Local governments are making formal plans to reduce their carbon footprint and protect the environment.
The post Wisconsin cities developing climate action plans to reach long-term sustainability goals appeared first on WPR.
After a bruising Wisconsin Supreme Court defeat, conservatives are searching for answers — and some are pointing fingers.
The post Conservatives look for answers, point blame following spring election losses appeared first on WPR.
Voters approved about 55 percent of the 89 referendums across the state, leaving 45 percent of districts now scrambling to figure out what’s next.
The post Wisconsin school districts looking at next steps after failed referendums appeared first on WPR.
In western Wisconsin, an online design library offers the local community ideas to build small housing units on the existing property of a home.
The post New online library of accessory dwelling units promotes land reuse in La Crosse appeared first on WPR.
Martin travels to Papua New Guinea to experience life among the subsistence farmers of the Trobriand Islands; he visits the volcanic isle of New Britain, where he’s reminded of the […]
The post Martin Clunes: Islands of the Pacific:Papua New Guinea appeared first on WPR.
Country singer Wynonna delivers a career-spanning performance of solo hits, Judds classics and new music.
The post Austin City Limits:Wynonna appeared first on WPR.
Marie Antoinette wants to protect her future; Louis questions the paternity of the child.
The post Marie-Antoinette:Treacherous Legacy appeared first on WPR.
The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Feb. 25, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans, in the early morning hours Saturday, approved their budget resolution that will aid the party in maintaining the 2017 tax cuts but also paves the way for them to add nearly $6 trillion to the deficit under an outside analysis.
The 51-48 vote sends the compromise measure to the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., hopes to adopt the tax-and-spending blueprint within the next week. No Democrats backed the bill and no Democratic amendments were accepted during an overnight marathon voting session.
Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul were the only two Republicans who voted against the resolution, which needed only a majority vote under the complicated process being used in the Senate.
The lengthy voting session, known as the vote-a-rama, included debate on 28 amendments, with one adopted.
Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan was the only member of either party to have their change agreed to, following a 51-48 vote. His amendment addressed Medicaid, which has become a flash point in the battle over the budget this year, as well as Medicare.
Sullivan said his proposal would strengthen Medicaid, the state-federal health program for lower-income people that House GOP lawmakers are looking at as one place to cut spending, and Medicare, the health insurance program for seniors and some people with disabilities.
“We should all want to weed out waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid and Medicare, and we must keep these programs going. We should do both,” Sullivan said.
Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden spoke against the amendment, saying it didn’t clearly define which “vulnerable people” would have their access to Medicare and Medicaid protected.
“By not defining the vulnerable, the Sullivan amendment is code for states to cut benefits or kick people off their coverage altogether,” Wyden said. “To me, the Sullivan amendment basically says if somebody thinks you’re not poor enough, you’re not sick enough, or you’re not disabled enough, we’re not going to be there for you.”
Democrats unsuccessfully offered messaging amendments dealing with everything from Social Security phone service to the minimum wage to contracts with farmers.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said during a floor speech Friday the budget resolution will clear the way for lawmakers to extend the 2017 tax cuts permanently, bolster federal spending on border security and defense, rewrite energy policy and cut spending.
“The resolution opens up that process that will be done by the House and Senate authorizing committees,” Graham said. “So this doesn’t do anything other than start the game and it’s time this game started.”
Wyden, ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, vehemently opposed the budget resolution, saying the tax cuts it sets up would predominantly help the wealthy.
Wyden argued the tariffs that President Donald Trump has instituted would negate any potential positive impacts of the upcoming GOP tax cuts. The tariffs sent markets diving on Friday for a second day in a row.
“People following along at home are going to hear a lot of sweet-sounding promises from Republicans about what they’re trying to accomplish,” Wyden said. “They claim their tax bill is just all unicorns and rainbows. They’ll say everybody is going to benefit from a tax cut and typical families will get the help they need. They’ll promise rising wages and a booming economy.
“It’s just not true. The reality is, unless you’re way out at the upper end of the income scale, any benefit you get from this Republican bill is going to get blown out of the water as the Trump tariffs continue to hike inflation.”
Paul said during floor debate that he was “concerned” about how his colleagues had written the measure.
“What worries me is that so many things in Washington are smoke and mirrors,” Paul said. “On the one hand, it appears as if all of this great savings is happening. But on the other hand, the resolution before us will increase the debt by $5 trillion.”
Paul offered an amendment that would have changed those instructions to set up a three-month debt limit extension, but it was not agreed to following a vote of 5-94.
Congress’ budget isn’t a bill but a concurrent resolution, meaning it never goes to the president for a signature. Its various provisions take effect once both chambers vote to adopt the same version.
The budget resolution also doesn’t include any real money, just plans for the next decade.
But it does lay the groundwork for the GOP to use the complex reconciliation process to extend the 2017 tax law, much of which was set to expire at the end of this year.
Republicans plan to use that reconciliation bill to boost spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars and make changes to energy policy.
The budget resolution also includes instructions to raise the debt limit by between $4 and $5 trillion later this year.
The reconciliation instructions give a dozen House committees and 10 Senate committees targets for how much they can increase the deficit or how much they need to cut spending when they draft their pieces of the package.
All of those panels are supposed to send their bills to the Budget committees before May 9, so they can be bundled together in one package and sent to the floor.
The House GOP set a minimum of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, while Republicans in the Senate set a floor of $4 billion in funding reductions. Those vast differences foreshadow an internal GOP struggle to achieve a final deal.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office will ultimately calculate the deficit impact of the reconciliation bill once it’s written, but several outside organizations have said they disagree with how Republicans are moving forward.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget released an analysis Friday showing the reconciliation bill would increase deficits during the next decade by nearly $6 trillion.
