

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Margaret Wilson, Content Creation & Media Relations Specialist, Rodale Institute, Margaret.Wilson@RodaleInstitute.org
As extreme weather events, rising temperatures, and global health crises continue to threaten our world, the repercussions of a changing climate are being felt more acutely than ever. As the global community looks for solutions, we must critically examine the way we grow our food, and the potential of the soil under our feet to remove carbon, a powerful greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere and lock it underground.
A new white paper released Friday by Rodale Institute, the global leader in regenerative organic agriculture, has analyzed the explosive amount of new data on soil carbon sequestration potential in the past decade to conclude that a global switch to regenerative crop and pasture systems could drawdown more than 100 percent of annual CO2 emissions.
The white paper, titled "Regenerative Agriculture and the Soil Carbon Solution," builds upon claims first made by Rodale Institute in the widely read 2014 white paper, "Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming," integrating the newest research data while providing actionable steps for consumers, policymakers, farmers, and more. The full paper, as well as a fact sheet and action toolkit, can be downloaded at RodaleInstitute.org/Climate2020. The action toolkit includes a guide to buying regenerative products, tools to support regenerative farming policy, and social media graphics.
The new publication shows that a global switch to a regenerative food system could not only feed the world while reducing chemical exposure and improving biodiversity and soil health but could also be the key to mitigating the climate crisis. The paper was compiled through extensive peer-reviewed research data and interviews with leaders in the fields of soil microbiology, ranchland ecology, agronomy, and more, as well as research conducted in Rodale Institute's world-renowned long-term comparison trials, including the 40-year-old Farming Systems Trial.
"Rodale Institute has been a leader in research about the impact and benefit of regenerative farming systems since Bob Rodale first started using the term in the 1980s," said Dr. Andrew Smith, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Scientist of Rodale Institute. "A vast amount of data on the carbon sequestration potential of agricultural soils has been published, including from Rodale Institute, and recent findings are starting to reinforce the benefits of regenerative agricultural practices in the fight against the climate crisis."
Key findings:
Rodale Institute launched the paper today at The Crop Trust's Food Forever Experience, held in partnership with Pocono Organics. The Food Forever Experience is held on the UN Global Day of Action, which encourages people to support the Sustainable Development Goals, including climate action.
Regenerative practices and building soil health have come into focus over the past few years, driven in part by the startling loss of topsoil globally, and the need for resilient agriculture to withstand extreme weather from the climate crisis. The carbon-storing potential of regenerative agriculture and its associated practices is well-documented--however, we need rapid transition to these practices globally to implement this climate change solution.
"Humans broke the planet with grave agricultural malpractice," said Tom Newmark, Chairman of The Carbon Underground, a contributor to the paper. "With this white paper, Rodale Institute shows us how regenerative agriculture has the potential to repair that damage and actually reverse some of the threatening impacts of our climate crisis. This is a compelling call to action!"
"Regenerative Agriculture and the Soil Carbon Solution" hopes to increase implementation of regenerative practices by tackling common debates about agriculture and the climate crisis, such as the role of livestock in contributing to global climate change. Alongside research into cropland, the paper investigates regenerative ranching's potential to build soil carbon and help sequester emissions in the soil.
Through the publication of this white paper, Rodale Institute hopes to invite those in the food, farming, and health spaces to rethink the future they want to see for both people and the planet, and what steps they can take every day to achieve it.
Resources:
About Rodale Institute: Rodale Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to growing the organic movement through rigorous research, farmer training, and consumer education. Widely considered the global leader in regenerative organic agriculture, Rodale Institute has been researching the best practices of organic agriculture and sharing findings with farmers, scientists, and consumers throughout the world since 1947. Learn more at RodaleInstitute.org.
Rodale Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to pioneering organic farming through research and outreach. For more than sixty years, we've been researching the best practices of organic agriculture and sharing our findings with farmers and scientists throughout the world, advocating for policies that support farmers, and educating consumers about how going organic is the healthiest options for people and the planet.
