Every year on October 18, Alaska Day commemorates the 1867 transfer of Alaska from Russia to the United States — but Alaska’s significance has evolved far beyond that moment in history. Today, it serves as a living laboratory for climate science, a place where melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, and changing ecosystems offer a glimpse into the Earth’s future. 

Across its vast landscape — spanning 663,300 square miles — Alaska compresses global environmental challenges into one dramatic microcosm. Its mountains, tundra, and coastlines reveal how warming transforms not just local communities, but the entire planet. Scientists from around the world travel there to study these transformations, and their findings are reshaping what we know about climate change.

Here are some of the lessons the world is learning from Alaska, the frontline of a changing planet. 

Glaciers are the Planet’s Thermometers

Alaska’s glaciers are among the fastest-melting in the world, losing about 66.7 billion tonnes of ice each year as of 2021. If all of Alaska’s glacier ice were to melt, the resulting meltwater would contribute approximately 46.4 mm to global sea-level rise. Glaciers around the world are vanishing faster than scientists can study them with 40% – 90% projected to disappear by the end of the century if current warming trends continue. 

Glaciers act as natural climate records with each layer of compacted snow containing trapped air bubbles that can reveal what Earth’s atmosphere was like in the past. Ice cores, cylindrical samples of ice drilled from ice sheets or glaciers, act much like tree rings because they provide records of past environmental conditions. When scientists drill ice cores, they can track carbon dioxide levels, volcanic activity, and temperature shifts over thousands of years. 

In August 2025, the rapid melting of Alaska’s Mendenhall Glacier led to the formation of a meltwater lake known locally as Suicide Basin, near Juneau. This ice-dammed basin periodically overflows as meltwater builds up and forces its way beneath the thinning glacier, which is losing roughly 100-150 feet of ice each year. When the pressure becomes too great, the basin drains suddenly, triggering destructive floods downstream. Because the sides of the lake are fragile, this sudden release can sweep up large amounts of sediment, posing a threat to buildings and infrastructure.

Sea ice and glaciers help keep the Earth cool by reflecting sunlight back into space, reducing the amount of heat absorbed by the planet. Without this reflective surface, the exposed water absorbs more heat, warming further and causing more ice to melt — a self-reinforcing cycle. The retreat of glaciers and the flooding of Alaska’s Mendenhall River serve as stark warnings of the global consequences of climate change. As these massive ice formations shrink, they accelerate sea-level rise, threaten the livelihoods and safety of coastal communities, and disrupt ocean circulation patterns that regulate the planet’s climate.

Thawing Permafrost = Unlocks Carbon

An estimated 85% of Alaska’s land is covered by permafrost — frozen ground that stores about twice as much carbon as is currently present in Earth’s entire atmosphere

When permafrost thaws, it releases carbon dioxide and methane, two potent greenhouse gases that intensify global warming. Researchers from the University of Alaska Fairbanks stated that the current thaw rates are accelerating. In just a few decades, previously solid ground has subsided into “thermokarst” landscapes that are uneven, soggy terrain where forests tilt and collapse.

This thawing sets up a self-reinforcing feedback loop: warming causes permafrost to melt, which releases massive stores of greenhouse gases (CO₂ and methane). Those emissions further warm the climate, accelerating permafrost degradation in a cycle known as the permafrost carbon–climate feedback. Given the vast carbon reservoirs locked in Arctic soils, many scientists warn this is one of Earth’s potential tipping points and Alaska’s rapidly changing landscapes provide a clear warning of how close we may be to crossing it.

Adapt or Die

Melting permafrost and the significant loss of reflective snow and ice, which leads to less sunlight being reflected and more heat being absorbed, a phenomenon also known as Arctic Amplification, is driving massive change in the region on many levels.

Alaska’s ecosystems and its people are adapting faster than almost anywhere else in the world. As the Arctic warms 3.5 times the global average, climate change is disrupting animal populations, and entire food webs are reorganizing. 

For instance, salmon are now  moving into rivers that were previously too cold to support them, altering local ecosystems. Yet even as their range expands, overall salmon populations are declining, which is disrupting Indigenous fishing patterns that have been practiced for centuries. The same warming that shifts salmon habits is also thawing permafrost, destabilizing infrastructure — from homes to pipelines — and forcing towns like Newtok to relocate.

Another example is the changing migration patterns of bowhead whales. As sea ice recedes, these whales are delaying their migrations. Once reliant on the Bering Sea’s winter feeding grounds, many now remain in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas year-round, adapting their diets as the shifting ice affects the availability of krill and zooplankton. What’s happening in Alaska offers a glimpse of the environmental, economic, and social transformations that other regions may face in the coming decades.

Alaska’s Lessons  

Alaska is no longer just America’s last frontier but the world’s first warning system. Its glaciers, permafrost, and ecosystems are teaching us that climate change isn’t a distant threat but a present reality. The data collected in Alaska informs climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and guides global policy decisions.

As scientists often say: what happens in Alaska doesn’t stay in Alaska. The state’s landscapes, rich in both beauty and evidence, reveal the story of a planet in transition and reminds us that the choices we make now will determine how that story ends.

Our precious living laboratory is under threat now more than ever. Ironically new fossil fuel drilling projects are planned across Alaska — already one of the most climate-vulnerable regions on Earth. These developments risk accelerating environmental damage further in a place that offers critical insights into our planet’s future. 

Sign our Renewable Energy petition to demand that world leaders move decisively away from fossil fuels and toward a just, sustainable energy future.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Alaska is America’s Living Laboratory for Climate Change appeared first on Earth Day.

While some U.S. cities are playing catch-up on climate, others are sprinting ahead by reimagining their energy infrastructure from the ground up. From net-zero architecture to battery-backed solar grids, these communities are proving that innovation isn’t confined to Silicon Valley. It’s happening in city halls, community colleges, and public works departments, across the nation – redefining what a clean energy future can look like.

Spokane, Washington: Hydropower Meets a Range of 21st-Century Innovation

Spokane already benefits from a carbon-light grid thanks to Washington State’s legacy hydropower system, but it’s not using that as an excuse to sit still. Instead, the city is positioning itself as a testing ground for clean technology and grid modernization. These efforts are part of a broader, coordinated strategy to build local resilience and accelerate climate action, supported by both state and city-level initiatives.

The updated Washington Climate Commitment Act, or WCC, outlines a comprehensive strategy to modernize Spokane’s energy infrastructure while centering equity, resilience, and local job creation. This is supported in part by a cap-and-invest program, which raises funds by selling permits that allow for carbon emissions. The money collected is then used to fund initiatives that lower greenhouse gas emissions and enhance quality of life in local communities.The Act is projected to create over 45,000 jobs and generate $9.1 billion in statewide economic output over the next eight years, with Spokane poised to benefit from investments in clean power, public transit, green construction, and industrial decarbonization. The Act is also expected to attract billions in private funding and more in federal funding, positioning Spokane as a hub for both climate innovation and economic revitalization.

Spokane’s Sustainability Action Plan, updated in 2021, complements the goals of the WCC by providing a city-level roadmap to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030. While the WCC drives state-level investments and regulatory frameworks, the local plan translates those goals into on-the-ground projects—advancing climate resilience, accelerating energy infrastructure upgrades, and prioritizing equity through initiatives like building electrification, community solar, and workforce development in historically underserved neighborhoods.

