US Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background And Issues For Congress – Analysis

A tomahawk cruise missile launches from the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Shoup. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class William Collins III) 


January 19, 2026 
Congressional Research Service (CRS).
By Ronald O’Rourke

Introduction

The Navy’s DDG(X) program has envisaged procuring a class of next-generation guided-missile destroyers (DDGs) to replace the Navy’s Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis cruisers and older Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyers. Navy plans have called for procuring the first DDG(X) in the early 2030s. The Navy’s proposed FY2026 budget requested $133.5 million in research and development funding for the program.

On December 22, 2025, the Trump Administration announced a proposed program to build a new class of guided missile battleships (BBG[X]s) for the Navy. (For more on the BBG(X) program, see CRS In Focus IF13142, Navy Guided Missile Battleship (BBG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.) Somepress reports have stated that the Navy intends to suspend work on the DDG(X) program as a consequence of starting the BBG(X) program.

Navy Large Surface Combatants (LSCs)

Force-Level Goal

The Navy refers to its cruisers and destroyers collectively as large surface combatants (LSCs). The Navy’s preferred 381-ship force-level goal, released in June 2023, calls for achieving and maintaining a force of 87 LSCs.

Existing LSCs

The Navy’s CG-47s and DDG-51s are commonly called Aegis cruisers and Aegis destroyers, respectively, because they are equipped with the Aegis combat system, an integrated collection of sensors and weapons named for the mythical shield that defended Zeus. The Navy procured 27 CG-47s between FY1978 and FY1988. The ships entered service between 1983 and 1994. The first five, which were built to an earlier technical standard, were judged by the Navy to be too expensive to modernize and were removed from service in 2004-2005. The Navy began retiring the remaining 22 ships in FY2022 and wants to retire all 22 by the end of FY2027.

The first DDG-51 was procured in FY1985 and entered service in 1991. The version of the DDG-51 that the Navy is currently procuring is called the Flight III version. The Navy also has three Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers that were procured in FY2007-FY2009 and are equipped with a combat system that is different than the Aegis system. (For more on the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 programs, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.)

LSC Industrial Base

All LSCs procured for the Navy since FY1985 have been built at General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are major contractors for Navy surface ship combat system equipment. The surface combatant industrial base also includes hundreds of additional component and material supplier firms.
DDG(X) Program: Program Designation and Lead Ship Procurement

In the program designation DDG(X), the X means the precise design for the ship has not yet been determined. As mentioned earlier, Navy plans have called for procuring the first DDG(X) in the early 2030s. Procurement of DDG-51s—the type of LSC currently being procured by the Navy—would end sometime after the start of procurement of DDG(X)s.

Navy’s General Concept for the Ship

Figure 1 shows a Navy rendering of a notional DDG(X) design. The Navy approved the DDG(X)’s top-level requirements (i.e., its major required features) in December 2020. A January 2025 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the Navy’s FY2025 30-year shipbuilding plan states, “The Navy has indicated that the initial [DDG(X)] design now prescribes a displacement of 14,500 tons—1,000 tons more than the design under the [FY]2024 [30-year shipbuilding] plan and 4,800 tons [about 49.5%] more than a DDG-51.”

Figure 1. Navy Rendering of Notional DDG(X) Design. Source: Navy rendering of notional DDG(X) design accompanying Sam LaGrone, “Navy Wants 3-Year Overlap Between Arleigh Burkes and DDG(X), Considering Propulsion System,” USNI News, January 10, 2024.

The Navy has envisaged the DDG(X) as a ship with (1) DDG-51 Flight III Aegis combat system elements; (2) more growth margin than the DDG-51 Flight III design, meaning more space, weight-carrying capacity, electrical power, and cooling capacity (aka SWAP-C) for accepting additional or higher-power equipment and weapons (including directed-energy weapons) over the ship’s service life; (3) an integrated power system (IPS); (4) reduced vulnerability due to reduced infrared, acoustic, and underwater electromagnetic signatures; (5) increased cruising range and time on station; and (6) increased weapon capacity.