“A $5.8 trillion deficit-increasing bill would be unprecedented,” CRFB’s analysis states. “It would add 14 times as much to the deficit than the bipartisan infrastructure law ($400 billion), more than three times as much as American Rescue Plan ($1.8 trillion), three times the 2020 CARES Act ($1.7 trillion), and nearly four times the original score of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ($1.5 trillion). In fact, it would add more to the deficit than all four of these major laws combined.”
Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, wrote in a statement “the tax cuts called for in the budget plan are so expensive that deficits will rise substantially, raising economic risks associated with higher debt in service to expensive tax cuts skewed to the wealthy.”
“Policymakers need to course-correct and remember their campaign pledges to help ease families’ strained budgets, not contort the budget to the desires of the very wealthy,” Parrott wrote. “That would mean crafting a budget bill that doesn’t raise families’ health and grocery costs but instead invests in making health care more affordable and expands the Child Tax Credit to support families who face challenges affording the basics. These investments and lower deficits can be achieved by a sounder tax policy that requires corporations and the wealthy — who benefit enormously from public investments — to pay their fair share.”
An analysis from The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, called the GOP budget resolution a “fiscal train wreck.”
Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy, and Dominik Lett, a budget and entitlement policy analyst, wrote that Republicans need to start over.
“This budget isn’t just a missed opportunity; it actively worsens our nation’s debt trajectory,” they wrote. “The resolution abandons the House’s concrete spending reductions desperately needed in today’s high-debt environment, sets a dangerous precedent by adopting a so-called current policy baseline that hides the very real deficit impact of extending tax cuts, and adds hundreds of billions in new deficit spending. The Senate should go back to the drawing b
A man holds the Ukrainian and U.S. flags at a ceremony at the Holodomor Genocide Memorial in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 4, 2025, as the three-year anniversary of the Russian invasion neared. The memorial honors victims of a famine in Ukraine in 1932-33. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — Unknown numbers of Ukrainians received emails by mistake from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security saying their humanitarian protected status was being revoked and they would have to leave the United States within days, the agency said Friday.
“A message was sent in error to some Ukrainians under the U4U program. The U4U parole program has not been terminated,” a DHS spokesperson told States Newsroom, referring to the Uniting for Ukraine program.
Attorneys challenging the Trump administration’s pause of humanitarian applications for Ukrainians and Afghans, as well as the end of legal status programs for nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, filed a copy of the termination notice sent to Ukrainians in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on Friday.
The notice, given on Thursday, instructs any Ukrainians in the Uniting for Ukraine humanitarian parole program to leave the U.S. within seven days of receiving the notice, according to court filings.
“It is time for you to leave the United States,” according to the notice sent to some Ukrainians that immigration rights groups filed in court. “If you do not depart the United States immediately you will be subject to potential law enforcement actions that will result in your removal from the United States — unless you have otherwise obtained a lawful basis to remain here.”
The next hearing is set for Monday before U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama.
“Plaintiffs’ counsel have received numerous reports throughout the day today that other Ukrainian members of the putative class—potentially thousands—have received an identical letter, including individuals with approximately two years left on their parole period,” according to the brief by Justice Action Center, an immigrant rights group.
According to the brief filed Friday, attorneys with the Justice Action Center notified the Department of Justice attorneys handling the case. The lawyers said the response from those DOJ attorneys was “to say that they ‘have been looking into this’ but ‘don’t have any information to share yet.’”
The Biden administration’s renewed work and deportation protections for 103,700 Ukrainians are set to expire on Oct. 19, 2026.
In late February, President Donald Trump got into a heated exchange with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a meeting at the White House, breaking with Ukraine and its resistance to Russia’s invasion more than three years ago.
Former President Joe Biden’s administration created temporary protections for Ukrainians because of Russia’s invasion of the country.
Trump’s history with Ukraine, which was at the center of his first impeachment when he halted security aid approved by Congress, and his friendly relationship with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, have moved the U.S. further away from European allies who have coalesced around Ukraine’s fight for its democracy.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in early March denied that the Trump administration was revoking protections for Ukrainians.
“The truth: no decision has been made at this time,” Leavitt wrote on social media.
We are breathing in and ingesting tiny plastic particles called microplastics and nanoplastics all the time. According to a recent study, tissues in a typical adult brain contain the equivalent of a plastic spoon’s worth of plastic particles. In this episode, find out what all that plastic accumulating in our brains, arteries and reproductive systems could mean for our health--and what we can do about it.
Host: Amy Barrilleaux
Guest: Kayla Rinderknecht, Population Health Fellow, Clean Wisconsin
Resources for You:
Microplastics in our Bodies: Exposures and Potential Health Harms
Under the Lens: Microplastics in our Environment and Our Bodies
One of the benefits of owning an electric vehicles is reduced maintenance compared to ICE-powered cars. That’s the theory, at least. In practice, one owner has found his Kia EV6 to be less of a technological marvel and more of a recurring electrical problem. His 2024 model has chewed through multiple 12-volt batteries in just a year, prompting him to file a lemon law claim.
While the EV6 has been broadly praised as being an excellent EV, it’s not without fault. Over the years, there are have been several reports of battery failures. We’re not talking about the expensive high-voltage battery pack that powers the motors, but rather the 12-volt battery. According to one Facebook group user, he has gone through three of four of these batteries and says he’s initiated a lemon law claim.
