Energy future: Made in China by coal

The stark reality: in China, 55% of power is produced by coal and the cost of household electricity is 8 cents per kWh.

Electricity is the sine qua non of modern society.

Coal-based electricity brought the U.S. to the center of the world’s economic stage and China has followed that same pathway to modernity and societal progress.

From CFACT

BY FRANK CLEMENTE AND FRED PALMER:

The stark reality: in China, 55% of power is produced by coal and the cost of household electricity is 8 cents per kWh. In the UK, coal’s percentage of electricity was 30% in 2010 but that has declined to less than 1%. Consequently, the cost of electricity for families has increased 250% — from 16 cents to over 40 cents per kWh — and is still on the rise. No wonder 37% of England’s families pay over 10% of their income on energy.

In the U.S., the closing of coal plants for political reasons has led to coal’s role declining from 45% in 2010 to just 15% today. Accordingly, the cost of electricity increased 70% to 19 cents per kWh and is projected to keep rising: “Retail electricity prices have increased faster than the rate of inflation since 2022, and we expect them to continue increasing” — U.S. Department of Energy.

Moreover, after the closure of over 300 coal plants, reliability is at serious risk in the U.S.: “coal-fired generator retirements… have caused a sharp decline in anticipated resources … new generation is insufficient to make up for generator retirements and load growth.”  — North American Electricity Reliability Corporation (NERC)

Electricity is the sine qua non of modern society.  

In 2000, the National Academy of Engineering identified electrification as the greatest engineering achievement of the 20th Century.

Coal- based electricity brought the U.S. to the center of the world’s economic stage and China has followed that same pathway to modernity and societal progress. In 2000, coal produced about 990 Terawatt Hours (TWh) of electricity in China. By 2025, coal produced upwards of 6,000 TWh.

This dramatic rise in coal power stimulated massive improvements in the quality of life of the population. In 2000, the Infant Mortality Rate in China was 30, it is now 5. Access to clean cooking fuels increased from 41% of the population to well over 90%. Availability of clean water grew from 45% of households to 99%.

Life expectancy rose from 72 to 78, and the Food Production Index grew from 63 to over 112.

No wonder the International Energy Agency (IEA) declared: “Coal has underpinned China’s massive and unprecedented growth in output, fueling an economic miracle.”

The growth of the middle class in China is the largest the world has ever seen, increasing from 39 million people in 2000 to almost 1 billion today.  The middle class is the backbone of any society and coal-

based electricity was the material foundation for this progress in China. In 2000, electricity use per capita was 993 kWh, it is now over 7,400 — far more than Germany. In essence, through the benefits of coal-based electricity, China, with over 1.4 billion people, became a modern nation in a little more than two decades. Since 2000, over 70% of humans lifted out of poverty were Chinese.

Coal made the difference and propelled China to ever higher in the World’s socio- economic hierarchy.

China imports about 550 million metric tons of coal per year. These imports, along with its own substantial supply, have provided the energy to make China the world’s leading manufacturer and exporter.

China produces over one billion tons of steel — 54% of global production, of which over 90% is produced using coal. China provides 52% of cement, 97% of which uses coal energy. China produces 80% of the world’s solar panels and coal provides at least 75% of the electricity for their manufacture.

By 2030, China’s coal to gas capacity will grow from 9.4 billion cubic meters to 28 billion. The world’s policymakers need to be mindful of their dependence on China’s use of coal and the benefits that have spread across the globe.

And now China has built an electricity system for the next leap forward. The PRC is basing its electric supply on a foundation of coal — a fuel that has demonstrated abundance, availability, affordability and reliability. By 2030, China will have over 1,500 GW of coal-based electricity compared to the DOE projection of a mere 88 GW in the U.S.

The idea that intermittent wind and solar will replace coal power in generation or manufacturing in China is wishful thinking indeed. Over 500 GW of coal capacity is already under development compared to an insignificant 4 GW in the U.S.

And these are not your grandfather’s coal plants. Rather, China is building advanced stations that produce significantly lower emissions. As Clare Richardson of the National Bureau of Asian Research pointed out: “China is rapidly deploying ultra-supercritical and supercritical coal technology, which can operate at higher temperatures and pressures to improve thermal efficiency.”

The country has also pursued widespread adoption of flue gas desulfurization and selective catalytic reduction systems to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.

Consider, for example, Pingshan Phase II in Anhui Province, a cutting-edge 1.35-GW ultra-supercritical coal-fired unit with a net efficiency of about 50% — making it the world’s most efficient coal-fired power plant and a continuing model for the ongoing wave of plants under construction not only in China but also India and the rest of the world. China is the architect of 21St Century coal power.

There is widespread recognition that progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) will determine a large part of a nation’s future. RAND Corporation projects countries will see their influence rise or fall depending on how they manage the development of AI.

Scholars at the University of Miami School of Law concluded: “The global race for AI dominance is shaping the future of economies, governance, and national security.” Finally, this cogent comment from Arab News: “Artificial Intelligence is no longer just a technological breakthrough: it is quickly becoming a linchpin of global power.”

Thus, the race is on and now we consider the realities: The U.S. aspires to global dominance in AI. In July of last year, the White House published: Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan as well as three executive orders designed to promote and maintain leadership in AI. But China has the same aspiration. Through a series of Five-Year Plans, China has become a formidable technological competitor of the U.S.

As The New York Times put it: China Is Spending Billions to Become an A.I. Superpower.

The competition between the U.S. and China is intense and China is steadily eroding the initial gap. In 2023, the Stanford AI Index reported the performance gap between U.S. and Chinese model benchmarks was about 25%. By 2026, that gap has narrowed to 3% and is closing further. Daniel Hook, CEO at Digital Science, found that China is now ahead in the development of large language models with an AI talent pool that dwarfs its rivals — 30,000 active AI researchers and a massive graduate student and postdoctoral population.

China has filed at least 70% of all global AI related patents and leads on research article volume with 23 % of all global AI publications versus 13 % for the U.S. And the American talent pool is diminishing. The number of AI researchers moving to the U.S. has dropped 89% since 2017. The U.S. is ahead today, but the momentum belongs to China.

No country will meet its AI goals without reliable and affordable electricity. The U.S. is increasingly falling behind on both fronts. Consider the PJM Interconnection with 67 million customers in the East. Due to the closure of coal generating capacity, the reserve margin for the system will continue to fall from 23% in 2020 to a risky 14% in 2027. Incredibly, utilities in the PJM system are planning to retire over 11 more GW of coal. Hard to believe.

The U.S. has been closing coal plants willy-nilly for over a decade with nary a thought to the implications. Yet the consequences of higher rates and reduced reliability are real and meaningful to the competition between China and the U.S. — and will be even more so as India’s 1.5 billion coal-based population enters the AI picture — India’s electricity is 70% coal.

“The difference in the cost of energy around the world is going to become really quite extreme,” Michael Brown, global investment strategist at Franklin Templeton, told CNBC. “If you’re making energy-intensive investments, then you’re going to go to where the cheapest energy is.”

In terms of rates, U.S. household power prices have risen nearly 25% in just four years. In 2025-26 a total of 47 states endured electricity price increases and dozens of additional rate increase requests are still pending.

The American people are increasingly victims of an array of poor energy policy decisions at both the Federal and state level — and even utilities themselves have failed to think ahead, closing productive coal plants to get in on the government dole of “renewables” like expensive wind and solar.

Families suffer, businesses suffer and the next generation of Americans will pay a heavy price with a diminishing role on the world’s economic stage.

Note: Coal is the Cornerstone seeks to give a voice to supporters of coal in its many dimensions and contributions. But we need help and ask like-minded individuals and companies to help support the effort at http://www.coaliscornerstone.com. Access to our previous articles is available on this site.

This article originally appeared at RealClear Energy

Fred Palmer Esq. has served as CEO of Western Fuels and Peabody Energy’s Senior Vice President for Government Affairs. He chaired the World Coal Association Board and was a member of the National Coal Council. He received the American Institute of Mining Award for “Distinguished Achievement in Coal Technology.” He also was awarded a Statement of Appreciation from the National Coal Council in 2015 with a plaque for “Guidance since 1990”

Frank Clemente PhD. specializes in the socio-economic impact of energy policy and is author of The Global Value of Coal published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) as well as numerous articles in energy journals and reports for the National Coal Council. Professor Clemente has served on the faculty at the University of Kentucky, the University of Wisconsin and Penn State. His work is presented independently from any University affiliation. 

Tropical Storms Invade Hawaiian Waters: The Role of El Nino

Normally, tropical storms and hurricanes avoid the area of the Hawaiian Islands.

