Getting climate, energy & environment news right.

Conservatives have been vocal about our climate for years. Those voices won’t be ignored any longer.

[searchandfilter id="17558"]

ZymoChem, the San Leandro, California-based chemical biomanufacturer creating sustainable alternatives for everyday products, announced that its bio-based and biodegradable Super Absorbent Polymer (SAP), BAYSE, now matches or exceeds key performance metrics of conventional fossil-fuel based SAPs, according to company data.

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

The news is a significant milestone for the hygiene industry because most hygiene products like menstrual pads and infant diapers have relied on petroleum-based superabsorbents for decades. While highly effective at trapping moisture, these materials are notoriously difficult to decompose, persisting in the environment for hundreds of years and gradually releasing microplastics as they break down. And while there are some bio-based products available on the market, few can compete with conventional SAPS in terms of performance.

To date, the lack of reliable, high-performing bio-based polymer alternatives has made it difficult for the hygiene sector to decarbonize and for sustainable solutions to take hold at scale. Given the vast numbers of personal care products used globally every day––including millions of disposable diapers––ZymoChem’s latest innovation, BAYSE, is a game-changer for the industry.

“The hygiene industry has been waiting for a bio-based SAP that doesn’t make compromises. BAYSE is that material,” CEO of ZymoChem Harshal Chokhawala said in a news release. These results confirm that sustainability and performance are no longer in tension; manufacturers can now choose both.”

BAYSE’s bio-renewable polymers and monomers are produced using proprietary carbon-conserving microbes that convert renewable feedstocks, such as plants and agricultural waste, into high-value materials. The result is a product that is up to 50 percent  less expensive and up to 50 percent more efficient than competing alternatives, the company claims in its platform. Moreover, the entire bioprocess releases nearly no CO2 emissions. 

In a research paper released last month, ZymoChem tested BAYSE against leading petroleum-based SAPs under real-world conditions. The results showed that BAYSE absorbed fluid twice as fast as conventional materials in infant diapers. In applications such as period and postpartum care, it absorbed thicker fluids up to 3.6 times faster, minimizing the time moisture remains against the skin. 

Given that the global market for SAPs is primarily led by the hygiene sector, finding  a direct, drop-in replacement for the petroleum-based polymers used in hundreds of hygiene products is critical to decarbonization. BAYSE offers a no-compromise alternative that performs on par with commercial SAPs, and shows that innovation can drive environmental progress at scale by making cleaner products the better-performing, lower-cost option.

Indiana Gov. Mike Braun is doubling down on plans to make Indiana a national leader in nuclear energy, announcing a new partnership with Eli Lilly and Company to explore next-generation power options.

According to FOX 59, the agreement lays out a path for the state and the Indianapolis-based company to study nuclear energy solutions, including small modular reactors and other advanced technologies.

The effort is part of a broader push by Braun to bring more reliable, carbon-free energy to the state while driving economic growth. The agreement focuses on evaluating how nuclear energy could work in Indiana — from cost and regulation to environmental impact — and how future projects could be built and operated.

Read the full story at WDRB.

The C3 Take

This is a meaningful step for Indiana. Pairing state leadership with a major in-state employer like Eli Lilly signals that nuclear energy is moving out of the realm of abstract interest and into serious long-term planning around reliability, growth, and industrial competitiveness. The emphasis on studying cost, regulation, environmental impact, and deployment pathways is exactly the kind of practical groundwork advanced nuclear will require if it is going to play a real role in the state’s energy future. Just as important, it reflects a broader truth: if Indiana wants to support economic expansion and rising electricity demand without sacrificing reliability, it will need to think bigger about firm, scalable, carbon-free power.

The United Kingdom has been rapidly increasing its deployment of new renewable energy capacity in recent years, to the point that it now has some to spare during peak production hours. While the U.K. gradually increases its battery storage, the government is encouraging consumers to use more electricity during certain times of the day to help shift reliance away from fossil fuels to green alternatives.

Consumers are being asked by the government to use high-consumption appliances, such as dishwashers and washing machines, as well as electric vehicle (EV) chargers, during peak renewable energy production hours this summer, when more solar and wind power is being delivered to the grid. Energy suppliers will support the government’s efforts by offering free or discounted electricity during certain hours of the day when there is a surplus of electricity. The scheme is also expected to be extended to businesses and manufacturers.

