Remember the banana peels, apple cores, and leftover pizza you recently threw in the garbage? Today, your food waste—and your neighbors’—is emitting climate-warming greenhouse gases as it decomposes in a nearby municipal landfill. Buried food scraps and yard waste at 51 dumps across Colorado generate an amount of methane equivalent to driving 1 million gasoline-powered cars for a year. About 80 times as potent as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas over a period of 20 years, methane accounts for 11% of global emissions that scientists say are warming the atmosphere and contributing to more intense and severe weather, wildfires, and drought. Landfills are the third-largest source of methane pollution in Colorado, after agriculture and fossil fuel extraction. Draft methane rules released last month by the state’s Department of Public Health and Environment would, for the first time, require some dump operators to measure and quantify methane releases and to fix leaks. The proposal mandates that waste managers install a gas collection system if their dump generates a certain amount of the climate-warming gas.  It also addresses loopholes in federal law that allow waste to sit for five years before such systems are required—even though science has shown that half of all food waste decays within about three and a half years. The draft rule surpasses U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards in the amount of landfill area operators must monitor for emissions. It’s set to be heard by the state’s Air Quality Control Commission in August. Proposed regulations require the elimination of open gas flares—burning emissions directly into the atmosphere—and urge the use of biocovers and biofilters, which rely on bacteria to break down gases. The 70-page draft also calls for more routine and thorough monitoring of a dump surface with advanced technologies like satellites, which recently recorded large plumes of methane escaping from a Denver-area landfill. “We’ve had our eyes opened thanks to technology that has made the invisible, visible—now we know the extent of the problem, which is much greater than what estimates have portrayed,” said Katherine Blauvelt, circular economy director at Industrious Labs, a nonprofit working to decarbonize industry.  “When landfill operators fail to control leaks, we know harmful pollutants are coming along for the ride.” Cancer-causing volatile organic compounds, such as benzene and toluene, escape with methane leaching from landfills. These chemicals also contribute to the formation of lung-damaging ozone pollution, an increasing problem for the 3.6 million people who live in the greater Denver metropolitan area. Indeed, the region along the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains ranked sixth in the nation for the most polluted air—with unhealthy ozone levels reported on one out of every 10 days, on average, according to the American Lung Association’s 2025 “State of the Air” report. The state is also woefully behind in its compliance with federal air quality standards. State officials and environmental advocates agree that reducing methane emissions from landfills, which are easier to mitigate than cow burps, for example, is one of the quickest and most efficient ways to slow warming in the short term. “Waste deposited in landfills continues producing methane for decades as it breaks down—and it’s one sector where Colorado has yet to directly take action to reduce these greenhouse gases,” said Tim Taylor, a supervisor in the state’s air pollution control division, in an online hearing last February on the proposed landfill methane rules. Colorado’s draft regulations are similar to those in California, Oregon, Maryland, and Washington, he added. More than 10 landfills in the state are already required under federal rules to have gas collection and control systems. Yet even with such technology in place, disposal facilities routinely exceed federal methane emissions caps. The state’s health department has also identified a dozen municipal solid waste landfills, based on a preliminary analysis, that would be required to put such systems in place under the proposed rules, Zachary Aedo, an agency spokesman, said in an email to Capital & Main. Many of these facilities are operated by counties, some of which expressed concerns about their ability to pay for such systems. “We are a small rural county, and a multimillion-dollar containment system is going to be more than we can build,” testified Delta County Commissioner Craig Fuller at the February hearing. “The financial equation of this whole thing is absolutely mind-boggling—we are struggling as it is to provide health and human services.” Other county officials embraced the proposed tightening of rules. “Landfills across Colorado, including in Eagle County, are leading sources of methane pollution,” said Eagle County Commissioner Matt Scherr in a March 6 statement. “As a local elected official I support a robust rule that embraces advanced technologies to cut pollution, protect public health and help the methane mitigation industry thrive.” For larger landfill companies, like Waste Management, which operates 283 active disposal sites nationwide, figuring out which technology works to best monitor emissions from a dump’s surface is proving a complex challenge. The company is testing technologies at facilities with different topographies and climate fluctuations to understand what causes emissions releases, said Amy Banister, Waste Management senior director of air programs. “Landfills are complicated, emissions vary over time, and we have emissions 24/7,” said Banister at an online meeting last September of a technical group created by Colorado health department officials. “Drones produced a lot of false positives—and we need more work understanding how fixed sensors can be applied in a landfill environment.” State health officials suggested municipalities could offset the costs of installing gas collection systems at disposal sites by converting methane into energy. Several landfill operations in Colorado currently have such waste-to-energy systems—which send power they generate to the state’s power grid. “We are mindful of the costs of complying with this rule and how tipping fees may be impacted,” said Taylor, an air quality supervisor, at the February hearing. “Analyses conducted in other states of their landfill methane rules found there wasn’t an increase in tipping fees as a result of regulations over time.” Tipping fees are paid by those who dispose of waste in a landfill. If operators passed on compliance costs to households, a state analysis found, the yearly average annual fee would increase $22.90 per household. Colorado’s push comes as the EPA issued an enforcement alert in September that found “recurring Clean Air Act compliance issues” at municipal solid waste landfills that led to the “significant release of methane,” based on 100 inspections conducted over three years.  