Because the nearby Pacific is usually too cool!

This year, due to a very strong El Nino, temperatures south and east of Hawaii are 1-2 C above normal.

AI generated by Grok

From The Cliff Mass Weather Blog

By CliffMass

Normally, tropical storms and hurricanes avoid the area of the Hawaiian Islands.  

Why?   

Because the nearby Pacific is usually too cool!  

In general, surface temperatures must reach at least 80°F (26.5°C) to sustain tropical storm development.

This year, due to a very strong El Nino, temperatures south and east of Hawaii are 1-2 C above normal (see map of differences from normal for sea surface temperature)

As shown by a more detailed, close-in map, the 27C line just reaches Hawaii. A “warm enough” bath is open.

No wonder tropical storms can approach Hawaii this year!

The effects of the warm water have been dramatic.


Consider satellite imagery from yesterday afternoon…and be prepared to be impressed!

A high- resolution satellite image shows three hurricanes/tropical storms over the eastern Pacific, with a red arrow pointing to the Big Island. 

Wow.

Here is an infrared image of the storms. Amazing.

Even more amazing is a series of forecast maps of evolution of the tropical storms. 

I will show you maps of atmospheric moisture through depth.

Today at 11 AM, the swirls of moisture around three tropical storms are evident. 

Stunning.

On Saturday morning, they are still there, with one storm passing south of the Hawaiian island.

On Sunday morning, the western storm starts moving northeastward towards Hawaii!  Some moisture from the eastern storm extends into southern California, which is going to get some rain as a result

Now the most amazing thing. The two eastward storms start to interact on Monday.

Then the combined system starts to move northwest on Tuesday.

The storm’s crazy movement near Hawaii is reflected in the total precipitation over the next 10 days.

You can see the northward jog, followed by a turn to the east.

Quite unusual!

A great time to visit Kauai if you are meteorologically inclined. 😊

Cash-strapped blue cities stand to collect billions from climate suits headed to Supreme Court

State and local governments are suing energy companies for billions in alleged climate damages while firing employees and slashing budgets as the Supreme Court prepares to weigh their cases.

Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sued ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum Institute in June 2020, seven weeks after Minnesota Management and Budget projected the state’s outlook had swung from a $1.5 billion surplus to a $2.4 billion deficit.

From CFACT

BY SIMON AUGUST:

State and local governments are suing energy companies for billions in alleged climate damages while firing employees and slashing budgets as the Supreme Court prepares to weigh their cases.

At least 11 jurisdictions with active or recent climate suits against major energy companies are simultaneously confronting budget gaps, spending cuts, layoffs, or threats to essential services, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation review of budget records. Critics argue the fiscal strain raises the question of what the plaintiff governments stand to gain if the cases survive and given that successful suits would hand financially strapped jurisdictions a significant new source of revenue.

Three of the governments filed their suits within months of pandemic-era budget crises. Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sued ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum Institute in June 2020, seven weeks after Minnesota Management and Budget projected the state’s outlook had swung from a $1.5 billion surplus to a $2.4 billion deficit.

Ellison’s office rejected the suggestion that the state’s finances factor into the litigation.

“No. This lawsuit was originally filed more than six years ago,” John Stiles, the attorney general’s deputy chief of staff, told the DCNF.

The day after the Minnesota suit was filed, the District of Columbia filed its consumer protection suit against ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Shell — two months after the District’s chief financial officer had projected a $1.5 billion revenue loss that exceeded the city’s entire reserve fund.

In 2026, the District moved to close a projected $1.1 billion budget gap by cutting $469 million in spending and through a series of tax increases as it absorbs roughly 20,000 lost federal jobs, according to the mayor’s budget proposal.

In September 2020, the state of Delaware sued dozens of fossil fuel companies for punitive and compensatory damages, while the state managed a revenue decrease during the pandemic of over $500 million by tapping reserves and canceling planned raises for state employees. In fall 2025, the state faced a new $400 million projected shortfall from federal tax changes before lawmakers moved to close it in a November special session.

Boulder County and the city of Boulder brought their case against Suncor and ExxonMobil in 2018, seeking to make the companies pay for the supposed costs of adapting to climate change.

Eight years later, the county said in August that it must eliminate a further $13.2 million from its 2027 budget after making an equal reduction for 2026. The county has eliminated roughly 90 positions while projecting that it must find $30 million to $40 million in savings over three years. The city of Boulder’s recommended 2027 budget closes a separate $6.3 million gap in part by laying off 13 employees, according to the city.

When contacted, Boulder County and the city of Boulder declined to comment through EarthRights International, the nonprofit legal group representing them in the case, and referred the DCNF to their positions in their court filings.

“The left’s woke lawfare crusade is on full display in the Boulder case,” O.H. Skinner, the executive director of the Alliance for Consumers and a former Arizona solicitor general, said in a statement to the DCNF. “This anti-democratic playbook is how these states and municipalities seek to impose and fund their woke agenda and control the lives of everyday consumers.”

Skinner wrote in a May op-ed for the DCNF that the Boulder case seeks to turn public nuisance law into “a national policy weapon” by giving activists a path to impose policies through local courthouses that they would not be able to pass through legislatures.

On Oct. 5, the Supreme Court will hear Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, the first argument that the court will hear this fall. Suncor and ExxonMobil argue that federal law governs these claims since greenhouse gas emissions mix globally, so they cannot be confined to Colorado’s borders. A ruling in favor of the companies could end similar ongoing litigation nationwide.

The legal argument underpinning the lawsuits suffered a setback Monday when a federal judge blocked New York’s $75 billion climate superfund law, finding that the Clean Air Act preempts the state’s attempt to impose liability for emissions generated beyond its borders, the same federalism argument that Suncor and ExxonMobil are making before the Supreme Court.

The complaints seek payments for public infrastructure, emergency response, health programs and other climate-related costs that the governments say would otherwise fall on taxpayers, according to Boulder County.

Additionally, San Francisco sued major oil companies for compensatory damages in 2017, at the height of a tech boom that swelled the city’s budget. The city closed a two-year deficit projected at $936.6 million in December, according to a joint report from the mayor’s office, city controller, and board budget analyst. The budget that Mayor Daniel Lurie signed included layoffs, according to KQED.

Multnomah County, Oregon, is seeking more than $51 billion from energy companies over the deadly 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome. The county closed a $93.2 million gap in the budget it adopted June 5, cutting $67 million from its Homeless Services Department and reducing the district attorney’s office budget, according to the county.

Baltimore pursued its own climate suit for nearly eight years before the Maryland Supreme Court affirmed its dismissal in March, becoming the first state high court in the country to throw out such a case entirely. The city’s own fiscal 2019 budget plan, released weeks before it sued in July 2018, described the spending plan as a response to Baltimore’s “ongoing fiscal challenges.” Chevron’s counsel called the ruling part of a “growing chorus” of climate case dismissals, according to Maryland Matters. City finance officials told the council in May that a harsh winter and public safety overtime pushed Baltimore’s current budget into a $64.4 million deficit, according to The Baltimore Sun.

Minnesota’s Management and Budget office projects a $3.7 billion surplus for the state’s current two-year budget cycle, but warns that a significant structural imbalance remains, with increases in spending outpacing revenue through fiscal year 2029.

Supporters of the litigation say the cases seek to recover climate adaptation costs from companies they accuse of decades of deception, not just to fill general funds, and that many suits were filed years before the current shortfalls emerged. None of the offices contacted said whether recovered funds would be restricted to climate-related purposes or could flow to general funds.

The offices of the San Francisco city attorney, Multnomah County, the Baltimore City Law Department and the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and Delaware, as well as the Center for Climate Integrity, did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

A decision in the Boulder case is expected to be made by the end of the court’s term, in June 2027, according to SCOTUSblog.

This article originally appeared at The Daily Caller

Simon August is an energy reporter for The Daily Caller

How Homo heidelbergensis Walked Europe’s Changing Climate 300,000 Years Ago

Fossilized footprints of Homo heidelbergensis (Heidelberg people), about 300,000 years old, discovered at the Schöningen Paleolithic site in Lower Saxony, Germany, are the oldest known human tracks in the country. They appear to capture a mixed- age group, likely a family, walking along the muddy shore of a prehistoric lake amid tracks of large animals.

Climate was not just a backdrop, it actively influenced where they lived, how they survived, and how their lineages evolved.