The Navy stated that the baseline DDG(X) design, like the DDG-51 Flight III design, was envisaged as including 96 standard Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells, with an ability to incorporate 12 large missile launch cells in place of 32 of the 96 standard VLS cells, as well as two 21-cell Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers, and possibly also an ability to be built with an additional mid-body hull section, called the Destroyer Payload Module, that would provide additional payload capacity. The Navy states that


The Future Naval Force Study (FNFS) and the Future Surface Combatant Force Analysis of Alternatives (FSCF AoA) identified the requirement for future large surface combatants (LSCs) to be capable of hosting directed energy (DE) weapons, larger missiles for increased range and speed, increased magazine depth, growth in organic sensors, and an efficient integrated power system to manage the dynamic loads. DDG 51 is highly capable, but after over 40 years in production and 30 years of upgrades the hull form does not provide sufficient space and center of gravity margin to host future capabilities. To reset these design allowances for the future, requirements tradeoff and design studies were performed from FY 2018 to FY 2020 that considered modification of existing surface combatant and amphibious ships in addition to new concepts. These studies concluded that DDG(X) is required to deliver the necessary margins and flexibility to succeed the DDG 51 Class as the next enduring LSC combining the DDG 51 FLT III combat system elements with new hull form, an efficient Integrated Power System (IPS) and greater endurance, reducing the Fleet logistics burden…. (Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book, Volume 2 of 5, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, June 2025, p. 467.)

Procurement Quantities and Procurement Cost

The Navy’s FY2025 30-year shipbuilding plan projected LSCs being procured in FY2032 and subsequent years in annual quantities of generally one to two ships per year. The January 2025 CBO report estimates the DDG(X)’s average procurement cost in constant FY2024 dollars at $4.4 billion—about 33% more than the Navy’s estimate (shown in the CBO report) of $3.3 billion. The CBO report states that “the Navy’s estimates for its destroyers imply that the DDG(X) would cost about 22 percent more than the DDG-51 Flight III but would have a full-load displacement that was 50 percent greater than that ship. Such an outcome, however, seems unlikely given the history of surface combatants.”

Technical Risk

A June 2025 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on selected Department of Defense acquisition programs stated


The Navy approved changes to the operational requirements for the [DDG(X)] program in August 2024. The program is assessing how the changes affect its schedule and cost estimates and officials did not provide a time frame for when they will update these estimates. The changes were based on additional input from the fleet and Navy leadership to increase speed and [electrical] power…. The Navy plans to model the IPS at a land-based test site, but the results may not be available to fully inform the ship’s design prior to detailed design. The second critical technology is the ship’s hull form. The program continues to conduct risk reduction activities for both critical technologies.

Issues for Congress

Issues for Congress regarding the DDG(X) program include the following: (1) Does the Navy intend to suspend work on the DDG(X) program as a consequence of starting the BBG(X) program? What would be the net impact on future Navy capabilities and funding requirements of developing and acquiring BBG(X)s instead of DDG(X)s? (2) Would the DDG(X) be more cost-effective than a lengthened version of the DDG-51 design? (3) Did the Navy accurately identify the DDG(X)’s required operational capabilities? (4) Would future Navy budgets permit the procurement of DDG(X)s in desired numbers while adequately funding other Navy priorities? (5) Has the Navy taken adequate steps to mitigate technical, schedule, and cost risk in the program? (6) Has the Navy planned adequately for a transition from DDG-51 procurement to DDG(X) procurement?

FY2026 Funding Request

The Navy’s proposed FY2026 budget requests $51.6 million for Project 0411 (DDG[X] Concept Development) within Program Element (PE) 0603564N (Ship Preliminary Design & Feasibility Studies), which is line 46 in the Navy’s FY2026 research and development (R&D) account, and $81.9 million for “DDG(X) Power & Propulsion Risk Mitigation & Demonstration,” which forms part of Project 2471 (Integrated Power Systems [IPS]) within PE 0603573N (Advanced Surface Machinery Systems), which is line 48.

About the author: Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs

Source: This article was published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY

The Sweet Power Of Honey – A Recipe Book Celebrating The Versatile Ingredient In Kitchens Around The World

 The BeSafeBeeHoney Recipe Book

 January 19, 2026 

By Eurasia Review

\

The BeSafeBeeHoney COST Action drives critical research to anticipate contaminants and environmental stressors, paving the way for strategies that protect honeybees and the products they create. At the same time, it showcases the nutritional and health-promoting potential of honey and related products, providing evidence that informs updated regulations and quality standards. The network actively tracks major threats to honeybee colonies, including emerging and imported diseases. With colony losses posing serious risks to agriculture, ecosystems, and the global food chain, continuous monitoring and the development of integrated solutions are vital to safeguarding honeybees and the agroecosystems they sustain.

