Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

What Will Happen If This Iconic Research Vessel Stops Drilling in the Deep Sea?

News Feed
Wednesday, July 24, 2024

The JOIDES Resolution in 2012 off the coast of Costa Rica, on an expedition to understand how earthquakes form Arito Sakaguchi & IODP/TAMU via Wikimedia Commons In July 2022, a football-sized, soft-sided UPS package from Germany arrived in my office mail room at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I was expecting the package, but I was surprised at just how insubstantial it seemed. I thought a firm cardboard box or container reinforced with foam padding would arrive. After all, it contained 89 sediment samples that I’d need to carefully analyze to find out about the past behavior of continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere. The sediment samples were quite valuable because of the cost of collecting them, but they were free to me as part of an international effort to learn more about the workings of our planet. These particular samples came from a deep-sea sediment core drilled out of the ocean floor in 2004 in the Labrador Sea, between Greenland and Canada, by the JOIDES Resolution, a specialized deep-sea scientific drilling ship run by the U.S.-led International Ocean Discovery Program. Deep-sea scientific drilling is the process of retrieving cores, cylindrical tubes about 2.5 inches in diameter of both soft sediment and solid rock, from the material that makes up the ocean floor. On the JOIDES Resolution, or J.R., as scientists who work on the ship call it, computer-controlled thrusters hold a precise position on choppy waves. Meanwhile, the crew assembles 30-foot sections of metal pipes into a long tube capped with a drill bit until it reaches the seabed. Once the structure contacts the ocean floor, the team sends hollow plastic tubes down the pipe, which fill with sediment and rock as the drilling commences. The J.R. can drill in water up to about three and a half miles deep and then over a mile into the seafloor. JR In a Minute Core Drilling Onboard, teams of scientists working 12-hour shifts in the J.R.’s laboratories split open the tubes and begin to analyze the cores right away. Carl Brenner, who coordinates U.S. involvement in international scientific drilling efforts, says the scientists “descend on them like piranhas.” After the J.R. docks following an expedition, the crew sends the cores to one of three international repositories—in Germany, Texas and Japan. Once the scientists on the expedition get the samples they need for their research, technicians archive the cores. Then, researchers can request pieces of a core, and approved samples are mailed out, like those that I received a couple years ago. Unfortunately, the J.R.’s funding is expiring, and the ship won’t be drilling any new cores after this year for the International Ocean Discovery Program. While the ship’s exact future is uncertain, scientists will likely have to turn to new sources of deep-sea samples for their work. The JOIDES Resolution set sail on its first expedition to collect scientific samples from the deep seafloor in January 1985. Since then, the J.R. has sailed on 194 expeditions, drilled at over 1,000 sites, and collected almost 250 miles of sediment and rock cores from beneath the seabed. From those samples, scientists have confirmed the theory of plate tectonics, unraveled millions of years of Earth’s climatic history and found life in unexpected places. “I always point out that journal Nature called it arguably the most successful international science collaboration of all time,” says Brenner, “and I think I think that’s a fair assessment.” But, with domestic funding and international partnerships both dwindling, the J.R.’s current expedition in the Arctic Ocean will be its last as the flagship of the International Ocean Discovery Program. The unexpected end comes years ahead of the scheduled expiration of the ship’s environmental impact statement, which offered a clean bill of health for the vessel until 2028. “Many in the community were sort of shocked by that decision,” says Maureen Walczak, a paleoceanographer at Oregon State University. “We sort of all assumed that it would continue to be supported through the end of that environmental impact statement.” With no workhorse vessel to anchor the U.S.-led scientific seafloor drilling mission for at least the next 10 to 15 years, the future of the program is uncertain. Not since the Nixon administration kicked off the International Decade of Ocean Exploration for the 1970s has the U.S. been without a flagship drill ship. Nick Pisias, a retired oceanographer at Oregon State University who sailed on his first scientific drilling expedition on the J.R.’s predecessor and served as head of the drilling program in the late 1990s, says the decision to dock the J.R. leaves the scientists who work with deep-sea samples in the lurch. “What would happen if you took all the observatories away from the astronomers?” he asks. “The impact of the drilling program to the earth science community has been huge.” If the J.R. does not somehow gain new life, researchers will still have access to other, smaller drill ships. But the unique capabilities of the J.R. cannot currently be replicated by any other vessels. When the J.R. became the primary vessel of U.S. deep-sea scientific drilling in the mid-1980s, the field had already been developing for several decades. In 1961, the writer John Steinbeck sailed aboard the first major U.S. scientific drilling operation, called Project Mohole. The CUSS I, filled with scientists and technicians, drilled about 600 feet into the ocean floor near Guadalupe Island in the Pacific Ocean. For the first time, scientists penetrated the soft sediments that blanket the seabed and into the solid crust that lies beneath it. Samples taken during that groundbreaking discovery are now held in the collection of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. This accomplishment proved scientific drilling could be successful, and in 1966 the National Science Foundation signed a contract to fund the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego to lead U.S. drilling efforts. This program, called the Deep Sea Drilling Project, was carried out aboard the Glomar Challenger. The Challenger made its first scientific sojourn in fall 1968. On its third expedition, in spring 1970, it confirmed a then paradigm-shifting understanding of how the Earth works: the theory of plate tectonics. At the time, only indirect measurements of the ocean floor supported the now common idea that new ocean crust was created at mid-ocean ridges, pushing the continents apart and leading to the processes that create deep ocean trenches, volcanoes and mountains. But, says Brenner, the samples collected through deep-sea drilling in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean directly showed the planet’s surface was made of tectonic plates that split apart, grinded against each other, and dramatically collided. “It wasn’t until we actually drilled those sediments,” he says, “that it was proven.” The Challenger made its final voyage as the United States’ primary drill ship in November 1983. By that time, drilling technology had improved to the point that it made sense to upgrade to a larger, more advanced platform­—the JOIDES Resolution—in 1985. The J.R. drilled deeper than the Challenger, and it didn’t churn up the sediment and its original structure. Since ocean sediments settle to the bottom of the sea in layers, newer sediment buries and preserves older material. These layers contain information about what conditions were like in the atmosphere, on land and in the ocean. These advances in deep-sea scientific research have allowed scientists to reconstruct a clear image of the history of the planet’s climate going back millions of years. “The wealth of information you can get from [deep-sea scientific drilling] is incomparable to anything else,” says Walczak. A drill bit from the J.R. The bit surrounds the hole where deep-sea cores are collected and retrieved through a pipe. UCL Mathematical & Physical Sciences from London, UK via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY 2.0 Walczak knows the value of the J.R.’s capabilities based on personal experience. In the late 2000s, Walczak was working on her PhD analyzing a 40-foot-long sediment core taken from the Gulf of Alaska by another ship. The core was just a fraction of the depth of sample the J.R. could extract from the seabed. She used samples from that core to reveal new details about how the western United States and Canada responded to the warming at the end of the last ice age. The sample allowed her to look back 15,000 years. Then, in 2013, Walczak sailed as a scientist on the J.R. The expedition returned to the site of the smaller core, with the goal of going even deeper down in the seafloor and thus further back in time. Almost immediately after the drill reached the seabed at the site, the crew pulled up the first of many sections of core. Already, they’d drilled as deep as the entire core Walczak previously worked with. “Then they shot another core, and then another core, and then another core, and they just brought up 90 to 100 meters of seafloor, and all of it was unexplored,” Walczak says, “it kind of blew my mind.” The crew drilled deep enough at that site to get about 50,000 years of high-resolution information about the climate and history of the mountainous areas of North America that drain to the Gulf of Alaska.And the J.R. has been the vessel for discoveries far beyond those tied to understanding the Earth’s past climate. Over the course of the ship’s journeys, scientists have unexpectedly found living microbes buried under almost a mile of sediment, gained insights into origins of life at hydrothermal vents, found direct evidence of the impact crater from the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs, and discovered data to help better predict coastal earthquakes and tsunamis. Nevertheless, a funding shortfall is making the continuation of the program in its current form untenable. Currently the U.S., through the National Science Foundation (NSF), contributes about $48 million each year to the J.R., which costs $72 million annually to operate. The remainder is supposed to be made up by international partners. The problem, says Brenner, “is that their contributions have been declining, and so NSF can’t afford to do it on its own.” Last year the National Science Foundation decided to end the agreement that funds the scientific use of the privately owned J.R., making the current expedition its last for the program. “For want of a few tens of millions of dollars,” says Brenner, “it’s a painful loss.” Lauren Haygood, a doctoral candidate at Oklahoma State University, planned to be onboard the J.R. for this voyage. Unfortunately, a last-minute illness forced her to get off the ship just before it left port. But she’s still actively involved in the research and working closely with those onboard. She says the scientists involved with this expedition are acutely aware it will be the last for this program—though whether the vessel could continue somehow in another arrangement, at least through the expiration of its environmental impact statement in 2028, is unknown. What the plan for deep-sea scientific drilling for American scientists will look like in the future isn’t yet clear. Brenner says the National Science Foundation plans to continue supporting different forms of scientific drilling at the same level, $48 million, in the short term. In the long term, conversations about funding the creation of a new, replacement vessel for the U.S. scientific community are ongoing. “You’re talking 12 to 15 years for something like that,” Brenner says. “We can’t afford to wait that long to acquire new core. We need to figure out a way to keep the momentum.” Without a dedicated vessel, like the J.R., researchers will contract other, smaller, research vessels on an individual basis. “Hopefully, as many as two or three a year if the money goes that far,” Brenner says. But these ships won’t have the full suite of onboard scientific laboratories boasted by the J.R. Both Brenner and Walczak stress that scientists are going to get creative and develop new technologies that enhance the capabilities of sampling the depths of the seafloor. They point toward the development of robotic seafloor landers that might be able to drill in hard-to-reach places. Other scientists, like me, will turn to the vast archives of cores retrieved by the J.R. to ply them for answers. In the meantime, in a world with a changing climate spurred by the burning of fossil fuels, Walczak says, understanding how the Earth responded in the past to abrupt climate change by looking at deep-sea sediments is more important than ever. This crucial expedition of the J.R. illustrates her point­. The goal is to gather evidence of past ice sheet retreat in the Arctic in hopes it will help us better understand the glaciers currently melting in Antarctica. “That could give us more insight into sea level rise and climate,” says Haygood, “and what might happen in the future.” Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

