News Feeds

Declaring, "I believe in America, I believe in us," an active duty Air Force major was arrested Wednesday for a non-violent act of civil disobedience after he publicly called for Trump to be impeached, removed and convicted for his scores of impeachable offenses. Citing the "foundational oath" he took to defend the country "against all enemies foreign and domestic" - most vitally a lawless president - Major Jason Watson insisted, finally, "The bill must come due."

Watson's action came after a press conference with advocacy groups including About Face Veterans, Defenders of Our Republic, Removal Coalition, its newly launched Remove the Regime, and Free Speech For People, which has gathered over a million signatures urging Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump for his hundreds of crimes. Also present was Rep. Al Green, the only member of Congress to have filed impeachment articles. Declaring this "an existential moment for our nation," Free Speech president John Bonifaz praised Major Watson for "the kind of courage our democracy demands (in) stark contrast to those who continue to look away as President Trump commits unprecedented abuses of power."

Watson introduced himself by citing his 17-year career in the military before swiftly adding, "Who I am is immaterial. In the grand scheme of things I'm a nobody. What's more important is what I have to say, and the price I'm willing to pay to say it" - which is substantial. Thanking allies "working to restore responsible governance to our country," he repeated the "foundational" oath he first swore over 20 years ago, and has since repeated "many times since," to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," which "binds us all together as Americans." We have all "played a part in getting us into this mess," he added, but undeniably "the burden of culpability" falls most heavily on the executive branch, "and the bill must come due."

Matter-of-factly, he offered a hefty list of high crimes and misdemeanors: The "unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’ authority" with military action against foreign countries, absent the requisite emergency scenario, in Venezuela, Cuba, Iran; the granting of power to an unelected person to shut down large swaths of the government; the detaining and sending of residents without due process to a foreign country; the abuse and murder of those exercising their First Amendment rights, etc etc. After each, he added, "For this, the president and vice-president must be impeached convicted, and removed." He was there not as a Democrat - "I am not a Democrat" - but to call on Americans to peacefully "join me in the defense of our republic."

Video of his speech then briefly cuts out; when it returns, he is walking slowly, deliberately, toward the Capitol steps, an area that is open to the public but where protest is prohibited. Several Capitol Police stand to the side, nervously watching. In somber, lonesome silence, he climbs the stairs; mid-way, he stops and holds up a sign that reads, "Impeach. Convict. Remove." The watching crowd cheers. After a brief huddle, a couple of officers arrest him. As he is led away, his hands cuffed behind him, his dignity intact, the crowd breaks into chants of "Shame!" and, "Who do you serve? Who do you protect?" Excellent questions. We, and many weary, grieving, enraged Americans, salute him and his good trouble.

Last week, the nine convicted anti-ICE protestors were sentenced to a barbaric amount of time ranging from 30 to 100 years. One of them, who wasn’t even at the protest,…

More than 150 years ago, Frederick Billings returned to Vermont after making his fortune during the California Gold Rush where he had witnessed miners clearing forests, eroding hillsides...

For those who have worked alongside Shorebird Conservation Manager River Gates, it's difficult to imagine Audubon without her unwavering commitment to conserving shorebirds. Since joining Audubon in...

It was a warm, still evening in June when the crew gathered just after sunset at Audubon's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary for the first Frog Watch survey of 2026.  Led by Sally Stein, Audubon's Director...

They tower overhead and sway in the wind and often teem with squawking birds, yet trees are easy to ignore. Urbanites rush by them without noticing, and without appreciating all the work they do: Trees reduce temperatures, mitigate flooding, and provide habitat for animals. 

City leaders are no exception to this oversight. As mayors around the world pledge to reduce municipal greenhouse gas emissions, they’re missing the literal low-hanging fruit of bolstering urban forests, dozens of scientists argue in a new essay. “We have to elevate it from something that is nice to have to something that we require — like, mandatory,” said Manuel Esperon-Rodriguez, an ecologist at Bangor University in the United Kingdom and lead author of the piece, which published today in the journal PLOS Climate. “In the same way that we treat education, security, transportation, it has to be elevated to that level.”

What makes urban forestry so important? For one, trees significantly cool the concrete jungle by providing shade and releasing water vapor to “sweat.” Patches of greenery also allow stormwater to soak into the ground instead of pooling and flooding — that investment alone will spare cities from economic damages as a warming atmosphere makes rain fall harder. Spending time in parks also boosts mental health, while urban farms produce nutritious food and create jobs. Planting trees, especially native species, also provides shelter and food for fauna. At the same time, vegetation absorbs pollutants, improving air quality for everyone.

These scientists have laid out a four-point approach to funding, raising, and maintaining urban forests. This, by the way, includes individual trees on sidewalks, parks, and woodlands in cities. But it’s really about all the vegetation — not just trees but shrubs as well — within the city limits, whether that’s in someone’s backyard or growing in a street median.

The first hurdle is investing in this stuff. Urban forestry isn’t just about buying a bunch of trees and hiring people to put them in the ground. It takes resources to maintain them, especially when they’re newly planted and not yet established, and therefore more vulnerable to stresses like pests. Money can (and does) come from private funders, but that cash isn’t always a guarantee. So city governments should be setting aside money for these green spaces, the researchers argue. “We say that it has to be critical infrastructure, because then we need a special budget dedicated just to them,” Esperon-Rodriguez said. 

Read Next The delight — and power — of your neighborhood’s unplanned green spaces Matt Simon

Even for cash-strapped governments, this is an investment proven to bring dividends: A recent report found that for every dollar put into parks and recreation, cities reap $3 in local economic benefits every year. That’s because green spaces encourage people to exercise, supporting public health and reducing the costs associated with sedentary lifestyles. By attracting locals and tourists, parks also spur economic activity as folks filter into surrounding neighborhoods to shop or have lunch. So while yes, it does take money to plant and maintain this greenery, it’s in a city’s best interests to do so.

Mayors must ensure that these domains blossom in an equitable way, the scientists add. Richer areas tend to be much greener, and therefore cooler, than underserved neighborhoods. People who can’t afford air conditioning are at higher risk of the urban heat island effect, or the tendency for the built environment to absorb the sun’s energy all day and release it throughout the night. “Then what’s the cost?” Esperon-Rodriguez asked. “They are missing opportunities, they are missing recreational activities. And if they don’t have air conditioning, then on top of that there is the issue of health.”

