News Feeds

Rising seas could render New Orleans uninhabitable before the end of this century, according to a new paper calling for a managed retreat from the city.

Read more on E360 →

When Shell sold its onshore oil operations in Nigeria to the Renaissance Africa Energy Company last year, the divestment transformed the fossil fuel giant’s climate performance – helping it become the first energy major to report zero routine flaring.

One year on, gas flaring at some of these assets has increased significantly, while Shell has continued to benefit commercially from them, according to a new investigation by nonprofit group Data Desk, shared exclusively with Climate Home News.

Since March 2025, Shell has traded 8 million barrels of oil from the Niger Delta’s Forcados terminal, which was included in the Renaissance deal, Data Desk’s analysis of information supplied by commodities data firm Kpler found.

It is a similar picture at the Bonny terminal, where Shell’s operations were also transferred as part of its onshore exit. Shell is recorded as having traded 3 million barrels of oil from this facility, south of the city of Port Harcourt, since the deal went through.

Multimillion-dollar oil shipments

Using an average 2025 global Brent crude price of $69 per barrel, 11 million barrels of oil shipped from the two terminals since the completion of Shell’s divestment would be worth $759 million.

Shell chartered the tankers carrying the oil to buyers around the world – from Ivory Coast and South Africa, to Canada and Italy, the Kpler data shows.

• Feb 5, 2026 Investigations Gas flaring soars in Niger Delta post-Shell, afflicting communities   Since the multinational sold its assets in Nigeria’s oil hub, data analysis for Climate Home News shows flaring has risen, harming locals and the climate Read more
• Apr 21, 2026 News Fossil fuel crisis offers chance to speed up energy transition, ministers say As climate diplomacy resumes in Berlin, ministers say the Iran war-driven fuel crisis is exposing the risks of fossil dependence Read more

“Whoever is running Shell’s old oilfields in Nigeria needs to get that oil to market,” said Neil Atkinson, former head of the Oil Industry and Markets Division at the International Energy Agency (IEA).

“So it may well be that while Shell no longer runs a facility, the firm that took it over may have an arrangement to continue selling oil through Shell, thereby making use of their connections and trade networks,” Atkinson said.

Shell’s shipping and chartering arm made a profit of £24.8 million (about $33 million) in 2024, the most recent date available, up from £17 million the year before.

Asked about Shell’s continuing ties to the two terminals, a Shell spokesperson said: “We don’t comment on trading activities or specific customer relationships.”

Renaissance did not address a question from Climate Home News about its ongoing commercial ties with Shell.

Environmental legacy

The new reporting raises fresh questions about how energy majors present their climate performance to investors and consumers, and the environmental legacy they are leaving behind after selling fossil fuel assets in countries such as Nigeria, where Shell has operated for nearly a century.

Many of Shell’s onshore oil fields had been in production for decades by the time the company sold its Nigerian onshore subsidiary over a year ago for $2.4 billion to Renaissance, a consortium of Nigerian companies and an international firm that aims to double oil production by 2030.

Six months after finalising the deal, Renaissance CEO Tony Attah said the company had already boosted output at Shell’s former fields by 100,000 barrels per day.

A view shows the Bonny oil terminal in the Niger Delta when it was operated by Shell, in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, on August 1, 2018. (REUTERS/Ron Bousso) A view shows the Bonny oil terminal in the Niger Delta when it was operated by Shell, in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, on August 1, 2018. (REUTERS/Ron Bousso)

At the same time, gas flaring increased at most of the fields where the activity was detected, according to Data Desk’s analysis of satellite data, despite Renaissance’s pledges to foster sustainable energy development and protect local communities.

Gas is a by-product of oil drilling. In places that lack infrastructure to process this gas, like the Niger Delta, it gets burned off instead.

Earlier this year, Climate Home News reported on the impact on local communities of increased gas flaring at several other fields in the Niger Delta since they were sold by Shell to different Nigerian companies in recent years.

Besides billowing out toxic chemicals that cause air pollution and wasting a potential energy source, global gas flaring is estimated by the World Bank to release the equivalent of 400 million tonnes of CO2 annually – higher than France’s greenhouse gas emissions each year.

Gas flaring renaissance?

Comparing the year before the sale’s completion to the year after, satellite data shows daily flaring rose at 10 of the 13 Renaissance blocks where it was detected. Flaring fell at two blocks and was unchanged at one other, while five had no detectable flaring in the dataset.

The OML 32 block, located in the heart of the Niger Delta, was one of the assets that Renaissance took over last year. Here, average daily flaring was more than 20 times higher in the year ending March 2026 compared to the year before, according to Data Desk’s analysis of satellite data from the Colorado School of Mines’ Earth Observation Group.

The Renaissance-operated OML 21 and OML 28 onshore blocks saw increases of 390% and 93%, respectively, in average daily flaring in the year after the sale’s completion.

A spokesperson for Renaissance said the company’s environmental management framework included a plan to reduce flaring.

“Renaissance Africa Energy Company Limited has a multi-year gas flaring reduction strategy through its Flare Elimination and Monetisation Plan, developed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations,” the spokesperson said.

Shell’s spokesperson said it “cannot comment on operational matters relating to assets under new owners/operators”, adding that both the company and the Nigerian government had conducted “extensive due diligence” with regard to its divestments in Nigeria.

“Dodging accountability”

Before the deal, Shell said three years ago that its remaining Nigerian assets accounted for about half of the total routine and non-routine flaring in its integrated gas and upstream facilities. Shortly after selling these assets, the company announced it had achieved zero routine flaring – five years ahead of a global 2030 target set by the World Bank.

Afolabi Macus shows his hands stained with crude oil in Oduka Lake in Ikarama community, Bayelsa State, Nigeria, February 8, 2024. REUTERS/ Seun Sanni Afolabi Macus shows his hands stained with crude oil in Oduka Lake in Ikarama community, Bayelsa State, Nigeria, February 8, 2024. REUTERS/ Seun Sanni

Shell’s exit from onshore operations in Nigeria followed years of accusations of environmental harm, including oil spills. Residents of two Nigerian communities are currently taking legal action against the oil major in the UK and a trial at the High Court is due to begin next year. 

Shell says the majority of spills in the Niger Delta were caused by theft and sabotage and it is therefore not liable.

According to Atkinson, Shell pivoted away from onshore oil fields that “might have become more trouble than they were worth” while remaining a major player in Nigeria’s oil industry. 

Top green jet fuel producer linked to suspect waste-oil supply chain

The London-based company has invested billions in offshore gas development in the country. It has also retained a 25.6% stake in Nigeria LNG Limited (NLNG), a liquefied natural gas producer based on Bonny Island.

As the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies seek to meet their climate targets, a strategic shift “to dodge accountability” by selling more problematic assets is under way, said Sophie Marjanac, director of legal strategy at the Polluter Pays Project, an organisation that campaigns for the oil industry to cover the cost of its environmental damage.

“By dumping ageing, polluting infrastructure onto smaller operators, they leave behind contamination, and communities facing ongoing harm with little chance of justice,” Marjanac said.

The post How Shell is still benefiting from offloaded Niger Delta oil assets appeared first on Climate Home News.

On the first day of his presidency back in 2021, Joe Biden revoked a key permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have brought oil from Canada’s tar sands into the U.S. The decision to kill Keystone XL was perhaps Biden’s clearest gift to the environmental movement. 

But now, five years later, a family of Wyoming oil tycoons is bringing the Keystone concept back from the dead — and the Trump administration is signaling its support. Last week, President Trump signed a presidential permit for the so-called Bridger expansion pipeline, which would likely deliver oil from the carbon-intensive Alberta tar sands to a pipeline hub in central Wyoming, 647 miles away. From there, the oil could move through other pipelines to key refineries as far south as the Gulf of Mexico.

“Slightly different than the last administration,” Trump said ⁠at the White House last Thursday when he signed the presidential permit. “They wouldn’t sign a pipeline deal, and we have pipelines going up.”