Spokane is home to one of the most ambitious net-zero energy projects in the country: known as the Catalyst Building, which is now home to Eastern Washington University departments and labs. This 159,000-square-foot facility is designed to carry out zero energy and zero carbon certification while maintaining construction costs on par with conventional buildings. With its integration of solar, geothermal, and cutting-edge design strategies, the Catalyst Building reflects Spokane’s commitment to climate innovation and proves that carbon-neutral architecture can be both scalable and economically viable.

Spokane’s utility provider, Avista, is actively modernizing the city grid through a phased smart meter rollout, installing advanced meters that enable two-way communication between customers and the utility. Allowing households and businesses to monitor their energy use in real time, this provides them with greater control over their consumption patterns, while improving reliability and operational efficiency. 

Building on this, Avista is also piloting two time-of-use (TOU) pricing programs for residential and small commercial customers in Washington. These programs incentivize users to shift electricity use to off-peak hours, helping to reduce the strain on the grid and lowering bills for customers who can adjust their habits. 

These innovations are increasingly important as electric vehicles and electric appliances become more widespread. By managing peak load more strategically, Avista is preparing Spokane’s grid for the realities of mass electrification, ensuring that the transition to clean energy remains both resilient and cost-effective.

What sets Spokane apart is the city’s willingness to rethink how that energy is managed, distributed, and optimized. With strong city-university partnerships and a growing green tech sector, Spokane is shaping the clean grid of the future in real time.

Richmond, California: Battery Storage, Rooftop Solar, and Environmental Justice in Action

Once defined by the towering presence of the Chevron oil refinery on its shoreline, Richmond has become a case study in what it looks like for a fossil fuel town to push back and pave the way for a cleaner future. 

The city of Richmond, located in the East Bay, is building real electrification and energy efficiency models and is focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving indoor air quality, and supporting health and employment outcomes. Especially for residents living in older buildings and disadvantaged neighborhoods, these efforts aim to address longstanding environmental and social inequities.

Through its partnership with Marin Clean Energy (MCE), a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) provider, Richmond residents have default access to 60-100% renewable electricity, giving the city a unique level of autonomy from investor-owned utility PG&E. Community Choice Aggregation is a model that allows cities and counties to procure electricity on behalf of their residents from cleaner sources, while the existing utility (like PG&E for the Northern California region) continues to handle delivery and billing. This gives Richmond more local control over its energy mix and enables a shift away from fossil fuel–based power.

But Richmond’s work extends beyond the grid deep into the community. In recent years, the city has funded residential and commercial rooftop solar installations that were made possible by streamlining permitting, partnerships, and incentive programs ⸺ all targeted towards affordable housing, municipal buildings, and business sites. 

Plus, Richmond’s Green-Blue New Deal aims to create over 1,000 new green jobs in the renewable energy sector, through building electrification, and via sustainable infrastructure creation. Programs like Richmond Rising and Groundwork Richmond provide hands-on training in clean energy and urban forestry for youth, while a partnership with the Safe Return Project offers dedicated career pathways for formerly incarcerated residents who wish to enter the green workforce.

Perhaps most importantly, Richmond’s clean energy planning is embedded in broader struggles for racial and environmental justice. Long before terms like “just transition” entered the mainstream, local groups like the Richmond Progressive Alliance and APEN (Asian Pacific Environmental Network) were advocating for community-controlled energy. Today, those visions are becoming reality through tangible, neighborhood-scale investments in power, both literal and political.

Fayetteville, Arkansas: Clean Energy Momentum in the Ozarks

Fayetteville, nestled in the rolling hills of the Ozarks, might not be the first city that comes to mind in conversations about renewable energy — but it should be. In 2018, it became the first city in Arkansas to formally commit to 100% clean energy, setting a goal of decarbonizing municipal operations by 2030 and reaching citywide net-zero emissions by 2050. What makes Fayetteville stand out is how it’s transforming bold commitments into on-the-ground tangible progress.

The city has constructed two large solar arrays, including one paired with a battery storage facility, that now power municipal buildings and wastewater treatment plants. These projects not only reduce emissions but are projected to save the city millions in electricity costs over the coming decades. 

The City of Fayetteville and University of Arkansas’s Office of Sustainability have emphasized regional collaboration in order to share best practices and build clean energy capacity across Northwest Arkansas. And despite being in a state where fossil fuels remain politically dominant, Fayetteville’s 2024 Climate Action Plan has successfully framed its energy work around values such as economic independence, local control, and public accountability.Positioning climate action as a function of good governance rather than partisan politics is exactly what we need.

Fayetteville is proving that sustainability isn’t limited by geography and political climate, but rather, it thrives wherever there is local leadership and a vision for long-term resilience.

Gridlocked to Groundbreaking: Cities Turning Climate Ambition Into Action

From the Pacific Northwest to the Ozark Mountains, these U.S. cities are proving that bold climate action doesn’t require being ‘woke’, or a coastal tech hub or a policy powerhouse. 

Whether it’s Richmond transforming a legacy of fossil fuels into a foundation for environmental justice, or Fayetteville leading a clean energy charge in a conservative stronghold, each city is confronting the challenge of what is best for the members of its community.

Their work reminds us that clean energy transitions aren’t acquired through one-size-fits-all approaches. They’re adaptive and rooted in the unique strengths and needs of each community. And while the technologies of solar arrays, smart meters, net-zero buildings matter, it’s the creativity and collaboration behind these tools that truly power the shift.

As the climate crisis accelerates, these cities are preparing their residents for the future in a sensible and pragmatic way. They show that the road to resilience and equity can start anywhere, and that the future of energy is already being built in school districts, utility boards, and city councils by people who are willing to think differently and act decisively.

If this inspires you, don’t wait! Join our growing network of volunteers and connect with others in your community who are taking action for change. Together, we can turn shared passion into real progress.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Beyond the Grid: 3 U.S. Cities Reinventing Renewable Energy from the Ground Up appeared first on Earth Day.

As Plastic Free July comes to an end, it’s right that we talk a beat to and stress that plastic pollution in the United States is not just a trash issue, it is a human health issue. Plastic pollution is choking our oceans, landscapes, and our bodies. 

But across the U.S., states there is good news and some are stepping up; though some faster than others. Ocean Conservancy’s United States of Plastics report breaks down where progress is happening, where it’s stalled, and what’s still needed. Here are seven things you need to know:

1. Styrofoam? More Like Bye-rofoam! 

Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish what is made of plastic. Styrofoam does not have the appearance or texture we associate with other plastics, but it is made from oil and its own special mix of petrochemicals like styrene. This substance sneaks into our lives in the form of cups and packing materials and is a known carcinogen as well as being  linked to many other health issues such as respiratory and neurological issues. 

Luckily, fourteen states, including Virginia, Maine and Rhode Island, have all banned plastic foam foodware. Considering this substance is one of the most visible and harmful plastic pollutants, these states are taking big steps towards the health of their citizens and the planet. 

2. Reuse and Waste Reduction Are Gaining Policy Support

Roughly 40% of all plastic produced globally is designed for single use; items like packaging, utensils, and bags which are often discarded after just minutes of use. These plastics persist in our environment, filling landfills, polluting waterways, contaminating soil, and even entering us through microplastics found in food and water.

In response, at least 11 U.S. states, including California, Colorado, and Oregon, have enacted laws supporting reuse infrastructure and waste reduction strategies. For example, the Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act requires that by 2032, 100% of packaging in California must be recyclable or compostable, and plastic packaging must be reduced by 25%.