Officials can’t just roll into a neighborhood and plant trees, though — the essay argues that cities have to collaborate with their communities on strategies for doing so. Some folks might want more fruit trees, for instance, while others might object to cherries splatting on the sidewalk. Some might worry about their allergies, and request trees that don’t spew so much pollen. 

Esperon-Rodriguez adds that expanding the canopy across a metropolis, and doing so equitably, needs to be enshrined in some way. That is, it can’t just be a mayoral candidate’s promise to increase tree cover by 30 percent, but something that’s legislated. This is not only more durable over the years, and hopefully decades, but helps citizens hold elected officials accountable if they’re not meeting targets, Esperon-Rodriguez said.

Overall, these campaigns need to be evidence-based, the essay argues. Cities, for example, have to identify not just the tree species that communities prefer, but ones that will actually survive ever-climbing temperatures. It’s not just thinking about increasing the canopy in the near term to meet some goal, but making sure cities are more verdant and safer in the long run. “It’s a way to secure,” Esperon-Rodriguez said, “that whatever we’re planting today is going to survive the next 10, 20, or 50 years.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Urban trees aren’t just nice, scientists say — they’re mandatory on Jul 1, 2026.

The Environmental Protection Agency has approved the highly persistent pesticide trifludimoxazin for use on wheat, oats, oranges, apples and almonds. The pesticide is a “forever chemical” — often called PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

“This is the PFAS presidency brought to you by Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Waiting to open the floodgates on new pesticide approvals until after the Supreme Court granted immunity to pesticide companies takes a special kind of callousness.”

The approval late Tuesday marked the third new forever chemical pesticide approved in a single day by the Trump administration. Diflufenican and epyrifenacil were also approved Tuesday.

Often the EPA will accompany new pesticide approvals with a press release to alert the public, however the agency has done nothing to announce these approvals other than quietly post approval documents on regulations.gov.

This is the fifth PFAS pesticide approval under Trump in less than two years in office. The previous two PFAS pesticide approvals were cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram. The Biden administration approved one PFAS pesticide in the prior four years.

A 2024 report from researchers at the Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Working Group and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility found that forever chemicals are increasingly being added to U.S. pesticide products, contaminating waterways and posing potential threats to human health.

In addition to the three new PFAS pesticides approved Tuesday, the EPA also approved new uses of the PFAS pesticide bifenthrin, the first food use of chlormequat, and the non-PFAS, fluorinated pesticide fluoxapiprolin.

While some PFAS differ in their toxicities, potential to accumulate in the body, and potential to pollute water, all PFAS are highly persistent and have chemical bonds that will essentially never break down. PFAS ingredients in pesticide products have been found to contaminate streams and rivers throughout the country.

The EPA has found that trifludimoxazin will eventually break down into 12 different PFAS chemicals. Trifludimoxazin is one of the few PFAS pesticides that does not break down into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), however EPA has found that it breaks down into other PFAS chemicals that are highly persistent.

The agency has classified trifludimoxazin as having “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” based on the development of thyroid tumors in exposed animals.

Trifludimoxazin’s approval will allow it to be combined in the same product as another PFAS pesticide called saflufenacil, all but ensuring that any resulting pollution will contain mixtures of different PFAS chemicals.

Diflufenican can also break down into a chemical called 2,4-difluoroaniline malonate, a fluorinated chemical that has a similar structure and toxicity profile to aniline, a component in tobacco smoke. Although the EPA has classified aniline as a probable human carcinogen it did not require any studies to assess the cancer risks of diflufenican’s breakdown product in real-life settings.

Epyrifenacil causes liver tumors in animal studies and is part of a class of pesticides called PPO-inhibitors, many of which are also linked to liver tumors. However, the EPA categorized it as “not likely to be carcinogenic” at low doses based solely on the pesticide company’s interpretation of their own studies.

The EPA also approved new uses of another PFAS pesticide, bifenthrin. Uses of bifenthrin that have been in place for years have made it one of the most widely detected insecticides in U.S. streams, lakes, and rivers, where it is often found at levels that exceed aquatic safety thresholds.

The EPA’s approval of chlormequat, a non-PFAS pesticide, is also controversial. Chlormequat is found in the urine of 90% of Americans, thought to come mostly from residues on imported foods where the pesticide has been used. Approval of its use on U.S. wheat and oats ensures that exposure to the U.S. population will increase dramatically. The pesticide has been linked to reduced fertility, reproductive toxicity and birth defects.

Meet our inaugural cohort of the Coastal Leadership Program, and learn why they're excited to start building a community of Salton Sea leaders!The mission of the Costal Leadership Program is to...

We're excited to introduce the 2026 Coastal Leadership Program cohort. Beginning this July, a group of early professionals with backgrounds spanning environmentalism, education, and the arts will be...

As 350.org, Fuel Poverty Action and coalition partners today demonstrate against rising energy prices outside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, a new report from the UN Development Programme (UNDP) lays bare the true scale of the fossil fuel subsidy crisis: governments worldwide are on course to spend $1.1 trillion propping up the fossil fuel industry in 2026, a figure that could rise to $1.43 trillion if oil prices reach $110 a barrel.

The UNDP report, Military Escalation in the Middle East: Cushioning the Global Shock, finds that governments have responded to conflict-driven oil price spikes by expanding fossil fuel subsidies, price caps and tax rebates. While these measures offer short-term relief, they are consuming public budgets that should be building schools, hospitals and clean energy infrastructure. Many developing countries entered the latest crisis already burdened by rising debt, and fossil fuel handouts to keep prices artificially low are depleting public budgets and increasing their risk of debt distress.

Anne Jellema, Executive Director of 350.org, said:

"The $1.1 trillion that governments are pouring into fossil fuel subsidies this year is not a safety net, it is a ransom payment. Every dollar spent shielding the fossil fuel industry from the consequences of its own price volatility is a dollar not spent on the clean energy systems that can bring costs down for good.

We need a phase out to end public subsidies for fossil fuel companies, and a permanent windfall tax on fossil fuel profits. Not a one-off levy, but a permanent, legislated mechanism that redirects the extraordinary profits of an industry driving this crisis into the just transition every country needs. That means affordable clean energy, retrofitted homes, and funding to protect people from the extreme weather unleashed by fossil pollution..”

The UNDP report calls for easier access to international climate financing and accelerated investment in renewable energy, and explicitly frames energy security and the energy transition as inseparable.

This video includes personal musings and conclusions of the creator and climate scientist Dr. Adam Levy. It is presented to our readers as an informed perspective. Please see video description for references (if any).

