The Atlas of Impunity 2025: The Great Divergence: Summary & Review

 

      This is the fourth year the Eurasia Group has published the Atlas of Impunity. It tracks conditions, accountability, and abuse of power in over 200 countries. Impunity is power without accountability. The report argues successfully that the vast majority of the problems around the world are fostered by governments with high levels of impunity.

“Impunity is assessed across five dimensions: unaccountable governance, the abuse of human rights, economic exploitation, conflict and violence, and environmental degradation.”

“The Atlas is intended to provide a practical and accessible tool to draw attention to abuses of power and press policymakers for change. Impunity should also be a concern for the private sector, as wherever impunity thrives, business conditions deteriorate.”

     The report draws on 60 indicators from 24 credible independent datasets.

“The Atlas is developed in partnership between Eurasia Group and a global advisory board of human rights experts. The Atlas is made possible with financial support from the Andrew Carnegie Foundation, formerly Carnegie Corporation of New York.”

     The report first gives some quotes by the UN and some Democracy groups that democracy and accountability have backslid in recent years, including in the U.S., which has moved down in the ranks of accountability. Militantism, corruption, and human rights abuses are three of the most important activities of impunity.

     The report states that:

“…unaccountable governance is the most significant global driver of impunity.”

     This is expressed most readily in declining press freedom. In the U.S., the report suggests, the problem is growing “disregard for accountability norms.”

     The introduction also explains “why impunity should concern business leaders as much as it does activists, policymakers, and ordinary citizens.”

     For business, it is simply that where impunity rises, business conditions deteriorate. It increases political risk and enables corruption.

     In the introduction is a section entitled: ‘Six things you will learn from this report.’ This acts as a set of highlights or a concise summary of the report, so I will lean heavily on it.

1)        The great divergence in global accountability is widening. Here, they note that while average global accountability has remained the same, the gap between the most and the least accountable has widened. Accountability has improved in the most accountable and middle sections, but has deteriorated further in the least accountable countries.

2)        Unaccountable governance is the single largest driver of global impunity. Here they simply point out that “institutional decay—specifically the erosion of press freedoms, personal liberties, and democratic political culture—serves as a primary engine of rising impunity.”

3)        Most of the toll of conflict is concentrated in just a few territories. Here, they show that conflict around the world is highly concentrated in relatively few regions, but overwhelmingly involves high-impunity countries.

4)        Impunity is fueled by four underlying causes. These are given below:

 

5)        Impunity spreads through the erosion of the elements of accountability. Here, they draw on public administration scholarship to arrive at what they see as the four pillars of accountability, which are weakened by impunity.

6)        The US has emerged as a bellwether—its policies are both a cause and consequence of global impunity. Here, they note the Trump administration’s lack of accountability, and especially cite the dismantling of USAID, noting: “Cuts to aid have dealt severe blows to the global network of actors that uphold rules, norms, and human rights worldwide.”

 

     The graphic below shows how levels of impunity are scored.

“The Atlas of Impunity measures the extent to which a typical person living in each country in the world experiences impunity across five dimensions. These are the abuse of human rights, conflict and violence, economic exploitation, environmental degradation, and unaccountable governance.” 

     The graphic below is an example of the different scoring mechanisms used, such as press freedom and democracy indices, as well as showing that people in the average category of impunity can still be exposed to a high degree of it.

     The report notes that among high impunity countries, unaccountable governance, and conflict and violence are driving further deterioration. They also note that unaccountable governance has been the leading source of impunity since 2020.

     Below, they summarize conflicts around the world since 2020.

“Since 2020, conflict has become a more frequent threat across a range of countries. Over the last two years, war has affected at least 12 states in the Middle East either directly or indirectly. The effects of the 7 October attacks on Israel, the subsequent Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, and the US and Israel’s 12-day war and 2026 war with Iran have rippled across the region. These developments have added to ongoing conflicts in Sudan, Myanmar, Yemen, and Ukraine, as well as more limited clashes involving states such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Thailand, Cambodia, India, Pakistan, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, among others.”