These policies signal a shift away from the traditional recycling narrative, which places all the blame on consumers by suggesting that if we just put our plastic in the right bin, the crisis would be solved. It paints the problem as something we’ve caused and must fix, while overlooking the major role companies have played, and continue to play, in creating it. Instead of relying on individual behavior alone, these new approaches focus on systemic solutions that tackle the problem at its root: reducing production of new plastic.

This includes investment in refill and reuse models, such as reusable takeout container programs, and bans on certain single-use plastics altogether. With support from local and state governments, like Florida and North Carolina, these measures are becoming essential tools in reducing our dependence on throwaway culture and transitioning toward a circular economy.

3. Recycling Alone Won’t Save Us

Not all solutions to our plastic pollution crisis are created equal. While nearly 80% of Americans try to recycle plastics, only about 9% of all plastics actually gets recycled in the U.S. Much of what we toss in the bin ends up in landfills due to poor product design, confusing labels, and outdated recycling systems. That is why we often say recycling is a lie.

Plus there’s no huge market out there for recycled plastics as making virgin plastics is easier and cheaper. 

One widely promoted but flawed solution is chemical recycling; a process that uses varying temperatures to break plastics down into their original ingredients. In practice, only 1–14% of plastics sent to these facilities are truly recycled. The rest are often burned as fuel, releasing even more pollution than the original plastics into the atmosphere  and posing serious risks to human health, wildlife and the environment. 

Encouragingly, states like New York have started closing the loophole by excluding chemical recycling from their definition of sustainable waste management. Others should follow their lead to ensure that meaningful, science-backed strategies take priority.

4. Nipping Plastic Pollution in the Bud

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is an idea that essentially means that the companies that make our plastic products are responsible for what happens to those products after we have  used them. This actively incentivises them to reduce their packaging waste to save on clean up costs they will have to pay for downstream. It is essentially the best way to ensure companies are pulling their weight and is a great form of the ‘polluter plays’ principle. 

Since 2022, seven states have passed EPR laws for packaging including Minnesota and several states, like Tennessee, have EPR bills proposed. 

This means that roughly 1 in 5 Americans now lives in a state with an EPR law! We can all do something to combat plastic waste, but the most effective solution is to address it at its source; companies must reduce their plastic production and clean up their mess. 

5. Bags be Gone

For some time now, plastic bags have been a key part of the conversation surrounding plastic pollution. To date, twelve states including Connecticut, New York and Oregon, have phased out single-use plastic bags. This is progress, but we have a ways to go.

In the U.S., the average person uses more than 90 times as many plastic bags a year as the average Danish person.Why? Well because in 2021 Denmark banned lightweight plastic bags and required roughly a 50 cent fee on every single plastic bag used in store. Clearly their ban has been effective and Americans should learn from the success in Denmark. 

6. Microplastic Pollution Needs More Attention

Microplastics are literally everywhere. Plastics are so widespread that there’s no “plastic-free” control group to compare effects against; making long-term health research more difficult. So, despite growing awareness of plastic’s harm to human and environmental health, research and regulation around microplastics are still dangerously limited.

The other barrier to our knowledge and progress on understanding the human health issues of plastics is  that it is political: microplastic pollution simply hasn’t been made a priority by our leaders. But six states have passed laws to study microplastics – Illinois, California, Michigan, Minnesota, Vermont, and New Jersey. If you live in one of those states you should be proud you are taking action that will benefit us all

Take microfibers, for example, the most common form of microplastic pollution, largely released from synthetic clothing during washing. Yet no U.S. state requires microfiber filters in washing machines, even though studies show that a single load of laundry can shed up to 700,000 microfibers. Some countries, like France, have already passed national laws requiring filters on all new washing machines. The U.S. has yet to act.

7. Some States Are Standing in the Way

  Many states are pushing forward with bold policies to reduce plastic pollution, but more needs to be done. 

Nearly half of U.S. states have passed preemption laws, which are policies that take away power from local governments to act on plastics. These laws often prevent cities and towns from banning plastic bags, foam containers, or other single-use items, even when there’s overwhelming local support to do so. And these actions are often supported by the plastic industry and their lobbying groups. This not only undermines local democracy but also stalls grassroots efforts that have historically driven national change.

But there’s hope as these policies can and we believe eventually be reversed. But what we are seeing is that pro-active state-level laws can and do fill the gap where federal action is missing.

The progress detailed in the United States of Plastics report shows that change is possible, however it’s not yet happening at the scale or speed this crisis demands. To truly end plastic pollution, we must pair strong state-level action with global cooperation. That’s why we’re calling on U.S. leaders to support a strong Global Plastics Treaty, one that holds polluters accountable and commits to reducing plastic production by 60% by 2040. The health of our oceans, communities, and future generations depends on it.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post 7 Bits Of Good News You Should Know About the U.S. State Level Action on Plastic Pollution appeared first on Earth Day.

There’s something about stepping into a national park that awakens childlike wonder — the crisp mountain air, sunlight glinting off a river, birdsong replacing city noise. National parks are where many of us experience life’s most unforgettable firsts: the first time spotting a bear in the wild, jumping into a pine-ringed lake, or lying beneath an unbroken night sky. 

For countless urban children in the U.S, it’s the first time escaping the concrete jungle for something vast and alive. They’re also where many of us fall in love for the first time — with the land, with each other, with the feeling of being fully present and alive on this planet. First hikes, first dates, first awe. 

That magic, that sense of possibility, is why national parks have often been praised as “America’s best idea.” These parks are more than just scenic getaways; they’re classrooms, sanctuaries, and symbols of a shared national identity. Since Congress established Yellowstone as the first national park in 1872, the park system has grown to include 63 national parks across thirty states, and over 400 federally protected sites — from historic monuments to recreation areas. These congressionally designated lands invite us to reconnect with the Earth beneath our feet and the vast horizons ahead.

The National Park Service (NPS), founded in 1916, exists to safeguard these spaces — not just for the sake of the environment, but for all who seek solace, adventure, and belonging within them. But this legacy fo conservation and access to awe is under threat.

Confronting the Past for a Just Future

National parks preserve more than landscapes — they are central to climate resilience efforts, sequestering carbon, protecting biodiversity conservation efforts, and supplying clean air and water. These parks are crucial to the planet’s health, and our own. They are also engines for the economy: in 2023 alone, national park visitors spent $26.4 billion in nearby communities, supporting over 415,000 jobs and generating $55.6 billion in economic output. 

But the significance of these open spaces goes deeper. From towering redwoods to rolling mountain ranges, every national park holds stories of geological wonders, of species both endangered and thriving, and of human history, in all its complexity. These lands were stewarded for generations by Indigenous peoples, long before names like John Muir and President Teddy Roosevelt entered the picture. While the early conservation movement warrants recognition, it also demands a critical lens. Many of these parks exist today because Indigenous communities were forcibly removed from the lands they called home. Together, we must confront the injustices that built the foundation of today’s park system. 

Many parks are working to reckon with this history, expanding educational programs that center Indigenous voices and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), acknowledge land dispossession, and support environmental justice initiatives. But that evolution takes more than good intentions — it takes funding and commitment.

Who Gets to Experience the Outdoors?