After a career marked by major discoveries, the JOIDES Resolution is likely on its last official mission to retrieve rock cores from the ocean floor

JOIDES Resolution
The JOIDES Resolution in 2012 off the coast of Costa Rica, on an expedition to understand how earthquakes form Arito Sakaguchi & IODP/TAMU via Wikimedia Commons

In July 2022, a football-sized, soft-sided UPS package from Germany arrived in my office mail room at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I was expecting the package, but I was surprised at just how insubstantial it seemed. I thought a firm cardboard box or container reinforced with foam padding would arrive. After all, it contained 89 sediment samples that I’d need to carefully analyze to find out about the past behavior of continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere.

The sediment samples were quite valuable because of the cost of collecting them, but they were free to me as part of an international effort to learn more about the workings of our planet. These particular samples came from a deep-sea sediment core drilled out of the ocean floor in 2004 in the Labrador Sea, between Greenland and Canada, by the JOIDES Resolution, a specialized deep-sea scientific drilling ship run by the U.S.-led International Ocean Discovery Program.

Deep-sea scientific drilling is the process of retrieving cores, cylindrical tubes about 2.5 inches in diameter of both soft sediment and solid rock, from the material that makes up the ocean floor.

On the JOIDES Resolution, or J.R., as scientists who work on the ship call it, computer-controlled thrusters hold a precise position on choppy waves. Meanwhile, the crew assembles 30-foot sections of metal pipes into a long tube capped with a drill bit until it reaches the seabed. Once the structure contacts the ocean floor, the team sends hollow plastic tubes down the pipe, which fill with sediment and rock as the drilling commences.