The presidential permit gives the project the green light to transport oil across international borders, and it’s only the latest step in what appears to be a fast-tracked timeline for the revived tar sands pipeline. Last month, the federal Bureau of Land Management announced that it would begin conducting an environmental review of the project on an expedited schedule. (The Trump administration has shortened many of the environmental review processes required for pipeline construction.) Bridger Pipeline, the company behind the project, says it wants to begin construction next year and start moving oil in 2028.

The pipeline would carry at least 550,000 barrels of crude oil per day. That’s only about two-thirds of what Keystone XL would have carried, but it could expand to a peak capacity even larger than what was originally planned — more than 1 million barrels a day. The similarity between the new pipeline’s path and Keystone’s has led some opponents to call the successor “Keystone Light.” The Canadian portion of the new pipeline would be built by a company called South Bow, which was spun off from TC Energy, the company behind the original Keystone XL line. 

Miles of unused pipe, prepared for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, sit in a lot outside Gascoyne, North Dakota, in 2014.
Andrew Burton / Getty Images

The proposed pipeline would be one of the biggest new fossil fuel developments of Donald Trump’s second presidency. It comes at a time of growing oil production in Alberta and skyrocketing global crude prices due to the war the president is waging in Iran. The project is being pushed by the True family, a clan of oilmen with a long history of drilling in the Rockies — and a history of oil spills from pipelines across the region.

“We know that there is limited pipeline capacity to move Canadian crude oil, and we have extensive experience in the Rocky Mountains,” said Bill Salvin, a spokesperson for Bridger Pipeline, the True family pipeline company proposing the project.

The True business empire dates back to the 1940s, when a wildcatter named Henry Alphonso “Dave” True Jr. began exploring for oil in Wyoming. He and his three sons expanded their company into a network of almost a dozen corporations that includes a drilling company, a network of local oil pipelines, a trucking company, an oil trading company, an oil equipment company, a geothermal energy firm, and a real estate company called Brick & Bond, according to a Grist review of corporate records. They also invested in cattle ranching, becoming some of the state’s largest landowners. One of True’s sons, Diemer True, served for two decades in the Wyoming legislature.

This corporate expansion has given the four-generation True family outsize influence in a state that doesn’t produce much oil but neighbors the massive Bakken shale formation of North Dakota, which is served by some of the True family pipelines. The family name is synonymous with oil in Wyoming, and True family members have become prominent donors to the University of Wyoming and to a conservative legal foundation in the region. The Trues have also run afoul of the federal government: Several members of the family engaged in a 10-year dispute with the Internal Revenue Service over what the government said was a strategy to evade some taxes by shuttling ranchland purchases between different companies. (The case ended in a multimillion-dollar fine against the Trues, which was upheld by an appellate court in 2004.)

“They’re very prominent, and their business interests have spread all around the West,” said Phil Roberts, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Wyoming and an expert on the state’s oil industry. He noted that families like the Trues have shifted away from oil production as the state’s fields have declined, investing in pipelines and oilfield services to maintain their revenue.

“Those fields have gotten really worn out, so they’ve had to diversify,” said Roberts.

Tad True speaks during the third day of the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum in 2012. Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Tad True, the grandson of the True who first struck oil in Wyoming, has led the family’s pipeline business for most of this century, expanding its network to more than 4,000 miles across Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. He argued as early as 2006 that more pipeline development was needed in order for regional oil producers to remain competitive, and in a 2012 testimony before the House of Representatives he said that the Obama administration’s regulations were blocking the pipelines needed for the fracking boom that was then in full swing. True spoke at the Republican National Convention the same year, accusing Obama of “playing politics” with the Keystone XL pipeline, which the then-president had rejected the previous year. (While the pipeline was primarily intended to carry Canadian shale oil to American markets, it would also have included an “on ramp” for crude from True’s part of the country.)

True’s company, Bridger Pipeline, has a history of oil spills. In 2015, one of the pipelines it operated ruptured underneath the Yellowstone River after fast-moving waters eroded sediment and rock from the riverbed. At least 30,000 gallons of crude oil streamed into the river, contaminating the water supplies of Glendive, Montana. The town had to truck in bottles of drinking water after some residents noticed an odor in their tap water. Then, just a year later, another pipeline operated by one of the company’s subsidiaries leaked 600,000 gallons into a stream in North Dakota — almost enough oil to fill an Olympic-sized pool. Another pipeline broke several years later, dumping 45,000 gallons of oil onto ranchland in Wyoming. The company ultimately paid $1 million in fines to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the 2015 spill and $12.5 million for the 2016 spill.

In total, there have been at least 42 spills as a result of pipeline operations by True subsidiaries since 2010. According to data collected by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, more than a third of those spills had detrimental effects on the environment or people. The data shows that the Bridger Pipeline company alone is responsible for seven of those spills in just the last three years. The most recent spill took place in March near Guernsey, Wyoming. 

“That definitely sets off some alarm bells,” said Kenneth Clarkson, communications director with the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust. “It’s not acceptable to have one incident, and when we have this quantity, it’s definitely troubling.”

If the expanded Bridger pipeline ultimately carries tar sands oil from Canada, as appears likely, the environmental consequences of a spill could be dire. Given the thick, viscous nature of tar sands, operators mix a type of thinner — called a “diluent” in technical parlance — to help it flow through pipelines. In the event of a rupture, the diluent can easily evaporate, leaving behind a heavy, tar-like substance that sinks to the bottom of rivers and other waterways. That particular property of tar sands made cleanup of the Kalamazoo River particularly complicated after a different company’s pipeline burst in southwestern Michigan in 2010.  

“We regret any spill from our pipelines,” said Salvin, the Bridger spokesperson. “Anytime oil gets out of the line, that’s unacceptable to us, so we do everything possible to keep the oil in the line.” He said that Bridger will employ “horizontal drilling” to tunnel under rivers and streams, which he said would reduce the risk of ruptures. Salvin did not say what type of oil the pipeline would carry, but confirmed it would be engineered for “mostly heavy crude” from Alberta; the Canadian portion of the pipeline will begin in the town of Hardisty, in the heart of Alberta’s oil sands.

He also said the company would use advanced technology to monitor for leaks. In the aftermath of the 2015 spill, when North Dakota’s then-governor Doug Burgum challenged Tad True to prevent leaks, True created an artificial-intelligence software called Flowstate that analyzes pipelines for potential ruptures. Salvin said the company now uses the software on all its pipelines and markets it to other operators as well.

Even though the new proposed pipeline is similar to Keystone XL in length and size, it will only cost $2 billion, far less than Keystone’s $8 billion price tag. That’s because its route will largely follow existing infrastructure and rights-of-way established by True Companies pipelines. Salvin said that the company has held a dozen landowner meetings and has secured surveying easements, or allowances to scout the land for construction, from 374 of the 376 private landowners along the pipeline route. Unlike Keystone XL, the route does not cross any federally recognized tribal lands.

“We’re very familiar with what happened with the previous project,” said Salvin. “Given that we have existing pipeline corridors that we have access to, that’s one of the reasons why this makes such commercial sense to us.” Salvin declined to offer details about the financing of the project, and such details are not publicly available because Bridger is a privately held company.

The project must still secure a number of state and local permits, but so far it isn’t having any trouble with the Trump administration, which has been aggressive in supporting new oil and gas development. The line cuts through Montana and Wyoming, including public land overseen by the Bureau of Land Management, which is leading the federal government’s review of the project under the National Environmental Policy Act. Although the law typically requires the preparation of a detailed assessment of the project’s impact on wildlife and waterways, the bureau has suggested it might fast-track the pipeline’s review. 

Past studies have found that it typically takes federal agencies more than two years to complete an environmental impact statement, but the Bureau has indicated in public filings that it intends to publish a final impact statement by next May and make a decision on the project, allowing the company to begin construction by July.

