Connect with us

Finance

Inside Super Micro's wake-up call: After riding the AI wave, the $20 billion tech giant is crashing back to earth amid a financial crisis and family drama

Published

on

Inside Super Micro's wake-up call: After riding the AI wave, the  billion tech giant is crashing back to earth amid a financial crisis and family drama

Silicon Valley tech company Super Micro was supposed to be riding high: After flying under the radar for a quarter of a century, the company had ridden the coattails of the recent generative AI boom. The $20 billion manufacturer builds some of the most important hardware used to power the top artificial intelligence models–that is, high-performance servers that house the leading AI chips, including Nvidia’s.

Over the past five years, as the AI boom picked up steam before exploding post-ChatGPT, Super Micro’s shares soared over 3,000% and its reported revenue doubled to $7.12 billion, to earn it a glitzy debut on the Fortune 500. But accounting issues have continued to haunt the company: It settled with the Securities & Exchange Commission in August 2020 over two years’ worth of alleged accounting violations, and then in 2024 short-seller Hindenburg Research claimed Super Micro continued to engage in questionable accounting practices.

And now, things just got even more real. Super Micro’s auditor resigned in the midst of its work with the tech firm, a move generally considered to be one of the reddest of red flags in the financial and investment community. And after Super Micro broke that news to investors, auditor Ernst & Young came back with a World Series grand slam rebuttal. 

In a letter to the regulators, EY said it only agreed with the company’s disclosures in the first paragraph, the first sentence of the second paragraph, the third paragraph, the first three sentences of the fourth paragraph, and a few others. That’s it.

“We have no basis to agree or disagree with other statements of the registrant contained therein,” EY wrote to SEC commissioners. 

Advertisement

For investors, those can be read as fighting words. Super Micro’s stock tumbled 33% on Wednesday.

Governance expert and Georgetown University associate professor Jason Schloetzer told Fortune this type of resignation is unusual and is consistent with a “noisy withdrawal.”

“It’s pretty clear there are irreconcilable differences between management and the auditor that are severe enough to spill into the public domain,” said Schloetzer. “An auditor resignation is already in red flag territory, so this one will certainly get close scrutiny from capital markets participants and regulatory agencies. Management will have some explaining to do.” 

What went down at Super Micro? 

The auditor’s response was prompted by the disclosure Super Micro made this week announcing EY’s departure. Critically, Super Micro told investors it “does not currently expect that resolution of any of the matters raised by EY, or under consideration by the Special Committee, as noted below, will result in any restatements of its quarterly reports for the fiscal year 2024 ending June 30, 2024, or for prior fiscal years.” Generally, Super Micro’s disclosure that they don’t think these concerns will prompt them to correct their financials is meant to soothe investors that are skittish about potential accounting problems. 

The company formed the special committee in question after EY flagged concerns about its financial reporting to the board’s audit committee last July. In response, the board formed a special committee to investigate—and hired law firm Cooley LLP and forensic accounting firm Secretariat Advisors to probe. As of today, that review remains ongoing, according to Super Micro.

Advertisement

In a statement to Fortune, a Super Micro spokesman said it disagreed with EY and added it is working “diligently” to hire a new auditor. The spokesman emphasized that Super Micro does not believe it will need to issue any restatements or corrections to its financials. 

Accounting expert Francine McKenna told Fortune that the EY resignation went beyond the usual quiet exit auditors make when they slip away from an engagement. “There are noisy resignations and then there are resignations that bang a big giant gong—and this is as bad as it can get,” said McKenna, who authors The Dig newsletter.

In its resignation letter, EY wrote that it was no longer able to rely on management and the board’s audit committee, which is supposed to be made up of independent directors who oversee the company for the benefit of shareholders. “When you can’t rely on management, that’s bad,” said McKenna. “If you can’t trust the audit committee, there is something very wrong.”

A Super Micro spokesman told Fortune: “We have announced a first quarter business update call for Tuesday November 5th.” Not ideal timing, given that’s Election Day. Super Micro declined to comment further. 