The scheme expands upon the many initiatives already in place, with energy providers already offering over 2 million households the chance to pay lower electricity rates during off-peak times, to reduce the burden on the grid. However, it is the first time that a scheme will be rolled out to manage the surplus of clean electricity.

Read the full article at OilPrice.com

The C3 Take

This piece identifies a genuine challenge in the energy transition: adding more low-carbon generation is only part of the job. The harder and more important task is making sure the grid can absorb, move, store, and price that electricity efficiently and reliably. It is encouraging to see greater attention to demand flexibility and consumer incentives, but the broader lesson is that generation alone does not equal resilience. Real progress depends on the less glamorous work of expanding transmission, improving market design, and building systems that can handle abundance without congestion, curtailment, or higher costs.

If Congress allows permitting reform to stall again, the United States will inevitably face higher energy costs, weaker energy reliability, and reduced geopolitical influence. Washington favors strong language and superlatives about resilience, competitiveness, energy dominance, and winning the future. But for all that rhetoric, policymakers don’t seem to feel the urgency of a major weakness at home.

That weakness centers on knowingly enabling paralysis. Each time geopolitical tensions flare, Washington suddenly is reminded that energy security remains important. Lawmakers issue urgent warnings. Experts quickly explain the fragility of global supply chains, power grids, and fuel routes. Then the moment passes, and the system that makes it painfully difficult to build remains untouched. America is not building enough anymore.

This avoidable cycle is rapidly turning into a major strategic failure. Sadly, permitting reform is often seen as a procedural issue, focusing on administrative timelines and regulatory details. This perspective is entirely incorrect. In a world of rising electricity demand, artificial intelligence expansion, industrial rivalry, and grid stress, permitting reform is not procedural. It is foundational to economic stability and national security.

Read the full article in the Washington Examiner.

The C3 Take

This piece makes an important and timely case: if the United States wants to lead on energy, affordability, reliability, and industrial growth, it has to be able to build the infrastructure those goals require. It rightly recognizes that permitting reform is not a narrow procedural concern, but a foundational question of execution in a moment defined by rising electricity demand, geopolitical uncertainty, and intensifying global competition. Just as importantly, it frames reform in a practical and responsible way, not as a rejection of environmental stewardship or public input, but as an effort to create a process that is clearer, more predictable, and better suited to the scale of the challenge. That is exactly the kind of seriousness this moment calls for.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was enacted in 1966 to protect America’s cultural heritage at a time when rapid development was destroying historic sites. Its core process, Section 106, requires federal agencies to consider how projects they fund, permit, or carry out affect historic and cultural resources.

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

Though well-intentioned, nearly six decades later, Section 106 has become a source of uncertainty, delay, and rising costs for energy, transmission, and conservation projects. 

The law is purely procedural. It requires agencies to “take into account” impacts to historic properties, not to reach a specific outcome. However, unclear rules, inconsistent implementation and interpretation of requirements, and open-ended timelines have turned the process into a bottleneck.

A key problem is the lack of clear boundaries around what areas must be reviewed. Disputes over the Area of Potential Effects can quickly expand a project’s scope. Larger project scopes mean more land reviewed, more stakeholders, and a longer process. In one case, a three-mile transmission line upgrade was delayed because two agencies defined the scope differently.

Unlike NEPA, which now has statutory deadlines, Section 106 has none. Reviews can drag on for years, especially at the mitigation stage, where negotiations have no clear endpoint. In extreme cases, transmission projects have spent more than a decade in Section 106 review. Coupled with other permitting requirements, such as NEPA, ESA, and others, the process becomes even more burdensome.

Courts have at times treated NHPA as if it requires binding mitigation outcomes, even though the statute imposes no such obligation. The result is a system where developers face unclear expectations, duplicative reviews, and legal risk even after projects begin.

While some mitigation requirements have meaningfully preserved or restored historic sites, others, including interpretive signs, podcasts, and fitness lanes, appear symbolic at best, adding cost and delay without advancing the core goal of cultural preservation. 

>>>READ: How to Avoid Repeating the Potomac River Spill Fiasco 

The right reforms can restore predictability and efficiency while still protecting cultural resources. In a recent paper, C3 Solutions proposed five reforms.

Clarify the Scope of Review and the Area of Potential Effects

First, policymakers and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation should clarify the scope of review. Reviews should focus on impacts that are direct, proximate, and causal to the federal action, not broad or speculative effects. For projects involving multiple agencies, a lead agency should be designated to avoid conflicting interpretations.