Just weeks after Trump's secretary of state admitted that "no country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway," the president demanded 20%, far higher than the 1-2% sought by Iran.
The Iranian foreign minister on Monday mocked President Donald Trump's announcement that he was renewing the US blockade of Iran and that he expected a 20% fee from commercial vessels for "guarding" the key waterway.
"POTUS is absolutely right," the minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, wrote on social media. "Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service."
"Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER," he added. "20% is of course too much. We will be fair."
Trump had called in to "Fox & Friends" on Monday. He said on-air that the United States would be "the guardian angel of the strait" and "we're gonna get paid for guarding it."
Later Monday morning, he had written on Truth Social that "the U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as ‘THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,’ but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped, for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World."
Critics and experts have highlighted that Trump's 20% toll is far higher than the 1-2% sought by Iran, and warned that Trump had perhaps unintentionally bolstered Iran's case for imposing its own fee on ships in the strait.
Others have pointed out that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told journalists just a few weeks ago that "no country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway. That's existing international law. That's the way it is in international waterways all over the world, and that's the way we expect it'll be here. So I don't think we have anybody to convince around here in that regard. I think all the countries in this region would agree with us."
"Is the secretary of state worried because he knows US personnel committed war crimes in Iran?"
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday announced what he characterized as a "campaign to dismantle" the International Criminal Court, the Hague-based tribunal tasked with investigating and charging individuals with war crimes and other violations.
In a video posted to social media, Rubio accused the international court of "waging a war against our country—not with bullets or missiles, but with statutes, compacts, and the force of so-called international law." The top American diplomat threatened that the US "will teach the ICC the full meaning of American resolve."
The US State Department said in a statement that Rubio's new campaign against the ICC would "feature a whole-of-government response to systematically disable" the court's "ability to operate, target American servicemen or officials, or otherwise threaten American sovereignty." The US is not party to the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty that established the ICC.
US President Donald Trump and his subordinates, who have been accused of myriad violations of international law, have adopted an increasingly aggressive posture toward the ICC since taking power last January.
In a February 6, 2025 executive order, Trump declared "a national emergency to address" the purported "threat" posed by the ICC and announced sanctions against court officials, including its judges. The president's order cited the ICC's "investigations concerning personnel of the United States and certain of its allies, including Israel," which is also not party to the Rome Statute.
In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, for alleged war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip.
Rubio warned in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Monday that US officials accused of international crimes could be next to face ICC action.
"Border Patrol agents working to remove violent criminals from our country, US Marines risking their lives to restore order in the Western Hemisphere, federal prosecutors working to dismantle terror networks plotting attacks on the American homeland—all would face the constant risk of persecution for the 'crime' of defending our country," Rubio wrote. "Using all the tools at our government’s disposal, working beside every ally with whom we can make common cause, we will dismantle the ICC—brick by brick, if necessary."
Raed Jarrar, advocacy director of the human rights group Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), said in response to Rubio's op-ed that "when the world’s most powerful country aims to dismantle the world’s only permanent international court, it sends the message that the powerful are above the law."
"It is not the ICC that Rubio is dismantling brick by brick, but the rules-based international order that grew out of the ashes of World War II,” said Jarrar. "Rubio’s attack doesn't just underscore US hypocrisy, but undermines access to justice across the globe, from Ukraine to Sudan and could amount to obstruction of justice, a crime under the Rome Statute in and of itself."
In his op-ed, Rubio pointed to DAWN's call earlier this year for Iran and other Middle East nations to grant the ICC jurisdiction to investigate apparent war crimes committed during the conflict launched in late February by Trump and Netanyahu.
Omar Shakir, DAWN's executive director, said Monday that Rubio mischaracterized the group's call as focusing solely on actions by US personnel. That move, said Shakir, "begs the question: Is the secretary of state worried because he knows US personnel committed war crimes in Iran?"
Under Rubio's plan, the State Department is threatening to impose "increased sanctions against the ICC and affiliated organizations," hit court personnel with "visa revocations and travel bans," and pressure other nations that aren't party to the Rome Statute to "leverage their diplomatic networks to take similar actions alongside" the Trump administration.
Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch who has demanded international accountability for the Trump administration over its illegal assault on Iran, wrote Monday that Rubio "can't even make an honest case for attacking the International Criminal Court."
"He makes it sound like the ICC acts out of the blue anywhere it wants when in fact it acts only against crimes committed on the territory of states that have invited it," Roth wrote. "He never explains why the United States should be able to commit crimes on the territory of those states with impunity, contrary to the desire of their sovereign governments for an international backstop to reinforce justice for such crimes."
“This is not a grant reform—it is a blueprint for a spoils system applied to federal science funding."
An environmental watchdog group is calling on the White House Office of Management and Budget to withdraw a proposal that it said will give President Donald Trump and his allies unchecked power to control over a trillion dollars worth of federal grants.
Monday marked the end of the public comment period for a proposal from the OMB, spearheaded by Project 2025 architect Russell Vought and issued in late May, that would require all discretionary federal grants to “demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities.”
As Elizabeth Kolbert explained in The New Yorker:
It would replace the current guidance for signing off on government grants, which generally leaves the task to civil servants and peer-review panels.
Instead, the final say would go to political appointees. All discretionary awards from the federal government would have to be assessed by senior administration officials, who could deny them on the [grounds] that they didn’t fit the President’s agenda. Grants could also be terminated at any time for the same reason.
The rules would affect hundreds of billions of dollars in funding disbursed by agencies ranging from the National Endowment for the Arts to the Transportation Department, to pay for everything from local dance performances to massive infrastructure projects.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a formal comment on Monday urging the OMB to withdraw the proposal.
"The scale of what is proposed is staggering," the group said. "This rule would institutionalize corruption and cronyism in the distribution of over a trillion dollars in annual federal funds."
The comment noted the proposal's language forbidding political appointees from deferring to peer review, which the group said will lead grants to be awarded based on ideological conformity rather than scientific merit.
"This language makes clear that the rule's purpose is not to add accountability over expert review but to replace expert judgment with political judgment entirely," the comment says. "Researchers would learn quickly to propose only work likely to survive ideological screening, while federal program officers, many of whom are being stripped of civil service protections, would face pressure to recommend or approve grants to preserve their jobs. "
“This would corrupt scientific judgment at every level of the process,” it adds, noting the Trump administration’s concerted effort to strip away funding for research on health and environmental issues that conflict with his political agenda, including climate science, vaccine safety, chemical safety, and emerging infectious diseases.
Since last year, the administration has terminated or frozen nearly 8,000 research grants and has effectively slashed the budget of the National Science Foundation by refusing to disburse funds appropriated by Congress. The agency is on track to issue the fewest grants in more than half a century, according to a report last month from Grant Witness.
The proposal would also allow agency heads to keep grants from being posted publicly whenever they determine that doing so would be contrary to the "national interest," which the rule does not define.
PEER said this change "permits agencies to offer grants by invitation only among preferred recipients with no requirement to explain or justify the determination."
The group pointed to the Trump administration’s pattern of directing no-bid contracts to the president’s family, friends, and supporters.
Trump megadonor and former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk, the comment notes, was allowed to oversee the cancellation of the contracts for numerous vendors while never touching any of the more than $19 billion his businesses held in federal contracts.
“This is not a grant reform—it is a blueprint for a spoils system applied to federal science funding,” said Tim Whitehouse, executive director of PEER.
PEER's comment is one of nearly 342,000 OMB has received about the proposal in just over a month, of which 52,000 are publicly posted. The office is hoping to finalize the proposal by October 1 and has denied requests from watchdog organizations to extend the public comment period.
If that happens, Whitehouse has said it would upend the systems of accountability and transparency for scientific funding that have been in place for decades.
“Grant money has historically been distributed through programs authorized by Congress using statutory, regulatory, formula-based, or competitive criteria rather than direct tests of political loyalty,” added Whitehouse. “Placing all scientific research funding under the unreviewable discretion of political appointees is not an administrative reform; it is a recipe for corruption on a scale not seen even in this administration.”