     They also note that reduced press freedom made the largest contribution to impunity in 2020-2025. Below is a more comprehensive graphic showing the four pillars of accountability, the drivers of impunity, and the indicators used in analysis.

     Below is a snippet of a stark analysis of eroding press freedom by a collaborator in the Atlas, the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

     Other indicators include politically motivated disappearances, ecological footprint, refugee displacement, electoral process and pluralism, protection of property rights (something many in the DSA in the U.S. do not support), democratic political culture, functioning of government, freedoms and civil liberties, and government integrity.  

     Less accountable governments often have lax environmental rules, and environmental protection does not rank high on priorities. In some rare cases, like Bolivia under socialists, they had higher support for environmental protection but were lax on other freedoms. Refugee displacement is often a result of conflict, but also of dysfunctional and highly corrupt governments, and as they note, growing illiberalism, as people escape due to the possibility of being targeted for opposing the government. Addressing impunity in countries that are the source of refugees could help solve the multiple migration crises occurring around the world. Weaker electoral processes and weaker pluralism are important indicators. We have seen this in Latin American countries, but also all over the world as leaders try to hold onto power and not allow people to oppose them in fair ways, such as through political pluralism and free and fair elections. They mention a tit-for-tat cycle in some countries, where even if a new government is legitimately elected over a government that has shown a lack of accountability, the new government will, in kind, show a lack of accountability to balance against it. Perhaps it’s not the best analogy, but the recent gerrymander wars in U.S. states initiated by Trump are perhaps a related example.

     The report notes that the Trump administration has enacted many executive orders that have advanced a trend toward illiberalism.

“Illiberalism has advanced so far that the president and many American voters are now vocal skeptics of the US’s twentieth-century ideals of universal human rights, free trade, and collective security.”

     Another section indicates that the effective halting of most U.S. foreign aid is likely to have serious consequences for accountability around the world While I agree with Rubio and others that several UN agencies and many NGOs are very unfair to countries like Israel and have unacceptable political biases, I believe more strongly that U.S. foreign aid on balance still had/has overwhelmingly positive effects on accountability and more importantly on humanitarian reduction of suffering. The report notes:

“While many of the canceled initiatives focused on economic development or humanitarian assistance, USAID grants were also an important resource for strengthening accountability. For instance, the individual grants canceled by DOGE included programs to boost state accountability and transparency in Nigeria, improve the quality and transparency of public services in Tanzania, fight corruption in Ukraine, strengthen the rule of law in Georgia, assist independent media in Myanmar, provide material support to refugees and their host communities in Uganda, and strengthen electoral processes in Armenia, Haiti, Tunisia, the Palestinian Territories, and Moldova, among other countries.”

     It still makes me a little sad and angry that the U.S. actively chose to stop supporting democracy around the world.

     In a section called ‘reasons for hope,’ there is a more optimistic outlook showing where positive changes have occurred. This was led by a decrease in discrimination against women, followed by a decrease in the number of battles and a decrease in state violence against civilians.

     Below is a map of the impunity scores by country. Below that is a list of the countries showing the most deterioration and the most improvement in the past year, and the same for 2020-2025.

   

     The graphs below show clearly how impunity increases default risk, political risk, and corruption.

     The report then explores impunity by region. North America is led by Canada, having the least impunity. Europe as a whole has the best regional score for low impunity. They note that impunity scores have improved in four of the countries seeking EU membership: Moldova, Montenegro, Albania, and North Macedonia. In the Eurasian region, Ukraine’s score remained the same. Corruption scandals there are problematic, although they are being addressed by the government. Russia has the worst score in that region, and Kazakhstan has the best. In Latin America, Venezuela and Haiti had the worst scores, followed by Nicaragua. Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, and Guatemala also had low scores. Nearly all countries in South Asia had poor scores, led by Afghanistan, and followed by Pakistan and Bangladesh. The small country of Bhutan had the best score. In Southeast Asia, Myanmar had by far the worst score, followed distantly by Cambodia and Laos. In East Asia, North Korea has the worst score, followed distantly by China. Japan and South Korea have the best scores, followed distantly by Mongolia. In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), there were many low scores. Yemen and Syria have the worst scores, followed by Iran, Iraq, and Libya. Israel has the best score. Syria’s score reflects the effects of its past conflicts, and the report notes that accountability continues to improve in the country. The report notes that the Palestinian Territories were not included in the report, but if they were, they would be number ten in the highest levels of impunity. Impunity in Sub-Saharan Africa remains very high in general. Sudan, South Sudan, and Somalia have the highest levels of impunity. Botswana and Namibia have the lowest levels of impunity.

