

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.
Wells Fargo Workers United and Stop the Money Pipeline are teaming up to target one corporation that clearly doesn't care about everyday people: Wells Fargo.
Living in the United States right now, it's easy to feel rage and despair. Corporations and billionaires have amassed so much money and power that popular opinions held by everyday working people are no longer represented by our federal government, and corporations are freer than ever to do what they like.
The results are damning: rising costs of basic needs like healthcare, housing, insurance, and groceries, making them unaffordable. We are faced with increasingly dangerous extreme weather events, endangering our homes, businesses, and loved ones. We are exposed to more pollution and toxins in our air, water, and soil than ever before. On top of it all, our mandated tax dollars are being used to kill and starve children at home and abroad.
Now, we find ourselves asking: How can we possibly influence our government, these corporations, and the billionaire class to do the right thing? Our only choice is to work together: the climate and labor movement uniting to hit these corporations and billionaires where it hurts—their wallets.
Wells Fargo Workers United and Stop the Money Pipeline are teaming up to target one corporation that clearly doesn't care about everyday people: Wells Fargo. In February, despite its rank as the fifth largest funder of fossil fuels in the world in 2024, Wells Fargo publicly dropped its 2030 and 2050 climate goals. Wells Fargo has also been caught union busting, recently allegedly eavesdropping on bargaining. The bank has already faced over 30 Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charges, and has been found violating workers’ rights on multiple occasions. Since its founding, Wells Fargo executives have proven that they will prioritize profit over people and the planet.
There’s a magical reality that happens when talking to people about the power they already have to impact a corporation and the world.
We won’t let them get away with it. If enough Wells Fargo workers join the union, they can withhold, or threaten to withhold, their labor, which could cost the company real revenue loss. Workers can then use this leverage to negotiate for higher wages, more staff, and an end to Wells Fargo’s funding of the climate crisis. This the first time that a union is forming at a US bank this large.
We’re seeing real momentum. Already, 28 Wells Fargo branches have voted to unionize and are actively engaging in bargaining. In August, over 30 people from communities facing the brunt of pollution from fossil fuel build-out in the Gulf South visited bank branches in San Francisco to inform workers about the union and Wells Fargo dropping its climate targets.
There’s a magical reality that happens when talking to people about the power they already have to impact a corporation and the world. We’ve seen workers light up when we share more about the support system of workers who feel the same way they do. They lift out of the drudgery of their daily routine, and sparkle with energy as we explore the possibility of change in their workplaces. In a time when so many of us are isolated, the opportunity to come together safely in person and affect real meaningful change can be so fulfilling, and even joyful. We need as many people as possible talking to Wells Fargo workers about the union to build the power we need to win.
This isn’t just about what we’re against, this is about what we fight for: a collective future where all of us can thrive, drink clean water, and breathe clean air; where workers unite to build power for better working conditions and climate policies. Any worker, anywhere, can take action. If you are a union member, or connected to any climate or labor organizing, talk to your leadership to see what you can do to build these bridges.
We won’t deny the challenges before us. It's true, stepping outside of your comfort zone is scary, but this is a space of growth and creativity. To create a better world, we have to do things that challenge ourselves and our status quo. As the saying goes, “Action is the cure for despair.” The only way to effectively protect our world and democracy is to stand together across climate and labor and fight back as one. It’s time that we embrace this moment together.Six of the 12 MLB teams in this year’s playoffs—including the league champions—are sponsored by some of the biggest polluters on the planet as well the financial institutions that underwrite them.
Millions of baseball fans have been watching this year’s World Series between the Los Angeles Dodgers and Toronto Blue Jays, building on the huge audience the Major League Baseball playoffs attracted over the last few weeks. Nationally, postseason viewership through the American and National League championship series averaged 4.48 million, a 13% increase from 2024, making it the most-watched baseball postseason since 2017.