Video description

El Niño has begun, and there's high risk that it could be a Super El Niño: bringing with it extreme weather, like heatwaves, droughts and downpours. And the world is bracing itself for record smashing temperatures. But is this natural swing in the climate partly down to climate change? Is climate change shifting the balance of El Niño? Either way, El Niño and climate change are combining to threaten us like we've never seen before.

Support ClimateAdam on patreon: https://patreon.com/climateadam

Sugar giant faces court over deadly flood Channel News Catherine Early 1st July 2026 Teaser Media

In this episode of CELDF’s What is America 250: A Revolutionary Perspective, we speak with historian and author Tad Stoermer. Tad joined CELDF’s Education Director Ben Price and Consulting Director Tish O’Dell in a conversation about what resistance is and needs to be in this 21st century revolutionary moment.

The post What is America 250: This Revolutionary Moment appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

Fakta Penting Mengenai RTP

Return to Player merupakan persentase teoretis yang menggambarkan seberapa besar total taruhan diproyeksikan kembali kepada pemain dalam jangka panjang.

Sebagai ilustrasi, apabila sebuah permainan memiliki RTP sebesar 96 persen, bukan berarti setiap pemain akan memperoleh kembali 96 persen dari modal yang digunakan. Nilai tersebut merupakan hasil perhitungan statistik berdasarkan jutaan bahkan miliaran simulasi putaran yang dilakukan selama proses pengujian permainan.

Artinya, dalam praktik nyata, hasil yang diperoleh setiap pemain dapat berbeda secara signifikan. Ada pemain yang memperoleh hasil lebih tinggi dari nilai RTP, sementara pemain lain bisa mendapatkan hasil yang jauh lebih rendah dalam periode permainan tertentu.

Fakta inilah yang sering kali tidak dipahami secara utuh sehingga memunculkan berbagai asumsi yang kurang tepat di kalangan pengguna.

Mengungkap Peran Volatilitas dalam Pola Permainan

Selain RTP, volatilitas menjadi indikator kedua yang memiliki pengaruh terhadap karakteristik permainan slot digital.

Volatilitas tidak berkaitan dengan besarnya peluang menang, melainkan menggambarkan pola distribusi hadiah selama permainan berlangsung.

Permainan dengan volatilitas rendah umumnya memberikan kemenangan dalam frekuensi yang lebih sering, namun nominal hadiahnya relatif kecil. Sebaliknya, permainan dengan volatilitas tinggi cenderung menghadirkan kemenangan yang lebih jarang, tetapi memiliki potensi hadiah yang lebih besar ketika kombinasi tertentu berhasil diperoleh.

Perbedaan karakteristik tersebut membuat setiap permainan memiliki pengalaman yang berbeda bagi pemain, meskipun nilai RTP yang ditampilkan relatif sama.

Mengapa RTP dan Volatilitas Sering Disalahartikan

Hasil pengamatan terhadap berbagai forum diskusi pemain menunjukkan adanya kecenderungan menghubungkan RTP dengan peluang kemenangan instan. Tidak sedikit pula konten yang menampilkan daftar permainan dengan RTP tinggi tanpa memberikan penjelasan mengenai konsep statistik yang mendasarinya.

Di sisi lain, istilah volatilitas juga kerap dipersepsikan sebagai ukuran tingkat kesulitan permainan. Padahal volatilitas lebih tepat dipahami sebagai pola distribusi kemenangan, bukan ukuran kemampuan pemain untuk memperoleh hasil tertentu.

Fenomena tersebut diperkuat oleh banyaknya informasi yang beredar di media sosial tanpa disertai konteks teknis yang memadai. Akibatnya, pemain baru sering memperoleh pemahaman yang kurang lengkap sebelum mencoba suatu permainan.

Berbagai Sudut Pandang Mengenai Penggunaan RTP

Dari perspektif pengembang permainan, RTP merupakan parameter matematis yang digunakan untuk menjaga keseimbangan sistem permainan sesuai rancangan awal.

Sementara itu, operator platform memanfaatkan informasi tersebut sebagai bentuk transparansi kepada pengguna agar karakteristik setiap permainan dapat diketahui sebelum dimainkan.

Di sisi pemain, RTP sering dipandang sebagai acuan dalam memilih permainan yang dianggap lebih menguntungkan. Namun para analis industri menilai bahwa indikator tersebut sebaiknya digunakan sebagai referensi tambahan, bukan sebagai dasar utama dalam memperkirakan hasil permainan individual.

Pendekatan yang lebih objektif adalah memahami RTP bersamaan dengan volatilitas, mekanisme bonus, fitur permainan, serta preferensi masing-masing pengguna.

Hubungan RTP, Volatilitas, dan Random Number Generator

Salah satu aspek yang tidak kalah penting adalah keberadaan sistem Random Number Generator (RNG). Teknologi ini bertugas menghasilkan setiap putaran secara acak dan independen.

Dengan adanya RNG, hasil putaran sebelumnya tidak memengaruhi hasil putaran berikutnya. Oleh karena itu, tidak terdapat pola tertentu yang dapat menjamin kemenangan hanya berdasarkan riwayat permainan sebelumnya.

Dalam konteks tersebut, RTP dan volatilitas tidak mengubah sifat acak dari setiap putaran. Keduanya hanya memberikan gambaran mengenai karakteristik permainan berdasarkan perhitungan matematis dalam jangka panjang.

Pentingnya Literasi Informasi Bagi Pengguna

Meningkatnya akses terhadap berbagai informasi digital membuat pemain memiliki lebih banyak referensi sebelum memilih permainan. Namun, kemudahan memperoleh informasi juga membawa tantangan berupa penyebaran klaim yang belum tentu didukung oleh penjelasan teknis yang memadai.

Karena itu, literasi digital menjadi faktor penting agar pengguna mampu membedakan antara data statistik, opini komunitas, strategi pribadi, dan informasi promosi. Memahami perbedaan tersebut membantu pemain mengambil keputusan berdasarkan informasi yang lebih akurat serta menghindari kesimpulan yang tidak didukung oleh fakta.

Kesimpulan

Penelusuran terhadap berbagai aspek RTP dan volatilitas menunjukkan bahwa kedua indikator tersebut memiliki fungsi sebagai informasi statistik untuk membantu memahami karakteristik permainan, bukan sebagai alat untuk memprediksi hasil pada setiap sesi permainan.

