News Feeds

After years of letting its methane regulation fall further and further behind modern best practices, the Alberta government appeared to have a breakthrough in late March.But slightly later in March, we had to push the corks back into the champagne...

Wetlands, forests, peatlands, and mangrove swamps support native biodiversity and sock away large amounts of carbon. They also bog down invading armies, history shows.

These are the facts behind a new national security strategy concept that researchers from the University of East London call “defensive rewilding.” The idea is that large-scale ecosystem restoration can help protect a country’s borders – deterring invasions, slowing enemy advances, and funneling adversaries into more easily defended corridors.

Climate action and national defense are often cast as competitors for the same limited pot of government funds. But in fact, ecosystem restoration can contribute to both aims, the researchers say.

Take peatlands, for example: they’re unparalleled at storing carbon. And absolutely terrible at holding up heavy-duty military vehicles.

Or dense, mixed-species natural forests: great for biodiversity, and also for hiding defenders from surveillance drones and loitering munitions.

Natural rivers with restored floodplains provide flood control and support aquatic life and fisheries. As a bonus, their banks are too soft and their channels too wide for military tactical bridges.

The Pripyat marshes along the present-day Ukraine-Belarus border were a major barrier to German advances during Operation Barbarossa in 1941. Also during World War II, coral reefs and mangrove ecosystems frustrated amphibious invasions throughout the Pacific theater. More recently, Ukraine’s flooding of the Irpin River floodplain in 2022 was a major factor in stopping the Russian advance on Kyiv.

The latter example did not involve established wetlands, but still illustrates the concept, the researchers say. They define defensive rewilding as “the intentional, pre- or mid-conflict enhancement and restoration of ecosystems to create militarily advantageous terrain, while concurrently delivering significant environmental benefits.”

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:Instead of Trump’s Wall, Let’s Build a Border of Solar Panels

 

Defensive rewilding is not restoration as part of post-conflict nation-building, and it’s not mid-conflict environmental destruction for military advantage (known as WarWilding, like Saddam Hussein’s draining of the Mesopotamian marshes).

Rewilded ecosystems can function as a form of “deterrence by denial” – the enemy takes a look at how an invasion is likely to go, and decides to pass. Another plus is that it is “inherently defensive,” the researchers say: there’s no mistaking wetland restoration for saber-rattling, so rewilding can improve a country’s strategic situation without risking touching off a regional arms race.

Ecosystem restoration is often cheaper than constructing conventional defensive fortifications like anti-tank ditches – and rewilded ecosystems last longer and require little maintenance to boot. However, the researchers note, the ecosystem restoration has to be large-scale to really pose a deterrent.

Rewilding isn’t a national defense strategy on its own. It still takes good intelligence and solid strategy to prevent and repel invasions, and modern military technology means that natural obstacles will sometimes only slow enemy advances rather than stopping them entirely. The same wild landscapes that bog down invaders can frustrate counteroffensives, and ecosystems can be damaged in the crossfire.

Still, defensive rewilding represents a novel way of thinking and a potential win-win approach, the researchers argue. “From a fiscal perspective, this represents a shift from ‘spending’ on defense to ‘investing’ in resilience,” they write.

Source: Jelliman S. et al. “Defensive Rewilding: a Nature-Based Solution for National Security.” The RUSI Journal 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

President Donald Trump and his sons have approximately $1 billion tied to crypto venture World Liberty Financial, which was founded by the Trumps, alongside Steve Witkoff, now Trump's special envoy for peace. A new report by Public Citizen details how the venture hinges on Binance, the world's largest crypto exchange, which pleaded guilty in 2023 to sanctions and money laundering violations tied largely to Iran—the country Trump has taken the United States to war with. The Trump administration has simultaneously dismantled the enforcement tools that would hold crypto outfits like Binance accountable—pardoning its founder, dismissing an SEC lawsuit against the company, and issuing a directive to stop prosecuting crypto platforms.

The report, “Conflict Coin: How the Trumps’ Billion-Dollar Crypto Stake Depends on a Company That Helped Iran Evade Sanctions”, reveals how Trump has leveraged investments in cryptocurrency to enrich himself and officials in his administration, specifically through working with Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange, to conduct deals. Binance has hosted accounts used by at least eight entities and individuals that the Treasury Department has sanctioned for supporting terrorism or terrorist-designated groups linked to Iran, some of whom were sanctioned or prosecuted by Trump's own administration, according to court filings. In 2023, Binance reached settlements with the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department, pleading guilty to anti-money laundering, unlicensed money transmitting and sanctions violations, with the U.S. government saying the exchange failed “to implement programs to prevent and report suspicious transactions with terrorists.”

The report states, “The Trump family's entanglement with Binance exposes a dangerous contradiction at the heart of U.S. foreign policy: The same exchange that built the infrastructure for and holds the vast majority of Trump's USD1 stablecoin has facilitated billions of dollars in transactions for Iran and designated terrorist organizations. The opacity that defines crypto isn't a bug. It's the feature that makes it useful to both speculators and sanctioned regimes, and the president of the United States is profiting from it.”

“Binance is the world's largest crypto exchange. It pleaded guilty in 2023 to sanctions and money laundering violations, and paid $4.3 billion in penalties to the United States, one of the largest corporate penalties ever. Its CEO and founder, CZ, pleaded guilty to failing to maintain effective anti-money laundering programs, and served four months in prison,” said Zach Everson, Research Director for Public Citizen’s Trump Accountability Project. “Now, this happened in 2023, about a year before World Liberty Financial launched. But the Trumps made the decision to go into business with these guys anyway, which is just flagrantly corrupt. Recent media reports suggest that Binance has continued to support Iranian interests. And yet rather than pull back, the Trumps’ company has been strengthening its relationship.”

Government ministers and officials from close to 60 countries are on the ground in the Colombian coal-port city of Santa Marta for high-level discussions at the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels.

Speaking at the opening plenary, Selwin Hart, special adviser to the UN Secretary-General on climate action and just transition, said that three out of every four people on the planet live in countries that are net importers of fossil fuels, exposing them to “shocks they did not create and cannot control”.

Against the backdrop of the Iran war, which has caused oil prices to spike, he said the urgency of transitioning away from fossil fuels “is no longer only a climate or environmental imperative. It is a security imperative, an economic imperative and a development imperative.”

Delaying the transition will only make it “more disorderly, disruptive and costly, Hart warned, adding that so far the shift to renewables has been highly concentrated in rich economies and China – “leaving most of the developing world behind”.

Comment: Santa Marta marks a new chapter in climate diplomacy

Meanwhile, a group of 18 nations – mostly made up of small island states and the host country Colombia – called on the Santa Marta summit to recognise the “urgent need to negotiate a new international instrument” for leaving coal, oil and gas beneath the ground. 

They are pushing for the conference to back a formal negotiation process for a binding “Fossil Fuel Treaty” and make progress on new mechanisms for international cooperation and finance including an importers-exporters club, a global just transition fund and a debt resolution facility. 

Teresa Anderson, global lead on climate justice for ActionAid International, said UN climate talks remain essential to ensure all countries act together to tackle global warming. But, she added, “a new Treaty can act as a parallel and complementary space for those that want to move faster in key areas such as phasing out fossil fuels, just transitions and debt justice, without first having to get sign-off from all nations”. 

Partner content: To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”

Aside from a summary report and a statement from the co-chairs, the expected outcomes from Santa Marta’s high-level debates remain unclear. While this is a source of anxiety for some delegates, others say it’s a breath of fresh air compared with the rigid format of COPs.  

Here are highlights from the high-level segment of the conference on April 28:

Host nations seek to revive flagging multilateralism

As right-wing demonstrators outside the conference venue chanted in Spanish that “fossil fuels are a god-given resource”, hosts Colombia and the Netherlands kicked off the first international dialogue of countries on reducing their dependence on coal, oil and gas. 

Both countries reiterated that the conference is meant to drive forward discussions where UN talks like COPs have fallen short.

Delegates had to endure long queues under the sun to enter the five-star resort hosting the high-level segment, as security was tightened in preparation for Colombian President Gustavo Petro this afternoon.

The country’s environment minister Irene Vélez Torres opened the talks in a packed room, expressing her frustration with “fossil colonialism” and the failure of the last few COPs to debate pathways away from fossil fuels. 

“Beyond frustrations, we’re summoned today to overcome the crisis of multilateralism,” she said, adding that Santa Marta seeks to become a “deeper, more democratic and more effective” alternative. “We need a multilateralism without de facto vetoes.”

At last year’s COP30 in Belém, a group of 80 countries called for the design of a global roadmap to phase out coal, oil and gas, but it was blocked by large oil producers and consumers like Saudi Arabia, Russia, India and China.

Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven noted that the energy transition will not be easy, as fossil fuel systems are “hard to disentangle” from economies. She urged countries to have an “open dialogue” and said the conference is about “strengthening multilateralism”.

Some governments also expressed the need to reinforce the UN climate negotiations, with EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra saying “the COP process is unfortunately not always delivering what it should”, as he urged countries to “make the most” of Santa Marta. Vanuatu’s climate minister Ralph Regenvanu said commitments made here must bolster talks at COP.

Fossil fuel producers want flexibility, Indigenous peoples reject business as usual 

The plenary in Santa Marta adopted a different style for its high-level dialogue compared to the UN process, as government interventions were interspersed with speakers representing social groups, from women to the private sector, who had prepared their contributions at meetings over the past three days. 

The result was a mix of views, with some large oil and gas-producing nations urging caution over how ditching fossil fuels could affect their economic development, while civil society groups piled on the pressure to decarbonise fast.

Türkiye – a large coal producer and consumer that will host COP31- said progress on a just transition “will benefit from an approach that takes into account different national circumstances, capacities and development priorities”, hinting at the need for flexibility for emerging economies.

While this year’s COP president, Murat Kurum, has said that relying on fossil fuels could lead to energy insecurity and “climate collapse”, his country drew criticism for publishing an action agenda for COP31 that does not mention fossil fuels.

Türkiye sets COP31 dates and appoints Australian cattle farmer as youth champion

Oil-rich Nigeria went even further, with the country’s regional development minister, Momoh Abubakar, emphasising he would host an event on a “phase down” of fossil fuels in Santa Marta. “It is ‘phase down’, not ‘phase out’ that is giving room for transition and diversification to drive sustainable development,” he said.

Norway – which supplies Europe with much of its oil and gas – said the country is “strongly committed” to the “era of renewables”. “This needs to be happening in close coordination between all producers and consumers,” said the country’s climate minister Astrid Hoem, as global energy markets are highly interconnected.

Meanwhile, Indigenous peoples and other groups called out what they judge to be a government-led process, winning loud applause for their interventions. The Indigenous delegate said they don’t want to see “another form of colonialism cloaked as a just transition”.

“We will not stand by as our kin, our lands, our waters and our non-human relatives suffer to maintain the status quo,” she said. “This structure will not be where we found our salvation and liberation.” 

Some social groups called for specific measures to be included in the conference’s main output, which Colombia has said will be a summary report. Academics called for action on methane while the private sector recommended the removal of fossil fuel subsidies that keep oil and gas prices “artificially low”. NGOs said they want Santa Marta to recognise the need for a “Fossil Fuel Treaty” to ban new extraction.

France’s climate envoy pictured during the High-level Segment of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia on April 28, 2026 (Photo: Colombia Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development) France’s climate envoy pictured during the High-level Segment of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia on April 28, 2026 (Photo: Colombia Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development) France delivers first fossil fuel transition roadmap

France came to Santa Marta bearing a gift that was delivered to the podium: its new national roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels. 

Benoît Faraco, the country’s climate envoy, said France was “very proud” to be one of the first countries to publish a domestic roadmap, and encouraged others to follow suit. Both Colombia and Brazil are working on draft roadmaps but have yet to finalise them.

Cat Abreu, director of the International Climate Politics Hub said it was “a big moment to have the world’s first national roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels”. She added that the plan “rationalises France’s existing energy policies and targets into a clear direction of travel to phase out fossil fuels and it sends a strong signal to other countries that they can do the same”. 

The document, which amalgamates different energy and decarbonisation plans, confirms targets France had previously set for ending the consumption of each fossil fuel: coal by 2030, oil by 2045 and fossil gas by 2050.

To get there, France aims to close its last two coal-fired power plants by 2027, carry out large-scale electrification of transport, develop alternative heating methods such as heat pumps and improve energy efficiency through building renovation, the roadmap says. France already decided a decade ago to end fossil fuel exploration and exploitation on its territory by 2040.

Faraco said France is focused on electrification and clean electricity because they provide value to local communities, will shape the future of industry, and “bring solutions when fossil fuel brings problems”.

France’s electricity mix is already 90% low carbon, he said, thanks to nuclear and renewables, and it generates revenues for the national budget by exporting green power. 

France, he added, will help African nations to unleash wind power, and provide support to other countries on the frontline of the current energy crisis.   

Colombian president Gustavo Petro at the stage of the first conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels in Santa Marta. (Photo: Colombia’s Ministry of Environment) Colombian president questions whether capitalism can really go green 

Preceded by an Indigenous ceremony, Colombia’s leftist president, Gustavo Petro, stopped by the conference plenary on Tuesday afternoon to warn about the consequences of continuing with the expansion of fossil fuels. 

“One question that needs to be asked is whether capitalism can truly adapt to a non-fossil fuel energy system?” he said. “Today I’m sceptical.”

Petro also criticised last year’s COP30 for failing to formally adopt a process for a global roadmap away from fossil fuels, despite scientific warnings of the need to halt all new coal, oil and gas. Colombia was one of the strongest backers of the initiative.

The country is heading into an election in late May, where Petro’s designated successor Iván Cepeda is leading in the polls against far-right candidate Abelardo de la Espriella. 

