Fil d’Actualités

Researchers found that two alleles in the wood pink plant species may allow the perennials to adapt to warming temperatures.

A new study finds that land subsidence is outpacing ocean-driven sea-level rise along the northern coastline of Java Island, Indonesia.

5 ways to reduce your energy bill whether you rent or own JR Culpepper April 6, 2026 With everything from groceries to gas getting pricier, monthly expenses can feel even more daunting. But with spring bringing warmer weather, there are five steps to consider that may help lower monthly utility costs and bring relief for renters and homeowners.These tips, including running appliances strategically or embracing solar power, are a win-win by helping you save money on energy bills, while also helping the environment. Switching to greener energy sources or reducing your energy use altogether can help lower the cost, while alleviating the need for reliance on dirty energy sources like coal.1. Set your thermostat for savingsIn the warmer spring and summer months, set your thermostat no cooler than 78 degrees. In the winter, set it no warmer than 68. If those temperatures are uncomfortable for you, make small 1-2 degree adjustments until you hit the right spot. In the summer, every degree above 72 can save you at least 1-3 percent on your utility bill. That can add up to more than $200 per year, based on average monthly utility bills of $600. Ratepayers in states like California with higher electricity rates will save even more.  2. Make the switch to LED lightbulbs. Spring cleaning could include added savings by switching out old energy-inefficient bulbs for higher-efficiency LED bulbs. The average household saves around $225 in yearly energy costs by switching to LED bulbs. The lighting inside your home accounts for 15% of your total electricity usage. LED lightbulbs can cut electricity consumption by 75-90%.These bulbs save energy and cash long-term and usually cost around $2 each, only slightly more expensive than a traditional light bulb. Their cost has decreased significantly since they entered the market, and will likely continue to come down further.3. Run your appliances strategicallyIf you live in an area that requires “time-of-use” pricing for electricity, where it’s more expensive in the evening than mid-day or night, be mindful of when you use large appliances such as your air conditioner, your dishwasher or your washing machines that may need lots of energy. Electricity prices are usually lower before 4 p.m. or after 9 p.m. Running the dishwasher or doing your laundry outside of the 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. window can help you score savings on your next bill.  4. Consider going solarEveryone can go solar, whether you rent or own. If you own your home and have a roof that gets good sunlight, have a reputable solar contractor visit your home and give you a free bid for adding professionally designed and installed solar panels. Depending on the policies and programs available to you where you live, a rooftop solar system can cover all of your home’s electricity usage for the year, helping you save thousands of dollars. If you rent, or have a heavily shaded roof, consider balcony solar. These systems are smaller, simpler versions of rooftop solar, typically 1/5th to 1/30th the size. They don’t need professional installation, just a small patch of sun on a balcony or patio and a regular wall outlet. Just like with rooftop systems, the electricity that balcony solar produces is used instantly inside a home, powering everyday essential appliances. These technologies reduce your reliance on traditional utilities, lowering your monthly payments. With prices starting around $400 to $1,200, these systems can cover up to 30% of a household’s average electricity use, making them one of the most accessible clean energy options available. At today’s prices and depending on where you live, the systems can pay themselves within three to six years and start saving the average consumer around $200-$450 per year on energy bills.Depending on where you live in the U.S., these systems are currently available for purchase. Utah was first to enact a law allowing these systems to be sold, in 2025. And legislation is pending in several other states, including California and New York, that would, if enacted, lower prices and make these devices available and easy to use for everyone. 5. Replace old windows Old, inefficient windows can significantly waste the energy you use to heat or cool your home. Replacing older windows with new, efficient ones can cut your utility bill by 25-30%. The average upfront cost of a new window can range from $300-1,200, but since the average window lasts 15 to 30 years, with hundreds of dollars in savings each year, the investment will save money in the long run. For homeowners, new windows increase the resale value of your home, while bringing in monthly energy savings by reducing your energy use.  Areas of Focus Energy Guest Authors Grant Pacernick, Communications intern April 6, 2026

An M.A. in Climate and Society alum shares the inspiration behind his new children’s book about climate action.