Amy Lynch, former regulator with the SEC and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, told Fortune it appears EY has “serious concerns about the company and contacted the SEC in order keep themselves from being charged in any subsequent enforcement action.”

Advertisement

“SMCI may very soon find itself under investigation by the SEC for accounting-related fraud, if not already,” said Lynch, founder and president of FrontLine Compliance. “The SEC acts very quickly in these circumstances.”

The SEC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

EY’s abrupt departure is the latest in a pileup of problems at a company considered a Wall Street darling not that long ago. Super Micro got a warning letter from Nasdaq last month after it failed to file its annual financial report on Aug. 29. The stock was still trading on the tech-heavy exchange, but the company was given a 60-day notice to either pony up a 10-K or submit a plan to regain compliance.

Super Micro got an extension until Nov. 27 to deliver on its fiscal year 2024 audited financial statements. The company also implemented a 10-for-1 forward stock split that took effect Sept. 30, increasing its authorized shares from 100 million to 1 billion. Stock splits are commonly used to make shares more affordable to investors because it lowers the price per share. Nvidia did a split this year also. It can also boost liquidity and flexibility in equity compensation. Super Micro CEO Charles Liang’s salary was revised in 2021 to just a dollar a year and all his comp was converted into performance-based stock options, according to the company, with potential value of $60 million. 

What’s up with the short report?

In August, famed short-seller Hindenburg Research hit the company with a 19,000-word short report. It claimed to have found “glaring accounting red flags, evidence of undisclosed related party transactions, sanctions and export control failures” after a three-month investigation. Super Micro described the report as “false and misleading” in a letter to investors. 

Advertisement

That was after the SEC previously fined the company $17.5 million for alleged improper accounting from 2015 to 2017. Super Micro paid the fine without admitting or denying the findings. Former chief financial officer Howard Hideshima was also fined in the action—and cofounder and CEO Liang, while not charged with misconduct, had to repay the company $2.1 million in stock profits he received while the accounting errors were occurring—a compensation clawback.

It likely required a lot of heavy lifting from the audit committee. During 2018, the committee met 42 times, 38 of which were special meetings. In 2020, it met 15 times, with 11 special meetings. The grand total for the past three fiscal years is 47 audit committee meetings. On average, according to data from governance benchmarking analytics firm Esgauge, S&P 500 audit committees met about eight times a year for the past three years. 

Super Micro: A family affair

The company was founded in September 1993 by board chairman and CEO Liang and his wife, Sara Liu. A third cofounder, Yih-Shyan (Wally) Liaw was involved until January 2018 when he resigned all his positions as the company dealt with regulators following a previous audit committee investigation. But, as of May 2021, Liaw was back, advising Super Micro on development. He returned to full-time employment in August 2022 and rejoined the board in December 2023, according to the company’s most recent proxy report.

The company also involves multiple family relatives in its business entities, based on its disclosures. At least two sisters-in-law work at the company and a third loaned $12.9 million (plus interest) to Liang. The company’s most recent disclosure showed that he owed her $16 million. 

Cofounder Sara Liu’s brother, Hung-Fan (Albert), works for the company; Sara Liu’s sister-in-law, Shao Fen (Carly) Kao, works there; Sara Liu’s other sister-in-law, Mien-Hsia (Michelle) Hung, also works there.

Advertisement

In October 2018, Liang personally borrowed the $12.9 million from Chien-Tsun Chang, the spouse of his brother Steve Liang (also Charles Liang’s sister-in-law). Charles needed it to pay back margin loans to two financial institutions that had been secured by Super Micro’s stock, the company’s disclosures state. The loans were called in after Nasdaq suspended the stock from trading on Aug. 23, 2018 after Super Micro failed to file multiple quarterly and annual reports with the SEC. It was delisted from the Nasdaq Global Select Market and quoted on the OTC Market. It was relisted on the exchange on Jan. 14, 2020.

From there, the disclosed inter-company transactions and business relationships get even more complex. Super Micro has entered into a series of agreements with a Taiwan corporation called Ablecom Technology and one of its affiliates, Compuware Technology, according to Super Micro’s financial filings. 