After a relatively brief speech that secured a standing ovation from the audience, the Colombian president quickly exited, escorted by his security team.

The post Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out appeared first on Climate Home News.

Sometimes, years after the seeds are planted you see the results. That was certainly the case with an action that a group of Stay Grounded supporters took part in three years ago against Europe’s largest airshow. Last week they saw a huge win. Here, Sean Currie, explains what we’re celebrating. Three years ago, a group of supporters of Stay Grounded went to Geneva with a plan.

Source

Energy affordability has become a dominant concern across the country. After over a decade of household electricity bills growing with or slower than inflation, average residential electricity bills have outpaced inflation in 41 states over the past two years.[1] These rising costs increasingly strain household budgets, driving ongoing efforts to improve energy affordability around the country. And these energy affordability dynamics extend beyond households, to businesses of all sizes.

Governors are in a unique position to promote energy affordability because of their role at the intersection of state decision makers and their ability to affect change through a variety of tools like executive orders, legislative agendas, and regulatory directives. And they’ve been leveraging this unique position. Over the past three years, governors in 37 states have taken action on energy affordability. In the second half of 2025 alone, governors in 26 different states took an affordability-related action.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

We compiled data on governor-led actions between January 2023 and January 2026 and analyzed them across several dimensions to understand how governors are choosing to address this complex issue and to identify examples that others might replicate. While this article is primarily focused on efforts to promote residential affordability, many policy solutions can have impacts that extend to commercial and industrial customers. As states continue to wrestle with this challenge, we find that governors taking effective actions are using two approaches that respond to the gravity of this moment and address longstanding, systemic affordability issues:

1. Deliver holistic reforms: Governors are enacting a suite of policies that together safeguard vulnerable households, control the growth in system costs, distribute costs appropriately to different customers (including between residential, commercial, and industrial customers), and give all customers more control over their bills.
2. Balance the timing of impact: These actions are providing both near-term relief to ensure customers realize benefits quickly and long-term system reforms while considering how long the impacts of different policies are likely to persist.

Looking ahead, governors can drive holistic affordability packages through a coordinated set of actions that safeguard vulnerable households, control system costs, distribute costs efficiently, and improve customer agency, delivering on both near-term relief and long-term system reforms. Below, we draw on our research to share key insights and recommendations for how governors can effectively work with other state decision makers to improve energy affordability through this framework.

Governors sit at the intersection of key decision makers

Governors can play an important role in promoting energy affordability through executive action, legislative proposals, regulatory directives, and convening industry and state leaders. Critically, governors can work with a variety of other actors, or they can act independently to promote energy affordability. Because of their unique position relative to other decision makers, governors can affect a diverse set of actions — from standing up state energy efficiency programs to coordinating with wholesale market operators — to address energy costs. The table below shows how different actors can influence energy affordability and provides real-world examples of governors effectively working with each actor.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

States need holistic reforms to address their affordability challenges

Energy affordability is a complex problem, so we need holistic solutions. A diverse set of factors like aging infrastructure, electricity load growth, and extreme weather are driving energy costs, and there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to address these challenges. Fortunately, policymakers have many tools at their disposal to promote energy affordability, but it’s critical to deploy them in an effective way. In our Electricity Affordability Toolkit, we identify affordability policies across four key focus areas: safeguards for vulnerable customers, cost control, cost distribution, and customer agency.

• Safeguards ensure that households facing the most severe forms of energy insecurity have access to energy and can afford their bills. Safeguards can be embedded into cost control, cost distribution, or customer agency policies by targeting vulnerable communities in policy design. State example: In Maryland, Governor Moore issued an executive order creating the Maryland Energy Advisory Council and directing them to identify recommendations to strengthen the state’s energy assistance programs. The Council will identify potential changes to these programs to improve affordability, bill stability, and energy access for vulnerable households.
• Cost control policies manage the overall size of the pie. They help ensure that utilities prioritize efficient investments and deliver energy in a cost-effective manner. State example: In New York, Governor Hochul’s Ratepayer Protection Plan includes a suite of cost control policies like modernizing rate case procedures to allow regulators to better evaluate rate utility proposals, requiring utilities to submit budget-constrained proposals in rate cases, and investigating utility bills to ensure prudent utility spending.
• Cost distribution policies help distribute costs to different groups (e.g., customer classes, income groups, utilities, private industry, etc.) in a way that promotes affordability for all. State example: In Alaska, Governor Dunleavy championed legislation to create the Alaska Energy Independence Fund, a green bank intended to leverage public financing to support sustainable energy investments and energy upgrades for households and businesses.
• Customer agency policies improve customers’ ability to control and manage their energy bills. State example: In Colorado, Governor Polis launched the Colorado Energy Savings Navigator, an easy-to-use online platform for households to identify their eligibility for over 18 energy assistance programs and 600 utility, state, and federal incentives for energy tech upgrades.

We identified the primary focus area of each governor-led action in our research, and you can see the results in the chart below. Across the country, we found that governors addressed each of these types of policies, but cost control policies are the most popular. Governors in 33 states took cost control actions while only 16 governors enacted policies promoting customer agency. One reason for the popularity of cost control actions is that they target the perverse incentives created by the traditional utility regulatory structure, which create high spending and contribute to growing costs for everyone.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

However, it’s critical for governors to advance balanced packages that address each of these focus areas and provide holistic relief. For example, focusing on cost control actions can manage upstream spending but does little to improve energy affordability for vulnerable populations or give households and businesses more options for managing their energy bills and vice versa. We found that most governors prioritized actions in at least two areas, but governors in 14 of 37 states only acted in a single area. Governors in 9 states targeted every category to deliver holistic relief. For example, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill’s executive orders include each category:

• Safeguards – directs the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) to identify opportunities to increase investment in low-income energy efficiency programs.
• Cost control – directs the BPU to complete a study on modernizing the utility business model through tools like performance-based regulation, multi-year rate plans, and review of supplemental transmission projects.
• Cost distribution – directs the BPU to review components of the societal benefits charge on ratepayer bills without compromising funding for energy assistance programs.
• Customer agency – directs the BPU to create a virtual power plant program administered by electric distribution utilities.

Give customers near-term relief and champion long-term system reforms

In addition to prioritizing holistic actions, states are balancing the need to provide near-term relief and address long-term system challenges. Governors face a tough but achievable task. It’s not possible to solve the problems driving energy costs overnight, but households are feeling the crunch right now.

As mentioned above, electricity bills are growing quickly in many states, and even before recent growth, one in three households reported sacrificing necessities like food or medicine just to pay their energy bills. As a result, governors are tasked with providing the near-term relief needed by so many while also promoting the reforms necessary to provide long-term affordability. As governors wrestle with this challenge and design affordability packages, they can consider the timing and persistence of relief provided by different affordability policies.

Near-term policies like bill rebates, energy efficiency programs, and disconnection protections can be implemented within 1–2 years (or even quicker, if expanding adoption of an existing program or rate) and start benefitting customers. Long-term policies like utility regulation and rate reform (e.g., performance-based regulation, fuel cost sharing, etc.) and siting and permitting reform can take a few years (or longer) to implement and deliver savings to all ratepayers. The chart below shows the most common governor-led affordability policies we found in our research by impact time horizon.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

Overall, we found that governors balanced near- and long-term actions, as long-term actions account for about 65% of all actions while near-term actions account for 35%. Governors focusing on near-term actions often did so by bolstering discount rates or energy assistance programs and issuing one-time bill credits. Common long-term actions included those focused on reforming utility business models, deploying new energy resources, and improved transmission planning. Some notable examples of governors balancing near- and long-term priorities include:

• In Connecticut, Governor Lamont played a key role in passing legislation that includes a suite of energy affordability provisions. Near-term policies include public financing of energy assistance programs and a requirement for utilities to consider grid-enhancing technologies when evaluating transmission projects, among others. Long-term reforms include leveraging ratepayer-backed securitization for recovery of storm-related costs. The legislation is estimated to immediately save households approximately $100 per year off their electricity bills and deliver even greater savings to business customers while paving the way for long-term cost reductions.
• In Virginia, Governor Spanberger’s Affordable Virginia Agenda includes six bills to provide near- and long-term energy affordability. Near-term policies include expanding low-income energy efficiency programs and enabling balcony solar. Long-term reforms include optimizing grid planning and expanding energy storage capacity to reduce the need for costly generation during periods of peak demand.

In addition to pursuing both near- and long-term actions, it is important for governors to consider how the affordability benefits of actions persist over time. Affordability policies will have different impact time horizons, and their benefits will also vary in size and persistence based on policy design. For example, some near-term actions may only provide temporary relief while other actions can be implemented quickly and provide more sustained relief. Here are a few examples of different policies and how their affordability benefits can vary over time:

• Bill rebates can be implemented in the near term and be structured to provide one-time relief or more persistent relief if tied to a recurring revenue source like a cap-and-invest program.
• Ratepayer public advocates can be stood up in the near-term and provide long-lasting affordability benefits through intervention in rate cases and other regulatory proceedings.
• Virtual power plants can be implemented in the near- to medium-term and their benefits can grow over time as they become more advanced and are integrated into distribution system planning.
• Utility business model reforms like performance-based regulation will take years to implement and start delivering savings to ratepayers, but they provide highly persistent benefits by shaping utility spending for years to come.

Governors can apply these concepts as they seek to balance the dual objectives of providing immediate relief to households and businesses while also delivering long-term system reforms. It is critical to address near- and long-term affordability challenges, but the exact mix of near- and long-term policies will vary based on a state’s specific needs. For example, states with surging bills might initially prioritize providing immediate relief through bill rebates and safeguards like disconnection protections and low-income discount rates. States facing high load growth in the next 10 years might initially focus more on long-term policies like siting and permitting reform and ratepayer protections from large loads.

Governors have the tools they need to promote holistic, long-term energy affordability

Energy bills are rising quickly across the country while the energy system is strained by factors like high natural gas prices, extreme weather, and load growth. Fortunately, governors have many tools at their disposal to promote energy affordability, and they can have an outsized impact due to their unique position relative to legislatures, state agencies, utility regulators, and grid operators. Looking ahead, governors can promote near- and long-term affordability through a coordinated set of actions to safeguard vulnerable customers, control system costs, distribute costs efficiently, and improve customer agency.

[1] Based on state average electricity bills in July of each year calculated from Form EIA-861M data. Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The post The Governor Affordability Agenda appeared first on RMI.

Kim Booker never thought much about lead during her roughly 27 years living in Trenton, New Jersey. Born and raised in the once-industrial powerhouse, she first heard about the heavy metal at community meetings organized by the East Trenton Collaborative, a local nonprofit that works on environmental health and safety issues. There, she learned that the prevalence of lead-laden pipes and paint, a legacy of the city’s industrial past, could have contaminated the drinking water in her home and the soil around her property. 

She knew that her three-bedroom home was old, making it likely it had lead pipes. Booker noticed the paint on the walls chipping off. And she realized, too, that her late grandmother and sister were both diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, which researchers have tied to lead exposure. She wanted to know if she was being poisoned by the lead in her environment. 

With few free, comprehensive testing resources available to her, Booker turned to Shereyl Snider, one of the leaders of the collaborative, who in turn connected her with Sean Stratton, a doctoral student in public health at Rutgers University in late 2023. At the time, he was taking samples of lead to get a clear picture of how lead had contaminated Trenton homes for his dissertation work. Once Booker agreed, Stratton was soon at her home, testing for lead in her paint, yard, and water.  

Stratton visits Amber DeLoney-Stewart’s home in October to provide a full inspection with Shereyl Snider, a community member with East Trenton Collaborative. Anna Mattson

When the results came back, Booker learned that her home was — as she’d suspected — contaminated with lead and that she had low but detectable levels of lead in her bloodstream. Stratton’s testing revealed that lead levels in her yard were more than 450 parts per million, above the Environmental Protection Agency’s hazard level. If not for Stratton, she would not have known. 

“The city shouldn’t rely on a student to do this work,” Stratton said.

Comprehensive lead testing of the kind that Stratton provided costs upwards of $1,000. Over the past two years, Stratton has tested the soil, water, or paint in more than 140 Trenton homes and has been assembling the clearest, most cohesive picture yet of a crisis that permeates the state. Last July, the EPA added the entire neighborhood of East Trenton to the Superfund National Priorities List after testing found widespread soil contamination in residential yards, schools, and parks. Despite the designation, there has been no comprehensive door-to-door testing effort, leaving residents like Booker to rely on Stratton.

But Stratton’s project is coming to a close. He defended his dissertation in February and will graduate in May, leaving uncertain who — if anyone — will continue the work. Community groups like East Trenton Collaborative worry the neighborhood could lose its only accessible source of household testing.

“We don’t want to stop working together,” Snider said. “I don’t see it ending, but I don’t know how we can continue unless we have big supporters to help support our future endeavors together.”

Stay safe from lead exposure

There is no safe level of lead exposure. Children under 6 and pregnant people are particularly vulnerable to health risks.

You’re more likely to have a lead service line providing your water if your home was built before 1986, when lead pipes were banned nationwide.

Filtering your water can greatly reduce your risk of exposure through tap water. Look for the NSF/ANSI Standard 53 mark, which means a filter meets EPA standards. Boiling water does not remove lead.
Run water for several minutes — at least 5, if not longer — before using for cooking or drinking.

Other common sources of lead exposure include paint in older homes and playgrounds, which can be ingested as chips or dust, and soil contaminated by industrial pollution or leaded gas exhaust (lead can linger in soils for hundreds of years).

Look for your city or state’s resources for testing water, household, and soil contamination, as well as blood testing to assess exposure. Some cities offer clean soil for covering lead-contaminated dirt, free filters if testing reveals lead in water, or even service line replacement.