The J.R. can drill in water up to about three and a half miles deep and then over a mile into the seafloor.

JR In a Minute Core Drilling

Onboard, teams of scientists working 12-hour shifts in the J.R.’s laboratories split open the tubes and begin to analyze the cores right away. Carl Brenner, who coordinates U.S. involvement in international scientific drilling efforts, says the scientists “descend on them like piranhas.”

After the J.R. docks following an expedition, the crew sends the cores to one of three international repositories—in Germany, Texas and Japan. Once the scientists on the expedition get the samples they need for their research, technicians archive the cores. Then, researchers can request pieces of a core, and approved samples are mailed out, like those that I received a couple years ago.

Unfortunately, the J.R.’s funding is expiring, and the ship won’t be drilling any new cores after this year for the International Ocean Discovery Program. While the ship’s exact future is uncertain, scientists will likely have to turn to new sources of deep-sea samples for their work.


The JOIDES Resolution set sail on its first expedition to collect scientific samples from the deep seafloor in January 1985. Since then, the J.R. has sailed on 194 expeditions, drilled at over 1,000 sites, and collected almost 250 miles of sediment and rock cores from beneath the seabed.

From those samples, scientists have confirmed the theory of plate tectonics, unraveled millions of years of Earth’s climatic history and found life in unexpected places.

“I always point out that journal Nature called it arguably the most successful international science collaboration of all time,” says Brenner, “and I think I think that’s a fair assessment.”

But, with domestic funding and international partnerships both dwindling, the J.R.’s current expedition in the Arctic Ocean will be its last as the flagship of the International Ocean Discovery Program.

The unexpected end comes years ahead of the scheduled expiration of the ship’s environmental impact statement, which offered a clean bill of health for the vessel until 2028. “Many in the community were sort of shocked by that decision,” says Maureen Walczak, a paleoceanographer at Oregon State University. “We sort of all assumed that it would continue to be supported through the end of that environmental impact statement.”

With no workhorse vessel to anchor the U.S.-led scientific seafloor drilling mission for at least the next 10 to 15 years, the future of the program is uncertain. Not since the Nixon administration kicked off the International Decade of Ocean Exploration for the 1970s has the U.S. been without a flagship drill ship.

Nick Pisias, a retired oceanographer at Oregon State University who sailed on his first scientific drilling expedition on the J.R.’s predecessor and served as head of the drilling program in the late 1990s, says the decision to dock the J.R. leaves the scientists who work with deep-sea samples in the lurch. “What would happen if you took all the observatories away from the astronomers?” he asks. “The impact of the drilling program to the earth science community has been huge.” If the J.R. does not somehow gain new life, researchers will still have access to other, smaller drill ships. But the unique capabilities of the J.R. cannot currently be replicated by any other vessels.

When the J.R. became the primary vessel of U.S. deep-sea scientific drilling in the mid-1980s, the field had already been developing for several decades. In 1961, the writer John Steinbeck sailed aboard the first major U.S. scientific drilling operation, called Project Mohole. The CUSS I, filled with scientists and technicians, drilled about 600 feet into the ocean floor near Guadalupe Island in the Pacific Ocean. For the first time, scientists penetrated the soft sediments that blanket the seabed and into the solid crust that lies beneath it. Samples taken during that groundbreaking discovery are now held in the collection of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History.

This accomplishment proved scientific drilling could be successful, and in 1966 the National Science Foundation signed a contract to fund the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego to lead U.S. drilling efforts. This program, called the Deep Sea Drilling Project, was carried out aboard the Glomar Challenger.

The Challenger made its first scientific sojourn in fall 1968. On its third expedition, in spring 1970, it confirmed a then paradigm-shifting understanding of how the Earth works: the theory of plate tectonics. At the time, only indirect measurements of the ocean floor supported the now common idea that new ocean crust was created at mid-ocean ridges, pushing the continents apart and leading to the processes that create deep ocean trenches, volcanoes and mountains.

But, says Brenner, the samples collected through deep-sea drilling in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean directly showed the planet’s surface was made of tectonic plates that split apart, grinded against each other, and dramatically collided. “It wasn’t until we actually drilled those sediments,” he says, “that it was proven.”

The Challenger made its final voyage as the United States’ primary drill ship in November 1983. By that time, drilling technology had improved to the point that it made sense to upgrade to a larger, more advanced platform­—the JOIDES Resolution—in 1985.

The J.R. drilled deeper than the Challenger, and it didn’t churn up the sediment and its original structure. Since ocean sediments settle to the bottom of the sea in layers, newer sediment buries and preserves older material. These layers contain information about what conditions were like in the atmosphere, on land and in the ocean.

These advances in deep-sea scientific research have allowed scientists to reconstruct a clear image of the history of the planet’s climate going back millions of years. “The wealth of information you can get from [deep-sea scientific drilling] is incomparable to anything else,” says Walczak.

DeepSea Drill Bit
A drill bit from the J.R. The bit surrounds the hole where deep-sea cores are collected and retrieved through a pipe. UCL Mathematical & Physical Sciences from London, UK via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY 2.0

Walczak knows the value of the J.R.’s capabilities based on personal experience. In the late 2000s, Walczak was working on her PhD analyzing a 40-foot-long sediment core taken from the Gulf of Alaska by another ship. The core was just a fraction of the depth of sample the J.R. could extract from the seabed. She used samples from that core to reveal new details about how the western United States and Canada responded to the warming at the end of the last ice age. The sample allowed her to look back 15,000 years.

Then, in 2013, Walczak sailed as a scientist on the J.R. The expedition returned to the site of the smaller core, with the goal of going even deeper down in the seafloor and thus further back in time. Almost immediately after the drill reached the seabed at the site, the crew pulled up the first of many sections of core. Already, they’d drilled as deep as the entire core Walczak previously worked with.