Fans tuning in couldn’t help but notice signage in the ballparks—as well as logos on players’ uniforms—promoting corporations that are exacerbating climate change. Six of the 12 MLB teams in this year’s playoffs—the league champions along with the Boston Red Sox, Cleveland Guardians, Detroit Tigers, and Milwaukee Brewers—are sponsored by some of the biggest polluters on the planet as well the financial institutions that underwrite them.
It’s called sportswashing, a play on the term greenwashing. Companies sponsor teams to portray themselves as good corporate citizens, increase visibility, and build public trust, hoping that fans will form the same bond with their brand that they have with their teams. According to a 2021 Nielsen study, 81% of fans completely or somewhat trust companies that underwrite sports teams, second only to the trust they have for friends and family.
As it turns out, more than half of the 30 MLB teams are pursuing petrodollars, but baseball is not alone. Three dozen US pro basketball, football, hockey, and soccer teams have similar sponsorship deals that afford oil companies, electric utilities, and fossil fuel-friendly financial institutions a range of promotional perks, from billboards and jersey logos to community outreach projects and facility naming rights, according to a survey conducted last fall by University of California, Los Angeles’ Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
Baseball club owners, however, are more concerned about their bottom line than their sponsors’ climate impacts
Most sports aficionados are likely unaware that their favorite teams are going to bat for corporate climate destroyers, but baseball fans in New York and Los Angeles are calling out the Mets and Dodgers, demanding that they sever their ties to the fossil fuel industry. Cigarette advertisements, which at one time were ubiquitous in ballparks, were essentially banned because of the threat smoking poses to public health. Given the threat that fossil fuels pose to public health and the environment, shouldn’t their ads—as well as the other trappings of their sponsorships—be banned as well?
Oil, gas, and coal are largely responsible for the carbon pollution driving up world temperatures and triggering more dangerous extreme weather events. Last year the world experienced the highest average global temperature in 175 years of recordkeeping, and that dubious distinction came on the heels of 10 of the hottest years, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Those warmer temperatures certainly played a role in producing the 27 weather and climate disasters in the United States last year that caused at least $1 billion in damages, one fewer than the record set in 2023.
Baseball club owners, however, are more concerned about their bottom line than their sponsors’ climate impacts. After all, annual MLB payrolls today average $157 million.
The Dodgers, whose $321 million payroll is the highest in baseball, first partnered with Phillips 66, owner of the 76 brand gas station chain, in 1962. The most visible element of their partnership is the company’s iconic 76 orange logo that sits atop both Dodger Stadium scoreboards. But like most sponsorships, it is about much more than prime ad placement.
Phillips 66 fosters community loyalty, for example, by collaborating with the Dodger foundation’s educational and charitable programs, including a campaign promoting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education for underserved elementary and middle-school students. Most of its tie-ins, however, involve various promotions to sell more gasoline. Customers who buy at least 8 gallons can get a free limited edition 76-Dodger pin or two Dodger home game tickets for the price of one. And on special “76 Stadium Days,” customers who fill up their tanks can get free tickets, T-shirts, and other swag.
Phillips 66 has built a devoted customer base over the years by tying itself to the Dodgers, but its environmental track record tells a very different story. It is definitely not a good corporate citizen. The company is among the nation’s top 10 air and surface water polluters in total pounds and the 14th biggest carbon polluter, emitting more than 30 million metric tons in 2022, according to the 2024 edition of Political Economy Research Institute’s (PERI) “Top 100 Polluter Indexes.” The company also is one of six major oil and gas companies California sued in June 2024 for climate damages, accusing them of carrying out a “decades-long campaign of deception” to hide the truth about climate change and delay the transition to clean energy. Likewise, it is among 32 companies named in similar lawsuits filed at the same time by three California cities—Imperial Beach, Richmond, and Santa Cruz—and three California counties—Marin, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz.