What a great way to raise awareness with a recipe book! From starters, main courses to desserts including drinks, the sweet power of honey – We asked:
Dr Sara Leston, Grant Holder Scientific Representative, University of Coimbra – Portugal
Dr Carolina Nebot, WG1 Leader, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Dr Marta Leite, WG6 Leader & Science Communication Coordinator, INIAV – Portugal about this new initiative.

Where does the idea of the BeSafeHoney Recipe Book come from?

The idea emerged within Working Group 1 of the BeSafeBeeHoney COST Action, which focuses on the nutritional and medical aspects of honey and seeks to promote its use and consumption. Scientific discussions gradually evolved into sharing traditional recipes and cultural uses of honey, revealing an opportunity to connect research with everyday life through a collaborative recipe book.

Why use a recipe book as a science communication tool?

The main idea was to promote honey consumption and showcase its versatility through something as simple as cooking. The COST Action brought together members from a wide range of countries, and a recipe book became an ideal way to demonstrate that honey is a product enjoyed worldwide. Additionally, a recipe book offers an accessible and engaging way to communicate science. Using honey as a central ingredient allowed us to translate scientific knowledge on nutrition, diversity, and safety into practical experiences, making research relatable to a wide audience.

How did you collect all the recipes?

Recipes were contributed by members of the COST Action from several countries, mainly across Europe. Each contribution often included personal stories or historical background, reflecting cultural diversity and shared food heritage. Each recipe was then analysed through scientific software to understand its nutritional value as a whole.

Have you had an experience in creative illustration to translate scientific knowledge?

Yes. The project was supported by a professional graphic designer and an illustrator who helped transform scientific concepts and cultural narratives into a visually engaging and accessible publication. Their contribution was essential in strengthening the book’s communication impact.

How can public engagement and science communication projects like this improve knowledge of your field?

Such projects help bridge the gap between science and society. By presenting research through familiar formats like food and storytelling, they encourage curiosity, understanding, and trust in scientific knowledge.

What impact do you hope to achieve?

We hope to raise awareness of honey’s nutritional and cultural value, highlight the importance of bee safety, and demonstrate how international scientific collaboration can resonate beyond academic settings.

How will the book be distributed?

The recipe book is available as a free downloadable eBook on the BeSafeBeeHoney website repository and the COST Website.

A limited number of printed copies were produced and are being gifted to COST Action members and distributed at events. In Portugal, printed copies were also deposited in national repositories as part of the printer’s press and dissemination commitment.

What did you learn during this journey?

We learned that interdisciplinary collaboration greatly enhances science communication. Bringing together scientists, contributors from different cultures, a graphic designer, and an illustrator showed how visual storytelling and personal narratives can make scientific content more engaging and impactful.

 Cracking The Ammonia Code To Move Hydrogen Further

 January 19, 2026

Eurasia Review

By Diego Giuliani

Behind the scenes of Europe’s energy transition, researchers are reinventing how hydrogen can be stored and moved. Their compact ceramic reactor cracks ammonia, separates and compresses hydrogen in one go. A breakthrough that could make global transport cleaner, faster, and far more efficient in the race to net zero 

The countdown is advancing, and the delay already accumulated leaves no choice: to keep global temperature rise within the critical 1.5°C threshold, reaching net zero by 2050 is imperative. Yet energy efficiency, electrification, and renewables will not be enough. Together, they can only deliver around 70% of the emission reductions needed, warns the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Hydrogen must therefore play its part in the decarbonisation effort—especially where other options remain immature or prohibitively expensive. According to IRENA’s estimates, “it could contribute 10% of the mitigation needed to achieve the 1.5°C scenario and represent 12% of final energy demand.” As early as 2020, the European Commissioner for Climate and Executive Vice President of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans, acknowledged that “with the world moving ahead on the need to decarbonise and to commit to climate neutrality, the importance of hydrogen increases on almost a daily basis.” Yet, progress has been uneven. The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently revised downward its 2030 forecast for low-emission hydrogen production by almost 25%, citing project cancellations, rising costs, and policy uncertainty. 

