Day: September 7, 2026

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.