Super Micro outsources server design and manufacturing to Ablecom Technology. In fiscal 2023, Super Micro bought $167.8 million in products from Ablecom, and as of June 2023, Super Micro owed Ablecom $36.9 million. Super Micro also paid Ablecom $12.1 million for “design and tooling” in fiscal 2023, according to Super Micro.

There’s another family relationship in that mix. The CEO of Ablecom is Steve Liang, brother of Charles, per Super Micro’s financial disclosures. The complexity intensifies from there—according to Super Micro’s most recent proxy statement,  Steve Liang and his family own 28.8% of Ablecom. Charles Liang and his wife Sara Liu own 10.5% of Ablecom. Bill Liang (brother of Steve and Charles) is on Ablecom’s board and is CEO of the other entity involved, Compuware. (Neither Charles Liang nor Super Micro own stock in Compuware and Super Micro doesn’t own stock in Ablecom or Compuware. Ablecom owns less than 50% of Compuware, the company reported.) 

Furthermore, Ablecom’s sales to Super Micro make up a “substantial majority” of its net sales, the company disclosed. For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2023, 2022, and 2021, Super Micro bought products from Ablecom totaling $167.8 million, $192.4 million, and $122.2 million, respectively. During the same period, Super Micro owed Ablecom $36.9 million, $46.0 million and $41.2 million, respectively. Super Micro paid Ablecom $12.1 million, $8.3 million, and $8.6 million, respectively, for design services, tooling assets and miscellaneous costs, per the company filings. 

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Compuware is a distributor for Super Micro in Taiwan, China, and Australia—and Super Micro outsources power design and manufacturing to Compuware. Compuware’s sales of Super Micro products to other businesses make up a majority of Compuware’s net sales. In fiscal 2023, Super Micro sold $36.3 million in products to Compuware and in June 2023, Compuware owed Super Micro $24.9 million. In fiscal 2023, Super Micro bought $217 million in products from Compuware, and in June 2023, Super Micro owed Compuware $66.2 million. Super Micro paid Compuware $2 million for “design and tooling.”

In addition, Super Micro and Ablecom jointly established Super Micro Asia Science and Technology Park in Taiwan “to manage shared common areas.” Each company contributed $200,000 for a 50% ownership stake in the venture, according to the company’s disclosures. 

Super Micro says its maximum financial exposure to Ablecom was $23.7 million in outstanding purchase orders as of June 30, 2023, and Super Micro’s maximum financial exposure to Compuware was $46.8 million in outstanding purchase orders as of June 30, 2023.

Super Micro also disclosed that a sibling of Yih-Shyan (Wally) Liaw, a board member and senior vice president of development, owns approximately 11.7% of Ablecom’s capital stock and 8.7% of Compuware’s capital stock.

For now, Super Micro’s spokesman said it will talk with investors on the Election Day call. But in a September letter to customers and business partners, Liang (the CEO and founder, not his siblings) emphasized the accounting delay that impacted its annual report and the Hindenburg issue wouldn’t impair its ability to deliver goods. 

Advertisement

“Importantly, however, when we announced the decision to delay our Annual Report filing, we indicated that based on the work done so far, we don’t anticipate any material changes in our fourth quarter or fiscal year 2024 financial results,” wrote Liang. “This is good news. I continue to have strong confidence in our finance and internal teams.”

Finance

Psychological shift unfolds in soft Aussie housing market: ‘Vendors feel pressure’

Published

on

Psychological shift unfolds in soft Aussie housing market: ‘Vendors feel pressure’
Is it becoming a buyers market? (Source: Getty)

Property markets move in cycles, and with interest rates rising and other pressures like high fuel costs, some markets are clearly slowing down. Many first-home buyers who have only ever seen markets going up are conditioned to think that when purchasing, competition is always intense and decisions need to be made quickly.

In those times, buyers often feel they need to act fast, stretch their budget and secure a property at almost any cost. But things have definitely changed.