“Then they shot another core, and then another core, and then another core, and they just brought up 90 to 100 meters of seafloor, and all of it was unexplored,” Walczak says, “it kind of blew my mind.”

The crew drilled deep enough at that site to get about 50,000 years of high-resolution information about the climate and history of the mountainous areas of North America that drain to the Gulf of Alaska.

And the J.R. has been the vessel for discoveries far beyond those tied to understanding the Earth’s past climate. Over the course of the ship’s journeys, scientists have unexpectedly found living microbes buried under almost a mile of sediment, gained insights into origins of life at hydrothermal vents, found direct evidence of the impact crater from the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs, and discovered data to help better predict coastal earthquakes and tsunamis. Nevertheless, a funding shortfall is making the continuation of the program in its current form untenable.

Currently the U.S., through the National Science Foundation (NSF), contributes about $48 million each year to the J.R., which costs $72 million annually to operate. The remainder is supposed to be made up by international partners. The problem, says Brenner, “is that their contributions have been declining, and so NSF can’t afford to do it on its own.”

Last year the National Science Foundation decided to end the agreement that funds the scientific use of the privately owned J.R., making the current expedition its last for the program. “For want of a few tens of millions of dollars,” says Brenner, “it’s a painful loss.”

Lauren Haygood, a doctoral candidate at Oklahoma State University, planned to be onboard the J.R. for this voyage. Unfortunately, a last-minute illness forced her to get off the ship just before it left port. But she’s still actively involved in the research and working closely with those onboard. She says the scientists involved with this expedition are acutely aware it will be the last for this program—though whether the vessel could continue somehow in another arrangement, at least through the expiration of its environmental impact statement in 2028, is unknown.

What the plan for deep-sea scientific drilling for American scientists will look like in the future isn’t yet clear. Brenner says the National Science Foundation plans to continue supporting different forms of scientific drilling at the same level, $48 million, in the short term.

In the long term, conversations about funding the creation of a new, replacement vessel for the U.S. scientific community are ongoing. “You’re talking 12 to 15 years for something like that,” Brenner says. “We can’t afford to wait that long to acquire new core. We need to figure out a way to keep the momentum.”

Without a dedicated vessel, like the J.R., researchers will contract other, smaller, research vessels on an individual basis. “Hopefully, as many as two or three a year if the money goes that far,” Brenner says. But these ships won’t have the full suite of onboard scientific laboratories boasted by the J.R.

Both Brenner and Walczak stress that scientists are going to get creative and develop new technologies that enhance the capabilities of sampling the depths of the seafloor. They point toward the development of robotic seafloor landers that might be able to drill in hard-to-reach places. Other scientists, like me, will turn to the vast archives of cores retrieved by the J.R. to ply them for answers.

In the meantime, in a world with a changing climate spurred by the burning of fossil fuels, Walczak says, understanding how the Earth responded in the past to abrupt climate change by looking at deep-sea sediments is more important than ever.

This crucial expedition of the J.R. illustrates her point­. The goal is to gather evidence of past ice sheet retreat in the Arctic in hopes it will help us better understand the glaciers currently melting in Antarctica. “That could give us more insight into sea level rise and climate,” says Haygood, “and what might happen in the future.”

Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Tour operator Intrepid drops carbon offsets and emissions targets

Firm will instead invest A$2m a year in ‘climate impact fund’ supporting renewables and switching to EVsOne of the travel industry’s most environmentally focused tour operators, Intrepid, is scrapping carbon offsets and abandoning its emissions targets as unreachable.The Australian-headquartered global travel company said it will instead invest A$2m a year in an audited “climate impact fund” supporting immediate practical measures such as switching to electric vehicles and investing in renewable energy. Continue reading...

One of the travel industry’s most environmentally focused tour operators, Intrepid, is scrapping carbon offsets and abandoning its emissions targets as unreachable.The Australian-headquartered global travel company said it will instead invest A$2m a year in an audited “climate impact fund” supporting immediate practical measures such as switching to electric vehicles and investing in renewable energy.Intrepid, which specialises in small group tours, said it was stopping carbon offsets and “stepping away” from the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), after having committed to 2030 goals monitored by the climate-certification organisation five years ago.In an open letter to staff, the Intrepid co-founder and chair, Darrell Wade, and the chief executive, James Thornton, told staff: “Intrepid, and frankly the entire travel industry, is not on track to achieve a 1.5C future, and more urgent action is required if we are to get even close.”While Intrepid’s brand focuses on the low impact of its group tours, it has long conceded that its bigger footprint is the flights its customers take to reach them, with Wade also admitting two years ago that its offsets were “not credible”.The letter blamed governments that “failed to act on ambitious policies on renewable energy or sustainable aviation fuels that support the scale of change that is required”, adding: “We are not comfortable maintaining a target that we know we won’t meet.”Thornton said the change should build trust through transparency rather than losing customers by admitting its climate pledges had not worked. He told the Guardian: “We were the first global tour operator to adopt a science-based target through the SBTi and now we’re owning the fact that it’s not working for us. We’ve always been real and transparent, which is how we build trust.”He said the fund and a new target to cut the “carbon intensity” of each trip had been developed by climate scientists and would be verified by independent auditors.Part of that attempt would be to reduce the number of long-haul flights taken by customers, Thornton said, by prioritising domestic and short-haul trips, and offering more flight-free itineraries and walking or trekking tours.Environmental campaigners have long dismissed offsets and focused on cutting flying. Dr Douglas Parr, the Greenpeace UK chief scientist, said offsetting schemes had allowed “airlines and other big polluters to falsely claim green credentials while continuing to pump out emissions”.He said Greenpeace backed a frequent flyer levy, with a first flight each year tax-free to avoid taxing an annual family holiday but rising steeply with subsequent flights to deter “the binge flyers who are the main engine of growth for UK flights”.Intrepid’s Thornton said he saw “first-hand how important meaningful climate action is to our founders and owners, who see it as part of their legacy”, but added: “We need to be honest with ourselves that travel is not sustainable in its current format and anything suggesting otherwise is greenwashing.”