Read: First Look At 2025 Kia EV6 GT With Ioniq 5 N Power And Simulated Gearbox
Most Kia EV6s delivered in the United States come standard with traditional lead-acid 12-volt batteries, rather than AGM (Absorbed Glass Mat) batteries, which are generally considered to be far more superior. AGM batteries use a fiberglass mat to hold the electrolyte, offering better cycling performance and longer lifespan.
The most recent battery installed in this particular EV6 appears to have been one of the lower-grade OEM lead-acid units, and it clearly failed well ahead of schedule.
A photo he shared on the EV6 owner’s Facebook page shows acid leaking from the failed battery and corroding the tray beneath it. According to the owner, his EV6 Wind RWD has only about 4,500 miles on the odometer after one year of ownership and yet it’s already gone through multiple 12-volt batteries.
More: Rivian Owner’s DIY Taillight Repair Saves Thousands And Teaches Us A Lesson
The general consensus among other EV6 owners appears to be that the original 12-volt batteries from Kia aren’t up to par, and it’s better to just install an AGM and move on. What’s puzzling is that the dealership handling this particular case hasn’t done so, especially since, according to users on the Kia EV Forums, the Korean carmaker began equipping EV6s with AGM batteries from the factory as of late 2024.
If there’s one automaker that’s decided to go all-in on electric vehicles—and do it quickly—it’s Kia. Few legacy brands have cranked out as many notable EVs in such short order, and Kia’s made it clear they’re not just dabbling. The company’s goal is to sell 1.6 million EVs per year by 2030, and depending on your location, there’s already a variety of sleek, electrified options to choose from.
The EV6 was the first of a new generation of electric vehicles from Kia and quickly proved itself to be a solid Tesla rival. It’s since followed it up with the larger seven-seat EV9, and, more recently, the smaller EV3 and EV5. Of that bunch, the EV5 may turn out to be the most important.
Why? Because while the EV6 is a solid product, it doesn’t follow the traditional SUV formula—it has a more coupe-like styling that puts it somewhere between a crossover and a hatchback. That’s where the EV5 comes in. It’s a more conventionally shaped, all-electric compact SUV, and it undercuts the best-selling Tesla Model Y on price in many markets. To find out how it performs day to day, we spent a week living with the entry-level EV5 Air Standard Range model.
| › Model: | 2025 Kia EV5 Air – Standard Range |
| › Starting Price: | AU$56,770 (~$33,500) |
| › Dimensions: | 4,615 mm (181.6 in.) L 1,875 mm (73.8 in.) W 1,715 mm (67.5 in.) H 2,750 mm (108.2 in) Wheelbase |
| › Curb Weight: | 1,910 (4,210 lbs)* |
| › Powertrain: | Front-mounted electric motor / 64.2 kWh battery |
| › Output: | 215 hp (160 kW) / 229 lb-ft (310 Nm) combined |
| › 0-62 mph | ~8.5 seconds* |
| › Transmission: | Single speed |
| › Range | 249 miles (400 km)* |
| › On Sale: | Now |
Bargain Price
Perhaps the most important thing about the new EV5 is its price. For many years, legacy brands couldn’t compete with Tesla on that front. Then, new competitors from China started to undercut Tesla’s offerings. The EV5 has done the same thing.
In Australia, prices for the EV5 start at AU$56,770 (~$33,500), including all on-road costs. That makes it significantly cheaper than the entry-level Model Y Rear-Wheel Drive, which carries a AU$64,347 (~$40,300) tag. This also means the EV5 is far cheaper than the EV6, which is priced from AU$78,564 (~$49,200). Indeed, even the flagship EV5 GT-Line, starting at AU$75,990 (~$43,600) is cheaper than the base EV6. It seems inevitable that the EV5 will poach sales from its sibling.
Unfortunately, though, Kia has no plans to sell the EV5 in the United States.
FWD And AWD Options
Three different powertrain configurations are available. The base model, which we tested, has an electric motor at the front axle, rated at 215 hp (160 kW) and 229 lb-ft (310 Nm) of torque. This motor receives its juice from a 64.2 kWh lithium-iron-phosphate battery and has a claimed WLTP driving range of 400 km (249 miles).
Review: 2025 Kia EV3 Makes Everything We Love About The EV9 More Affordable
To put that into perspective, the cheapest Model Y has a quoted range of 466 km (290 miles). However, Kia buyers who aren’t satisfied with 400 km (249 miles) of range can opt for the 2WD Long Range version, which retains the same 215 hp (160 kW) motor, but uses a large 88.1 kWh battery. This model boosts the range to 555 km (345 miles), and yet, at AU$63,990 (~$40,100), it’s still cheaper than the Tesla.
The EV5 is also sold in Earth AWD Long Range and GT-Line AWD Long Range versions. This models add a 94 hp (70 kW) and 125 lb-ft (170 Nm) motor to the rear axle, resulting in a combined 308 hp (230 kW) and 354 lb-ft (480 Nm). They have the same 88.1 kWh pack, but the range drops to 500 km (311 miles) for the Earth and 470 km (292 miles) for the GT-Line. On paper, then, the EV5 sounds like the perfect electric family SUV.
Basic Interior, But Good Tech
Stepping into the EV5 for the first time, there’s no mistaking that this is a base model. But, for most, it will be more than adequate.
Sharp lines and edgy surfaces dominate the design of the cabin. This is most apparent with the dashboard itself, which is very striking. Unfortunately, almost the entire dash is made from hard black plastic, with not a square inch of soft-touch material in sight. It’s a similar story with the door panels. Other than the small arm rests and material near the door handles, the entire door is hard black plastic.
Fortunately, the seats feel a little more premium, neatly combining soft leather inserts and cloth accents. They’re soft, supple, and hugely supportive. Nice headrests, similar to those found in the EV9, are also featured.
