the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that Donald Trump’s politically motivated list of banned words – including “climate,” “affordable housing,” and “safe drinking water” — in research agreements being considered for federal funding would harm rural communities facing wildfires, drought, food insecurity, among other environmental agricultural challenges.

    In the letter to USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, the lawmakers emphasized, “The exclusion of these terms from consideration for funding opportunities demonstrates an intentional effort to hinder, distort, and improperly steer federal scientific work in the name of political expediency, and the American people deserve far better than that.”

    The USDA has operated more than 600 research projects with a $1.7 billion budget. Banning terms like “runoff” or “soil pollution” from playing a role in funding these agricultural and environmental projects would stall opportunities to advance the agency’s core mission to carry out scientific work that bolsters lives, careers, and the overall wellbeing of communities across rural America. As Oregon’s climate changes, farmers are being exposed to emerging pest and disease threats, which could wipe out entire crops or even threaten human health. Climate change is a scientifically established threat to agricultural productivity, food security, and rural economies.

    The lawmakers continued, “The American people deserve transparency and integrity from federal research agencies, not political interference and outright censorship. The farmers and ranchers who rely on sound science to navigate environmental and economic challenges should not have their livelihoods undercut by unscientific, bureaucratic gatekeeping. Critical research proposals to reduce pollution, increase irrigation efficiency, or address emerging pest and disease threats should not be denied solely because they used a word that Donald Trump does not like.”

    Joining Wyden, the letter is cosigned in the Senate by Senators Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawai’i, Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., Peter Welch, D-Vt., Tina Smith, D-Minn., Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

    Joining Salinas, Pingree, and Tokuda, the letter is cosigned in the House by Representatives Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., Ed Case, D-Hawai’i, Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., Angie Craig, D-Minn., Jim Costa, D-Calif., Shomari Figures, D-Ala., Valerie Foushee, D-N.C., Jared Huffman, D-Calif., Jonathan Jackson, D-Ill., Betty McCollum, D-Minn., Eleanor Norton, D-D.C., Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., Terri Sewell, D-Ala., Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

    Wyden demands immediate answers clarifying the implications of this politically motivated censorship to the following questions no later than April 18, 2025:

    1. Has the USDA conducted any review to determine whether this policy violates federal transparency laws, scientific integrity policies, or anti-discrimination statutes? If so, please share the documentation. If not, please explain why a review has not been done.
    2. The USDA has confirmed the existence of the ARS memo that has been publicly reported. Please provide any other lists of key words that the USDA is using to evaluate federal agreements, contracts, grants, loans, and other programs.
    3. For each list provided under question 2, please explain the purpose of each list, including any relevant laws, regulations, Executive Orders, or memoranda that the USDA is seeking to comply with.
    4. What safeguards have you put in place to ensure that these restrictions do not lead to biased or politically motivated decision-making at the expense of merit, scientific integrity, and public welfare?
    5. Have these restrictions resulted in the rejection of agreements that would have directly benefited farmers, food supply security, or rural economies? If so, what processes does the USDA have in place to allow for the appeal of decisions and evaluations made based off key word lists for federal agreements, contracts, grants, loans, or other programs? Provide an itemized list of all agreements under all impacted programs that were rejected because they included one or more of these banned terms, as outlined in the directive, as well as a full justification for each rejection.
    1. In the case of the ARS banned word list, if an ongoing research agreement is focused on biofuels, for example, the ARS website lists 29 research projects containing the word biofuel.[3] Will funding for these projects be revoked? Will ongoing research be halted? Will USDA require projects to rephrase their contracts? If a project cannot be rephrased without using a banned word, will the contract be terminated?
    2. What are the consequences for researchers or other agency employees who identify serious risks related to any of these banned terms, such as, for example, the expanded range of certain pests and diseases due to changing climate conditions, or nitrate contamination in the drinking water supply from fertilizer runoff?
      1. Will research proposals and agreements to address these critical issues – and others that include banned terms – be considered under this policy?
      2. If so, through what process are they getting around the banned terms list, and how is that decided? If not, how do you justify such negligence?
      3. Are career scientists, policy experts, and agency staff being pressured to remove or avoid these terms in their work? If not, explain how USDA plans to enforce these restrictions. If so, how does that not constitute political coercion?
    3. Does the USDA deny that climate change, pollution, and the accessibility of federal funding impact the safety and security of the American food supply? If so, provide your justification. If not, then why are these issues being censored?
    4. Will you release all internal communications regarding the creation, justification, and enforcement of this policy to ensure full transparency? If so, when? If not, why?

    This year, Wyden led colleagues in demanding a halt to the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to roll back decades of scientific findings on greenhouse gases. In February, Wyden called on the U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to reverse harmful firings at the USDA that have harmed Oregon farmers and families.

    The text of the letter is here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senators Markey and Wicker Announce Bipartisan Legislation to Improve Long-Term Weather Forecasting

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey
    Bill Text (PDF) | One Pager
    Washington (April 11, 2025) – Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), today announced legislation to improve subseasonal-to-seasonal (S2S) weather forecasting efforts at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through investments in advanced approaches to S2S weather forecasting. S2S forecasting refers to timescales of two weeks to three months and three months to two years, respectively. The Forecasting Optimization for Robust Earth Climate Analysis and Subseasonal-to-Seasonal Tracking (FORECAST) Act of 2025 would authorize federal funding to support research, demonstration, and application of cutting-edge data management and weather modeling technologies to improve the reliability of S2S forecasts. The legislation is co-sponsored by Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.).
    “The recent devastating tornadoes, torrential rains, and flooding in the central United States demonstrate the urgent need for improved forecasts to support our farmers, mariners, utility workers, city planners, and communities,” said Senator Markey. “In pursuit of a 21st-century weather enterprise that brings predictability to disaster planning, NOAA requires robust subseasonal-to-seasonal forecasting capabilities. The FORECAST Act will provide NOAA with the direction and resources needed to fully realize an S2S forecasting architecture that is cutting-edge, reliable, and maintainable, ensuring the short- and long-term safety of communities in the face of severe weather.”
    “As Mississippians live through this year’s tornado season, it is hard to think of a timelier bill,” said Senator Wicker. “We must keep improving weather forecasting, and I will continue supporting congressional efforts to make predictions as early and accurate as possible.”
    “Long-term forecasts on storms like atmospheric rivers are critical for preparing communities for growing water challenges and flooding in the West,” said Senator Padilla. “This investment in the next generation of our weather workforce will strengthen our long-term forecasting capabilities and keep the public informed beyond traditional two-week weather forecasts in the face of the climate crisis.”
    “As communities experience more extreme weather, we need to invest in forecasting technology and workforce development to make sure we’re prepared for these events,” said Senator Rosen. “That’s why I’m helping to introduce this bipartisan bill to build the next generation of researchers and engineers who will improve and operate forecasting and weather modeling technology. I’ll keep pushing for commonsense solutions that allow us to better adapt to climate change and become more resilient.”
    The FORECAST Act also directs NOAA to continue its record of successful cross-sectoral collaboration with leading universities and scientific organizations to make the most of the latest advances in S2S forecasting efforts. The bill also directs NOAA to leverage emerging technologies, like artificial intelligence, machine learning, and unmanned systems, and creates a new workforce development program to develop the next generation of professionals in the weather enterprise.
    This legislation is endorsed by Woodwell Climate Center and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR).
    Senators Markey and Padilla previously introduced the FORECAST Act in July 2024.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Salinas, Pingree, Tokuda, Wyden Lead Colleagues in Slamming Trump Administration for Censoring Agricultural Research Crucial to Rural Communities

    Source: US Representative Andrea Salinas (OR-06)

    Leaked Agricultural Research Service memo contains a sweeping list of banned words, including “climate,” “affordable housing,” and “safe drinking water.”

    Washington, DC — Today, U.S. Representatives Andrea Salinas (OR-06), Chellie Pingree (ME-01), and Jill Tokuda (HI-02), along with U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), warned the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that Donald Trump’s politically motivated list of banned words — including “climate,” “affordable housing,” and “safe drinking water” — in research agreements being considered for federal funding would harm rural communities facing wildfires, drought, food insecurity, among other environmental agricultural challenges.

    In the letter to USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, the lawmakers emphasized, “The exclusion of these terms from consideration for funding opportunities demonstrates an intentional effort to hinder, distort, and improperly steer federal scientific work in the name of political expediency, and the American people deserve far better than that.”

    The USDA has operated more than 600 research projects with a $1.7 billion budget. Banning terms like “runoff” or “soil pollution” from playing a role in funding these agricultural and environmental projects would stall opportunities to advance the agency’s core mission to carry out scientific work that bolsters lives, careers, and the overall wellbeing of communities across rural America. As Oregon’s climate changes, farmers are being exposed to emerging pest and disease threats, which could wipe out entire crops or even threaten human health. Climate change is a scientifically established threat to agricultural productivity, food security, and rural economies.

    The lawmakers continued: “The American people deserve transparency and integrity from federal research agencies, not political interference and outright censorship. The farmers and ranchers who rely on sound science to navigate environmental and economic challenges should not have their livelihoods undercut by unscientific, bureaucratic gatekeeping. Critical research proposals to reduce pollution, increase irrigation efficiency, or address emerging pest and disease threats should not be denied solely because they used a word that Donald Trump does not like.”

    In addition to Salinas, Wyden, Pingree, and Tokuda, the letter is cosigned in the House by Reps. Janelle Bynum (OR-05), Ed Case (HI-01), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Angie Craig (MN-02), Jim Costa (CA-21), Shomari Figures (AL-02), Valerie Foushee (NC-04), Jared Huffman (CA-02) Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), Betty McCollum (MN-04), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL), Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Terri Sewell (AL-07), Shri Thanedar (MI-13), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), and Maxine Waters (CA-43) and in the Senate by Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Tina Smith (D-MN).