Though True family members do not appear to be particularly close allies of Trump himself, they have given more than $4 million to Republican candidates and political action committees since 1977, according to federal records. A combined $12,000 went to Trump’s unsuccessful reelection campaign in 2020, the only apparent record of True financial support for the president. Furthermore, six members of the True family appeared on a 2022 endorsement list for Liz Cheney, the Wyoming politician who lost her reelection bid after she voted to impeach Trump.

The business case for the new pipeline rests on a number of big assumptions. The existing pipelines from the tar sands are running near capacity, but the Bridger proposal assumes that production in Canada’s oil hub will continue to increase. Many forecasters aren’t so sure; even with prices high, current projections show that production growth is slowing and may peak in 2030 at around 3.5 million barrels a day, well under what the proponents of Keystone XL anticipated. 

Second, the pipeline would only carry oil to central Wyoming, not all the way to the Nebraska refinery hub targeted by the original Keystone XL pipeline. Another company would need to build another pipeline across Nebraska in order for the crude to reach the major oil refineries on the Gulf Coast. (Salvin said Bridger is “exploring options” for that segment.) Third, it’s unclear if those refiners will even want as much of the heavy Canadian crude oil that the pipeline would offer, since imports of similar oil from Venezuela have started to tick up following Trump’s kidnapping of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and subsequent negotiations with the country’s new leadership. 

“To call this plan half-baked would be an insult to baking,” wrote energy lawyer and anti-pipeline advocate Paul Blackburn in a blog post last month. Blackburn is an advisor to Bold Alliance, the activist network that opposed the last Keystone XL proposal. 

Many of the same activist groups that opposed the prior pipeline are getting ready to oppose this one as well. The Bold Alliance, which organized tribes and rural landowners against Keystone, has said it will litigate any attempt to extend a pipeline into Nebraska. Jenny Harbine, a managing attorney with the nonprofit Earthjustice, said her group is “keeping a close eye” to ensure federal and state agencies adequately consider environmental and safety concerns. The Bureau of Land Management and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, which is coordinating its review with that of the federal government, closed an initial public comment period last week.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Keystone Light’: These Wyoming oil tycoons are reviving the controversial pipeline on May 6, 2026.

There’s a strange trend afoot on the East Coast, where residents have seen some of the highest increases in electricity costs in the country. As part of efforts to relieve the pressure, some Democrats are planning to slash energy-efficiency programs. Because utilities fund energy-efficiency measures through charges to their customers, the thinking is that scaling the programs down will reduce people’s bills quickly. The irony is that energy efficiency is meant to do exactly that: lower people’s energy use, and thus reduce their bills. 

“The cheapest, fastest thing you can do to help meet energy demand in this moment of increasing need for energy is energy efficiency,” said Mark Kresowik, senior policy director at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, or ACEEE.

This emerging trend among Democrats, alongside a more established shift among Republicans, is the opposite of how politicians have reacted to similar situations in the past. In 1973, when Arab countries stopped exporting oil to the U.S. because it supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War, oil prices soared, drivers waited in long lines at gas stations, and electricity bills increased. In response, President Richard Nixon proposed measures to trim energy use, including reducing speed limits to 50 mph, and urged Americans to lower their thermostats in the colder months. It was the beginning of a decades-long, bipartisan effort to improve energy efficiency and reduce the country’s reliance on “foreign oil.” 

The effort ended up saving Americans trillions of dollars. As regulations prompted manufacturers to make cars with better gas mileage, they trimmed fuel costs for Americans by an estimated $5 trillion over the course of decades (as well as preventing 14 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions). In addition, the efficiency standards that the government set on home appliances and plumbing still save the average household about $576 a year on their utility bills, while cutting national energy use by 6.5 percent. That’s according to data from the Department of Energy in January last year, before President Donald Trump took office.

Read Next How your showerhead and fridge got roped into the culture wars Kate Yoder

But confronted with another oil crisis today, again sparked by a conflict in the Middle East, many politicians are taking the opposite approach. The Trump administration, along with Republicans in Congress, has attacked the Biden-era fuel economy standards for cars, along with rules requiring appliances to be more efficient. And some Democrats, previously reliable supporters of energy efficiency, are wavering in their support. The result is that as data centers gobble up electricity, and extreme weather and an aging grid further drive up prices, some politicians are weakening one of the best tools for lowering bills and protecting people from price swings.

In Maryland, for example, Democratic Governor Wes Moore is expected to sign legislation scaling back the state’s target to reduce emissions, which would cut the amount utilities have to spend on energy-efficiency programs and eliminate a surcharge ratepayers see on their bills. Politicians in the region are looking for anything to immediately decrease their constituents’ bills, and they don’t have a lot of options to address the drivers of rising costs. “Energy affordability politics are dominating the political agenda, and it’s very difficult to address energy affordability,” said Kelly Trombley, senior director of state policy at Ceres, a sustainability nonprofit. But politicians can remove energy-efficiency surcharges with the stroke of a pen.

That helps explain why Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee, another Democrat, floated the idea of capping spending for energy efficiency rebates at $75 million a year, down from $95 million approved for this year. Fees, state mandates, and other charges tied to state policies reportedly account for a quarter of energy bills. Affordability concerns also prompted Democrats in the Massachusetts House to pass a bill that would cut $1 billion, out of $4.5 billion, from the state’s energy-efficiency budget. That bill appears to have a tough path forward, since the chair of the state Senate’s energy committee has signaled his support for Mass Save, a program that rewards ratepayers for buying heat pumps and making other energy-saving moves.

In Maryland, supporters of the legislation to cut energy efficiency spending say it could save residents $150 a year or more on their bills. “The thing about surcharges like this is, it is one of our most direct tools,” state Delegate Marc Korman, a Democrat, told Canary Media. ​“We don’t want to forsake all efforts at energy efficiency, but we want to try to provide a little bit of relief for some time if we can.” 

To opponents, focusing on immediate savings misses the bigger picture, since it would hurt affordability in the long-term. An analysis from ACEEE found that the proposed legislation in Maryland would increase costs for the state’s electricity customers by a net $592 million.

“Unfortunately, cutting energy efficiency programs — it’s like trading in your car for one that gets worse gas mileage at a time when gas prices are going up, and it won’t do anything to address those real cost drivers that will only get worse,” Trombley said. “Energy efficiency is one of the only options customers have to insulate themselves from the volatility coming from things like natural gas or an aging grid susceptible to extreme weather.”

While the trend appears mostly limited to the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, there’s one recent example of Democrats opposing an energy-efficiency measure on the federal level. In January, 57 Democrats in the House voted with Republicans on a bill that would eliminate the Biden administration’s efficiency standards for manufactured homes, which haven’t been updated since 1994 and allow for poor insulation. It’s still awaiting a vote in the Senate.

Republicans have increasingly targeted energy-efficiency laws, a reversal from the days of presidents Nixon and Ronald Reagan, who signed the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act in 1987. These days, everything from dishwashers to laundry machines has been sucked into the culture wars. The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have targeted efficiency standards enacted under the Biden administration, viewing them as symbols of Democrats interfering with “consumer choice.” Last week, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down Biden-era rules that would have restricted gas-powered commercial water heaters and consumer furnaces, siding with the natural gas industry and utilities.

Still, some energy efficiency programs have survived the Republican-dominated federal government. After the Trump administration threatened to eliminate Energy Star, a government program that puts its certification label on products that meet its efficiency standards, Congress passed a bipartisan spending bill in January that ensures continued funding. Congress also allocated $3 million more in funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program, which provides free energy-efficiency upgrades for low-income households, than it did last year, for a total of $329 million. Some Republican members of Congress have proposed a bill to extend tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act that were set to expire at the end of June — including incentives for constructing energy-efficient homes and supporting retrofits for commercial buildings.

And in the bigger picture, state spending on energy efficiency, especially in terms of assisting low-income households, has been on the rise. Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, signed a handful of pro-efficiency laws in April aiming to trim household bills by providing energy-saving upgrades to low-income families, some with bipartisan support. Also last month, Ned Lamont, Connecticut’s Democratic governor, announced a measure that’s supposed to save families about $30 a month by decreasing charges for public benefits on utility bills, with much of the reduction offset by contracts he negotiated with nuclear power plants that provide energy at fixed prices.