Trump’s coal bailout won’t solve the data center power crunch

The Trump administration is spending more than half a billion dollars to help prop up the dying coal industry. It’s also weakening pollution regulations and opening up more federal land to coal mining. All of this isn’t likely to save the industry—and also isn’t likely to do much to meet the surging demand for power from data centers for AI. Coal power is expensive, and that isn’t going to change Aging coal power plants are now so expensive to run that hundreds have retired over the last decade, including around 100 that retired or made plans to retire during Trump’s first term. Offering relatively small subsidies isn’t likely to change the long-term trend. “I don’t think it’s going to change the underlying economics,” says Michelle Solomon, a manager in the electricity program at the think tank Energy Innovation. “The reasons why coal has increased in cost will continue to be fundamentally true.” The cost of coal power grew 28% between 2021 and 2024, or more than double the rate of inflation. One reason is age: the average coal power plant in the U.S. is around 50 years old, and they aren’t designed to last much longer. Because renewable energy is cheaper, and regulation is likely to ramp up in the future, investors don’t see building new coal power plants as viable. But trying to keep outdated plants running also doesn’t make economic sense. The new funding can’t go very far. The Department of Energy plans to spend $625 million on coal projects, including $350 million to recommission and retrofit old plants. Another $25 million is set aside for retrofitting coal plants with natural gas co-firing systems. But that type of project can cost hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars for a single plant. (The $25 million, presumably, might only cover planning or a small pilot.) Other retrofits might only extend the life of a power plant by a few years. Because the plants will continue to be expensive to run, some power plant owners may not think the subsidies are worth it. Utilities want to move on If coal power plants keep running past their retirement age, even with some retrofits, costs keep going up for consumers. “That’s something that you really see in states that continue to rely on coal for a big part of their electricity mix,” says Solomon. “Like Kentucky and West Virginia, who have had their cost for power increase at some of the fastest rates in the country.” In Michigan, earlier this year, the DOE forced a coal power plant to stay open after it was scheduled to retire. The DOE cited an “emergency,” though neither the grid operator nor the utility said that there were power supply issues; the planned retirement of the plant included building new sources of energy to replace it. The utility reported to the SEC that within the first 38 days, alone, it spent $29 million to keep the plant running. (The emergency order is still in place, and being challenged by multiple lawsuits.) The extra expense shows up on consumers’ bills. One report estimates that by 2028, efforts to keep large power plants from retiring could cost consumers more than $3 billion a year. Utilities have long acknowledged the reality that there are less expensive energy sources. In the first Trump administration, in 2018, utilities resisted Trump’s attempts to use emergency powers to keep uneconomic coal plants open. When utilities plan to retire a power plant, there’s a long planning process. Plants begin making decision to defer maintenance that would otherwise be necessary. And many won’t want to reverse their decisions. It’s true that demand for power from data centers has led some utilities to keep coal plants online longer—and electric bills are already soaring in areas near large data centers. But Trump’s incentives may not make much difference for others. The last coal plant in New England just shut down years early, despite the current outlook for data centers. “Utilities do have to take a long-term view,” says Lori Bird, director of the U.S. energy program at the nonprofit World Resources Institute. “They’re doing multi-year planning. So they consider the durability and economic viability of these assets over the longer term. They have not been economic, and they’re also the highest-emitting greenhouse gas facilities.” Even if the Trump administration has rolled back environmental regulations, she says, future administrations could reverse that; continuing to use coal is a risky proposition. In most states, utilities also have to comply with renewable power goals. There are better solutions It’s true that the U.S. needs more power generation, quickly. It’s not clear exactly how much new electricity will be needed—some of that will depend on how much AI is a bubble and how much tech companies can shrink their power usage at data centers. But the nonprofit Rewiring America calculated that data centers that are under construction or in planning could add 93 gigawatts of electricity demand to the U.S. grid by the end of the decade. The nonprofit argues that some or even all of that new capacity could be covered by rooftop solar and batteries at homes. Cheap utility-scale renewable power plants could obviously also help, though the Trump administration is actively fighting them. Battery storage can help provide 24/7 energy. One analysis of a retiring coal plant in Maryland found that it would be less expensive to replace it with batteries and transmission upgrades than to keep it running. Temporarily saving a handful of coal power plants won’t cover the new power needs. It would add to air pollution, water pollution, and climate pollution. And it would significantly push up power bills when consumers are already struggling. Real support for an “energy emergency” would include faster permitting and other work to accelerate building affordable renewable energy, experts say. “Making sure that resources can compete openly is really important,” says Solomon. “It’s important to not only meet the demand from AI, but make sure that it doesn’t raise costs for electricity consumers.”