Align Judicial Review with the APA and The Original Intent of the Bill

Second, policymakers should align judicial review of NHPA with the Administrative Procedure Act and clarify that the bill’s original intent is purely procedural. Courts should evaluate whether agencies followed the required process, not impose new substantive obligations that do not appear in the statute. Clear guardrails would restore predictability while preserving public input.

Digitize and Modernize the Process, much like Utah and Washington have

Third, policymakers should allocate funding and technical support to enable State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices to build modern, centralized databases for cultural and historic resources. States like Utah have shown that when this information is organized and accessible upfront, conflicts can be flagged early, costs decrease, and timelines are significantly shorter. This would create a more efficient review process and retain strong protections for cultural places.

>>>READ: The Need for SPEED: Why Permitting Reform is Essential to Our Economic Progress and Environmental Ambitions

Expand the Use of Programmatic Agreements

Fourth, agencies should proactively look to expand the use of programmatic agreements for routine, low-impact projects. These agreements establish pre-approved frameworks for common activities, allowing agencies to focus time and resources where they are truly needed. In transportation and rural development, they have already saved millions of dollars and reduced review timelines from months to weeks.

Explore Ways to Voluntarily Incentivize Mitigation and Early Collaboration with Stakeholders

Finally, policymakers and agencies should explore voluntary, incentive-based approaches to mitigation. Instead of relying on open-ended negotiations, frameworks like the Clean Water Act’s mitigation banking or the Endangered Species Act’s safe harbor agreements could encourage early collaboration while providing developers with certainty.

NHPA’s purpose to preserve America’s history as a living part of community life is worth protecting. But a process that is unpredictable, duplicative, and slow ultimately undermines that mission by delaying the very projects that can strengthen communities and steward the land.

Section 106 is an important tool in preserving culture and history. But in the 21st century, it requires modernization. The right reforms can ensure cultural preservation remains alongside energy development and conservation.

A memo released by the Trump administration on Tuesday detailed a goal of having a nuclear reactor on the moon’s surface by 2030, a move that furthers the United States’ quest for supremacy in space over China and Russia.

In the six-page document, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy wrote that incorporating nuclear energy in space will be essential to advancing U.S. efforts in “space exploration, commerce, and defense applications.”

Read more in Fox News here.

Chinese officials have held initial talks with providers of equipment to make solar panels as they consider limiting exports of the most advanced technology to the United States, said five people with knowledge of the consultations.

Such a clampdown would risk investments by U.S. firms and set back a race for ‌space-based computing, as China, estimated to make more than 80% of the world’s solar panel components, is also home to the top 10 suppliers of equipment to make solar ‌cells.

Read more in Reuters here.

GlobalData’s latest report, ‘Steam and Gas Turbines Market Size, Share and Trends Analysis by Technology, Installed Capacity, Generation, Key Players and Forecast to 2030‘, offers comprehensive information and understanding of the global steam and gas turbines market. The report analyses the steam and gas turbine market value and capacity for the historical (2021–2025) and forecast (2026–2030) periods, as well as country-wise drivers and restraints affecting the market.

The report also provides the global steam and gas turbine market share for 2024 and major upcoming projects for each country. The analysis is based on GlobalData’s proprietary databases, as well as primary and secondary research, and in-house expertise. The global steam and gas turbines market is poised for substantial growth, driven by rising demand for efficient energy solutions, stringent environmental regulations, and the transition toward cleaner energy sources. The market is forecast to reach $23.4bn by 2030.

Read more in Power Technology here.

For five days, the equivalent of 350 Olympic-sized pools’ worth of sewage flooded into the Potomac River in a suburb of Washington, D.C. The cause? A clear failure in our permitting systems.

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

Many Americans are all too familiar with the federal government’s bureaucratic nature. But red tape extends farther than minor nuisances. As the Potomac River fiasco shows, government underresponsiveness and overregulation can produce a toxic—literally—mix. 

An interceptor pipe along the river ruptured on January 19, causing the river’s concentration of dangerous E. coli bacteria to skyrocket by almost 300,000 percent. 