Source: Lead pipes are everywhere. Here’s how to protect yourself. (Grist)

1 of 1

New Jersey has some of the highest legacy lead burdens in the country. The state has an estimated 350,000 lead service lines — placing it among the top 10 states, behind Illinois and Texas. It has received more than $100 million in federal funds for lead pipe replacements, but it doesn’t address legacy soil contamination, interior lead paint, or proactive household-level screening.

Despite the patchwork of testing options available — blood lead screening through the health department, water sampling through Trenton Water Works, and occasional environmental assessments from state or federal agencies — Stratton said the system rarely functions as a coherent whole. 

The state health department conducts home paint surface inspections, but only after a child has been poisoned, which is often first detected by mandatory lead testing. In New Jersey, children are required to test for lead at 1 and 2 years of age. Testing is free from local health departments for kids who are underinsured or uninsured. But older children and adults have to pay their own way.

Trenton Water Works provides lead water test kits for homes built before 1986, but residents must coordinate testing with a private lab and pay for the cost of the analysis, which can run from $20 to $100. No agency reliably tests for lead in soil unless the EPA steps in to investigate. 

Each test only addresses a narrow slice of the problem, leaving families with fragmented or incomplete information. Results can take weeks to arrive, if they arrive at all. One resident, Amber DeLoney-Stewart, said she never received her home inspection results from the city, even after blood tests revealed her child was lead-burdened. 

Stratton takes his vials of samples back to his lab at Rutgers University for processing. Anna Mattson

Without coordination, door-to-door outreach, or a mandate for proactive household-level screening, the burden falls on residents to navigate a maze of programs — and too often, Stratton said, people who need the information most don’t receive it. 

“It just doesn’t ever seem to be enough,” Stratton said. “It’s very siloed.”

Stratton’s work reflects a broader pattern in environmental health research across the United States. In some communities concerned about pollution, residents turn to university researchers for help testing soil or water when government monitoring is limited. In Atlanta, for example, a soil-testing project launched by a graduate student at Emory University and community partners uncovered elevated lead levels in residential yards, prompting a federal investigation. And last year, the University of California, Los Angeles, offered free soil testing to residents affected by wildfires. Efforts like these often depend on temporary research projects, meaning they can end when students graduate or grant funding runs out. 

Read Next Ghosts of Polluters Past Yvette Cabrera

Stratton’s research in East Trenton has been supported by two grants — one from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and another directly from the federal government. As the Trump administration cuts billions of dollars of grant money, Rutgers’ Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute saw some grants rescinded entirely. Other projects remain in limbo. But Stratton’s grants somehow made the cut, even with “environmental justice” in their titles. Brian Buckley, the institute’s executive director, said further budget cuts mean far fewer opportunities to continue future research.

“We’ve been playing dodge the bullet,” he said. 

Stratton didn’t originally set out to investigate lead contamination. After graduating from Rutgers University with a bachelor’s degree in environmental science in 2015, he worked in environmental consulting in New Jersey, sampling soil, air, and water and designing remediation strategies for contaminated sites. Around that time, Flint, Michigan, switched its water supply from Detroit to the Flint River, and triggered a public health crisis when corrosive water from the river caused pipes to leach lead, exposing more than 140,000 people to dangerous levels of the metal.

A friend who was concerned about the events asked Stratton to sample water at his New Jersey home and send it to a lab to test for lead. The results came back extremely high: more than 78 parts per billion of lead — more than five times the EPA’s action level. 

Confused, Stratton began digging through public records, water reports, and federal regulations. He noticed that his own town of East Brunswick was not testing the correct location type. Federal rules require that cities test homes that are most likely to have lead service lines, but Stratton said the agency was largely testing homes less likely to have them. Alarmed at the discrepancy, he began filing public records requests with water utilities across the state to see whether similar gaps existed elsewhere. 

“I started arguing with the DEP,” Stratton said, referencing the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. “And then I decided I needed to go back to school, because I felt like I needed to get more credibility.” 

A spokesperson for the state agency said in a statement that East Brunswick’s lead testing plan follows federal rules that require water systems to prioritize homes most likely to have lead service lines. It added that when there are not enough of these higher-risk homes available or willing to participate, utilities can test lower-risk homes to meet the required sample sizes. 

Spurred by what he’d learned about the prevalence of lead contamination, Stratton ran for State Assembly as the Green Party candidate for East Brunswick in 2017. His candidate profile says that he will “continue to fight to ensure that our water is suitable to drink.” Stratton lost the race, but he returned to Rutgers three years later to earn a master’s degree in public health and then continued into a doctoral program.

Stratton has sampled more than 100 New Jersey homes for traces of lead in pipes, soil, and paint. Anna Mattson

Stratton’s doctoral project had three main objectives: verify whether Trenton residents are exposed to lead, determine where the exposure was coming from, and uncover how residents can reduce exposure. In his testing, Stratton used an X-ray fluorescence gun to scan every wall in a willing volunteer’s home to see how much lead was in the paint. He dropped off water vials for residents to fill in the morning from the kitchen sink — first thing in the morning, before using any water. Out in the yard, he took a small vial and filled it with soil.

Then he packed up his bag, put it all in the trunk of his car, and made the drive back to the cluttered Rutgers lab, where he would run tests. Afterward, Stratton provided residents with full results, information on what to do next, medical information about where to get blood lead checked, and his phone number, along with his supervisor’s at Rutgers, to call if they had questions. 

In late February this year, Stratton presented his findings to a team of Rutgers professors during his official dissertation defense. His findings were stark. Most homes he tested had lead, whether it be in the dust, paint, or pipes. All homes measured for floor dust had detectable levels of lead, with 86 percent of them exceeding the EPA’s action level. 

He also found that homes without lead-based paint in Trenton are still at risk of elevated levels because of the legacy lead dust outside. That outside dust in Trenton comes from a myriad of sources, including gasoline, atmospheric aerosols, and coal and soil contamination from its history of lead-based ceramics manufacturing.

He also found that running the tap for five minutes before using the water — a common recommendation from public health experts — was still not an adequate amount of time to flush traces of lead. He suggested, in his results, that lead safety guidelines should expand to include reduction strategies, like using a water filter. 

A week later, he welcomed more than 30 people into a Rutgers classroom for a presentation of his findings. He wanted collaborators and community members to celebrate with him. As gifts, he handed out little square 3D printed urban maps of East Trenton, with streets and raised buildings, to those he’d worked with over the years. Among those in attendance were partners who helped connect Stratton with residents, including Snider of East Trenton Collaborative and Anthony Diaz of the Newark Water Coalition. 

In early March, more than 30 friends, family, and colleagues gathered in a Rutgers conference room to celebrate Stratton’s work on lead contamination in New Jersey. Anna Mattson

The EPA’s decision this summer to list East Trenton as a Superfund site means a cleanup is coming — but slowly, and only for the soil, not the pipes or the paint. The designation triggers more sampling, long-term soil removal plans, and years of federal oversight. Still, none of that has started yet. A remediation plan hasn’t been developed. And in a state dotted with Superfund sites that have languished for decades, residents know what a long wait can look like. 

For now, Stratton’s research has offered immediate answers for concerned residents. Since learning about the lead in her home, Booker has tried to reduce her exposure. 

“I use a vacuum to clean my floors and carpets instead of stirring up dirt and dust particles by sweeping,” Booker said. “When my nieces come over and want to run around in the yard, I make sure they remove their shoes when they come inside and wash their hands.”

She said Snider, Stratton, and the East Trenton Collaborative have sounded the alarm on the lead issue in Trenton. Now, she hopes that the community will continue to fight so that the city can be a place where children and families can be healthy and thrive.

“Knowledge is only powerful and beneficial if its effects change,” Booker said. “We can know there is a problem, but without action, the problem simply remains.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline He’s the only lead tester in this contaminated neighborhood. He graduates next month. on Apr 28, 2026.

Professor Elisa Morgera is the UN Special Rapporteur on Climate Change and Human Rights.

In the global fight against catastrophic, human-induced climate change, diplomacy plays a vital role.

Historic initiatives like the Paris Agreement and the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage were the consequence of tireless, coordinated international efforts of states, civil society and scientists. The role of COP, and other summits like it, remains key. However, they are coming under increasing pressure.

Last year the climate COP30 was unable to take a decision on fossil fuels, despite calls from over 80 states, as well as children and youth, medical professionals, Indigenous peoples and climate justice movements. A landmark deal to cut global shipping emissions was put on ice and global talks to develop a much-needed treaty to end plastic pollution were stalled by a few states who wish to avoid even mentioning fossil fuels in international negotiations.

• Apr 23, 2026 News Sixty countries head to Santa Marta to cement coalition for fossil fuel transition After last year’s COP30 disappointment, governments will seek a renewed push to phase out fossil fuels at the first global summit on the theme in Colombia Read more
• Apr 23, 2026 Energy Prospects for global green shipping deal boosted by US tariff ruling, analysts say While divisions remain over the international shipping’s Net Zero Framework, the US’s main threat may now have been partly neutered Read more

In these instances, the process of building consensus was hijacked by actors whose priorities lie in the continued exploration and production of fossil fuels, magnifying the views of a handful of powerful states at the expense of all others.

In recent months, illegal aggressions in Venezuela and Iran, armed conflicts, political turbulence and economic instability have conspired to make international cooperation harder. At the same time, the impact our reliance on fossil fuels and petrochemical fertilisers has on the cost of living, energy and food insecurity has been laid bare.

Against this backdrop, a new idea was born at COP30: the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, which the Colombian government is co-hosting with the Netherlands in Santa Marta this week.

Inclusion and implementation

It represents the possibility of a new kind of multilateral forum: one that foregrounds the voices of those most impacted by the climate crisis and is relentlessly focused on implementation. It is only open to states that wish to make progress and discuss how – not if – to move away from fossil fuel dependency. And it is set to draw on the insights of Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants and peasants, civil society, cities and academics, women and youth, who are often left out of international negotiating rooms.

The talks centre on how to ensure that the transition away from fossil fuels is also a just one: a transition that protects workers, communities and the environment, respects human rights and builds public legitimacy, rather than imposing new costs on those least responsible for the crisis.

To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”

The conference is also unpacking how international cooperation must work for countries and communities facing fiscal dependence, debt burdens and limited implementation capacity. It aims to identify the financial and technological support required from the Global North to allow other countries to leapfrog into sustainable renewables-based economies.

In addition, it will seek to address the harmful international legal barriers – such as the thousands of international investment agreements which include investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions – that allow foreign corporations to sue states for measures adopted in the public interest.

Solutions that tackle injustice

These are complex, but necessary conversations to be had for all governments. Most international fora are being used to “avoid the conversation”. We have many of the solutions, but we need to ensure they’re implemented in ways that benefit all countries and sectors of society, not just a few.

Santa Marta aims to strengthen a “coalition” of ambitious states, who are responsive to the voices of those most affected by climate change. It also aims to mobilise scientists, lawyers, economists, policy and energy experts, and the medical community to support states, as well as cities and citizen initiatives to pilot promising approaches around the world. Through a deeply inclusive and participatory approach, at every level, Santa Marta can pave the way towards solutions that are co-developed and respond directly to what’s needed on the ground.

New panel of climate scientists calls for fossil fuel transition roadmaps

This will be key for achieving a just transition. Many countries, especially in the Global South, are not held back by a lack of ambition, but by structural barriers: debt, high borrowing costs and international rules that still reward continued fossil fuel extraction over managed decline at the expense of people’s health and economic well-being.

Santa Marta comes at a critical moment: environmentally, morally, economically but also legally.

Legal accountability on fossil fuels

The landmark advisory opinion on climate change, issued last July by the International Court of Justice, made clear that states have a legal obligation to act effectively and ambitiously on climate change, and that fossil fuel expansion, production, consumption and subsidies are not in line with these international obligations. It followed similar rulings, by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in 2024 and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, also in 2025.

The transition away from fossil fuels is not simply an environmental necessity, but an urgent matter of security, resilience and health. It is a human rights imperative. And an inherently exclusionary approach focused on major powers will not deliver all the benefits of a fossil fuel-free global economy.

Vanuatu pursues new UN resolution to turn ICJ climate opinion into action

The Santa Marta conference is set to address this and look at how fossil-fuel-dependent countries can diversify on fair terms, how communities can access and produce affordable and reliable renewable energy, and how the transition can deliver visible social and economic gains instead of reproducing new forms of exclusion, dependency, and insecurity.

At Santa Marta we can make meaningful, lasting progress through a diplomacy of implementation, inclusion and legal accountability that can provide a new yardstick for all the other multilateral processes on climate change and other fossil fuel-related issues, such as plastics, food, health, taxation and the protection of peace.

A full statement by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Santa Marta Conference can be found here.

The post Santa Marta marks a new chapter in climate diplomacy appeared first on Climate Home News.