Such violations included improper design and installation of gas collection and control systems, failure to maintain adequate “cover integrity,” and improper monitoring of facilities for emissions. To address gaps in federal regulations, which require operators to measure emissions four times a year by walking in a grid pattern across the face of the landfill with a handheld sensor, Colorado’s draft rules require third-party monitoring. Such measurements must be conducted offsite by an entity approved by the state’s air pollution control division that uses a satellite, aircraft or mobile monitoring platform. The infrequency of such grid walks—which skip spots that operators deem dangerous—contributes to the undercounting of methane emissions from landfills, according to a satellite-based analysis. An international team of scientists estimated potent greenhouse gas emissions from landfills are 50% higher than EPA estimates. Satellites like one operated by nonprofit Carbon Mapper found large methane plumes outside the quarterly monitoring periods over the Tower Landfill in Commerce City, northeast of Denver. The satellite allowed scientists to see parts of the landfill not accessible with traditional monitoring—measurements that found that such landfills are underreporting their methane emissions to state regulators, said Tia Scarpelli, a research scientist and waste sector lead at Carbon Mapper. “Landfill emissions tend to be quite persistent—if a landfill is emitting when it’s first observed, it’s likely to be emitting later on,” she added. Scarpelli cautioned that it’s important for regulators to investigate with operators what was happening on the landfill surface at the time the leak was measured. Tower Landfill’s operator, Allied Waste Systems of Colorado, provided reasons for such large methane releases in a January 2024 report to the state’s health department, including equipment malfunctions. The fix for about 22 emissions events over the federal methane limits detected in August 2023 by surface monitoring: “Soil added as cover maintenance.” Like many dumps across Colorado and the nation, the Tower Landfill is located near a community that’s already disproportionately impacted by emissions from industrial activities. “These landfills are not only driving climate change, they are also driving a public health crisis in our community,” said Guadalupe Solis, director of environmental justice programs at Cultivando, a nonprofit led by Latina and Indigenous women in northern Denver. “The Tower Landfill is near nursing homes, clinics, near schools with majority Hispanic students.” Physicians in the state warned that those who live the closest to dumps suffer the worst health effects from pollutants like benzene and hydrogen sulfide, which are linked to cancer, heart, and other health conditions. “People living near landfills, like myself, my family and my patients, experience higher exposure to air pollution,” testified Dr. Nikita Habermehl, a specialist in pediatric emergency medicine who lives near a landfill in Larimer County, at the February 26 public hearing, “leading to increased rates of respiratory issues and headaches and asthma worsened by poor air quality.” —By Jennifer Oldham, Capital & Main This piece was originally published by Capital & Main, which reports from California on economic, political, and social issues.

A California-based company called Magrathea just turned on a new electrolyzer that can make magnesium metal from seawater. The technology has the potential to produce the material, which is used in vehicles and defense applications, with net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions. Magnesium is an incredibly light metal, and it’s used for parts in cars and planes, as well as in aluminum alloys like those in vehicles. The metal is also used in defense and industrial applications, including the production processes for steel and titanium. Today, China dominates production of magnesium, and the most common method generates a lot of the emissions that cause climate change. If Magrathea can scale up its process, it could help provide an alternative source of the metal and clean up industries that rely on it, including automotive manufacturing. The star of Magrathea’s process is an electrolyzer, a device that uses electricity to split a material into its constituent elements. Using an electrolyzer in magnesium production isn’t new, but Magrathea’s approach represents an update. “We really modernized it and brought it into the 21st century,” says Alex Grant, Magrathea’s cofounder and CEO. The whole process starts with salty water. There are small amounts of magnesium in seawater, as well as in salt lakes and groundwater. (In seawater, the concentration is about 1,300 parts per million, so magnesium makes up about 0.1% of seawater by weight.) If you take that seawater or brine and clean it up, concentrate it, and dry it out, you get a solid magnesium chloride salt. Magrathea takes that salt (which it currently buys from Cargill) and puts it into the electrolyzer. The device reaches temperatures of about 700 °C (almost 1,300 °F) and runs electricity through the molten salt to split the magnesium from the chlorine, forming magnesium metal. Typically, running an electrolyzer in this process would require a steady source of electricity. The temperature is generally kept just high enough to maintain the salt in a molten state. Allowing it to cool down too much would allow it to solidify, messing up the process and potentially damaging the equipment. Heating it up more than necessary would just waste energy.  Magrathea’s approach builds in flexibility. Basically, the company runs its electrolyzer about 100 °C higher than is necessary to keep the molten salt a liquid. It then uses the extra heat in inventive ways, including to dry out the magnesium salt that eventually goes into the reactor. This preparation can be done intermittently, so the company can take in electricity when it’s cheaper or when more renewables are available, cutting costs and emissions. In addition, the process will make a co-product, called magnesium oxide, that can be used to trap carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping to cancel out the remaining carbon pollution. The result could be a production process with net-zero emissions, according to an independent life cycle assessment completed in January. While it likely won’t reach this bar at first, the potential is there for a much more climate-friendly process than what’s used in the industry today, Grant says. Breaking into magnesium production won’t be simple, says Simon Jowitt, director of the Nevada Bureau of Mines and of the Center for Research in Economic Geology at the University of Nevada, Reno. China produces roughly 95% of the global supply as of 2024, according to data from the US Geological Survey. This dominant position means companies there can flood the market with cheap metal, making it difficult for others to compete. “The economics of all this is uncertain,” Jowitt says. The US has some trade protections in place, including an anti-dumping duty, but newer players with alternative processes can still face obstacles. US Magnesium, a company based in Utah, was the only company making magnesium in the US in recent years, but it shut down production in 2022 after equipment failures and a history of environmental concerns.  Magrathea plans to start building a demonstration plant in Utah in late 2025 or early 2026, which will have a capacity of roughly 1,000 tons per year and should be running in 2027. In February the company announced that it signed an agreement with a major automaker, though it declined to share its name on the record. The automaker pre-purchased material from the demonstration plant and will incorporate it into existing products. After the demonstration plant is running, the next step would be to build a commercial plant with a larger capacity of around 50,000 tons annually.