     Below are the 25 countries with the highest impunity and the 23 countries with the lowest impunity. I should add that the overall scores reflect the combined index scores. Some countries may do very poorly on some scores and better on others, which might make them seem better or worse than they really are.

     The report’s conclusion includes the following warning:

“Countering the normalization of the abnormal”

“Ultimately, the most insidious effect of rising global impunity is its potential to normalize the abnormal. When the world's most powerful actors treat international law as optional and domestic checks as inconveniences, they invite similar behavior from other powers and autocratic regimes.”

 

    

References:

 

The Atlas of Impunity 2025: the great divergence. The Eurasia Group. June 29, 2026. Eurasia Group | Atlas of Impunity

Invasive Biofilm Threatens as Ships Idle Near the Strait of Hormuz: Assessing and Addressing the Problem

 

 

     A phenomenon known as biofouling, or growths of biofilm on ships composed of microorganisms, algae, and even plants and invertebrates, can be transported around the world. Long, stationary periods for ships often involve a substantial buildup of this biofilm. The issue is known as biofouling.

“The biofilm grows on the side of the commercial ships and then gets transported around the world as the vessels travel from port to port, Mario Tamburri, a marine ecologist at the University of Maryland's Center for Environmental Science and lead author of the study, told ABC News.”

"We know that these invading invading organisms can cause millions of dollars' worth of damage and impact -- commercial operations like aquaculture and fisheries -- and change the environment," Tamburri said.

     He also cited as an example the invasive zebra mussel in the Great Lakes. I know when I lived near Lake Erie in Buffalo, New York, in 1991, the local tap water tasted really bad, and people said it was from the zebra mussels, and everyone had alternate sources of water for drinking. Those zebra mussels are native to the Caspian and Black Seas south of Russia and Ukraine. They began spreading in the Great Lakes in the 1980s and have since moved to the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers, and even due to human transport, to the West Coast.   

“Ships are typically coated with an "anti-fouling" paint, formulated with chemicals to prevent marine animals from adhering to or growing on them, Tamburri said.

“But when ships sit around for a long time, the coatings no longer work well, allowing for the possibility of "extensive growth." During the COVID-19 pandemic, many ships around the world were stalled for long periods of time, allowing for that kind of growth, Tamburri added.

     A paper on the biofilm threat was published in the journal Biological Invasions. It notes that more than 1,500 ships remain idle in the Persian Gulf and hundreds more are anchored in the Gulf of Oman, and although that may no longer be the case, there are still plenty of ships anchored near there. 

     There is legitimate concern about a superspreader event as Tamburri details below:

“The types of organisms that live in the region's unique ecological system also exacerbate the risk of a superspreader event, Tamburri said.

“The marine organisms that live within the Strait of Hormuz are especially "hardy" and "robust" because they have adapted to high salinity and warm temperatures, which increases the likelihood that they can spread and survive in other environments, Tamburri said.

"If you can survive high temperatures, high salinities, you can probably survive long ship voyages," he said.

     The warm, nutrient-rich waters of the Persian Gulf allow many of the species to grow and reproduce significantly when a suitable substrate, such as ships hulls, becomes available. In addition, he notes, it is happening in summer when the water is warmer. This, in addition to the vast international reach of the ships, could be a recipe for a worst-case scenario = a superspreader event of multiple invasive species.

"All these marine organisms, invertebrates like barnacles and mussels and algae -- they start growing and reproducing," he said. "They start growing and reproducing, and they're sitting in this warm soup of nutrient-rich water."