“We’re hopeful that there’s a pathway to strengthen and really recognize that you actually can’t have an energy affordability strategy without energy efficiency,” Trombley said.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Democrats used to back energy-saving plans. Now they’re wavering. on May 6, 2026.

Last week, the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues released urgent calls to action, including a pause on fast-tracked critical mineral projects and increased funding for Indigenous climate projects. But those recommendations come as the Forum itself is facing an existential crisis. 

For 25 years, the Forum has been the leading United Nations body representing Indigenous peoples, but that status has not always translated to policy change by member states or the U.N. itself. Growing questions about the Forum’s effectiveness also come amid budget cuts at the U.N., Trump’s rejection of multilateralism, and ongoing efforts to streamline U.N. processes. These intersecting challenges are all threatening to push the Forum, and the causes Indigenous representatives bring to it, even further toward the margins.

“For us, climate change is not a distant threat. It is a present and lived human rights crisis,” Aluki Kotierk, who is Inuk from Canada and current chairperson of the Permanent Forum, said Friday at the conclusion of the Forum’s two-week annual meeting in New York City. The Forum’s recommendations reflect discussions and research conducted by hundreds of Indigenous delegates and experts over the past year. They join more than 1,000 recommendations issued by the Forum since it first began to meet, many of which Indigenous advocates deem critical to their survival. But state governments often blatantly ignore them. 

A new “Systemic Assessment” report by a group of current and former members of the Permanent Forum underscores this problem. “While UNPFII has succeeded in establishing itself as a visible and legitimate global platform, questions remain regarding its ability to translate dialogue, recommendations, and knowledge production into tangible outcomes for Indigenous Peoples on the ground,” the report said. “The proliferation of recommendations has not been matched by corresponding mechanisms for implementation, follow-up, and accountability.” 

The report underscores the limitations of Forum, which makes recommendations on behalf of Indigenous peoples to U.N. agencies and member states, but has been hamstrung by funding cuts and the willingness of other U.N. agencies and global leaders to listen. Annual funding for the U.N. Trust Fund on Indigenous Issues, which helps the Permanent Forum carry out its mission, is at a historic low, falling from more than $300,000 in 2021 to less than $50,000 in 2026. Currently, only three U.N. member states contribute to the fund, down from nine member states in 2006. 

The drop in funding reflects a broader liquidity crisis at the U.N. driven in part by late payments from key members like the U.S. and China. Kotierk said the lack of funding has led to staff reductions at the Forum, shorter meeting times, and fewer interpretation services. 

That didn’t stop the Forum from issuing bold calls to action on Friday, including urging U.N. member states to seriously consider international court rulings to mitigate climate change by 2027, and to legally protect Indigenous lands, especially land belonging to uncontacted tribes. The Forum published multiple reports Friday with recommendations ranging from asking member states to develop legal protections for nomadic Indigenous communities, to urging the Green Climate Fund and Global Environment Facility, multi-billion dollar government-funded global funds, to provide direct funding to Indigenous peoples to mitigate climate change. 

Eirik Larsen, who attended this year’s Forum on behalf of the Saami Council, urged Forum members to consider capping the number of recommendations to maximize their effectiveness, and to ask member states and U.N. entities to report back on whether they’ve implemented recommendations from previous years. 

Larsen said that despite the need for improvement, he keeps returning to the Forum because it’s an important arena for discussing critical issues at the international level. “It’s a unique venue for Indigenous peoples to interact directly with member states,” he said. 

The systemic assessment of the Forum found that many Indigenous survey respondents agreed with Larsen’s appreciation of the Forum, seeing it as “a place of visibility, exchange, and recognition,” the report found. “Yet a large number also characterize it as overly performative, a ‘talk shop,’ or a space in which testimony is heard but not translated into meaningful change.” 

To Ghazali Ohorella, international relations and Indigenous rights advisor of the Alifuru Council, the assessment could not have been issued at a worse time. Just a year ago, the U.N. embarked on a process of restructuring, which could lead to U.N. bodies like the Forum being consolidated or eliminated. Today’s Permanent Forum is the result of decades of advocacy by Indigenous peoples for a dedicated space within the U.N., which by design, privileges the voices of recognized state governments and doesn’t allow Indigenous peoples who remain under colonial rule to vote in the General Assembly. Ohorella is worried that the report — which is based on a survey of 200 respondents, rather than the thousands of attendees over the past 25 years — could give ammunition to the Forum’s detractors. “It allows them to say: See, even Indigenous Peoples themselves identified problems with the Forum. Retire it,” Ohorella said. 

Read Next Indigenous peoples bear the brunt of climate change — and get almost none of the money to fight it Anita Hofschneider

One of the most valuable aspects of the Forum is its ability to elevate issues that otherwise might be ignored, like Indigenous health, which was the main topic of this year’s gathering. “There is no health without land. The well-being of Indigenous Peoples is inseparable from our lands, waters, and territories,” Kotierk said in her closing speech on Friday. “To restore health, we must advance decolonization.” This year, the Forum’s official recommendations urged U.N. member states to disaggregate health data on Indigenous peoples by 2027, and “to treat prolonged climate-induced displacement of Indigenous Peoples as a health emergency.” 

Kotierk said that the Forum has been instrumental in influencing global policies. “This Forum has consistently elevated what the world too often ignored. It has brought visibility to the crisis of Indigenous Peoples’ languages, affirmed the rights and leadership of Indigenous women and girls, and ensured that Indigenous Peoples’ voices are not only present—but heard—in international decision-making,” Kotierk said. 

Yet despite its importance, it’s not easy for Indigenous advocates to participate in the Permanent Forum. Structural barriers that limit participation include challenges obtaining visas — which have worsened under the Trump administration — lack of awareness about the Forum and how to register, and the high cost of travel. In the systemic assessment report, survey respondents suggested the Forum consider holding regional, national and local gatherings “that do not force all meaningful participation through a single annual gathering in New York.” 

Mariah Hernandez-Fitch, a first-year law student at Emory University and a member of the United Houma Nation, attended the Forum for the first time as a youth fellow for the Ban Ki-Moon Foundation. Hernandez-Fitch has never been abroad and this was her first time participating in a global Indigenous space. “It was beautiful to see people not all in suits,” she said. “Seeing people in their cultural attire, their formal wear, that was very exciting to me.” She listened to someone from Vietnam speak about how climate change was affecting their community and was moved by how similar their experience was to her family’s experience with rising seas in southeastern Louisiana. 

But she also felt overwhelmed by the process, confused by when the side events were happening, and ended up not delivering a planned statement, in part because she was intimidated by the process. “There’s rules, but if you don’t know about them, you do feel out of place even in a space that is for Indigenous peoples,” she said. 

Still, now that she’s back in New Orleans, Hernandez-Fitch can see herself returning to the Forum. “I can see myself applying the law and my experience into those spaces,” she said. “I could see myself not being scared of making an intervention.” It helped to meet other Indigenous youth who care just as much as she does about making a difference. “There’s a communal kind of excitement and I feel excited for the future.”

Conversations about how to make the Forum more effective will continue at next year’s gathering, which will be held from May 10 to 21 and focus on global progress on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The uncertain future of the UN’s leading voice on Indigenous rights on May 6, 2026.

Labour inaction on poison weedkillers Channel News brendan 6th May 2026 Teaser Media

Energetická transformace k obnovitelným zdrojům nabírá v celé Evropě na tempu. V ekologickém hnutí přitom vznikají spory mezi zastánci rychlého budování rozsáhlé obnovitelné infrastruktury a stoupenci participace místních komunit.

Až donedávna panoval v energetické politice západního světa opatrný konsensus: udržovat stávající model založený na fosilních palivech a zároveň vlažně podporovat dekarbonizaci. Tento konsensus se nyní bortí a energetickou politiku v rostoucí míře určuje otevřený konflikt.