The NAACP is calling on local officials to halt operations at Colossus, the “supercomputer” facility operated by Elon Musk’s xAI in South Memphis. As reported in NBC News, leaders from the civil rights group sent a letter Thursday to the Shelby County Health Department and Memphis Light Gas and Water criticizing the organizations’ “lackadaisical approach to the operation of this dirty data center” and calling on them to “issue an emergency order for xAI to stop operations completely” — or if there’s no order, to at least cite and stop the company from allegedly violating clean air laws. The letter expressed particular concerns around the gas turbines that xAI runs to power Colossus. The company has applied for a permit to continue operating 15 gas turbines at the facility, although the NAACP said authorities have “allowed xAI to operate at least 35 gas turbines without any permitting” over the past year. City officials have previously said xAI did not need permits for the turbines’ first year of use. These turbines reportedly emit hazardous air pollutants, including formaldehyde, at levels exceeding EPA limits. The NAACP’s letter also pointed to the turbines’ nitrogen-oxide emissions. Noting that the Colossus facility is located near South Memphis’ Boxtown neighborhood, which the letter described as a “historically Black community,” the NAACP said the location perpetuates “the trend of industries adding pollution to communities who do not cause the problem.” “Instead of [the Shelby County Health Department] working to reduce health issues known in the area including that cancer risks are already four times the national average, it has allowed xAI to operate above the law,” the NAACP added. The NAACP’s letter is addressed to Shelby County Health Department Director Michelle Taylor, as well as Memphis Light Gas and Water’s commissioners; Taylor is leaving her role in Shelby County to become the commissioner of the Baltimore City Health Department. Techcrunch event Save now through June 4 for TechCrunch Sessions: AI Save $300 on your ticket to TC Sessions: AI—and get 50% off a second. Hear from leaders at OpenAI, Anthropic, Khosla Ventures, and more during a full day of expert insights, hands-on workshops, and high-impact networking. These low-rate deals disappear when the doors open on June 5. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you’ve built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | June 5 REGISTER NOW TechCrunch has reached out to the NAACP and xAI for comment. A spokesperson for Memphis Light Gas and Water told NBC News that it had not yet received the NAACP letter.

In the Northern Hemisphere during the spring, the bright star Regulus is easy to spot above the eastern horizon. The alpha star of the constellation Leo, Regulus is the spiky star centered in this telescopic field of view. Regulus is a hot, rapidly spinning star that is known to be part of a multiple star system.   CREDIT: Markus Horn Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. June 1Crescent Moon Visible Between Mars and RegulusJune 11Full Strawberry MoonMid JuneMercury Shows Off June 16-18The Red Planet Meets the Blue Heart of Leo June 20Summer SolsticeJune 30International Asteroid Day While the relatively short nights of summer mean less dark skies for stargazing, this month should still provide plenty to occupy those of us given to looking to the sky. June will feature several opportunities to see Mars and the moon in close proximity to Regulus, the iconic blue star(s) that shine from the heart of Leo, along with two weeks’ worth of excellent opportunities for observing Mercury. And did you know that June 30 is International Asteroid Day? June 1– Crescent Moon Visible Between Mars and Regulus The first evening of June will find the crescent moon sitting squarely between Mars and Regulus, the brightest member of the constellation Leo. Interesting fact: while it looks like a single object, the blue “star” we see as Regulus isn’t just one star. It’s actually four. The largest and brightest, Regulus A, is significantly hotter than our sun and way, way brighter than our sun, and is believed to be in a binary orbit with a much smaller object. This object is most likely a white dwarf, but it has never been observed directly. The other two stars–Regulus B and C–are also dwarf stars, and are also locked in a binary orbit. Anyway, keep Regulus in mind, because we’ll be returning to it later in the month. June 11– Full Strawberry Moon This month, the moon will reach peak illumination in the early hours of June 11. If you’re on EDT, the full moon will be at 3:44 a.m. This month’s moon is called the Strawberry Moon, and of all the lovely names for the full moon, June’s might just be the prettiest. The name refers to the berries that ripen as the summer solstice approaches, not the color of the moon itself, which will remain resolutely silver. Several Native American languages use this term, including Ojibwe, Oneida, and the Mahican dialect of the Stockbridge-Munsee band of Wisconsin. Other languages have similarly poetic names: in the Catawba language it’s the “River Moon” and in Cherokee it’s “They Are Arriving/Plants in Garden are Sprouting Month”, while in Seneca and Tunica it’s simply the “Summer Moon.” Mid-June– Mercury Shows Off Our solar system’s innermost planet can be difficult to observe—it’s small, dim, and a lot of the time, it simply gets lost in the glare of the sun. However, this month marks one of the regular periods when Mercury appears far enough removed from the sun to be visible to the naked eye. Throughout June, Mercury will approach its maximum eastern elongation,the point at which it appears furthest east of the sun. Unfortunately, its magnitude—i.e. its apparent brightness—will decline over the course of the month, and by the time it hits maximum elongation in early July, it’ll be dim enough that you might struggle to spot it without the aid of a telescope or some binoculars. This means that mid-June will offer the best balance of elongation and magnitude. As per the ever indispensable Farmer’s Almanac, Mercury should be visible between 9:00 p.m. and 9:15 p.m. local time, low in the sky to the west-northwest. On June 26, it’ll peek out from slightly below and to the left of the crescent moon.  [ Related: Mercury stuns in incredibly detailed new images. ] June 16-18– The Red Planet Meets the Blue Heart of Leo So, another thing about Regulus: it sits close to the plane of the solar system, which means that it is often seen in close proximity to the moon and the planets. This month brings one such occasion: for the nights of June 16, 17, and 18, Regulus will appear right next to Mars. The proximity of the Red Planet and the blazing blue heart of the constellation Leo should make for a pretty spectacular celestial juxtaposition. June 20– The Summer Solstice In the Northern Hemisphere, June 20 is the day on which the sun is highest in the sky, aka the summer solstice! This is the day on which the North Pole is tilted most directly toward the sun, bringing 24-hour daylight to the Arctic Circle and the longest day of the year to the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. Summer is here, y’all! June 30– International Asteroid Day June 30 marks the anniversary of the Tunguska Event, a frankly terrifying asteroid strike that remains the largest asteroid impact event in recorded history. On June 30, 1908, an asteroid estimated to be  about 160 to 200 feet wide exploded several miles above the surface of a remote area of Siberia. The force of the detonation is estimated to be comparable to  between 3 and 50 megatons of TNT, and registered on seismographs around the world. For comparison, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had yields of 0.015 and 0.021 megatons, respectively.) The resultant shockwave flattened an estimated 80 million trees over an area of 830 square miles and broke windows hundreds of miles away. In 2014, a group of scientists proposed that June 30 be designated International Asteroid Day. The UN adopted the idea two years later. The day recognizes the potentially calamitous effect of asteroid impacts—what might have happened had the Tunguska asteroid hit a city instead of a barren part of Siberia doesn’t really bear thinking about—and to raise awareness about the importance of asteroid-tracking endeavors. Anyway, hopefully June’s stargazing endeavors won’t reveal any terrifying asteroids hurtling toward us. Whatever you’re setting your sights on, though, you’ll get the best experience if you get away from any sources of light pollution—and you make sure to check out our stargazing tips before you head off into the darkness. Until next month!