Several other parts have been borrowed from the EV9, including the four-spoke steering wheel and the same volume slider and physical switches for the fan speed and temperature control. All EV5 models also come standard with a panoramic display, combining a 12.3-inch digital gauge cluster and a 12.3-inch infotainment screen. There’s also a 5-inch screen for the climate control between those two 12-inch displays.
More: Check Out The New Kia EV5 From Every Angle As Global Exports Begin
The center console of the EV5 is one of its biggest talking points. Rather than installing a normal item, Kia has extended the material from the front passenger seat across the center of the cabin, making it look like there are three seats up front. There’s then a large armrest and some open storage compartments lower down in the console. It looks pretty cool but has no advantage over a normal console. In fact, it’s worse, as there’s no covered storage area. Not even the chunky armrest opens up to provide any storage.
Fortunately, space at the front is ample and both screens work well, while Wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are supported. The second row also offers heaps of space. Unlike the EV6 which has a sedan-crossover body style limiting headroom, the EV5 stands much taller, benefiting rear passengers. It’s also a lot roomier than a Model Y. I’m 6’2” and I had roughly 2 inches of headroom and 4 inches of legroom in the back with the driver’s seat in my preferred position. That means the EV5 is plenty big enough for families. There are also individual air vents in the pillars and USB-C ports on the back of both front seats.
The positives don’t stop there. Much like Honda’s ‘Magic Seats,’ the backrests of the EV5’s rear seats are hinged to the bases, allowing them to be folded down perfectly flat. There’s plenty of carrying capacity at the rear, too, with a rated 513 liters (18.1 cubic-feet) of cargo capacity with the rear seats up.
A Good Daily For The Family
As the EV5 represents a new era of affordable electric vehicles from Kia, it perhaps should come as no surprise that it doesn’t quite feel as polished as the EV6. Even still, it’s pretty good.
Compared to a Sportage, the EV5 rides noticeably firmer. It’s not uncommon for EVs to ride more harshly than their ICE rivals, and weighing in at 1,910 kg (4,210 lbs), the base EV6 is 402 kg (886 lbs) heavier than the entry-level Sportage. As a result, it can feel a little bumpy and unsettled across changing road surfaces.
Those who place an emphasis on driving experience should also be aware that the front-wheel drive EV5 has hot hatch levels of torque steer, even at 70% throttle. With 215 hp (160 kW) and 229 lb-ft (310 Nm), it’s not particularly powerful, but that grunt does tug at the wheel when accelerating in a straight line or while cornering. But, for most drivers, who will rarely ever press the throttle more than 50%, it’s a non-issue.
In wet conditions, the EV5 really struggles to put its power to the ground. Just look at the throttle the wrong way, and the traction control system will quickly cut power, trying to stick the tires to the pavement. Turn off the traction control and the EV5 will furiously spin up its inside front wheel while exiting corners, leaving a thick black line in your wake. The choice of tires is partly to blame for this. They are Nexen Roadian GTXs that simply aren’t up to the task.
Read: US Won’t Get The Kia EV5, But The K5 Might Stick Around For Longer
Overall, this is not an EV that wants to be driven in an aggressive manner. Instead, it responds much better to soft and smooth inputs and remains well-insulated from outside noise even at highway speeds. The steering is light and direct, and as with other EVs from Hyundai and Kia, the braking is excellent. In fact, it’s impossible to detect when the mechanical brakes take over from the regenerative ones.
The level of regen can be adjusted with the paddles behind the steering wheel, and there is a one-pedal driving mode that works brilliantly. From behind the wheel, the EV5 does feel quite big, even though it’s almost exactly the same size as a Sportage, but it remains easy to place on the road.
The EV5 needs roughly 8.5 seconds to hit 100 km/h (62 mph) in this guise, which feels more than adequate.
Unlike most other Hyundai and Kia EVs, the EV5 does not use the group’s E-GMP platform and instead, is underpinned by the cheaper N3 eK 400-volt system. This means it’s capped at 140 kW peak charging speeds, and thus needs 36 minutes to charge from 10-80%. During our time with the EV5, we averaged 17.6 kWh/100 km, and depending on how you drive, eking 249 miles (400 km) out of the battery is definitely achievable.
Verdict
As a family SUV, the EV5 feels mostly well-resolved. In this base form, it does not have the same dynamic prowess as the EV6, nor even the much larger EV9 GT-Line, and there are areas of the cabin where it’s clear Kia has tried to save some money. However, at this price point, the EV5 doesn’t really have any compelling rivals that aren’t from China. Even the uninspired Toyota bZ4X is roughly AU$10,000 (~$6,200) more expensive.
We’ve yet to drive the new Model Y, but if the old model is anything to go by, I suspect the new one will ride better and be more enjoyable to drive than the EV5. However, the cabin of the Kia is far more expansive, and for most family buyers, that’ll be more important than having fun behind the wheel.
It turns out the unstoppable rise of Chinese EV exports might not be so unstoppable after all. For Western carmakers fretting about the growing threat posed by a maturing Chinese industry, we’ve got some welcome news. Exports of EVs from the Asian country have dropped by almost one fifth.
The number of electric vehicles leaving the country was down by 18 percent to 92,625 in February compared with the same month in 2024. That’s according to numbers from China Customs crunched by the analysts at Bloomberg.
A combination of tariffs on Chinese imports in Europe, the loss of government incentives, a rise in demand for PHEVs and a drop in demand for Tesla’s cars through a combination of people waiting for the facelifted Model Y and not wanting to be associated with CEO Elon Musk are partly to blame.