Arco, owned by Marathon Petroleum, also advertises in Dodger Stadium. The country’s largest oil refiner with more than 7,000 Marathon and Arco gas stations nationwide, it is among the top 20 air, surface water, and carbon polluters in the country, according to PERI’s 2024 report. It also is one of the oil and gas companies sued by the six California municipalities in June 2024, and the company and its subsidiaries have been fined more than $900 million for federal environmental violations since 2014.
An Ohio-based company, Marathon Petroleum has much closer ties with the Cleveland Guardians. It has been one of the team’s main sponsors since 2021, and the team—who lost to the Tigers in the wild card round—has been wearing its logo on their sleeves since the summer of 2023. Its logo also is prominently displayed in the Guardians’ ballpark and, as part of the uniform patch agreement, is featured on souvenir jerseys given to fans on two game days every season.
Cleveland’s ballpark has been called Progressive Field since 2008, when the Progressive insurance company paid $58 million for naming rights for 16 years. It extended the deal through 2036 for an undisclosed sum last year. While Progressive is a minor player when it comes to fossil fuel investments, it is still a contributor. As of 2024, the company had $306 million invested in 20 utilities and fossil fuel companies, including Duke Energy, Marathon Petroleum, and ExxonMobil, according to a report by the German environmental nonprofit Urgewald.
The Tigers, who lost to the Seattle Mariners in the American League Division Series, partner with DTE, a local fossil fuel-based electric utility. DTE derives 40% of its electricity from coal, another 26% from fossil gas, and only 12% from wind and solar. Although the company is committed to reducing its reliance on coal over the next decade, it plans to replace it with fossil gas, not renewables.
The Blue Jays, Brewers, and Red Sox, meanwhile, have commercial ties with financial institutions that invest heavily in fossil fuels.
The Blue Jays’ jersey sleeves display the logo of the Toronto-Dominion (TD) Bank, the ninth biggest financier of fossil fuel companies in 2024, when it invested $20 billion, according to the 2025 edition of the “Banking on Climate Chaos” fossil fuel finance report. More than a quarter of that outlay—$5.5 billion—went to the Trans Mountain Pipeline extension, which the report says “poses a grave threat to Indigenous people.” Its US recipients included ConocoPhillips, NGL Energy, and Phillips 66.
The Brewers, who lost to the Dodgers in the National League Championship Series, wear Northwestern Mutual patches on their sleeves. As of last year, the insurance company had $12.17 billion invested in 146 fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil, Marathon Petroleum, and Shell, according to Urgewald’s report.
Lastly, one of the official sponsors of the Red Sox, who lost to the New York Yankees in the wild card round, is Bank of America. According to the “Banking on Climate Chaos” report, it invested $46 billion in fossil fuels in 2024, second only to JPMorgan Chase. Its US recipients included Occidental Petroleum, Duke Energy, and ConocoPhillips.
Besides the Red Sox’ Bank of America connection, an illuminated Gulf Oil sign hangs on the back wall overlooking Fenway Park’s left field grandstand. (As Sox fans know, there is also a massive Citgo sign sitting on top of a nearby building that looms over Fenway’s Green Monster, but it is not owned by the Red Sox.)
In June 2024, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres castigated coal, oil, and gas companies—dubbing them the “godfathers of climate chaos” for spreading disinformation—and called for a worldwide ban on fossil fuel advertising. He also urged ad agencies to refuse fossil fuel clients and companies to stop taking their ads. So far, more than 1,000 advertising and public relations agencies worldwide have pledged to refuse working for fossil fuel companies, their trade associations, and their front groups.
Major League Baseball is behind the curve, but fans, environmentalists, and public officials in New York and Los Angeles have been trying to bring their teams up to speed.
Two years ago, a coalition of groups, including New York Communities for Change, Stop the Money Pipeline, and Climate Defenders, joined New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams to urge the New York Mets to sever ties with Citigroup—the third biggest fossil fuels financier in 2024—which paid $400 million for the Mets to call their ballpark Citi Field for 20 years. “Citi doesn’t represent the values of Mets fans or NYC,” Williams wrote in a tweet. “If they refuse to end their toxic relationship with fossil fuels, the Mets should end their partnership with Citi.” (Although the Mets payroll is nearly as high as the Dodgers’, they didn’t make the playoffs this year.)