    The members demand immediate answers clarifying the implications of this politically motivated censorship to the following questions no later than April 18, 2025:

    1. Has the USDA conducted any review to determine whether this policy violates federal transparency laws, scientific integrity policies, or anti-discrimination statutes? If so, please share the documentation. If not, please explain why a review has not been done.
    2. The USDA has confirmed the existence of the ARS memo that has been publicly reported. Please provide any other lists of key words that the USDA is using to evaluate federal agreements, contracts, grants, loans, and other programs.
    3. For each list provided under question 2, please explain the purpose of each list, including any relevant laws, regulations, Executive Orders, or memoranda that the USDA is seeking to comply with.
    4. What safeguards have you put in place to ensure that these restrictions do not lead to biased or politically motivated decision-making at the expense of merit, scientific integrity, and public welfare?
    5. Have these restrictions resulted in the rejection of agreements that would have directly benefited farmers, food supply security, or rural economies? If so, what processes does the USDA have in place to allow for the appeal of decisions and evaluations made based off key word lists for federal agreements, contracts, grants, loans, or other programs? Provide an itemized list of all agreements under all impacted programs that were rejected because they included one or more of these banned terms, as outlined in the directive, as well as a full justification for each rejection.
    6. In the case of the ARS banned word list, if an ongoing research agreement is focused on biofuels, for example, the ARS website lists 29 research projects containing the word biofuel. Will funding for these projects be revoked? Will ongoing research be halted? Will USDA require projects to rephrase their contracts? If a project cannot be rephrased without using a banned word, will the contract be terminated?
    7. What are the consequences for researchers or other agency employees who identify serious risks related to any of these banned terms, such as, for example, the expanded range of certain pests and diseases due to changing climate conditions, or nitrate contamination in the drinking water supply from fertilizer runoff?
      1. Will research proposals and agreements to address these critical issues – and others that include banned terms – be considered under this policy?
      2. If so, through what process are they getting around the banned terms list, and how is that decided? If not, how do you justify such negligence?
      3. Are career scientists, policy experts, and agency staff being pressured to remove or avoid these terms in their work? If not, explain how USDA plans to enforce these restrictions. If so, how does that not constitute political coercion?
    8. Does the USDA deny that climate change, pollution, and the accessibility of federal funding impact the safety and security of the American food supply? If so, provide your justification. If not, then why are these issues being censored?
    9. Will you release all internal communications regarding the creation, justification, and enforcement of this policy to ensure full transparency? If so, when? If not, why?

    To read the full letter, click here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Padilla, Western Senators Introduce Bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act to Combat Wildfires

    US Senate News:

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

    Padilla, Western Senators Introduce Bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act to Combat Wildfires

    Comprehensive legislation reduces wildfire risk, advances watershed restoration, improves forest health, and streamlines processes to protect communities

    A list of Fix Our Forests Act provisions particularly impactful for California is available here

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Wildfire Caucus, and Senators John Curtis (R-Utah), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), and Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) introduced the Fix Our Forests Act, bipartisan legislation to combat catastrophic wildfires, restore forest ecosystems, and make federal forest management more efficient and responsive. The comprehensive bill reflects months of bipartisan negotiations to find consensus on how to best accelerate and improve forest management practices, streamline environmental reviews, and strengthen partnerships between federal agencies, states, tribes, and private stakeholders.

    The American West has long been prone to wildfires, but climate change, prolonged drought, and the buildup of dry fuels have increasingly intensified these fires and extended fire seasons. Wildfires today are more catastrophic — growing larger, spreading faster, and burning more land than ever before. Nationwide, total acres burned rose from 2.7 million in 2023 to nearly 9 million in 2024, a 231 percent increase.

    California averages more than 7,500 wildfires a year. Not including the recent Los Angeles fires, six of the top 10 most destructive fires, three of the top five deadliest fires, and all of the state’s nine largest fires have burned since 2017. The status quo is simply unsustainable, and responding to the scale and magnitude of the crisis on the ground is essential to keeping California communities safe.

    Additionally, wildfires release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate climate change. California’s 2020 fire season, the worst on record, emitted enough greenhouse gases to erase nearly two decades of progress on emissions reductions in California. Addressing this wildfire emergency is critical to ensuring that our climate progress is not undermined by the devastating impacts of these fires.

    “As increasingly frequent and catastrophic wildfires in California make clear, we need durable solutions to confront the growing impacts of the wildfire crisis,” said Senator Padilla. “This bill represents a strong, bipartisan step forward, not just in reducing wildfire risk in and around our national forests, but in protecting urban areas and our efforts to reduce climate emissions. It prioritizes building fire-resilient communities, accelerating the removal of hazardous fuels, and strengthening coordination across federal, state, and tribal agencies, including through the creation of the first-ever National Wildfire Intelligence Center. I look forward to continuing to advance forward-thinking, practical solutions to protect our communities from devastating wildfires — and that includes pushing for sustained funding and staffing for our federal land management agencies to ensure they have the tools to get this critical work done.”

    “Utah and the American West are on the front lines of a growing wildfire crisis—and the longer we wait, the more acres will burn, and more families will be impacted,” said Senator Curtis. “After months of bipartisan cooperation and consensus-building, my colleagues and I are introducing comprehensive legislation to support forest health, accelerate restoration, and equip local leaders—from fire chiefs to mayors—with the tools and data they need to protect lives, property, and landscapes. I’m proud of this bill and look forward to receiving additional input from my colleagues as it advances through Committee and the full Senate.”

    “The growing wildfire crisis threatens our Colorado communities,” said Senator Hickenlooper. “We need to act NOW with the speed required to mitigate wildfires and make our homes and businesses more resilient to these disasters, and to put in place protections for our communities and the environment.”

    “Better stewarding our forests is something we can all agree on, regardless of party, because it helps secure a stronger economy, more resilient, healthy forests, and safer communities. I’m proud to join my colleagues on this important legislation to support those on the frontlines protecting communities from catastrophic wildfire, better manage our forests, create more good-paying jobs, and unleash our resource economy,” said Senator Sheehy.

    “Extreme risk of catastrophic wildfires across the West demands urgent action,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom. “In California, we’re fast-tracking projects by streamlining state requirements and using more fuel breaks and prescribed fire. The Fix Our Forests Act is a step forward that will build on this progress — enabling good projects to happen faster on federal lands. I’m appreciative of Senator Padilla and the bipartisan team of Senators who crafted a balanced solution that will both protect communities and improve the health of our forests.”

    “About half of our lands in California are publicly owned and managed by the federal government,” explained California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot. “So, reducing catastrophic wildfire risk clearly relies on helping our federal lands become healthier and more resilient to fire. This bipartisan Fix our Forests Act does just this, removing barriers to get more good work done across our federal lands more quickly. This act represents an opportunity for an all-lands, all-hands approach that is urgently needed at this moment.”

    “The bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA) provides much-needed tools that will move the needle and improve our work to mitigate wildfires,” said CAL FIRE Director and Fire Chief Joe Tyler. “This bill will bring California’s use of cutting-edge technology to the rest of the country. The proposed Wildfire Intelligence Center will advance the kind of predictive services, monitoring, and early detection work already happening at California’s Wildfire Forecast and Threat Intelligence Integration Center.”

    The frequency and severity of California wildfires have surged over the past several years, with recent wildfires taking a devastating toll on California communities. Fueled by wind gusts of up to 100 miles per hour, the Los Angeles County fires earlier this year burned more than 40,000 acres — an area almost three times the size of Manhattan. The fires destroyed over 16,000 structures, forced tens of thousands of residents to evacuate, and took at least 30 lives.

    Forest health challenges are also increasing in frequency and severity due to climate stressors like drought and fire, and biological threats like invasive species — all of which the West is particularly vulnerable to. From 2001 to 2019, total forest area declined by 2.3 percent, while interior forest area decreased by up to 9.5 percent. The Intermountain region had the largest area losses, and the Pacific Southwest had the highest annual loss rates.

    To address these challenges, the Fix Our Forests Act would:

    • Establish new and updated programs to reduce wildfire risks across large, high-priority “firesheds,” with an emphasis on cross-jurisdictional collaboration.
    • Streamline and expand tools for forest health projects (e.g., stewardship contracting, Good Neighbor Agreements) and provide faster processes for certain hazardous fuels treatments.
    • Create a single interagency program to help communities in the wildland-urban interface build and retrofit with wildfire-resistant measures, while simplifying and consolidating grant applications.
    • Expand research and demonstration initiatives — including biochar projects and the Community Wildfire Defense Research Program — to test and deploy cutting-edge wildfire prevention, detection, and mitigation technologies.
    • Strengthen coordination efforts across agencies through a new Wildfire Intelligence Center which would streamline the federal response and create a whole-of-government approach to combating wildfires.
    • Improve reforestation, seedling supply, and nursery capacity; establish new programs for white oak restoration; and clarify policies to reduce wildfire-related litigation and expedite forest health treatments.

    A list of Fix Our Forests Act provisions particularly impactful for California is available here.

    The Senate version of the Fix Our Forests Act is endorsed by environmental groups, first responders, and wildfire organizations including: The Nature Conservancy; National Wildlife Federation; Environmental Defense Fund; National Audubon Society; Citizens’ Climate Lobby; Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition; The Stewardship Project; the Federation of American Scientists; CAL FIRE; the International Association of Fire Chiefs; Alliance for Wildfire Resilience; Megafire Action; the Association for Firetech Innovation; Climate & Wildfire Institute; Tall Timbers; Bipartisan Policy Center Action (BPC Action); and Hispanics Enjoying Camping, Hunting, and the Outdoors (HECHO).

    “TNC appreciates the serious undertaking of Senators Curtis, Hickenlooper, Sheehy, and Padilla to build on legislation targeted at preventing more catastrophic wildfires through improved forest and fuels management and expanded use of prescribed fire. TNC has been working to restore beneficial fire and improve the resilience of forest systems on the ground for more than 60 years. Every year, wildfires continue to grow deadlier and more devastating to communities and the environment, and we remain concerned that the significant cuts to the Forest Service workforce will impede work to protect people and nature from these wildfire risks.  We support this legislative effort aimed at improving the forest management process to better address catastrophic wildfires,” said Kameran Onley, Managing Director of North America Policy and Government Relations at The Nature Conservancy.

    “Our national forests provide essential wildlife habitat, store carbon, and supply communities across the nation with clean air and water. These vital landscapes are under threat and must be proactively stewarded if they are to survive the changing climate, rapidly intensifying wildfires, and past management missteps. The bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act will help increase the pace and scale of evidence-backed forest management, including the use of beneficial prescribed fire and the restoration of white oak forests. But we must have a robust and talented federal workforce in place for it to succeed,” said Abby Tinsley, vice president for conservation policy at the National Wildlife Federation. “We will work with Senators Hickenlooper, Padilla, Sheehy, Curtis, and Chairman Westerman in the House to strengthen and advance this important conversation.”