RTP memberikan gambaran mengenai tingkat pengembalian teoretis dalam jangka panjang, sedangkan volatilitas menjelaskan pola distribusi kemenangan yang mungkin terjadi selama permainan berlangsung. Ketika dipahami secara bersamaan, keduanya dapat menjadi referensi yang lebih bermanfaat bagi pemain dalam mengenali karakteristik suatu permainan.

Pada akhirnya, pemahaman yang komprehensif mengenai RTP, volatilitas, serta mekanisme acak melalui Random Number Generator menjadi landasan penting untuk menafsirkan informasi secara objektif. Pendekatan berbasis fakta dan literasi yang baik akan membantu pengguna menyaring berbagai klaim yang beredar sekaligus membangun pemahaman yang lebih realistis terhadap cara kerja permainan slot digital

Akses Cepat Melalui Berbagai Perangkat

Perubahan pola penggunaan internet mendorong banyak platform untuk mengembangkan layanan yang fleksibel. ROYALGACOR menghadirkan sistem yang mampu menyesuaikan tampilan secara otomatis berdasarkan ukuran layar perangkat.

Responsivitas tersebut memungkinkan pengguna tetap memperoleh pengalaman yang konsisten saat berpindah dari komputer ke tablet maupun telepon pintar. Seluruh menu tetap mudah dijangkau tanpa perlu melakukan pengaturan tambahan.

Optimalisasi ini juga berdampak pada waktu muat halaman yang lebih singkat, sehingga proses berpindah antarfitur berlangsung lebih lancar dan efisien.

Informasi yang Disajikan Secara Terorganisasi

Selain menghadirkan berbagai fitur, ROYALGACOR juga menampilkan informasi dalam format yang mudah dipahami. Setiap kategori memiliki penjelasan yang sistematis sehingga pengguna dapat mengenali fungsi maupun tujuan dari masing-masing layanan.

Penyajian informasi yang terstruktur memberikan nilai tambah karena pengguna tidak perlu menafsirkan berbagai istilah teknis secara mandiri. Seluruh informasi ditampilkan dengan bahasa yang ringkas namun tetap informatif.

Pendekatan tersebut membantu menciptakan pengalaman eksplorasi yang lebih efektif sekaligus meningkatkan kenyamanan selama menggunakan platform.

Optimalisasi Kecepatan dan Stabilitas Sistem

Kecepatan akses menjadi salah satu faktor yang sangat menentukan kualitas pengalaman digital. Platform yang lambat sering kali mengurangi kenyamanan pengguna, terutama ketika berpindah dari satu menu ke menu lainnya.

ROYALGACOR mengoptimalkan performa sistem agar proses pemuatan halaman berlangsung lebih cepat. Stabilitas layanan juga menjadi perhatian utama sehingga pengguna dapat mengakses berbagai fitur secara lebih konsisten.

Performa yang baik tidak hanya meningkatkan efisiensi, tetapi juga memberikan kesan profesional terhadap keseluruhan layanan yang tersedia.

Kesimpulan

ROYALGACOR menghadirkan berbagai fitur yang dirancang untuk mendukung pengalaman digital yang praktis, responsif, dan mudah dipahami. Mulai dari antarmuka yang modern, navigasi yang terstruktur, optimalisasi kecepatan sistem, hingga penyajian informasi yang rapi, seluruh elemen disusun untuk memberikan kemudahan dalam menjelajahi setiap layanan yang tersedia.

Memahami fungsi masing-masing fitur merupakan langkah penting agar pengguna dapat memanfaatkan platform secara maksimal. Dengan eksplorasi yang tepat, setiap fasilitas dapat digunakan sesuai kebutuhan sehingga pengalaman menggunakan ROYALGACOR menjadi lebih efisien, nyaman, dan informatif. Artikel ini diharapkan dapat menjadi panduan awal bagi siapa pun yang ingin mengenal lebih jauh berbagai fitur unggulan yang ditawarkan platform tersebut.

As residential batteries have become more energy dense, cheaper, and smaller, more households are storing their excess solar power. Now, utilities and energy companies in dozens of countries are buying up those electrons, bundling them together, and using them to balance the grid.

Read more on E360 →

Headline News:

• “Biggest US Wildfire Leaves Ranchers With Dead And Missing Cattle” • As the Cottonwood Fire, the largest wildfire in the US, continued to rage in Utah, ranchers reported finding dead cattle strewn across burned grazing land, and the state agriculture commissioner said it could take years for ranchers to recover from the devastation. [ABC News]

Cattle grazing in Utah (inkknife_2000, CC BY-SA 2.0)

• “Federal Appeals Court Upholds Limits On Fossil Fuel Use In Buildings” • The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld laws that prohibit appliances burning fossil fuels in new buildings in New York City and New York State, affirming lower courts’ rulings. Communities are taking action to stop use of polluting fossil fuels in buildings. [CleanTechnica]
• “Renewables Generate Record Share Of UK Electricity, As Wind Out-Supplies Gas” • Renewable energy sources in the UK generated a record 53.1% of the country’s electricity during the first quarter of 2026, an increase of 7.4%, driven by increased wind energy generation. The share of electricity generated from fossil fuels fell to 32.8%. [Renew Economy]
• “Record-High Ocean Temperatures Could Fuel Sea Level Rise And Extreme Weather On Land” • New Copernicus data reveals that daily global sea surface heat has broken records for the time of year. The record high global sea surface temperatures are the latest sign that the world’s oceans are entering what scientists call “uncharted territory.” [Euronews]
• “Extreme Heat Forecast: What To Expect As Heat Wave Hits Midwest, Northeast” • A serious heat wave is bringing prolonged extreme heat to the Midwest, the South, and the East Coast this week. The extreme heat hit the Midwest first. The heat index is forecast to hit 105°F in Chicago and 111°F in Detroit. The heat is spreading next into the Northeast. [ABC News]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

When rain falls on the RVs that line Big Sandy Creek, it sounds like gunfire. The harder it pours, the louder it gets. But what bothers Ashlee Willis most is how the wind makes them sway. It is so unsettling that she cowers in her camper’s narrow hallway with her two frightened cats, a Taylor Swift blanket stuffed into their carrier in case they have to flee. 

It always reminds her of that terrible night in July, when the creek ran so high and so fast that the mobile home Willis lived in actually bobbed after the water tore part of it from the foundation. Within hours, the flood would kill 10 people and destroy 74 homes in Sandy Creek, a small community in central Texas.