Političtí aktéři hájící zájmy fosilního průmyslu se čím dál nepokrytěji staví proti energetické transformaci, což se projevuje zejména rostoucím odporem vůči projektům rozvoje obnovitelných zdrojů. V Evropské unii se zvlášť na krajní pravici prosazuje rétorika proti obnovitelným zdrojům, která vykresluje větrnou a solární energetiku jako ekonomicky nevýhodnou, diktovanou shora a odtrženou od „reálných“ potřeb běžných lidí.

Rychlý rozmach obnovitelných zdrojů však nenaráží jen na zájmy fosilního průmyslu. Vyvolává také spory mezi aktéry, kteří v zásadě zelenou transformaci podporují.

Na lokální a regionální úrovni se řada ekologických organizací postavila proti konkrétním projektům, jež jsou součástí přechodu k obnovitelné energetice. Například v jižní Francii podnikly spolky jako France Nature Environnment a Liga za ochranu ptactva (LPO) právní kroky proti parkům větrných elektráren, které v chráněných lokalitách ohrožovaly vzácné ptačí druhy. V jižním Španělsku zahájila skupina Ecologistas en Acción kampaň proti projektu rozsáhlé solární elektrárny s odůvodněním, že by znehodnotil půdu a narušil místní flóru.

Tyto debaty nejsou jen typickými příklady sporů o ekologickou spravedlnost či odporu místních obyvatel k výstavbě v jejich okolí (tzv. NIMBY efekt — z anglického Not In My Backyard, tedy Ne na mém dvorku), přestože se s nimi v mnoha ohledech prolínají. Jde spíše o ukázku konfliktů uvnitř zeleného hnutí — o střety mezi navzájem soupeřícími ekologickými prioritami.

Aktéři uvedených sporů se sice shodnou na potřebě dekarbonizace a ochrany přírody, ale rozcházejí se v tom, jaké typy obnovitelných zdrojů by se měly využívat, kde by se elektrárny měly stavět a kdo o tom má rozhodovat. Jelikož jsou spory daného typu čím dál častější a mají zásadní politické důsledky, zasluhují si zevrubnější analýzu, o niž se tu chci pokusit.

Soupeření mezi prioritami

Termín „green-on-green conflicts“, tedy konflikty uvnitř zeleného hnutí, zavedl v roce 2004 britský geograf Charles Warren. Inspiroval se přitom vojenským výrazem „blue-on-blue“, který označuje střelbu do vlastních řad. Warren už tehdy upozornil, že podobné střety předznamenávají budoucí debaty v rámci ekologického hnutí: „Společnost se přiklonila k zelené politice, ale jakou podobu by zelená politika měla vlastně mít?“

Spory mezi ekologickými aktivisty se často točí kolem umístění energetické infrastruktury, ochrany ohrožených druhů či procesů plánování, v principu se však jedná o konflikty politické. Nutí nás totiž klást si otázky, kdo v rámci zelené transformace definuje veřejný zájem a co lze ještě považovat za přijatelné vedlejší škody.

Spory uvnitř zeleného hnutí nejsou ničím novým. Odrážejí dlouhodobé napětí mezi různými proudy, které hlavní důraz kladou na odlišné aspekty ekologické krize. Nejčastěji proti sobě v posledních desetiletích stanuly dva tábory. Na jedné straně to jsou ti, kteří usilují o zmírnění klimatické změny a upřednostňují rychlou, systémovou transformaci ve spolupráci s vládami a průmyslem, což zahrnuje i výstavbu rozsáhlé infrastruktury.

Proti nim se postavili ti, kteří hájí zájmy místních komunit a regionů a akcentují ochranu biodiverzity, půdy a přírodních zdrojů. Popsanou dělicí linii bychom neměli přeceňovat, faktem ale zůstává, že v řadě sporů uvnitř zeleného hnutí stojí proti sobě právě uvedené dvě skupiny, což odráží také dlouhodobý střet mezi odlišnými politickými kulturami uvnitř hnutí.

Ačkoli do odporu proti projektům v oblasti obnovitelné energie často vstupují i jiné příčiny, konflikty mezi ekologickými aktéry si zasluhují zvláštní pozornost. V zemích EU vedla zrychlující se energetická transformace v posledním desetiletí k čím dál častějším a viditelnějším střetům daného typu.

Každý ze sporů je sice zasazen do specifických místních souvislostí, které nelze vždy snadno zobecnit, přesto se do nich často promítají podobné vzorce. Zatímco evropská fosilní energetika se obvykle opírá o těžbu v odlehlých oblastech a o infrastrukturu soustředěnou do nemnoha lokalit, zelená transformace spočívá na početnějších a územně rozptýlených zdrojích výroby energie. Tím se produkce energie dostává do mnohem těsnějšího kontaktu s obydlenou krajinou a místními komunitami.

Při prosazování projektů energetické transformace se obvykle argumentuje naléhavou potřebou dekarbonizace, křehkou energetickou bezpečností či nutností dosáhnout energetické nezávislosti. Odpor proti projektům obnovitelné energetiky naopak postrádá jednotný scénář. Bývá spíše situační, promítají se do něj specifika daných projektů a jejich konkrétní dopady na místní přírodu a krajinu. Navzdory různorodosti odporu lze říci, že jednotlivé sektory energetiky zpravidla vyvolávají specifické typy protestů podle konkrétního dopadu na životní prostředí.

Ohniska sporů

Zřejmě nejčastější a rovněž nejdiskutovanější příčinou sporů uvnitř zeleného hnutí je výstavba větrných elektráren, které v Evropské unii vyrábějí asi čtyřicet procent obnovitelné energie. Jedním z důvodů je jejich nepřehlédnutelnost. Vnitrozemské větrné parky proměňují ráz krajiny a výrazně zasahují do životního prostředí, čímž vyvolávají tradiční formy odporu proti velkým infrastrukturním stavbám.

Dobře je to vidět na příkladu Galicie v severozápadním Španělsku. V regionu, který byl kdysi největším španělským producentem větrné energie, nyní naráží rozšiřování pevninských větrných elektráren na tvrdý odpor. Ekologické organizace vystupují proti desítkám nových projektů a podávají stovky žalob s argumentem, že rychlá výstavba ničí krajinu i chráněné oblasti.

Řada projektů tak byla dočasně pozastavena, což vyvolalo bouřlivou celospolečenskou debatu. Kampaň přitom neodmítla větrnou energii jako takovou: odpůrci naopak zdůrazňují, že větrná energie je „pro ochranu planety před dopady současné klimatické krize zásadní“. Svou kritiku však směřují proti „spekulativnímu a predátorskému modelu“ rozsáhlých projektů větrných elektráren, které jsou prosazovány shora v zájmu velkých energetických korporací.

Takovýto přístup podle nich může způsobit „nezvratné ekologické, kulturní, společenské a ekonomické škody“. Podobné spory kolem větrných parků se objevily také v dalších částech Evropy, například v Německu, Švédsku nebo na Kypru.

Podobné diskuse vyvolávají i solární projekty, které zajišťují asi čtvrtinu evropské energie z obnovitelných zdrojů. Například plány na projekt Dama Solar v rumunské župě Arad, který se měl stát největším fotovoltaickým parkem v Evropě, napadlo u soudu místní ochranářské sdružení. Jeho zástupci tvrdí, že umístění projektu do chráněného území Natura 2000 ohrožuje tamní vzácné druhy.

Konflikt postavil ochranáře do přímého střetu s developery a státními úřady, kteří projekt hájí jako nezbytný pro dosažení klimatických cílů a posílení energetické bezpečnosti země. Celý spor, který byl později po mimosoudní dohodě pozastaven, odráží širší vzorec, s nímž se můžeme setkat třebas i v některých částech Francie, Španělska a Polska.