Headline News:

• “Renewables Race Heats Up As Countries Scramble To Keep Energy Bills Down” • “As long as we depend on oil and gas, we will continue to ​pay the price of other people’s wars,” said French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu. But some of Europe’s biggest economies are clear that renewables are the most reliable and cheapest way to avoid energy shocks. [Euronews]

Bordeaux, France (Juan Di Nella, Unsplash)

• “Taxpayer-Funded Bottom Trawling Costs Europe Billions. Does Turkey Have The Solution?” • Turkey’s  was on the brink. Overfishing, intense tourism, invasive species, and warming seas depleted its waters and destroyed a way of life for local fishers. It became a marine protected area and now testifies to the power of ocean conservation. [Euronews]
• “Swapping Out Diesel For Solar And Batteries In The Amazon Rainforest” • It’s a pretty simple calculus, actually. As costs go down, new renewable energy resources go up. Call it the law of the unseen hand or just good old fashioned common sense. And unsurprisingly, solar power is having significant growth is in the Amazon rainforest. [CleanTechnica]
• “Meta Bets On Space Solar Power In Deal With Overview Energy” • Meta entered an agreement with Overview Energy to access up to 1 GW of space-based solar power, a significant step toward integrating orbital energy systems into the electricity supply for data centers. Overview plans to transmit solar energy to Earth as low-intensity infrared light. [OilPrice.com]
• “House Republicans Introduce Bill To Extend Renewables Tax Credits” • House Republican lawmakers are trying to restore clean tax credits for wind, solar, and other technologies for clean energy that were curtailed by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Business group E2 estimated that $34.8 billion in clean energy investments were canceled in 2025. [Utility Dive]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

Evidence that Parkinson’s, the fastest-growing neurodegenerative disease globally, may be linked to pesticides used in agriculture has been accumulating for decades. Yet, after finally appearing to take experts’ concerns seriously, EU authorisation bodies have failed to take meaningful action. An excerpt from Dirk de Bekker’s book Het pesticidenparadijs (“Pesticide Paradise”).

“If you are the CEO of Bayer, tossing and turning in bed at night, how can you justify this to yourself… Suppose that Roundup is the cause of Parkinson’s, how are you able to sleep soundly?”

It is 29 March 2022. Sitting opposite me is Bas Bloem, professor of neurology and an internationally renowned expert on Parkinson’s disease. He has just explained to me, speaking rapidly and in precisely formulated sentences, which processes in the brain are disrupted when someone develops Parkinson’s disease. Although he speaks fluently and barely pauses for breath, something changes in him from the moment the words “pesticides” and “glyphosate” are uttered. His gaze becomes more intense, his voice louder, and his sentences a fraction slower.

We are at the Parkinson’s Center of Expertise at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, in the southeast of the Netherlands. Here, scientists are working on treatments for a disease that does not yet have a cure. Current therapies, procedures, and medication are aimed at slowing down and alleviating the symptoms. Tremors, stiff movements, and difficulty speaking – those are what the general public is familiar with, but describing Parkinson’s as “that shaking disease” is incorrect, says Bloem. “The disease is like an iceberg.” Most symptoms – including depression, dementia, bowel dysfunction, sleep disorders, balance problems, loss of smell, and pain – are often just as serious but are hidden beneath the surface.1

Most people with Parkinson’s experience many symptoms simultaneously. Often, new ones continue to develop and become increasingly severe. As a result, the disease is very disruptive – both physically and mentally – for patients and their loved ones.

Bloem is sounding the alarm. Parkinson’s is the fastest-growing neurodegenerative disease – not only in the Netherlands, where the number of cases has risen by 30 per cent over the last 10 years, but worldwide.2 There are now approximately 12 million people globally with Parkinson’s. According to recent estimates, this figure will more than double by 2050 to 25 million.3

This explosive increase can be partly explained by age: Parkinson’s is more common at advanced ages, and the global population of older people is growing. Furthermore, average life expectancy is rising worldwide. However, even after adjusting for ageing, researchers are seeing rapid growth. So there is more to it than that.4

As early as the 1980s, there were strong scientific indications that exposure to pesticides was an important risk factor for the development of Parkinson’s disease. Over the past 10 years, the evidence supporting this has grown significantly.

For this reason, Bloem views Parkinson’s as a disease not primarily caused by ageing per se but by “all sorts of rubbish” in our environment. By this, he means pesticides and other hazardous substances. As people live longer, there is more time for them to be exposed to these substances. Furthermore, the disease often develops over decades before it manifests itself. As people live longer on average, this also means that accumulated neurological damage has a greater chance of becoming apparent.

As early as the 1980s, there were strong scientific indications that exposure to pesticides was an important risk factor for the development of Parkinson’s disease.

Growing concerns

A disease that is growing explosively, the increasingly clear link to pesticides, the fact that there is still no prospect of a cure – all of this is cause for concern. But Bloem’s full-blown alarm comes from somewhere else: a conversation he had at the Dutch Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products and Biocides (the College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, Ctgb) in late 2020.

At his request, the Dutch authorisation body agreed to personally meet with him in November 2020 to explain step by step how the approval procedure for pesticides works. The meeting was intended to allay his concerns, but the opposite happened: he was struck with terror. “It was only then that I fully realised that we actually know nothing when it comes to the risk of Parkinson’s.”

During the presentation, Bloem was told that existing approval tests for the neurotoxicity of pesticides only examine external characteristics in laboratory animals. For example, do the animals move more slowly or display apathetic behaviour after coming into contact with a pesticide? “That is completely inadequate,” according to the neurologist. “It takes years for Parkinson’s to develop; you don’t immediately see anything on the outside. You therefore need to look inside the relevant areas of the brain: does the substance damage the substantia nigra?”

The substantia nigra (Latin for “black substance”) is the area of the brain where dopamine is produced. This chemical plays a key role in essential functions such as movement, memory and well-being. In people with Parkinson’s, the substantia nigra deteriorates, slowly but surely. It is only when 60 to 70 per cent of the substantia nigra has already been affected that the outward symptoms of Parkinson’s become noticeable. But by that point, the disease has already been long in the making. “You also need to know if, say, 40 per cent of the substantia nigra is destroyed and you can’t yet see anything externally. Currently, this is simply not tested.”

Bloem and his fellow neurologists are increasingly seeing patients in their clinics who report having been exposed to pesticides. They are not alone: more and more general practitioners and physiotherapists working in agriculture-intensive regions are also voicing concerns about the rising number of Parkinson’s cases they are seeing in their practices.5

The cover of Dirk de Bekker’s book Het pesticidenparadijs (“Pesticide Paradise”).

“I recently had a woman with Parkinson’s at the outpatient clinic. She had just buried her husband, who also had Parkinson’s. In addition, six other people in her street had the disease. They live next to a field where small planes used to spray pesticides,” says Bloem.

Over the years that I have been publishing on pesticides, I have also regularly heard striking accounts from people with Parkinson’s who attribute their illness to pesticides. They mention having peeled bulbs for years, or working for the parks department with pesticide tanks on their backs and spray guns in their hands, or growing up on fruit farms where they played hide-and-seek in the orchards. I’ve also heard from people who have worked with pesticides for long periods of time in laboratories, in greenhouses, or on their own fields. Multiple members of a family are sometimes affected by the disease.

Puzzles and cocktails

The sheer frequency with which such personal anecdotes crop up is striking, although they prove nothing in themselves. But these stories do not stand alone.

A growing body of scientific studies shows that Parkinson’s disease occurs significantly more frequently among people living in areas of intensive cultivation. In France, for example, Parkinson’s is 8.5 per cent more common in the most intensive wine-growing regions compared to the national average.6 Consequently, the French government officially recognises Parkinson’s as an occupational disease among winegrowers.7 Studies in the United States and Canada, among other places, reveal the same pattern: in the examined regions, Parkinson’s disease is spread across the map like a patchwork quilt, and the areas with the most intensive farming practices – and the highest pesticide use – stand out most clearly in terms of the number of cases.8

It is virtually impossible to establish a definitive causal link in this type of “map-based study”. To do so would require a great deal of specific data: which substances were used, where and when? What is the residential history of the individuals who became sick in the area under investigation? What is their occupation? What did they eat? What is their genetic makeup? Are there other polluting activities in the area? The aim of such research is therefore not to establish or rule out an irrefutable causal link; it is about identifying a potential problem. In combination with other studies, the puzzle can then be pieced together more fully.

Although the scientific puzzle is not yet complete, the pieces that are already in place suggest that the explosive rise in Parkinson’s disease over the past decades can at least partly be attributed to exposure to pesticides. There is, for instance, a historical piece of the puzzle: the rapid post-war growth in Parkinson’s largely coincides with the period when pesticide use increased dramatically. In itself, this is not very convincing evidence, but together with the piece showing that the disease occurs more frequently in areas with intensive arable farming and high pesticide use, the picture changes. It becomes even clearer when you add the piece showing that farmers and gardeners in particular have a significantly increased risk of developing Parkinson’s.9

Therefore, contrary to what various agricultural organisations still regularly claim, the missing pieces of the puzzle do not so much lead to the question of whether a link exists, but rather to the question of exactly how strong that link is, and which specific substances are responsible. Scientists are also wondering whether there are substances that pose no risk individually, but can be dangerous in combination. This, in turn, raises other questions: what is the smartest way to investigate such “pesticide cocktails” without having to test an endless number of combinations? Are there genetic factors that increase the risk of harm following exposure to pesticides? Are there interactions between pesticides (or cocktails of pesticides) and other pollutants in the environment? And what is the situation with other neurodegenerative diseases, such as ALS and dementia, for which links to pesticides also exist?10

It has already been established that some specific pesticides, such as rotenone and paraquat, can damage the substantia nigra. This was not discovered during the official assessment of these pesticides but later in independent studies (and subsequently they were withdrawn from the European market). However, this type of research has not been carried out on the vast majority of substances, let alone for pesticide cocktails.

A recent large-scale study has found that trifluralin and tribufos, two pesticides frequently used in combination on cotton plantations in the United States, do not pose a proven risk for Parkinson’s when used individually. When used together, however, they prove to be highly damaging to dopamine-producing brain cells, suggesting that they can indeed cause Parkinson’s in combination.11 This highlights the importance of taking pesticide cocktails into account in the authorisation process, and placing this topic high on the research agendas of independent scientists in relation to both Parkinson’s and other conditions.

Lack of action

According to Bloem, the way the risk of Parkinson’s is handled in the authorisation procedure violates the precautionary principle. “Given all these clear links, should we say that we are only going to ban this rubbish once it has been irrefutably proven that they cause Parkinson’s? Or, with all the evidence that already exists, should we say that we are only going to re-authorise the substances once it has been proven that they are safe? In reality, what happens is the former, meaning the burden of proof has been reversed.”12

The way the risk of Parkinson’s is handled in the authorisation procedure violates the precautionary principle. 

Bloem is not calling for an immediate ban on all pesticides. He does, however, advocate for subjecting the substances that are already authorised to a special Parkinson’s test as soon as possible. And as far as he is concerned, this should become standard practice when new pesticides are assessed. To this end, a testing procedure must be developed that makes it possible to look inside the brains of laboratory animals following prolonged exposure. There, it must be determined whether the substantia nigra has been damaged – for example, by counting the number of dopamine-producing cells. In the near future, it should be possible to carry out this procedure without subjecting animals to testing, by isolating the relevant cells outside their bodies.

The weedkiller glyphosate seems to be the most appropriate substance to first undergo testing for a link to Parkinson’s disease. It is by far the most widely used pesticide, and everyone is exposed to it to a greater or lesser extent. Moreover, several studies suggest a link between glyphosate and the development of Parkinson’s. The evidence, though far from conclusive, gives neurologists more than enough reason to be on alert.13 In addition, an increasing number of studies are emerging that show that even low doses of glyphosate can lead to disruptions in the gut flora.14 Such disruptions in the microbiome might – indirectly – increase the risk of Parkinson’s due to the communication between the gut and the brain. Researchers suspect that these disruptions could lead to a change in the structure of alpha-synuclein, a protein essential for communication between nerve cells. In mice, it has been established that this altered protein can reach the brain, where it subsequently damages the substantia nigra.15

Notably, the Dutch pesticide authority, the Ctgb, supported Bloem’s call for the speedy development of a Parkinson’s test. The November 2020 presentation was a wake-up call not only for the neurologist, but also for the Ctgb itself. This was evident in the fact that a few months later, in March 2021, the Ctgb wrote a letter to the agency responsible for pesticide risk assessment in the EU – the European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA – asking it to facilitate research into the development of an adequate testing procedure for Parkinson’s.16

The EFSA could not ignore this appeal by the Ctgb. Not only is it one of the leading national authorisation bodies with which the EFSA cooperates, but also, in its appeal, the Ctgb explicitly referred to Bloem – internationally renowned and known to frequently pop up in the international press to voice his concerns. Bloem’s message and extensive media reach have made many people in the pesticide world – from regulatory authorities to pesticide manufacturers – quite nervous.17

The EFSA responded just two weeks later with a proposal to organise a working conference “to take stock of the situation from a scientific and multidisciplinary point of view”.18 But over a year later, as I learned during my conversation at that time with Bloem at the Parkinson’s Centre of Expertise, that conference was yet to happen. Bloem could not contain his frustration. “How on earth do you explain to future generations – with a disease that is skyrocketing and an environmental role that seems so obvious – that we are not taking more decisive action?”

Breakthrough and disappointment

Six months later, however, on 8 September 2022, Bloem was again in high spirits. The conference that the neurologist had been pushing for over the past two years had finally taken place.19 In the presence of the EFSA and an international panel of experts, he was able to share his concerns about the authorisation procedure and Parkinson’s disease. And this had yielded results. All 49 attendees – experts affiliated with the EFSA as well as external research institutes and national authorisation bodies – reached an agreement. This is a rare occurrence among such a large group of international, often independent-minded experts. “There was broad consensus that the currently existing procedures […] offer an inadequate assessment of the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease in case of human exposure,” the minutes of the meeting state. The EFSA emphasised the urgent need to develop a new testing method that can actually provide insights into the risk of Parkinson’s. “A real breakthrough,” said Bloem. This was the first time that the EFSA had unconditionally acknowledged that the system it uses to assess pesticides was flawed.

The EFSA decided it would issue a call for tenders for a 3.5-million-euro contract aimed at the development of the required test. Specialised scientists were invited to submit bids.