While national parks are meant for everyone, access to nature has never been equal. For many low-income communities and people of color, systemic barriers like redlining and disinvestment make green space a rarity. Redlining, a discriminatory housing practice where banks and federal agencies labeled minority neighborhoods “high risk” for loans, led to decades of disinvestment, resulting in deteriorating infrastructure, underfunded schools, and a lack of environmental resources like trees or parks. The legacy of these racist policies is still visible today in urban areas where green spaces are sparse.

That’s why initiatives like the NPS Urban Agenda matter. Launched in 2015, the Urban Agenda seeks to bring the mission of the NPS to America’s cities, where more than 80% of the population now lives. The program assigns Urban Fellows to each of ten “model cities” — places where NPS collaborates with local governments, nonprofits, and community members to co-create programming tailored to urban needs. These initiatives help youth “play, learn, serve, and work outdoors” by establishing local outdoor experiences, restoring trails and parkland, and offering job training and employment in conservation and public service. Other NPS programs like Every Kid Outdoors and Youth Conservation Corps introduce young people to the outdoors while fostering environmental stewardship and career pathways in the park system.

However, this promise of equitable access remains out of reach if national parks and urban outreach programs do not receive adequate federal funding. Without sustained investment, these structural obstacles will persist — and the benefits of nature will continue to be distributed unequally.

Understaffed, Undermined, and Under Threat

Despite record visitation, national parks are facing unprecedented budget cuts. The new U.S administration’s 2026 budget proposes slashing over $1 billion from NPS — the largest cut in its 109-year history. Around 1,000 park staff, people who have dedicated themselves to preserving our most iconic landscapes, have already been let go. That means fewer rangers, fewer programs, and less protection for fragile ecosystems. 

The results are visible: more litter and vandalism, degraded facilities, and a heavier burden on remaining staff, people who stay out of love for the land and belief in the public good of our national parks. And the magic, the very wonder that people feel when they visit these sites, starts to fade when trash lines a riverbank or a restroom falls into utter disrepair.

Why Funding Parks is Non-Negotiable

The love people feel for national parks transcends politics; these lands and the experiences they provide are widely cherished across partisan lines. They’re not just relics of the past; they’re promises to the future of our nation. They teach us about responsibility to the natural world and challenge us to confront history critically and honestly.

None of that happens without resources. The trails we walk, the rangers who guide us and keep us safe, climate mitigation efforts, the educational signs and programs — they’re all maintained by the NPS and the funding that sustains it.

Holding On To Wonder

This isn’t just about money. It’s about what kind of world we want to leave behind. We can’t expect national parks to keep inspiring future generations if we don’t fight for them now. Budget cuts send a clear message about what we value as a nation. If we truly believe in public lands and nature’s role in our health and happiness, we have to speak out and step up. Write to your Senator and let them know you care about your state’s park. You can source their phone numbers, offices, staff, and emails here: Contacting U.S. Senators

Support The Canopy Project, our global reforestation initiative. By planting trees in communities hit hardest by climate change and deforestation, you can help restore ecosystems — and preserve the sense of wonder that national parks bring to all of us.

Join the movement. Plant a tree. Protect the magic. Donate to The Canopy Project today. The future of our parks, and the memories yet to be made, depend on it. 

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post For The Love of Parks appeared first on Earth Day.

76% of Oregonians believe climate change should be taught in schools. New legislation is responding to that demand.

Oregon has long been a leader in climate policy, setting ambitious clean energy goals and creating thousands of jobs in the green economy such as requiring utility companies to eliminate their greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity they provide by 100% by 2040.But while Oregon’s investment in renewable energy and sustainability initiatives is impressive, investing in the next generation is key. That’s where House Bill 3365 comes in.

This bill, currently under consideration in the the Oregon Senate, would ensure that climate education is integrated across many subjects in Oregon’s K-12 schools including health and history. This would mean that educators weave climate change education into their subject areas. An example of this is students reading The Grapes of Wrath in English class and comparing the migration caused by the Dust Bowl with modern day climate refugees.

If passed, Oregon would be one of the few states (after New Jersey in 2023 became the first)to mandate comprehensive, interdisciplinary climate education. This is not just an environmental imperative; it is an economic, social, and educational necessity.

Equipping Students for the Future

Oregon’s young people will graduate into a world defined by climate change. Many students feel unprepared for this reality. Research has shown that climate anxiety is on the rise among young people, with up to 85% of Gen Zers saying that they are worried about climate change. HB 3365 directly addresses this issue by equipping students with the knowledge and skills to navigate the challenges ahead.

A well-rounded, interdisciplinary approach to climate education would mean climate education in math, language class, art and science and more.  This doesn’t just benefit students who want to pursue careers in environmental science. It is essential for all fields. 

Here’s why – future engineers must understand sustainable design. Future business leaders must incorporate climate resilience into their strategies. Future policymakers must be grounded in climate science to make informed decisions. 

By embedding climate education across all subjects—from science to social studies to economics—this bill ensures that every Oregon student is prepared to thrive in a changing world.

Strong Support from Educators and Students

The call for climate education is coming directly from those who know education best: teachers and students. HB 3365 was drafted by Oregon Educators for Climate Education (OECE), a dedicated group of Oregon educators, who spent two years refining the bill with input from stakeholders statewide. Among the groups that support the bill are the Oregon Educators Association, the Oregon Pediatric Society, and the hundreds of students who have spoken out in favor of the bill. 

Their work reflects a broad consensus among educators that climate education is not an optional add-on but an essential part of preparing students for the future. 

“When students are exposed to locally relevant and right now topics, it engages them to read, write, and have discussions about it. Through a standards approach, teachers can effectively integrate the topic of climate change in age appropriate ways into the content they are already required to teach. Given standards alignment and resources to weave the topic of climate change into the regular curriculum, teachers can help formalize and normalize the topic across subject areas.” says Tana Shepard in her testimony submitted on  March 12, 2025 on behalf of the OECE. 

A Smart Investment in Oregon’s Future

Climate education is not just about understanding environmental issues; it is about preparing students for the workforce of tomorrow. 

As Oregon moves towards a net-zero economy, demand for workers in renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and green infrastructure will continue to grow. HB 3365 ensures that Oregon youth are equipped with the interdisciplinary skills necessary to seize these opportunities and drive innovation in the green sector.

The future belongs to those who are prepared for it. Oregon has a choice: to continue to treat climate education as an afterthought, or to lead the nation in ensuring that our students are ready for the world they will inherit. The support for this bill is broad, the need is urgent, and the time to act is now. As the bill progresses and has already cleared the first hurdle of passing in the house of representatives, please consider emailing your state senator to vote YES on HB 3365 to ensure its passage in the state senate. 

This year is the 55th anniversary of the very first Earth Day. What a better way to honor this anniversary than to pass HB 3365 and give Oregon’s youth the education they deserve—and the future they need.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org.Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Climate Education Close to Becoming a Reality in Oregon appeared first on Earth Day.

Across the United States, climate change is intensifying and increasing the frequency of natural disasters. Record-breaking heat waves, severe floods, multi-year-long droughts, extreme wildfires, and worsening hurricanes are only some of the events putting millions of Americans at risk. For nearly 50 years, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been on the front lines of disaster response in the U.S. Today, approximately 94 percent of Americans live in a county that received its aid since 2011. However, as the climate heats up, so does debate over its merits.

Since 1979, FEMA has played a critical role in ensuring access to financial assistance, emergency response staff, and other important resources to help communities prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. As a result, disaster aid has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades. 