    “For many Americans, catastrophic wildfires are a very real and growing threat to their homes and lives,” said Environmental Defense Fund Executive Director Amanda Leland. “The U.S. Forest Service needs new tools and more resources now to prevent and control these wildfires, and with the right funding, this bipartisan proposal will help. Protecting people and nature from catastrophic wildfire requires both a robust, science-based plan of forest management and the resources to implement it.”

    “Wildfires grow more intense and destructive each year, leaving behind immense devastation for our forests, wildlife, and communities,” said Marshall Johnson, chief conservation officer at the National Audubon Society. “The bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act represents an important step in reducing wildfire risks across forested landscapes. Audubon thanks Senators Hickenlooper, Curtis, Padilla, and Sheehy for working together to craft a bill that sets the stage for improved forest management, and we urge Congress to dedicate the resources necessary to ensure federal agencies are well-equipped to reduce wildfire risks, steward our forestlands, and protect wildlife habitat.”

    “The growing frequency and severity of wildfires pose a tremendous threat to the health of our forests and the safety of countless communities. The Fix Our Forests Act takes important steps to mitigate wildfires, improve forest health, and protect local communities. We appreciate this thoughtful, bipartisan effort led by Senators Curtis, Hickenlooper, Sheehy, and Padilla to advance this important legislation,” said Jennifer Tyler, VP of Government Affairs at Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

    “The declining health of our National Forests and the fish and wildlife habitat that they provide is a concern for America’s hunters and anglers,” said Joel Pedersen, President and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “TRCP applauds the leadership of Senators Curtis, Sheehy, Hickenlooper, and Padilla for introducing the bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act in the Senate and urges Congress to advance these important forest management provisions and to accompany them with adequate resources and capacity to carry out on-the-ground work.” 

    “As FAS continues to emphasize, failing to address the root causes of devastating wildfires is a policy choice. And it’s a choice we can no longer afford,” said Daniel Correa, Chief Executive Officer of the Federation of American Scientists. “Swift passage of the Fix Our Forests Act in the Senate would put us on track to better manage the entire wildfire lifecycle of prevention, suppression, and recovery, including through smart and systematic use of science and technology for decision support.”

    “The science is clear: tackling the wildfire crisis requires better forest management, increasing the use of prescribed fire, and investing in and deploying the next generation of wildfire technologies. The Fix Our Forests Act will get this urgently needed work done. Now is the time for the Senate to build on the bipartisan leadership demonstrated by the sponsors and pass this bill,” said James Campbell, Wildfire Policy Specialist at the Federation of American Scientists.

    “I thank Senators Hickenlooper, Padilla, Curtis, and Sheehy for introducing this bipartisan legislation,” said Fire Chief Josh Waldo, the President and Board Chair of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. “As we saw in January’s fires in Los Angeles, the nation faces a serious and growing risk from fires in the wildland urban interface (WUI). This legislation will enact many of the recommendations of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission. It also will improve coordination of federal wildland fire preparedness efforts; promote the use of prescribed fires and other preventative measures to prevent WUI fires; and promote the development of new technologies to help local fire departments. We look forward to working with the bill’s sponsors to pass this legislation.”

    “We are thrilled to see the Fix Our Forests Act introduced in the Senate through a bipartisan cooperation between Senators Curtis, Hickenlooper, Padilla, and Sheehy. The bill greatly expands upon the version that passed the House, adding critical details to support wildfire risk reduction in the built environment and provisions for mitigating the health impacts of smoke to communities while promoting expanded use of prescribed fire. Covering a third of the recommendations of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission, this bill is a significant step forward in wildfire policy and, coupled with sufficient funding and staffing to realize the proposed tools and programs, will make a real difference in our nation’s experience with wildfire,” said Annie Schmidt and Tyson Bertone-Riggs, Managing Directors, Alliance for Wildfire Resilience.

    “As the megafire crisis grows larger and more severe with each fire season, we need policy solutions that reflect the urgency and scale of the problem. Senators Curtis, Hickenlooper, Padilla and Sheehy have negotiated a Senate companion to the Fix Our Forests Act that will move the federal government towards a science-based, strategic approach to addressing megafires. We look forward to working with the sponsors to advance this bill and enact the most transformative wildfire and land management law since the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, if not the National Forest Management Act of 1976,” said Matt Weiner, CEO, Megafire Action.

    “AFI supports the Fix our Forests Act and calls on the United States Senate to pass it with the urgency the $100 billion a year wildfire crisis warrants from our elected officials,” said Bill Clerico, Founding Chair of the Association for Firetech Innovation (AFI) and Managing Partner of Convective Capital, a venture firm investing in wildfire technology. “AFI is particularly supportive of the legislation’s inclusion of a Wildfire Intelligence Center, a long-overdue step to better integrate and coordinate wildfire response efforts and invest in cutting-edge technology. Our country’s wildfire response efforts are antiquated and are leaving us ill-prepared for this growing crisis. FOFA is a critical step to refining our wildfire response efforts and protecting our communities.”

    In the aftermath of the devastating Southern California fires, Senator Padilla has introduced more than 10 bills to help prevent and respond to future disasters. In February, Padilla introduced bipartisan legislation to create a national Wildfire Intelligence Center to streamline federal response and create a whole-of-government approach to combat wildfires. He also announced a package of three bipartisan bills to bolster fire resilience and proactive mitigation efforts, including the Fire-Safe Electrical Corridors Act, the Wildfire Emergency Act, and the Disaster Mitigation and Tax Parity Act. In January, Padilla introduced another suite of bipartisan bills to strengthen wildfire recovery and resilience, including the Wildland Firefighter Paycheck Protection Act, the Fire Suppression and Response Funding Assurance Act, and the Disaster Housing Reform for American Families Act. Additionally, last week, he introduced the FEMA Independence Act, bipartisan legislation to restore the Federal Emergency Management Agency as an independent, cabinet-level agency and improve efficiency in federal emergency response efforts.

    A one-pager on the bill is available here.

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

    Full text of the bill is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cassidy Announces $28.6 Million for Hurricane Relief

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Louisiana Bill Cassidy

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) announced Louisiana will receive $28,635,578.25 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in reimbursement for emergency protective measures, including the deployment of a temporary freshwater pipeline and generators, and recovery efforts following Hurricanes Laura and Ida.
    “This funding brings Louisiana communities closer to recovery and makes us stronger for the future,” said Dr. Cassidy. “We will always be there for our neighbors after a storm.”

    Grant Awarded
    Recipient
    Project Description

    $16,470,490.39
    Jefferson Parish
    This grant will provide federal funding for a temporary freshwater pipeline to address water safety issues.

    $1,007,859.93
    Calcasieu Parish Police Jury
    This grant will provide federal funding for permanent repairs as a direct result of Hurricane Laura.

    $1,170,251.69
    City of Kenner
    This grant will provide federal funding for permanent repairs as a direct result of Hurricane Ida.

    $1,751,665.66
    Terebonne Levee and Conservation District
    This grant will provide federal funding for permanent levee repairs as a direct result of Hurricane Ida.

    $2,560,879.53
    Lafourche Parish School Board
    This grant will provide federal funding for permanent repairs as a direct result of Hurricane Ida.

    $4,618,875.60
    Office of Risk Management
    This grant will provide federal funding for permanent work as a direct result of Hurricane Ida.

    $999,999.90
    Red River Parish
    This grant will provide federal funding for the purchase and installation of 21 industrial generators, switches, foundation pads, and security fencing.

    $55,555.55
    Red River Parish
    This grant will provide federal funding for management costs associated with Red River Parish Emergency Power Generator Systems.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: EIB Group approves new financing for European security, transport, energy, water and deep tech as well as support for Ukrainian firms

    Source: European Investment Bank

    • EIB Board approves €3.6 billion in financing for clean transport, energy and innovation, as well as upgrading water and sanitation in Africa.
    • EIB Board also backed broader support for Europe’s automotive sector, which has received more than €11bn EIB financing in the past five years.
    • EIF Board approved investment in deep tech venture capital fund and backing for war-affected small- and medium-sized companies in Ukraine.

    The Boards of Directors of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF), meeting this week, approved new financing to support economic prosperity and resilience, boost innovation and EU’s strategic autonomy in new technologies, and deepen global partnership.

    “The EIB Group is responding to Europe’s priorities in the current volatile international context, providing financing for projects to boost security, technological innovation, critical infrastructures, and the deepening our international partnerships” said EIB Group President Nadia Calviño. “We also affirmed our commitment to support Europe’s manufacturing champions in the automotive industry. The automotive sector is the second largest focus of the EIB group after energy, where the EIB Group has committed more than €11.5 billion over the past five years.”

    The EIB Board approved a total of €3.6 billion of new projects for water and energy infrastructure, housing and clean transport.

    The EIF’s Board approved transactions totalling €2.2 billion, including four operations under the EU4Business Guarantee Facility to facilitate access to finance for war-affected enterprises in Ukraine.

    Backing the automotive sector

    The EIB Board of Directors discussed ways to further step-up support for Europe’s automotive industry, with a focus on innovation and investment in future technologies. The EIB Group has provided more than €11.5 billion euros to support the sector over the past five years, with financing covering the entire supply chain and key infrastructures – from battery and components manufacturing to electric vehicle charging stations.

    Transport, energy, water and housing

    New financing approved by the EIB includes more than €1 billion for low-emission transport in northern Europe, urban mobility in Germany, climate-resilience in Poland and an upgrade of 350 kilometres of the main transport route in Malawi.

    Large-scale energy and water investment totalling €1.4 billion was also agreed, including research and development of heat pumps in Poland and Belgium, improvements to water and sanitation in Latvia and Guinea and an expansion of electricity distribution in Brazil.

    Financing to enable construction of more than 700 affordable homes in Czechia was also approved.

    Fresh EIB financing of €1.1 billion for company investments agreed today includes small-business financing programmes in Spain and Greece and venture-debt financing for 3D software, digital health and disease-resistant and drought-resistant agriculture.