AI generated by Grok

Fossilized footprints of Homo heidelbergensis (Heidelberg people), about 300,000 years old, discovered at the Schöningen Paleolithic site in Lower Saxony, Germany, are the oldest known human tracks in the country. They appear to capture a mixed- age group, likely a family, walking along the muddy shore of a prehistoric lake amid tracks of large animals.

These findings come from a 2023 study in Quaternary Science Reviews by an international team led by researchers from the University of Tübingen and the Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment.

The three hominin footprints (one larger, attributed to an adult; two smaller ones consistent with juveniles or children, roughly corresponding to modern shoe sizes around 37, 33, and 27) were found at the Schöningen 13 II-2 Untere Berme locality. Researchers interpret them as evidence of a family outing or mixed-age group foraging or using the lakeshore resources, rather than a hunting party of adults.

The site preserves a vivid snapshot of the Middle Pleistocene ecosystem: an open landscape of birch and pine woodland with grassy understory around a shallow lake (a few kilometers long).

Herds of the extinct straight- tusked elephant Palaeoloxodon antiquus (the largest land animal of the time, with adult bulls up to ~13 tons and footprints up to 55 cm long) gathered there, along with rhinoceroses (Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis or S. hemitoechus, the first European footprint of these species), deer, and other even- toed ungulates.

The humans likely visited for plants, fruits, leaves, shoots, mushrooms, drinking, or bathing in the shallow water, consistent with patterns at other Lower and Middle Pleistocene footprint sites.

Schöningen is already famous for its exceptional preservation (including the well- known wooden spears and other artifacts associated with early human activity in the region).

No hominin skeletal remains have been found there, but the age, tools, and context point to late Homo heidelbergensis (a possible ancestor or close relative of Neanderthals and modern humans, living roughly 700,000- 200,000 years ago).

The footprints provide rare direct evidence of movement, social composition (mixed ages), and coexistence with megafauna in a shared lakeshore environment.

Homo heidelbergensis (named after a jawbone found near Heidelberg, Germany) is generally viewed as evolving from earlier Homo forms (related to H. erectus/H. ergaster) in Africa during the Middle Pleistocene.

Fossils assigned to the species or close relatives appear in Africa by around 600,000- 700,000 years ago (or earlier in some interpretations).

By roughly 500,000 years ago (and possibly earlier), populations were present in Europe.

They are often considered a key Middle Pleistocene species that may represent (or be closely related to) the last common ancestors of Neanderthals (and Denisovans) in Eurasia and modern humans in Africa.

Note that the exact species boundaries are debated, “H. heidelbergensis” is sometimes used broadly (sensu lato) for similar fossils across continents, or more narrowly for European forms, with African material sometimes called H. rhodesiensis.

Evidence indicates they lived and worked in cooperative groups.

Sites show organized hunting of large animals (such as horses, rhinos, and other big game), which required coordination, planning, and likely communication. This is supported by butchered animal remains associated with tools, as well as inferences from group composition at sites like Schöningen (the same German locality as the ~300,000-year-old footprints discussed earlier, which included mixed- age individuals consistent with family or cooperative groups).

Cooperative behaviors are also inferred from care for injured or elderly individuals in the broader hominin record and from the demands of big- game hunting.

Evidence for hafted stone spearheads (stone points fixed to wooden shafts with adhesives or bindings) is more limited and debated for this exact timeframe.

Some studies suggest possible early hafting or stone- tipped spears around 500,000 years ago in Africa, but the clearest European wooden spears (like Schöningen) appear to have been primarily all- wood weapons rather than regularly set with stone points. Later groups (including early Neanderthals) refined composite tools. Fire use and more complex planning are also associated with them.

In the context of the Schöningen footprints (~300,000 years ago), these traits fit well: a mixed- age group of H. heidelbergensis (or a late form transitional toward early Neanderthals) on a lakeshore shared with elephants and rhinos, in an environment where hunting, foraging, and tool use were part of daily life.

The species (or closely related populations) shows increasing behavioral sophistication compared to earlier hominins, bridging toward the capabilities of Neanderthals and modern humans.

Homo heidelbergensis populations began expanding out of Africa into Eurasia roughly 850,000- 600,000 years ago (with some models placing the start of significant migration around 885- 865 ka).

By about 600,000 years ago they were established in Europe, including central and northern regions such as Germany. The type specimen (Mauer mandible, near Heidelberg) dates to ~609 ± 40 ka during a warm interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage/MIS 15). Later sites like Schöningen in northern Germany (~300,000 years ago, associated with MIS 9) preserve clear evidence of their presence.

Europe’s climate during the time of H. heidelbergensis (~670- 200 ka overall presence) was highly variable, alternating between warm interglacials and cold glacials:

Interglacial periods (e.g., MIS 15 at Mauer, parts of MIS 11 and MIS 9): Temperate to warm- temperate conditions, often milder and more humid than today in some reconstructions. Landscapes featured open forests, forest- steppe, birch/pine woodlands with grassy understories, and lakeshores. Summer temperatures could be similar to or slightly cooler/warmer than modern values depending on the phase; winters were generally milder than full glacials. Fauna included large herbivores such as elephants, rhinos, horses, and deer.

Glacial or cooler transitional periods: Colder, drier, more continental climates with steppe, open grassland, or boreal forest- steppe vegetation. Glaciers expanded in northern Europe (e.g., Elsterian glaciation around ~450 ka covered large parts of Germany). Winters could be significantly colder (reconstructions for some phases show winters ~2°C or more colder than today), with greater seasonality. At Schöningen (~300 ka, late MIS 9 into cooler phases), conditions included cooler steppe phases with mild summers but colder winters, willow/birch swamp forests near lakes, and surrounding steppe with scattered pine/larch.

Climate variability strongly shaped their dispersal, survival, and evolution:

Migration and habitat expansion: Astronomically forced changes in temperature, rainfall, and plant productivity (net primary production) drove them to become more mobile “global wanderers.” They crossed wide climatic gradients (from high African productivity to much lower Eurasian values), requiring greater adaptability than earlier, more stationary African populations. Warm/humid phases facilitated northward and westward movement into Europe; cold/arid phases created barriers or forced retreats/refugia.

Adaptations and behavioral changes: Encountering colder, more seasonal European climates (with winter cold stress and fluctuating resources) selected for technological and social innovations. These included refined stone tools (Acheulean hand axes), wooden spears and throwing sticks (e.g., Schöningen), likely use of fire, possible early clothing or shelters, cooperative big- game hunting, and mixed- age group living. Such adaptations helped them exploit lakeshores, forests, and steppes for plants, mushrooms, and large mammals. Greater environmental resilience is evident compared to earlier Homo, though they still preferred temperate over extreme cold conditions.

Evolutionary consequences: In Europe, repeated climatic stress from ice- age cycles (especially eccentricity- modulated ones) contributed to the gradual transformation of local H. heidelbergensis populations into Neanderthals (~400- 300 ka). Concurrently, antiphased climate disruptions in southern Africa and Eurasia are linked to the divergence toward Homo sapiens in Africa. Overall, climate acted as a major driver of habitat suitability, population movements, and speciation during this period.

In short, H. heidelbergensis left Africa during a time of intensifying climate swings and thrived in Europe’s fluctuating temperate- to -cool environments by expanding their ecological niche and developing more sophisticated behaviors.

Sites in Germany like Mauer (warm interglacial) and Schöningen (cooler lakeshore settings with elephants and rhinos) illustrate this adaptability.

Climate was not just a backdrop, it actively influenced where they lived, how they survived, and how their lineages evolved.

Hard river sediment acts like sandpaper, rewriting how landscapes erode

Research led by the University of Glasgow used the Isle of Jura’s rivers as a natural laboratory to show that the contrast in hardness between a river’s bedload sediment and the underlying bedrock strongly influences how quickly rivers erode landscapes, often more than bedrock strength alone.

AI generated by Grok

Research led by the University of Glasgow used the Isle of Jura’s rivers as a natural laboratory to show that the contrast in hardness between a river’s bedload sediment and the underlying bedrock strongly influences how quickly rivers erode landscapes, often more than bedrock strength alone.

The study, published in Earth Surface Processes and Landforms (paper titled “How does lithology influence fluvial erodibility? A study of knickpoint retreat in small bedrock rivers on the Isle of Jura”), was led by Dr. Adam G. G. Smith of the University of Glasgow’s School of Geographical & Earth Sciences, with contributions from University College London and the University of Southampton.

Around 13,600 years ago, as the last ice age ended, rapid glacio- isostatic rebound on Jura caused base-level drops. These created knickpoints (small waterfalls or steep reaches) in the island’s bedrock rivers. Knickpoints migrate upstream over time as the lip erodes and collapses, providing a measurable record of erosion rates since their formation.