In a softer market, the dynamic shifts. Properties take longer to sell, competition thins, and it’s the vendors who begin to feel pressure.

RELATED

For buyers who understand how to navigate that change, the balance of power quickly moves in their favour. The opportunity is not simply to buy at a lower price. It is to negotiate from a position of strength.

Advertisement

If that’s you right now, these are the key skills first-home buyers need to take advantage of in softer market conditions.

The most important shift in a soft market is psychological. In a rising market, buyers often feel like they are competing for limited opportunities. In a softer market, the opposite is true. There are more properties available, fewer active buyers and less urgency overall. This gives buyers options.

When buyers understand that they are not competing with multiple parties on every property, their decision-making improves. They are more willing to walk away, compare opportunities and avoid overpaying. Negotiation strength comes from not needing to transact immediately. When that pressure is removed, buyers are able to engage more strategically.

One of the most common mistakes first-home buyers make is continuing to apply strategies that only work in rising markets. Auction urgency is a clear example. In strong markets, auctions often attract multiple bidders and create competitive tension. In softer conditions, properties are more likely to pass in, shifting the process away from a public bidding environment into a private negotiation.

This is where leverage increases.

Advertisement

Private negotiations allow buyers to introduce conditions that protect their position. These may include finance clauses, longer settlement periods or price adjustments based on due diligence. Opportunities that are rarely available in competitive markets become standard in softer ones.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Finance Committee approves an average increase of University tuition by 3.6 percent

Published

on

Finance Committee approves an average increase of University tuition by 3.6 percent

The Board of Visitors Finance Committee met Thursday and approved a 3.6 percent average increase in tuition, a 4.8 percent average increase in meal plan costs and a 5 percent increase in the cost of double-room housing for the 2026-27 school year. The approval was unanimous amongst Board members, though some expressed resistance to the increases before voting in favor of them. 

The Committee heard from Jennifer Wagner Davis, executive vice president and chief operating officer, and Donna Price Henry, chancellor of the College at Wise, about reasons for the raise in tuition and rates. According to Davis and Henry, salary increases for professors and legislation passed by the General Assembly contribute to tuition and rates increases.  

The Finance Committee, chaired by Vice Rector Victoria Harker, is responsible for the University’s financial affairs and business operations, and the Committee manages the budget, tuition and student fees. 

Changes in tuition vary between schools, with the School of Law seeing at most a 5.1 percent increase, the School of Engineering & Applied Science seeing at most a 3.2 percent increase and the College of Arts and Sciences seeing at most a 3.1 percent increase in tuition for the 2026-27 school year. 

For the 2026-27 school year at the College at Wise, the Committee also unanimously approved a 2.5 percent average increase in tuition, a 3.8 percent increase in meal plans and a 2 percent increase in the cost of housing.

Advertisement

Last year, the Committee approved a 3 percent average increase in tuition, a 5.5 percent increase in meal plans and a 5.5 percent increase in the cost of housing for the University.

Davis cited increased costs as the primary reason for the approved increase in tuition. She said that the budget that could be passed by the General Assembly for June 30, 2027 through June 30, 2028 could increase professor salaries — University professors receive raises via this process. Davis said that the Senate and House of Delegates have separate proposals dealing with the pay increases that are currently unresolved, with House Bill 30 raising salaries by 2 percent and Senate Bill 30 raising salaries by 3 percent. 

Davis said every percent increase in faculty salaries costs the University $15 million annually, and the Commonwealth will increase funding to the University by $1-2 million to help pay for that increase. According to Davis, the most common way to stabilize the budgetary imbalance caused by raised salaries is through tuition raises. 

Beyond the increase in salary, Davis cited the minimum wage increase, inflation and Virginia Military Survivors & Dependents Education Program as increased costs to the University. VMSDEP is a program that gives education benefits to spouses and children of disabled veterans or military service members killed, missing in action or taken prisoner. Davis said that the program is “partially unfunded” and could cost the University somewhere between $3.6 to $6 million, depending on how many students qualify for the program.