    Venture capital support for deep-tech and cybersecurity

    Among the greenlighted EIF equity investments were participations in a pan-European venture capital fund seeking to scale up deep technology investments – including cybersecurity – with resources under the European Tech Champions Initiative, and a venture capital fund supporting early-stage tech companies in emerging European venture capital markets.

    The EIF Board also endorsed two new mandates, which will respectively foster the Polish venture capital market and early-stage technology transfer and deep tech investments in Spain.

    Background information  

    EIB 

    The European Investment Bank (ElB) is the long-term lending institution of the European Union, owned by its Member States. Built around eight core priorities, we finance investments that contribute to EU policy objectives by bolstering climate action and the environment, digitalisation and technological innovation, security and defence, cohesion, agriculture and bioeconomy, social infrastructure, high-impact investments outside the European Union, and the capital markets union.  

    The EIB Group, which also includes the European Investment Fund (EIF), signed nearly €89 billion in new financing for over 900 high-impact projects in 2024, boosting Europe’s competitiveness and security.  

    All projects financed by the EIB Group are in line with the Paris Climate Agreement, as pledged in our Climate Bank Roadmap. Almost 60% of the EIB Group’s annual financing supports projects directly contributing to climate change mitigation, adaptation, and a healthier environment.  

    Fostering market integration and mobilising investment, the Group supported a record of over €100 billion in new investment for Europe’s energy security in 2024 and mobilised €110 billion in growth capital for startups, scale-ups and European pioneers. Approximately half of the EIB’s financing within the European Union is directed towards cohesion regions, where per capita income is lower than the EU average.

    High-quality, up-to-date photos of our headquarters for media use are available here.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Nadler, Kennedy, Meng Lead New York Delegation in Push to Reverse Trump Administration’s Elimination of Critical Disaster Mitigation Funds

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jerrold Nadler (10th District of New York)

    WASHINGTON, DC –  Today, U.S. Representatives Jerrold Nadler (NY-12), Tim Kennedy (NY-26), and Grace Meng (NY-06) led a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Senior Official Performing the Duties of FEMA Administrator Cameron Hamilton urging the Trump Administration to reverse its decision to eliminate over $325 million in funding for New York State through the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program.

    They were joined on the letter by Representatives Yvette Clarke (NY-09), Dan Goldman (NY-10), Ritchie Torres (NY-15), Paul Tonko (NY-20), Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), John Mannion (NY-22), Nydia Velázquez (NY-07), Gregory Meeks (NY-05), Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), George Latimer (NY-16), Tom Suozzi (NY-3), Pat Ryan (NY-18), and Laura Gillen (NY-04).

    The Trump Administration’s decision to eliminate BRIC threatens over $325 million in hazard and flood mitigation projects across New York State. The Members also called on the Trump Administration to immediately release $1.6 billion in Disaster Relief Funds designated for New York, which remains unjustly frozen.

    In their letter, the Members wrote: “We urge you to reverse your decision to eliminate BRIC funding, take immediate steps to reinstate previously approved grants without delay, and unfreeze the $1.6 billion in additional Disaster Relief Funds for New York that remain unjustly withheld.

    During Hurricane Ida, 14 New Yorkers lost their lives—11 drowned in basement apartments. Nearly a decade earlier, Superstorm Sandy devastated our state, claiming 48 lives in New York and causing billions in damage,” the Members continued. “Entire neighborhoods were left underwater, infrastructure was destroyed, and vulnerable communities were pushed to the brink. In December 2022, after a historic winter storm claimed 47 lives in Western New York, a report found that investments in building upgrades were critical to building resilience and preventing this kind of devastation during future storms.”

    “The projects now being cut by the Trump Administration were designed to prevent these levels of suffering from happening again. Canceling them now, especially as construction was poised to begin, sends a message that our communities’ lives, safety, and futures are disposable. They are not,” the Members concluded.

    Among the projects now at risk are:

    • $50 million for flood mitigation infrastructure in Central Harlem, home to schools, hospitals, elder care facilities, and thousands of low-income families.
    • $50 million for East Elmhurst to prevent stormwater overflow in a largely residential area hit hard during Hurricane Ida.
    • $42.4 million for coastal protection around the South Street Seaport, a vital economic and cultural hub of Lower Manhattan.
    • $47 million for the Corona Corridor Cloudburst Hub, a green infrastructure project in Queens aimed at reducing storm-related runoff and flooding.
    • $46.6 million for the Kissena Corridor Cloudburst Hub, an integrated green infrastructure project in Queens aimed at mitigating flooding.
    • $13 million to protect Hunts Point—critical to New York City’s food supply and emergency response capacity.
    • $11.5 million for storm surge barriers around the NYCHA Polo Grounds public housing and the adjacent P.S. 046 in Harlem.
    • And many others, including nearly $20 million in protection for public housing developments in Brooklyn, such as Sheepshead Bay, Nostrand, and Breukelen Houses.

    Beyond New York City, FEMA’s reversal also threatens urgently needed projects across the state. This includes $24 million for flood and ice jam mitigation along the Erie Canal in the Capital Region and $731,000 for dam decommissioning and floodplain restoration in Westchester. Communities in Buffalo, slated to benefit from much-needed infrastructure modernization, will lose out on $284,000 in critical funding for sustainable building construction support.

    The full text of the members’ letter is available HERE. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: IAEA Director General Visits China to Strengthen Cooperation

    Source: International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA

    IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi and China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing.

    China is making remarkable progress in nuclear energy and is a strong supporter of the IAEA’s mission to ensure that nuclear technology serves peace and development, IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said while meeting China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing. They also exchanged on China’s commitment to multilateralism and non-proliferation.

    During a week-long visit to China, Mr Grossi has met with several high-level officials, signed agreements and visited nuclear and energy facilities and institutions as well as the prestigious Peking University.

    Nuclear Energy and SMRs

    China operates 58 civil nuclear reactors and has almost 30 new builds in progress. This represents nearly half of all power reactors currently under construction worldwide.

    Mr Grossi began his visit at the Hainan Changjiang Nuclear Power Plant, which has some of the country’s most advanced nuclear technologies. This includes a high-pressurized water nuclear reactor and a commercial small modular reactor (SMR).

    What are Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)? | IAEA

    Later, Mr Grossi addressed nuclear power plant personnel and students from the region at a special event where a SMR user requirements document was presented. The document outlines the specific needs and expectations for SMRs, covering design, safety, licensing, and other relevant aspects.

    “China is making strong progress in SMR deployment,” said Mr Grossi. “This event marks an important step toward safe and effective implementation.”

    Meeting the new Chairman of the China Atomic Energy Authority (CAEA), Shan Zhongde, Mr Grossi added,  “China plays a leading role across the peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology — from power to medicine, food and more.”

    Artificial Intelligence

    Mr Grossi also discussed the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and innovative technologies with the President from China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), Shen Yanfeng, signing an arrangement with China Nuclear Power Engineering to apply AI and other innovative technology to boost performance at nuclear facilities.

    Nuclear and the Energy Transition

    Mr Grossi spoke with Liu Zhenmin, China’s Special Envoy for Climate Change about how China is investing in nuclear to help power its growing economy and decarbonize.

    In 2020, President Xi Jinping pledged to start cutting CO2 emissions by 2030 and that China would become a carbon-neutral country by 2060.

    During a visit to China’s State Power Investment Corporation (SPIC) on Friday, Mr Grossi also exchanged with SPIC Chairman Liu Mingsheng on clean, smart and innovative energy generation. SPIC owns a number of nuclear power plants under construction and in operation.

    On the last day of his visit, Mr Grossi visited China Huaneng Group (CHNG) in Beijing, one of the largest state-owned electricity companies in China. CHNG has participated in projects such as the Shidao Bay and Hainan Changjiang Nuclear Power Plants.

    “Huaneng Group is central to China’s energy transition — showcasing the value of a diversified low-carbon energy mix including nuclear,” he said.

    Nuclear Safety and Security

    As China expands its nuclear energy programme, the country continues to strengthen its cooperation with the IAEA in nuclear safety. On Wednesday, Mr Grossi met with Dong Baotong, the Administrator of the National Nuclear Safety Administration of China and agreed on increased cooperation between the IAEA and China in this area.

    Energy, Health and Atoms4Food

    China is supporting the IAEA’s initiatives to use nuclear techniques and technologies to help boost energy security, enhance global health and grow better food.

    Mr Grossi met with the Director of China International Development Cooperation Agency (CIDCA) Luo Zhaohui to discuss these priorities.

    While at CAEA, Mr Grossi signed a new Country Programme Framework with China and an arrangement with CAEA to strengthen education and training in the safe and peaceful use of nuclear technology via a Chinese university consortium at the authority.

    He also discussed education during an exchange with China’s Education Vice Minister Xu Qingsen.

    “The IAEA works closely works closely with Chinese universities — and we’ll do more — to train the next generation of professionals,” he said. Mr Grossi expressed his gratitude to China for its support to the IAEA Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellowship Programme, which provides scholarships and internships to women master’s students studying STEM subjects.

    IAEA Director General Rafael Marano Grossi spoke with students at Peking University. Photo: IAEA

    During a visit to Peking University, one of the most prestigious universities in China, Mr Grossi gave a keynote presentation and had the chance to talk to students in the School of International Studies. He spoke about the IAEA’s work, from energy to security, and the role of effective multilateralism in addressing global issues.

    China, a member of the IAEA since 1984, is involved in around 100 IAEA technical cooperation projects – spanning national, regional and interregional activities.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Global: The largest flood in Earth’s history burst through Gibraltar and Sicily and refilled the entire Mediterranean in just a few years

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel García-Castellanos, Earth scientist, Instituto de Geociencias de Barcelona (Geo3Bcn – CSIC)

    Refilled in just a few years – or months. Nasa / titoOnz / shutterstock

    A little over 5 million years ago, water from the Atlantic Ocean found a way through the present-day Strait of Gibraltar. According to this theory, oceanic water rushed faster than a speeding car down a kilometre-high slope towards the empty Mediterranean Sea, excavating a skyscraper-deep trough on its way.

    The Med was, at the time, a largely dry and salty basin, but so much water poured in that it filled up in just a couple of years – maybe even just a few months. At its peak, the flood discharged about 1,000 times the water of the modern-day Amazon river.