Jura’s geology offers a natural experiment: rivers flow over extremely hard Jura Quartzite (one of the hardest rocks on Earth) and a much softer band of slate (Easdale Subgroup). Some rivers stay on quartzite; others cross from hard quartzite into softer slate. Researchers took 832 Schmidt hammer readings (a tool that measures rock hardness via rebound) across 35 outcrops. The quartzite averaged roughly three times harder than the slate (mean uniaxial compressive strength ~307 MPa vs. ~123 MPa).

The team built computer models of knickpoint migration under three assumptions about erodibility (K) and compared them to the actual positions of ~18 coeval knickpoints linked to the 13.6 ka base-level fall:

  • Uniform erodibility (rock type ignored).
  • Lithology-specific erodibility (harder rock simply more resistant).
  • Contrast model: erodibility depends on the difference in strength between the bedrock and the sediment (bedload) the river carries.

The contrast model performed best, producing tighter clustering of predicted knickpoint response times around the known 13.6 ka age. Simply assigning different erosion rates by lithology performed slightly worse than assuming uniform rates. Hard sediment carried over softer bedrock can act like sandpaper and accelerate scour far beyond what bedrock strength alone would predict.

River erosion is still dominated by water discharge (rainfall and catchment area) and channel steepness; rock-hardness effects are secondary but significant. At landscape scales (tens to hundreds of kilometres), incorporating bedload, bedrock contrast improves models that currently treat hard and soft rock as simple separate blocks and miss sediment mixing.

Better constraints on fluvial erodibility help reconstruct how rivers shaped continents in the past and improve predictions of how climate change will affect future landscapes. The work also highlights Scotland’s value as a geological laboratory due to its exposed, rugged terrain.

In short, the research shows that what a river carries can matter as much as, or more than, the rock it flows over when determining how landscapes are carved.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Schmidt hammer (also called a rebound hammer) is a portable, non-destructive field and laboratory instrument widely used in rock mechanics, engineering geology, and geomorphology to estimate surface hardness and, via empirical correlations, uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and elastic modulus of intact rock.

It was originally developed in the late 1940s for testing concrete and adapted for rocks from the 1960s onward. In the Isle of Jura study (Smith et al., 2026), an N- type Schmidt hammer provided the rock-strength data used to evaluate fluvial erodibility models.

A spring-loaded mass (piston) is released when the plunger is pressed perpendicularly against a rock surface. The mass impacts the plunger, transferring energy into the rock. The rebound distance of the mass is measured as a percentage of the initial spring extension and reported as the rebound number ( R ) (or

R_L / RNR_N)

depending on hammer type). Harder surfaces produce higher rebound values because less energy is absorbed by deformation or fracturing.

Hammer Types

  • N-type: Impact energy 2.207 Nm. Preferred for most field work and stronger rocks (typically UCS ~20-150 MPa or higher). Produces less data scatter.
  • L-type: Impact energy 0.735 Nm (one-third of N- type). Better suited to weaker, porous, or weathered rocks and laboratory testing of smaller cores/samples.

Key standards and guidelines:

  • ISRM Suggested Method (revised 2008/2009 by Aydin): Detailed recommendations for apparatus, specimen requirements, testing, and data reduction. sciencedirect.com
  • ASTM D5873: Standard Test Method for Determination of Rock Hardness by Rebound Hammer Method (applicable roughly for UCS 1- 100 MPa).

Common field/lab protocol steps:

  1. Surface preparation — Clean and smooth the test surface if possible (remove loose weathering crust, but avoid artificial polishing that alters results). Test on representative, intact rock free of visible cracks or discontinuities.
  2. Orientation — Prefer horizontal impacts. Correct non-horizontal readings using manufacturer charts or analytical formulas because gravity affects the rebound.
  3. Number of impacts — Varies by standard and study:
    • ISRM: Typically 20 readings per test location/site. Discard the lowest 50% (or specific outliers) and average the remainder. A series can be stopped early if 10 successive readings differ by ≤ ±2.
    • ASTM D5873: Often 10 impacts; discard those differing by more than 7 from the mean and recalculate.
    • Other practical variants: 6–10 readings averaging all or discarding extremes; some studies recommend ≥15–30 depending on rock strength and heterogeneity.
  4. Spacing — Impacts should be spaced sufficiently (e.g., several centimetres apart) to avoid overlapping influence zones.
  5. Calibration — Regularly check the hammer on a standard steel anvil. Modern digital models store calibration factors.
  6. Environmental factors — Moisture content, temperature, weathering grade, and surface roughness influence results. Dry conditions are preferred for consistency.

In the Jura study, researchers collected a minimum of 20 rebound values per outcrop (total 832 measurements across 35 outcrops), discarded the lowest 50% following ISRM guidelines, and converted the retained average ( R ) values to UCS.

Advantages:

  • Fast, inexpensive, portable, and non- destructive.
  • Suitable for both in- situ outcrops and laboratory specimens.
  • Useful for large spatial coverage (as on Jura) and relative ranking of rock strength/erodibility.

Limitations and sources of variability:

  • Measures near- surface properties; may not represent bulk rock if a weathering rind or thin hard crust is present.
  • Sensitive to surface conditions, moisture, discontinuities, and grain- scale heterogeneity.
  • Data scatter increases outside the optimal UCS range (~20- 150 MPa).
  • Correlations to absolute UCS have inherent uncertainty; best used for relative comparisons or when calibrated locally.
  • Weak rocks may crush under impact, requiring the L-type hammer or alternative methods.
  • Minimum sample size recommendations vary (often 15- 30 readings per site for statistical reliability).

Best practices for geomorphic/fluvial studies:

  • Collect many readings across multiple outcrops to capture spatial variability.
  • Report hammer type, number of readings, data- reduction method, and conversion equation used.
  • Combine with other proxies (e.g., density, fracture density) when possible.
  • In erodibility studies, Schmidt- derived strength is often treated as proportional to resistance or used in contrast models (bedrock vs. bedload strength), as done effectively in the Jura research.

Overall, when applied consistently following ISRM or ASTM guidance and with appropriate local calibration, the Schmidt hammer remains one of the most practical tools for rapid rock- strength characterisation in both engineering and geomorphological fieldwork.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

How does lithology influence fluvial erodibility? A study of knickpoint retreat in small bedrock rivers on the Isle of Jura

The study investigates how best to incorporate rock- strength measurements into estimates of fluvial erodibility (K). It uses a suite of coeval knickpoints on the Isle of Jura (SW Scotland) that formed due to base- level fall from glacio-isostatic rebound at ~13.6 ka. These knickpoints have migrated across two lithologies of contrasting strength: hard Jura Quartzite and softer Easdale Subgroup slate.

Rock strength was quantified with a Schmidt hammer. Knickpoint response times were then predicted under different models of erodibility informed by the strength data and compared against the observed knickpoint positions.

Key Methods and Data

  • Schmidt hammer measurements across outcrops.
  • Mean uniaxial compressive strength (σUCS): ~307 MPa (1σ = 80 MPa) for Jura Quartzite vs. ~123 MPa (1σ = 86 MPa) for the Easdale Subgroup (statistically significant difference, p < 0.001). Quartzite is roughly three times stronger.
  • Identification of ~18 knickpoints linked to the 13.6 ka event (first knickpoint upstream of ~35 m elevation, corresponding to the highest raised beaches).
  • Three erodibility models tested:
    • Kinvariable — no lithologic variation.
    • Klitho — different erodibility assigned simply by lithologic unit (based on bedrock strength).
    • Kcontrast — accounts for the contrast between bedrock strength and bed-load sediment strength.

The Kcontrast model (bedrock- bedload strength contrast) produced the tightest and most accurate clustering of predicted knickpoint ages around 13.6 ka. It outperformed the other two models.

Notably, the simple lithology- specific model (Klitho) performed marginally worse than the uniform- erodibility model. This indicates that incorrectly accounting for lithology can be worse than ignoring it.

Fluvial erodibility is not controlled solely by bedrock strength. The contrast between the strength of the impacting bedload and the underlying bedrock is a better predictor (consistent with prior theoretical and field work on abrasion).

Simply mapping discrete hard/soft rock units and assigning fixed erodibilities can miss important sediment-mixing effects and may degrade model performance. Incorporating Schmidt- hammer- derived strength data via a contrast formulation offers a practical improvement for landscape- evolution models.

The authors note that discharge and channel steepness remain the dominant controls on erosion; lithologic effects are secondary but significant and worth refining, especially for larger-scale or higher-resolution models.