However, a growing chorus of politicians question whether FEMA’s funding and reach should be limited, or even abolished entirely. But these proposals come at a time when FEMA is needed now more than ever. As our climate crisis accelerates, the need for a coordinated federal response system only grows. Abolishing FEMA wouldn’t make disaster response easier, but harder, less effective, and more costly for Americans. Here’s why.

The Crisis Crew

FEMA is a massive agency under the Department of Homeland Security, employing more than 20,000 people nationwide, and over 50,000 workers during major disasters. It plays a crucial role in securing the U.S. against natural disasters, including managing the National Flood Insurance Program, offering disaster preparedness training, and helping states develop emergency response plans. FEMA also leverages its position as a federal agency to coordinate federal resources and expertise, provide extensive financial assistance, and support logistics. 

Currently, FEMA provides support only when local officials request a presidential emergency declaration, which is applied when the disaster exceeds the state’s ability to respond. It doesn’t “take over” emergency response, but instead fills the gaps in state and local disaster recovery by pooling federal resources.

For example, FEMA provided emergency grants for food, clothing, and essential supplies for survivors of the 2023 Maui wildfires. It also arranged hotel rooms, rental assistance, and financial aid for those who lost their homes and funded the construction of a temporary school when the old one burned down. The agency helped thousands rebuild in a response that Hawaii wouldn’t have been able to match on its own, given its small population and limited emergency funds.

However, after Hurricane Helene devastated North Carolina and killed over 230 people in September 2024, the new Trump administration denied the state’s request to match 100% of the state funds for disaster cleanup previously granted by the Biden administration. Hurricane Helene caused approximately $60 billion in damages in North Carolina, and the policy change could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
North Carolina isn’t an isolated case– after severe storms and tornadoes pummeled Arkansas in March, the state requested FEMA disaster relief, but that request was also denied.

Red States Might Lose The Most

Calls to eliminate FEMA are now underway, arguing the agency is too big and slow for a quick and flexible emergency response. They also claim that FEMA is too costly, bureaucratic, politicized, and inefficient. Instead, they propose that state and local officials would best lead disaster recovery and that states should handle emergencies without the federal government’s support to save money and increase efficiency.

Ironically, the states that benefit the most from FEMA are led by Republicans, the same party that tends to regard FEMA more poorly and is leading the calls to shut it down. States led by Republicans, including Florida and Texas, tend to experience more disasters than Democrat-led states, and more than 80% of the $45.3 billion in FEMA disaster grants from the past decade went to Republican-voting states. Republicans are working against their constituents’ best interests by trying to eliminate the agency that benefits them so much. 

What We’d All Lose

Right now, FEMA’s centralization and wide resource pool allow states to run on smaller governments than if they had to prepare for emergencies alone. Their flexible national offices are more cost-effective than every state and territory having to hire, train, and retain staff separately. Abolishing FEMA isn’t as easy as passing responsibility to the states– it would have major financial and logistical consequences that would exacerbate environmental inequalities. 

Abolishing FEMA would mean losing coordination, expertise, and logistics on a scale that state and local governments would struggle to handle alone. States would have to develop their own expertise, institutional knowledge, and stockpiles from scratch. This would likely spark bidding wars, with states competing against each other for resources and qualified disaster relief staff.

As a result, state governments would either have to raise taxes, slash essential services, ask Congress for emergency appropriations, or go without crucial resources—any option would significantly harm disaster recovery and put lives at risk. 

While states like California or New York may have the resources and infrastructure for large-scale disasters, many others don’t. Rural and poorer states lack the necessary financial resources and logistical capabilities for emergency management. This is especially true for states prone to recurring disasters, like Florida and Louisiana. Forcing them to fund and resource the rescue and clean-up efforts alone would lengthen recovery timelines, cost taxpayers more, and reduce overall disaster resilience.

To fill the gaps, the National Guard could help distribute supplies, but it isn’t designed to provide fast financial aid, housing, or long-term support. Additionally, instead of FEMA’s quick response mechanisms, Congress would have to approve federal funding after each disaster, leaving states at the mercy of congressional infighting.  

Fighting for FEMA

In 2022, FEMA responded to 500 major disaster declarations nationwide, and that number will only increase with climate change. Fortunately, Americans rank FEMA as the fifth-highest-rated U.S. government agency, and many believe FEMA will survive the calls for its closure. Federal disaster response isn’t perfect, but leaving disasters to individual states would exacerbate vulnerabilities, inefficiencies, and costs, not alleviate them. 

As the climate crisis accelerates, we need well-coordinated disaster response capabilities more than ever. Contact your Congressional representatives to vote no on H.R. 3347, the Sovereign States Emergency Management Act, that would abolish FEMA. Urge them to invest in climate resilience and improve response capabilities instead, because no one should face a catastrophe alone.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post FEMA Is Under Fire appeared first on Earth Day.

After teacher salaries, energy costs are the second largest expense to school districts. The U.S. Energy Department estimates that K-12 school districts are spending nearly $8 billion yearly to power their schools.

That’s not just a budget line – it’s a major opportunity. Beyond the initial installation cost, solar panels require minimal maintenance and are built to last 30 to 35 years, offering a long-term return on investment that can generate savings for decades. 

These savings can be redirected toward educational priorities such as hiring staff, improving facilities, upgrading technology, or expanding student programs.

Powering Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania is leading the push with the goal to power all of their public schools with solar energy. Launched in July 2024, the Solar for Schools program offers grants covering up to 50% of solar installation costs for K-12 schools, community colleges, and technical institutions. But is it enough?

This is a common issue among climate initiatives: promising beginnings that fall short when it comes to long-term support and equitable access. While partial funding is a significant step, it’s only the foundation.  

Solar use in K-12 schools has tripled over the past decade in Pennsylvania, yet as of 2024, still less than 2% of schools generate and use their own solar power – a strikingly low figure that lags well behind the national average of 11%. But this is not from lack of interest.

In Solar for Schools’ first application round, demand far exceeded expectations with 88 schools from 25 counties applying for $88 million in funding, despite only $25 million being available. This overwhelming response highlights the clear and growing interest among educational institutions to transition to clean energy, but it also underscores the funding gap. Schools are eager to participate, yet the limited availability of resources may leave many without support. 

Without a corresponding increase in investment, the enthusiasm driving this initiative risks turning into frustration, particularly for schools that have already begun planning for a solar future.

A Success Story

South Central Pennsylvania’s Carlisle Area School District (CASD) has already experienced the benefits of transitioning to solar energy and is eager to build on that progress with support from the Solar for Schools program. Between 2010-11 Bellaire Elementary, one of seven elementary schools in the district, installed hundreds of solar panels amounting to a $2 million project.

Bellaire Elementary now runs entirely on solar and has cut energy bills district-wide by 14%. During the Solar for Schools campaign, Representative Elizabeth Fiedler who sponsored the program toured Bellaire as a model for what’s possible when schools are empowered to make the switch. 

That was in April 2024, amid promises of a grant program backed by state investments ranging anywhere from $50 million to $100 million. Despite receiving bipartisan support, only $25 million ended up being allocated to the program, a figure that fell far short of early projections and the overwhelming demand from schools.

However, in March 2025 Rep. Fiedler mentioned the possibility of an additional $25 million being added to Solar for Schools in Governor Shapiro’s next budget.

It is expected that the grant recommendations will be released in May, and schools are already envisioning what they can do with the potential funding. As schools await decisions, the conversation is shifting toward what’s at stake, and what solar could make possible beyond the installations themselves.