Flooded fields, polluted environment rcoleman April 6, 2026 Al Rabine April 3, 2026 Over 4.2 million acres of flood-prone cropland in four major Corn Belt states of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin likely generate nitrous oxide emissions that contribute to climate change, and produce nitrate contamination of drinking water, new EWG research finds.These acres are in the 100-year flood plain – areas with a 1% chance of flooding in a year. The problem is especially acute for the more than 2 million acres of corn grown in this area, since corn is heavily applied with nitrogen fertilizer. Frequent flooding can lead to cropland emitting more nitrous oxide and greater nitrate runoff into water.EWG also modeled cropland within the much more frequently flooded 2-year flood plain in the Middle Fork Zumbro watershed in Southeast Minnesota. That analysis shows between 1,619 and 6,435 acres of cropland fall within the likely 2-year flood plain.Of those, between 1,083 and 4,058 acres were planted with corn. These acres are much more likely to flood than those in the 100-year flood plain, magnifying both climate and water quality impacts.Implementing more conservation practices on cropland that is in a flood plain, like cover crops, reducing tillage, crop diversification or buffer strips, or transitioning land in flood plains away from cropland can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and nitrate pollution of drinking water. Reducing the amount of nitrate in drinking water is a health-protective step, because nitrate is a pollutant linked to cancer and that is potentially dangerous for infants.It is particularly important for agriculture to reduce nitrous oxide emissions because nitrous oxide is roughly 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, meaning it warms the earth much more per ton of gas. Agriculture is the main source of nitrous oxide emissions.Farming accounts for roughly 10% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. As climate change accelerates, farmers face growing pressure to cut emissions and prevent agriculture from becoming the nation’s leading source of climate pollution. Agriculture’s emissions are still going up while other sectors’ emissions are decreasing, such as transportation and electric power.Strengthening federal and state conservation programs will be essential in helping farmers adopt conservation practices that can reduce nitrous oxide and nitrate, and permanently retire cropland in flood plains where farming poses the greatest risks.100-year flood plain cropland growing cornThe Federal Emergency Management Agency defines the 100-year flood plain as containing land that has a 1% chance of flooding in a year.Nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate contamination of drinking water are particularly prominent when the cropland in a flood plain is used to grow corn. Vast amounts of nitrogen fertilizer are applied to corn. Nationally, over two thirds of all nitrogen fertilizer applications are for corn. Farmland in flood plains are prone to spikes in nitrous oxide emissions. Up to a certain point, higher levels of soil moisture contribute to greater emissions of nitrous oxide. Because of this, cropland acres in flood plains are likely to be nitrous-oxide-producing hotspots, as they have higher levels of soil moisture than cropland located outside a flood plain. Flood plains are also more likely to experience runoff and contribute nitrogen pollution to waterways, in turn polluting drinking water with nitrates.As of 2024, there were 4.2 million acres of cropland in the 100-year flood plain across Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Of those, over 2 million acres, or 48%, were used to grow corn. Insert map of counties with the most cropland in 100-year flood plain hereIowa had the most cropland acres within the flood plain at over 1.7 million acres, and also the most corn acres in the flood plain at over 981,000 acres. Wisconsin had the lowest number of cropland and corn acres in the flood plain, but the highest percent of cropland acres in the flood plain that were used to grow corn at 59%. (See Table 1.)Table 1. Cropland and corn acres in the 100-year flood plain for 4 Corn Belt states.StateTotal crops in flood plainTotal corn acres in flood plainPercent of flood plain cropland acres used to grow cornIowa1,727,763981,62657%Illinois1,572,991744,42047%Minnesota662,053161,98824%Wisconsin255,838151,53259%Source: EWG, from Agriculture Department National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer, and FEMA Flood MapsAmong the counties with the most corn acres within the 100-year flood plain, four of the top five are in Iowa: Monona, Harrison, Woodbury and Pottawattamie counties. Whiteside County, Ill., is the only non-Iowa county in the top five, ranking third overall for the most corn acres within the flood plain. Case study: cropland in the 2-year flood plain of the Middle Fork Zumbro River watershedThe 