Results of a new study from Michigan State University suggest farmers no longer have to choose between growing crops and harnessing solar power. They can do both on the same land.

The 25-year study of California farmland found farmers who added solar panels, a practice known as agrivoltaics, made more money per acre than those who did not. The research shows crops and solar work together, especially when panels are placed on low-yield acres, or spots not growing as much food due to poor soil or too much shade.

The research indicates the approach helps farmers boost income without reducing food production.

Jake Stid, a graduate student at Michigan State and lead author of the study, said farmers can also benefit through a system called Net Energy Metering.

"A return structure where farmers can directly in many cases, interconnect so they can use the electricity to offset their own needs, as well as sell excess generation, excess electricity back to the utility for a discounted rate," Stid outlined.

Researchers estimate California land now used for solar panels could have fed 86,000 people had it stayed in crops. The study looked at the trade-off between farming and solar energy, while critics warned it could worsen food security by reducing farmland.

Stid highlighted his team chose California's Central Valley as the focus of the research due to its significant contribution to both national and global food production, particularly for a variety of orchard crops.

"It's a really, really agriculturally valuable state and it also happens to be a pretty water-stressed state," Stid pointed out. "Specifically, the Central Valley has been experiencing pretty significant drought, as well as over allocation of water resources."

Some farmers expressed concern about solar panels shading crops, affecting growth and reducing yields. Stid hopes to expand his research on solar arrays and food production nationwide, contributing to the ongoing debate among farmers on how to use land sustainably, without harming food production.


get more stories like this via email

Congress is set to claw back $6.5 billion in climate-related Inflation Reduction Act investments to help pay for the Trump administration's priorities, including tax cuts and mass deportations but critics said the move would cost jobs and blunt the administration's goal of energy dominance by reducing domestic energy sources.

Saul Levin, campaigns and political director for the Green New Deal Network, said if passed, $580 million in funding would disappear from Colorado's 4th district, represented by Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.

"In the 3rd District, which is represented by (Republican) Jeff Hurd, there's an estimated $1 billion that has been invested through the IRA," Levin pointed out. "Regardless of people's exact politics, most people don't want that money to be pulled out."

The House Ways and Means panel plans to revoke tax credits for electric vehicle purchases and home energy efficiency improvements, according to Reuters. The House Energy panel's plan would cut funding for limiting methane emissions at oil and gas facilities, reporting greenhouse gas emissions, reducing air pollution near schools and expanding electric grids to bring wind and solar power to homes and businesses.

Philip Rossetti, senior energy fellow for the think tank R Street Institute, believes the subsidies for clean energy were too costly but did reduce climate pollution. He added the investments will need better transmission infrastructure to be effective.

"Princeton University did a study on this, and they estimated that about 80% of the emission benefits in the electric power sector from the IRA subsidies are locked behind additional transmission infrastructure buildout," Rossetti explained.

President Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to put an end to the Biden-Harris administration's efforts to mitigate climate change. Levin noted current proposals in Congress do not cut direct subsidies to fossil fuel companies.

"Even though for decades it's been really clear that there's a huge public health risk to using fossil fuels, we're still giving out subsidies to the tune of $170 billion to oil and gas companies and CEOs," Levin emphasized.


get more stories like this via email

After a devastating tornado ripped through southeastern Kentucky last Friday and Saturday, Gov. Andy Beshear asked for a federal disaster declaration and has spoken to the heads of U.S. Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

At a news conference over the weekend, Beshear said the current death toll in Southern Kentucky is 18, with victims ranging in age from 25-76. Seventeen of the deaths were in Laurel County and one in Pulaski County. He noted he expected the number to rise.

"Among those killed was major Roger Leslie Leatherman of the Laurel County Fire Department," Beshear reported. "The major was in public service for 39 years, and he died doing what first responders do every day, risking his own life for our safety."

Leatherman was fatally injured while responding to the tornado, according to the Laurel County Fire Department. Beshear has declared a state of emergency and activated price-gouging laws to keep costs down during the crisis. People who know of someone who is missing or unaccounted for in the regions hit by the tornado should speak to authorities at Faith Assembly of God Church in London.

Beshear also urged the need for preparedness, recommending Kentuckians equip themselves with emergency weather radios.

"I've now been governor for at least 14 federally-declared disasters, 13 of them weather, and this is one of the worst," Beshear emphasized. "It's one of the worst in terms of the loss of human life. It's one of the worst in terms of damage."

The disaster comes on the heels of nationwide staffing cuts to the National Weather Service, which have left at least four offices, including one in Jackson, Kentucky, without an overnight forecaster. The Weather Service has 122 forecasting offices operating around the clock to track regional weather patterns.

This story is based on original reporting by Liam Niemeyer and Jamie Lucke for the Kentucky Lantern.


get more stories like this via email

Nine in 10 people in Virginia and across the globe are worried about climate change and want governments to do something about it, according to a new survey but they mistakenly assume others do not share their view.

Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, called it a perception gap.

"The average person believes that other people in their own country tend not to worry about climate change that much," Leiserowitz reported. "When, in fact, the majority of people in most countries do worry about climate change."

The gap in perception has real-world policy implications. In the U.S., almost 80% of congressional staffers underestimated their constituents' support for reducing climate pollution, sometimes by more than 50 percentage points.

Leiserowitz stressed helping more people understand they are not in the minority could unlock a social tipping point, moving leaders to act.

He pointed to one example where 96% of liberal Democrats and 78% of conservative Republicans supported helping farmers protect and restore soil to absorb more carbon dioxide. He acknowledged progress is stymied by misperceptions.

"If your perception is that Republicans are absolutely against climate policy, then many people might then conclude -- especially if you're a policymaker -- that we shouldn't be taking action," Leiserowitz outlined. "When, in fact, there's overwhelming support, even among conservative Republicans."

Decades of misinformation campaigns, aiming to protect fossil-fuel company profits, play a big role in perception gaps. Leiserowitz added gaps also persist because any two individuals, not knowing what the other thinks, are likely to avoid topics they believe are controversial, including climate change.

"That leads neither of us to talk about it," Leiserowitz observed. "Well, now expand that to 300 million people, and you can see that we start slipping down this 'spiral of silence.' Nobody talks about it, so nobody talks about it. Which means nobody talks about it."


get more stories like this via email