It was supposed to be a joyful evening. Willis and her parents, Brandy and Gregg Gerstner, had bought “a bajillion” glow sticks to illuminate the above-ground pool, and had a stockpile of fireworks to celebrate Independence Day. Rain dashed that plan, so everyone, including eight guests, went to bed. Some slept in tents pitched outside.

By 2:30 a.m. the storm was so violent it shook Brandy and Gregg awake. The creek was rising quickly as they scrambled to round up the goats, but there was no saving them. Gregg loaded two pigs into a guest’s Jeep as Brandy dashed back inside to grab her diabetes medication and Gregg’s laptop. By the time Gregg returned to the house, water was rushing in and limbs were crashing through the windows.

Gregg led Brandy to higher ground, then waded through the torrent to save two dogs and a cat in the house. Before he reached the back door, he heard screams and watched the flood sweep the Jeep away, tossing its two occupants out. Gregg rushed to save them. One grabbed a floating tire he shoved toward her, while the other latched onto a plastic drum. He heard a third guest cry out for help from the branches of a partially submerged tree and convinced him to stay put. But he couldn’t reach Willis, who had climbed onto a pool table with the five other guests, two dogs, and a pair of cats as water filled her mobile home. She called her mother to say goodbye. “There was no way to comprehend how we were going to survive,” Willis said.

Suddenly the water receded. It retreated far enough for everyone to gather in Ashlee’s wrecked house. They used glow sticks to spell “Help” in the windows, then sang “the sun will come out tomorrow” while waiting for it to arrive. When dawn came, they found their world remade. “It’s all gone,” Ashlee said at the time. “Everything’s gone.”

One year later, the family is still waiting to rebuild. So is the rest of the community.

Many in Sandy Creek remain in damaged homes. The occupant of this one eventually moved into an RV, but others have not been able to do even that much.
Laura Mallonee

The Gerstner-Willis family spent seven weeks in a hotel. Everyone had made it through the storm, even Brandy’s sister Donna Wright, who had been swept 2 miles downstream before being caught by a light pole. Each morning they returned to Sandy Creek to sift through the confetti the flood had made of their lives. Sometimes they found pieces of the world that once was. Brandy unearthed someone’s crystal bowl, perfectly intact, from what had been her goat pen. Not all discoveries were joyful. Workers found three human body parts. “I was there when they dug up somebody’s hip,” Brandy said.

The family eventually moved into donated RVs. They sit no more than 30 feet from Big Sandy Creek — closer than before the flood. Gregg monitors the water level with security cameras, and sometimes shows Brandy the feed to calm her. 

A few months after the flood, Brandy attended a permitting clinic the county held to help people navigate the reconstruction process. “They informed us all, ‘Any of you thinking of staying, there are new permit rules, and we are watching you all now,’” she said. “They watch us like hawks.”

The rules weren’t new — just new to Sandy Creek.

A “Keep Out” sign warns trespassers against entering a property that flooded on July 5, 2025. Several lots in Sandy Creek are, like this one, now vacant. Laura Mallonee

The Gerstner-Willis family is among hundreds of survivors struggling to recover from the July 2025 floods that killed 139 people in central Texas and caused $1.1 billion in property damage. For many, the months since the disaster have revealed the complexities of recovery, a long, hard process that goes beyond repairing what the water destroyed. 

Residents of Sandy Creek face permitting requirements, limited aid, insurance gaps, and construction costs they did not anticipate. Travis County is requiring them to meet standards locals say it rarely enforced before the flood, but the poverty that put many of the community’s 600 or so people in or near the floodplain leaves some of them unable to comply. Dozens of families remain in RVs, damaged homes, or temporary housing, caught between the need to rebuild and the cost of doing so.

For many homeowners, the problems started with a federal standard known as “substantial damage.” Anyone with damage equivalent to at least 50 percent of the home’s pre-flood market value must bring the entire structure up to code. In Travis County, houses that sit in a floodplain must be elevated at least 2 feet above the expected height of a 100-year flood. For the Gerstner-Willis family, that means building 12 feet in the air and installing a lift to reach the door. Meeting these requirements can increase costs by more than $100,000, on top of the thousands needed for engineering and surveys. For some, the burden is simply too great.

“I would say 98 percent of the people out here are not going to be able to afford their houses to be raised,” Brandy Gerstner said. 

Disaster survivors who cannot afford to rebuild depend upon a patchwork of insurance, loans, government assistance, nonprofits, and churches for help. But those in floodplains often find that this system isn’t designed for them.

“The storm’s not over,” Brandy Gertner said in May, standing on ground still studded with shards of glass and debris 10 months after the inundation. “Surviving after the storm has been much harder. We’ve had to fight for everything.”

Two years before the flood, Ashlee Willis moved into a 1,500-square-foot double-wide manufactured home on her parents’ land. Family compounds like that are common in Sandy Creek, an arrangement that has made it difficult for some to get help rebuilding. Willis isn’t on the deed, and because her home is a second structure, few organizations could assist her. Some treated her as if she didn’t own the home. Others saw her situation as a duplicate claim.

“A lot of these groups out here helping don’t come across multigenerational plots of earth,” Willis said. “It looked like double-dipping.”

By early December, when the nonprofit organization Rebuild Sandy Creek encouraged her to apply for its home-rebuilding program, Willis had recovered just 3 percent of her losses — $1,000 from a church and $5,000 from Samaritan’s Purse, an evangelical Christian relief organization. Rebuild Sandy Creek board members selected Willis from among 17 or so applicants. The organization has struggled to raise money, but said it remains committed to helping Willis with construction costs. 

Her predicament exposed some limits of the recovery system. FEMA has registered 1,212 flood-affected households in Travis County and distributed $4.3 million in assistance. That aid, capped at $43,600 per household, is meant to stabilize people, not make them whole. Rebuilding can take anywhere from a few months for those with good insurance to a few years for those without it.

Read Next Texas floods showed why many rural communities feel abandoned in a crisis Laura Mallonee

Most don’t have it. Just 2.4 percent of affected households in Travis County had flood insurance, which typically pays only enough for policyholders to rebuild what they already had. For everyone else, help ranged from federal loans to small payouts of up to $2,000 from various ministries to a county donation fund that distributed $7.85 million to 264 families, or about $30,000 each. A concert by country singer George Strait raised enough to give more than 60 families $25,000 apiece. Governor Greg Abbott handed out the checks.

Austin Disaster Relief Network, which the county deployed to coordinate volunteers, offers help including funds for construction; it is still working through roughly 80 applications. Samaritan’s Purse is installing eight manufactured homes — Wright got one — and letting homeowners choose from a furniture package that includes appliances.  