Activists are hoping that more public officials—and more fans—will step up to the plate and pressure their teams to do the right thing.
While Williams and the coalition initially framed their campaign around the Mets’ ties to Citigroup, most of the coalition’s activity since 2023 has focused more broadly on Citigroup’s fossil fuel financing and not specifically on its Mets sponsorship.
A similar baseball-oriented campaign in Los Angeles, however, is still very much alive. More than 80 public interest groups, scientists, and environmental advocates signed an open letter in August 2024 calling on the Dodgers to cut their ties with Phillips 66. “Using tactics such as associating a beloved, trusted brand like the Dodgers with enterprises like 76,” the letter states, “the fossil fuel industry has reinforced deceitful messages that ‘oil is our friend,’ and that ‘climate change isn’t so bad.’” Since then, more than 28,000 Dodger fans have signed the letter, and the Sierra Club’s Los Angeles chapter has held rallies outside Dodger Stadium this year demanding that owner Mark Walter end his team’s Phillips 66 sponsorship deal.
The campaign has received support from some local elected officials. State Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-33), for example, endorsed the campaign earlier this year. “Continuing to associate these [fossil fuel] corporations with our beloved boys in blue is not in our community or the planet’s best interest,” the lifelong Dodger fan told the City News Service, a Southern California news agency, in March. “Ending the sponsorship with Phillips 66 would send the message that it’s time to end our embrace of polluting fossil fuels and work together toward a cleaner, greener future.”
So far, the campaigns in New York and Los Angeles have struck out. Both the Mets and the Dodgers have balked at walking away from sponsorships worth millions. But activists are hoping that more public officials—and more fans—will step up to the plate and pressure their teams to do the right thing. As that baseball sage Yogi Berra astutely observed, “It ain’t over till it’s over.”
This article first appeared at the Money Trail blog and is reposted here at Common Dreams with permission.
If financiers can’t bring themselves to think about more than the next quarter, Republican politicians can’t bring themselves to think about more than the next round of donations. Together, they threaten our future.
People often ask me why I give away this newsletter for free. After explaining that I’m able to because some kind people take out a voluntary subscription, I give the noble answer: This is the most important topic on Earth, and so people need to know about it. The less noble answer is, sometimes I wonder if I’m really able to capture what’s going on, or if there are simply too many moving parts for anyone (me anyway) to write coherently about “climate change.”
That’s because it’s simultaneously the most important scientific story on the planet (in terms of physics and chemistry, but also everything from meteorology and agriculture to public health) with the largest imaginable economic effects, which should mean (but doesn’t) that it should dominate our political life. Understanding how those three spheres interact means trying to figure out everything from human psychology to geopolitics, and much in between. So I thought I’d try to give just a tiny sense this week of how, even in the course of a few days time, all these things bump up against each other.
Let’s start by looking at the science, of which there’s been a lot this week. Because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change takes five years or more to issue its massive assessments, a somewhat smaller and nimbler group of 60 international experts has been assembled to issue interim annual updates, and this year’s is a doozy. Let’s let Zeke Hausfather sum it up:
“Things aren’t just getting worse. They’re getting worse faster,” said study coauthor Zeke Hausfather of the tech firm Stripe and the climate monitoring group Berkeley Earth. “We’re actively moving in the wrong direction in a critical period of time that we would need to meet our most ambitious climate goals. Some reports, there’s a silver lining. I don’t think there really is one in this one.”
The headline here is that we’ll pass the 1.5°C mark within a few years, but that’s long been obvious to anyone paying attention. The scary part is about the constantly growing energy imbalance on our planet, as more and more of the sun’s heat is held here instead of radiating out to space—this imbalance is up by about 25% over the last decade. Air temperatures are hitting new records almost every month, of course, (and if you want to read about the human damage that is causing, this new report from Pakistan is utterly typical) but most of the heat is pouring into the planet’s oceans. This makes oceans rise faster because warm water takes up more space than cold, and because ice is melting—the rate of sea-level rise has doubled in the past 10 years compared with the period from 1971-2018.