“In addition, stressed ecosystems, such as industrial ports, are highly vulnerable to bioinvasion because disturbances allow for fast-growing opportunistic species to establish themselves, the paper states.”

     These kinds of biological invasions are difficult and expensive to remediate. Thus, prevention and early detection are emphasized. Ship hull cleaning, which is often done at ports, is one method of addressing the problem.

“Many shipping ports have in-water cleaning services, in which divers scrape off the biofoul to remove the material. Ecologists recommend taking it a step further, and having the divers use a vacuum-like device as well to avoid putting the live organisms back into the water, only to attach to another ship.”

     Recommendations from the paper are given below:

     Biofouling regulations are on the horizon. New Zealand currently requires ships to have clean hulls before docking at its ports. The International Maritime Organization is working to update its biofouling regulations.

     The paper compared invasive species spreading to the spreading of infectious diseases, noting that epidemiological approaches used for those diseases can be effective in assessing and addressing biofouling. The problem is basically a marine biosecurity problem.

 

 

 

References:

 

Superspreader event of invasive species originating near Strait of Hormuz possible. Julia Jacobo. ABC News. July 25, 2026. Scientists warn of possible invasive species superspreader event due to stalling near Strait of Hormuz - ABC News

Closure of the Strait of Hormuz may trigger a bioinvasion super-spreader event. Mario N. Tamburri, James T. Carlton, April M. H. Blakeslee, Alejandro Bortolus, João Canning-Clode, Susana Carvalho, Andrew L. Chang, Ian C. Davidson, Sarah C. Donelan, Lisa A. Drake, Amy E. Fowler, Amy L. Freestone, Linsey E. Haram, Chad L. Hewitt, A. Whitman Miller, Jim R. Muirhead, Okko Outinen, Tamara B. Robinson, Gregory M. Ruiz, Christopher Scianni, Evangelina Schwindt, Carolyn K. Tepolt, Thomas W. Therriault & Bella S. Galil. Brief Report. Biological Invasions. Volume 28, article number 177. July 22, 2026. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz may trigger a bioinvasion super-spreader event | Biological Invasions | Springer Nature Link

 

Unlocking Appalachia’s Next Chapter: EQT’s Strategy for the Marcellus, Utica, and America’s Growing Natural Gas Demand: Livestream Webinar: Summary and Review (July 29, 2026)

    Sarah Fenton, EQT’s Executive Vice President Upstream, conducted the webinar along with Hart Energy’s Nissa Darbonne. She first noted that EQT is the largest natural gas producer at 8BCF/day gross. They are a vertically-integrated company that owns a significant amount of its gathering systems and pipelines, including transmission pipelines. They have stacked resources on their acreage: Marcellus, Utica, and, as I know, Upper Devonian Burket as well. All of its wells must compete for capital. Thus, they drill their best wells first. In most cases, that means Marcellus, which remains the company’s growth engine. They plan to grow with commercial-backed agreements.

     They recently drilled the world’s longest lateral section in a well. The lateral section was over 29,000 feet. It was geosteered within an 8-10 ft target window. Longer laterals reduce infrastructure needs as well as land footprint, etc. The well has not been completed yet. They will use a standard EQT design. The toe is treated a little differently than the heel in long laterals.  

     They utilize Patterson Drilling and its EcoCell energy management system, which integrates lithium‑ion battery storage with automated engine control logic to optimize power supply in drilling rigs to reduce emissions and can drill with natural gas.

     Longer laterals do have technological limits, and current records are near those limits. Thus, they plan for the longest feasible laterals. Acreage availability and continuity are also factors in Appalachia that affect the ability to drill long laterals.

     Compression capacity increases have led to significant production increases. Compression brings down baseline pressure so wells can flow better, and it allows wells to produce better and more efficiently. It is a way to improve production without drilling. The base production after compression improvements has been 3% above plan, and new wells are 8% above plan. Thus, compression reduction and compression investment can pay out very well. The key is that you have to be in control of the gathering systems and the pipelines. EQT’s vertically integrated position allows it to do these production-enhancing compression improvements.