The EFSA personally approached two Dutch research organisations with the request that they respond to this call: the Radboud University Medical Center (Bas Bloem’s employer) and RIVM, the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. “That’s how strongly they felt about our case,” explained neurotoxicologist Harm Heusinkveld, who attended the conference on behalf of the RIVM. For years, toxicologists at the RIVM had also been worried about pesticides and Parkinson’s – concerns that were finally being taken seriously by the EFSA with this research call. ‘‘Afterwards, we thought: guys, something is really going to happen now.’’20

This sense of urgency and enthusiasm felt by many researchers was heightened by the fact that the European re-evaluation of glyphosate was taking place at the same time. If the EFSA call for tenders were to be released quickly, there might still be an opportunity to use the weedkiller as the first case for the Parkinson’s test under development, perhaps even before the reassessment of the pesticide was completed.

Seven long months passed before the EFSA finally sent out the official Parkinson’s tender on 9 April 2023. But when he read the text, Bas Bloem immediately realised that something was wrong. “At the meeting, everyone was in complete agreement: we need to develop a good new testing method for pesticides and Parkinson’s. And then I read the call, in which the EFSA has made no money whatsoever available for such a new testing method. It was as if that conference had never taken place.” He lets out an audible sigh over the phone. His voice, so enthusiastic after the conference, is now filled with disbelief. Neurotoxicologist Harm Heusinkveld reacted with the same astonishment: “This is a huge mystery. I really haven’t the faintest idea how they arrived at this.”

The original intention was to develop a comprehensive Parkinson’s test in one go, based on the substantia nigra. But the promise made earlier by the EFSA to issue a research brief for this purpose was not fulfilled. The research brief set out in the call specifically concerned the development of a testing method focused on the mitochondria, the cell’s energy powerhouses. “But that test already exists, so you’d just be rehashing the same thing all over again. Besides, that test is far too limited,” commented Heusinkveld.

The Radboud University Medical Center and the RIVM were so taken aback by the research mandate that landed in their inboxes that they sent a joint letter on 17 July to EFSA Director Bernhard Url to express their disappointment. It is particularly noteworthy that a third party signed on to their objection: the Ctgb.

It is unusual for the Ctgb to hold a view that is at odds with an opinion of the EFSA. These two authorities, one working at the national level and the other at the European level, cooperate closely within the same legal framework. The letter, which came into my possession during an investigation into glyphosate for De Groene Amsterdammer, offers a rare glimpse behind the scenes.

“Specifically, we were disappointed as to what the call envisioned to achieve, considering […] the broad agreement that an ambitious and novel approach was required,” the three parties wrote. “We had the clear impression from the workshop that the EFSA had decided to move forward, but the recent call solely repeats steps that had already been taken earlier. […] The resulting testing strategy will not provide full insight in the potential of chemical substances to induce or progress [Parkinson’s disease].” In conclusion, the RIVM, the Radboud University Medical Center and the Ctgb stated that, “despite the explicit question and encouragement” from the EFSA, they would not be competing for funding for the proposed research.

A contested report

Four months later, in July 2023, the EFSA announced its recommendation to renew the authorisation for glyphosate for the maximum period of 15 years. Bloem was stunned, and he was not the only one. Scientists all over the world criticised the EFSA’s decision in a reaction that was unusually vocal for the scientific community.

Although during previous glyphosate authorisations the debate revolved primarily around the risk of cancer, this time concerns about Parkinson’s dominated. Ecotoxicologist Peter Leendertse succinctly summarised the essence of the many scientific comments on the re-authorisation: “If there are so many questions surrounding a substance, surely you cannot approve it for the maximum term? Extend it by two years if there is no other option, and in the meantime, ensure that you get clarity on the risk of Parkinson’s disease.”21

In an effort to calm tensions, the European Commission ultimately decided to reduce the maximum term from 15 to 10 years. As far as critics were concerned, this was little more than a token gesture. They pointed out that not only independent studies but also the EFSA’s own assessment report provided sufficient grounds for revoking the license altogether.

The glyphosate report runs to a total of 6,354 pages. What is striking is the large number of “data gaps” that are mentioned. The EFSA generally uses this term to indicate that knowledge is lacking and further research is required. Data gaps can thus influence the decision to grant authorisation and the potential duration of that authorisation.

The EFSA identified data gaps regarding the effects of glyphosate on gut flora, biodiversity and groundwater, amongst other things. However, none of these were considered “critical concerns”. That determination already made many scientists raise their eyebrows – but what the report says regarding Parkinson’s led to even greater surprise. There is no mention of a data gap anywhere in the passages on Parkinson’s disease, giving the impression that there is no lack of information on this topic whatsoever. On the contrary, the report’s conclusion is that current evidence “does not trigger a concern for parkinsonism”.22

Although the EFSA acknowledged that risks of Parkinson’s could not be ruled out under the current authorisation procedure, the agency chose to ignore this conclusion in its glyphosate report.

“Absurd”, said ecotoxicologist Peter Leendertse. “Of course there is a huge data gap when it comes to Parkinson’s. Surely the report should mention that no reliable testing procedure exists. The findings of that conference are now simply being swept under the carpet.”

In short, although the EFSA itself acknowledged at the September 2022 conference that risks of Parkinson’s could not be ruled out under the current authorisation procedure, the agency chose to completely ignore this conclusion in its glyphosate report published the following summer.

The minutes of the September 2022 conference (which I obtained shortly afterwards) proving that the EFSA knows (and acknowledges) that a good Parkinson’s test does not exist have never been officially released. This is highly unusual – a considerable amount of information from comparable EFSA conferences is publicly available, ranging from advance announcements, participant names and meeting transcripts to complete video recordings. It is as if the much-heralded meeting in the late summer of 2022, attended by 49 international experts, including six EFSA staff members, never took place; as if the unequivocal conclusion regarding Parkinson’s was never reached.

Three EFSA staff members who attended the conference were also directly involved in the reassessment of glyphosate. Therefore, the assessors had first-hand knowledge of the discussions held during the conference regarding Parkinson’s disease and the lack of a sufficient test. Nevertheless, they did not include any of this in the dossier when the neurotoxicity of glyphosate was re-examined.

What makes the course of events even more peculiar is that during the re-assessment of glyphosate, the EFSA worked closely with the Ctgb. Alongside the national pesticide authorities of Hungary, Sweden and France, the Dutch authority was one of the responsible parties to which the assessment work had been outsourced. In other words, the Ctgb itself played a leading role in the decision to extend the authorisation for glyphosate for the maximum period. This is difficult to reconcile with the critical letters it sent to the EFSA during the same period: the first, dated 9 March 2022, requesting that EFSA Director Bernhard Url make room for research into a testing procedure for Parkinson’s disease, and a joint letter with the RIVM and Bas Bloem on 17 July 2023 complaining that the EFSA had broken its promise to make funds available for a Parkinson’s test.

It is as if there were two completely different Ctgb bodies. Whilst one was sending critical letters to the EFSA regarding Parkinson’s, the other was assisting the EFSA with the re-authorisation of glyphosate without raising any critical objections to the fact that the substance has not been tested for a link to Parkinson’s – even though such testing might be more urgent for glyphosate than for any other European-authorised pesticide.

The missing test

In a formal response to my questions, the Ctgb stated that a “very extensive data package” was available during the re-evaluation of glyphosate, containing “many more studies than merely the required ones”, including epidemiological research. While there may not be an adequate test to rule out Parkinson’s, said the Ctgb, the assessors decided that there was no cause for concern after studying a great deal of other supplementary information. “That is something different from being able to establish this with scientific certainty,” the Ctgb concluded.

The EFSA in turn denies that the conclusion regarding Parkinson’s disease reached at the conference has ever been its official position. The meeting was “merely informative” and should only be seen as “preparatory exchanges” for subsequent future tenders, the agency informed me shortly after the publication of the glyphosate report. EFSA also stressed that the assessment of glyphosate was carried out entirely “in line with the current legal framework”.

When I published the outcomes of the conference in De Groene Amsterdammer in September 2023, I received an angry email from the EFSA. The September 2022 meeting had not been a real “conference” at all, the message said, but merely a “procurement meeting”. And the outcomes of that meeting, the EFSA communications department emphasised once again, in no way represented the official position of the EFSA. “It’s a pity,” the email concluded, “[that you] decided to provide an angle which does not factually represent reality”.  

This reaction did not surprise me. By making information from the meeting minutes and the Ctgb’s letter to the EFSA public through my publication, the European pesticide authority was left exposed. After all, these documents prove that what the EFSA publicly states about Parkinson’s disease does not correspond with its own behind-the-scenes views on the matter.

What the EFSA publicly states about Parkinson’s disease does not correspond with its own behind-the-scenes views on the matter

The fact that the EFSA has neither publicly disclosed the conference’s conclusions nor included them in its assessment of glyphosate is, I suspect, essentially a legal strategy. If, following the conference, the EFSA had officially acknowledged that there is a gaping hole in the authorisation system, this would have provided the necessary ammunition for parties seeking to obstruct pesticide use. Invoking the precautionary principle in court is much easier if the shortcomings of the authorisation procedure regarding Parkinson’s disease are officially documented by EFSA itself. In that case, EFSA would be admitting that the risk of Parkinson’s disease “cannot be determined with sufficient certainty”, one of the basic conditions for invoking the precautionary principle.23

Due to the lack of a Parkinson’s test, the risk of the disease cannot be completely ruled out in connection with any authorised pesticide. Officially acknowledging this on the record could throw the authorisation system – and with it the entire pesticide industry and the world of agriculture – into chaos. This would also happen if the EFSA were to officially acknowledge that the pesticide models it uses were not developed in a neutral manner.24

When Bloem and the Ctgb sat down together in November 2020, both the neurologist and the pesticide authority realised that the authorisation procedure was flawed with respect to Parkinson’s. Three to five years: that would be the time needed to develop an adequate testing protocol, thought Bloem. “I think we need to do this together as soon as possible,” confirmed the then director of the Ctgb, Ingrid Becks-Vermeer, emphasising the need for a Parkinson’s test when I questioned her in 2022. She envisioned a development process lasting “a number of years”.25

More than five years have passed since Bloem’s meeting with the Ctgb, and the EFSA conference took place three and a half years ago. The authorisation system still does not include a Parkinson’s test. Legally speaking, the EFSA may be able to defend this situation. The question, however, is how long they can keep up their defence in a society increasingly confronted with Parkinson’s disease.

This article is a lightly edited translation from Het pesticidenparadijs (“Pesticide Paradise”), an investigative book by Dirk de Bekker on the hidden world of pesticides, published by De Arbeiderspers in the Netherlands in January 2026.