Davis spoke on other contributing factors to the increase in tuition, specifically collective bargaining — which allows workers to bargain for better wages and working conditions.

Advertisement

“If we look at other institutions or other states that have collective bargaining, [collective bargaining] does put an upward pressure on tuition,” Davis said.

Prior to Thursday’s meeting, the Committee heard the proposal for tuition increases from Davis and Henry April 6 in a Finance Committee tuition workshop with public comment. During the tuition workshop, tuition increases ranged from 3 to 4.5 percent for the University and 2 to 3 percent for the College at Wise. Both increases approved Thursday are within the ranges originally proposed.

Meal plan costs, on average, will be increasing by 4.8 percent in the upcoming academic year. Davis said that the University has been expanding dining options with the opening of the Gaston House and new locations for the Ivy Corridor student housing that is still in progress. She also said that the University has been taking steps to increase the availability of allergen-friendly food options. 

Davis shared that the 5 percent cost increase in housing is due to the expansion of student housing in the Ivy Corridor. Davis also said that there will be 3,000 new units added to the Charlottesville housing market by 2027, of which 780 beds will be for University housing. Davis said that she hopes the Ivy Corridor housing would “free up” the city housing supply by having more students live on Grounds.

Board member Amanda Pillion said she was “concerned” about how tuition increases would harm rural families — she said the constant increases in cost could make a University education out of reach for middle-income Virginians. 

Advertisement

“This is the second governor I’ve served under. Both times I’ve heard affordability, affordability, affordability,” Pillion said. “We need to really be conscious of the fact that … there is a large group of people that [are middle-income] that these increases [in tuition and fees] are really tough for.”

The Committee also approved a renovation for The Park — an 18-acre recreational hub in North Grounds — which will cost $10 million. As part of the renovation, The Park will include a maintenance facility, storm water systems and a maintenance access route. Davis said the renovation will address safety and security issues for the 200 people that use The Park daily. According to Davis, the University will use $2 million of institutional funds and issue $8 million of debt to fund the renovation. 

The Finance Committee will reconvene during the regularly scheduled June Board meetings.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

A Protracted US–Iran War Could Strain Climate Finance From Wealthy Countries to Developing Nations – Inside Climate News

Published

on

A Protracted US–Iran War Could Strain Climate Finance From Wealthy Countries to Developing Nations – Inside Climate News

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The ongoing war in Iran is casting a long shadow over the climate finance commitments countries agreed to in 2024, experts warned, as surging oil prices and rising defense budgets put further pressure on the limited pot of money developing nations are counting on to stave off worsening impacts from a warming planet.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund’s annual spring meetings are underway in the capital this week, with a focus on a coordinated global response to a world economy under pressure from slower growth and rising debt, exacerbating global inequities. 

The U.S. war in Iran adds new supply-chain challenges. In a press briefing Tuesday, the IMF slashed its growth forecast to 3.1 percent for the year, down from 3.3 percent in January, with global inflation rising to 4.4 percent. 

“Our severe scenario assumes that energy supply disruptions extend into next year, with greater macro instability. Global growth falls to 2 percent this year and next, while inflation exceeds 6 percent,” said Pierre‑Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF’s director of research. 

The blunt assessment has caused a scramble to determine what financial support the institution can offer to member states. And it has raised fresh questions about climate-finance obligations, already under strain from donor-country budget cuts and the United States jettisoning global climate commitments under the second Trump administration. One of President Donald Trump’s first actions back in office last year was ordering the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

Advertisement

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, wealthier countries that promised climate finance have experienced widening fiscal deficits and rising debt, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found in its latest assessment. As a result, aid from donor countries has already declined sharply—dropping almost 25 percent in 2025 compared to 2024. Even before the Iran conflict began, that was projected to drop further this year. 

COP29, the global climate conference held in late 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan, set a commitment of $300 billion per year by 2035, with a broader goal of reaching $1.3 trillion annually from public and private sources. Called the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), the arrangement replaced the previous $100 billion-a-year commitment that wealthy nations had met belatedly in 2022, two years after the deadline. 