A Bigger Dip in Key Markets
The overall -18 percent figure disguises some much more worrying drops in demand in some key markets. Because while Thailand’s 17 percent slide to 6,252 units tallies with the total reduction, in some countries the number of imports from China halved – and it’s worth noting that some of those exports are of Chinese-built EVs with Western names.
According to Bloomberg, exports to Korea plummeted 51 percent to 3,151 units and Spaniards showed an almost equal disinterest in buying Chinese EVs: exports to Spain were down 49 percent to 2,664. Belgium’s drop in demand wasn’t quite so bad in pure percentage terms, but looks far more serious when you see just what a big player the country is in China’s export program. It accounted for 10,105 of the 92,625 cars exported in February.
| Destination | Feb-25 | Chg vs Feb-24 | Total YTD | Chg vs ’24 |
| Belgium | 10,105 | -41% | 30,889 | -21% |
| UK | 8,362 | -2.9% | 16,764 | -13% |
| Philippines | 8,225 | -0.9% | 17,848 | -17% |
| Mexico | 7,847 | 623% | 11,173 | 326% |
| Thailand | 6,252 | -17% | 16,369 | -19% |
| Indonesia | 5,737 | 79% | 11,573 | 124% |
| Turkiye | 3,781 | 131% | 19,672 | 704% |
| United Arab Emirates | 3,231 | -20% | 13,287 | 23% |
| Republic of Korea | 3,151 | -51% | 5,741 | -20% |
| Spain | 2,664 | -49% | 4,558 | -28% |
Exports to the UAE also make for grim reading. They were down 20 percent to 3,231 units, but not everyone was giving China’s EVs the cold shoulder. The number of cars landing in the UK fell a comparatively modest 2.9 percent to 8,362 and the Philippines was only down 0.9 percent to 8,225.
Some countries even experienced a big jump in a positive direction. Indonesia was up 79 percent, Turkiye was up 131 percent and Mexico just couldn’t get the things off the boast fast enough. Exports there were up 623 percent – though only to 7,847, putting it behind Belgium, Britain and the Philippines.
But looking at the numbers according to region rather than specific countries shows exports were down everywhere except Africa, which still only accounts for one in every 73 Chinese exports, so isn’t worth getting too excited about just yet. Asia remains the biggest destination for exports, taking half of all the EVs moved out of China and exports there dropped only 2.7 percent. But in Europe, which takes almost a third of the 93k total, they fell 30 percent, having only been down 14 percent in January.
| Region | Feb-25 | Chg vs Feb-24 | Total YTD | Chg vs ’24 |
| Asia | 47,960 | -2.7% | 136,511 | 22% |
| Europe | 28,866 | -30% | 82,886 | -14% |
| Latin America and the Caribbean | 12,097 | -0.3% | 24,183 | 44% |
| Oceania | 2,264 | -11% | 9,753 | -29% |
| Africa | 1,275 | 87% | 4,317 | 240% |
| Northern America | 163 | -97% | 1,323 | -83% |
| Total | 92,625 | -18% | 258,973 | 4.3% |
On Sunday, Japan’s Defense Ministry launched a new military unit, the Maritime Transport Group. The unit is expected to improve Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) maritime logistics, allowing swift deployment of ground troops and equipment to front-line bases. The inauguration ceremony was held at Kure naval base in Hiroshima Prefecture.
The plan for a specialized maritime transport unit for the JSDF was initially announced in 2018. The aim was enhancing JSDF ability to transport troops to remote islands - especially the islands west of Okinawa, a response to China’s maritime expansion in the region and the risk of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
The new Maritime Transport Group is part of the Japanese government's strategy to strengthen its island defense system, and will be managed by Japan's army (Japan Ground Self Defense Force, or JGSDF). This command structure is similar to the United States' landing craft fleet, which is housed within the U.S. Army Watercraft Systems division.
The Maritime Transport Group consists of about 100 members, drawn from the three branches of JSDF including the Ground, Maritime and Air Self Defense Forces. For the operations of the unit, the ministry plans to procure 10 vessels by March 2028. The vessels include two LSVs (Logistics Support Vessel), four LCUs (Landing Craft Utility) and four maneuver support vessels. They will be based at Kure base and the Hanshin base in Kobe city. There are also plans to prepare wharfs on the island of Amami-Oshima in Kagoshima Prefecture. Two vessels have already been launched.
The LCU Nihonbare launched in October last year at the Naikai Zosen shipyard in Onomichi City of Hiroshima. The LCU is about 80 meters long, has a draft of 3 meters and displacement of about 2,400 tons. It has a crew capacity of 30 and it can transport a dozen twenty-foot containers. In addition, the LCU has beaching capabilities that allow it to load and unload on sandy areas.
A month later, the LSV Yoko was launched at the same shipyard. The LSV is about 120 meters, has a draft of 4 meters and a displacement of 3,500 tons. It can load and unload vehicles and supplies through a side ramp on the starboard side. However, Yoko does not have beaching capabilities like Nihonbare.
The strengthening of Japan’s military transport capabilities comes at a time China has become more assertive in the East China Sea. The two countries have a long-standing maritime dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, which Japan controls. In the past year, China has sent a record number of heavily armed ships to patrol the islands.
According to data by Japan Coast Guard (JCG), Chinese government vessels entered the contiguous zone of the Islands (12 to 24 nautical miles from the coast) on 355 out of 366 days in 2024. This set a record for the highest number of days since 2008, when Chinese vessels were officially confirmed patrolling the Islands.
On Sunday, the crew of the Philippine Coast Guard cutter BRP Cabra narrowly averted a head-on collision with an aggressive China Coast Guard cutter, according to the PCG.
On Saturday, BRP Cabra intercepted the China Coast Guard cutter CCG-3302 at a position about 85 nautical miles off the coast of Luzon. CCG-3302 is the latest in a string of Chinese government vessels that have been dispatched to patrol the Philippines' coastal waters, asserting Chinese law enforcement jurisdiction in an area about 500 nautical miles from mainland China. Beijing claims almost all of the South China Sea as its own, including large sections of its neighbors' exclusive economic zones.
"The 44-meter BRP Cabra boldly confronted the larger 99-meter CCG vessel, asserting its rightful presence within the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone," the PCG said in a statement Saturday.
On Sunday, PCG spokesman Commodore Jay Tarriela said that the CCG-3302 had engaged in "reckless and dangerous maneuvers," and nearly carried out a head-on collision with BRP Cabra. Only the skill of the PCG crew prevented a collision, he said.
After the encounter, CCG-3302 retreated further from Luzon's shores by about 10 nautical miles, according to Tarriela. It continues its "illegal patrol," he said, and BRP Cabra remains on scene to monitor it. The pushback is intended to prevent the "normalization of unlawful activities" by the Chinese government in the Philippine EEZ.
Tensions between the Philippines and China are running higher than usual, and not just in the South China Sea. Philippine police forces have arrested 18 Chinese nationals in four separate busts since the start of the year on espionage charges, including five who were detained for allegedly spying on U.S. Navy vessels in Subic Bay.
The Armed Forces of the Philippines has also advised its forces to be prepared for the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. If this occurred, AFP troops would be needed for an evacuation of Philippine overseas workers: an estimated 250,000 Filipinos are employed in the Taiwanese economy, and would have to be brought back to safety across the Strait of Luzon.
In a visit to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy last week, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy pledged to help find the resources needed to restore the institution's infrastructure - an investment that DOT has not prioritized before.
"You don't deserve to have an academy that's dilapidated," Duffy told midshipmen in an energetic speech. "The problem is, you guys haven't had the focus of a secretary to say, 'we're going to turn this around.'"
Duffy said that he was astonished to hear reports that some USMMA midshipmen have to live with mold in their accommodations and sometimes don't have hot water. (These allegations could not be immediately verified, but his audience applauded.) "I tell you what, if you guys had been at West Point or the U.S. Naval Academy . . . they would have quit a long time ago," he said.
Duffy called the condition of USMMA a bipartisan issue, and he was accompanied on his visit by a Democratic member of Congress, Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-NY). Four representatives from Long Island, including Suozzi, have introduced a bill to invest $1 billion in federal funding for infrastructure improvements at the USMMA campus over 10 years.
The secretary declined to endorse any specific figure, but he pledged to support USMMA's efforts to find funding for improvements. He told Newsday that the academy needs to be rebuilt much more quickly than 10 years.
Duffy said that part of his rationale for boosting USMMA is the need to counter China on the high seas. He pointed to China's increasing dominance in shipping and shipbuilding as a cause for concern, noting that CSSC built more tonnage in 2024 than the entire production of every American yard since WWII. "That is going to change . . . and you all are part of that change," he told the audience.
A new fuel slick has been spotted on the surface near the Kerch Strait, the Russian-controlled waterway between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, according to a Russian environmental scientist. The pollution is near the site where two aging tankers broke up and sank in December - but Russian officials deny that any additional pollution from the disaster has been observed.
On March 31, ecologist Georgy Kavanosyan released a synthetic aperture radar image of the Kerch Strait on social media, showing what appeared to be a long slick at the entrance to the strait. The site corresponds to the location of the bow section of Volgoneft-239, one of the two lost tankers. A second environmental scientist, Igor Shkradyuk, told Russian investigative reporting outlet Agentstva that the leak is likely in the range of hundreds of liters per day - and that it will likely continue through the warm months of the year as the fuel cargo heats up and seeps out.
"Unfortunately, government agencies are not telling us what is happening with the spilled fuel oil. They are pretending that none of this is happening," Shkradyuk said.
Russia's Ministry of Emergency Situations says that it continues to monitor the wreck sites daily, and it claims that no additional fuel leaks from the tankers have been recorded. "The sunken fragments of the tankers are constantly being examined by divers, the bottom is being monitored in a kilometer-long zone from the coast using remotely controlled vehicles, space monitoring technologies, drones, and patrol groups of rescuers on boats are being used to monitor the situation in the water area," ministry chief Alexander Kurenkov said Friday.
Russia's environment ministry (Rosprirodnadzor) has filed a new claim for compensation for damages against the owners of Volgoneft-239 and Volgoneft-212. The two riverine tankers were operating in the open waters of the Black Sea in wintertime, beyond the limits of their design parameters, and the ministry laid blame on the captains and on their employers.
The total claim comes to about 85 billion rubles ($1 billion), split between Kama Shipping and Volgatransneft CFC. The two firms have one month to pay for the damages, after which the ministry will initiate a lawsuit, said Svetlana Radionova, head of Rosprirodnadzor.
A deal appears to be in the last stages of negotiation between Mauritius and the UK over the continued use of Diego Garcia, a key base for U.S. naval and air operations in the Middle East and Africa. This follows President Trump’s approval of the detailed draft treaty which was announced on April 1. Both the UK and Mauritian government have indicated that they are keen to finalize the treaty as soon as possible.
However, Britain’s Reform Party, which has been ahead of both the governing Labour Party and the Conservative official opposition party in opinion polling over the last three months, promised on April 6 to annul any treaty signed should it be elected to power. Richard Tice, the Deputy Leader of the party, said in a television interview that he was not surprised the United States supported the deal, because it gave the United States rent-free use of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years. The Reform Party would ‘rip up’ the treaty, on the basis that Mauritius accepted a deal in 1965 under which it accepted payment in return for surrendering all future claims to the Chagos Island archipelago.