1. Over the past few years, I have interviewed Bas Bloem on several occasions. Parts of these interviews have previously appeared in publications such as the podcast Red de Lente and the Dutch periodical De Groene Amsterdammer. See for example: De Bekker, D., et al. (24 January 2023). “Parkinson en pesticiden” [Parkinson’s and pesticides]. Red de Lente, season 2, episode 3. De Bekker, D. (25 September 2023). “De gezondheidsrisico’s van glyfosaat” [The health risks of glyphosate]. De Groene Amsterdammer. In this text, I draw on all the conversations held. Where necessary, I mention the date on which these conversations took place in the main text. ︎
2. Van der Gaag, B.L., Hepp, D.H., Hoff, J.I., Van Hilten, J.J., Darweesh, S.K.L., Bloem, B.R., and Van den Berg, W.D.J. (8 September 2023). “Risicofactoren voor de ziekte van Parkinson” [Risk factors for Parkinson’s disease]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, 167. ︎
3. Su, D., Cui, Y., He, C., Yin, P., Bai, R., Zhu, J., Lam, J.S.T., Zhang, J., Yan, R., Zheng, X., Wu, J., Zhao, D., Wang, A., Zhou, M., and Feng, T. (2025). “Projections for prevalence of Parkinson’s disease and its driving factors in 195 countries and territories to 2050. Modelling study of Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.” BMJ, 388e080952. ︎
4. See for example: Bloem, B.R., Hoff, J., Sherer, T., Okun, M.S., Dorsey, R. (2021). “De parkinsonpandemie: Een recept voor actie” [The Parkinson’s pandemic: a call to action]. Poiesz Publishers. ︎
5. Opten, N., Wildenborg, F., Bolwerk, P. (2023). ‘Hoe het gifspook door de Betuwe waart. “Aan hun manier van lopen kun je zien dat ze het ook hebben.”’ [‘How the poison spectre haunts the Betuwe: “You can tell by the way they walk that they have it too.”’]. De Gelderlander. 3 November. 
   Folkerts, N. (23 July 2025). “Bestrijdingsmiddelen zorgen voor onrust in Drentse dorpen: ‘Op één dag zag ik vijf patiënten met parkinson’” [“Pesticides cause unrest in Drenthe villages: ‘In one day I saw five patients with Parkinson’s.’’]. Trouw. ︎
6. Kab, S., Spinosi, J., Chaperon, L., Dugravot, A., Singh-Manoux, A., Moisan, F., and Elbaz, A. (2017). “Agricultural activities and the incidence of Parkinson’s Disease in the general French population”. European Journal of Epidemiology, 32(3), pp. 203-216. ︎
7. Within the EU, in addition to France, Italy – and more recently Germany – also recognise Parkinson’s as an occupational disease. ︎
8. Barbeau, A., Roy, M., Bernier, G., Campanella, G., and Paris, S. (1987). “Ecogenetics of Parkinson’s Disease. Prevalence and environmental aspects in rural areas”. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences/Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques, 14(1), pp. 36-41.
   Hugh-Jones, M.E., Peele, R.H., and Wilson, V.L. (2020). “Parkinson’s Disease in Louisiana, 1999-2012. Based on hospital primary discharge diagnoses, incidence, and risk in relation to local agricultural crops, pesticides, and aquifer recharge”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 1584.
   Li, S., Ritz, B., Gong, Y., Cockburn, M., Folle, A.D., Del Rosario, I., Yu, Y., Zhang, K., Castro, E., Keener, A.M., Bronstein, J., and Paul, K.C. (2023). “Proximity to residential and workplace pesticides application and the risk of progression of Parkinson’s diseases in Central California”. The Science of the Total Environment, 864, 160851.
   After Het pesticidenparadijs was published,a Dutch study appeared showing regional clustering of Parkinson’s in the Netherlands, but no clear overlap with intensive arable farming areas was found. Although pesticide use and exposure were not taken into account, the authors suggested that the Dutch regional disparities “are not readily explained by known environmental indicators, warranting further investigation”. See: Simões, M., Peters, S., Huss, A., Darweesh, S. K., Bloem, B. R., & Vermeulen, R. (2026). “Incidence and spatial variation of Parkinson’s disease in the Netherlands (2017–2022): a population-based study”. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 62, 101565. ︎
9. Elbaz, A., Clavel, J., Rathouz, P.J., Moisan, F., Galanaud, J., Delemotte, B., Alpérovitch, A., and Tzourio, C. (2009). “Professional exposure to pesticides and Parkinson Disease”. Annals of Neurology, 66(4), pp. 494-504. ︎
10. See for example: Meerman, J.J., Wolterink, G., Hessel, E.V., De Jong, E., and Heusinkveld, H.J. (2022). “Neurodegeneration in a regulatory context: The need for speed”. Current Opinion in Toxicology, 33, 100383. ︎
11. Paul, K.C., Krolewski, R.C., Moreno, E.L., Blank, J., Holton, K.M., Ahfeldt, T., Furlong, M., Yu, Y., Cockburn, M., Thompson, L.K., Kreymerman, A., Ricci-Blair, E.M., Li, Y.J., Patel, H.B., Lee, R.T., Bronstein, J., Rubin, L.L., Khurana, V., and Ritz, B. (2023). “A pesticide and ipsc dopaminergic neuron screen identifies and classifies Parkinson-relevant pesticides”. Nature Communications, 14(2803). ︎
12. For more background information on this ruling, see: Darweesh, S.K.L., Vermeulen, R.C.H., and Bloem, B.R. (2024). “Paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease. Has the burden of proof shifted?”. International Journal of Epidemiology, 53(5). ︎
13. See for example: Bloem, B.R., and Boonstra, T.A. (2023). “The inadequacy of current pesticide regulations for protecting brain health. The case of glyphosate and Parkinson’s Disease”. The Lancet Planetary Health, 7(12), pp. e948-e949. ︎
14. Lehman, P.C., Cady, N., Ghimire, S., Shahi, S.K., Shrode, R.L., Lehmler, H., and Mangalam, A.K. (2023). “Low-dose glyphosate exposure alters gut microbiota composition and modulates gut homeostasis”. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 100, 104149.
    Matsuzaki, R., Gunnigle, E., Geissen, V., Clarke, G., Nagpal, J., and Cryan, J.F. (2023). “Pesticide exposure and the microbiota-gut-brain axis”. The ISME Journal, 17(8), pp. 1153-1166.
    Puigbò, P., Leino, L.I., Rainio, M.J., Saikkonen, K., Saloniemi, I., and Helander, M. (2022). “Does glyphosate affect the human microbiota?”. Life, 12(5). ︎
15. Singh, Y., Trautwein, C., Romani, J., Salker, M.S., Neckel, P.H., Fraccaroli, I., Abeditashi, M., Woerner, N., Admard, J., Dhariwal, A., Dueholm, M.K.D., Schäfer, K., Lang, F., Otzen, D.E., Lashuel, H.A., Riess, O., and Casadei, N. (2023). “Overexpression of human alpha-Synuclein leads to dysregulated microbiome/metabolites with ageing in a rat model of Parkinson disease”. Molecular Neurodegeneration, 18(1).
    Silva, B.A., Breydo, L., Fink, A.L., and Uversky, V.N. (2012). “Agrochemicals, a-Synuclein, and Parkinson’s Disease”. Molecular Neurobiology, 47(2), pp. 598-612.
    Uversky, V.N., Li, J., Bower, K., and Fink, A.L. (2002). “Synergistic effects of pesticides and metals on the fibrillation of a-Synuclein. Implications for Parkinson’s Disease”. NeuroToxicology, 23(4-5), pp. 527-536. ︎
16. De Leeuw, J.F. (9 March 2021). Subject: possible relation between the use of specific pesticides and the development of Parkinson’s Disease. Ctgb, reference number 202103090024. ︎
17. See for example: Brzeziński, B. (2025). “Parkinson’s is a man-made disease”. Politico. 14 April. Bloem, B., Boonstra, T. (11 October 2023). “Glyphosate: ‘En tant que médecins spécialistes des maladies neurodégénératives, nous avons trois conseils à donner au ministre de l’agriculture Marc Fesneau’” [“Glyphosate: ‘As doctors specialising in neurodegenerative diseases, we have three pieces of advice for the Minister for Agriculture, Marc Fesneau’”]. Le Monde. ︎
18. Url, B. (n.d.). Subject/Re.: Possible relation between the use of specific pesticides and the development of Parkinson’s Disease. EFSA, Ref. ic2021-24570142. Although the letter is undated, the upload date provided by the Ctgb (23 March 2021) suggests that it was probably received two weeks later (and in any case no later than that). ︎
19. The following reconstruction is partly a reworking of my earlier research article in De Groene Amsterdammer, which was published on 25 September 2023. ︎
20. Quote from: De Bekker, D. (25 September 2023). “The health risks of glyphosate”. De Groene Amsterdammer. ︎
21. Ibid. ︎
22. Álvarez, F., et al. (2023). “Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate”. EFSA Journal, 21(7), paragraph 9. EFSA. (July 2023). Peer Review Report on Glyphosate, Part 3 of 6, p. 163. ︎
23. Commission Communication on the precautionary principle (2 February 2000), Document 52000dC0001, p. 3. ︎
24. Elsewhere in the book, I write about the pesticide models that are currently in use to calculate the distribution of pesticides through the environment. I conclude that these models, which form the basis of the authorisation system, were developed in close cooperation with the pesticide industry. ︎
25. Quoted from: De Bekker, D., et al. (5 June 2022). “The director of the Ctgb responds”. Red de Lente, season 1, episode 8. ︎

Using prefabricated components and assemblies when retrofitting and renewing occupied suites can minimize disruption and avoid the need to relocate building residents. This approach can significantly improve the experience for tenants and has the...

I liberated a lobster and got crushed Channel Comment brendan 28th April 2026 Teaser Media

Leave it to this still-repugnant regime to instantly twist a Keystone Cops security breach - not a so-distant-it-was-on-another-floor "assassination attempt" - to their own skeevy purposes: blaming Democrats for "this dark moment," demanding a $400 million gold ballroom for "national security," burnishing the Brave Dear Leader myth of an addled old man who barely registered it, and what gun control issue? Meet the Epstein class: When shots (again) ring out, they get a friggin' ballroom, kids get thoughts and prayers.

The latest "clown show on steroids" - and grim proof of Trump's relentless corrosion of political discourse - unfolded Saturday night at an evidently sloppily unsecured Washington Hilton, where in 1981 John Hinckley shot Reagan, who survived. The already contentious White House Correspondents' Dinner drew the black-tied, preening, profit-driven remnants of a craven legacy media - and a growing right-wing slopaganda brigade - both willing to pretend it was normal to party with an abusive enemy of free speech who's spent years attacking, belittling, suing, bullying and name-calling them as an "enemy of the people" for seeking to do their jobs and tell the truth, thus turning the evening into a queasy "case study in institutional self-abasement."

Even before the vitriolic and incendiary Trump - who led a Jan. 6 riot, urged fans to “knock the crap out” of protesters, bade Proud Boys "stand by," mused "the 2nd Amendment people" could do something" about his opponents, warned of "a bloodbath" if he was defeated, killed schoolgirls and threatened genocide in an illegal war he doesn't know how to end - let loose with what he dubbed "the most inappropriate speech ever made" (which Press Barbie called "shots fired") - before all that came a few muffled thuds of a dud of an assassination attempt, on the floor above, by a suspect who ran past a security checkpoint before being tackled. One shot was fired - it's unclear by whom - and one cop was wounded through a bulletproof vest; he is expected to be okay.

On the floor below, meanwhile, "absolute chaos" reigned. Panicked women in gowns and men in tuxedos hit the floor, flipping over chairs, lunging under tables and sometimes holding phone cameras aloft as a horde of Secret Service agents swarmed the ballroom, leaping on stage, yelling "Get down! Get down!", running in all directions at once, weapons poised and flailing. A crowd of security guys whisked J.D. Vance out of his chair first; then another cluster went for Trump, dazed and stumbling, guys holding him up on both sides. Video later showed alleged FBI head Kash Patel crouching absurdly behind a chair and RFK Jr. heroically leaving his wife behind; an idiotic "USA!" chant that "absolutely nobody wanted to hear" flared briefly before dying a well-earned death.

The suspect was identified as Cole Tomas Allen, 31, a Torrance, CA. mechanical engineer, game developer and teacher with a Masters degree in computer science; on Facebook, he also called himself "an amateur entomologist, casual composter and occasional artist." When he tried to breach the metal detectors above the ballroom, he was armed with a shotgun - loaded with buckshot not slugs "to minimize casualties" - a handgun and several knives. He was charged with two counts: Using a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on a federal officer with a dangerous weapon. Earlier, he'd posted a lucid, relatively mild missive from "a Friendly Federal Assassin" to explain his actions; it began with, "Hello everybody!" and apologies to "everyone whose trust I abused."

He apologized to his parents "for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for 'Most Wanted,'" to his colleagues and students, to "everyone abused or murdered before this or after, any "person raped in a detention camp, fisherman executed without trial, schoolkid blown up, child starved... I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes." As a Christian, he noted, "Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is rather complicity in the oppressor’s crimes." He blasted the "insane" incompetence of the lax security he encountered, said he felt "awful" about what he thought he had to do, and expressed "rage thinking about everything this administration has done...Stay in school, kids."

Despite its placid tone, MAGA world promptly dubbed it "a manifesto" of "anti-Christian bile" from "a depraved crazy person." Press Barbie blasted the "demonization (and) hateful rhetoric directed at Trump...Nobody has faced more bullets and violence." Similarly, nobody in the cult wants to admit they're adamantly declining to acknowledge years of vicious Trump rhetoric that have shaped "an angry, polarized nation," or the role of rabid MAGA responses, say, to AOC noting she's glad everyone was safe - "There is a special place in hell for demons like you," "Go fuck right off with the other Commie losers" - or the "vibes for security" so lax - no photo ID, attendee list, checkpoint to enter the ballroom, basic competence - even attendees and the would-be assassin both denounced it.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Despite faux-thoughtful deadlines - "Stunned Washington Faces Searching Questions About Political Violence" - Trump entirely missed the point, rambling and deflecting in his clueless, bonkers, self-serving way. He said he wanted the dinner to go ahead: The show must go on. He (weirdly) crooned about the "very strong, really attractive law enforcement." He babbled he'd "studied assassinations...The most impactful people, they're the ones they go after. Like Abraham Lincoln. I hate to say I’m honored by that, but I’ve done a lot." He called the presidency "a dangerous profession," worse than bullfighting. He declared the "manifesto" “strongly anti-Christian," and the perp "a very sick person...a lone wolf whack job," though he's an incomparably more dangerous one.

Mostly, relentlessly, he shilled for his ballroom: "This event would never have happened...The conditions that took place, I didn't wanna say it but this is why we have to have it...We need levels of security probably like no one's ever seen...This is exactly the reason our great Military, Secret Service, Law Enforcement and every President for the last 150 years have been demanding a large, safe, secure Ballroom be built," which is bullshit 'cause only he's demanding it. Still, miraculously, within six minutes of the lone shot fired, MAGA pivoted, lockstep, online to the same skeevy, amidst-a-war-and-ravaged-economy-how-is-this-a-thing refrain: This is why Trump needs the ballroom. Also, the lawsuit against it "puts the lives of the President, his family, and his staff at grave risk."

As if the whole corrupt ballroom shtick, "the definition of a non-sequitur,” wasn't grotesque enough, there was the right's virtual ignoring of any recognition of guns as a relevant part of the deadly equation - this, in a country with more guns than people, with 120 mass shootings since the start of the year, with over 3,800 people dead and over 6,500 wounded, with 100 people shot every day, with Trump having dismantled gun safety and mental health measures, with as yet no accountability for Renee Good and Alex Pretti being gunned down in the street, with the awful, prevailing, willfully blind, "gun violence for thee but not for me" admonishment that, "Every few months, Americans are asked to resume their banquet, and pretend a shooting didn’t just happen."

Which is what we regularly ask of our kids. "Last night, powerful people hid," wrote Digital Drumbeat. "Journalists, lobbyists, and politicians dove under tables, pressed against walls, and ran for exits..Secret Service moved. Protocols activated. And within hours, everyone went home. Welcome to the reality American children, teachers, and parents live every single day. Except they do not get the protocols. They do not get the security detail. And not all of them get to go home." It was not "crouching in a locked, darkened classroom for three hours while your phone dies and you cannot call your mother," or a teacher saying "to be very, very quiet," which is "a Tuesday in America." What we can't imagine: "Wanting an entire secure ballroom for one man, and not wanting gun reform for every child."