This kind of news is not producing the kind of reaction any normal person would reasonably expect.
I think the important thing to take away from this is that everything is now happening in very real time—forget 1.5°C, we’ll pour enough carbon into the air at our current pace to lock in 1.7°C within nine years. And that two-tenths of a degree, which sounds like so little? That’s enough to move 200 million human souls out of the comfortable climate zone they currently inhabit. (Nine years is the Trump term, and then assuming he leaves the next one).
But we’re already in the white water above the waterfall. New NASA data (and by the way it wouldn’t surprise me if these kinds of reports start to dwindle dramatically) this week showed an extraordinary increase in extreme weather events like droughts and floods around the world. Here’s how Roger Harrabin of The Guardian explained the findings:
The study shows that such extreme events are becoming more frequent, longer-lasting, and more severe, with last year’s figures reaching twice that of the 2003-2020 average.
The steepness of the rise was not foreseen. The researchers say they are amazed and alarmed by the latest figures from the watchful eye of NASA’s Grace satellite, which tracks environmental changes in the planet. They say climate change is the most likely cause of the apparent trend, even though the intensity of extremes appears to have soared even faster than global temperatures.
The closest thing we have to an explanation may have appeared in another new study, this one from the dauntless climate scientist Michael Mann and others, which found, as Seth Borenstein explained in The Associated Press, that climate change has tripled the number of “atmospheric wave events linked to extreme weather in the last 75 years.”
Planetary waves flow across Earth all the time, but sometimes they get amplified, becoming stronger, and the jet stream gets wavier with bigger hills and valleys, Mann said. It’s called quasi-resonant amplification or QRA.
This essentially means the wave gets stuck for weeks on end, locked in place. As a result, some places get seemingly endless rain while others endure oppressive heat with no relief.
“A classic pattern would be like a high pressure out West (in the United States) and a low pressure back East and in summer 2018, that’s exactly what we had,” Mann said. “We had that configuration locked in place for like a month. So they (in the West) got the heat, the drought, and the wildfires. We (in the East) got the excessive rainfall.”
The reason for the stuckness? We’ve melted much of the sea ice in the Arctic, reducing the temperature difference with the equator, and
that weakens the jet streams and the waves, making them more likely to get locked in place, Mann said.
“This study shines a light on yet another way human activities are disrupting the climate system that will come back to bite us all with more unprecedented and destructive summer weather events,” said Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center who wasn’t involved in the research.
The effects as this plays out will be—well, horrific. An eight-year study study of six key crops—corn, soybeans, rice, wheat, cassava, and sorghum—in the premier scientific journal Nature on Wednesday predicted that each degree Celsius increase in temperature will lower global food production by an average of 120 calories per person per day. Solomon Hsiang, who led the study at Stanford’s Doerr School for Suystainability, helpfully summed up the findings for CNN:
“If the climate warms by 3°C, that’s basically like everyone on the planet giving up breakfast,” he said. The world is currently on track for around 3°Celsius of warming by the end of the century.
America would be hit particularly hard, because we have the best grain-growing soil and climate on Earth—but it’s in a vast continental interior susceptible to drought in the new world:
If humans keep burning large amounts of fossil fuels, corn production could fall by 40% in the grain belt of the U.S., eastern China, central Asia, southern Africa, and the Middle East; wheat production could fall by 40% in the U.S., China, Russia, and Canada; and soybean yields could fall 50% in the U.S.
Again, this is not far away—remember that we learned in one of those other studies that the global carbon budget for staying below 2°C will be exhausted by the mid-2040s on our current trajectory.