Learning in a New Light

Carlisle is pursuing a solar project for a second school, Crestview Elementary. While they’ve already seen the financial payoff from Bellaire Elementary’s success, their motivation goes deeper than just cost savings. For Carlisle, expanding solar is part of a broader commitment to sustainability, educational innovation, and leading by example in the community.

That educational impact is already coming to life. Superintendent Dr. Colleen Friend shared that the district’s Program Supervisor for Science is especially excited to integrate the solar array into Pennsylvania’s new Science, Technology & Engineering, Environmental Literacy and Sustainability standards. 

Similarly, students are also excited about a renewable future. A memorable example involved eighth grade students taking part in a “Shark Tank”-inspired project, where they presented innovative ideas to school administrators on how to improve energy efficiency in their own school buildings.

Empowering Schools, Energizing Communities

Superintendent Dr. Friend also explains that “This would be a win at every angle you look at it.” In addition to the educational and environmental benefits, expanding solar in schools brings broader community advantages: reducing strain on local energy grids, showcasing sustainability in action, and demonstrating how schools can lead by example in addressing climate challenges.

But to turn early progress into lasting impact, consistent momentum is key. Long-term support, reliable investment, and continued public attention will be essential to ensure that clean energy has a sustainable and equitable foundation.

This year’s Earth Day theme, Our Power, Our Planet, is a powerful reminder that the shift to clean energy isn’t just about infrastructure, it’s about empowerment. When schools harness solar power, they’re not only cutting emissions, they’re planting the seeds of climate action in the minds of young people, giving communities the tools to shape their own energy future.

Ready to take the next step? Sign on to Earth Action Day to take bold, collective action for a cleaner, more sustainable planet by encouraging the switch to renewables. 

Informed communities and unstoppable communities, so whether you’re a student, educator, parent, or policymaker, you have a role to play in shaping a just future. From supporting clean energy programs to integrating climate lessons into classrooms, every action counts. Let’s power up together!

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Bright Ideas: Solar in Pennsylvania Schools Is an Investment in Learning appeared first on Earth Day.

While generating an expected $1.84 trillion in 2025 (1.6% of global GDP), the fashion industry remains almost entirely unregulated, relying on a linear model of take-make-waste that exploits the world’s finite natural resources and its labor force.  

The production of 100 billion garments damages the Earth in myriad ways. It pollutes clean air and clean water systems with toxic chemicals, contributes to global GHG emissions, fills oceans with microfibers, degrades soil, creates industrial and post-consumer waste on a gargantuan scale, destroys forests, and threatens biodiversity.  

Contemporary labor practices in the industry are referred to as a “modern day slavery” characterized by poverty wages. Only an estimated 2% of garment workers make a liveable wage, leading to malnourishment, insufficient health care, inadequate housing, and other related problems.  

Furthering the impact, according to a study by the Cornell Chronicle, if current warming trends persist, the four most exploited garment-producing countries – Bangladesh, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Vietnam — could expect a 68.8% loss in industry earnings, followed by a 34.5% employment drop, threatening a larger economic crisis for these same garment workers.  

The industry is trapped in a cyclical loop where, without regulation, fashion production grows and the negative consequences enlarge. Voluntary sustainability efforts on the part of companies or consumers are ineffective.  

But now in the U.S., legislation is emerging in various states imposing long-overdue regulations and restrictions that have the power to reshape the future of fashion. These fashion act bills signal a shift, one that acknowledges the industry’s harm and holds the potential to disrupt the enduring cycle of exploitation.  

Let’s Talk Business  

There are currently four fashion act bills that propose action in New York, Massachusetts, Washington and, most recently, California. Each bill demands environmental due diligence — a process that requires companies to identify, cease, prevent, mitigate, account for, and remediate actual and potential adverse impacts to the environment in their operations. In practice, this means corporations face obligations to disclose supply chain data, report environmental harm, and set targets to reduce their ecological impact.  

Obligating supply-chain mapping requires companies to disclose the name, address, parent company, and product type of each Tier of the supply chain — which is depicted below. This creates transparency and traceability in the production process of each garment, so that your shirts can be traced from a piece of raw cotton all the way to the clothing rack at your local mall.  

Fast Fashion Supply Chain Tier (2025-26) 

In terms of supply chains, currently New York and Massachusetts require mapping 80% of Tier 1 suppliers within 12 months by volume, 75% of Tier 2 within 2 years by volume, 50% of Tier 3 within 4 years by volume or dollar value, and 50% of Tier 4 within 6 years by volume or dollar value,  Washington ask for 50% of a company’s total supply chain activity, and California asks for reporting of 80% of Tier 1 by 2027, 75% of Tier 2 by 2028, 50% of Tier 3 by 2030, and 50% of Tier 4 by 2032. Each percentage refers to the share of total production or sourcing activity those suppliers represent.  

Companies must also adhere to OECD guidelines integrating responsible business practices into their operations including: contract renewal, longer-term contacts, price premium, providing reasonable assistance to suppliers to meet environmental standards (such as carbon reduction targets), as well as developing pricing models that account for the cost of sustainable investments. 

Failure to comply with fashion act regulations would result in significant penalties. After receiving notice of non-compliance and a three-month correction period from the Attorney General, companies may face fines of up to $15,000 per violation per day in New York, $5,000 for a first offense and $10,000 for repeat offenses in Washington, and a civil penalty of 2% of a fashion seller’s annual revenues in California and Massachusetts. 

Companies resist these policies because global economies, shaped by the industrial revolution, have become economies of scale where increased production lowers average costs. This model maximizes profits and enables brands to offer lower consumer prices to stay competitive in a saturated market, normalizing overconsumption. It’s a consistent trade-off of ethical responsibility versus capital gain, and the winner has always been clear. Requiring companies to report and trace their environmental and human rights violations threatens to upend this system, which is why the fashion acts are essential.  

This is what the fashion acts will do.  

Tailored Laws 

As the first fashion bill to be introduced, New York’s Fashion Environmental Accountability Act (S4558A/A4631A), serves as a model for other states. The Act mandates greenhouse gas emissions reporting, with establishments of quantitative baseline and reduction targets. Tier 2 dyeing, finishing, printing, and garment washing suppliers must also sample and report wastewater chemical concentrations and water usage. Reporting must also include the fashion seller’s annual volume of material produced including a breakdown by material type. 

As the model, the New York Fashion Act has set the standard for Massachusetts, Washington and California’s bills as these require the same conduct. The Acts diverge in the way they integrate with existing state policies, along with slight variation in requirements. 

Here’s how:  

Massachusetts’ An Act to Establish Environmental Accountability in the Fashion Industry (H420) mirrors the New York Fashion Act, having received input from its architect, Maxine Bédat, during the development of the legislation. This collaboration underscores the power of collective action in creating policy movements across states.   

Washington’s Washington Fashion Sustainability Act (SB5965/HB2068) emphasizes transparency by requiring companies to publish environmental due diligence online, enforcing public disclosure and incentivizing a clean manufacturing process. Other bills that support fashion regulation include establishing a producer responsibility for textiles. An Extended Producer Responsibility taxes brands for the collection, sorting and recycling of their waste through payment to a registered private collection agency to support recycling or waste management programs and cover the costs of end-of-life management. 