Other obscenities abound: The billions in ballroom funding from corporations, most of which are seeking billions more in federal contracts; the latest grift of secretly awarding the ballroom-building company a no-bid $17.4 million contract to repair two fountains in Lafayette Park that Biden estimated would cost $3.3 million; the "brazen inversion of reality" that is the MAGA claim criticism of Trump's hateful, violent rhetoric is what somehow incites more violence, when he's done more than anyone in recent history to normalize it; the righteous indignation - Fire Jimmy Kimmel (again) for joking Melania looks like an expectant widow! - when anyone notes the gross hypocrisy. Color America skeptical: "Fuck him, he can only go to the well so many times."

Also, we're still gonna need those Epstein files. See Trump lash out at CBS' Norah O'Donnell when she quotes Cole Allen's "pedophile, rapist, and traitor": "I was waiting for you to read that (because) you're horrible people..I'm not a rapist...I'm not a pedophile... You're disgraceful." Will Bunch: "This is our country now." The Rude Pundit: "We live in the goddamn United States. We're never far away from someone shooting a gun. It's what we are debased enough to call 'freedom.'" And in the two days before the shooting, Trump made a racist attack against Hakeem Jeffries, called for Hillary and Obama to be arrested, boasted of more war crimes. In brief, "We don't have to pretend that a motherfucker isn't a motherfucker just because someone wanted to kill him."

Update: It seems CBS cut out more paranoid babbling in his "I'm not a rapist" interview. His brain is oatmeal and grievance.

NORAH O’DONNELL: What did security tell you about what may have been his motives?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, see, they– the part– the reason you have people like that is you have people doing No Kings. I’m not a king. What I am– if I was a king I wouldn’t be dealing with you. No, I’m not a king. I– I get– I– I don’t laugh. I don’t– I– I see these No Kings, which are funded just like the Southern Law was– funded– you saw all that? Southern Law is financing the KKK and lots of other radical, terrible groups.

OverviewThe ability to deliver on British Columbia’s (B.C.’s) clean economy ambitions will depend on whether workforce systems can be better aligned across training, labour market planning and economic policy. The global shift to a clean energy...

In a part two episode with journalist and author Will Potter, we discuss his recent book “Little Red Barns: Hiding the Truth From Farm to Fable.” We talk about the…

Registered nurses members of Minnesota Nurses Association and National Nurses United, will gather in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Thursday, April 30 for a rally and community event to press lawmakers for long-term, sustainable financial solutions before the legislative session ends to keep Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC), a vital Level I trauma center, open.

Image: A giant Shell logo in a hospital operating theatre receiving a “Canadian shale reserves” transplant, while executives cheer, climate protesters bang on the glass, and a dusty file marked “2004 RESERVES SCANDAL” sits ominously on the surgeon’s trolley.

Shell’s latest mega-deal for Canada’s ARC Resources is being sold as strategic brilliance. In plain English: the oil giant has gone shopping for fresh reserves — which is rather awkward for a company still haunted by the 2004 reserves scandal that helped blow up the old Royal Dutch/Shell structure PART ONE: THE DEEP DIVE

Shell has announced a blockbuster deal to acquire Canadian producer ARC Resources in a transaction valued at approximately US$16.4 billion including debt, instantly adding about 370,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day of production and around 2 billion barrels of reserves to the company’s portfolio. The acquisition is centred on the Montney formation in British Columbia and Alberta — one of North America’s major shale gas and liquids plays.

So there it is: another glorious chapter in the energy transition, apparently written with a cheque book, a gas field, and a very large shovel.

Shell’s own messaging presents the deal as a strategic accelerator — more production, more reserves, more Canada, more LNG optionality, more “value.” The transaction is expected to lift Shell’s production growth outlook from roughly 1% to 4% annually through 2030, according to contemporary reporting on the deal.

In other words: Shell’s energy transition has once again transitioned beautifully into buying more hydrocarbons.

The deal is also notable because it is Shell’s biggest acquisition since its mammoth purchase of BG Group in 2015 — the move that transformed Shell into a global LNG superpower. Now, with ARC, Shell appears to be doubling down on the raw upstream material needed to feed that gas-heavy future. ARC’s assets sit neatly alongside Shell’s Canadian ambitions, including its stake in LNG Canada.

And the timing? Chef’s kiss.

Shell has spent years polishing its public image with carefully measured transition language, lower-carbon vocabulary, and glossy annual-report prose about resilience, competitiveness and the energy people “need.” Its 2025 Annual Report states that oil and gas will remain a significant part of the global energy system for decades — a sentence that now reads less like analysis and more like a shopping list.

Because when Shell says “resilience,” it often seems to mean: reserves.

When Shell says “energy security,” it often seems to mean: more drilling, preferably somewhere politically convenient.

And when Shell says “lower emissions,” the cynical observer might ask: lower than what — a coal fire in a tyre dump?

THE CANADIAN RESERVE RESCUE MISSION

BNN Bloomberg’s framing — that the Canadian deal is helping rescue Shell’s dwindling oil reserves — gets right to the uncomfortable heart of the story. Shell is not merely buying a company. It is buying reserve life, production growth and strategic breathing space.

That matters because the oil business is brutally simple beneath the corporate poetry: if you produce barrels, you must replace barrels. If you fail to replace barrels, investors start asking rude questions. If investors start asking rude questions, executives discover a sudden passion for “portfolio high-grading,” “disciplined capital allocation,” and other phrases that sound like they were bred in a consultancy laboratory.

ARC offers Shell a convenient answer: a large, established Canadian producer with gas and liquids output, substantial Montney acreage, and the ability to bulk up Shell’s resource base quickly. Reports describe the deal as a mix of cash and Shell shares, with ARC shareholders receiving a premium and Shell assuming debt and lease obligations.

To Shell’s defenders, this is hard-headed industrial logic. To critics, it is another reminder that the company’s climate transition story keeps being escorted off stage by the fossil-fuel expansion story.

The company can say gas is cleaner than coal. It can say LNG supports energy security. It can say Canadian assets are lower-risk than some geopolitically volatile alternatives. But the climate arithmetic remains stubbornly unimpressed by press releases. More long-lived fossil assets mean more production capacity. More production capacity means more dependence on future hydrocarbon demand. And that means Shell is still positioning itself not as a company preparing to shrink fossil fuels, but as a company preparing to sell them more efficiently.

The slogan could almost write itself:

Shell: net zero in the brochure, net more reserves on the balance sheet.

THE GHOST OF 2004: WHEN RESERVES BLEW UP THE HOUSE

There is a deliciously grim historical echo here.

Twenty-two years ago, Shell was engulfed by one of the most damaging corporate governance scandals in its history: the 2004 reserves scandal. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said Royal Dutch Petroleum and The “Shell” Transport and Trading Company overstated 4.47 billion barrels of previously reported proved hydrocarbon reserves. The SEC also said Shell overstated proved reserves in its 2002 Form 20-F by about 23% and later agreed to pay a $120 million penalty, while also settling a UK market-abuse action with the Financial Services Authority.

That scandal helped destroy confidence in the old dual-headed Anglo-Dutch structure — the century-old partnership between Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Transport and Trading. In 2005, the old arrangement was replaced by a unified company, Royal Dutch Shell plc. To say the scandal “killed” the Anglo-Dutch partnership is fair as commentary, provided the point is understood historically: it was not the only corporate reform pressure, but it was a central crisis that helped precipitate the end of the old structure.

And now, in 2026, here we are again: Shell making global headlines over reserves.

Different facts, different circumstances, no suggestion of the same misconduct — but the symbolism is too rich to ignore. In 2004, reserves were the scandal. In 2026, reserves are the shopping list.

Back then, the problem was that Shell had claimed too much. Today, the problem is that Shell apparently wants more.

The old scandal was about whether the cupboard was as full as Shell said it was. The new deal is about Shell racing to refill the cupboard before the market notices the shelves looking thin.

FOLLOW THE MONEY: THE BIG INVESTORS WATCHING THE SHOW

This is not happening in a vacuum. Shell remains a darling of major institutional ownership. Recent ownership data lists BlackRock as a major holder with around 8.27%, Vanguard with around 5.47%, FMR/Fidelity with around 3.46%, and Norway-linked holdings including the Government Pension Fund Global and Norges Bank Investment Management also appearing among significant holders.

These institutions are not casual spectators. They are the financial scaffolding around the modern fossil-fuel giant.

They can issue stewardship reports. They can vote on climate resolutions. They can talk about responsible investment until the PDF server needs a lie down. But when Shell spends billions expanding its upstream resource base, the question is brutally simple:

Are the world’s biggest asset managers funding the transition — or merely holding the ladder while Big Oil climbs into another gas basin?

Shell will argue, no doubt, that this is exactly what disciplined capital allocation looks like: buy quality assets, grow cash flow, support shareholder returns, and feed the LNG machine. Investors who like dividends and buybacks may find that music soothing.

But for anyone expecting Shell to wind down its fossil-fuel empire at anything like the pace demanded by climate science, the ARC deal looks less like a transition and more like a corporate vow renewal with hydrocarbons.

Something borrowed, something blue, something drilled, something due.

ENVIRONMENTAL REALITY CHECK

The Montney formation is not a wind farm with better branding. It is a major shale gas and liquids region. Development involves drilling, infrastructure, water use, methane-risk management, land disturbance and long-term fossil-fuel production. Shell and ARC may emphasise operational efficiency and lower emissions intensity, but “lower intensity” does not mean “no impact.”

That distinction matters. A company can reduce emissions per barrel while still increasing total fossil-fuel output. It can polish the carbon intensity of each unit while expanding the number of units. That is not a paradox. It is the oldest trick in the hydrocarbon hymnbook: make each barrel look cleaner while selling more barrels.

Shell’s defenders will say gas has a role in displacing coal and backing up renewables. Critics will counter that new gas expansion risks locking in infrastructure and delaying the phase-down of fossil fuels. Both arguments now collide in this Canadian deal — and Shell, unsurprisingly, has chosen the one with the larger reserve base.

The corporate message is: “We are helping meet global energy demand.”

The satirical translation is: “We found another giant fossil-fuel pantry and brought a trolley.”

THE WIDER CONTEXT: SHELL’S STRATEGY IN 2026

The deal lands in a period when energy security, geopolitical instability and LNG demand are again being used as industrial permission slips for fossil-fuel expansion. Shell has repeatedly positioned LNG as central to its future. ARC’s gas-heavy production base fits neatly into that strategy.

It also fits the broader pattern under CEO Wael Sawan: tighter spending, stronger shareholder distributions, selective retreat from weaker assets, and unapologetic focus on returns. In public-relations language, that is discipline. In climate-politics language, it is Shell stepping further away from the idea that a supermajor should voluntarily become much smaller in oil and gas.

This is the heart of the contradiction.

Shell wants to be seen as modern, pragmatic and transition-aware. But its biggest strategic moves keep telling the same old story: hydrocarbons remain the core business, the profit engine and the boardroom comfort blanket.

The company has not abandoned the future. It has simply decided the future still contains a very profitable amount of gas.

CONCLUSION: THE RESERVES MACHINE ROLLS ON

Shell’s ARC deal is not a minor portfolio tweak. It is a multibillion-dollar declaration of intent.

It says Shell wants more production.

It says Shell wants more reserves.

It says Shell sees Canada’s Montney formation as a major pillar of its next chapter.

And it says, with all the subtlety of a drilling rig at a climate summit, that the fossil-fuel giant still knows exactly where its bread is buttered — and where its barrels are buried.

For critics, the irony is almost operatic. The company once shaken to its foundations by a reserves scandal that helped bring down a century-old Anglo-Dutch corporate structure is now making headlines for buying a vast new reserves cushion.

Shell has changed its structure. It has changed its branding. It has changed its slogans. It has changed its registered headquarters.

But the old obsession remains intact:

Find the reserves. Book the reserves. Replace the reserves. Defend the reserves.

And if anyone asks whether this is really compatible with a climate-safe future?

Expect a very expensive answer, delivered in fluent corporate.

PART TWO: SPOOF SHELL PR/SPIN SECTION Shell Announces Bold New Climate Strategy: Buying More Gas, But Politely

Shell today proudly confirmed that its commitment to the energy transition remains absolutely unwavering, which is why it has decided to spend billions acquiring a major Canadian shale producer.

A spokesperson who definitely did not say “reserves panic” explained that the acquisition demonstrates Shell’s deep commitment to “lower-carbon energy,” by which the company means fossil fuels with better adjectives.

“This transaction strengthens our ability to provide the energy the world needs,” the imaginary spokesperson added, while standing in front of a giant screen reading: MORE BARRELS, BUT MAKE IT RESPONSIBLE.

Asked whether buying a major gas producer might appear inconsistent with climate-transition rhetoric, Shell’s fictional Department of Strategic Vocabulary issued the following clarification:

“Not at all. This is not fossil-fuel expansion. This is future-facing molecule optimisation.”

The department then asked whether everyone could please stop mentioning 2004.

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION

ClimateBot3000:
Shell says the deal supports the transition. Translation: the transition from having fewer reserves to having more reserves.

InvestorBot:
Dividends detected. Ethical discomfort temporarily suspended.

HistoryBot:
Reminder: Shell and reserves have met before. It was not a rom-com.

GreenwashDetector:
Phrase “energy security” located. Deploying scepticism.

MontneyBot:
Congratulations Canada, you have been promoted to Shell’s next strategic fossil-fuel heartland.

GovernanceBot:
2004 called. It says: “Try not to make reserves awkward again.”

PRBot:
This is not drilling. This is “responsible subsurface value unlocking.”

RealityBot:
Still gas. Still oil. Still Shell.