    At least, that’s the thesis one of us put forward in a 2009 study of an underwater canyon excavated along the Strait of Gibraltar, which he presumed to have been carved out by this massive flood. If correct, (and some scientists do dispute the theory), the so-called Zanclean megaflood would be the largest single flood recorded on Earth.

    But extraordinary claims like this require extraordinarily solid evidence. Our latest research investigates sedimentary rock from the Zanclean era that seems to record how the water surged through a gap between modern-day Sicily and mainland Africa to refill the eastern half of the Mediterranean.

    Sicily (the large island next to the ‘toe’ of Italy) still forms part of a divide between the Mediterranean’s darker basins, shaded in deeper blue.
    GEBCO / National Oceanographic Centre, UK, CC BY-NC-SA

    How scientists tracked down the megaflood

    Our finding is the latest twist in a story that began in the late 19th century. That’s when geologists studying salt-rich rock outcrops around the Mediterranean became increasingly aware that something unusual had happened between roughly 5 and 6 million years ago, well before the glaciations of recent ice ages: the sea had dried up. They named that age “Messinian” and the drying up eventually became known as the Messinian salinity crisis.

    In the 1970s, scientists for the first time drilled deep below the Mediterranean into sedimentary rocks from the Messinian age. They made three surprising discoveries. First, they found a massive layer of salt – kilometres thick – below much of the seafloor. This confirmed that a vast environmental change had happened about 6 million years ago, just when tectonic plates shifted and the sea became largely isolated from the Atlantic Ocean.

    Second, right above this salt layer, they found sediment with fossils from shallow, low-salt lakes. This suggested that the Mediterranean Sea dropped to more than a kilometre below today’s level, and as most of the water evaporated, salt was left behind. A series of lakes would have remained in the lowest parts of the basin, refreshed and kept relatively salt-free by streams. This interpretation was also supported by seismic surveys of the seabed which revealed rivers once cut through a dry landscape.

    And third, the rocky layers above the salt abruptly shifted back to more typical deep sea sediment. (We now know that less than 11% of Mediterranean marine species survived the crisis, showing just how big and lasting the impact was on life in the sea). The term Zanclean Flood was coined in the 1970s to refer to the end of the crisis, without scientists really knowing what it consisted of or the timescale taken to refill the dry Mediterranean basin.

    Events proposed to have occurred in the Mediterranean between 6 and 5.3 million years ago.

    A cataclysmic refill

    The next breakthrough came in 2009, when geophysical data for the planned Africa-Europe tunnel through Gibraltar suggested that a huge underwater trench between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea must have been created by a sudden and cataclysmic flood.

    Our latest research backs up this hypothesis. As part of a team led by Maltese seabed scientist Aaron Micallef, we explored the region where the flood water filling the western basin of the Mediterranean should have run into a ridge of higher land connecting modern-day Africa and Italy, known as the Sicily Sill. Was there any evidence, we wondered, of a second megaflood as the eastern Mediterranean filled up?

    Piecing together the puzzle

    Giovanni Barreca, one of our co-authors on the recent paper, grew up in southern Sicily. He long ago realised that the low hills near the coast are an extension of the Sicily Sill over which the megaflood must have progressed from west to east. The area, he thought, might contain clues.

    Our team visited this part of Sicily and noticed that the hills were indeed unusual. Their aligned and streamlined shapes separated by deeply eroded depressions are very similar to streamlined hills in Washington state in the US. Those Washington hills were carved out by a megaflood at the end of the last Ice Age when the vast Lake Missoula dammed up behind a glacier and emptied catastrophically.

    If those hills and depressions in Sicily were also shaped by a huge flood, then rock debris eroded from the base of the depressions should be found dumped on top of the hills, more than 5 million years later.

    Sure enough, we did find jumbled and contorted rock debris up to boulder size along the crest of the hills. They were the same types of rock found within the depressions as well as further inland.

    Remnants of a boulder dumped 5 million years ago on a hilltop near the town of Rosolini, Sicily.
    Paul Carling

    To double check our work, we developed a computer simulation (or “model”) of how flood waters might have crossed one part of the Sicily Sill. It showed that the flood flow would indeed mimic the direction of the streamlined hills.

    In fact, the model showed that the hills would have been carved out by water 40 metres or more deep, travelling at 115 kilometres per hour (71mph). In the one area we modelled, 13 million cubic metres of water per second would have flooded into the eastern Mediterranean basin (for reference: the Amazon today is about 200,000 cubic metres per second). Remarkably, this is still only a fraction of the water that first flowed through Gibraltar and then into the eastern Mediterranean basin near Sicily.

    Daniel García-Castellanos does research on public European and Spanish funding.

    Paul Carling 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. The largest flood in Earth’s history burst through Gibraltar and Sicily and refilled the entire Mediterranean in just a few years – https://theconversation.com/the-largest-flood-in-earths-history-burst-through-gibraltar-and-sicily-and-refilled-the-entire-mediterranean-in-just-a-few-years-249242

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Push World to Deliver on Commitments Set Forth in Pact for the Future, Secretary-General Urges at G7+ Ministerial Meeting

    Source: United Nations MIL OSI b

    Following is the text of UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ video message for the opening of the Group of Seven Plus (g7+) ministerial meeting, in Dili, today: 

    I am pleased to convey my heartfelt greetings to the g7+ ministerial meeting as you mark your fifteenth anniversary in Dili — where your inspiring journey began. 

    This city, like many of your countries, symbolizes both the wounds of conflict and the strength and resolve it takes to overcome them — and I was deeply moved by your wonderful hospitality as we marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the independence referendum last year.

    Your people understand better than most the heavy cost of fragility and the daily work of rebuilding lives with dignity and hope. Your organization was born from that spirit of resilience and purpose and the shared recognition that lasting peace is the foundation of progress. 

    Over the years, you have championed cooperation, solidarity and country-led solutions.  You have also made a difference at the global level, including through your leadership in helping to secure Sustainable Development Goal 16 on peace, justice and strong institutions.

    Yet, fragilities are deepening around the world. Protracted conflicts, widening inequalities and a raging climate crisis are fuelling displacement and instability with your nations often bearing the heaviest burden, despite contributing least to these crises.

    These plights cannot be ignored.  The world cannot let your calls go unanswered.  We need solidarity for solutions, and that is the spirit of the Pact for the Future that you helped shape.

    The Pact charts a course to reform peace and security cooperation, prioritizing conflict prevention, mediation and peacebuilding. It seeks to strengthen coordination, including South-South cooperation, to develop innovative approaches and expand opportunities for women and young people.

    The Pact also calls for reform of the global financial architecture through bigger and bolder multilateral development banks; effective debt relief for fragile economies; an annual Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Stimulus of $500 billion; and better access to concessional finance — recognizing vulnerabilities through the Multidimensional Vulnerability Index.

    We must push the world to deliver on those commitments, including at the fourth Financing for Development Conference in June.  And we must push for climate justice.  Many of you are on the front lines watching as rising seas and extreme weather threaten lives and livelihoods.

    As we prepare for COP30 [thirtieth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change], we need to see countries turn promises into action.  Developed countries must scale up adaptation finance.  We need meaningful contributions to the Fund for loss and damage.  And we need confidence the $1.3 trillion will be delivered.

    Your journey over the past 15 years shows us that solidarity is a common responsibility.  As we work to tackle global challenges and implement the Pact for the Future, your voices will be vital to strengthen multilateralism, prevent conflict, and forge a future of dignity and sustainable development for all.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hickenlooper, Western Senators Introduce Landmark Bipartisan Wildfire Mitigation Bill