The Trump administration is spending more than half a billion dollars to help prop up the dying coal industry. It’s also weakening pollution regulations and opening up more federal land to coal mining. All of this isn’t likely to save the industry—and also isn’t likely to do much to meet the surging demand for power from data centers for AI. Coal power is expensive, and that isn’t going to change Aging coal power plants are now so expensive to run that hundreds have retired over the last decade, including around 100 that retired or made plans to retire during Trump’s first term. Offering relatively small subsidies isn’t likely to change the long-term trend. “I don’t think it’s going to change the underlying economics,” says Michelle Solomon, a manager in the electricity program at the think tank Energy Innovation. “The reasons why coal has increased in cost will continue to be fundamentally true.” The cost of coal power grew 28% between 2021 and 2024, or more than double the rate of inflation. One reason is age: the average coal power plant in the U.S. is around 50 years old, and they aren’t designed to last much longer. Because renewable energy is cheaper, and regulation is likely to ramp up in the future, investors don’t see building new coal power plants as viable. But trying to keep outdated plants running also doesn’t make economic sense. The new funding can’t go very far. The Department of Energy plans to spend $625 million on coal projects, including $350 million to recommission and retrofit old plants. Another $25 million is set aside for retrofitting coal plants with natural gas co-firing systems. But that type of project can cost hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars for a single plant. (The $25 million, presumably, might only cover planning or a small pilot.) Other retrofits might only extend the life of a power plant by a few years. Because the plants will continue to be expensive to run, some power plant owners may not think the subsidies are worth it. Utilities want to move on If coal power plants keep running past their retirement age, even with some retrofits, costs keep going up for consumers. “That’s something that you really see in states that continue to rely on coal for a big part of their electricity mix,” says Solomon. “Like Kentucky and West Virginia, who have had their cost for power increase at some of the fastest rates in the country.” In Michigan, earlier this year, the DOE forced a coal power plant to stay open after it was scheduled to retire. The DOE cited an “emergency,” though neither the grid operator nor the utility said that there were power supply issues; the planned retirement of the plant included building new sources of energy to replace it. The utility reported to the SEC that within the first 38 days, alone, it spent $29 million to keep the plant running. (The emergency order is still in place, and being challenged by multiple lawsuits.) The extra expense shows up on consumers’ bills. One report estimates that by 2028, efforts to keep large power plants from retiring could cost consumers more than $3 billion a year. Utilities have long acknowledged the reality that there are less expensive energy sources. In the first Trump administration, in 2018, utilities resisted Trump’s attempts to use emergency powers to keep uneconomic coal plants open. When utilities plan to retire a power plant, there’s a long planning process. Plants begin making decision to defer maintenance that would otherwise be necessary. And many won’t want to reverse their decisions. It’s true that demand for power from data centers has led some utilities to keep coal plants online longer—and electric bills are already soaring in areas near large data centers. But Trump’s incentives may not make much difference for others. The last coal plant in New England just shut down years early, despite the current outlook for data centers. “Utilities do have to take a long-term view,” says Lori Bird, director of the U.S. energy program at the nonprofit World Resources Institute. “They’re doing multi-year planning. So they consider the durability and economic viability of these assets over the longer term. They have not been economic, and they’re also the highest-emitting greenhouse gas facilities.” Even if the Trump administration has rolled back environmental regulations, she says, future administrations could reverse that; continuing to use coal is a risky proposition. In most states, utilities also have to comply with renewable power goals. There are better solutions It’s true that the U.S. needs more power generation, quickly. It’s not clear exactly how much new electricity will be needed—some of that will depend on how much AI is a bubble and how much tech companies can shrink their power usage at data centers. But the nonprofit Rewiring America calculated that data centers that are under construction or in planning could add 93 gigawatts of electricity demand to the U.S. grid by the end of the decade. The nonprofit argues that some or even all of that new capacity could be covered by rooftop solar and batteries at homes. Cheap utility-scale renewable power plants could obviously also help, though the Trump administration is actively fighting them. Battery storage can help provide 24/7 energy. One analysis of a retiring coal plant in Maryland found that it would be less expensive to replace it with batteries and transmission upgrades than to keep it running. Temporarily saving a handful of coal power plants won’t cover the new power needs. It would add to air pollution, water pollution, and climate pollution. And it would significantly push up power bills when consumers are already struggling. Real support for an “energy emergency” would include faster permitting and other work to accelerate building affordable renewable energy, experts say. “Making sure that resources can compete openly is really important,” says Solomon. “It’s important to not only meet the demand from AI, but make sure that it doesn’t raise costs for electricity consumers.”

This innovative climate tech startup just moved its first big project from the U.S. to Canada after Trump cut its funding

At the beginning of this year, a climate tech startup called CarbonCapture was ready to break ground on its first commercial pilot at a site in Arizona. But the project is now about to open 2,700 miles away, in Alberta, Canada. The company started considering new locations shortly after the inauguration, as the political climate around climate projects quickly changed. “We were looking for regions where we felt we could get support for deployment,” says CarbonCapture CEO Adrian Corless. “Canada was an obvious choice given the existence of good government programs and incentives that are there.” [Photo: CarbonCapture] CarbonCapture makes modular direct air capture technology (DAC), units that remove CO2 from the air. In late March, reports came out that the Department of Energy (DOE) was considering cancelling grants for two other large DAC projects, including one in Louisiana that involved the company. By the end of May, by the time the DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations announced that it was cancelling $3.7 billion in other grants, the startup had already signed an agreement with Deep Sky Alpha, a facility in Canada that is simultaneously deploying and testing multiple direct air capture projects to help the industry grow. The startup had already self-funded its planned project in Arizona and built the modules for the site. Because it didn’t rely on government funding for the project, it could have moved forward in the U.S. But it saw that it would be harder to move from the pilot to later commercial projects in Arizona. Now, it’s planning to build its first full commercial project in Canada as well. (The company wouldn’t disclose the cost for either project.) [Photo: CarbonCapture] “We just didn’t see a pathway in the U.S. to be able to show that linkage between doing a commercial pilot, starting to generate [carbon dioxide removal] credits and selling them, and then being able to raise the capital for something that’s much larger,” Corless says. Canada offers an investment tax credit of 60% for direct air capture equipment, plus an additional 12% for projects in Alberta, the heart of Canada’s oil and gas industry. The country also has strong support for R&D and first-of-a-kind deployments for early-stage companies, and multiple programs supporting climate tech specifically. The Canada Growth Fund, for example, is a $15 billion fund designed to advance decarbonization. And while Mark Carney, Canada’s prime minister, has taken steps backward on climate policy, he’s also said that he wants the country to be the “world’s leading energy superpower” both for conventional energy and clean energy. The situation in the U.S. is very different. Trump recently called climate change a “con job” in a speech to the United Nations. When Chris Wright, the energy secretary, recently canceled another $13 billion for renewable energy projects, he said, “if you can’t rock on your own after 33 years, maybe that’s not a business that’s going places,” despite the fact that fossil fuels have gotten subsidies from the U.S. for three times as long. Fossil fuel subsidies are now nearly $35 billion a year, or as much as $760 billion if you include health and environmental costs. Direct air capture tech arguably hasn’t been hit quite as hard as other forms of climate tech, like offshore wind power. When the “One Big Beautiful Bill” gutted other funding, from tax credits for EVs to solar panels, it left in place some credits that facilities can earn for capturing carbon as they operate. But the Department of Energy recently cut multiple grants that would have helped new DAC projects get built. One of the large projects CarbonCapture was supporting—the Louisiana facility previously under review, called Project Cypress—lost funding, and the company just received official notice of its cancellation. Corless says that the startup is still carefully watching what happens in D.C.—and the company still hasn’t made any announcements about whether it might move its whole company, not just particular projects. Right now, it’s headquartered in L.A. with around 50 employees. It also has a small factory for its equipment in Arizona, next to the site where it had planned to build its first carbon capture facility. [Photo: CarbonCapture] Moving the first project to Canada happened quickly. Five weeks ago, the site in Alberta was an empty field. Four weeks ago, the company shipped the modules it had built in Arizona to Canada. Construction crews have been finishing the final touches, and the company plans to begin commissioning the system next week. Deep Sky Alpha already had some key infrastructure in place, including access to solar power to run the equipment. The pilot will ultimately be able to capture 2,000 tons of CO2 a year, which will be buried underground. It’s possible that other companies might follow CarbonCapture’s move. “I think that there definitely are going to be several companies that are looking at the same data that we’re looking at,” Corless says. “And I think that it’s not lost on the Canadian government that they have an opportunity as well to step up and potentially take a leadership role in this space, which the U.S. has really owned for the last five years.” “The U.S. does have a real advantage, even without DOE support,” says Erin Burns, director at the nonprofit Carbon180. “But it’s very likely that uncertainty around DOE programs will weaken that edge. Some projects will move abroad. Some that might have thrived here will not. Others will achieve only a fraction of their potential. Each outcome is a setback on its own. Together they add up to millions, possibly billions, in lost investment and slower American innovation.”