     EQT’s sustainability report details its environmental efforts. Its methane emissions reduction program has been very successful, with an industry-leading 0.017% methane emissions rate. I detailed in a past post in 2023 the company’s efforts to replace its pneumatic valves and controllers to reduce methane emissions. EQT recycles 95% of its water, aided by expanded water pipelines, which eliminate thousands of truck trips and are safer, less risky to the environment, and emit less pollution and carbon emissions. The company achieved Scope 1 and II net zero for the second year in a row.

      EQT has a stellar future inventory, with millions of acres and 30-plus years of inventory. They plan to grow through value creation and remain disciplined and not grow just for growth’s sake. They follow demand signals and are developing offtake agreements for data centers, etc. They recently quipped that their peers in Appalachia may have trouble producing economically in the future as core acreage availability shrinks. They won’t be affected as much.

     Forecasts for gas growth in Appalachia are for an additional 20BCF/day potential in-basin demand in five years. The basin currently produces 30-40BCF/day. Productive capacity could get them from 8BCF to 12BCF/day. It could be more. Reservoir and compression management will be needed to get there.

     EQT’s midstream developments include new access to New England for rail-delivered propane to New England, which can offer residents and businesses there a cheaper and cleaner fuel source than the fuel oil that is still commonly burned there. 60% of its propane is sold to New England via Blackline Midstream. 95% of EQT’s production is dry gas. They tout an overall $2 per MCF breakeven. The Mountain Valley Pipeline proved to be vital last winter. Demand was there this winter and saved people in the Southeast a lot of money. MVP Southgate, a 32-mile extension to North Carolina, is expected to be finished by the end of this year, making it available this winter. This creates more outlets for Appalachian supply.

     EQT’s vertical integration, low breakeven, and scale-up potential with inventory can supply the forecasted demand growth in Appalachia. The primary constraint that they see is infrastructure and execution timing. Both are required for connecting the supply to the needed demand.

     The company’s LNG Growth plan involves contracted LNG access. The Gulf Coast LNG advantage indirectly strengthens Appalachian fundamentals. They can get LNG exposure without every molecule actually getting to the Gulf. Currently, they have 6 million tons per annum (mtpa) in LNG agreements.

     She notes that Appalachia is developing into an integrated energy hub and is exhibiting disciplined demand pool growth. Completion designs, longer laterals, and compression investments can produce and deliver more gas. She also notes that vendor innovation helps improve operations.

 

Q&A

     The Western Marcellus region into Eastern Ohio is shallower and oilier, thoughts? EQT has a bigger footprint in dry gas. Shallower means lower pressure, so there may be a need for artificial lift of liquids. Dry gas is generally their best rock, and most of it is in PA and WV.

     How long did the longest lateral take? 48-hour record = nearly 21,000 ft. It took 3-3.5 days to drill the lateral section.

     Firm transportation portfolio? They utilize FT contracts and commercial agreements, which include the direct sale of gas molecules.

     How many wells are needed to support 20BCF/day of in-basin growth, given new longer lateral lengths? Think of it not in the number of wells but in footage. 2BCF/day of their 8BCF/day production is used to maintain flat. Maintain flat production of 1.5 million lateral feet, so multiplying that by ten for 20 BCF yields 15 million lateral feet.

     I calculated that if the average lateral lengths were at 20,000 feet, then that would require an additional 750 wells. Assuming a single rig could drill 30 of those long wells per year, it would require an additional 25 rigs. Looking at the latest Baker Hughes rig count, which for West Virginia and Pennsylvania combined is at 25 rigs (plus 11 in Ohio), and since most of the production growth will be in WV and PA, that means doubling the rig count in those two states.

 

  

References:

 

Investor Presentation Q2 2026 Results. EQT. EQT Q2 2026 Earnings Presentation

 

 

Sustainable Aviation Fuel and E-Naphtha are Being Produced from Captured Carbon at Plant in Washington State

      Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is being produced at a plant in Washington state from captured carbon. A company called Twelve is running the facility in Moses Lake, Washington. 