2-year flood plain includes areas expected to flood, on average, once every two years –meaning there is a 50% chance of flooding in any given year. Unlike the 100-year flood plain, FEMA does not designate the 2-year flood plain and it must be delineated using modeling. Because these models involve uncertainty, results are presented as a range rather than a single estimate. Southeastern Minnesota’s Middle Fork Zumbro River watershed is a region that has long struggled with nitrate in drinking water, especially in the Southeast portion of the state. Much of the region sits atop karst soils that water and contaminants can easily leach through, making groundwater more vulnerable to nitrate contamination. The Middle Fork watershed is 566 square miles in size, and has over 100,000 acres of total cropland with over half of those acres used to grow corn. EWG used the Height Above Nearest Drainage, or HAND, model to map the likely 2-year flood plain within the Middle Fork watershed. This is a simple way to estimate where flooding is likely to occur by comparing land elevations to the height of nearby stream channels. The model identifies areas that have low elevation relative to a stream when water levels rise.The model looked at inundation rates between 0.5 and 1.5 meters. The inundation rates were determined using U.S. Geological Survey StreamStats and USGS rating curves, which are determined by historical flood calculations. EWG created different maps for the inundation rates and calculated cropland within the potentially-flooded areas given the different inundation rates. So the size of the 2-year flood plain is provided as a range, with the size ranging from the number of acres of land that would be in the flood plain at a 0.5 meter inundation rate and the number of acres at a 1.5 meter inundation rate. See the methodology section at the end of the report for more information.The map below shows the modeled 2-year flood plain within the Middle Fork watershed. Insert map of 2-year flood plain range here Within the watershed, an estimated 1,619 to 6,435 acres of cropland lie within the likely 2-year flood plain. Most of the cropland acres were planted with corn, ranging from 1,083 acres at the low end to as many as 4,058 acres at the high end.This means that there are potentially over 4,000 acres of corn that could possibly flood every other year, in this one watershed alone. Since corn is usually heavily fertilized, frequent flooding of corn fields would potentially make those fields emit larger amounts of nitrous oxide emissions to the atmosphere than non-flooded fields, and add more nitrogen pollution to nearby bodies of water.Hotspots for nitrous oxide emissions and water pollutionElevated soil moisture is a key driver of nitrous oxide emissions from cropland. Studies have found peak nitrous oxide emissions at different water levels in soil, but many studies have found that water-filled porosity space around 80% is the level that generates the highest amount of nitrous oxide emissions. Extreme precipitation events can produce spikes in nitrous oxide emissions.Flood plains also pose a heightened risk to water quality. Fertilizer nitrogen is more likely to run off flooded fields and leach through saturated soils into drainage systems, ultimately contaminating nearby waterways. As a result, flooded cropland releases more nitrogen pollution than comparable land outside flood plains.Consuming high levels of nitrate in drinking water can cause blue baby syndrome, a potentially fatal condition that starves infants of oxygen. Drinking water with low levels of nitrate can increase the risk of birth defects and cancer.Nitrous oxide is a small but important greenhouse gasNitrous oxide accounts for roughly 6% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. While that might appear modest, its climate impacts are outsized. Nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for over 100 years and has a global warming potential 273 times greater than carbon dioxide.When looking at total agricultural U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, nitrous oxide makes up the largest share at 52%. Global nitrous oxide emissions are projected to increase 30% between 2020 and 2050. Corn production alone accounts for over half of all nitrous oxide emissions from U.S. agriculture. Emissions vary widely across farms, depending on soil conditions, weather characteristics and farm management practices. Missed opportunities at USDA and state agenciesThe federal government invests billions of dollars through multiple conservation programs. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, is a federal working lands conservation program. Some states discussed in this analysis also have smaller state-based conservation programs and a few agricultural regulations. But the Agriculture Department and Midwest state agencies can do more to encourage farmers to adopt practices that reduce climate emissions, particularly in flood plains.Funding for the conservation practices that do the best job of reducing climate emissions and nitrate pollution to water in flood plains should be increased and prioritized. For example, EQIP should be updated to allow states to pay 90% of the cost of EQIP practices to farmers for practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions; practices like cover crops and crop diversification. Currently, too much funding from EQIP goes to structural, equipment and facility practices that do little, if anything, to reduce farming’s nitrous oxide emissions. A considerable amount of EQIP funding has gone to farmers for structural practices. According to EWG’s Conservation Database, six of the top ten highest-paid practices between 2017 and 2024 were structural practices. Farmers received $2.59 billion for fencing, sprinkler systems, manure waste pit roofs and covers, animal waste storage facilities, irrigation pipelines and livestock waste pipelines, which was 25% of total EQIP funding across all practices. Many of these practices do not have climate benefits, and a number of the producers receiving this funding are operating factory farms that are legally required to implement these practices. There are bipartisan efforts, notably the EQIP Improvement Act from Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.) that would help provide cost-savings and ensure more farmers can access climate-smart agriculture dollars. Another proposal, the bipartisan CROP for Farming Act from Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Josh Riley (D-N.Y.) and Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Mich.), would provide a higher cost-share, 90%, for conservation practices that help reduce emissions and improve waterways. More money for farmers through the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, or ACEP, Wetlands Reserve Easements would also help. This option pays farmers to retire farmland into wetlands, either permanently or for many years. These easements can bring significant climate and water quality benefits when flooded cropland is retired and turned into wetlands. Fixing these and other missed opportunities within the USDA and state agencies could reduce nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate water pollution from agriculture in the Midwest. It remains to be seen if the new Regenerative Pilot Program recently announced by the USDA will make a difference, but it signals growing recognition of the practices that offer the greatest environmental benefits.MethodologyTo calculate how much land is within the 100-year flood plain in each county, EWG used flood plain data from FEMA. EWG mapped the cropland acres in each county using data from the USDA’s Cropland Data Layer, which shows the crops produced on every farm field in the U.S. EWG then compared the cropland and crop type acreage data was then compared to the FEMA’s 100-year flood plain data to find the number of cropland and corn acres within the flood plain.EWG used the Height Above Nearest Drainage, or HAND, model to map the likely 2-year flood plain in the Middle Fork Zumbro River watershed in Minnesota. Cropland and corn acres from the Cropland Data Layer were then located within the modeled 2-year flood plain in this watershed to find the number of cropland and corn acres that were within the flood plain. The HAND model is a simplified way to estimate where flooding is likely to occur by comparing land elevations to the elevation of nearby stream channels. This is done by using a digital elevation model and stream network data. The HAND model identifies a defined area that is a vertical distance from a stream that is likely to flood given different inundation rates.To estimate flooding from a typical 2-year flood event, flow rates were calculated using the U.S. Geological Survey’s StreamStats website, which is a tool used to estimate how much water flows through a stream during common flood events. Stream gauges were also used where available in the Middlefork watershed. The flow rates were compared to historical measurements gathered by the stream gauges (rating curve) to see how much the water level usually rises during a 2-year flood event. Using StreamStats and stream gauges throughout the watershed, areas between 0.5 and 1.5 meters above the stream channel were mapped as potential 2 year flood plains. A range was used to reflect the natural differences in stream size and terrain differences across the watershed.The HAND model is great for simple flood plain modeling, especially where data is scarce, but does not replace a more robust flood plain modeling software like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s HEC-RAS software as well as on the ground analysis. The numbers provided in this analysis are modeled estimates, whereas the actual 2-year flood plain for this and other watersheds should be calculated by government officials using more-exact software and on the ground analysis.