The transport challenge 

“Although hydrogen is a very potent energy carrier, storing and transporting it remains challenging and expensive,” states Farid Akhtar, professor of Engineering Materials at Luleå University of Technology in Sweden, who specialises in materials design for energy and environmental applications. Global hydrogen transport infrastructure remains minimal, with few dedicated pipelines, terminals, or storage facilities—and the element’s chemical properties add further complexity.

“Hydrogen is the smallest molecule. Storing and transporting it are challenging because of its low volumetric energy density: you typically use very high pressures (≈350–700 bar) or very low temperatures (~20 K). It also raises safety and leakage concerns, as hydrogen permeates many materials and has a wide flammability range and low ignition energy,” he explains. For this reason, one of the most promising approaches—especially for long-distance transport—is to convert hydrogen into so-called carriers, such as ammonia. “Ammonia is liquid at ambient temperature and pressure, and therefore easy to transport,” says Selene Hernández Morejudo, Research Manager at CoorsTek Membrane Sciences AS in Oslo, Norway. “The infrastructure already exists, because ammonia is produced in large quantities and shipped worldwide.”

Akhtar agrees, noting he has been repeating this argument for a decade: “Storage and transport of ammonia are generally less energy-intensive than for hydrogen, and the supporting infrastructure, safety regulations, and certified transport systems are already well established. What we need to do is convert hydrogen into ammonia, move it where it’s needed, and then either use it directly or recover the hydrogen by splitting the ammonia.” 

Cracking the ammonia code 

Crucial in this conversion process is what experts call ammonia cracking. “As the word suggests, ammonia cracking basically means breaking the ammonia molecule, which is made of one nitrogen atom and three hydrogen atoms,” explains Blaž Likozar, head of the Department of Catalysis and Chemical Reaction Engineering at the Slovenian National Institute of Chemistry. “When you crack it, you get a mixture of nitrogen and hydrogen in a 1:3 ratio.” However, the process is endothermic, meaning it requires heat to proceed. “It’s relatively energy-intensive,” says Likozar, and depending on the final application of the hydrogen, it often needs to be followed by additional stages like purification, separation, and compression. “These take place in separate unit operations, each of which entails energy losses, requires energy input, and adds to operational costs. The purer and more compressed the hydrogen you want, the more energy it will cost you,” he adds. 

Four steps in one: the SINGLE reactor 

Integrating these four steps into a single process is precisely the goal of a European initiative coordinated by Morejudo. “In the process we developed within the SINGLE project, we can carry out all four steps in a single reactor: we supply the heat, convert the ammonia, separate the hydrogen, and compress it,” she explains. “When these processes are split across different reactors, you lose energy at every stage. But by combining them into one, we can significantly reduce those losses and achieve an energy efficiency of around 90%.” 

CoorsTek Membrane Sciences, which specialises in active ceramic membranes for energy conversion, developed the core component of this innovation: a proton ceramic electrochemical reactor. The processes inside it are complex, but its name reveals its essence. “Its key advantage,” says Morejudo, “is that it performs the entire process in one place. The inner part contains nickel—a very good catalyst for cracking ammonia into hydrogen and nitrogen. Then, on the membrane surface, separation occurs: only hydrogen can pass through, effectively isolating it from the nitrogen.” 

Towards industrial scale 

From early 2026, this technology will be tested at a demonstration plant in Valencia, Spain, designed to produce 10 kilograms of hydrogen per day. Once validated, however, the system could easily be scaled up. “We designed our reactor as a modular system,” says Morejudo. “It’s made of what we call stacks, which can be assembled in virtually unlimited numbers. We want to demonstrate that it’s a flexible technology, adaptable to much larger scales for producing substantial amounts of hydrogen.”

The stakes are high. As more countries adopt national hydrogen strategies, and as many emerging and developing economies tap into their abundant low-cost renewable energy resources, the foundations are being laid for competitive global hydrogen markets. Still, warns IRENA, to meet our climate goals, global production of green hydrogen and its derivatives must reach 523 million tonnes per year by 2050. “We don’t yet know how we’ll ultimately produce and transport our hydrogen, or which technologies will dominate,” admits Likozar. “But if Europe were to establish a clear, consolidated strategy for producing hydrogen from ammonia, then cracking would certainly become a crucial piece of the green transition puzzle.” 

New Project Aims To Improve Early Warning Of Sudden, Dangerous Volcanic Eruptions

One of the 32 explosive eruptions that occurred in April 2021 at Soufrière in the Caribbean island of St Vincent. Image credit: Richie Robertson.