     According to an article about the project by Jim Giles in Trellis:

“The technology inside AirPlant One uses renewable energy to transform CO2 and water into a synthetic crude oil that can then be refined to produce eSAF and other products. Twelve claims that the lifecycle emissions associated with its eSAF are up to 90 percent lower than conventional fossil-based jet fuel. It’s also considerably more expensive: Nicholas Flanders, Twelve’s CEO and co-founder, declined to share the cost, but industry estimates peg eSAF as five to 10 times more expensive than conventional fuel.”

     The project will produce a small amount of SAF, just 50,000 gallons annually, about 4.5% of the jet fuel used in 2025 by offtaker Alaska Airlines.

     Giles reports that employees of Microsoft and Shopify will be able to use the eSAF to lower business-travel emissions. The premium costs of the fuel will be taken on by companies such as Microsoft and other buyers, who will receive credits that can be counted against their Scope 3 emissions.

“The eSAF industry will also soon have regulatory support. Under the European Union’s RefuelEU aviation program, airports in the bloc were required to use 2 percent SAF in 2025, rising to 70 percent in 2050. A separate sub-mandate for eSAF will begin at 1.2 percent in 2030 and reach 35 percent by 2050.”

“Scale will be critical if eSAF producers are to cut costs and become competitive with other forms of SAF. Flanders said that Twelve, which closed a $645 million funding round in 2024 and has a contract to supply five European airlines with 260 million gallons of eSAF, is planning an AirPlant Two facility that will produce tens of millions of gallons annually.” 

     CO2, water, and renewable energy are used to produce the eSAF. Electrolyzers produce the hydrogen needed for the process from water. The project will also produce e-naphtha, which is a feedstock for many products.

     Twelve notes on its website:

"Twelve partners with brands to produce E-Made products made with E-Naphtha, providing an upstream solution for decarbonizing everyday products without compromise. To date, the company has delivered proof-of-concept projects to global manufacturers including Mercedes-Benz (interior automotive components from CO2-based polymers), PANGAIA (CO2Made® polycarbonate sunglass lenses), and Procter & Gamble (CO2-based ingredients for Tide laundry detergent).”

    

 

References:

 

Jet fuel made from captured carbon begins to flow from new plant: Microsoft and Shopify are among the buyers of credits from Alaska Airlines, one of the first carriers to use the new fuel from startup Twelve. Jim Giles. Trellis.  June 12, 2026. Jet fuel made from captured carbon begins to flow from new plant

AirPlant™ One Opens in Moses Lake: America’s First Commercial E-Jet® Fuel Plant Begins Operations. Twelve. AirPlant™ One Opens in Moses Lake: America’s First Commercial E-Jet® Fuel Plant Begins Operations

A New Solar-Powered Cobalt Processing Plant in Arizona Confirms Adequate Deep Groundwater Source and Plans to Recycle 70% of the Water: It Will Process Cobalt from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

     A $450 million cobalt processing plant is being developed in Arizona to be powered by a 28 MW 150-acre solar farm. It will process cobalt metal, cobalt hydroxide, and cobalt sulfate from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). It will be the first facility of its kind in the U.S. The solar array will be built through 2027. Company EVelution Energy is developing the project. Earlier this month, its President & CEO noted:

“Today’s groundbreaking marks another important milestone in our effort to rebuild America’s domestic critical minerals processing capability, and we’re proud to be taking that next step here in Yuma County,” said Navaid Alam, President & CEO, EVelution Energy.

“The piles going into the ground mark the beginning of the renewable energy system that will power the first cobalt metal and cobalt sulfate processing facility in the United States. We’re equally proud that we’re building this project around 100% American-made structural steel, American engineering and American manufacturing,” Alam added.

     When the facility reaches full commercial operation by the end of 2029, it will process 24,000 metric tons of raw cobalt hydroxide feedstock each year. That amounts to about 20,000 metric tons of battery-grade cobalt sulfate and 3,000 metric tons of alloy-grade cobalt metal. It is expected to meet 40% of the projected U.S. cobalt demand.