So—you would think this would be the biggest story on planet Earth, and by several orders of magnitude. After all, “What’s for breakfast?” is one of the four most important questions on Earth, along with “What’s for lunch,” “What’s for dinner,” and “Do you think you could love me too?”
I don’t think it’s climate alarmism that’s going to end up on the ash heap of history—I think it’s pretty clearly humanity, not to mention the rest of the planet’s biology.
And at some level our leaders understand this. Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve and hence arguably the most important figure in the world economy, told the Senate Banking Committee this week that “banks and insurance companies are pulling out of coastal areas and… areas where there a lot of fires. So what that’s going to mean is that if you fast-forward 10 or 15 years there are going to be regions of the country where you can’t get a mortgage.” America’s wealth is largely stored in its houses—perhaps you remember the global financial crisis of 2008 when that wealth started to evaporate? This is that, but on steroids. Indeed, a new analysis from the entirely credible people at Bloomberg Intelligence estimated that the U.S. alone is already spending a trillion dollars a year on climate damage. “That’s 3% of GDP that people likely would have spent on goods and services they’d prefer to have, and amounts to “a stealth tariff on consumer spending,” the analysts write. (And it’s not just the U.S.—a new study found that climate-caused subsidence in soils is now a multi-trillion dollar risk for insurers across the E.U.)
And yet—and here we are definitively switching from science to politics and economics—this kind of news is not producing the kind of reaction any normal person would reasonably expect. It’s not even producing it at the Treasury Department, which you think might pay some small attention to the Fed Chairman. Instead, check out this description of events from intrepid reporters Alastair Marsh and Laura Noonan:
At a June 11 gathering of the Financial Stability Board, officials from France, the Netherlands, and Canada voiced dismay after Michael Kaplan, the Treasury’s interim undersecretary for international affairs, said climate should only be a focus if there’s proof of an imminent financial stability risk, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified discussing private talks.
The comments drew instant pushback, with some officials raising their voices, the people said. That led FSB Chair Klaas Knot from the Netherlands to briefly suspend the meeting until those present had cooled down, the people said.
That’s right, they had to stop the meeting for a while so that financial regulators didn’t—I don’t know, beat up?—the American representative. And of course America is where most of the world’s capital hangs out. The new edition of the now-venerable Banking on Climate Chaos report came out this week, and it was as big a doozy as the various scientific studies. After making endless pledges to help decarbonize the planet, the big banks—led of course by Chase, Citi, and Bank of America—”walked back many of those climate pledges and significantly increased their fossil fuel financing, including ramping up finance for fossil fuel expansion.” This is a gold-standard report—it found the banks, after four years of decreasing their funding to the fossil fuel industry, had increased it by $162.5 billion between 2023 and 2024, which were also the two hottest years we’ve ever recorded on this Earth.
Probably the best account of the folly of our financial system comes from the Sierra Club’s Ben Cushing, who last week put out a crucial paper calling on the planet’s investors to weigh systemic climate risks: “The greatest threat to long-term portfolios isn’t from holding particular stocks—it’s the continued rise in global emissions. And unless those emissions are reduced in the real world—not just in investors’ accounting systems—the damage will continue, and portfolios will bear the cost.”
But if financiers can’t bring themselves to think about more than the next quarter, Republican politicians can’t bring themselves to think about more than the next round of donations. The Senate this week decided to back up the House, and continued the job of gutting support for clean energy in the Big Beautiful Bill. As Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) explained, “The legislation achieves significant savings by slashing Green New Deal spending.” Instead, the Senate decided to reward oil drillers with new subsidies. For instance, as Evan Halper reports:
Several firms, including Occidental Petroleum, which is completing a large carbon-capture plant in the West Texas oil fields, sought expanded subsidies for using captured carbon dioxide to pressurize wells and draw more oil from the ground. The carbon-capture subsidy would push up the tax legislation’s price tag by what experts forecast will be billions of dollars.
It emerged after Occidental’s CEO said she personally lobbied President Donald Trump… The CEO said subsidizing the technology will enable oil companies to pull 50 billion to 70 billion additional barrels of oil out of the ground that they would not otherwise be able to get at.