This work builds on earlier studies of Jura knickpoints (e.g., Castillo et al.) and related research on bedload–bedrock interactions.

Full- text access is typically behind the Wiley paywall (institutional login, purchase, or open-access options may apply depending on your access).

The University of Glasgow press release provides a good public summary of the findings.

Published: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms

DOI: 10.1002/esp.70387

Provided: University of Glasgow

Authors: Adam G. G. Smith (corresponding author, University of Glasgow), Matthew Fox, Oreoluwa Akinwale, Elias J. Rugen University College London and the University of Southampton

Abstract

Bedrock rivers are a key driver of landscape evolution across large parts of Earth’s continents. Though empirical, theoretical and numerical modelling efforts predict that bedrock erosion should be influenced by lithology, and more specifically, rock strength, relating rock strength to fluvial erodibility (K) in the field, has proven challenging. One recent suggestion as to why this may be the case is that fluvial erodibility is not controlled solely by bedrock strength, but instead the contrast in strength between the underlying bedrock and the strength of the impacting sediment carried by the river (bed load). The goal of this study is to examine how best rock strength measurements can be incorporated into estimates of fluvial erodibility. We do this by studying knickpoint migration, which is related to fluvial erodibility, on the Isle of Jura, SW Scotland. The Isle of Jura is an ideal field site as it hosts a suite of coeval knickpoints, associated with base level fall following glacio-isostatic adjustment, that have migrated over two separate rock types of differing strengths. We quantify rock strength on the island using the Schmidt hammer. We then predict knickpoint response times based on different models of fluvial erodibility informed by our rock strength data. The best fitting model of fluvial erodibility accounts for the contrast between bedrock and bed load strength. Interestingly, the model that simply assigns a different fluvial erodibility value for each lithological unit performs worse than a model that does not account for lithology. This finding challenges present practices for incorporating lithology in landscape evolution models.

Anak Krakatau’s 25-Hour Eruption Ends, But Volcano Remains on High Alert

Mount Anak Krakatau’s roughly 25-hour continuous eruption ended in the early hours of September 6, 2026, but the volcano remains highly active at Alert Level III with a high chance of further eruptions.

This YouTube video (“The World’s Most Feared Volcano Just Roared Back To Life – And It’s Terrifying,” by the channel Breakpoint, uploaded around September 6, 2026) is a ~25- minute documentary- style overview of the recent Anak Krakatau activity.

2018 Anak Krakatau event vs. the September 2026 activity

AI generated by Grok

Mount Anak Krakatau’s roughly 25- hour continuous eruption ended in the early hours of September 6, 2026, but the volcano remains highly active at Alert Level III with a high chance of further eruptions.

The continuous phase began late on September 4 (around 11:07 p.m. local time) and ended around 12:04 a.m. on September 6. Activity has since returned to its more typical intermittent Strombolian pattern, with black ash columns reaching up to about 300 meters above the summit.

Monitoring from September 6- 7 recorded dozens of earthquakes (including 93 low- frequency and 98 hybrid/multiphase events), plus other eruption- and emission-related seismic signals.

PVMBG (the Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation Center) has kept the 3 km exclusion zone in place around the activity center.

Potential hazards if continuous activity resumes include incandescent rock fragments, heavy ashfall, hot clouds (pyroclastic flows), and lava flows.

Residents, tourists, and shipping are barred from the zone.

There is currently no tsunami threat from the ongoing activity (unlike the 2018 Sunda Strait tsunami, which was triggered by flank collapse rather than the eruption itself). Officials have urged coastal residents in Banten and Lampung to stay calm and rely on official updates.

Volcanologists note that frequent eruptions are normal for this young, still- building volcano as material accumulates and the edifice grows.

As long as the system remains open, major energy buildup is not necessarily indicated. The agency continues round- the- clock visual and instrumental monitoring and will reassess the alert level if conditions change significantly.

Lava from Mount Anak Krakatau glows against the night sky as seen from Pasauran, Serang Regency, Banten, on Saturday, Sept. 5, 2026. (Antara Photo/Muhammad Bagus Khoirunas/agr).

This excerpt is from an article published by Jakartaglobe.id under the headline “Anak Krakatau’s 25-Hour Eruption Ends, Volcano Remains on Alert”. Click the following link to read the full article: https://jakartaglobe.id/news/anak-krakataus-25hour-eruption-ends-volcano-remains-on-alert.

Author : Iman Rahman Cahyadi / Hendro D Situmorang

The dramatic night photo (glowing red lava/plume against a dark sky, with bright jagged streaks that appear to be volcanic lightning) matches the kind of imagery reported from the event, including views from Pasauran, Serang Regency, Banten, around September 5. Volcanic lightning is common in ash -rich eruptions due to charge separation in the plume.


The World’s Most Feared Volcano Just Roared Back To Life – And It’s Terrifying

This YouTube video (“The World’s Most Feared Volcano Just Roared Back To Life – And It’s Terrifying,” by the channel Breakpoint, uploaded around September 6, 2026) is a ~25- minute documentary- style overview of the recent Anak Krakatau activity.

The eruption: Late on September 4, 2026, Anak Krakatau produced a powerful pulse that drove an ash column to roughly 15 km (about 50,000 ft) into the lower stratosphere in roughly half an hour. Satellite advisories showed rapid escalation (from ~7,000 ft to ~45,000- 48,000 ft). The plume was pulsed rather than a single blast, with layered ash drifting in different directions. Lava fountaining, volcanic lightning, continuous rumbling, and reports of unusually large waves in the Sunda Strait were noted.

Monitoring context: Continuous volcanic tremor (a sustained ground “hum” indicating magma and gas movement) is highlighted as the critical signal that the system is still being fed. Indonesia’s geological agency had already described shallow magma dynamics as “very high” in the preceding period, with numerous tremor episodes, eruption earthquakes, and hybrid quakes. The volcano has been at Alert Level III since July.

Aviation impact: Ash at cruising altitudes prompted rapid SIGMETs and Darwin VAAC advisories because the plume crossed a major Southeast Asian flight corridor. Ash is treated as a serious aircraft hazard (it can melt in jet engines).

Historical backdrop: The video recounts the 1883 Krakatoa catastrophe (loudest recorded sound, massive death toll) and the 2018 flank- collapse tsunami generated by Anak Krakatau itself (a largely silent, no- warning event). It stresses that water- related hazards (waves, possible instability) remain a key concern even when the ash plume is the most visible feature.

Outlook discussed: Whether this is a short- lived spike or the start of a longer eruptive cycle; why the official alert level has not been raised further; the potential for continued activity while the magma system remains open; and broader questions (size relative to past events, any climate/cooling effect, what to watch next).

The video draws on sources such as VAAC advisories, Indonesian agency reports, Tempo, The Watchers, and scientific papers on the 2018 collapse/tsunami. It ends by framing the situation as ongoing rather than resolved.

This aligns with the Jakarta Globe reporting and related coverage: the intense continuous phase lasted about 25 hours (ending early on September 6), activity has shifted back toward intermittent Strombolian behavior, the volcano remains at Level III with a 3 km exclusion zone, seismic activity is still elevated, and there is currently no tsunami warning, though close monitoring continues.

2018 Anak Krakatau event vs. the September 2026 activity

The 2018 event (22 December 2018)

Primary mechanism: A major lateral/sector collapse (flank failure) of the southwestern side of the volcano during ongoing eruptive activity. Roughly 0.1- 0.3 km³ of material (estimates vary by study; many cluster around 0.2 km³) slid into the deep caldera to the southwest.

Tsunami generation: The sudden displacement of seawater by the landslide produced the tsunami. Waves reached nearby coasts of Java (Banten) and Sumatra (Lampung) in about 30 minutes. Near- field run- ups on islands around the volcano reached tens of meters (locally >80 m vegetation stripping); far- field coastal run-ups were typically up to ~13 m.

Impacts: Approximately 437 deaths, ~14,000 injured, and tens of thousands displaced. Damage was concentrated along the Sunda Strait shores. The event occurred with little effective public warning because the collapse produced only modest short-period seismic signals.

Volcano change: Pre- collapse height was roughly 320- 338 m. The collapse “decapitated” the cone, dropping the height to around 110-120 m and removing a large fraction of the subaerial volume. Activity then shifted to more explosive phreatomagmatic (water-influenced) eruptions as seawater interacted with the open conduit.

Context: This followed months of elevated activity in 2018. Scientists had previously identified the southwest flank as potentially unstable due to the volcano’s position on the steep edge of the 1883 caldera.