     The project is expected to use U.S. labor and materials exclusively and provide up to 6200 jobs over its lifespan. The plant will also be powered by battery storage of excess solar generation. Ground was broken for the construction of the solar farm earlier this month, and the plant is expected to be operational in 2029.

     The project is dependent on a reliable water supply. That supply has been obtained according to the results of drilling and testing a deep groundwater aquifer recently. The new water source removes one of the project’s biggest technical uncertainties. The company noted that hydrogeological testing confirmed aquifer zones that can supply the project’s expected water needs throughout its operating life and could also support future production expansion.

     Interesting Engineering notes:

“Hydrogeological consultant BasinWells Associates supervised drilling to a depth of about 1,500 feet beneath the project site. Engineers carried out aquifer testing, groundwater sampling, and geological analysis before confirming sufficient groundwater capacity for the planned operation.”

     The water was tested at high salinity and will be treated before use.

“The company expects the results to inform the final design of production wells, water treatment systems, and recycling infrastructure as work continues on its Bankable Feasibility Study. The project site sits outside one of Arizona’s Active Management Areas, where groundwater withdrawals face stricter regulation. Although the site’s wells must still comply with state registration and reporting requirements, they are not subject to volumetric pumping limits.”

     The company plans to deploy a closed-loop water management system and recycle the water. They expect to recycle about 70% of the process water and eliminate on-site process-water discharge. Tailings will not be stored onsite but transferred to licensed facilities for disposal.

“Net freshwater demand is expected to average about 34 acre-feet each month, or roughly 408 acre-feet annually. According to the company, that is comparable to the annual irrigation needs of about 70 acres of farmland in Yuma County.”

“Engineers also plan to use enclosed material handling systems and modern emissions controls. Together, those features aim to make the facility one of North America’s most water-efficient critical minerals processing plants.”

     The Export-Import Bank of the United States is expected to support the project. Construction on the processing facility is set to begin in early 2027. The project is expected to generate $1.2 billion in annual economic activity. This project is important as a domestic mineral processing project that relieves some dependence on China, the world’s leader in mineral processing.

     

 

References:

 

First US commercial-scale solar-powered cobalt plant targets 70% water recycling. Aamir Khollam. Interesting Engineering. July 27, 2026. First US commercial-scale solar-powered cobalt plant targets 70% water recycling

28 MW solar project underway to power America’s first commercial cobalt refinery: This 150-acre solar site will power the company’s planned $450 million cobalt processing facility. Mrigakshi Dixit. Interesting Engineering. July 2, 2026. 28-MW solar plant to power cobalt processing facility in the US

How Climate Models Underpin Climate Policy Despite Uncertainties and Why Scientific Plausibility Should Be Emphasized: Echoing Economics Professor Stephen Lewarne’s Piece in the Washington Examiner

     Stephen Leawarne, an economics professor at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, wrote what I think is a well-explained article about climate models, how they influence climate policy, and how they are tweaked for political advantage. It was published today in the Washington Examiner.

     Leawarne first notes that it is widely acknowledged that climate policy has receded or been strongly toned down by the Trump administration. I might add that in the case of climate modeling, it too has been toned down by the recent CMIP-7 designations of the three highest emissions climate model scenarios as scientifically implausible. However, as I have noted elsewhere, those implausible models are still being cited and used, even in scientific papers. I should point out that Leawarne does not mention the CMIP-7 designations or the IPCC’s decision to abandon the three highest emissions scenarios.

     Leawarne writes:

“Over the past decade, climate models have become embedded throughout government, shaping regulatory analysis, infrastructure planning, financial supervision, and international commitments.”

     He sees them as entrenched in agency procedures, and if and when the administration changes to one more in favor of stronger climate policies, they will easily reemerge as policy supports.

     Below, he gives what I think is a very good, concise explanation of the intended functions, limitations, dependence on assumptions, and the main uncertainties that affect climate modeling. I bolded the three main uncertainties of climate models.