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary based on publicly available news reports, regulatory material and company information. It is satirical in tone but intended to remain grounded in verifiable facts. It is not financial advice, investment advice, legal advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Shell Buys Itself a Canadian Reserve Transplant: $16.4 Billion Says “Energy Transition,” But the Drill Bit Says Otherwise was first posted on April 27, 2026 at 10:22 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Price field office is proposing to authorize aircraft takeoffs and landings in the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness by designating the unauthorized Keg Knoll backcountry airstrip as open for aircraft use. The airstrip is located on the west side of Labyrinth Canyon and north of Canyonlands National Park.

Please tell the BLM to protect the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness area by not authorizing aircraft use at the Keg Knoll backcountry airstrip.

The Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness was designated by Congress in 2019. While the Wilderness Act gives the BLM some discretion to allow (or prohibit) continued use at airstrips that were legally established prior to wilderness designation, it does not allow the agency to authorize aircraft use when the airstrip was not legally open prior to the wilderness designation. That’s the situation here.

The Price office’s 2008 management plan—the land use plan in effect when the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness was established—specifically lists five “existing and currently used backcountry airstrips” for continued noncommercial and limited commercial aviation use; Keg Knoll is not on the list. And for good reason, as it was unused and reclaiming at the time. The agency’s 1999 wilderness inventory of Labyrinth Canyon confirms as much, noting “abandoned airstrips” in the Keg Knoll area. The airstrip was also never identified on the legislative map that accompanied the 2019 bill designating the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness.

Click here to tell the BLM that aircraft use at Keg Knoll is unnecessary and unlawful.

Near the airstrip site in the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness. © Ray Bloxham/SUWA

Backcountry airstrips and aircraft use conflict with the reasons most people seek out wilderness in the first place: solitude, natural soundscapes, wildlife, and an experience of remoteness that often can’t be found on other public lands. What’s more, there are plenty of backcountry airstrips throughout Utah that don’t impact designated wilderness areas (only around 4% of BLM land in Utah is designated wilderness).

The BLM is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) and is intending to issue a decision in mid-May. At the Trump administration’s direction, the agency is not planning to release a draft EA to the public or hold a formal public comment period—so please submit your comments as soon as possible.

The Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness is a gem of the American West and should be managed for the benefit and enhancement of the wilderness values it was designated to protect. With your help, we can ensure that the BLM takes seriously its obligation to protect this world-class wilderness area.

Thank you for your support.

The post Tell BLM: No Active Airstrip in the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness! appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Clean steel production will require an enormous amount of clean energy. Producing green hydrogen, operating high-temperature gas heaters, and powering electric arc furnaces will dramatically increase electricity demand at primary steel mills in the United States, and demand could reach gigawatt scale for individual commercial facilities. Therefore, every unit of energy (electrical, heat, or chemical) avoided or reused reduces the scale and cost while accelerating the speed of the renewable buildout required to support commercial-scale near-zero steel production. Improving energy efficiency is sometimes viewed as primarily a strategy for making incremental improvements to legacy infrastructure, but it will also be foundational to making new, deeply decarbonized pathways competitive and viable.

Finding hidden efficiencies

For more than a century, industrial manufacturers have understood the value of efficiency. Steel, cement, and chemical producers have long sought to recycle waste heat, byproduct gases, and residual materials, though not primarily for climate reasons, but because doing so lowers costs and improves competitiveness. Industrial recycling has often been, at its core, an energy strategy. Facilities routinely investigate opportunities to capture value from solid, liquid, and gaseous streams through onsite reuse or external sales.

Yet one major waste stream has largely eluded this efficiency-driven approach: carbon dioxide (CO₂) rich flue gas. In conventional ironmaking, carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H₂), derived from coal or natural gas, reduce iron ore (FeOₓ) into metallic iron (Fe), producing CO₂ and water in the process. These gases are typically vented to the atmosphere, representing not only a major source of emissions but also lost molecular value and embedded energy.

From flue gas to value

Unlike scrap steel or waste heat, flue gas emissions have historically been viewed as unavoidable and unusable. Flue gas streams are often diluted and contaminated with particulate matter, water vapor, and other impurities. CO₂ itself is chemically stable and does not readily participate in further reactions without significant energy input. For these reasons, it has long been treated as waste rather than as a resource that could be recaptured and reused, but that is starting to change.

Researchers at the Hydrogen and Electrochemical Research for Decarbonization, or HERD Lab, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison are developing a system designed to recycle steelmaking flue gas. Using solid-oxide electrolyzers (SOE), the team converts streams of CO₂ and water (traditional flue gases) back into carbon monoxide and hydrogen (recycled top gases in Exhibit 1). These regenerated molecules can then be reintroduced into the iron reduction process, creating a near-closed-loop system that minimizes waste and maximizes energy productivity.

In addition to the HERD lab the project team is comprised of several others, including industry partners Cleveland-Cliffs (Cliffs), FuelCell Energy (FCE), and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and partners in research and academia, i.e., Laboratorio Energia Ambiente Piacenza (LEAP), University of California, Irvine (UCI), Politecnico di Milano (PoliMi), and University of Wisconsin-Madison (UWM). Cliffs works as the Toledo iron plant operator and system integrator, while FCE is the SOE manufacturer and balance of plant integrator. LEAP and PoliMi are responsible for system design, flexible operation and carbon utilization, while UCI is responsible for developing SOE system control strategies. EPRI focuses on techno-economic analysis and life-cycle analysis of the full-scale system.

Electrolyzers are not new, but what distinguishes SOE systems is their ability to operate efficiently at the high temperatures common in steel production. SOEs can leverage industrial heat and pressure conditions to improve the thermodynamic efficiency of hydrogen production. When integrated into a direct reduced iron facility, this approach can dramatically reduce overall fossil fuel consumption and decrease typical electrical energy demand for electrolysis by leveraging available heat energy.

In practical terms, that means fewer installed renewable megawatts are required to produce a ton of near-zero steel. By reducing total energy intensity and recycling key molecules within the process, technologies like this can shrink the renewable energy burden associated with deep decarbonization and make the transition more achievable in the near term.

Exhibit 1: Integrated SOE-DRI configuration

We recently sat down with Dr. Luca Mastropasqua, who leads the HERD Lab research team, and RMI steel expert Nick Yavorsky to discuss how this technology works, what it could mean for steelmakers and regional economic development, and what comes next. The conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

RMI: Dr. Mastropasqua, what excited you the most about the potential for this technology?

Dr. Mastropasqua: This technology is one of the few able to reduce ironmaking emissions by more than 94% compared to typical natural gas DRI systems (~500 kgCO₂/tDRI vs ~30 kgCO₂/tDRI) and 98.5% compared to coal-based blast furnace basic oxygen furnace production. At the same time, this technology will minimize the use of total energy inputs (either fossil or renewable sources). This technology shows energy savings of approximately 40% against traditional natural gas DRI (11 GJ/tDRI vs 8 GJ/tDRI) and 10% compared to other hydrogen DRI systems (9 GJ/t DRI vs 8 GJ/t DRI).

One of the most synergistic aspects of this technology is that we are not only doing thermal integration, in the form of waste heat recovery, but also chemical integration. We are recovering chemical content and upgrading it to a more valuable stream, rich in hydrogen, that can be repurposed to displace additional natural gas.

RMI: How does your research and technology demonstration advance from where it is today?

Dr. Mastropasqua: The SOE technology must be demonstrated at the megawatt scale in real industrial sites before commercial-scale systems can be deployed. This is key to developing the necessary manufacturing capacity to cut manufacturing costs. We need to build gigafactories in the same way we did for Li-ion batteries. This will allow us to convince the steel industry (as well as many other industrial sectors) that SOE systems can be utilized for behind-the-meter, on-site hydrogen and syngas generation at the scale required by current plants (i.e., 100s MW of equivalent hydrogen, and GW-scale electrical capacity).

I expect that, if the main US manufacturers of SOE systems continue with their capacity build-up, we should be able to get to full commercial scale in the next 5-8 years.

RMI: Globally, we expect DRI production to increase in the coming decades. Can you explain how greenfield deployment of your technology has different implications than retrofits at existing assets?

Dr. Mastropasqua: The main difference between brownfield and greenfield deployment for this application is connected to the primary energy source of choice, i.e., fluctuating energy source like solar or wind versus firmed resource like fossil fuels, grid, geothermal, or nuclear. Since ironmaking plants want to operate at steady state close to their nominal design point for 8,000 hours a year, coupling with an intermittent resource requires large buffer systems: hydrogen storage, syngas storage, or thermal storage. On the other hand, existing brownfield systems could install an SOE plant to upgrade their reducing stream without the need for large-scale storage facilities, if their primary electricity source comes from the grid. However, this solution does not guarantee the same degree of decarbonization, given that most of the US electric grids don’t have a sufficiently low carbon intensity yet. As far as the shaft furnace technology is concerned, they have already been demonstrated to be able to operate with pure hydrogen.

RMI: How does your proposed technological solution compare to carbon capture and storage (CCS) or other forms of retrofitted decarbonization technologies at steel mills?

Dr. Mastropasqua: Some CCS technologies have a breakeven cost of carbon that is competitive with current cap and trade systems in EU. In the United States, the 45Q tax credits provide a real incentive to install CCS systems for enhanced oil recovery or permanent storage. However, most CCS systems (post-combustion, pre-combustion, or oxyfuel) have a specific primary energy consumption per unit of CO₂ avoided (SPECCA index) that varies between 2-4 MJ/kgCO₂. This means that plant owners must consume between an additional 2-4 MJ of primary energy relative to their usual consumption to capture every kg of CO₂. This translates into additional energy supply costs. With an SOE, the SPECCA index would be negative! We would be able to avoid the emission of CO2 and reduce the primary energy consumption at the same time.

CCS technologies certainly have a role in decarbonizing heavy industries, and we have worked on electrochemical carbon capture and storage technologies applied to the steel sector that show SPECCA values close to zero, i.e., do not introduce any energy penalty compared to a non-CCS system. One should also consider the availability of CO₂ storage sites, which can become a limiting factor, considering the amount of CO₂ that the steel sector alone cumulatively emits.

RMI: Nick, how does this type of facility upgrade impact the workforce onsite for DRI facilities? What kind of impact could it have on the long-term steel workforce in the US?

Nick Yavorsky (RMI): As highlighted by Dr. Mastropasqua, the energy efficiency implications for an integrated SOE system at primary steel production sites are immense, but its potential to provide regional economic value for those who choose to implement is also considerable. As a retrofit system, this technology could introduce anywhere from 100 to 400 additional full-time employees, depending on integration and automation. This does not include the several hundred construction workers required to implement the retrofit system or the thousands of workers needed to construct, operate, and maintain the hundreds of megawatts of upstream renewable energy resources needed to supply the SOEs with clean power.

In addition to the regional workforce growth potential, these types of systems will help US steelmakers produce more valuable products. Potentially accessing a higher price via a market premium while responding to high demand globally, production of near-zero DRI or crude steel products would support the continued operation of US assets for decades to come, with ample opportunity for expansion and continued reinvestment.

Greenfield sites offer the best opportunity to realize the market potential for this technology. Although it can be applied at existing facilities, new plants can likely achieve the greatest energy demand reduction as key systems can be designed intentionally from the start. As indicated by Dr. Mastropasqua’s1 energy and emissions reductions estimates, sites where thermal and chemical integration are paired with energy storage capacity and flexible operation schemes are positioned to become the most attractive for producers looking to maximize profits and compete against other global near-zero emissions approaches.

Fundamentally, deploying energy, cost, and climate-efficient systems like this one can help to revitalize the dwindling US primary steel production base and the economic prosperity it brings.

RMI: Are there any other groups exploring similar technology pathways?

Nick Yavorsky (RMI): Yes, in addition to the research being conducted at the HERD lab, the team at Helix Carbon is also exploring the reuse potential of steel production off-gases as a means of reducing energy demand onsite. That’s good news, because energy efficiency innovations that increase the cost competitiveness of clean industrial solutions are greatly needed, and the more arrows in the technological quiver, the better.

With both groups producing promising modeling results backed by extensive lab testing, the hunt for commercial partnerships and deployment opportunities is on. Incumbent steel manufacturers in the US and abroad will soon be clamoring to incorporate these types of systems to reduce operating costs and help clean up their production.

RMI: What are some of the remaining challenges with continuing and scaling your work?

Dr. Mastropasqua: There are still quite a few research and development questions that must be addressed to increase the lifetime of these systems, especially when expected to operate with “dirty” feedstocks typical of the ironmaking sector.

Some exciting research avenues show that we can tailor the operation of the SOE system to match specific compositional targets for integration in DRI systems. This will make these electrolysis systems a drop-in replacement for the conventional steam reformers generally used for syngas production.

Public funding and support are key to demonstrating continued interest in US manufacturing industries that need to scale up capacity. Similarly, investment in R&D at universities is needed to support overcoming longer-term material degradation challenges, as well as educating future workers on electrochemical technologies.

Finally, an ecosystem of industry, national labs, philanthropies, and academia working in collaboration to demonstrate these technologies at industrial scale can further accelerate impact.

The big idea

Efficiency improvements have long been leveraged at industrial sites. Now, it is time for the next generation. Technologies like this point to a pathway where energy savings and emissions reductions go hand in hand, reducing overall energy use, making the scale of the challenge easier to solve, and ultimately unlocking a faster, more competitive future for iron and steelmaking over the next century.

The post Maximizing the Efficiency of Clean Steel Production and Achieving Cost Competitiveness appeared first on RMI.

We talk with Kaleb Lay from Oregon Rural Action about how people living in a rural Oregon “sacrifice zone” end up with poisoned well water, and a widening wealth gap. We explore environmentalist claims that industrial farming, combined with a rapid build-out of Amazon data centers is compounding deadly nitrate contamination while communities fight for testing, transparency, and accountability.