May 29, 20255 min readSpaceX’s Starbase Is Officially a City. Some Neighbors Aren’t ThrilledStarbase, SpaceX’s launch site turned company town in South Texas, faces local opposition from residents outside the city limitsBy Paola Rosa-Aquino edited by Lee BillingsSpaceX rockets stand near the end of a neighborhood street in the company’s Starbase launch complex in this photograph from October 2021. Starbase was officially incorporated as a city of Cameron County, Texas in May 2025. Mark Felix/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesBefore SpaceX’s Starship lost control and exploded over the Indian Ocean during its ninth test flight, the 400-foot-tall megarocket blasted off from Texas’s newest city.Starbase, situated on 1.5 square miles of the Lone Star State’s southernmost tip in the Rio Grande Valley, is mostly made up of SpaceX employees living on company-owned property and abuts a habitat for endangered wildlife, as well as a public beach.Starbase serves as the main testing and launch location for Starship, SpaceX’s planned fully reusable spacecraft, which is meant to revolutionize human and uncrewed space travel with its gargantuan payload capacity and rapid-fire flight cadence. If Starship’s development proceeds as planned, the megarocket could soon be ferrying crew and cargo alike to multiple otherworldly destinations—such as the lunar surface, for NASA’s Artemis program, and Mars, in fulfillment of SpaceX founder Elon Musk’s long-stated dream. But nearby residents worry about less glamorous local effects, fearing that a town built around the space company could continue SpaceX’s alleged pattern of polluting the area and blocking access to the nearby beach and other open public spaces.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“SpaceX has already proven itself to be an extremely bad neighbor,” says Christopher Basaldú, an anthropologist and environmentalist and co-founder of the South Texas Environmental Justice Network, who lives in nearby Brownsville, Tex. SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Long before it was Starbase, the area’s beaches, tidal flats and wetlands were of great significance to the Indigenous Carrizo/Comecrudo people (or Esto’k Gna in their own language). Many of them still live nearby as members of the modern-day Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas. Today the area is largely Latino and among the poorest in the country. Musk’s space company began buying up property there in 2012; ever since company housing and rocket-related infrastructure have steadily sprouted.“We’ve grown quite a bit just in the last couple of years. It’s a couple hundred employees [and] their families, living amongst actual rockets,” said Daniel Huot, a SpaceX communications manager, during a company livestream before Tuesday’s Starship test flight.Huot added that the move to incorporate what was formerly Boca Chica Village as Starbase will help the company “scale more quickly [to] try to build out the best community possible for all the people that are building the future of humanity’s place in space.”Even before SpaceX began launching rockets at the site, neighbors complained about potential environmental woes stemming from the company’s operations. In a 2018 press conference, Musk dismissed such concerns, saying “We’ve got a lot of land with no one around, and so if [a rocket] blows up, it’s cool.”The first launch of the 40-story-tall Starship vehicle in April 2023 didn’t entirely proceed as planned—it blew up the concrete launch pad and left a literal crater behind. Particulate debris, as well as concrete and steel shrapnel from the botched launch, scattered far and wide across the surrounding landscape, igniting fires and slamming into protected habitats and public beaches. Ash, dust and sand grains hurled aloft by this first Starship flight test rained down as far out as Port Isabel, Tex., about five miles from the launch site.Local environmentalists have also sounded the alarm on how the company’s activities at Starbase could increase chemical and sonic pollution that puts migratory birds and other vulnerable endangered species in the area at greater risk.Despite these brewing tensions, Starbase was incorporated in early May, making it the first new city in Cameron County, Texas, in 30 years.Only people who live in the immediate area—almost all of them SpaceX employees—were eligible to vote for the new city. Residents voted 212 for and six against. The city’s mayor and commissioners—all current or former SpaceX employees—ran unopposed. “Now [SpaceX has] stolen away not only a neighborhood but the land around it, which had been basically environmentally untouched areas,” says Basaldú, who is a member of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe.Starbase’s boundaries snake along State Highway 4, which provides the only access to both Starbase and the open-to-the-public Boca Chica Beach. A bill pending in the Texas Legislature would shift control over weekday closures of the beach and nearby roadways from the county commissioners to Starbase city leaders now that Starbase is a municipality under law.“As a community, we were there first,” says Suquiery Santillana, a resident of nearby Brownsville, Tex., who has visited Boca Chica Beach since childhood. “I’m almost 50, and now my grandkids are going.” Her family’s trips to the isolated shoreline now include wide-eyed roadside spectators from all across the country who want to catch a glimpse of the SpaceX launch site. While Santillana is happy that SpaceX has brought jobs to the area, she would like the company to communicate more about upcoming closures and launch plans with locals.Members of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe also trace their creation story to this once-pristine beach. The intermittent access restrictions imposed by SpaceX’s launches, some tribe members say, limit them from freely participating in traditions such as fishing and tribal ceremonies that have been taking place on their ancestral land for thousands of years.Activity at the site could soon ramp up even more. On May 22 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced it had granted approval for SpaceX to increase the annual number of Starbase launches from five to 25. Eventually, Starship flights from the site could far exceed that because the vehicle is designed for very fast turnaround times and an unprecedentedly high launch cadence. Starship’s sheer size, coupled with more frequent launches, could balloon Starbase’s overall environmental footprint while also essentially shutting down Highway 4 for much of the year. The FAA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.For now, Starbase is poised to continue its rapid development and expansion, with plans in the works for more housing, offices and rocket launch facilities. Jim Chapman of the local environmental justice nonprofit Save RGV (Rio Grande Valley) worries that Starbase’s incorporation could allow SpaceX to skirt important regulatory hurdles. “[SpaceX has] fewer layers of bureaucracy that [it has] to go through and get approval from,” he says. “But on the other hand, I haven’t really seen the county denying [it] anything.”As SpaceX vies to fly ever more powerful rockets in pursuit of Musk’s interplanetary aspirations, local residents also fear that the company’s launch activity and its proximity to new natural gas projects could pose grave threats to Rio Grande Valley communities. One such project currently under construction is less than six miles from the launch site—too close for comfort, some critics say, given the possibility of volatile explosions sparked by showers of fiery rocket debris.If Musk’s latest projections are to be trusted (he often overpromises and underdelivers on meeting ambitious rocketry deadlines), additional Starship test flights will blast off from Starbase every few weeks for the rest of the summer. Time will tell if the company will be mindful of those who live next door.