Key differences with the September 2026 activity

Indonesian geological authorities (PVMBG / Badan Geologi) have repeatedly stressed that the situations are not equivalent:

Mechanism: 2026 activity has been dominated by eruptive processes (continuous phase lasting ~25 hours, ash columns reaching up to ~15 km in pulses, lava fountaining, volcanic lightning, elevated continuous tremor and hybrid earthquakes). There has been no reported large-scale flank collapse or significant landslide into the sea.

Morphology and volume: After the 2018 collapse, the volcano has been rebuilding, but the new edifice is still relatively small. Officials state that the current growth has not reached a critical volume or height that would make another large sector collapse likely. The pre- 2018 unstable configuration no longer exists in the same form.

Tsunami risk assessment: Authorities have explicitly said the current eruptions are not generating a tsunami and that the potential for a 2018- style landslide- triggered tsunami is low at present. Coastal residents in Banten and Lampung have been advised to remain calm and rely on official information. A 3 km exclusion zone remains in place mainly for ballistic ejecta, ash, and possible pyroclastic or lava hazards.

Alert and monitoring: The volcano has been held at Level III (Alert) with continuous instrumental and visual monitoring. Elevated tremor indicates magma is still moving, so further eruptions remain possible, but the primary concern right now is ash (aviation disruption, health impacts) rather than sudden flank failure.

Summary comparison

Aspect2018September 2026
Main hazard driverFlank collapse → tsunamiEruptive ash columns, tremor, possible ongoing Strombolian activity
Tsunami generated?Yes (landslide- driven)No (official assessment)
Height / volume contextTall, unstable SW flank (~320–338 m)Smaller rebuilt cone; critical collapse volume not reached
Casualties / impact~437 deaths, major coastal damageAsh-related disruption (flights, health); no tsunami casualties
Official stancePost-event recognition of collapse riskExplicitly different morphology; low collapse/tsunami potential now

The video highlights the 2018 event as the reason local communities are especially sensitive to any reports of unusual waves, even though the current dominant hazards are atmospheric (ash plume height, aviation, respiratory issues). Ongoing monitoring focuses on both eruptive intensity and any signs of renewed flank deformation.

Is climate change Abe Lincoln’s fault?

Mark Twain said, “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”

‘Climate’ is the state of affairs which one can observe over some region, over a period of something like 30 years. In contrast, ‘weather’ is short term, from one day to the next, or from one week to the next.

For some newspaper to report evidence of climate change because there was a heavy storm yesterday is crazy.

Lincoln Memorial, Washington DC

From CFACT

By Kelvin Kemm

Mark Twain said, “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.” His real name was Samuel Clemens, and in 1863, he adopted ‘Mark Twain’ as a pen name. The most common explanation of where the name came from is that as the riverboat men on the Mississippi measured the depth of the water, they would call out ‘mark twain’ at the ‘two fathom’ mark on a rope. A fathom is about six feet, so that mark indicated that there was twelve feet of water, and so it was safe for the boat to move.

There is, however, an alternative explanation. Sam was a newspaper reporter in Virginia City, which was a mining town on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada. He was well known in the saloons around town where he reportedly consumed many drinks, no doubt on his hunt for news stories. In the saloons, they would have a chalkboard, and the barman would mark up the customer’s drinks on the board. Apparently, Sam would order two drinks and call out to the barman, ‘mark twain, indicating that he should mark up two drinks at a time.

Whatever the truth of the origin of the name is, it has certainly become a famous name in history. There would be no doubt that the boatmen of the Mississippi would be very well-aware of daily weather conditions. Mark Twain clearly would have been. So, it is very important to make a distinction between climate and weather because these days they are so often confused.

Half a lifetime

‘Climate’ is the state of affairs which one can observe over some region, over a period of something like 30 years. In contrast, ‘weather’ is short term, from one day to the next, or from one week to the next. For some newspaper to report evidence of climate change because there was a heavy storm yesterday is crazy.

Mark Twain traveled around the world a lot and so he would have examined the recorded climate for any region that he was visiting. But having grown up with the riverboats, he would have been very well aware that the weather at any time that he arrived somewhere might not at all be what the recorded general climate indicated.

So, if you ask the question, “Is climate change taking place or has climate change taken place?” the first thing you have to do is ask the secondary question, “What period of time are you referring to?” If you ask, “Is the climate today the same as it was at the time of the dinosaurs?” the answer is clearly no. Similarly, if you ask, “Is the climate today the same as it was during the time of President Lincoln?” the answer is also no.

The temperature of the atmosphere of the planet has changed over much shorter periods than from the dinosaurs to now. It is well known and verified that there was a warm period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from around the year 950 to 1250. During this time, grapes were grown in England and the Domesday Book of 1086 records vineyards at Tiddington in Oxfordshire.

That warm period was followed by a cold period known as the Little Ice Age (LIA), from about 1250 to 1850. This covered the time of Shakespeare. During this time there were paintings produced of the Thames freezing over, even showing horse-drawn carriages riding down the frozen Thames.

The potato famine in Ireland also happened during this period. There are historical records showing that food shortages in Ireland and Europe were part of the reason that the Pilgrim fathers went to the New World of America.

Top hat marker

Abraham Lincoln was president right at the end of the LIA, at a time when temperatures in the U.S. were about a degree colder than they are now.

It is also an historical fact that the Industrial Revolution came about from the middle of the 1800s, at about the same time as the term of office of Lincoln.

The planet is now going into a period of modern warming, so temperatures are around 1° to 2° warmer than at the time of Lincoln. So yes, there has undoubtedly been global warming of a bit more than a degree since the time of Lincoln, which is also the time of the Industrial Revolution.

There has never been any argument that there has been some global warming and some consequent climate change.

The discussion point of merit is not whether it has happened, but rather what caused it?

‘Carbon’ is simplistic

To blame ‘climate change’ on industrially created CO2 is totally simplistic. It is far too convenient for the warming enthusiasts to blame observed warming on modern industry. By far the more plausible explanation is a variation in the incidence of cosmic radiation from outer space which alters the amount of cloud cover, which in turn alters the amount of heat reaching the ground. The cosmic rays are in turn controlled by the stream of electrically charged particles coming from the Sun, which are controlled by the magnetic field of the Sun. These particles interact with the magnetic field of the Earth.

It has been known for centuries that the Sun goes through an 11-year solar cycle, during which time the activity of the Sun varies and consequently alters the magnetic shield around the Earth.

So, try to exhibit the wisdom of Mark Twain and don’t blame every unusual storm on ‘climate change,’ which is then darkly linked to ‘the fault of modern industry.’

Taxpayer Subsidies for Chinese Batteries? Just Say No!

The project was promoted as a nearly $916 million investment that would create as many as 1,199 jobs.

After promising as many as 1,199 jobs, the company reduced its commitment to 300 and reports employing just over 120 people.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

Ed. note: This letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and key members of Congress from Consumer Action for a Strong Economy and other free market energy groups is reproduced below. At issue is a legal loophole allowing Chinese-owned battery component manufacturers to receive taxpayer funded incentives. More information can be found here.

“American taxpayers should not finance the expansion of Chinese-controlled battery companies inside the United States.”

Dear Secretary Bessent:

Consumer Action for a Strong Economy and the undersigned organizations urge the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service to fully enforce the foreign-entity restrictions enacted through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and prevent Chinese-controlled battery companies from accessing American manufacturing and energy tax incentives, including the Section 45X Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit and the Section 48E Clean Electricity Investment Credit, through U.S. subsidiaries, contractual arrangements, or nominally domestic operations.

Congress established these safeguards for a clear reason: federal tax policy should build independent American industrial capacity, support American workers, and reduce our reliance on supply chains controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Congress has already recognized this danger in the battery sector. The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party has pressed Treasury over whether Gotion should receive U.S. taxpayer support and urged federal action concerning forced-labor risks in the supply chains of both Gotion and Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Limited, or CATL. Those warnings rest on a straightforward principle: American taxpayers should not finance the expansion of Chinese-controlled battery companies inside the United States.

SEMCORP and Green New Energy Materials present that same concern in a more immediate form. Chinese parent companies are establishing U.S. subsidiaries and domestic facilities that could position them to benefit from federal incentives while preserving Chinese ownership, technology, management, personnel, and supply-chain influence. Emerging cases in Ohio and North Carolina demonstrate how a Chinese parent company can establish a nominally American operation, obtain favorable public treatment, and maintain dependence on Chinese ownership, technology, management, and personnel.