Navigating this web of nonprofits is exhausting, and residents complain of “form fatigue.” The Travis County Recovery Alliance, which coordinates with 16 nonprofits to help 155 families, hopes to make the process easier by, among other things, creating a unified intake form so survivors fill out just one application. But things are still getting off the ground. “We’re building the plane while we’re flying,” said executive director Janis Bookout.

The county has tried to make permitting easy — it waived fees, expedited paperwork, and for several months staffed a mobile office to walk people through the process. But residents have sought just 24 permits for work in the Sandy Creek Ranches subdivision since the flood, though not all were for flood-related work. Only eight were for new homes. 

Simply preparing a lot for a manufactured home requires leveling and grading the land, laying a foundation, and installing utility hookups. Jason Hefner found the prospect of applying for the permit to do that overwhelming. “I know I’m gonna need one, but I have no idea where my home’s gonna go,” he said. “Even though you might have the money to build back, it’s just like, ‘Oh my gosh, here we go.’”

He received just $20,000 from his insurer and is betting Samaritan’s Purse will replace his home. “That’s one reason,” he said, “why a lot of us aren’t looking yet to rebuild.” 

This isn’t Brandy Gerstner’s first time starting over. After tumbling through California’s foster care system, she set out on her own at 15 and made her way to Texas, where she found work in nursing. Ashlee came along in 1987. Four years later, Gerstner walked into a real estate office looking for a place to build a home. She couldn’t afford any of the properties she saw until a realtor showed her a parcel with rent-to-own terms.

It sat on the banks of Big Sandy Creek, which had flooded a decade before. Weeds loomed over Gerstner, who is 5 feet tall, and a narrow path led to a mobile home built in 1975. It was overgrown with vines and infested with tarantulas, bats, and other vermin. Rattlesnakes bred in the flower bed. She squashed 75 scorpions within weeks of moving in. “It was horrific,” she said.

Gerstner rolled up her sleeves and set to work. She fixed the plumbing, tamed the yard, and built a deck. She planted apple, plum, and pear trees, established a garden, and later put up a greenhouse. Over the years she added chickens, pigs, and goats. In 2002, she bought a double-wide, which she eventually refinanced to add more buildings, including a garage for brewing beer, bottling honey, milling spices, canning fruit, and making cheese and wine. Her home was open to all, a place where 16 people frequently crowded around a dining room table meant for six. “This was where everybody came,” she said. “They called it their garden of Eden.”

Brandy Gerstner purchased her property in Sandy Creek in 1991 and built a small hobby farm called Asher Acres that included chickens, pigs, goats, and honeybees. “Asher means happy in Hebrew,” she said. When floodwaters swamped her property last July, she fled to her greenhouse, which sits at the highest point on her property, and survived. Laura Mallonee

Inexpensive land and scant oversight attracted others to Sandy Creek. Texas is a strong property-rights state where counties have limited power to regulate what is built and how. Some have little or no permitting, especially for manufactured homes and RVs. Enforcement is often complaint-driven, and few complain in places where people move specifically to avoid municipal meddling and taxes.

Travis County began regulating floodplain development in 1982, but many structures in Sandy Creek received exemptions because the community was laid out in the 1970s. Gerstner rarely bothered with permits unless a contractor required one. Few in Sandy Creek did. “This was kind of a free-for-all out here,” she said. “The county doesn’t care about the area.” 

In many ways, the Gerstner-Willis family is a best-case scenario, even as it illustrates where disaster assistance breaks down. The resourcefulness that allowed Brandy Gerstner to transform her property into a thriving hobby farm has helped her navigate recovery better than most. The family also had flood insurance, documentation, and the patience to negotiate with nonprofits.

Yet they still live in RVs that are closer to the creek than the house it destroyed. They also pay $4,000 a year for construction insurance on a project that hasn’t started and continue fighting the insurance company for $200,000 they believe they’re owed. Willis isn’t surprised. “I just had it in my brain, ‘We’re going to be in these things for probably two years,’” she said. “Everyone thought I was crazy.”  

Brandy and Gregg Gerstner stand in front of the RV they have called home since August. It sits even closer to Big Sandy Creek than the home the flood destroyed on July 5, 2025. Laura Mallonee

She and her parents plan to build two houses connected by a breezeway so Willis can help them as they age. It will cost about $1 million. They’ve already spent $15,000 on the design, engineering, and land surveys. 

For many others, rebuilding doesn’t feel like an option.  

In December, Sara Ashworth, a nurse who has volunteered in Sandy Creek since the flood, visited an elderly woman whose floors were rotten. Rodents and cockroaches scurried about. The woman had been hesitant to let her inside, and had not sought help because she had been in and out of the hospital. Ashworth recalled telling the woman, “You need to get out of this house tonight, this is dangerous.’” A social worker arranged a hotel, then a six-month Airbnb stay.

Many remain in damaged homes, unable to afford repairs, afraid of invoking the substantial damage clause, or unwilling to leave their land and livestock. In some cases, FEMA did not classify their houses as a total loss after the flood, but they later grew rotten or moldy enough to be condemned after the assistance application period had ended. 

Read Next A hotter, wetter South is becoming a breeding ground for mold Katie Myers & Laura Hackett

Landlords do not qualify for a lot of nonprofit aid, leaving many renters — who comprise 48 percent of Travis County households affected by the flood — in subpar conditions. Michelle Warner, a speech therapist who is recovering from knee surgery, moved to Sandy Creek 20 years ago from southeast Texas after losing everything to Hurricane Rita. She pays $1,175 a month for a three-bedroom mobile home scarred by the flood. “I’m just ready for this to look like it used to look, so I’m not driving up still to a damaged house I can’t fix on my own,” she said.

Noel Hernandez’s insurance agent advised him not to file a claim on the house he rents out, which sits in a flood-risk area, because his rate would go up. It rose anyway. As a landlord, he didn’t qualify for FEMA assistance and received about $3,000 in other aid — yet spent nearly $70,000 rebuilding. A family rented the place in February. An inflatable kiddie pool sits in the yard.

Dozens of families remain in campers. “If you go out there, it’s basically an RV park,” said Michelle Varela, a cofounder of Rebuild Sandy Creek. Last winter, space heaters sparked fires in some of them, Varela said. In mid-June, flooding washed out a portions of the water crossing the Gerstner-Willis family and others use to leave their property. The county bars RVs from remaining on a given site for 180 consecutive days or more. It doesn’t look like anyone is enforcing the rule. 