CNN is reporting that the 6 B-2 “Spirit” Long-Range Strategic Stealth Bombers with the 509th Bomb Wing, which arrived recently at Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, are being used for strikes against the… pic.twitter.com/eTHDPoYn8A
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) April 4, 2025
Open source imagery analysts have in recent days identified B-2 Spirit long-range strategic bombers being loaded with munitions on the Diego Garcia apron, indicating that these aircraft are being used in the ongoing attacks against Houthi targets in Yemen. There are also reports that the United States is moving the Arleigh Burke Class destroyer USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG-108) into position in the Chagos archipelago in order to strengthen local air defenses in the face of potential threat from Iran. USS Wayne E. Meyer has headed west out of the Malacca Straits and on April 3 was in the Indian Ocean.
Cmdr. Gerard Mauer, commanding officer of USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG 108), speaks to the crew on the ship’s announcement system, April 3 (USN)
Since the introduction of a global sulfur cap in marine fuel oil by IMO (International Maritime Organization) in 2020, there has been uncertainty on the environmental impacts of scrubbers for vessels using heavy fuel oil (HFO). But a new study released last week claims that the environmental impacts of burning HFO with scrubbers could be equivalent, and in some scenarios, outperform use of low-sulfur fuels for large bulk carriers.
The study includes researchers from MIT and Georgia Tech, with partial support from Oldendorff Carriers. The bulk carrier Hedwig Oldendorff was selected for onboard emission measurements and collection of scrubber wash water samples.
While multiple studies have monitored marine fuel emissions and the effects of scrubbers, the researchers said that the existing lifecycle assessments (LCAs) lack onboard measurements or focus on specific impact categories, such as climate change. For this study, the scientists claimed to have developed a robust assessment of the environmental impacts of using scrubbers with HFO versus low-sulfur fuels. This involved conducting a comprehensive Well-to-Wake (WtW) LCA, accounting for the impacts from fuel sourcing, production, conversion, transport, distribution, and eventual use onboard the vessel.
In considering this entire supply chain, burning heavy fuel oil with scrubbers was found to be the least harmful option in terms of nearly all 10 environmental impact factors that were studied. Some of these factors include greenhouse gas emissions, terrestrial acidification and ozone formation.
“Claims about environmental hazards and policies to mitigate them should be backed by science. You need to see data, be objective, and design studies that take into account the full picture to be able to compare different options,” said lead author Patricia Stathatou, an assistant professor at Georgia Tech.
According to data by Clarksons Research, the use of scrubbers has been on the rise in the past two decades. The number of scrubber-fitted ships increased from 243 in 2020 to more than 7,400 at the start of 2025. The majority of these vessels utilize wet, open-loop marine scrubbers, which consists of a huge vertical tank installed in a ship’s exhaust stack above the engines. Inside, seawater drawn from the ocean is sprayed through a series of nozzles, washing the hot exhaust gases as they exit the engines. But the scrubber wastewater contains compounds that may be toxic for the marine environment. In fact, many countries across the world have restricted scrubber discharge within ports and harbors.
In exploring this concern in the study, Stathatou and her colleagues agree that scrubber discharge is toxic, but its impact is less than burning low-sulfur fuels, when considered from a holistic point of view. Producing low-sulfur fuel requires extra processing steps in the refinery, causing additional emissions of greenhouse gases and particulate matter.
“If we just look at everything that happens before the fuel is bunkered onboard the vessel, heavy fuel oil is significantly more low-impact, environmentally, than low-sulfur fuels. If you consider that the scrubber has a lifetime of about 20 years, the environmental impacts of producing the scrubber over its lifetime are negligible compared to producing heavy fuel oil,” added Stathatou.
The deployment of B-2 Spirit strategic stealth bombers and KC-135 refueling aircraft to Diego Garcia, plus the dispatch of the USS Carl Vinson to make up a second Carrier Strike Group in the region, make up only part of a well-publicized reinforcement of US forces in the Middle East region. With nations hosting US forces within the region anxious not to advertise an increased US presence, there will certainly be other reinforcements that have also been pushed forward into the region, particularly air defense assets, which have not been unveiled.
This forward deployment forms part of President Trump’s strategy to curb Iran, in which a diplomatic approach is accompanied by the implied threat of military force, should Iran not be willing to negotiate. Tightened sanctions on Iranian dark shipping and oil exports also form part of the strategy to put the Iranian regime under pressure, which is already acute because of decades-long sanctions and shortages of both water and other basic necessities. There are many indicators suggesting that as a consequence, the Iranian leadership is indeed feeling under intense pressure and quarrelling amongst themselves.
A general assumption is that the military pressure being applied on Iran is focused on permanently ending the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Any first strike on Iran, should the diplomatic route fail, would likely be targeted on the Iranian nuclear program and the long-range missiles needed to weaponize this capability. It looks as if it is militarily feasible to destroy the nuclear weapons capability; every critical node and last detail of the program appears to be known to Western intelligence. General Petraeus, formerly Commander CENTCOM, has recently said that such an operation had already been successfully rehearsed.
But nuclear weapons are only half the problem. To achieve a durable peace, the United States is equally interested in putting an end to Iran’s decades-long attempt to expand its regional influence, through use of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force across the region and through the often-exercised threat posed by Iranian or Iranian proxy ballistic and cruise missiles. The Iranians contend that these regional influence efforts are non-negotiable.
Moreover, if a first strike was designed to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons program, it would still leave Iran’s ballistic and cruise missile capability intact - and ready to be used in any counter-attack. Such a ‘devastating ‘counter-attack is often threatened by senior IRGC leaders.