Washington has also proposed, Washington Transparency in Supply Chains, a bill that mandates brands that gross more than $100 million to report efforts to address human trafficking and forced labor in their supply chains.  

California’s Fashion Environmental Accountability Act of 2025 (AB405) builds on the state’s strong environmental framework, which includes the “Safer Clothes and Textile Act” and the “Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024”. The newly proposed bill incorporates greenhouse gas emission reporting on Scopes 1,2, and 3, however the act applies only to corporations with over $1 billion in revenue, unlike other states which set the threshold at $100 million.  

California also has imposed legislation set for garment workers, such as “The Garment Worker Protection Act of 2022” which served as a model for the Federal FABRIC Act, holding garment factories and corporations liable for labor violations, while banning companies from producing “at a piece rate”, which effectively prevents wage theft.  

These Fashion Acts represent immense progress, signaling a chance for revolution — they are mandating reporting and implementing restrictions on an industry which relies on exploiting marginalized communities and using the environment for profit. When passed, these bills may be the starting point for a transformation of global development.  

Your Turn to Act…  

These bills are currently in their most critical stages where the voices of the public are vital.  As headlines become echoes of the crises, words, actions, and contributions have strength and can influence the passage of these bills.   

Legislation only gains momentum through the support of the public. “There can be 5,000-6,000 bills filed every session, so it’s less about people thinking it’s a good idea, and more about it rising to the top of people’s attention levels. A lot of it is about starting a conversation and making people more aware of it,” says Kira Arnot, Chief Staff Leader to Representative David Rogers, sponsor of the Massachusetts Fashion Act.  

Reach out to your state representatives or senators and ask them to cosponsor fashion act bills — or encourage them to create one. You can also submit testimonies in support of these bills and sign petitions, such as EARTHDAY.ORG’s petition addressing the U.S. Administration. 

One of the most effective ways to contribute to these movements is through lobbying,  which entails advocating directly with lawmakers to influence their vote. Lobby days allow communities to get in front of legislators, have meetings with them, and one on one use their voice to express what they want to see change.    

Pullquote: “There’s been so much media out there about how nothing matters. In this instance it really, really does. Showing up and getting on that bus or signing that petition, does have real consequences and makes an impact. There are things that we can do, and we must do,” Bédat tells Earth Day. 

Upcoming lobby days include New York’s on May 6th where the community is encouraged to come and show their demand for the passage of the act.  

If passed, the fashion acts could become the most powerful tool to reign in an industry long left unregulated …but the future of fashion relies on you. Want more action? Sign the Fashion Industry Must Change petition.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Tailoring a Better Fashion Industry appeared first on Earth Day.

Texas leads the nation in wind-powered electricity generation, producing a staggering 28% of wind energy in the U.S. in 2023. With its ideal wind conditions and ample open space, the Lone Star state hosts over 15,300 wind turbines — the most in the country. This wind energy boom has greatly benefited communities in Texas, such as Throckmorton County, where tax revenue and investments generated by a wind farm have allowed the school district to establish a new STEM program and build new facilities.

Yet, Texas also remains the nation’s top oil and natural gas producer too, so perhaps it is not surprising that opponents of renewable energy constantly push the narrative that wind and solar are unreliable.  After the devastating Winter Storm Uri in 2021, many Conservative politicians and media outlets blamed failures in renewable energy for the blackouts that left 69% of Texans to face freezing temperatures without power. Although coal, natural gas, and nuclear-powered plants were responsible for nearly twice as much power loss as renewable energy sources, this claim has unfairly continued to fan the flames of anti-renewable sentiment in the state.

Texas Politicians Are Wary of Wind

Following Storm Uri, Governor Greg Abbott wrote a letter directing the Public Utility Commission of Texas to increase energy production from coal, natural gas, and nuclear sources, and to penalize renewable energy producers for the variability of their energy generation. He argued that these steps were necessary to ensure energy reliability and an even playing field for renewables and non-renewables.

In line with that letter, Abbott signed Senate Bill 13 into law. S.B. 13 prohibits certain state agencies from investing in companies that boycott the fossil fuel industry. Proponents of the law argue that such companies’ embrace of the environment, social, and governance framework (ESG) — in which they consider environmental impacts when choosing their investments —  has given renewable energy an undue advantage.  Of course, if we really want to discuss unfair advantages in the Texas energy industry, it is important to note that oil and gas producers enjoy generous tax breaks that excused them from paying just over $1.4 billion in 2023 alone.

At the end of August this year, the American Sustainable Business Council sued the state over this law, arguing that it is unconstitutional. The outcome of this suit — and thus the fate of Senate Bill 13 — remains to be seen.

Continuing to ride the wave of doubt about the reliability of renewable energy, legislators passed Senate Bill 2627 in 2023. This establishes a program to provide low-interest loans and grants to facilities that produce energy from nonrenewable sources such as coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. Renewable sources like wind are ineligible to receive funding from this program, which seems to be shamelessly giving nonrenewables a leg up.

These crackdowns on renewable energy come as wind electricity generation employs over 27,000 Texans and has the potential to generate $20.3 million in tax revenue for Texas counties.

Why then, are these politicians so vehemently opposed to wind energy? Unsurprisingly, the answer lies in the power of the fossil fuel industry.

Blowing Hot Air: Fossil Fuel Interests Lead The Opposition

The state’s growing hostility toward renewables is due in large part to the efforts of organizations that heavily promote fossil fuels. One of the most notable of these is the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a non-profit organization based in Austin.

Several members of TPPF’s board of directors hold top leadership positions within the fossil fuel industry, such as Chairman Kyle Stallings, the founder and CEO of the oil and gas investment company, Desert Royalty Company, and Tim Dunn, the CEO of CrownQuest Operating, a natural gas and oil company. Moreover, some members of its board are among the largest political donors in the state, including Dunn, who has contributed over $18 million to conservative candidates and political action committees. 

With TPPF’s close ties to the fossil fuel industry and conservative politicians, it enjoys substantial influence over the state’s energy policies, even, as reported in The Guardian, directly crafting and editing anti-renewable legislation.

In addition to targeting politicians, TPPF also tries to sway public opinion against renewables. For instance, they published a paper furthering the false claim that unreliable renewables were responsible for the blackouts during Storm Uri, asserted that decarbonization is unnecessary and economically harmful, and even went so far as to publish an AI-generated picture of a dead whale in front of wind turbines, despite there being no evidence of offshore wind farms killing whales. This kind of misinformation and fear-mongering is detrimental to public support for wind energy.

But Wait, There’s More!

Even if a wind project overcomes these formidable challenges and its turbines are ready to start spinning, the battle is not over yet. The electricity generated from these turbines still needs a way to reach consumers — something that is not as simple as it may sound.

Wind farms are typically located in rural areas with a lower population density and lots of available land, while most of the electricity demand is in densely populated and industry-heavy areas. Transmission lines are needed to bridge this gap. 

In 2013, Texas completed its construction of a network of over 3,500 miles of high-voltage transmission lines to carry wind power to population centers. However, the state’s transmission capacity remains far behind its renewable energy generation and wind turbines produce more electricity than the grid can accommodate.

Yes, you heard that right. Wind — the so-called “unreliable” energy source — is producing a surplus of electricity.

The grid is designed to transmit electricity at a frequency of 60 hertz (Hz), which means the current alternates 60 times per second. This frequency is crucial for maintaining the stability of the grid. When electricity generation exceeds demand, the grid can become overloaded. This excess can cause the frequency to rise above 60 Hz. If the frequency rises too much, it can destabilize the grid and potentially lead to blackouts.