“Who in the hell is monitoring that?” Brandy Gerstner asked. “What are you going to do — kick us all out of here? Make us all homeless?” 

The systems that made Sandy Creek residents vulnerable before the flood have kept them that way after it. Poverty, political disengagement, and scant regulation shape how communities are built — and how they recover.

“Low-income people tend to live in low-quality homes in low-lying areas, because that is what the market allows,” said Shannon Van Zandt, a Texas A&M researcher who studies post-disaster housing recovery. In desirable areas like western Travis County, they are even more likely to end up in flood zones. “We need to be doing a better job of making sure that income is not such an important predictor of the harm that someone receives during a disaster,” Van Zandt said.

Texas counties have limited authority to regulate what is built and where it is built in unincorporated areas, and efforts to impose stricter standards often face resistance. Van Zandt said that contributes to poor-quality housing and suffering after disasters.

Counties have no legal obligation to offset these inequities, but Van Zandt believes they have a moral and practical one because resilience requires investing in vulnerable communities before a catastrophe. But residents of such places often lack the resources to make that happen. “People who feel disenfranchised for whatever reason — whether it’s income, race, ethnicity, or even documented status — are not going to get it because they don’t ask for it, or they’re seen as not entitled to it,” Van Zandt said.

Many in Sandy Creek still rely on the generosity of others. Even now, a year after the flood, people still throw community fundraisers. There’s one coming later this month. But relying on nonprofits to fill gaps is “not sustainable,” said Michelle Meyer, Van Zandt’s colleague. As tragedies like the Texas floods grow more common, even substantial contributions will not be enough. Donors are burning out, and inflation has made rebuilding costlier.

County governments sometimes buy vulnerable homes to minimize future risks and losses, but find many residents don’t want to leave. Travis County has purchased hundreds of floodplain properties in the lower Onion Creek area, a largely Latino part of South Austin. An unpublished study by the University of Texas found that, of 176 homeowners who accepted a buyout, nearly all moved beyond the floodplain, though most ended up near it. Van Zandt said buyouts work best when they are voluntary, offer enough to secure safer comparable housing elsewhere, and include efforts to preserve community cohesion. Researcher Kijin Seon, the author of the study, believes “relocation came at the cost of social fabric.”

Read Next In Houston, a generations-deep community is being dismantled by mandatory buyouts. Amal Ahmed

The root of the problem, Van Zandt said, is too little regulation. In a meeting with rural county judges in May, she recommended higher standards for subdivision development, including installing drainage, elevating homes, and ensuring ready access. Travis County regulates these things but lacks broader land-use controls like zoning. “That’s what they need,” Van Zandt said. “They need to be able to limit development in those areas.” 

Many counties have long asked the Legislature for greater authority to do that. Travis County has generally supported “legislation giving county governments the necessary tools to manage growth, protect property values, and preserve quality of life.” But counties have found lawmakers reluctant to act.

Disasters create a “window of opportunity” in which political reform is possible, Van Zandt said. But it closes quickly if residents aren’t engaged. 

Some in Sandy Creek are trying to hold that window open. Brandy Gerstner and Ashley Willis joined two other women in creating the Sandy Creek Alliance to lobby county and state officials to address the crisis. They visited Washington D.C. to call for strengthening FEMA, and asked the governor to create Fund Texas Forever, a disaster reserve financed by the state’s rainy-day fund to expedite relief. Willis handed him a letter outlining the idea and inviting him to return to Sandy Creek to hear from survivors. He thanked her and read it. “Nothing happened,” she said. 

Andrew Mahaleris, the governor’s press secretary, told Grist in a statement, “Governor Abbott and the State of Texas continue to use all necessary resources to help Texans recover and rebuild from last year’s disastrous flooding.” He noted that the state has provided more than $500 million to assist families and communities, and that Abbott signed legislation to better protect people from catastrophic flooding events. “The governor will continue to work with the Legislature to strengthen flood regulations and preparedness,” Mahaleris said.

Meyer supports the idea of a disaster reserve, something academics have suggested with little success. Politicians don’t like setting aside money for future disasters, and cash assistance often gets tangled up with talk of welfare and self-reliance. Survivors, she said, carry more political weight in pushing for such programs.

Willis has made that her focus. She got a part-time job helping build Organizing Resilience, a new national network of disaster survivors that’s advocating for reform. “I’m a Swiftie,” she said, “I always like to joke with county and government officials, ‘Look what you made me do.’”

The community is still rebuilding, but nature has reclaimed land ruined by the flood, just as Tamerra Garcia predicted it would a few weeks after the disaster. Before the summer heat settled in, the fields were ablaze with sunflowers. Prairie verbena, firewheels, and beebalm growing along the road swayed in the breeze.

The trees that once obscured Sandy Creek are gone, leaving the banks barren but for a few saplings. Neighbors who never saw each other before the flood now see into each other’s backyards. They also hear every trash can being rolled to the curb on Wednesday nights.

In a lot that belonged to Garcia’s grandfather, Harold Sherwood, a cardinal perched on a beam. Not much else remains of Sherwood’s home, which was razed after water reached 5 feet up the walls. It was there, amid the muck and the stench, that Garcia made her prediction.

A cross draped in red, white, and blue fabric stands on a concrete pad beside what is left of Harold Sherwood’s home. Laura Mallonee

Her grandfather did not live to see it come true. Overwhelmed by the prospect of building a home 12 feet in the air to comply with the building code, he planned to live out his life in an RV. He eventually had a change of heart and decided to rebuild. 

He died a short time later, around Christmas, of cancer. His health deteriorated quickly after the flood and “all the stress [of] losing everything you’ve had for all your life,” Brandy Gerstner said.  

Friends and neighbors held a poignant memorial in early January on the land where his home once stood. The tattooed minister stood before a cross of branches draped in red, white, and blue fabric to honor Sherwood’s military service. He reminded those gathered around it that Jesus was a carpenter, then invited them to imagine him building Sherwood a heavenly mansion.

This story has been updated to provide Sara Ashford’s full name.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline One year after the Texas floods, home feels further away than ever on Jul 1, 2026.

For the past two years, more than a dozen major banks have been not only reneging on their climate commitments, they’ve been actively making the crisis worse. 