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator John Hickenlooper – Colorado
    Hickenlooper’s Fix Our Forests Act will help reduce wildfire risk for Colorado communities and speed up mitigation projects while maintaining environmental safeguards and encouraging local involvement
    Hickenlooper, Curtis, Padilla, and Sheehy landed a bipartisan deal after months of negotiations
    Legislation is supported by: Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, Alliance for Wildfire Resilience, Colorado Governor Jared Polis, and many more
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators John Hickenlooper, John Curtis, Alex Padilla, and Tim Sheehy introduced the Fix Our Forests Act, bipartisan legislation to combat growing catastrophic wildfires across Colorado and the United States. The bill works to strengthen wildfire resilience by improving forest management, supporting fire-safe communities, and streamlining approvals for projects that protect communities and ecosystems from extreme wildfires. 
    The comprehensive bill reflects months of bipartisan negotiations to find consensus on how to accelerate forest management projects, promote safe and responsible prescribed fire treatments, expand public input in assessments of wildfire resilience needs, and enhance collaboration between federal agencies, states, tribes, and stakeholders.
    “The growing wildfire crisis threatens our Colorado communities,” said Hickenlooper. “We need to act NOW with the speed required to mitigate wildfires and make our homes and businesses more resilient to these disasters, and to put in place protections for our communities and the environment.”
    “Utah and the American West are on the front lines of a growing wildfire crisis—and the longer we wait, the more acres will burn, and more families will be impacted,” said Curtis. “After months of bipartisan cooperation and consensus-building, my colleagues and I are introducing comprehensive legislation to support forest health, accelerate restoration, and equip local leaders—from fire chiefs to mayors—with the tools and data they need to protect lives, property, and landscapes. I’m proud of this bill and look forward to receiving additional input from my colleagues as it advances through Committee and the full Senate.”
    “As increasingly frequent and catastrophic wildfires in California make clear, we need durable solutions to confront the growing impacts of the wildfire crisis,” said Padilla. “This bill represents a strong, bipartisan step forward, not just in reducing wildfire risk in and around our national forests, but in protecting urban areas and our efforts to reduce climate emissions. It prioritizes building fire-resilient communities, accelerating the removal of hazardous fuels, and strengthening coordination across federal, state, and tribal agencies, including through the creation of the first-ever National Wildfire Intelligence Center. I look forward to continuing to advance forward-thinking, practical solutions to protect our communities from devastating wildfires—and that includes pushing for sustained funding and staffing for our federal land management agencies to ensure they have the tools to get this critical work done.”
    “Better stewarding our forests is something we can all agree on, regardless of party, because it helps secure a stronger economy, more resilient, healthy forests, and safer communities,” said Sheehy. “I’m proud to join my colleagues on this important legislation to support those on the frontlines protecting communities from catastrophic wildfire, better manage our forests, create more good-paying jobs, and unleash our resource economy.”
    The West has long been prone to wildfires, but climate change, prolonged drought, and the buildup of dry fuels have increasingly intensified these fires and extended fire seasons. Wildfires today are more catastrophic – growing larger, spreading faster, and burning more land than ever before.
    Colorado has seen four of the five largest fires in our state’s history since 2018. The 2021 Marshall fire was Colorado’s most destructive on record, burning over 1,000 homes. The Cameron Peak and East Troublesome fires in 2020 together burned more than 400,000 acres, the two largest fires in the state’s history. Nationwide, total acres burned rose from 2.7 million in 2023 to nearly 9 million in 2024, a 231% increase.
    Forest health challenges are also increasing in frequency and severity due to climate stressors like drought and fire, and biological threats like invasive species – all of which the West is particularly vulnerable to. From 2001 to 2019, total forest area declined by 2.3%, while interior forest area decreased by up to 9.5%. The Intermountain region had the largest area losses, and the Pacific Southwest had the highest annual loss rates.
    To address these challenges, the Fix Our Forests Act would:
    Establish new and updated programs to reduce wildfire risks across large, high-priority “firesheds,” with an emphasis on cross-boundary collaboration.
    Streamline and expand tools for forest health projects (e.g., stewardship contracting, Good Neighbor Agreements) and provide faster processes for certain hazardous fuels treatments.
    Create a single interagency program to help communities in the wildland-urban interface build and retrofit with wildfire-resistant measures, while simplifying and consolidating grant applications.
    Expand research and demonstration initiatives – including biochar projects and the Community Wildfire Defense Research Program – to test and deploy cutting-edge wildfire prevention, detection, and mitigation technologies.
    Enable watershed protection and restoration projects to include adjacent non-federal lands; establish new programs for white oak restoration; and clarify policies to reduce wildfire-related litigation and expedite forest health treatments.
    A one-pager can be found here, and a section-by-section can be found here.
    The Fix Our Forests Act was originally introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Bruce Westerman and Scott Peters.
    Hickenlooper has been an active supporter of wildfire resilience, including sponsorship of legislation to restore land management agency staffing and pushback on the firings of the federal employees that support wildfire resilience on our public lands. The Fix Our Forests Act provides the tools necessary to accelerate wildfire resilience, which will work alongside Hickenlooper’s sustained efforts for the funding and staffing necessary for land management efforts.
    The Fix Our Forests Act is supported by Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado State Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, BPC Action, International Association of Fire Chiefs, Alliance for Wildfire Resilience, Utah Governor Spencer Cox, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Citizens’ Climate Lobby, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, Federation of American Scientists, Association of Firetech Innovation (AFI), Hispanics Enjoying Camping, Hunting, and the Outdoors (HECHO), Wildfire Alliance, Tall Timbers, Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition, The Stewardship Project, and Megafire Action.
    “I applaud the bipartisan work and leadership of the Senate sponsors of this bill, including Colorado’s Senator Hickenlooper, in crafting a bill that will make Colorado communities safer amidst the urgent and growing wildfire crisis in the West. From supporting responsible and expedited on-the-ground fuel reductions, to bolstering the use and development of the latest wildfire satellite monitoring technology which compliments Colorado’s national leadership in the aerospace sector, and to investing in stewardship practices for local communities to be better prepared for wildfires and reforestation efforts with the state nursery to improve our ability to recover – this bill makes major strides in addressing the country’s wildfire risk and will support Colorado’s continued leadership in wildfire preparedness, response and recovery,” said Colorado Governor Jared Polis.
    “Extreme risk of catastrophic wildfires across the West demands urgent action,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom. “In California, we’re fast-tracking projects by streamlining state requirements and using more fuel breaks and prescribed fire. The Fix Our Forests Act is a step forward that will build on this progress — enabling good projects to happen faster on federal lands. I’m appreciative of Senator Padilla and the bipartisan team of Senators who crafted a balanced solution that will both protect communities and improve the health of our forests.”
    “A century of fire suppression and decades of reduced forest management have left us with overgrown, unhealthy forests that are more vulnerable to disease and catastrophic wildfire,” said Utah Governor Spencer Cox. “The Fix Our Forest Act, along with the tools provided by President Trump’s executive order, will help us actively manage our forests—protecting our watersheds, improving wildlife habitat, reducing wildfire risk, and providing the timber we need to build strong homes and neighborhoods.”
    “TNC appreciates the serious undertaking of Senators Curtis, Hickenlooper, Sheehy, and Padilla to build on legislation targeted at preventing more catastrophic wildfires through improved forest and fuels management and expanded use of prescribed fire. TNC has been working to restore beneficial fire and improve the resilience of forest systems on the ground for more than 60 years. Every year, wildfires continue to grow deadlier and more devastating to communities and the environment, and we remain concerned that the significant cuts to the Forest Service workforce will impede work to protect people and nature from these wildfire risks.  We support this legislative effort aimed at improving the forest management process to better address catastrophic wildfires,” said Kameran Onley, managing director of North America policy and government relations, The Nature Conservancy.
    “For many Americans, catastrophic wildfires are a very real and growing threat to their homes and lives,” said Environmental Defense Fund Executive Director Amanda Leland. “The U.S. Forest Service needs new tools and more resources now to prevent and control these wildfires, and with the right funding, this bipartisan proposal will help. Protecting people and nature from catastrophic wildfire requires both a robust, science-based plan of forest management and the resources to implement it.” 
    “As the megafire crisis grows larger and more severe with each fire season, we need policy solutions that reflect the urgency and scale of the problem. Senators Curtis, Hickenlooper, Padilla and Sheehy have negotiated a Senate companion to the Fix Our Forests Act that will move the federal government towards a science-based, strategic approach to addressing megafires. We look forward to working with the sponsors to advance this bill and enact the most transformative wildfire and land management law in a generation—since the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, if not the National Forest Management Act of 1976,” said Matt Weiner, CEO of Megafire Action.
    “We are thrilled to see the Fix Our Forests Act introduced in the Senate through a bipartisan cooperation between Senators Curtis, Hickenlooper, Padilla, and Sheehy. The bill greatly expands upon the version that passed the House, adding critical details to support wildfire risk reduction in the built environment and provisions for mitigating the health impacts of smoke to communities while promoting expanded use of prescribed fire,”said Annie Schmidt and Tyson Bertone-Riggs, Managing Directors, Alliance for Wildfire Resilience. “Covering a third of the recommendations of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission, this bill is a significant step forward in wildfire policy and, coupled with sufficient funding and staffing to realize the proposed tools and programs, will make a real difference in our nation’s experience with wildfire.”
    “I thank Senators Hickenlooper, Padilla, Curtis, and Sheehy for introducing this bipartisan legislation,” said Fire Chief Josh Waldo, President and Board Chair of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. “As we saw in January’s fires in Los Angeles, the nation faces a serious and growing risk from fires in the wildland urban interface (WUI). This legislation will enact many of the recommendations of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission. It also will improve coordination of federal wildland fire preparedness efforts; promote the use of prescribed fires and other preventative measures to prevent WUI fires; and promote the development of new technologies to help local fire departments. We look forward to working with the bill’s sponsors to pass this legislation.”
    “Our national forests provide essential wildlife habitat, store carbon, and supply communities across the nation with clean air and water. These vital landscapes are under threat and must be proactively stewarded if they are to survive the changing climate, rapidly intensifying wildfires, and past management missteps. The bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act will help increase the pace and scale of evidence-backed forest management, including the use of beneficial prescribed fire and the restoration of white oak forests. But we must have a robust and talented federal workforce in place for it to succeed,” said Abby Tinsley, vice president for conservation policy at the National Wildlife Federation. “We will work with Senators Hickenlooper, Padilla, Sheehy, Curtis, and Chairman Westerman in the House to strengthen and advance this important conversation.”
    “Wildfires grow more intense and destructive each year, leaving behind immense devastation for our forests, wildlife, and communities,” said Marshall Johnson, chief conservation officer at the National Audubon Society.“The bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act represents an important step in reducing wildfire risks across forested landscapes. Audubon thanks Senators Hickenlooper, Curtis, Padilla, and Sheehy for working together to craft a bill that sets the stage for improved forest management, and we urge Congress to dedicate the resources necessary to ensure federal agencies are well-equipped to reduce wildfire risks, steward our forestlands, and protect wildlife habitat.”
    “We applaud the efforts made by Senator Hickenlooper in the Fix Our Forests Act to provide federal, state, and local partners with the tools needed to address wildfire mitigation in the most vulnerable areas in Colorado. Wildfires do not abide by our political boundaries. But here in Colorado we have built strong coordination among federal, state, local land managers and stakeholders to help reduce the impact of wildfires on our critical infrastructure and landscapes,” said Dan Gibbs, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources. “We appreciate that this legislation builds upon this important collaboration and draws on existing agreements, such as Shared Stewardship, which will help strengthen our intergovernmental partnerships as we prepare for the next Colorado mega-fire.”
    “Forests are central to our way of life in Colorado. They support world-class outdoor recreation and a vital water supply that more than 40 million Americans rely upon. I am grateful to Senator John Hickenlooper for his work on the bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act,” said Matt McCombs, Colorado State Forester and Director of the Colorado State Forest Service. “This critical legislation will bolster our shared stewardship ethic in Colorado and enhance our ability as a state to improve forest health, protect lives, communities and water supplies from wildfire, and ensure that the forests that define Colorado endure for generations to come.”
    “The growing frequency and severity of wildfires pose a tremendous threat to the health of our forests and the safety of countless communities. The Fix Our Forests Act takes important steps to mitigate wildfires, improve forest health, and protect local communities. We appreciate this thoughtful, bipartisan effort led by Senators Curtis, Hickenlooper, Sheehy, and Padilla to advance this important legislation,” said Jennifer Tyler, VP of Government Affairs at Citizens’ Climate Lobby.
    “The declining health of our National Forests and the fish and wildlife habitat that they provide is a concern for America’s hunters and anglers,”said Joel Pedersen, president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “TRCP applauds the leadership of Senators Curtis, Sheehy, Hickenlooper, and Padilla for introducing the bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act in the Senate and urges Congress to advance these important forest management provisions and to accompany them with adequate resources and capacity to carry out on-the-ground work.”  
    “HECHO enthusiastically applauds the impressive bipartisan leadership behind the Senate’s Fix Our Forests Act. At a time when cooperation is more important than ever, these Senators are putting forward real, thoughtful solutions to reduce wildfire risk while engaging local and rural communities. This legislation is a critical step toward actively managing our forests to protect public lands, watersheds, and the communities that depend on them. By expediting emergency authorities in high-risk firesheds—and through the creation of the Wildfire Intelligence Center—this effort has the potential to significantly reduce catastrophic wildfires and strengthen prediction and response, particularly in fire-prone states like Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. It’s a shining example of the kind of balanced, forward-looking leadership we need to protect our natural landscapes and communities,” said Camilla Simon, Executive Director of Hispanics Enjoying Camping, Hunting, and the Outdoors (HECHO).
    “BPC Action applauds the bipartisan leadership of Sens. Curtis (R-UT), Hickenlooper (D-CO), Sheehy (R-MT), and Padilla (D-CA) on the introduction of the Fix Our Forests Act. By streamlining and improving forest and hazardous fuels management activities on public and Tribal lands, this legislation will help reduce wildfire risks, improve forest health, and protect communities in fire-prone areas. The Fix Our Forests Act also delivers substantial economic and environmental benefits by addressing critical needs to enhance the domestic supply chain of seeds and advance biochar commercialization,” said Michele Stockwell, President of Bipartisan Policy Center Action (BPC Action).