Vedle větrné a solární energetiky jsou tu ovšem i další základní pilíře transformace, které sice nepřitahují tolik pozornosti, ale jsou právě tak klíčové. Posilování přenosových sítí nebo výroba baterií rovněž vyvolává na různých místech v Evropě spory uvnitř zeleného tábora. Vůbec nejsilnější odpor se však zvedá proti těžbě některých kritických surovin; vlna protestů proti těžařským projektům se objevila v zemích jako Srbsko nebo Švédsko.

V severním Portugalsku vyvolaly vlnu odporu plány na těžbu lithia nedaleko obce Covas do Barroso. Ačkoli úřady projekt prezentovaly jako strategický příspěvek k evropské energetické transformaci, místní obyvatelé a ekologické organizace okamžitě zareagovali demonstracemi a přípravou právních kroků.

Protestující mluvili o tom, že jejich krajina má být „obětována“ a že zdejší životní prostředí utrpí jen proto, aby dekarbonizace pokročila někde jinde. Vadilo jim také, že rozhodnutí přišlo shora bez ohledu na jejich názor. Jedna z organizací, která se na protestech podílela, Unidos em Defesa de Covas do Barroso, shrnula kritiku argumentem, že „energetická transformace, která obětuje životní prostředí a je komunitám vnucena shora, místo aby vznikala ve spolupráci s nimi, přehlíží zkušenosti místních lidí s jejich vlastní krajinou a vytváří nebezpečný nedemokratický precedent“.

Od klimatu ke krajině

Stále častější konflikty uvnitř zeleného hnutí svědčí o hlubších rozporech v pojetí ekologického aktivismu. Patrná je zejména rostoucí nespokojenost s tím, že se výhradním středobodem ekologických kampaní stává samo klima. Některé proudy radikálního ekologického hnutí dnes vnímají „klima“ jako příliš abstraktní a technokratické téma, které je navíc úzce svázáno s politikou establishmentu.

Jejich skepse často pramení z frustrace z mainstreamové klimatické politiky, kterou mnozí považují za příliš pomalou a neefektivní. Takováto kritika zaznívá už dlouho, širší odezvy se jí však začalo dostávat až po neúspěchu klimatických protestů v roce 2019. Většina účastníků akcí tehdy nabyla dojmu, že ani masová mobilizace veřejnosti nevedla k prosazení smysluplné politické změny.

Zatím nelze hovořit o tom, že by v Evropě obrat od soustředění na klima ke komplexnějšímu vnímání ekologické krize nastával v širším měřítku, některé případy však naznačují, že se takováto dynamika začíná postupně prosazovat. Jasným příkladem je francouzská radikální organizace Povstání země (Les Soulèvements de la Terre), která sdružuje aktivisty různých názorových proudů včetně těch, kteří jsou rozčarováni vývojem dosavadních klimatických protestů. Francouzská organizace prohlašuje, že klimatická politika zůstává odtržená od žité reality, a namísto toho vybízí k lokálním zápasům, které „vracejí ekologické hnutí zpátky na zem“.

Uvedený obrat je zčásti odrazem lokálního ekologického aktivismu. Odpor proti projektům energetické transformace často navazuje na dlouhodobé tradice hnutí proti jaderným elektrárnám, budování přehrad, těžbě či průmyslovému zemědělství. Takováto hnutí obvykle chápou ekologický konflikt jako obranu krajiny a každodenního života proti vzdáleným centrům politické a ekonomické moci.

Historicky se takovéto iniciativy vyvíjely v určitém odstupu od agendy klimatické transformace. S tím, jak se nyní přechod k zelené energii zrychluje, napětí mezi různými tradicemi ekologického hnutí vystupuje na povrch a v některých případech přerůstá v otevřený konflikt.

Svou roli hraje také rostoucí vliv antikapitalistických postojů v ekologickém aktivismu. Pro mnohé skupiny totiž není hlavním tématem sama dekarbonizace, ale spíše její prosazování prostřednictvím tržních mechanismů. Z tohoto pohledu se zelený průmysl nejeví jako rozchod s minulostí, ale spíš jako stará známá logika exploatace zdrojů a kumulace kapitálu v novém kabátě.

To pak znemožňuje přistoupit na to, jak si energetickou transformaci představují vlády či korporace, a to i v situacích, kdy panuje široká shoda na nutnosti skoncovat s fosilními palivy. Popsané posuny nám pomáhají pochopit, proč se určité proudy zeleného aktivismu přiklánějí stále více k lokálním konfliktům a jak spolu s tím vzrůstá i nedůvěra vůči klimatické politice. Objasňuje se tím také vznik nových spojenectví mezi radikálními ekologickými aktivisty, ochranářskými organizacemi a obyvateli venkovských či příměstských oblastí.

Spory o pojetí zelené politiky míří do vyšších pater

Vnitřní konflikty zeleného hnutí se neprojevují jen lokálními protesty, ale stále častěji pronikají i do vysoké politiky. Ačkoli obě roviny nemusí být vždy přímo provázané, často zrcadlí stejné základní napětí.

To jen potvrzuje, že nejednotnost hnutí zdaleka není jen záležitostí lokálních sporů. U některých ekologicky zaměřených stran to pak vede k odmítání dekarbonizačních projektů, které by vyžadovaly jakékoli kompromisy.

Ačkoli se rétorika politických stran nemusí vždy přesně krýt s argumenty v lokálních sporech „zelených proti zeleným“, často s nimi sdílí podobnou vnitřní logiku. Příklady z nedávné doby najdeme po celé Evropě. Ve švýcarském kantonu Valais se například postavila Strana zelených proti vybudování fotovoltaických elektráren v alpských oblastech. V Portugalsku se zase levicový Bloco de Esquerda zapojil do kampaní proti těžbě lithia, v níž varuje před ničivými dopady na tamní krajinu.

Další, taktéž výmluvný příklad najdeme ve Španělsku, kde se podobný střet odehrál na parlamentní půdě. Poté, co zemi v roce 2025 postihl rozsáhlý výpadek elektrické energie, navrhla vláda opatření k posílení stability distribuční sítě a navýšení podpory obnovitelných zdrojů.

Vládní návrh byl však nakonec zamítnut, a to i s přispěním levicové strany Podemos, která se k zelené politice jinak hlásí. Její poslanci argumentovali tím, že reformy nijak neposilují veřejné vlastnictví ani demokratickou kontrolu, a naopak obsahují hrozbu, že upevní pozici stávajících energetických hráčů.

Uvedené obavy nebyly neopodstatněné. Bezprostředním důsledkem však byla patová situace: vládní návrh byl smeten ze stolu a žádná alternativní opatření se nepřijala. Odmítání obnovitelných energetických projektů s odůvodněním, že přinášejí prospěch především energetickým gigantům, se stalo trvalou součástí rétoriky Podemos.

Všechny uvedené případy mají jeden společný rys: aktéři, kteří nenesou přímou odpovědnost za dodávky energií a politiku v oblasti průmyslu, snáze odmítají kompromisy spojené s energetickou transformací. Naproti tomu ti, kteří jsou u moci, jsou strukturálně nuceni na ústupky přistupovat.

Nevyhnutelné napětí

Evropské spory uvnitř zeleného hnutí nabývají na intenzitě v kontextu zcela specifické politické situace. Odehrávají se v kontextu celosvětové vlny odporu proti ekologické politice, což se v Evropské unii projevuje rostoucí snahou vytlačit ekologický aktivismus na okraj. Evropská unie se přitom paradoxně snaží urychlit budování energetické a průmyslové infrastruktury založené na obnovitelných zdrojích, a to navzdory mnohým rozporům ve svém vlastním zeleném programu. Popsaná dynamika pak vyvolává stále naléhavější otázky ohledně směřování evropské ekologické politiky.

Popsaný vývoj lze interpretovat jako upevňování jakéhosi evropského energetického státního zájmu (raison d’état). Členské státy a instituce Evropské unie se stále častěji zaštiťují klimatickými cíli a energetickou bezpečností a velké energetické a průmyslové projekty označují za strategickou prioritu, kterou je nutno realizovat rychle a bez zbytečných průtahů.