Developing nations widely criticized the $300 billion figure as grossly inadequate, given the scale of the climate crisis. These countries are among the least responsible for the pollution driving that crisis and among the hardest hit by its effects. 

The Iran war has triggered a new set of worries as top economists and experts weigh potential impact and likely mitigation strategies. 

“Even before the Iran conflict, reaching the NCQG target would have been difficult, particularly with the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. The war worsens the outlook,” said Gautam Jain, senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.

Advertisement
Plumes of smoke rise over the oil depot tanks hit by overnight attacks on March 8 in Tehran, Iran. Credit: Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images
Plumes of smoke rise over the oil depot tanks hit by overnight attacks on March 8 in Tehran, Iran. Credit: Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

He said sustained disruption of the Strait of Hormuz would exacerbate the problem and the effects would weigh on the global economy. As a result, aid budgets would decline and the political pushback to external spending would increase. 

The conflict is “pushing energy security to the forefront of government agendas,” Jain said. That will likely strengthen incentives to deploy more renewables and other forms of domestic clean energy, but the war’s economic convulsions could cut both ways for the energy transition.

“In low-income countries, the transition could be significantly delayed, given limited fiscal capacity to absorb sustained energy price shocks,” Jain said.

One of the main priorities for the World Bank during the meetings in Washington is to develop a new Climate Change Action Plan to replace the one expiring in June. “In the current geopolitical context, progress on this front looks quite unlikely,” Jain said.

Jon Sward, environment project manager at the Bretton Woods Project, which monitors World Bank and IMF policies, said countries that used to fund climate finance are now choosing to spend that money on other priorities.

This story is funded by readers like you.

Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.

Advertisement

Donate Now

The Gulf crisis exposed the fragility of a global economic system tethered to fossil fuel extraction and use, Sward noted. For countries dependent on fossil fuel imports, “this is yet another price shock, and quickly diversifying to renewables is certainly an option that many countries are looking at,” he said in an email.

He said that although multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF have begun to assess the conflict’s fallout, it is not yet clear what their response will be or how the World Bank’s climate finance would be affected.

“All of this points to the need for more serious discussions on pausing debt repayments for affected countries and the mobilisation of non-debt creating forms of finance, in order to address the multiple, overlapping shocks facing countries in the Global South, in particular,” he said in his email.

Advertisement

Experts said that rising security and defense expenditures were also cutting into an already limited pot of money badly needed by developing countries struggling to cope with climate challenges.   

“The system was already too fragile given that the U.S. leads all the major multilateral development banks … and has disavowed these targets,” said Kevin Gallagher, director of the Global Development Policy Center at Boston University. On top of that, he said, U.S. threats to abandon NATO’s European countries incentivizes them to prioritize  defense budgets over climate finance.

He said developing countries are already under pressure to cough up climate funding on their own. The current conflict could make that nearly impossible.  

“This year was supposed to be putting together a roadmap to take the $300 billion annual target to the agreed upon $1.3 trillion. This is likely to be abandoned unless new donors such as [the] UAE, China and others step in to fill the gap left from the West,” Gallagher said in an email. 

The crisis in the Persian Gulf makes the loudest case for renewables, he said. “The energy security argument from this conflict is to diversify from fossil fuels. The Dutch took that cue after the Middle East oil shock of the 1970s to build the world’s best wind turbines, and China did after Middle East conflicts in this century. Fossil fuels are now a bad bet on security, economic and climate grounds. The writing is on the wall.”

Advertisement

Gallagher said the World Bank should accelerate solar and wind technology programs across the world. “If the Fund and the Bank don’t rise to this occasion,” he said, “not only is the global economy and climate at stake, but so is the legitimacy of these institutions.” 

Gaia Larsen, a climate finance expert at the World Resources Institute, said it’s too early to know whether stronger interest in energy independence through renewables is translating into shifts in investment. But “if we’re trying to think about long-term peace and long-term access to energy, then renewables are really increasing in prominence,” she said.

About This Story

Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.

That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.

Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.

Advertisement

Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?

Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.

Thank you,

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending