logo
Vatican strikes solar farm deal to become the world's first carbon-neutral state

Vatican strikes solar farm deal to become the world's first carbon-neutral state

ROME (AP) — Italy agreed Thursday to a Vatican plan to turn a 430-hectare (1,000-acre) field north of Rome, once the source of controversy between the two, into a vast solar farm that the Holy See hopes will generate enough electricity to meet its needs and turn Vatican City into the world's first carbon-neutral state.
The agreement stipulates that the development of the Santa Maria Galeria site will preserve the agricultural use of the land and minimize the environmental impact on the territory, according to a Vatican statement.
Details weren't released, but the Vatican will be exempt from paying Italian taxes to import the solar panels, but won't benefit from the financial incentives that Italians enjoy when they go solar. Italy, for its part, can use the field in its accounting for reaching European Union clean energy targets. Any excess electricity generated by the farm beyond the Vatican's needs would be given to the local community, officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the agreement was not public.
Vatican officials have estimated it will cost under 100 million euros ($114 million) to develop the solar farm, and that once it is approved by the Italian parliament, the contracts to do the work could be put up for bids.
Vatican foreign minister Archbishop Paul Gallagher signed the agreement with Italy's ambassador to the Holy See, Francesco Di Nitto. The Italian parliament must approve the arrangement since it has financial implications for the territory, which holds extraterritorial status in Italy.
The Santa Maria Galeria site has long been the
source of controversy
because of electromagnetic waves emitted by Vatican Radio towers located there since the 1950s. The once-rural site some 35 kilometers (20 miles) north of Rome is dominated by two dozen short- and medium-wave radio antennae that transmit news from the Catholic Church in dozens of languages around the globe.
Over the years as the area became more developed, residents began complaining of health problems, including instances of childhood leukemia which they blamed on the electromagnetic waves generated by the towers. The Vatican denied there was any causal link but cut back the transmissions.
Pope Francis last year asked the Vatican to study developing the area into a vast solar farm, hoping to put into practice his preaching about the need to transition away from fossil fuels and find clean, carbon-neutral energy sources.
Pope Leo XIV visited the site in June and affirmed that he intended to see Francis' vision through. Leo has strongly
taken up Francis' ecological mantle
, recently using a new set of prayers and readings inspired by Pope Francis'
environmental legacy
.
In the 1990s at the height of the controversy over the radio towers, residents sued Vatican Radio officials, claiming the emissions exceeded the Italian legal limit, but the court cleared the transmitter. In 2012, the Vatican announced it was cutting in half the hours of transmission from the site, not because of health concerns but because of cost-saving technological advances in internet broadcasting.
___
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's
collaboration
with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

SpaceX delivers four astronauts to the International Space Station just 15 hours after launch
SpaceX delivers four astronauts to the International Space Station just 15 hours after launch

San Francisco Chronicle​

time13 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

SpaceX delivers four astronauts to the International Space Station just 15 hours after launch

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — SpaceX delivered a fresh crew to the International Space Station on Saturday, making the trip in a quick 15 hours. The four U.S., Russian and Japanese astronauts pulled up in their SpaceX capsule after launching from NASA's Kennedy Space Center. They will spend at least six months at the orbiting lab, swapping places with colleagues up there since March. SpaceX will bring those four back as early as Wednesday. Moving in are NASA's Zena Cardman and Mike Fincke, Japan's Kimiya Yui and Russia's Oleg Platonov — each of whom had been originally assigned to other missions. Cardman and another astronaut were pulled from a SpaceX flight last year to make room for NASA's two stuck astronauts, Boeing Starliner test pilots Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, whose space station stay went from one week to more than nine months. Fincke and Yui had been training for the next Starliner mission. But with Starliner grounded by thruster and other problems until 2026, the two switched to SpaceX. Platonov was bumped from the Soyuz launch lineup a couple of years ago because of an undisclosed illness. Their arrival temporarily puts the space station population at 11. While their taxi flight was speedy by U.S. standards, the Russians hold the record for the fastest trip to the space station — a lightning-fast three hours. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps

San Francisco Chronicle​

time43 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.'

Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps

Hamilton Spectator

timean hour ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms , many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store