Takovýto trend potvrzují i nedávné politické změny, jako je zrychlení schvalovacích procesů či upřednostňování strategických projektů. V unijním politickém diskursu se už energetická transformace nezdůvodňuje ani tak ochranou lidí a životního prostředí, jako spíše nutností zachovat konkurenceschopnost prostřednictvím ambiciózních, velkokapacitních projektů.

Bude-li takovýto vývoj pokračovat cestou oslabování ekologických pojistek, pravidel územního plánování a veřejné kontroly, lze očekávat, že i vnitřní střety v zeleném hnutí naberou na síle a prohloubí se polarizace. Některé spory pak mohou přerůst institucionální rámec a nabývat ostře konfrontačních podob.

Fragmentace zeleného hnutí znamená velké politické riziko — zejména v době, kdy ekologičtí aktéři potřebují utvářet široké a stabilní koalice, aby dokázali čelit sílícímu odporu vůči klimatické politice. Má-li zelený tábor prosadit podstatné změny, musí najít společnou řeč napříč celým spektrem zastánců zelené transformace, aby se rozdílné priority dařilo překonat jednáním, spíše než aby vedly k rozkolům.

Nicméně soudržnost nelze vynucovat. Mnohé požadavky, které ve vnitřních konfliktech zeleného hnutí zaznívají, jsou zcela legitimní. Projekty energetické transformace často prosazují hráči, jejichž prioritou je korporátní zisk, nikoli ekologické či sociální zájmy — a škody, které působí, jsou zcela reálné.

Mnozí z těch, kdož se odvolávají na naléhavost situace, se často jen pokoušejí odsunout požadavky na participaci, inkluzi či spravedlnost na vedlejší kolej. Z tohoto pohledu jsou debaty uvnitř zeleného hnutí nezbytné. Nutí totiž centra moci ke konfrontaci s konkrétními místy, kde zelená transformace získává svou hmatatelnou podobu, a podtrhují zásadní argument: energetická transformace si nemůže nárokovat legitimitu, pokud při své realizaci ničí ekosystémy, biotopy a místní komunity.

Na hlubší úrovni popsané rozpory odrážejí ústřední dilema klimatické krize. Dekarbonizace musí proběhnout rychle a ve velkém měřítku, jenže aktéři, kteří by ji dokázali provést sociálně spravedlivě a s citlivostí ke krajině, momentálně nemají v rukou politickou moc.

Vzhledem k naléhavosti a rozsahu celého úkolu si lze jen stěží představit, že by energetická transformace mohla proběhnout hladce a bez třenic, a to i za těch nejpříznivějších politických okolností. Ačkoli tedy zůstává hlavním úkolem budování rozsáhlých akceschopných koalic k odvrácení klimatické katastrofy, vnitřní konflikty v zeleném hnutí budou pravděpodobně přetrvávat.

Takovéto spory nejsou chybou v procesu zelené transformace, nýbrž jen symptomem toho, jak hluboko do různých vrstev ekologické a politické reality celý proces zasahuje. Z toho důvodu je bezkonfliktní transformace nejen nerealistická, ale dost možná i nežádoucí. Skutečnou otázkou tedy není, jak střetům mezi zastánci zelené politiky zabránit, ale zda je lze zvládat tak, aby se zelené hnutí mohlo stát silou, která energetickou transformaci usměrní, namísto toho, aby ji paralyzovalo.

Despite Scotland's lack of power over immigration policy, migrant justice remains central to the 2026 election, writes Cailean Gallagher

The post Elections 2026: Immigration, employment and the limits of Holyrood appeared first on Red Pepper.

Survey finds most Australians support cap for diesel fuel rebate, and most didn't even know mining companies pocketed so many billions from the policy.

The post Survey finds most Australians support fuel tax credit cap, and didn’t know miners pocketed so many billions appeared first on Renew Economy.

Federal government to spend $10 billion to "future proof" supply of fuel and fertiliser, but critics not impressed.

The post National fuel reserve “future-proofed” in $10 billion plan, but critics say it is “junk logic” appeared first on Renew Economy.

Smart Energy Council chief uses one of his last speeches in the role to celebrate Australia's bottom-up energy revolution, in which home solar and batteries have "changed the dial in a very significant way."

The post How rooftop solar and home batteries became “kryptonite” to big coal and the fossil fuel industry appeared first on Renew Economy.

A new study argues that the notorious anti-development figure known as the NIMBY, for Not In My Backyard, has an equally toxic cousin in the transportation realm: the NOMS, or Not On My Street. And the researcher who coined the new term warns that U.S. communities will struggle to achieve lasting change until they reckon with the outsized influence of NOMS and their disturbing car-first ideology.

In a recent analysis of hundreds of public comments given at community meetings in Washington, D.C. across four years, researcher Ashton Rohmer found several troubling trends in the rhetoric of residents who resisted new livable streets infrastructure and policies, and what she calls the “car supremacist” attitudes that seem to underlie them.

For instance, many testimonies incorrectly characterized street space as a scarce, non-renewable resource with little room to spare for things like curb extensions — a phenomenon she calls “static scarcity,” which ignores the ancient history of streets evolving along with society. Other testifiers, meanwhile, participated in “blame inversion,” or raging against non-drivers for problems that are objectively caused by motorists, like traffic jams backed up alongside new bike lanes.

Research shows that congestion typically shrinks or remains flat when governments add cycling infrastructure to their roads — even if that infrastructure subtracts a little bit of lane space from drivers, many of whom hop on their bikes when they have a safe network to ride on. But that doesn’t stop the NOMS — whose ranks include USDOT Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy — from claiming the exact opposite, without any evidence beyond their personal bias.

Recommended USDOT Secretary Sean Duffy Is Dead Wrong About Bike Lanes Kea Wilson April 25, 2025

Even more alarmingly, Rohmer says those sorts of arguments seem to flow from unexamined beliefs that the harms perpetrated by drivers don’t really count — and conversely, that the people who endure them don’t really deserve justice or proactive measures to prevent other people from getting hurt.

And some testifiers heavily implied that non-drivers don’t deserve a say in how streets are built, whether because they “don’t pay for the roads” (when they absolutely do), or because “no one uses the bike lanes we already have” (when they absolutely do that, too). Some neighbors even alleged that cyclists are illegitimately “corrupting” city agencies to get their way. If that were actually true, drivers would probably not be killing so many people.

More than a century after the dawn of the automobile, Rohmer says these kinds of “car supremacist” ideas have become so deeply rooted that merely building new bus rapid transit lines will not be enough to heal the lasting damage to our broken culture.

“The issues posed by our mobility status quo are not engineering problems to be modeled or long range plans to be strategized, but constitute a moral project to be scrutinized, a social construct to be challenged and a system of power to be dismantled,” she wrote.

Recommended Friday Video: How ‘Car Brain’ Warps the Way We See the World Streetsblog January 16, 2026

Of course, Rohmer isn’t the first scholar to argue that concepts like “motonormativity,” “windshield bias,” and “car-brain” have pervaded American life — and she isn’t the first to point out how powerful interests in the oil, road, and auto industries have systematically ingrained that perspective into our everyday lives.

Still, she argues that until we closely examine how everyday Americans perpetuate autocentrism from the bottom up — and how policymakers allow them to do so — we will never fully shift our transportation status quo, even if we do confront car culture’s top-down causes.

“I haven’t seen much theoretical work to explain the process by which a grumpy neighbor can complain about a speed bump, and then two days later, it gets removed,” she added. “There isn’t just a global political economy at work in that situation. It’s powered by individuals at the hyper-local level, within a bureaucratic process that enables that power to continue.”

Recommended Where Does ‘Motonormativity’ Come From — And Which Country Has It Worst?  Streetsblog May 6, 2025

Rohmer says community meetings, where motorists often disparage and intimidate their non-driving neighbors, provide a startling illustration of car culture’s corrosive impact.