At the beginning of this year, a climate tech startup called CarbonCapture was ready to break ground on its first commercial pilot at a site in Arizona. But the project is now about to open 2,700 miles away, in Alberta, Canada. The company started considering new locations shortly after the inauguration, as the political climate around climate projects quickly changed. “We were looking for regions where we felt we could get support for deployment,” says CarbonCapture CEO Adrian Corless. “Canada was an obvious choice given the existence of good government programs and incentives that are there.” [Photo: CarbonCapture] CarbonCapture makes modular direct air capture technology (DAC), units that remove CO2 from the air. In late March, reports came out that the Department of Energy (DOE) was considering cancelling grants for two other large DAC projects, including one in Louisiana that involved the company. By the end of May, by the time the DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations announced that it was cancelling $3.7 billion in other grants, the startup had already signed an agreement with Deep Sky Alpha, a facility in Canada that is simultaneously deploying and testing multiple direct air capture projects to help the industry grow. The startup had already self-funded its planned project in Arizona and built the modules for the site. Because it didn’t rely on government funding for the project, it could have moved forward in the U.S. But it saw that it would be harder to move from the pilot to later commercial projects in Arizona. Now, it’s planning to build its first full commercial project in Canada as well. (The company wouldn’t disclose the cost for either project.) [Photo: CarbonCapture] “We just didn’t see a pathway in the U.S. to be able to show that linkage between doing a commercial pilot, starting to generate [carbon dioxide removal] credits and selling them, and then being able to raise the capital for something that’s much larger,” Corless says. Canada offers an investment tax credit of 60% for direct air capture equipment, plus an additional 12% for projects in Alberta, the heart of Canada’s oil and gas industry. The country also has strong support for R&D and first-of-a-kind deployments for early-stage companies, and multiple programs supporting climate tech specifically. The Canada Growth Fund, for example, is a $15 billion fund designed to advance decarbonization. And while Mark Carney, Canada’s prime minister, has taken steps backward on climate policy, he’s also said that he wants the country to be the “world’s leading energy superpower” both for conventional energy and clean energy. The situation in the U.S. is very different. Trump recently called climate change a “con job” in a speech to the United Nations. When Chris Wright, the energy secretary, recently canceled another $13 billion for renewable energy projects, he said, “if you can’t rock on your own after 33 years, maybe that’s not a business that’s going places,” despite the fact that fossil fuels have gotten subsidies from the U.S. for three times as long. Fossil fuel subsidies are now nearly $35 billion a year, or as much as $760 billion if you include health and environmental costs. Direct air capture tech arguably hasn’t been hit quite as hard as other forms of climate tech, like offshore wind power. When the “One Big Beautiful Bill” gutted other funding, from tax credits for EVs to solar panels, it left in place some credits that facilities can earn for capturing carbon as they operate. But the Department of Energy recently cut multiple grants that would have helped new DAC projects get built. One of the large projects CarbonCapture was supporting—the Louisiana facility previously under review, called Project Cypress—lost funding, and the company just received official notice of its cancellation. Corless says that the startup is still carefully watching what happens in D.C.—and the company still hasn’t made any announcements about whether it might move its whole company, not just particular projects. Right now, it’s headquartered in L.A. with around 50 employees. It also has a small factory for its equipment in Arizona, next to the site where it had planned to build its first carbon capture facility. [Photo: CarbonCapture] Moving the first project to Canada happened quickly. Five weeks ago, the site in Alberta was an empty field. Four weeks ago, the company shipped the modules it had built in Arizona to Canada. Construction crews have been finishing the final touches, and the company plans to begin commissioning the system next week. Deep Sky Alpha already had some key infrastructure in place, including access to solar power to run the equipment. The pilot will ultimately be able to capture 2,000 tons of CO2 a year, which will be buried underground. It’s possible that other companies might follow CarbonCapture’s move. “I think that there definitely are going to be several companies that are looking at the same data that we’re looking at,” Corless says. “And I think that it’s not lost on the Canadian government that they have an opportunity as well to step up and potentially take a leadership role in this space, which the U.S. has really owned for the last five years.” “The U.S. does have a real advantage, even without DOE support,” says Erin Burns, director at the nonprofit Carbon180. “But it’s very likely that uncertainty around DOE programs will weaken that edge. Some projects will move abroad. Some that might have thrived here will not. Others will achieve only a fraction of their potential. Each outcome is a setback on its own. Together they add up to millions, possibly billions, in lost investment and slower American innovation.”