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Organized Crime – International Conference Against Environmental Crime (11.04.25)

    Source: Republic of France in English
    The Republic of France has issued the following statement:

    More than 100 of the world’s leading experts and officials on environmental crimes gathered in Paris at the “Security and Development Dialogue for Advancing Multilateral and Multi-Stakeholder Responses to Environmental Crime”, hosted by France and the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC), with financial support of the European Union through the ECO-SOLVE project.

    Opening the conference, Mr Thani Mohamed-Soilihi, France’s Minister Delegate for Francophonie and International Partnerships, called for the international community to prioritize action against environmental crimes. Despite the uncertain international context, the minister emphasized the need to keep the issue of environmental crimes at the heart of the international community’s concerns.. He highlighted the need for collective action, including in preparation for the UN Oceans Conference to be held in Nice this June.

    GI-TOC’s Director Mark Shaw called for greater inclusivity and innovation to deal with environmental crimes. He highlighted the global character of illicit flows and emphasized the need for “diverse action across supply chains” to cut the links that enable environmental crime to flourish, not least through licit trade routes and information platforms. “We need more internationally coordinated action across sectors, and we need globally funded and resourced responses”, said Shaw, also highlighting the key roles that can be played by civil society and the private sector.

    The international conference, which took place on 8 and 9 April, took stock of current international responses to environmental crimes, shared best practices and identified opportunities for more effective engagement through upcoming multilateral processes – including a new Expert Group Meeting under the Conference of Parties to the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC), the UN Oceans Conference, the Climate COP, the UN General Assembly, and the next UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice taking place in 2026.

    Participants included officials from diverse countries, including Colombia, Peru, Brazil, UAE, UK, Indonesia, Kenya, Gabon and Germany, civil society, academia, law enforcement and criminal justice personnel.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Global: Two key ingredients cause extreme storms with destructive flooding – why these downpours are happening more often

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Shuang-Ye Wu, Professor of Geology and Environmental Geosciences, University of Dayton

    A powerful storm system that stalled over states from Texas to Ohio for several days in early April 2025 wreaked havoc across the region, with deadly tornadoes, mudslides and flooding as rivers rose. More than a foot of rain fell in several areas.

    As a climate scientist who studies the water cycle, I often get questions about how extreme storms like these form and what climate change has to do with it. There’s a recipe for extreme storms, with two key ingredients.

    Recipe for a storm

    The essential conditions for storms to form with heavy downpours are moisture and atmospheric instability.

    First, in order for a storm to develop, the air needs to contain enough moisture. That moisture comes from water evaporating off oceans, lakes and land, and from trees and other plants.

    The amount of moisture the air can hold depends on its temperature. The higher the temperature, the more moisture air can hold, and the greater potential for heavy downpours. This is because at higher temperatures water molecules have more kinetic energy and therefore are more likely to exist in the vapor phase. The maximum amount of moisture possible in the air increases at about 7% per degree Celsius.

    Floodwaters rise in downtown Hopkinsville, Ky., on April 4, 2025.
    AP Photo/George Walker IV

    Warm air also supplies storm systems with more energy. When that vapor starts to condense into water or ice as it cools, it releases large amount of energy, known as latent heat. This additional energy fuels the storm system, leading to stronger winds and greater atmospheric instability.

    That leads us to the second necessary condition for a storm: atmospheric instability.

    Atmospheric instability has two components: rising air and wind shear, which is created as wind speed changes with height. The rising air, or updraft, is essential because air cools as it moves up, and as a result, water vapor condenses to form precipitation.

    As the air cools at high altitudes, it starts to sink, forming a downdraft of cool and dry air on the edge of a storm system.

    When there is little wind shear, the downdraft can suppress the updraft, and the storm system quickly dissipates as it exhausts the local moisture in the air. However, strong wind shear can tilt the storm system, so that the downdraft occurs at a different location, and the updraft of warm moist air can continue, supplying the storm with moisture and energy. This often leads to strong storm systems that can spawn tornadoes.

    Extreme downpours hit the US

    It is precisely a combination of these conditions that caused the prolonged, extensive precipitation that the Midwest and Southern states saw in early April.

    The Midwest is prone to extreme storms, particularly during spring. Spring is a transition time when the cold and dry air mass from the Arctic, which dominates the region in winter, is gradually being pushed away by warm and moist air from the Gulf that dominates the region in summer.

    This clash of air masses creates atmosphere instability at the boundary, where the warm and less dense air is pushed upward above the cold and denser air, creating precipitation.

    The Storm Prediction Center’s one-day convective outlooks from March 30 through April 5, 2025, and the tornado, wind and hail reports over that period reflect the damage when severe storms flooded communities in the Midwest and South.
    National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center

    A cold front forms when a cold air mass pushes away a warm air mass. A warm front forms when the warm air mass pushes to replace the cold air mass. A cold front usually moves faster than a warm front, but the speed is related to the temperature difference between the two air masses.

    The warm conditions before the April storm system reduced the temperature difference between these cold and warm air masses, greatly reducing the speed of the frontal movement and allowing it to stall over states from Texas to Ohio.

    The result was prolonged precipitation and repeated storms. The warm temperatures also led to high moisture content in the air masses, leading to more precipitation. In addition, strong wind shear led to a continuous supply of moisture into the storm systems, causing strong thunderstorms and dozens of tornadoes to form.

    What global warming has to do with storms

    As global temperatures rise, the warming air creates conditions that are more conducive to extreme precipitation.

    The warmer air can mean more moisture, leading to wetter and stronger storms. And since most significant warming occurs near the surface, while the upper atmosphere is cooling, this can increase wind shear and the atmospheric instability that sets the stage for strong storms.

    Polar regions are also warming two to three times as fast as the global average, reducing the temperature gradient between the poles and equator. That can weaken the global winds. Most of the weather systems in the continental U.S. are modulated by the polar jet stream, so a weaker jet stream can slow the movement of storms, creating conditions for prolonged precipitation events.

    All of these create conditions that make extreme storms and flooding much more likely in the future.

    Shuang-Ye Wu 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. Two key ingredients cause extreme storms with destructive flooding – why these downpours are happening more often – https://theconversation.com/two-key-ingredients-cause-extreme-storms-with-destructive-flooding-why-these-downpours-are-happening-more-often-254123

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: White House plans for Alaskan oil and gas face some hurdles – including from Trump and the petroleum industry

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Scott L. Montgomery, Lecturer in International Studies, University of Washington

    A pumping station and oil pipeline north of Fairbanks, Alaska, are part of the existing fossil fuel industry in the state. AP Photo/Al Grillo

    The second Trump administration has launched the next stage in the half-century-long battle between commerce and conservation over Alaskan oil and gas development. But its moves are delivering a mixed message to the petroleum industry.

    The administration has opened – or reopened – large swaths of government land in Alaska to oil and gas drilling, though only some of those opportunities have drawn much commercial interest in recent years. And an 800-mile pipeline across Alaska that the administration says it supports is not yet funded, and other administration policies risk turning off prospective partners.

    President Donald Trump says he wants to grow oil and gas production and advance the goal of what he calls U.S. “energy dominance.” The White House says that term means both reducing the amount of energy imported from other countries and increasing the amount of energy exported from the U.S., especially to allies.

    The U.S. is already the world’s largest producer and exporter of natural gas as well as the largest producer of crude oil. And the nation’s oil industry boomed under the Biden administration. However, the U.S. does import an average of over 6 million barrels per day of crude oil, most of it from Canada.

    Trump’s efforts seek to boost U.S. production to still greater heights by expanding access to areas for drilling and building related infrastructure. But as a former petroleum geoscientist and industry observer, I would suggest his various actions, taken as a whole, may have more limited effects than he seems to hope.

    Returned to leasing

    In one of his first executive orders after retaking office on Jan. 20, 2025, Trump declared that the U.S. would develop Alaska’s petroleum resources “to the fullest extent possible.”

    The Biden administration had banned oil leasing in three areas of Alaska. One was all but 400,000 acres in the coastal plain portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Another was a 13-million-acre swath of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, a massive parcel of federal land west of the refuge. The third area was 44 million acres of the offshore coastal portion of the northern Bering Sea, based on concerns for tribal rights and the migration routes of marine mammals.

    Trump moved quickly to reverse all these bans, describing them as an “assault on Alaska’s sovereignty and its ability to responsibly develop (its) resources for the benefit of the Nation.” And Trump went farther, expanding the available land by an additional 6 million acres in the petroleum reserve and another 1.1 million acres of the wildlife refuge.

    All those areas are home to many different types of wildlife, as well as Indigenous groups.

    Caribou migrate onto the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Alaska.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via AP

    The view of industry

    For the petroleum industry, I expect these actions are both welcome and irrelevant. Reopening the northeastern portion of the petroleum reserve creates a real opportunity: Exploration has found a significant amount of oil and gas in that area, and indications are that there may be more yet to discover.