AI could soon surpass Bitcoin mining in energy consumption, according to a new analysis that concludes artificial intelligence could use close to half of all the electricity consumed by data centers globally by the end of 2025.The estimates come from Alex de Vries-Gao, a PhD candidate at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Institute for Environmental Studies who has tracked cryptocurrencies’ electricity consumption and environmental impact in previous research and on his website Digiconomist. He published his latest commentary on AI’s growing electricity demand last week in the journal Joule. AI already accounts for up to a fifth of the electricity that data centers use, according to de Vries-Gao. It’s a tricky number to pin down without big tech companies sharing data specifically on how much energy their AI models consume. De Vries-Gao had to make projections based on the supply chain for specialized computer chips used for AI. He and other researchers trying to understand AI’s energy consumption have found, however, that its appetite is growing despite efficiency gains — and at a fast enough clip to warrant more scrutiny.“Oh boy, here we go.”With alternative cryptocurrencies to Bitcoin — namely Ethereum — moving to less energy-intensive technologies, de Vries-Gao says he figured he was about to hang up his hat. And then “ChatGPT happened,” he tells The Verge. “I was like, Oh boy, here we go. This is another usually energy-intensive technology, especially in extremely competitive markets.” There are a couple key parallels he sees. First is a mindset of “bigger is better.” “We see these big tech [companies] constantly boosting the size of their models, trying to have the very best model out there, but in the meanwhile, of course, also boosting the resource demands of those models,” he says. That chase has led to a boom in new data centers for AI, particularly in the US, where there are more data centers than in any other country. Energy companies plan to build out new gas-fired power plants and nuclear reactors to meet growing electricity demand from AI. Sudden spikes in electricity demand can stress power grids and derail efforts to switch to cleaner sources of energy, problems similarly posed by new crypto mines that are essentially like data centers used to validate blockchain transactions. The other parallel de Vries-Gao sees with his previous work on crypto mining is how hard it can be to suss out how much energy these technologies are actually using and their environmental impact. To be sure, many major tech companies developing AI tools have set climate goals and include their greenhouse gas emissions in annual sustainability reports. That’s how we know that both Google’s and Microsoft’s carbon footprints have grown in recent years as they focus on AI. But companies usually don’t break down the data to show what’s attributable to AI specifically.To figure this out, de Vries-Gao used what he calls a “triangulation” technique. He turned to publicly available device details, analyst estimates, and companies’ earnings calls to estimate hardware production for AI and how much energy that hardware will likely use. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), which fabricates AI chips for other companies including Nvidia and AMD, saw its production capacity for packaged chips used for AI more than double between 2023 and 2024. After calculating how much specialized AI equipment can be produced, de Vries-Gao compared that to information about how much electricity these devices consume. Last year, they likely burned through as much electricity as de Vries-Gao’s home country of the Netherlands, he found. He expects that number to grow closer to a country as large as the UK by the end of 2025, with power demand for AI reaching 23GW. Last week, a separate report from consulting firm ICF forecast a 25 percent rise in electricity demand in the US by the end of the decade thanks in large part to AI, traditional data centers, and Bitcoin mining. It’s still really hard to make blanket predictions about AI’s energy consumption and the resulting environmental impact — a point laid out clearly in a deeply reported article published in MIT Technology Review last week with support from the Tarbell Center for AI Journalism. A person using AI tools to promote a fundraiser might create nearly twice as much carbon pollution if their queries were answered by data centers in West Virginia than in California, as an example. Energy intensity and emissions depend on a range of factors including the types of queries made, the size of the models answering those queries, and the share of renewables and fossil fuels on the local power grid feeding the data center. It’s a mystery that could be solved if tech companies were more transparentIt’s a mystery that could be solved if tech companies were more transparent about AI in their sustainability reporting. “The crazy amount of steps that you have to go through to be able to put any number at all on this, I think this is really absurd,” de Vries-Gao says. “It shouldn’t be this ridiculously hard. But sadly, it is.”Looking further into the future, there’s even more uncertainty when it comes to whether energy efficiency gains will eventually flatten out electricity demand. DeepSeek made a splash earlier this year when it said that its AI model could use a fraction of the electricity that Meta’s Llama 3.1 model does — raising questions about whether tech companies really need to be such energy hogs in order to make advances in AI. The question is whether they’ll prioritize building more efficient models and abandon the “bigger is better” approach of simply throwing more data and computing power at their AI ambitions. When Ethereum transitioned to a far more energy efficient strategy for validating transactions than Bitcoin mining, its electricity consumption suddenly dropped by 99.988 percent. Environmental advocates have pressured other blockchain networks to follow suit. But others — namely Bitcoin miners — are reluctant to abandon investments they’ve already made in existing hardware (nor give up other ideological arguments for sticking with old habits). There’s also the risk of Jevons paradox with AI, that more efficient models will still gobble up increasing amounts of electricity because people just start to use the technology more. Either way, it’ll be hard to manage the issue without measuring it first. See More:

A group of young people — as young as 7 and as old as 25 — are suing the Trump administration to stop its assault on renewable energy and climate action. Executive orders President Donald Trump signed to promote fossil fuels amount to an “unconstitutional” overreach of power, they allege in a complaint filed Thursday at a US District Court in Montana. The 22 plaintiffs also claim that by increasing pollution and denying climate science, the president’s actions violate their Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty.It’s the latest high-profile case brought against governments by youth concerned about how fossil fuel pollution and climate change poses risks to their health and ability to thrive as they grow up. Two brothers, aged 11 and 7, “were born into climate change-induced smoke seasons that did not exist for older generations”Two brothers, aged 11 and 7 and named “J.K.” and “N.K.” in the suit, “were born into climate change-induced smoke seasons that did not exist for older generations and which compromise their health,” the complaint says. They grew up mostly in Montana but now live in Southern California, and the suit says wildfire smoke has encroached on their lives from state to state. J.K. was born with an abnormal mass of lung tissue and “experienced nosebleeds, sore throats, headaches, tiredness, coughing, trouble breathing, and eye irritation from wildfire smoke,” according to the suit. N.K. has “frequent” upper respiratory infections that have led to emergency room visits. They’ve both missed school days and camp because of feeling sick from smoke and soot in the air from wildfires, it says.Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels trap heat, and rising temperatures have contributed to longer fire seasons in the western US. With hotter, drier conditions, the area burned by forest fires in the western US doubled between 1984 and 2015. “Every additional ton of [greenhouse gas] pollution and increment of heat Defendants cause will cause J.K. and N.K. more days of poor air quality, more smoke, and thus, more harm to their lives, health, and safety,” the complaint adds.In recent years, scientists have been trying to better understand the long-term health impact of wildfire smoke, which previously hadn’t been studied as thoroughly as pollution from other sources thought to be more consistent problems, like factories and highways. Now, chronic exposure to wildfire smoke is a growing concern. Wildfire smoke is considered a neurotoxin estimated to be more harmful than other common air pollutants, but its effects on the body can vary depending on what kinds of materials burn and how chemicals released by the fire interact with other substances in the atmosphere. After campaigning on a promise to “drill, baby, drill” and accepting more than $75 million in contributions from oil and gas interests, Trump signed executive orders on his first day in office declaring a purported “national energy emergency,” directing federal agencies to “unleash” domestic fossil fuel production and promote the use of gas-powered vehicles over EVs. He signed another executive order to “reinvigorat[e]” the coal industry in April. Coal releases more planet-heating pollution when burned than other fossil fuels and has struggled to compete with cheaper sources of electricity.The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief to block implementation of those executive orders and to declare them unconstitutional. They also claim that Trump lacks the authority to erode environmental protections passed by Congress under the Clean Air Act. The administration’s efforts to impede scientific research and remove climate information from federal websites amounts to “censorship” and denies plaintiffs access to resources they might otherwise be able to use to minimize risks they face from climate change, the suit alleges.In response to the lawsuit, White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers said in an email to The Verge, “The American people are more concerned with the future generations’ economic and national security, which is why they elected President Trump in a landslide victory to restore America’s energy dominance. Future generations should not have to foot the bill of the lefts’ radical climate agenda.” The plaintiffs, who hail from Montana, Oregon, Hawai‘i, California, and Florida, are represented by the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, which has also represented young people in similar climate cases. A federal appellate court dismissed another case that youth filed against the Obama administration in 2015 over fossil fuel pollution causing climate change, and the US Supreme Court ended that legal battle this year when it declined to hear an appeal.But there have also been some wins. A group of youth reached a settlement last year with the state of Hawai‘i and its Department of Transportation that commits them to a plan to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 2045. J.K. and N.K. were also plaintiffs in a climate suit filed against the state of Montana. Last year, Montana’s Supreme Court upheld a district judge ruling affirming their right to a clean and healthy environment and rejecting policies that had barred officials from considering the consequences of climate change when permitting new energy projects.See More:

Remote-controlled robots could one day build giant solar farms in space, according to a recent trial in the UK. British startup Space Solar conducted the test at the UK Atomic Energy Authority’s (UKAEA) facilities on the University of Oxford’s Culham Campus, which hosts several fusion research initiatives. The company used two remotely operated robotic arms to assemble a section of the support structure for its future solar power satellite. The device aims to beam the Sun’s energy from space to Earth.  According to Space Solar, the trial proved that robotics can assemble gigawatt-scale solar power satellites. The 💜 of EU techThe latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol' founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It's free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!Sam Adlen, the startup’s co-CEO, said the demonstration opens the door to all manner of in-space infrastructure projects.    “This is a milestone not just for our satellite architecture, but for the future of large-scale structures in space, from data centres to energy infrastructure,” he said. As part of its plans to build a working fusion reactor, UKAEA is developing robots for extreme industrial environments, such as maintaining future fusion power plants. The trial shows that those same machines may also show promise for cosmic applications.  Professor Rob Buckingham, executive director of UKAEA, said building fusion reactors and structures in space shared some common challenges, such as remoteness, radiation, and extreme temperatures. The demo suggests that fusion-hardened robotics could help automate the complex task of assembling vast solar farms in orbit.    A solar revolution in space? Space Solar plans to capture the Sun’s energy in space, using huge satellites equipped with solar arrays that are several kilometres long and around 20 metres wide. The probes would capture the energy via microwaves and wirelessly transmit it to dedicated receiver stations on Earth, which would convert the energy into electricity.    By 2029, Space Solar plans to commission its first 30MW demonstrator system, which would be capable of powering around 1000 homes. By the early 2030s,  the startup plans to deploy its first gigawatt-scale solar space farm. The UK Space Agency has provided grant funding for the development of the startup’s first satellite. Solar panels are theoretically capable of gathering far more energy in space than on Earth because, unhindered by the atmosphere, the intensity of sunlight is much greater. They could also beam energy from orbit 24/7, regardless of the weather on the ground.  However, space-based solar power faces many challenges. It’s currently far more expensive than ground-based solar systems — the initial development of a gigawatt-scale prototype could cost €15bn–€20bn. Then there are the potential environmental impacts. Installing a satellite of that scale could involve hundreds of separate rocket launches, contributing to atmospheric pollution.  Nevertheless, the European Space Agency (ESA), NASA, and several startups in the UK, US, China, and Japan are all working to make space-based solar a reality. Story by Siôn Geschwindt Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehic (show all) Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehicles, he's happiest sourcing a scoop, investigating the impact of emerging technologies, and even putting them to the test. He has five years of journalism experience and holds a dual degree in media and environmental science from the University of Cape Town, South Africa. When he's not writing, you can probably find Siôn out hiking, surfing, playing the drums or catering to his moderate caffeine addiction. You can contact him at: sion.geschwindt [at] protonmail [dot] com Get the TNW newsletter Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week. Also tagged with