Marine heatwaves to become more frequent off UK and Irish coasts, experts say

Scientists find 10% chance that similar events to the ‘unheard of’ temperatures in 2023 could occur each yearThe unprecedented marine heatwave of 2023 was in line with climate modelling, research shows, as scientists warn such events will become more frequent.The “unheard of” heatwave off the UK and Irish coasts during a summer of 40C temperatures raised concerns that fish, shellfish and kelp would not be able to survive. Continue reading...

The unprecedented marine heatwave of 2023 was in line with climate modelling, research shows, as scientists warn such events will become more frequent.The “unheard of” heatwave off the UK and Irish coasts during a summer of 40C temperatures raised concerns that fish, shellfish and kelp would not be able to survive.During the heatwave, temperatures in the shallow seas around the UK, including the North Sea and Celtic Sea, reached 2.9C above the June average for 16 days. The extended period of time put sea life at risk of death.A study by the University of Exeter, the Met Office and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) said there was about a 10% chance of a marine heatwave of this scale occurring each year, despite the unprecedented nature of the 2023 heatwave.The study, published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, used climate models to assess the likelihood of heatwaves at the June 2023 level or above and found that in the Celtic Sea – off the south coast of Ireland – the annual chance of such a heatwave rose from 3.8% in 1993 to 13.8% now. In the central North Sea, the chance rose from 0.7% in 1993 to 9.8%While the full disruption to the marine ecosystem caused by the heatwave has not been assessed, scientists know it has significantly disrupted phytoplankton blooms. Heatwaves can stress marine species and increase concentrations of bacteria that can harm humans.Dr Jamie Atkins, who led the study during his PhD at Exeter, and is now at Utrecht University, said: “Our findings show that marine heatwaves are a problem now – not just a risk from future climate change.”Prof Adam Scaife, a co-author of the study from the University of Exeter and the head of long-range forecasting at the Met Office, said: “This is another example of how steady climate warming is leading to an exponential increase in the occurrence of extreme events.”The marine heatwave turbocharged the temperatures on land in Britain and Ireland and also contributed to heavy rain.Atkins said: “Warmer seas provide a source of heat off the coast, contributing to higher temperatures on land.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“Additionally, warmer air carries more moisture – and when that cools it leads to increased rainfall.”Prof Ana M Queirós at the Plymouth Marine Laboratory said: “Long marine heatwave periods push wildlife into a situation where seasonal ecological processes, such as reproduction, and even offspring hatching, are tricked into taking place at a time when other environmental conditions are not suitable.“This is certainly a very bad sign for the health of our planet and our ocean, and one likely to worsen unless we make significant strides to cut emissions.”

Solar and Wind Power Has Grown Faster Than Electricity Demand This Year, Report Says

A new analysis of solar and wind power shows its generation worldwide has outpaced electricity demand this year

Worldwide solar and wind power generation has outpaced electricity demand this year, and for the first time on record, renewable energies combined generated more power than coal, according to a new analysis.Global solar generation grew by a record 31% in the first half of the year, while wind generation grew by 7.7%, according to the report by the energy think tank Ember, which was released after midnight Tuesday London time. Solar and wind generation combined grew by more than 400 terawatt hours, which was more than overall global demand increased in the same period, it found.The findings suggest it is possible for the world to wean off polluting sources of power — even as demand for electricity skyrockets — with continued investment in renewables including solar, wind, hydropower, bioenergy and geothermal energies. “That means that they can keep up the pace with growing appetite for electricity worldwide,” said Małgorzata Wiatros-Motyka, senior electricity analyst at Ember and lead author of the study.At the same time, total fossil fuel generation dropped slightly, by less than 1%.“The fall overall of fossil may be small, but it is significant,” said Wiatros-Motyka. “This is a turning point when we see emissions plateauing."The firm analyzes monthly data from 88 countries representing the vast majority of electricity demand around the world. Reasons that demand is increasing include economic growth, electric vehicles and data centers, rising populations in developing countries and the need for more cooling as temperatures rise.Meeting that demand by burning fossil fuels such as coal and gas for electricity releases planet-warming gases including carbon dioxide and methane. This leads to more severe, costly and deadly extreme weather. Ember also dedicated part of its report to an analysis of China, India, the European Union and the U.S. Combined, they account for nearly two-thirds of electricity generation and carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector globally. In the first six months of the year, China added more solar and wind than the rest of the world combined, and its fossil fuel generation fell by 2%, the report said.India saw record solar and wind growth that outpaced the growth in demand. India's fossil fuel generation also dropped. In both nations, emissions fell.“It’s often been said by analysts that renewable energy doesn’t really lead to a reduction in fossil fuel use,” said Michael Gerrard, founder and director of the Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, who was not involved in the report. “This report highlights an encouraging step in the opposite direction.” But in the U.S., demand growth outpaced the growth of clean power generation. In the E.U., sluggish wind and hydropower generation contributed to higher coal and gas generation, the report said. In both markets, fossil fuel generation and emissions increased.In his speech at the United Nations General Assembly last month, Trump attacked renewable energy and questioned the validity of the concept of climate change. Experts warn that Trump's efforts to block clean energy will have a long-term impact.“The federal government is greatly increasing the growth of artificial intelligence, which is going to massively increase electricity demand, and they’re also shutting down the cheapest new sources of electricity, wind and solar. That’s going to lead to a gap in supply and demand,” Gerrard said.Renewables “still have an opportunity to make inroads in to displacing fossil fuels, even with some demand growth,” said Amanda Smith, senior scientist at research organization Project Drawdown, who also wasn't involved in the report. But, Smith said: “I am very cautiously optimistic that renewables can continue to grow and continue to displace fossil fuels in the U.S. I am more optimistic on the world scale.”The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.