Trump’s team was also busy arresting the public official who has done the most to stand up to the financial system’s insane greed, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who spent the afternoon in the hoosegow for the other crime in our current regime, helping immigrants. Meanwhile, remember those NASA satellites showing us the increase in extreme weather events? That’s the kind of thing the administration is busily shutting down. Scott Waldman in Politico reported that
All told, it’s an unprecedented assault on humanity’s understanding of how global warming is transforming the planet, scientists say. And they warn that Trump’s actions will blind the United States and the world to the ways people are rapidly heating the planet by burning fossil fuels.
As Energy Secretary, and former fracking exec, Christopher Wright put it on Twitter last week:
Climate alarmism has had a terrible impact on human lives and freedom. It belongs in the ash heap of history.
Given the science above, I don’t think it’s climate alarmism that’s going to end up on the ash heap of history—I think it’s pretty clearly humanity, not to mention the rest of the planet’s biology. All of this would be stupid enough if we had no alternative to fossil fuels. But of course this week, like every week, there was more and more news of precisely how well those alternatives were working. To give just the smallest sampling:
The world’s first large-scale sand battery went into operation in Finland:
The new 1 MW sand battery has a precursor. In May 2022, Polar Night Energy rigged a smaller design to a power station in Kankaanpää town.
Launched just as Russia cut off gas supplies in retaliation for Finland joining NATO, the project was a timely example of how renewable energy could be harnessed in a new way.
It’s quite a simple structure to begin with, Polar Night Energy said of its prototype. A tall tower is filled with low-grade sand and charged up with the heat from excess solar and wind electricity.
The sand can store heat at around 500C for several days to even months, providing a valuable store of cheaper energy during the winter. When needed, the battery discharges the hot air—warming water in the district heating network. Homes, offices, and even the local swimming pool all benefit in Kankaanpää, for example.
And in Japan, a new fleet of solar cars was unveiled, designed especially for small island nations that don’t have great distances to drive. As The Japan Times reported:
The electrification of transport, a potent strategy to address climate change, is gaining momentum, with over 38 countries committing to no less than 30% zero-emission newly sold medium- and heavy-duty trucks by 2030. For LDCs and SIDS, harnessing the drive for electrification using what is often their richest natural endowment—sunshine—could represent a breakthrough.
These seem small and niche to you? Then consider the ongoing miracle in China, where new data shows that the world’s largest economy generated more solar power through May of this year than it did in all of 2022. As industry watcher Felix Hamer said, “This is what a 30% annual growth rate can look like.” Just as an example, China leads the world in converting old coal mines into solar farms—90 projects so far, with 46 more in the works according to new data this week from Global Energy Monitor.
That’s all good news. To go back to the top of this account—those vast scientific studies showing the breakdown of the planet’s climate system—there are only two things that can conceivably scale fast enough to make a real difference. One is some kind of as-yet-undeveloped carbon sequestration scheme. The other—now fully available to us everywhere—is the rapid buildout of clean energy across the Earth. If we were functioning effectively as a species, spreading solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries would be job one, two, and three on this planet—especially since if we were successful at it we could stop fighting wars at least partly about oil, wars which this week, of course, threaten to escalate into something far worse.
So as I bring this tour to an end, let me remind you to figure out something to do for SunDay. The first events are appearing already on the map. From Julie Williams comes the sun of the week:

I hope this tour through science and economics and politics has been helpful in some way—you can see why I sometimes despair, not just of the future but even of my own ability to get across what’s happening in the present. I think I’ve been at this so long that I have a better sense than most of how all those moving pieces interact, but there are so many pieces and they’re now moving so fast.
Which is why we need to be moving some of them ourselves—the stakes of this wager are so ominous that anything we can do to change the odds we must; it is the greatest of all the challenges we face on this anxious planet. Thank you, immensely, for being a part of this fight.