Realistic military planning must deal not only with the Iranian nuclear weapons development program - but also the threat posed by Iran’s ballistic and cruise missiles, which present a formidable target not vulnerable to a decisive, knock-out first strike attack.
Iran has at least 24 identified missile sites in the western half of the country, spread from north to south. Some of these sites appear to be independent, others are arranged in clusters. All feature underground storage bunkers, from which both drone and missile mobile launchers can be driven out, ready to go into action within minutes. The site at Kermanshah Konesh Canyon has at least 60 such tunnel bunkers.
More than 50 underground bunkers visible in the Kermanshah Konesh Canyon missile complex (Google Earth, June 6, 2024)
Each site has multiple tunnel entrances, from which a further multiple of missiles or drones can be launched. Some sites also feature hardened silos with automated revolver carousels enabling the rapid reloading of ballistic missiles; the site at Haji Abad for example has at least seven silos, aligned for targets along the Bahrain-Riyadh axis.
The locations given in the site list attached are for site maintenance buildings. But using open source, freely available satellite imagery, in all locations tunnel entrances can be seen close by. There will certainly be many more such sites which have not been identified, and each site also has a garrison administrative area in the neighborhood, where there are likely to be more drones and missiles on mobile launchers.
|
CLUSTER |
LOCATION/SITE |
LAT |
LONG |
|
Bandar Abbas Area Independent Sites |
Bandar Abbas Khorgu |
27.528789N |
56.451021E |
|
Haji Abad |
28.328772N |
55.942649E |
|
|
Bandar Lengeh |
26.658735N |
54.893197E |
|
|
Lar |
27.643131N |
54.256253E |
|
|
Jam |
27.794144N |
52.318042E |
|
|
Garmdareh Cluster |
Garmdareh North West |
35.788410N |
51.059026E |
|
Garmdareh North East |
35.768729N |
51.085032E |
|
|
Isfahan Cluster |
Isfahan West |
32.695027N |
51.430270E |
|
Isfahan South |
32.459346N |
51.714619E |
|
|
Kashan (independent site or other sites nearby not detected) |
34.093362N |
51.255711E |
|
|
Kerman (independent site or other sites nearby not detected) |
30.239153N |
56.851713E |
|
|
Kermanshah Cluster
|
Kermansheh Panj Peleh |
34.360500N |
47.228508E |
|
Kermanshah Konesh Canyon |
34.389521N |
47.181043E |
|
|
Kermanshah South |
34.394788N |
47.222654E |
|
|
Kermanshah North East |
34.525045N |
47.361183E |
|
|
Kermanshah North West |
34.439950N |
47.187934E |
|
|
Kermanshah Shahid Montazeri Garrison |
34.482361N |
47.009583E |
|
|
Khorramabad Cluster |
Khorramabad Imam Ali NW |
33.581276N |
48.181536E |
|
Khorramabad Imam Ali SE |
33.564324N |
48.217238E |
|
|
Khorramabad Imam Ali Garrison |
33.552829N |
48.214824E |
|
|
Qom (independent site or other sites nearby not detected) |
34.943853N |
50.763649E |
|
|
Shiraz Cluster |
Shiraz North West |
29.726310N |
52.558080E |
|
Shiraz North |
29.707720N |
52.590671E |
|
|
Shiraz South |
29.473558N |
52.490816E |
|
|
Tabriz Cluster |
Khosroshah Garrison |
37.941000N |
46.025000E |
|
Tabriz North |
38.251449N |
46.119187E |
|
|
Tabriz South |
37.977313N |
46.176606E |
|
|
Yazd (independent site or other sites nearby not detected) |
31.803792N |
54.298661E |
|
Some of these sites were first constructed decades ago, when the short range of missiles then available meant that they could be targeted only against neighboring GCC countries, rather than Israel. As missile ranges have increased, probably all the sites are now capable of threatening Israel, as well as any American presence at Al Udeid (Qatar), Al Dhafra (UAE), Naval Base Bahrain, Dimona (Israel), Muwaffaq Salti (Jordan), Camp Arifjan (Kuwait) and Ain al-Assad (Iraq).
A recent video showing touring the visit of Major General Mohammad Bagheri and Brigadier Amir Ali Hajizadeh to a ‘missile megacity’ on March 25 showed a variety of missiles and drones parked up, including Ghadr (1,600 km range), Emad (1,800 km range), Haji Kassem (1,400 km range), Kheibar Shakan (1,450 km range) and Sejjil ((2,000 km range) medium range missiles plus long range Khorramshahr-4s (3,000 km range). Fattah-1 medium range missiles were not seen but featured heavily in Iran’s earlier True Promise attacks on Israel. Shahed-136B kamikaze drones have even longer ranges, and missiles and drones can also be launched from Iranian naval vessels such as the drone carriers Shahid Mahdavi (C110-3) and Shahid Bagheri (C110-4).
As well as the infrastructure to protect thousands of missiles and drones in hardened shelters, the IRGC also has a tactical playbook to help hide and disperse these systems, so that any attack on this overall capability cannot be entirely pre-planned and must have a tactical element to deal with fast-moving or elusive targets.
Even if a surprise attack on this huge target array was largely effective, hundreds of missiles and drones would likely escape destruction in any first wave. So attack plans will need to assume that successive attack waves will be needed to fully neutralize the threat. One might hope that at this juncture Iranian leaders might be willing to come to the negotiating table, or that the internal security apparatus might succumb to a domestic uprising. But neither response can be counted upon, and a worst-case scenario probably needs to be planned for.
Login