    But prospects on the land in the wildlife refuge and the shallow waters of the Bering Sea are not likely of much interest to drilling companies unless oil prices rise significantly from their levels in early 2025. There is no established production in either area at present. And, though the refuge has oil and gas potential, there are no roads or pipelines, and Arctic drilling is especially expensive.

    In fact, the last two attempts by the government to lease oil development rights in the wildlife refuge drew very little interest. In 2020, the first Trump administration teamed with Republicans in Congress to overcome long-standing legal and political opposition to leasing in the refuge. But the 2021 lease sale was a bust, with none of the top oil producers in the state participating.

    A second round of bidding, in January 2025, received no interest at all from oil companies.

    The Trans-Alaska Pipeline runs 800 miles from the North Slope to the port of Valdez, Alaska.
    Mario Tama/Getty Images

    Pipe dreams that could come true

    A strong gain for the petroleum industry would be a major new pipeline to carry natural gas more than 800 miles south from the Prudhoe Bay area on the Arctic coast to a port near Anchorage on south-central Alaska’s Cook Inlet.

    The idea has its own decades-long history, and has been both pushed forward and set back over the years by changing economics, government plans, and tribal interest and opposition.

    The main challenge is that there is no way to transport natural gas off the North Slope. Since drilling began in the late 1970s, some has been used locally for heating and running equipment, with the vast majority being reinjected into oil reservoir rock to help maintain oil production.

    Rising demand and elevated prices in Asia, however, suggest the project could be profitable, despite the current cost estimate of US$44 billion. Project plans indicate most of it would go to build a liquefied natural gas export terminal near Anchorage, with the rest spent to construct an 807-mile pipeline paralleling the existing Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and a plant at Prudhoe Bay that would capture carbon from the atmosphere, compress it and inject it into oil-producing reservoirs to boost production.

    The pipeline is designed to carry 3.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day, which would make it one of the largest pipelines in North America. The export terminal, to be built near the town of Nikiski on Cook Inlet, would have a capacity of roughly 1 trillion cubic feet per year, enough to heat about 15 million homes for a year.

    The pipeline could take as little as two to three years to build, but the terminal and carbon-capture plant would take longer – five years or so. The exports from Alaska could go to other ports in the U.S., but they could also fetch higher prices in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and possibly China.

    An artist’s rendering of what a natural gas export terminal would look like on Cook Inlet, near Nikiski, Alaska.
    Alaska Gasline Development Corporation

    A wrench in the works

    Most of the permits needed for the pipeline-and-export-terminal project have been secured by the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, a company created by the state of Alaska to build the project.

    However, no company or foreign government has yet agreed to foot the bill, and despite the support of the Trump White House, there’s no indication the federal government will do so either.

    The Trump administration has also created a new barrier to the project. Its sweeping tariffs and the resulting trade war crashed prices in the global oil and gas market in early April 2025.

    In addition, uncertainty about the permanence of tariffs or other restrictions on international trade are now widespread and directly affect the oil industry. Lower gas and oil prices and less stability make any project less attractive.

    It’s true that Trump exempted oil and gas from his most recent tariffs. But that matters less than the broader effect the trade war is already having, with analysts projecting it is driving the global economy toward recession. Less economic activity means less demand for oil and gas, and therefore less incentive for companies to drill new wells and build new pipelines.

    To top everything off, the White House slapped heavy tariffs on Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, the very countries that might be inclined to help fund the pipeline project. Even before the trade war, they were hesitant about supporting it. The potential suspension, or reinstatement, or adjustment of tariffs is not likely to help them view the situation as more stable.

    Those who favor oil and gas development in Alaska may be wondering whether the president is truly on their side. It remains to be seen whether their hopes might end up a casualty of White House economic policy.

    Scott L. Montgomery 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. White House plans for Alaskan oil and gas face some hurdles – including from Trump and the petroleum industry – https://theconversation.com/white-house-plans-for-alaskan-oil-and-gas-face-some-hurdles-including-from-trump-and-the-petroleum-industry-254040

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Companies will still face pressure to manage for climate change, even as government rolls back US climate policy

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ethan I. Thorpe, Fellow at Private Climate Governance Lab, Vanderbilt University

    Amazon partnered with Dominion Energy to build solar farms in Virginia to power its cloud-computing service. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

    As the federal government moves to eliminate U.S. climate rules, companies still face pressure to be better stewards of the planet from their customers, investors, employees, local communities, lenders, insurers, global trading partners and many states.

    Each of those groups knows it will face increasing costs from rising temperatures and extreme weather if corporations don’t rein in their greenhouse gas emissions.

    Many companies will find that returning to past polluting ways isn’t in their best interest. Over 60% of chief financial officers surveyed by global management firm Kearney in December 2024 signaled that they intended to invest at least 2% of their revenue in sustainability in 2025.

    These companies may maintain a low profile about climate change while the Trump administration is in power, but they have strong financial incentives to continue to reduce their emissions and their own climate risks.

    We study private environmental governance – the ways companies and organizations work outside government to improve the nation’s sustainability and reduce environmental damage. Our work finds that, in this polarized era, addressing climate and sustainability challenges is not just a matter of government action. That’s because a lot of climate and sustainability progress is underway in the private sector.

    Sustainability matters to companies’ bottom lines

    Businesses have used climate and sustainability initiatives for years to make their operations and supply chains more efficient and to reduce their long-term costs.

    When McDonald’s faced public pressure to reduce waste in the late 1980s, the company teamed up with the Environmental Defense Fund to analyze the problem. It was able to reduce its waste by 30% over the following decade, saving the company US$6 million a year. This early risk-taking by McDonald’s opened the door for other environmental groups to help businesses understand how to reduce their environmental impact, including emissions, while boosting the companies’ profitability.

    The shipping company Maersk expects to cut emissions and boost productivity at the same time with better logistics and low-emissions ships like this one, which runs on methanol.
    Axel Heimken/picture alliance via Getty Images

    Maersk, the logistics giant responsible for nearly a quarter of global shipping, has responded to pressure from its corporate customers with a plan to reduce carbon emissions by one-third from 2022 to 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2045. It expects the combination of low-emissions vessels and a more efficient delivery network with hubs and shuttles to help meet its climate goals while increasing productivity.

    Companies have also helped drive the expansion of renewable energy, motivated by the competitive economics of renewables and business opportunities. Facebook’s parent company Meta and Google invested nearly $2 billion in projects to provide renewable energy in the Tennessee Valley Authority service area, even though no government required them to do so. And major companies continued
    signing renewable energy power purchase agreements in 2025.

    Microsoft and Amazon are responding to massive new power demand by trying to locate data centers near existing nuclear power plants for cleaner energy supplies.

    Thousands of companies report emissions via private systems

    Another sign of companies’ continuing commitment to sustainability is how many of them measure and report their greenhouse gas emissions even when governments do not require them to do so.

    Nearly 25,000 companies representing two-thirds of total global market capitalization and 85% of the S&P 500 report their emissions to the nonprofit CDP. Disclosing emissions is like keeping a fitness journal with a personal trainer. It helps a company track its progress and plan for future financial and environmental risks. More than 12,500 small- and medium-size companies also disclosed emissions to CDP in 2024.

    Many of these companies were initially motivated by pressure from environmental groups or corporate customers. Today, they have more reason to continue paying attention to emissions.

    California has its own formal reporting requirements designed to encourage companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. And other states are considering setting climate disclosure rules. The Trump administration has promised to challenge them, and announced that it also plans to cut federal greenhouse gas reporting standards, but companies will likely still face reporting rules in the future.

    The European Union also approved reporting requirements. It delayed their start date in April 2025 to give companies more time to comply.

    Cleaner supply chains can also be more efficient

    Managing supply chains with climate and environmental risks in mind can also help businesses increase their efficiency and reduce the risk that climate change will disrupt their operations.

    The supply chain is the largest source of the average company’s emissions and may be particularly vulnerable to climate shocks. A storm can easily disrupt vital production or shipping, and droughts or heat waves can damage crops, stop work and increase costs. Companies estimate climate-related supply chain risks at $162 billion, nearly three times the cost of mitigating those risks. Many companies therefore have incentives to reduce emissions and their exposure to related hazards.

    Nearly 80% of the largest companies across seven global economic sectors had set environmental requirements for suppliers within their value chains as of 2023. These requirements include reporting carbon emissions, reducing emissions and using sustainable forestry practices.

    Walmart eliminated 1 billion tons of carbon emissions from its supply chain in less than seven years by sharing its expertise with suppliers and working with them to reduce their emissions. Walmart’s global director of sustainable retail noted in 2024 that the effort made its suppliers more efficient, too.

    Keeping employees and customers happy

    Companies also face pressure from average people − both employees and customers.

    More than two-thirds of Americans support action to address climate change. Even companies that are not consumer-facing need retail customer and employee support. Pro-climate actions have been found to improve employee and customer loyalty.

    The outdoor clothing company Patagonia ranked third out of over 300 brands in a 2024 customer experience survey, in part because of its reputation for sustainable practices. Many of the over 10,000 respondents cited the company’s sustainable practices as the leading reason for their support.

    Many companies also face pressure from lenders and insurers who want to reduce climate risks to their own bottom lines. Dozens of insurers have committed to ending or restricting underwriting for new fossil fuel projects. Others use incentives, such as lower premiums for companies that reduce emissions or invest in climate adaptation.

    Climate change may accelerate the current 5% to 7% annual increase in insured losses, according to estimates from insurer Swiss Re. That has led some insurance leaders to recommend insurance companies take bigger steps to reduce emissions through their investments and policy underwriting.

    Private climate governance can help buy time

    Media attention and interest group advocacy is often focused on government actions, but decisions made in boardrooms and through initiatives with nonprofits have created an important kind of private climate governance.

    As companies respond to their own economic risks and incentives, they help buy time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change until the political system recognizes the financial risks posed to the entire country.

    Zdravka Tzankova receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

    Ethan I. Thorpe and Michael Vandenbergh do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Companies will still face pressure to manage for climate change, even as government rolls back US climate policy – https://theconversation.com/companies-will-still-face-pressure-to-manage-for-climate-change-even-as-government-rolls-back-us-climate-policy-251580

    MIL OSI – Global Reports