 January 19, 2026  

By Eurasia Review

Hundreds of millions of people worldwide live within 100 kilometres of a volcano that has experienced at least one significant eruption. Yet the warning signs that signal a shift from relatively mild activity to a high-impact eruption remain unclear. A major new £3.7 million University of Bristol-led research project aims to change this.

The Ex-X: Expecting the Unexpected study will investigate what drives dangerous escalations in volcanic activity and how scientists can better detect them before they threaten lives.

Research shows that around 61% of eruptions initially affect only the immediate area around a volcano’s summit, before rapidly escalating into far more explosive and dangerous events capable of impacting much larger populations. Understanding why and how these transitions occur is one of the biggest challenges in volcanology.

Led by Professor Jenni Barclay from Bristol’s School of Earth Sciences, the NERC-funded project will build on recent advances in volcanology, seismology, and numerical modelling.

Initial research will focus on three volcanic systems in the Eastern Caribbean: Soufrière Volcano (St Vincent), Montagne Pelée (Martinique), and Soufrière Hills Volcano (Montserrat).

Recent advances in seismology will enable the team to deploy large numbers of seismic ‘nodes’ across the Soufrière Volcano in the Caribbean island of St Vincent. These instruments, with long battery lives, will allow researchers to gather crucial data even when the volcano is not erupting.

The resulting measurements, along with data from past eruptions, will be analysed using machine learning, helping the team to recognise subsurface activity before, during, and after these eruptive transitions.

These new insights will be incorporated into new mathematical models to simulate eruption processes. By tracking the development of eruptions in the simulations, the team will identify the key drivers and potential signals of escalations in eruptions.

In parallel, the research team will use advanced micro-analytical techniques, including Bristol’s X-ray computed tomography (XCT) and a state-of-the-art electron microprobe, to examine the small-scale changes in crystals formed during recent and historic eruptions. These crystals preserve records of changing conditions within magma systems, offering valuable clues to the processes that precede eruptions.

Professor Jenni Barclay, AXA Chair in Volcanology at Bristol’s School of Earth Sciences and the project lead, explains: “Unexpected shifts in volcanic eruptions have historically had significant impacts on people living around active volcanoes in the Eastern Caribbean and elsewhere, but there is still considerable uncertainty around when these will occur. Ex-X aims to deliver a step-change in our ability to anticipate these dangerous escalations.

“Recent analytical, theoretical, and instrumental advances in volcanology, alongside advances in numerical modelling capacities, may now make it possible for us to better recognise the subtle signs of a dangerous shift and provide early warning.

“Our aim is to combine highly detailed observations derived from real eruptions with our improved models to gain deeper theoretical understanding and identify a range of likely scenarios at Eastern Caribbean volcanoes that will help us monitor eruptions.

“By working with our observatory partners throughout the project, we are hoping this will particularly benefit those responsible for volcanic hazard monitoring and management, and through them, the exposed populations and managers of risk in volcanic countries.”

Dr Erouscilla Joseph, Director of The University of the West Indies Seismic Research Centre, which is responsible for monitoring the many volcanoes of the English-speaking Eastern Caribbean, and a key partner in the Ex-X study, added: “Many Caribbean communities live in the shadow of dangerous volcanoes. Rapid changes in activity can overwhelm evacuation efforts and devastate entire regions. Involvement in research like this is essential, because the advances we make will directly improve how we respond to the next eruption.”

World On Track To Breach 1.5C Target By 2030

January 19, 2026 
By Ben Deighton

Global average temperature increases could pass the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold outlined in the Paris Agreement by the end of the decade, according to the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service, putting the world at greater risk of never-seen-before extreme weather events.

Data released today (Wednesday) by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, which operates Copernicus on behalf of the EU, shows the average global surface air temperature in 2025 was 1.47 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times.

As 2024 was the hottest year ever recorded, it means the average temperature increase over the past three years exceeded 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to the Copernicus analysis. In 2024, temperatures reached 1.6 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, compared to 1.48 degrees in 2023, the European data shows.

“These three years stand apart from those that came before,” Samantha Burgess, climate lead at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts and deputy director of Copernicus, told a press briefing.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) also confirmed today that 2025 was one of the three warmest years on record, releasing its consolidated analysis of eight datasets, including the one from Copernicus.