SEMCORP, a major Chinese producer of lithium-ion battery separator film, established SEMCORP Manufacturing USA LLC to develop a facility in Sidney, Ohio. The project was promoted as a nearly $916 million investment that would create as many as 1,199 jobs. Recent reporting now raises serious questions about whether SEMCORP is building the American workforce and independent industrial capacity used to sell the project. After promising as many as 1,199 jobs, the company reduced its commitment to 300 and reports employing just over 120 people. SEMCORP has acknowledged bringing workers to Ohio through L-1 visas, advertised positions identifying Mandarin as a preferred qualification, and reportedly transported foreign personnel between local hotels and the plant at unusual hours. Ohio ultimately canceled a proposed state Job Creation Tax Credit because SEMCORP never executed the agreement. The company nevertheless continues to benefit from an active local Community Reinvestment Area agreement, while a separate Enterprise Zone agreement for another parcel may be terminated for non-performance.

SEMCORP’s leadership history provides additional reason for scrutiny. When the Ohio project was announced, SEMCORP’s international division was led by Jeff Liu, the former president and CEO of Fuyao Group North America. That connection is newly relevant. On July 23, 2026, the ranking member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party launched an investigation, supported in a bipartisan fashion, into Fuyao’s American operations, seeking information concerning its ownership, decision-making in China and the United States, labor practices, government subsidies, regulatory compliance, and relationships with the PRC government and Chinese Communist Party.

The former Fuyao executive deploying the same strategies used in Fuyao gives Treasury additional reason to examine SEMCORP. Reporting suggests it is following a familiar model: establish an American subsidiary, obtain public support, rely on Chinese management and technical personnel, and promise that genuine American independence will come later.

A similar pattern is developing in North Carolina. Green New Energy Materials is the U.S. manufacturing vehicle of Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co., another Chinese battery-separator producer. The company plans to establish its first U.S. manufacturing operation in North Carolina with state and local incentive support. Its hiring materials have also identified Mandarin or Chinese-language ability as a preferred qualification for certain positions.


SEMCORP and Green New Energy Materials therefore present the same policy concern Congress identified with CATL and Gotion, but in a more immediate and concrete form. SEMCORP is already operating in Ohio, already using personnel transferred from China, already benefiting from favorable local tax treatment, and already embedded within the American battery-component market. The company denies that is seeking 45X tax credits presently but that seems certain to change when final guidance is issued, since eligibility would appear to be a key justification for its domestic investment in the first place.

These companies may point to American incorporation papers, domestic factory walls, and some American employees. Those formalities do not answer the question Congress directed Treasury to resolve: who ultimately controls the company, its technology, intellectual property, financing, equipment, key personnel, supplier relationships, profits, and strategic decisions?

That is the Chinese battery loophole Treasury must close.

The OBBBA’s foreign-entity provisions were intended to prevent companies tied to China and other adversarial nations from capturing federal benefits through corporate restructuring, U.S. based subsidiaries, licensing arrangements, supplier contracts, or other formalities that conceal continued foreign control.

A Chinese parent company should not become eligible for American tax incentives merely because it creates a Delaware, Ohio, or North Carolina subsidiary. Nor should a facility qualify as independent American production when it remains dependent upon a prohibited foreign entity for its technology, intellectual property, equipment, components, financing, executives, engineers, or operational personnel. Treasury’s Notice 2026-15 is an important first step, but its Certification Safe Harbor creates a significant enforcement vulnerability. The notice permits taxpayers to rely on supplier certifications unless they know or have reason to know that a certification is inaccurate.

That approach may be appropriate for ordinary suppliers. It is inadequate where a claimant, direct supplier, parent company, affiliate, technology licensor, equipment provider, or key contractor is owned or influenced by a prohibited foreign entity. In those cases, Treasury should require independent substantiation of ownership, contracts, payment flows, intellectual-property rights, equipment arrangements, personnel assignments, and upstream sourcing.

We therefore urge Treasury and the IRS to:

  1. Strengthen consequences for false certifications. Treasury should require full recapture of any improperly claimed credit, impose all available accuracy-related penalties, and refer knowing misrepresentations for civil or criminal enforcement.
  2. Apply rigorous prohibited-foreign-entity review to claims under Section 45X and Section 48E. Treasury should ensure that Chinese-controlled companies cannot claim the Section 45X Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit for battery components, or benefit from the Section 48E Clean Electricity Investment Credit through grid-scale battery projects, merely by operating through a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary or nominally domestic project company.
  3. Publicly clarify that domestic incorporation, final assembly in the United States, or partial domestic hiring does not by itself establish eligibility where meaningful control or material assistance remains tied to China.

    Treasury should not wait until billions of taxpayer dollars have been claimed and Chinese controlled supply chains have become entrenched before addressing these structures. Congress has already sounded the alarm over CATL and Gotion. The developing investigation into Fuyao demonstrates why PRC investment structures must be examined before American communities and industries become dependent upon them. SEMCORP and Green New Energy Materials are now a direct test of whether Treasury will apply those lessons in time.

    A factory does not become American merely because it stands in Ohio or North Carolina. A Chinese company does not become independent merely because it creates a Delaware subsidiary. And Chinese technology, executives, engineers, equipment, and supply chains do not become domestic merely because the finished component leaves an American loading dock. The OBBBA drew a clear line. American tax incentives must build American-owned, American controlled, and genuinely independent industrial capacity, not subsidize Beijing’s industrial strategy through nominally domestic corporations.
  4. We respectfully urge Treasury to strengthen its forthcoming guidance and explain clearly how it will prevent SEMCORP, Green New Energy Materials, and similarly structured companies from using American subsidiaries, contracts, or corporate formalities to circumvent the foreign-entity restrictions Congress enacted.

Sincerely,

Gerard Scimeca, Chairman Consumer Action for a Strong Economy Matthew Kandrach, President Consumer Action for a Strong Economy; Tom Pyle, President, American Energy Alliance; Jeffrey Mazzella, President, Center for Individual Freedom; Daniel Turner, CEO, Power the Future; Ryan Ellis, President, Center for a Free Economy; George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom; Eric Ventimiglia, Executive Director, Pinpoint Policy Institute; John Droz Jr., Physicist and Founder, Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED); Roslyn Layton, PhD, Senior Fellow, National Security Institute; Gregory A. Schroeder, Executive Vice President, Southwest Public Policy Institute; Saulius “Saul” Anuzis, President, 60 Plus Association, American Association of Senior Citizens; Gabriella Hoffman, Director, Center for Energy and Conservation, Independent Women; Kristen Walker, Senior Policy Analyst and Manager for Energy and Transportation, American Consumer Institute

“Delist” wolves! Executive Order: SUPPORTING AMERICA’S RANCHERS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

From CFACT

By CFACT Ed

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Policy.  Ranchers play a vital role in our Nation’s food supply chain and cultural heritage.  These hardworking Americans ensure that our country has a reliable domestic source of high-quality animal protein products, and a secure, plentiful domestic ranching industry vindicates this country’s food security.  But the national herd is at a 75-year low, while consumer demand for beef has grown almost 10 percent over the past decade.  My Administration has already acted to support ranchers by, for example:  enforcing voluntary “Product of USA” labeling to give American ranchers the recognition they deserve for producing in the United States; mapping over 2 million additional acres of grazing land managed by the Department of the Interior and identifying nearly 1.6 million acres of vacant allotments managed by the United States Forest Service and opening them for Federal grazing permit applications across the West; withdrawing burdensome Biden-era regulations that imposed substantial compliance costs in the name of speculative environmental benefits; and implementing a number of financially beneficial tax law changes for ranchers, such as lowering Death Taxes and promoting more rapid expensing and depreciation policies.  More can and should be done to support this critical industry, and my Administration will continue to act to protect our domestic producers.

Sec. 2.  Comprehensive Policy and Regulatory Review.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, the United States Trade Representative, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall submit to the President a report that assesses all executive department and agency (agency) regulations, guidance, and other agency policies affecting ranchers and that provides recommendations for action to promote financial viability and enhanced market access for American ranchers consistent with this order.

Sec. 3.  Helping Ranchers Combat Predation.  Within 90 days of the date of this order:

(a)  The Secretary of the Interior shall make a determination as to whether the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf have met the recovery criteria for delisting or downlisting under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and, if he determines that the recovery criteria has been met, shall begin the process of delisting or downlisting them.

(b)  The Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Assistant to the President and Director of Legislative Affairs, shall prepare and submit to the President a legislative recommendation to fully delist or downlist the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf under the ESA.