In 2018, when the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (D.C. Water) conducted a routine pipe inspection along the riverbank, it immediately sounded the alarm: inspectors noticed the pipe’s reinforcements were eroding, very close to the site of the eventual pipe rupture. When D.C. Water alerted the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) about the situation and the need for urgent remedies, the National Park Service began a lengthy, years-long environmental review that, at the time of the pipe rupture, nearly eight years after finding pipe erosion, was still ongoing. 

The NPS’s concern was with mitigating the impact of repairs on select plants and animals, including a species of wildflower. And, in order to fix the pipe, hundreds of trees needed to be cut down.

Ironically, the NPS’s sclerotic pace and a permitting process that failed to balance the risks of delay resulted in environmental disaster. The prospect of even minor damage to a species of wildflowers, trees, and bats ultimately endangered the safety and public health of millions of humans who live near the Potomac River, whose tributaries are the D.C. area’s primary water source. It also likely harmed countless aquatic species by subjecting them to concentrated bacterial exposure. Long-term impacts remain unknown. 

>>>READ: How The SPEED Act Charts a Path Forward for Permitting

Recent media reporting, if accurate, casts the NPS in an even harsher light. D.C. Water reportedly had a plan to ensure the protection of the bats and wildflowers that were the focus of NPS’s concern. It also committed to replanting every tree it cut down as part of the proposed repairs. The environmental review requirements, however, continued at its laggard place, preventing permits for the repairs from being issued. National Park Service spokeswoman Christiana Hanson acknowledged the process was lengthy, but blamed revisions to D.C. Water’s repair plans that forced the agency to restart its environmental assessment each time.

Much of the permitting conversation focuses on how delays slow the construction of new projects and hold back industry. According to C3 Solutions, building a new wind or geothermal project can take seven to ten years.

While many environmental statues contribute to lengthy processes, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) is at the core of this issue. This law mandates that the federal government consider environmental factors on par with other factors in decisions concerning permits, land management, and construction.  

These reviews often weigh environmental factors far out of proportion to the needs of affected Americans, as the Potomac sewage spill highlights. 

For eight years, D.C. Water desperately waited for permits to be awarded that would allow it to conduct the relatively simple repairs on less than a mile of pipe. 

>>>READ: Policy Inaction Threatens the West’s Energy and Water Supplies

They never came, and the ticking time bomb went off. Eventually, the pipe burst on January 19. For six days, sewage spilled into the Potomac. Not until January 24 did the sewage get redirected into an empty canal. And not until March 14 did the repairs to the interceptor get completed. 

The lesson from the Potomac spill is straightforward. A permitting process that does not account for the risks of delay can end up undermining the very environmental and public health goals it is meant to protect. With initial cleanup efforts taking months, there is still work to be done. Downstream of the spill, unsafe levels of E. coli are still being reported, and the water is unsafe to swim in. 

Around America, many damaged pipes, walls and critical infrastructure have potentially been detected, but environmental reviews may similarly be impeding needed repairs. Millions of Americans are potentially in danger of bursts and collapses that are completely preventable. 

Prevention is the best medicine. However, environmental review and permitting wait times block progress and invite failure. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as the saying goes. 

Water contamination is a serious public health risk. Though the Potomac spill is a concerning, even tragic, lesson, it can and should be used for good. It can serve as a catalyst for policy change that reforms bureaucratic, burdensome permitting policies.  The answer is to make environmental reviews more responsive. Comprehensive permitting reform bills already on the table—such as the SPEED Act, the PERMIT Act, and the ePermit Act—offer a path forward by streamlining reviews, reducing duplication, and improving coordination across agencies.

Permitting delays are, like the bystander effect, harming the public without any risk of accountability. Policymakers have a choice between stagnation and innovation. America should step up to protect our resources from self-strangulation.

 Inertia Enterprises, the commercial fusion energy company, today announced a landmark strategic partnership with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), establishing one of the largest private sector-led partnerships in the history of the U.S. national lab system.

On the heels of its $450 million funding round, the collaboration with LLNL expands on the robust research and development capabilities and strong capital position Inertia has established and accelerates the company’s path towards commercializing fusion energy. To date, LLNL is home to the only facility in the world to successfully demonstrate fusion energy gain.

Read more in Globe Newswire here.

Subscribe to our exclusive email designed for conservatives who care about climate.

Help us promote free market solutions for climate change.

5 Incredible Ways Economic Freedom Helps the Planet.

Sign up for our newsletter now to get the full list right in your inbox.

Thank you for signing up

Help us promote sensible solutions for both planet and prosperity.

Download Now