However, the WMO analysis put the 2025 global average surface temperature at 1.44 degrees Celsius above the 1850-1900 average, with a margin of uncertainty of 0.13 degrees. The consolidated three-year average for 2023 to 2025 was 1.48 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial era, with the same margin of uncertainty.

The Copernicus data combines past observations, including satellite data, with computer models, while some of the other datasets are based on measurements made by weather stations, ships and buoys.

“The year 2025 started and ended with a cooling La Niña and yet it was still one of the warmest years on record globally because of the accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere,” said WMO secretary-general Celeste Saulo.

She said extreme weather such as heatwaves, heavy rainfall and intense tropical cyclones, underlined a “vital need for early warning systems”.
2030 forecast

Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to pursue efforts to limit global average temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

At the time of the agreement, the Copernicus service predicted that the world would pass 1.5 degrees Celsius by March 2045. However, accelerating global warming means it is now forecasting that temperatures could pass this threshold as early as 2030, based on the current rate of warming.

“Overall, the globe has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level, and if warming continues at the same average rate experienced over the last 15 years, then we will reach [the] 1.5 degree level by the end this decade,” said Burgess.

“Every fraction of a degree matters, particularly for worsening extreme weather events.”

Carlo Buontempo, director of the Copernicus Climate Change Service, said it was now “inevitable” that the world would pass the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold.

“Now we are effectively entering a phase where … [it] is basically inevitable that we will pass that threshold and it is up to us to decide how we want to deal with the enhanced and increased … risk that we face as a consequence of this,” he told the press briefing.
Unprecedented

Passing the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold will increase the chance of weather events that are “unprecedented in the observed record”, according to an assessment by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“There are people in the Pacific that may not see this report, but they will definitely live its catastrophic reality,” said Fenton Lutunatabua, program manager for the Pacific and Caribbean region at the climate change group 350.org.

“This data proves that now, more than ever, we need to move beyond fossil fuels.”

Patrick Verkooijen, chief executive of the Netherlands-based Global Center on Adaptation, said: “Passing the 1.5-degree threshold is not a symbolic failure—for people in low- and middle-income countries, it would represent a material shift in daily life.

“It means more days of extreme heat that endanger outdoor workers, more volatile rainfall that undermines smallholder farmers, and more frequent floods and droughts that push vulnerable communities into poverty.”

Last year was marked by extreme weather events such as Hurricane Melissa in the Caribbean, drought in Brazil, and flooding in Colombia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, according to a report by the UK-based charity Christian Aid.

During the year, SciDev.Net reported on the destruction caused by cyclone Ditwah in Sri Lanka, deadly landslides in Sudan, and tidal flooding in India, as well as ongoing impacts of climate change on agriculture and health.

Harjeet Singh, of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, said the latest data was “an existential warning” for low- and middle-income countries.

“We are moving from the era of mitigation and adaptation into the era of unavoidable loss and damage,” he said.

“For the Global South, passing 1.5 degrees Celsius means that heatwaves in South Asia and floods in Southeast Asia will no longer be ‘extreme events’ but structural realities that dismantle decades of development progress overnight.”

This piece was produced by SciDev.Net’s Global desk.

Ben Deighton

Ben Deighton is the Managing Editor of SciDev.Net.He is responsible for ensuring our editorial independence and the quality of our articles and multimedia products. Ben joined SciDev.Net in July 2017 after four years as editor of Horizon magazine.

Adani’s Mannar Wind Project In Sri Lanka: Is The Opposition Unmasked At Last? – Analysis

January 19, 2026 
By A. Jathindra


Development-related environmental debates in Sri Lanka rarely stay rooted in ecology—they are almost always colored by politics. The abandoned Adani wind power project in Mannar is a striking example.

Not long ago, selective Colombo-based “environmentalists” thundered against the Indian conglomerate, branding its plans as ecological disasters. Yet today, as a near-identical project advances under a local company, those same voices have fallen conspicuously silent. Was their outrage truly about protecting the environment—or was it stirred by a hidden geopolitical hand?

Recent reports indicate that 28 Pakistani nationals and two Chinese nationals engaged in Mannar’s wind project have departed following the completion of turbine installation. It has also been noted that two Pakistani workers, while venturing into the sea, were subsequently intercepted by Sri Lankan security forces. One might reasonably reflect—had the Adani project proceeded as originally envisioned, such circumstances may well have been avoided.