In 2024 and 2025, during the leadup to President Donald Trump’s second inauguration, all six of the nation’s largest banks abandoned the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, a voluntary climate coalition, precipitating the Alliance’s complete shutdown in October. Since then, others including Royal Bank of Canada, Scotiabank, HSBC, NatWest, Santander, and JPMorgan Chase have either weakened or scrapped their decarbonization targets.

Now, new evidence shows banks are ramping up spending on fossil fuels. Beyond helping companies extract more oil and gas, they are bankrolling the industry’s pivot to plastics, fertilizers, and other petrochemical products.

Two reports released earlier this month illustrate the trend. An analysis from the Rainforest Action Network, or RAN, and other environmental groups found the world’s top 65 banks contributed $508 billion to companies expanding fossil fuel development in 2025. That’s a 27 percent increase since 2024, and more than any other year since at least 2016, based on the organization’s past analyses.

The second report comes from the nonprofit Center for International Environmental Law, or CIEL. It found that, between January 2019 and June 2025, big banks gave the world’s top 15 petrochemical companies at least $591 billion in loans and underwriting. Some of that benefited integrated oil and gas corporations; the amount CIEL could directly attribute to petrochemical activities was $252 billion. (For context, New Zealand’s GDP is about $279 billion.)

Together, the reports suggest that large financial institutions are enabling a long-term viability strategy for the fossil fuel industry, one in which declining demand for oil and gas in energy systems and transportation is offset by a boom in petrochemicals. Indeed, in recent years oil majors including Exxon Mobil, Shell, and Saudi Aramco have invested heavily in that field by, among other things, acquiring majority stakes in plastics and chemical companies and retrofitting oil refineries to accommodate a shift in production.

These investments reflect projections from the International Energy Agency that plastics, agrichemicals, and other petrochemical products will account for more than one-third of the growth in oil demand through 2030, and nearly half of it by 2050 — much more than other sectors like aviation and shipping. 

“Petrochemicals are not just a general growth area for fossil fuel companies,” said Ximena Banegas, global plastics and petrochemicals campaigner for CIEL and the author of the organization’s report. “They are a deliberate and pivotal strategy to ensure that we continue using fossil fuels.”

Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and the Japanese bank Mizuho Financial were among the top banks increasing financing for fossil fuel expansion last year, RAN’s analysis found. All 65 banks it analyzed boosted funding across the board for new oil and gas exploration, transportation, and refining. But the largest growth by far was for transportation — including new pipelines and capital-intensive LNG export terminals, which can create a decades-long commitment to using methane gas. 

“It’s overall disappointing,” said Allison Fajans-Turner, a senior energy finance campaigner for RAN. “Banks are unfortunately continuing to put profits over responsible societal action.” She noted that fossil fuel financing is becoming more concentrated among a smaller number of large banks, primarily those based in North America and Japan, as several European banks have begun to scale back funding.

RAN’s report didn’t look directly at financing for the production of petrochemicals, but some of its findings indicate growing interest in this portion of the industry. A significant increase in loans and underwriting for coal expansion, for example, is at least partially linked to a recent spike in the number of coal-to-chemical plants planned globally — mostly in China and India. Environmental advocates say these investments risk giving coal “a new lease of life.”

Read Next What’s driving up your expenses? Many Americans say climate change. Kate Yoder

Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Mizuho Financial are also among the top funders of petrochemical activities, according to CIEL’s report. The top 15 recipients of this funding include a mix of oil and gas, agriculture, plastics, and chemical companies, such as Exxon Mobil, Syngenta, LyondellBasell, and Dow.

Although CIEL didn’t compare each year between 2019 and 2025, it did notice a significant jump in petrochemical finance in 2024, the last full year examined. As evidence of the industry’s ongoing expansion, Banegas pointed to a recent report estimating that 127 new polyethylene projects will come online between 2025 and 2030. 

CIEL’s report also notes the petrochemical industry’s outsize contribution to toxic chemical pollution and global warming. As of 2020, petrochemicals’ annual greenhouse gas emissions amounted to 1.9 billion metric tons, more than twice that of aviation and shipping.

Fredric Bauer, a senior lecturer at Lund University in Sweden, has conducted similar research on petrochemical financing between 2010 and 2020. He said it’s not surprising to see continued interest in big plastics and chemicals projects, although it is perhaps counterintuitive. Despite warnings from industry analysts that the petrochemical industry is in “structural decline” — as shown by a large number of canceled or delayed projects, downgradings from multiple credit rating agencies, and the recent plastics and agrichemicals price shocks due to the war with Iran — companies keep investing because they often “do not respond to conventional market signals,” he said.

Rather than say, ‘“Oh, there’s oversupply, we should probably not invest in more supply or production capacity right now,’” their priority is “to ensure long-term markets for oil and gas.”

A coalition of advocacy groups including CIEL are calling on big banks to end their support for fossil fuel and petrochemical expansion. They’d like to see policies against financing companies building facilities to produce virgin plastics and fossil fuel-derived fertilizers. They also want banks to require clients to adopt credible transition plans to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), which may include targets to reduce plastics use and phase out some pesticides. 

Fajans-Turner said the upward swing in fossil fuel financing reveals the weakness of voluntary sustainability commitments and reinforces the need for regulation. She suggested that, in addition to mandating more robust decarbonization plans from financial institutions, governments should require improved incorporation of climate risks when determining a borrower’s creditworthiness. “That would actually have many downstream consequences about who gets funding and who does not,” she said.

Joel Tickner, a professor of public health at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and founder of an independent research initiative on sustainable chemicals, said it’s important that governments scale back loans and tax incentives supporting the fossil fuel industry, subsidies that amount to more than $1 trillion annually. Some of this money could help finance the development and commercialization of greener chemistry.

Fossil fuel companies “have received decades of subsidies and financial support,” Tickner said. “If we’re serious about sustainable materials, then we need to put our money where we want to go.”

toolTips('.classtoolTips4','The process of reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that drive climate change, most often by deprioritizing the use of fossil fuels like oil and gas in favor of renewable sources of energy.'); toolTips('.classtoolTips7','A powerful greenhouse gas that accounts for about 11% of global emissions, methane is the primary component of natural gas and is emitted into the atmosphere by landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, and wastewater treatment, among other pathways. Over a 20-year period, it is roughly 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Banks are financing the fossil fuel industry’s next growth strategy on Jul 1, 2026.

Oklahoma restricts oil field wastewater injection within a half-mile of public water wells to protect against pollution. Regulators have let companies do it anyway. Officials are taking on the oil industry by calling for additional protections against oil field wastewater injection.