(c)  Upon a determination by the Secretary of the Interior that the ESA recovery criteria has been met with respect to the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf, the Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall engage with States to encourage them to delist gray wolves and Mexican wolves from any State-specific lists of protected species and to revise their standards for lethal takings of gray wolves and Mexican wolves to assist ranchers in combating predation.

(d)  The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall consider developing or amending their respective Departments’ producer compensation regulations, evidentiary standards, and program handbooks, consistent with applicable law, to ensure that all depredation claims adjudicated by their respective Departments are consistently, accurately, and expeditiously assessed, including by setting adequate standards to investigate depredations by gray wolves and Mexican wolves and by considering additional factors beyond subcutaneous hemorrhaging when appropriate.

(e)  The Secretary of the Interior shall consider amending regulations or providing additional guidance, consistent with applicable law, to revise the Department’s criteria for authorizing lethal gray wolf and Mexican wolf removal and to enable greater emergency responsiveness, including precision targeting, for situations involving predator threats to human safety or threats to domestic livestock.

Sec. 4.  Country-of-Origin Labeling.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the United States Trade Representative, shall review all statutory and regulatory authorities that may permit the establishment of mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef products and shall provide the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy with a summary of such authorities as well as an economic analysis of the impacts of mandatory country-of-origin labeling that reflects current conditions and modernized practices.  Based on these assessments, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the United States Trade Representative and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, may issue or amend regulations, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to require mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef products, or may, in further coordination with the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, develop legislative recommendations regarding such labeling.

Sec. 5.  Supporting American Consumers.  To the extent consistent with applicable law, the head of each agency shall take such steps as may be appropriate to ensure that the measures directed in this order, as well as other measures taken by my Administration with respect to food production and supply, benefit American consumers in the form of lower prices to the maximum extent possible.

Sec. 6.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Agriculture.

DONALD J. TRUMP,

THE WHITE HOUSE,

September 4, 2026.

12,000-Year-Old Petroglyphs on India’s Konkan Coast Reveal Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherer Life

These are real prehistoric petroglyphs (rock carvings/geoglyphs) from the Konkan region of western India (mainly Maharashtra’s Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts, extending into Goa), but the “lost civilization” framing is media exaggeration.

The creators of the Konkan petroglyphs were prehistoric Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age) hunter- gatherers.

AI generated By Grok

These are real prehistoric petroglyphs (rock carvings/geoglyphs) from the Konkan region of western India (mainly Maharashtra’s Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts, extending into Goa), but the “lost civilization” framing is media exaggeration.

Some of the rock carvings found in Maharashtra, India. BBC Marathi

The image shows characteristic examples: white- outlined figures etched into dark laterite rock, including stylized animals (some aquatic or terrestrial), abstract shapes, and possibly human or hybrid forms. Thousands of such carvings (over 1,000-1,500 documented across 50- 70 and more sites) have been catalogued since local discoveries and systematic surveys in the 1990s- 2010s, often by amateur explorers later supported by state archaeologists.

Estimates place many of them around 10,000- 12,000 years old (Mesolithic/Middle Stone Age), based on associated microlithic stone tools, stylistic comparisons, absence of agricultural or domestic- animal scenes, and ecological clues. Direct dating of the carvings themselves is difficult and imprecise; ranges sometimes cited go broader (e.g., 5,000- 40,000 years in some assessments). They predate the Indus Valley Civilization by millennia and help fill a long gap in the Konkan archaeological record between the Paleolithic and early historical periods.

They were made by hunter-gatherer communities using hard stone tools on open, flat laterite plateaus (unusual compared to typical cave or cliff rock art). Subjects include life-size or large animals (elephants, one famous example measures ~13 × 18 m with dozens of smaller figures inside its outline—tigers, deer, monkeys, boars, peacocks), marine life (sharks, stingrays), humans (often stylized or fertility-related), and geometric/abstract designs.

Some carvings depict rhinoceroses and hippopotamuses (or similar forms). These species are not part of the modern Konkan fauna and are thought to have disappeared from the region thousands of years ago. Their presence in the art suggests the creators were familiar with them, pointing to a wetter, more forested post- Ice Age environment in the past. This is ecological evidence rather than proof of exotic or impossible fauna.

Archaeologists describe these as the work of previously poorly documented prehistoric (Mesolithic) hunter-gatherers in the region, not a sophisticated urban or “forgotten civilization” with advanced technology or written records. No associated settlements, metal tools, farming scenes, or other markers of complex society have been firmly linked. The carvings provide valuable insights into local ecology, symbolic thought, possible ritual use, and continuous human presence, and several sites are on India’s UNESCO World Heritage tentative list. Conservation is a concern due to weathering, development, and quarrying.

In short, this is an important and genuine discovery of ancient Indian rock art that expands our understanding of Mesolithic life on the Konkan coast. The dramatic “lost civilization” and mystery-animal headlines overstate the case for popular appeal. The image is consistent with published examples of these Konkan petroglyphs.

The main systematic uncovering and cataloguing effort was led by local engineers and naturalists (notably Sudhir Risbud and Dhananjay/Manoj Marathe or similar collaborators), who began exploring the laterite plateaus of Maharashtra’s Konkan coast (especially Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts) around 2012 or earlier. They were significantly aided by schoolchildren, villagers, shepherds, and other residents who guided them to sites or shared oral knowledge.

Over time the work expanded to dozens of locations, reports commonly reference clusters across roughly 50- 70 and more sites or villages in the region, with only a small minority of communities having prior awareness of the carvings. In those places where locals already knew about them, some images were (and in cases still are) treated as sacred or auspicious symbols, sometimes protected or incorporated into local traditions. Many others had been covered by soil, vegetation, or simply overlooked on remote hilltops until the surveys brought them to wider attention.

The repertoire is diverse, exactly as described:

  • Human (anthropomorphic) figures, often stylized
  • Animals (elephants, tigers, deer, rhinoceroses, hippopotamus- like forms, boars, monkeys, etc.)
  • Birds
  • Marine creatures (sharks, stingrays, etc.)
  • Abstract and geometric designs

These details reinforce that the carvings represent the symbolic and observational world of Mesolithic hunter- gatherers rather than a later, more complex “lost civilization.” The community involvement also highlights how local knowledge was essential to recovering this heritage, much of which remains vulnerable to weathering and development.

Photo: आर्या जोशी via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

The creators of the Konkan petroglyphs were prehistoric Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age) hunter- gatherers.

In India, the Mesolithic period roughly spans from about 10,000 BCE to 5,000–2,000 BCE (varying by region), marking the transition from the Pleistocene into the Holocene. It is defined archaeologically by:

  • Widespread use of microliths — small, finely made stone blades and tools often set into composite implements (arrows, spears, sickles).
  • A continued reliance on hunting, gathering, fishing and foraging, with no clear evidence of agriculture or animal domestication in the Konkan carvings.
  • Increased seasonal mobility or semi- permanent camps near water sources, and a flowering of symbolic expression, including rock art.

In the Konkan region specifically, the petroglyphs (and associated microliths found at some sites) are the primary evidence filling a long gap between earlier Paleolithic occupations and much later historical periods. The absence of domestic animals, farming scenes, metal tools, or settled village imagery in the carvings supports a mobile or semi-mobile foraging way of life.

Around 12,000 years ago (early Holocene), the climate of peninsular India, including the Konkan coast, was significantly different from today:

Post- glacial recovery: Following the Last Glacial Maximum, global temperatures rose and the Indian summer monsoon strengthened during the Early Holocene Climatic Optimum. Rainfall was higher (in some reconstructions substantially more than modern levels), supporting denser vegetation.

Wetter, more forested landscape: Much of the region supported tropical evergreen to moist deciduous forests rather than the more open or seasonally dry conditions of later periods. Coastal and inland water bodies were more extensive.

Faunal implications: This environment could sustain larger mammals such as rhinoceros and hippopotamus (depicted in some petroglyphs), which later disappeared from the Konkan as conditions dried. Sea levels were still rising after the glacial lowstand, reshaping the coastline and coastal ecosystems.

Later, around the mid- Holocene (~6,000- 5,000 years ago), monsoon weakening contributed to “savannization” — expansion of grasslands and reduction of dense forests across parts of peninsular India. This climatic shift is linked in some regions to the eventual adoption of agro- pastoralism, but the Konkan petroglyph tradition appears to reflect an earlier, still fully foraging adaptation to the wetter early Holocene environment.

In summary, the people who made these carvings lived as skilled hunter- gatherer- fishers in a warmer, wetter Konkan landscape richer in forests and large wildlife than the one we see today. The petroglyphs themselves serve as both cultural and paleoenvironmental records of that period.