Remote-controlled robots could one day build giant solar farms in space, according to a recent trial in the UK. British startup Space Solar conducted the test at the UK Atomic Energy Authority’s (UKAEA) facilities on the University of Oxford’s Culham Campus, which hosts several fusion research initiatives. The company used two remotely operated robotic arms to assemble a section of the support structure for its future solar power satellite. The device aims to beam the Sun’s energy from space to Earth.  According to Space Solar, the trial proved that robotics can assemble gigawatt-scale solar power satellites. Sam Adlen, the startup’s co-CEO, said the demonstration opens the door to all manner of in-space infrastructure projects.    “This is a milestone not just for our satellite architecture, but for the future of large-scale structures in space, from data centres to energy infrastructure,” he said. As part of its plans to build a working fusion reactor, UKAEA is developing robots for extreme industrial environments, such as maintaining future fusion power plants. The trial shows that those same machines may also show promise for cosmic applications.  Professor Rob Buckingham, executive director of UKAEA, said building fusion reactors and structures in space shared some common challenges, such as remoteness, radiation, and extreme temperatures. The demo suggests that fusion-hardened robotics could help automate the complex task of assembling vast solar farms in orbit.    A solar revolution in space? Space Solar plans to capture the Sun’s energy in space, using huge satellites equipped with solar arrays that are several kilometres long and around 20 metres wide. The probes would capture the energy via microwaves and wirelessly transmit it to dedicated receiver stations on Earth, which would convert the energy into electricity.    By 2029, Space Solar plans to commission its first 30MW demonstrator system, which would be capable of powering around 1000 homes. By the early 2030s,  the startup plans to deploy its first gigawatt-scale solar space farm. The UK Space Agency has provided grant funding for the development of the startup’s first satellite. Solar panels are theoretically capable of gathering far more energy in space than on Earth because, unhindered by the atmosphere, the intensity of sunlight is much greater. They could also beam energy from orbit 24/7, regardless of the weather on the ground.  However, space-based solar power faces many challenges. It’s currently far more expensive than ground-based solar systems — the initial development of a gigawatt-scale prototype could cost €15bn–€20bn. Then there are the potential environmental impacts. Installing a satellite of that scale could involve hundreds of separate rocket launches, contributing to atmospheric pollution.  Nevertheless, the European Space Agency (ESA), NASA, and several startups in the UK, US, China, and Japan are all working to make space-based solar a reality. Story by Siôn Geschwindt Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehic (show all) Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehicles, he's happiest sourcing a scoop, investigating the impact of emerging technologies, and even putting them to the test. He has five years of journalism experience and holds a dual degree in media and environmental science from the University of Cape Town, South Africa. When he's not writing, you can probably find Siôn out hiking, surfing, playing the drums or catering to his moderate caffeine addiction. You can contact him at: sion.geschwindt [at] protonmail [dot] com Get the TNW newsletter Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week. Also tagged with

May 28, 20257 min readWhy Is NASA Shuttering This Iconic Institute in New York City?Since 1966 NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has been at the forefront of Earth and planetary science from its location in upper Manhattan. Now a Trump administration directive is ejecting its scientists to parts unknownBy Christopher Cokinos edited by Lee BillingsPhoto of the building housing NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, at the corner of Broadway and West 112th Street in New York City. Cirofono via Flickr (CC BY 2.0)In the early 1980s, then real estate developer Donald Trump famously tried to evict a group of New York City residents from a rent-controlled building that he wanted to replace with a luxury high-rise. The tenants eventually beat back the plan.Today President Trump is having more luck with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).Ensconced on six floors of a building on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, GISS has been a small-but-mighty source of world-changing scientific research for more than a half-century. NASA scientists first moved into the building, which another federal agency leases from GISS’s institutional partner, Columbia University, in 1966. Last month, at the behest of the Trump administration, NASA officials told GISS it had to move out before the end of May. In response, more than 100 staffers have abandoned the facility, leaving its tastefully decorated halls and offices littered with boxes, papers and packing tape.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Although it may be best known to the public indirectly (its building often appeared in the hit sitcom Seinfeld as the site of “Monk’s Café”), GISS has been a leader in Earth science and climate research for decades. The work within its halls was crucial for sparking broader public awareness of anthropogenic climate change in the 1980s and has contributed to cutting-edge weather forecasting and multiple interplanetary missions, as well as the underpinnings of the past, present, and future habitability of Earth and other worlds.Yet now that rich legacy and prospects for further breakthrough research are at risk, GISS personnel say, jeopardized by the White House’s demands for notionally better government efficiency. Ironically, however, the effective eviction of GISS may well result in more costs to taxpayers rather than less.A Federal Mandate to “Institutionally Couch Surf”GISS itself has not been disbanded. But without a physical home and under the looming threat of a White House–proposed 50 percent cut to the entirety of NASA’s science for the 2026 federal fiscal year, the Institute’s future can only be called uncertain. Many of its staff are now operating as academic nomads—working remotely and scrambling to secure office space at other locations in the city.