Viewed in this light, the opposition to Adani’s initiative appears less an expression of ecological concern and more a matter shaped by broader political considerations.

On January 15, 2025, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake inaugurated the construction of a 50megawatt wind farm in Mannar, developed by Hayleys Fentons Limited. Scheduled for completion in March 2027, the project is part of the government’s pledge to achieve netzero carbon emissions by 2050.

Mannar has long been recognized as one of Sri Lanka’s most promising renewable energy hubs. It was this very potential that drew Adani Green Energy, which proposed a 250 MW wind power project in the region. Yet, shortsighted local opposition forced the plan’s abandonment.

The Adani Group and India suffered no loss. But for Sri Lanka, it was the loss of a significant opportunity to harness clean energy and strengthen its power grid. The episode underscores a troubling pattern: environmental concerns seem to erupt most fiercely only when the projects carry an Indian nameplate.

At the time, Adani’s investment represented the first major foreign capital inflow since Sri Lanka’s bankruptcy during its historic economic crisis. Had it gone ahead, the project would have spurred development in the Northern Province. In January 2023, the Board of Investment approved a $422 million plan for Mannar and Pooneryn, expected to generate 484 MW of electricity—one of the largest green energy projects in the country.

However, the Mannar project faced a fundamental rights petition filed by Bishop Emmanuel Fernando and three environmentalists, who questioned the credibility of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and warned of potential financial losses. Yet the EIA—covering bird and bat studies—was conducted by the Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority under the leadership of Professor Devaka Weerakoon of the University of Colombo. Despite this, the environmentalists sought to discredit the findings, claiming the wind farm would become a “death trap” for migratory birds.

Globally, however, countries have adopted mitigation strategies. India’s 1,500 MW Muppandal Wind Farm—close to Sri Lanka—operates despite similar concerns. In Norway, researchers found that painting one rotor blade black reduced bird mortality by 70 percent. Studies in the U.S. estimate wind turbines kill between 140,000 and 679,000 birds annually—a tiny fraction compared to the billions killed by buildings or domestic cats. Fossil fuel projects are far deadlier, with 5.18 birds killed per gigawatthour of electricity compared to just 0.269 for wind.

Yet Colombobased environmental groups opposing Adani never highlighted these facts or proposed alternatives. Instead, they misled local communities, with religious leaders echoing flawed guidance. This begs the question: will the 50 MW projects now underway not harm birds? Will migratory species be spared?

The silence following Adani’s withdrawal suggests the protests were less about ecology and more about politics—specifically, blocking Indian investment. Meanwhile, far more environmentally damaging projects, such as the Chineseowned power plant in Nurisolai, escape scrutiny. This selective activism illustrates how environmental concerns in Sri Lanka have been politicized.

Wind power projects worldwide have not been abandoned because of bird deaths. Instead, governments and companies have introduced strategies to mitigate harm. Norway’s experiments with rotor blade painting, UV lighting, and micrositing of turbines show that innovation can reduce risks. Tamil Nadu, with its forwardlooking approach, is positioned to attract €72 billion in offshore wind investment by 2030. Sri Lanka could have shared in this momentum, but the Mannar opportunity was lost to politicized environmental activism.

The broader truth is that every development project carries an environmental cost. Countries that have successfully implemented wind farms have accepted this reality, balancing ecological concerns with the urgent need for clean energy. Sri Lanka’s activists, however, seem to apply their scrutiny selectively. When Indian projects are proposed, opposition is fierce; when Chinese projects advance, silence prevails.

This inconsistency undermines the credibility of environmental advocacy. If the true goal is sustainability, then all projects—regardless of origin—should be judged by the same standards. Otherwise, Sri Lanka risks allowing political agendas to derail its path to renewable energy.

The Mannar case is a cautionary tale. By blocking Adani’s project, Sri Lanka lost not only foreign investment but also a chance to accelerate its transition to clean energy. The government’s target of 70 percent renewable energy by 2030 and netzero emissions by 2050 will remain a distant dream if antidevelopment narratives dominate.

The question remains: was the opposition to Adani’s project truly about protecting birds, or was it about preventing Indian investment in Mannar? The disappearance of protesters after the project’s cancellation suggests the latter. Meanwhile, the new 50 MW project will inevitably face similar ecological challenges. Will migratory birds be spared this time, or will silence prevail because the developer is local?