To prevent this, electricity producers (like power plants) might need to reduce their output, a process known as “curtailment.” By cutting back on how much electricity they generate, they help keep the frequency stable and ensure that supply matches demand, preventing potential disruptions to the grid. In short, maintaining that 60 Hz is key to a reliable electricity supply, and curtailment is one tool used to manage it effectively.

In 2022, Texas had to reduce its wind energy production by 5% because the transmission lines — essentially the pathways that carry electricity — couldn’t handle all the electricity being generated. As a result, some of that clean, renewable energy wasn’t used and by 2035, curtailment is expected to more than double. Each time wind energy is curtailed and producers are forced to operate below their full capacity, it is a lost opportunity to utilize clean energy in the nation’s largest energy-consuming state.

Wind curtailment can be significantly reduced by transmission expansion. According to the Department of Energy, Texas will need to increase its transmission capacity by 140% by 2035 to accommodate clean energy growth. This presents a great challenge, as building new transmission infrastructure can take 3-6 years. Without immediate action to address this issue, transmission lines will remain a critical barrier to the full deployment of the state’s wind energy resources.

The other solution is investing in energy storage systems to store excess electricity for later use, and enhancing demand response programs that incentivize consumers to shift their usage during peak times. Additionally, diversifying energy sources by incorporating solar and other renewables, modernizing the grid for better flexibility, and enacting supportive policies and regulations would facilitate the effective integration of renewable energy. Together, these strategies can help Texas fully utilize its abundant wind resources.

Renewable Energy Needs Your Support

The problems facing wind energy in Texas are not unique. Across the United States, renewable energy is under attack from fossil fuel-backed legislators and interest groups, and insufficient transmission infrastructure prevents wind energy from being used at its full potential. These delays to the clean energy transition threaten our health, environment, and future.

What can you do about it? Make your voice heard! If you live in the U.S., write your state lawmakers and tell them to invest in renewable energy projects. 

The theme for Earth Day 2025 is Our Power, Our Planet. Find out how you can get involved in the global movement for clean energy.

Together, we can fight for a renewable-powered future.

The post The War on Wind Rages in Texas appeared first on Earth Day.

Vermont just passed a trailblazing climate policy, calling out the fossil fuel industry and laying the foundation for more states to follow in their footsteps.

The Vermont Superfund Act is inspired by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Superfund program, and they share more than just a name. The EPA’s program provides the agency with the authority and funds to clean up hazardous waste sites. It was created in 1980 in response to national attention and outrage concerning the environmental and human health threats of contaminated sites. These sites include processing facilities, mining sites, and processing plants where hazardous waste was dumped, left out, or mismanaged. One of the most significant aspects of this superfund program is that it forces the parties responsible for pollution to fund the restoration and clean up of their toxic waste sites.  

Similarly, the recently passed Vermont Superfund Act aims to ensure companies responsible for intensifying the impacts of climate change are also the ones responsible for contributing to adaptive efforts and resilient infrastructure. This is a polluter-pays principle, which ensures the financial burden caused by environmental degradation falls on those who created it, rather than those living with it, ie. taxpayers. 

In July 2023, when Vermont endured record-breaking rainfall, cities like Montpelier saw both the most rainfall in a calendar day with 5.28 inches pouring down and their wettest month ever with the 12.06 inches they received breaking the previous record from 1989 by a whole 2 inches.  

FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell stated “It takes just 6 inches of water for someone to be wiped off their feet, and in that water, we see a lot of debris. We see downed power lines. We see things that can cause additional damage.” 

This intense precipitation culminated in flooding that devastated many homes, roads, and businesses throughout Vermont. The state reported 4,087 homes and 839 businesses damaged by the flooding and storm in total cost the Northeast about 2.2 billion dollars. The worst hit cities in Vermont saw their lively downtown districts turned into watery ghost towns, with only an occasional canoe paddling through the streets. 

The warming temperature and increased precipitation is threatening other aspects of Vermonters’ way of life and identity as well. The Green Mountain state’s 1.6 billion dollar ski industry is suffering from the changing climate and even facing extinction. Despite the snowfall this past year reporting 15 inches above the 10-year average, snowstorms were often followed by warm weather and rain that melted the snow and ruined the conditions for the ski slopes. The Vermont Climate Assessment predicts that Vermont’s ski season could be shortened by 2 weeks to a month, and even with snowmaking, the downhill skiing sector will only remain viable until 2050. 

Taking Action

 The Vermont Superfund Act will require agencies involved in the fossil fuel industry between the years 2000-2019 to pay for the cost of recovering from and preparing for these extreme weather events. 

The “agencies” the bill targets are identified as any individual, corporation, municipality, or other legal organization that holds an interest in a fossil fuel business during the previously mentioned 19-year time period that is contributing to the greenhouse gas related costs in Vermont. 

The amount the Superfund Act will require each agency to pay will be determined by their share of the fossil fuel extraction or refinement that is impacting Vermont’s climate. Using the EPA’s Emissions Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Vermont will be able to determine the fossil fuels and therefore greenhouse gas emissions attributable to each agency. Approximately 8,000 facilities are already required to use this system to annually report their emissions to the EPA. 

The bill will also rely on Attribution Science, which has enabled researchers for the last 20 years to model the degree to which human behavior has contributed to severe weather. Andrew Parish, the vice president of a non profit conducting attribution science research, Climate Central, claims “We’re able to say very clearly, ‘We would not be experiencing these intense global temperatures without human-caused climate change and the history of carbon pollution,’” 

Those in Favor and Those Opposed

The bill passed with a super, veto-proof majority through the Vermont legislature and was heavily supported by nonprofit and conservation agencies. The Republican Governor of Vermont, Phil Scott, let the bill become a law without his signature. While he acknowledged the need to mitigate the environmental devastation being felt in the state, he advised caution in how to go about it: “Taking on ‘Big Oil’,” he said, “should not be taken lightly.” Scott fears the bill will undergo thorough examination from a wealthy defense eager to find any holes or weak spots. This could not only kill the Vermont Superfund act, but stunt the process of other similar bills being considered in other states. 

These worries are substantiated by the American Petroleum Institute’s unsurprisingly heavy opposition to the Superfund Act. The lobbying group wrote a letter to the Vermont legislature, stating their opinion that the bill unfairly blames fossil fuel companies for activities that go back decades and create energy the economy depends on. By maintaining that these climate issues are the result of “society at large,” they hope to strengthen their argument that the legislation is possibly unconstitutional and once again blame consumers. 

Won the Battle But Not the War

Despite these threats, the Vermont attorney general stated “The science linking climate change to severe weather damage is robust enough to withstand scrutiny,” affirming her readiness to defend the law and echoing confidence in attribution science. All eyes will be watching this process; it is vital this law be deemed constitutional by the courts, otherwise all the momentum and accomplishment of passing this Superfund Act will have been for nothing. 

Many other states such as Massachusetts, New York, and Maryland are looking to pass similar legislation. If Vermont’s Superfund Act can be established and workable, it has the power to create change that will reach far beyond the Green Mountains. Vermont is in a position now to help establish a legal sense of accountability for those exacerbating the already detrimental impacts of climate change, by forcing harmful corporations to put their money where their actions have been.

The post Vermont’s Superfund Act Leads by Example appeared first on Earth Day.