“We’re being told to institutionally couch surf,” says one senior GISS researcher, who, like many others in this story, asked not to be identified because of the possibility of reprisal.In April Makenzie Lystrup, director of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, which technically includes GISS, e-mailed GISS personnel about the eviction, explaining it was part of White House efforts to review government leases.Sources familiar with the situation, however, tell Scientific American the termination was specifically set in motion earlier this spring by an employee of the U.S. DOGE Service (a newly minted federal entity that was, until recently, led by the world’s richest man, Elon Musk). That employee, the sources say, approached NASA administrators, who ultimately agreed to the move out of fear of losing their jobs.A GISS scientist recounts the sudden events: “On Wednesday afternoon of April 23, NASA GISS workers were informed that there would be an all-hands Thursday morning meeting (the next day) with folks from HQ ... the topic of which was not mentioned,” the scientist says. “The next morning, we were promptly told ... the decision was made to vacate our building by the end of May and that the decision was made as part of a broader DOGE assessment of federal leased spaces. They also mentioned that this decision was made by NASA within just a few days.” According to this scientist, the move deadline changed several times. This account is supported by others who spoke to Scientific American.Multiple GISS personnel consulted for this story say there will be no cost savings because the $3-million-per-year lease on the space remains in place through 2031. That lease is between Columbia and the General Services Administration (GSA), a federal agency that is tasked with providing workspace for some governmental employees. Even if a new tenant is found, the lease is likely to remain in force because terminating it will result in major financial penalties per the leasing agreement. The lease, they say, is about half the current commercial rate in New York City, and for now, the GSA continues to pay rent.“Columbia is fully committed to our longstanding collaboration with NASA and the scientific research at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies,” said Millie Wert, a spokesperson for the university, when reached for comment for this article.The suddenness of the move has stunned GISS researchers and personnel, one of whom calls the decision “idiocy.”“One hundred and thirty scientists must move all their books and office equipment,” the senior researcher told Scientific American shortly after GISS received the eviction notice. “A library and $400,000 in tech must be moved out. We also have historical items here: Where are we supposed to put them?” Much of this material is reportedly going into storage at warehouse space in New Jersey.Another staffer adds that “we have no information about what will be discarded.... Ironically, many of us decided not to accept new furniture [recently] because our existing 1950s furniture is perfectly good—and that would save the taxpayer money.”As GISS employees packed their belongings, they saw workers dismantling a recently renovated conference room and a brand-new security system, according to documents obtained by Scientific American from the departing staff. The documents also note that computers and servers are “at risk of damage while being moved in haste.”Two protest letters against the eviction that were sent from the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE) to particular congressional representatives and senators, respectively, noted that a recent renovation of GISS is nearly complete at a cost of more than $6 million. In the letter to members of the House of Representatives, IFPTE called the dispersal of staff and equipment “blatantly wasteful financially.”An Institutional “Diaspora”GISS is globally renowned for tracking and predicting climate conditions with GISTEMP (GISS Surface Temperature Analysis), along with other datasets and modeling that involve planetary science beyond Earth and that are focused on weather, fire and agriculture on our world. GISS also has played roles in missions across the solar system, the discovery of the big bang’s all-sky afterglow, and more.According to firebrand climate researcher and former GISS director James Hansen, now retired from NASA, the institute was deliberately located in New York City because physicist Robert Jastrow, its founder, wanted a NASA center that was not a closed campus. Being in the heart of a city with academia and industry outside the door has been an asset to GISS, according to Hansen and others. The process of developing GISS began modestly, with “Jastrow ... interviewing people in an office over a furniture store in Silver Spring, Md.,” Hansen says. “The ‘GISS Formula’ ... was to have a minimum government staff, which allowed the research focus to change with time as the need dictated.”One such focus was the high levels of carbon dioxide on Venus, which Hansen was studying decades ago. That led to his trailblazing work on what was then called “the greenhouse effect,” including his famous testimony before Congress on human-driven climate change in 1988.Climate modeling, says a different senior GISS researcher, “is what drove the development of supercomputing, [and] we continue to use the same Earth climate modeling to understand Venus and Mars and constrain their potential habitability.” From climate feedback loops to ocean heat transport, GISS is at the center of important science, its researchers say.But the GISS dispersal, along with other disruptions, such as frozen grants and proposed science budget cuts at NASA, the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among other agencies, “represent a monumental step backwards,” a GISS scientist says, “not just for understanding a climate that will still change due to human activities ... but also for operational weather prediction that saves lives due to forecast and warnings, pollution and contamination assessments.”GISS’s current director Gavin Schmidt tells Scientific American that “the issue of whether to do something with the GISS lease goes back a year or two due to a shift in how these things are paid for at NASA.... [The agency] commissioned an external panel to look at [this], and they concluded (last year) that the status quo was the most efficient plan. I am not privy to who decided to raise that idea again in recent weeks.”Other GISS researchers complain that, to their knowledge, no administrators above Schmidt went to bat for keeping the institute in its building.“I think there was pushback initially at HQ,” Schmidt says, “but by the time we were told at GISS, it was a done deal.”Concerns now include the lack of in-person interaction and a general loss of support for postdoctoral researchers. “It’s pretty dire,” one scientist says.“I’m now watching people who have dedicated their entire careers to understanding the most pressing issues of our time deciding whether they might have to leave the place they’ve built their life around,” says Alessandra Quigley, an early-career scientist, who is affiliated with GISS. “This is the only positive takeaway I can find: the fact this administration cares so much about ending climate science just demonstrates how important [this science] is, and I hope the public comes to see that, too.”While Lystrup called GISS’s work “critical” and promised support during the transition in her e-mail, which was obtained by Scientific American , Schmidt says that “people are shell-shocked and anxious—and that is not conducive to doing high-quality science.”He adds that “we will nonetheless push through and try and make the GISS diaspora function as well as it can. We have been contacted with many offers to help.”Asked for comment by Scientific American, a NASA spokesperson referred to the situation as “part of the administration’s government-wide review of leases to increase efficiency.” While NASA “seeks and evaluates options for a new space for the GISS team,” the spokesperson added, the institute’s work remains “significant” and “critical.”But at least one GISS researcher isn’t convinced. Angry that the agency didn’t do more to stop the eviction and even had tasked officials with frequent check-ins to ensure the move was underway, the researcher says, simply, “NASA is the new thug.”