The Mannar wind farm controversy is not merely about turbines and birds. It is about Sri Lanka’s future—whether the nation will embrace renewable energy with pragmatism, or remain entangled in politicized debates that stall progress. If selective activism continues to dominate, the aspiration of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.

A. Jathindra is the head of the think tank Trinco Centre for Strategic Studies (TSST) and a Sri Lankan-based independent political analyst.

Day 22 Of Iran Uprising: Regime Relies On Foreign Proxies And Chemical Attacks – OpEd

January 19, 2026 
By Mahmoud Hakamian


The nationwide uprising against the mullahs’ dictatorship in Iran has reached its twenty-second day on Sunday, January 18, 2026. The regime is now resorting to its most desperate measures yet.

Reports emerging on Sunday indicate that the regime, unable to quell the spirit of the rebellious youth with domestic forces alone, is importing foreign mercenaries and potentially deploying toxic chemical agents. Meanwhile, the Resistance has identified dozens more martyrs who sacrificed their lives for freedom.

Day 22 Roundup: Chemical weapons reports, 5,000 foreign mercenaries, and 58 new martyrs identified

On Sunday, January 18, 2026, the twenty-second day of the uprising revealed the depth of the regime’s desperation. As international isolation grows, the mullahs are turning to proxy militias and prohibited weapons to survive.

Key highlights from today include:Potential Chemical Attacks: A report by Newsweek cites credible sources indicating the regime may have used “toxic chemical substances” against protesters, a major escalation and violation of international law.
Foreign Mercenaries Deployed: German outlet Der Spiegel reports that 5,000 foreign militia members, including Iraqi PMU and Lebanese Hezbollah, have entered Iran to assist in the crackdown.
New Martyrs Announced: The PMOI has released the names of 58 additional martyrs of the uprising, including 11 women and several teenagers.
Regime Threats of “Compensation”: In a bid to intimidate families, Expediency Council member Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei demanded that protesters be forced to pay financial “compensation” for damages.
Airspace Warning: The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has warned airlines to avoid Iranian airspace due to the high alert status of the regime’s air defense systems.
PMOI releases names of 58 more martyrs

The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) has announced the names of 58 more martyrs of the nationwide uprising following rigorous verification. Among these newly identified heroes are 11 women and several youths, highlighting the widespread participation of all sectors of Iranian society in the revolution.



The martyrs gave their lives in cities across the country, including Tehran, Isfahan, Karaj, Shiraz, Mashhad, and Rasht. Among them are 17-year-olds Borna Dehghani and Sam Afshari from Karaj, and 18-year-old Arshia Ahmad Pour from Baharestan, Isfahan.
Reports of toxic chemical substances used against protesters

In a shocking development, reports suggest the regime may be resorting to chemical warfare against its own citizens. According to Newsweek, former UK lawmaker Bill Rammell has cited a “credible report” from Iranian-Kurdish sources stating that “toxic chemical substances” have been used to suppress the protests.

The report indicates that these substances cause severe injuries leading to death days later. If confirmed, this would constitute a grave violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and represents an “extraordinary” escalation by the regime.
Regime imports 5,000 foreign mercenaries to quell uprising

With its domestic forces exhausted and demoralized, the regime is bringing in foreign proxies to hold onto power. Der Spiegel and CNN report that approximately 5,000 fighters from the regime’s proxy forces in Iraq and Lebanon have entered Iran to aid in the suppression.

These forces, primarily from the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) and Lebanese Hezbollah, reportedly entered the country under the guise of pilgrims visiting religious sites. This move underscores the regime’s lack of trust in its own security forces and its reliance on the terrorist network it has cultivated across the region.
Regime official demands “compensation” to bankrupt protesters

As the crackdown continues physically, regime officials are also attempting to exert financial pressure on the population. Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, a member of the regime’s Expediency Discernment Council, has threatened protesters with financial ruin.

Using threatening language, Kadkhodaei stated that imprisonment is not enough and that protesters must be forced to pay “financial damages.” This tactic is viewed by observers as a means to intimidate families and impose further economic hardship on a populace already suffering from the regime’s corruption and mismanagement.


Mahmoud Hakamian writes for The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), also known as Mujahedin-e-Khalgh (MEK)