2:39 am, Friday, 10 October 2025
BREAKING NEWS
Reviving the Rural Economy: $100 Million ADB–Bangladesh Agreement The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes. SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE OCTOBER PRIME DAY 2025: THE TECH DEALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR MONEY PRIME DAY, AGAIN: WIRED’S BIG LIST SHOWS HOW TO SHOP SMART AND SKIP THE DUDS TIMOTHÉE CHALAMET TEASES ‘MARTY SUPREME’ AFTER NYFF PREMIERE, KEEPING PLOT UNDER WRAPS
Home / International, Top News

IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES

Sarakhon Report

Forecast changes, bottlenecks, and where growth moves next
The International Energy Agency (IEA) cut its outlook for U.S. renewable-capacity additions through 2030, citing federal policy changes, reduced tax-credit support, and permitting uncertainty that together soften the medium-term pipeline. The adjustment, while notable for the world’s second-largest power market, does not overturn the broader trend: global additions—led by utility-scale and rooftop solar—remain set to double capacity over the decade. In the U.S., the IEA flags a steeper reliance on state-level programs, corporate power-purchase agreements, and local grid upgrades to keep momentum. Developers face three persistent hurdles. First, interconnection queues have lengthened, with multi-year waits for transmission studies delaying otherwise shovel-ready projects. Second, financing costs remain elevated; higher interest rates disproportionately hit capital-intensive solar and onshore wind farms, squeezing margins even when module prices fall. Third, permitting and siting disputes—particularly for transmission corridors and offshore wind—inject timing risk that pushes final investment decisions into later years. The agency’s revision also reflects import restrictions and domestic-content rules that rewire supply chains. For some manufacturers, that promises a more resilient U.S. footprint; for others, it raises near-term costs and complicates inventory planning. The net effect is a bumpier path for U.S. deployments even as technology learning curves keep module and inverter costs on a gentle downward glide.

Workers clean solar panels in Gujarat, India.

Grid realities, price impacts, and signals for industry and consumers
Globally, the IEA keeps a bullish baseline: China continues to dominate new installations and is on pace to hit multi-year targets early; India and parts of Europe extend steady growth through utility-scale parks, distributed rooftops, and storage hybrids. That global buoyancy matters for equipment pricing: healthy factory utilization prevents the kind of whiplash spikes that slowed projects in past cycles, while manufacturers diversify into higher-efficiency cells and power electronics that wring more energy from the same footprint. In the U.S., the revised trajectory means retail bills will hinge less on headline renewable percentages and more on local grid constraints and gas benchmarks. Where transmission is constrained, curtailment and congestion charges can mute the benefits of cheap midday solar; where gas sets the marginal price, seasonal swings still ripple through bills. For policy makers, the signal is practical rather than ideological: permitting reform at the state and regional-transmission-organization level is now as consequential as tax policy. Streamlined interconnection studies, standardized wildlife-impact reviews, and clearer community-benefit frameworks can shave months off schedules without relaxing safeguards. For developers, storage remains the key flex. Batteries—especially four- to eight-hour systems—turn variable solar into firm evening power and reduce the “duck curve” strain on feeders; co-locating storage with new solar can improve interconnection prospects by smoothing output profiles. Corporate buyers may also lean harder on 24/7 clean-power procurement—sourcing matched hourly portfolios of wind, solar, hydro, and storage—to decarbonize operations without overloading specific substations. For households, the takeaways are straightforward. Rooftop solar economics continue to improve where net billing is predictable and installers are vetted; pairing systems with modest-sized batteries captures backup value and arbitrage during peak-rate windows. Heat pumps and induction cooking, when combined with time-of-use tariffs, amplify savings regardless of the exact national buildout pace. The big picture remains expansionary, even if uneven by region: the U.S. transition slows from a sprint to a steady run, while global solar keeps setting records—proof that manufacturing scale, grid pragmatism, and clear local rules matter as much as slogans. Watch for updated state-level permitting timelines, interconnection-queue reforms, and fresh corporate procurement deals as the next catalysts that could bend the U.S. curve back upward over the second half of the decade.

More News:
The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant
Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes.
SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION
Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross
GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE
OCTOBER PRIME DAY 2025: THE TECH DEALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR MONEY
05:27:23 pm, Wednesday, 8 October 2025

Reviving the Rural Economy: $100 Million ADB–Bangladesh Agreement

The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant

Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes.

SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION

Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross

IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES

GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE

OCTOBER PRIME DAY 2025: THE TECH DEALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR MONEY

PRIME DAY, AGAIN: WIRED’S BIG LIST SHOWS HOW TO SHOP SMART AND SKIP THE DUDS

TIMOTHÉE CHALAMET TEASES ‘MARTY SUPREME’ AFTER NYFF PREMIERE, KEEPING PLOT UNDER WRAPS

News Title :
Reviving the Rural Economy: $100 Million ADB–Bangladesh Agreement The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes. SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE OCTOBER PRIME DAY 2025: THE TECH DEALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR MONEY PRIME DAY, AGAIN: WIRED’S BIG LIST SHOWS HOW TO SHOP SMART AND SKIP THE DUDS TIMOTHÉE CHALAMET TEASES ‘MARTY SUPREME’ AFTER NYFF PREMIERE, KEEPING PLOT UNDER WRAPS

IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES

05:27:23 pm, Wednesday, 8 October 2025

Forecast changes, bottlenecks, and where growth moves next
The International Energy Agency (IEA) cut its outlook for U.S. renewable-capacity additions through 2030, citing federal policy changes, reduced tax-credit support, and permitting uncertainty that together soften the medium-term pipeline. The adjustment, while notable for the world’s second-largest power market, does not overturn the broader trend: global additions—led by utility-scale and rooftop solar—remain set to double capacity over the decade. In the U.S., the IEA flags a steeper reliance on state-level programs, corporate power-purchase agreements, and local grid upgrades to keep momentum. Developers face three persistent hurdles. First, interconnection queues have lengthened, with multi-year waits for transmission studies delaying otherwise shovel-ready projects. Second, financing costs remain elevated; higher interest rates disproportionately hit capital-intensive solar and onshore wind farms, squeezing margins even when module prices fall. Third, permitting and siting disputes—particularly for transmission corridors and offshore wind—inject timing risk that pushes final investment decisions into later years. The agency’s revision also reflects import restrictions and domestic-content rules that rewire supply chains. For some manufacturers, that promises a more resilient U.S. footprint; for others, it raises near-term costs and complicates inventory planning. The net effect is a bumpier path for U.S. deployments even as technology learning curves keep module and inverter costs on a gentle downward glide.

Workers clean solar panels in Gujarat, India.

Grid realities, price impacts, and signals for industry and consumers
Globally, the IEA keeps a bullish baseline: China continues to dominate new installations and is on pace to hit multi-year targets early; India and parts of Europe extend steady growth through utility-scale parks, distributed rooftops, and storage hybrids. That global buoyancy matters for equipment pricing: healthy factory utilization prevents the kind of whiplash spikes that slowed projects in past cycles, while manufacturers diversify into higher-efficiency cells and power electronics that wring more energy from the same footprint. In the U.S., the revised trajectory means retail bills will hinge less on headline renewable percentages and more on local grid constraints and gas benchmarks. Where transmission is constrained, curtailment and congestion charges can mute the benefits of cheap midday solar; where gas sets the marginal price, seasonal swings still ripple through bills. For policy makers, the signal is practical rather than ideological: permitting reform at the state and regional-transmission-organization level is now as consequential as tax policy. Streamlined interconnection studies, standardized wildlife-impact reviews, and clearer community-benefit frameworks can shave months off schedules without relaxing safeguards. For developers, storage remains the key flex. Batteries—especially four- to eight-hour systems—turn variable solar into firm evening power and reduce the “duck curve” strain on feeders; co-locating storage with new solar can improve interconnection prospects by smoothing output profiles. Corporate buyers may also lean harder on 24/7 clean-power procurement—sourcing matched hourly portfolios of wind, solar, hydro, and storage—to decarbonize operations without overloading specific substations. For households, the takeaways are straightforward. Rooftop solar economics continue to improve where net billing is predictable and installers are vetted; pairing systems with modest-sized batteries captures backup value and arbitrage during peak-rate windows. Heat pumps and induction cooking, when combined with time-of-use tariffs, amplify savings regardless of the exact national buildout pace. The big picture remains expansionary, even if uneven by region: the U.S. transition slows from a sprint to a steady run, while global solar keeps setting records—proof that manufacturing scale, grid pragmatism, and clear local rules matter as much as slogans. Watch for updated state-level permitting timelines, interconnection-queue reforms, and fresh corporate procurement deals as the next catalysts that could bend the U.S. curve back upward over the second half of the decade.

Editorial : Swadesh Roy

Editorial Office

First Floor, Capita Lake Front. Block J, House# 66, Banani Rd 18 Extension, Dhaka 1213