“Climate models are indispensable tools. They were designed not to predict the future but to explore possible futures under different assumptions. Every major climate model depends on several scientifically defensible assumptions whose precise values remain uncertain. Three are especially important: climate sensitivity (how much temperatures rise as atmospheric carbon dioxide doubles), aerosol forcing (the cooling effect of airborne particles), and cloud feedbacks (how clouds amplify or dampen warming). Small differences in these assumptions — well within ranges accepted by climate science — can produce materially different long-run projections. This is not a flaw. It is the unavoidable consequence of modeling an extraordinarily complex system.”

     Below, he continues about how those uncertainties can be exploited to show much different but still scientifically plausible conclusions that can have profound policy implications. The point is that the range of plausible conclusions is wide enough to allow promotion of quite different and widely ranging policy recommendations.

“These uncertainties create institutional opportunity. When several scientifically plausible parameter values exist, policymakers face a range of possible futures. Regulatory institutions need not depart from accepted science. They need only select among scientifically defensible assumptions. The resulting policies can still be described as science-based, even though materially different policy recommendations would have emerged from equally plausible assumptions.”

     Below, he notes that model assumptions underpin not only the models themselves, but also the policy decisions based on the models. The wide range in scientific plausibility simply allows for a wide range of policy decisions.

“Scientific uncertainty becomes institutional choice once one set of scientifically plausible assumptions is adopted for regulation. Differences in scientific assumptions become differences in public policy. The scientific question has not been settled; it has been institutionalized.”

     He goes on to explain in some detail how climate policy frameworks remain embedded regardless of which party is in power. These frameworks are utilized for planning in many government agencies. He also explains how carbon is quite amenable to being regulated.

“Governments have historically preferred tax bases that are broad, measurable, inexpensive to administer, and difficult to avoid. Carbon dioxide possesses all four characteristics. Nearly every household and business consumes energy directly or indirectly, and associated emissions can be estimated through existing fuel and energy reporting systems.”

     Next, he explains how climate models fit into this picture. He explains that carbon regulation is “institutionally attractive,” and why it became “a central organizing concept in modern environmental regulation.”

“Climate models, therefore, perform two functions. They estimate the long-run damages associated with emissions while also providing the analytical foundation for regulating — or taxing — one of the broadest potential tax bases available to modern governments. Unlike wealth taxes or financial transaction taxes, carbon emissions are closely tied to observable energy use, making administration comparatively straightforward and avoidance relatively difficult. That institutional attractiveness exists independently of the scientific debate itself. It helps explain why carbon became a central organizing concept in modern environmental regulation. Larger projected damages strengthen the apparent case for broader regulation and taxation.”

     With the loss of the three most implausible climate model scenarios, those “larger projected damages” will, or at least should, be much harder to justify and harder to make that "case for broader regulation and taxation.” Simply put, we should not be basing policy decisions on scientifically implausible assumptions.

     Below, he explains that he believes climate models have been misused, having been given “an authority they were never designed to possess.” This emphasizes that there can be a divide between science and policy that is often ignored.   

“None of this suggests abandoning climate models. They remain indispensable tools. The problem arises when exploratory models acquire an authority they were never designed to possess. Climate models simulate physical processes. They do not model political incentives, technological innovation, institutional adaptation, or changing human behavior with comparable confidence. Yet these factors often determine whether particular policies ultimately succeed.”

     In the paragraph below, he explains that basing regulatory decisions on the assumptions made by climate models without disclosing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in those assumptions is basically projecting a lack of transparency.  

“A more transparent approach would acknowledge both the power and the limits of climate modeling. Agencies should disclose how sensitive major regulatory decisions are to scientifically plausible alternative parameter choices. Policymakers should distinguish between conclusions that remain robust across many assumptions and those that depend heavily upon modeling choices. Such transparency would strengthen confidence by distinguishing genuine consensus from legitimate uncertainty.”      

     It is nice to see a well-written article about climate science and policy that is accurate, concise, detailed, non-biased, and that offers a better approach.

 

  

References:

 

Dial-a-crisis: How bureaucrats rig climate models for unlimited power. Stephen Lewarne, Washington Examiner. July 28, 2026. Dial-a-crisis: How bureaucrats rig climate models for unlimited power