In the D.C. testimonies she studied, many residents pointed to low bike ridership as evidence that cyclists constituted a “nefarious minority” hellbent on making life harder for their neighbors — rather than average people who just want to survive their ride home. Some even accused bikers, without evidence, of being paid actors or bribing politicians to enact their unwanted “agenda.”

“There’s no recognition that people who ride bikes or busses or [who use] sidewalks could possibly be members of the community,” Rohmer continued. “They’re always cast as outsiders … What these arguments are saying is that [non-drivers] shouldn’t have access to safe streets — like your life matters less.”

While her sample focused on D.C., Rohmer says car-supremacist arguments and attitudes turn up in conservative and liberal places alike because they’re fundamentally about power, not partisan politics. She recalls a recent conversation with a colleague about Copenhagen, where debate over a proposed bus lane in fell prey to similar dynamics.

“It’s not that Copenhagen suddenly hate buses,” she added. “It’s that a new bus lane announced that car driver’s privileged position was contestable, and that’s what activated the opposition.”

Recommended How Windshield Perspective Shapes the Way We See the World Angie Schmitt January 7, 2014

While she stops short of offering a full-scale de-radicalization program for the NOMS, Rohmer says that decision-makers must recognize that car supremacy is a moral wrong just like any other dehumanizing ideology – and it’s past time for policymakers to check its influence on civic society.

That might look like disempowering tiny groups of unelected, unrepresentative community members who want to publicly debate whether things like bike and bus lanes should exist at all — while engaging the larger community even more deeply on the details of how those projects are rolled out, without compromising on the need for life-saving projects.

“If we use our community engagement practices to enable someone who thinks that it is okay not to make our streets safe for everyone who uses them, that is a failure of community engagement,” she said. “When we relegate decision-making to people who have these ideas about whose lives are worth valuing, I don’t think that that should count as ‘consulting the community.'”

Editor’s note: a version of this article originally appeared on the RailsToTrails.org and is republished with permission.

Within a few weeks, we may see the first public text and committee action for the next federal bill that governs the nation’s transportation policies — including the programs that provide the lion’s share of funding for active transportation and set the priorities for states and municipalities across the American landscape.

In the face of recent federal volatility toward trails, walking and biking, this will be a litmus test. While demand for this infrastructure is unprecedented — with hundreds of impressive projects underway that will deliver safe, convenient routes to travel by foot, bike or wheelchair in every single state — the question remains: Will federal legislators prioritize the transformative impacts of active transportation networks?

A leading indicator will be what happens with the Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (ATIIP).

Why is ATIIP So Critical? Photo: Allison Abruscato

Authorized under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), ATIIP is the only federal program dedicated to making concentrated investments to establish safe, connected routes to walk and bike to the places people need to go—within their communities, to the next town, or even to the next state over. It solves a very specific problem that no other program is equipped to address, delivering the scale of investment needed to close gaps and complete active transportation networks.

With sky-high public demand for this essential community infrastructure equally evident in both Republican and Democratic strongholds, legislators should commit to grow and improve ATIIP in the federal transportation bill currently under development. A fortified ATIIP will improve the connectivity of trails, protected bike lanes and sidewalks into seamless transportation routes, meeting real needs for people walking and biking and increasing use by as much as 80%, according to a study Rails to Trails Conservancy led in partnership with Strava.

In part, that’s because the majority of trips taken in the United States are within a short walk or bike ride; it’s practical to move around our communities without a car. Considering that nearly 1 in 3 Americans lacks access to a motor vehicle — and many more are facing tough choices as gas prices continue to break records — finding accessible, affordable ways to get around is a real need many families face.

The stakes are staggering. When people walk or bike today in America, they’re taking their lives in their hands. As many as 20 people die while walking in the United States every single day.

Powerful Benefits for Communities Photo: City of Missoula

While preventing injury and death should be enough of a motivating factor to accelerate the pace of developing active transportation networks, the return on investment for traffic safety, economic development, health and the environment is also powerful. Research outlined in RTC’s 2019 “Active Transportation Transforms America” study puts the annual benefit of investing in walking and biking infrastructure at $34 billion; that can be quadrupled by building networks of trails and other safe infrastructure.

In many American communities across rural, suburban and urban geographies, residents and leaders alike recognize the urgency and potential to build these networks. But the opportunity to take this progress to scale, and make seamless walking and biking routes a norm, requires leadership and partnership at the federal level — signified by a consistent, dependable source of sizable federal grants that can be used to leverage local and state investments.

As we consider strategies to strengthen America’s transportation options, we must consider the discrepancy in how infrastructure has been built. Roads and rails are built as connected networks as a matter of course. Historically, trails and other walking and biking infrastructure have been built incrementally, relying on opportunism and thinly spread-out resources. But that incremental approach has established the foundation to build the country’s active transportation networks at a discount.

Longstanding foundational federal programs like Transportation Alternatives and the Recreational Trails Program, alongside state and local programs, have contributed to more than 42,500 miles of multiuse trails crisscrossing the American landscape.

ATIIP will leverage these impactful projects to achieve connectivity through gap filling and deliver resources on a scale sufficient to enable functional systems in a reasonable time period. It is the only federal program designed to fill multiple gaps in a network or to address critical but expensive connections, such as bridges.

This approach has already been proven to work.

Proven Impact of Connected Infrastructure Photo: John Faulk, Frontera Media

In 2005, Congress funded the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program, designed to test whether increasing the connectivity of walking and biking infrastructure would result in increased use. The program was implemented with great success across four disparate communities in Missouri, Minnesota, California and Wisconsin.

A later study of pre- and post-conditions issued by the Federal Highway Administration found that the connectivity investments made through the program increased walking by 22.8 percent and bicycling by 48.3 percent, with safety improvements across urban, suburban, rural and college town contexts.

Another example can be seen in Texas, which created a wildly successful large-grant category within its Transportation Alternatives program focusing on connectivity investments. Most of the money requested and provided flowed to these highly strategic and impactful projects. By shifting their programmatic approach, the Texas Department of Transportation elevated the striking demand for investment in connectivity and functional networks — illuminating the opportunity the federal government has to multiply its impact.

A Critical Opportunity Is Upon Us Photo: Derry Rail Trail Alliance

IIJA created and authorized ATIIP for $200 million per year over five years, but it was subject to annual appropriations. That approach proved ineffective. Appropriators only delivered one $45 million infusion to the program—severely insufficient to meet the demand. In the first round of grant funding, the program was oversubscribed with a whopping $40 in applications for every dollar made available.

This next surface transportation bill is the opportunity to unlock ATIIP’s full potential. But it will require the predictability and consistency that comes from contract authority under the Highway Trust Fund.

The House bill passed for the last transportation reauthorization would have provided ATIIP with $250 million per year in contract authority if it were enacted. Matching that is the baseline that Congress should meet to begin to address the immense unmet demand and need for such resources going forward.

ATIIP has bicameral and bipartisan support. Rep. Chris Pappas (D) of New Hampshire just introduced a House bill to make these critical improvements to the program. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) of Alaska continues to champion ATIIP in the Senate. Both are joined by others of their party and respective legislative bodies.

This breadth of support reflects the reality that this infrastructure delivers for Republicans and Democrats and is valued by voters across the spectrum. We’re counting on bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress to deliver ATIIP — and safe walking and biking routes—to America.

• A new American Lung Association report found than almost half of Americans live in a place with an unhealthy amount of air pollution. The report found that smog, caused in large part by car exhaust, is making a comeback after years of decline. Los Angeles has the worst smog problem in the country, as it has for 26 of the past 27 years. Bangor is the only city with low levels of both smog and particle pollution, also caused by cars.
• The cost of gas is one of many reasons to ditch your car, or at least get a smaller one. Filling up the 36-gallon tank of a Ford F-150, the most popular vehicle in the U.S., costs $46 more now than it did a year ago. (The Independent)
• Bloomberg Philanthropies committed to invest $350 million in bike infrastructure in more than 30 cities worldwide. (Momentum)
• An obscure federal insurance requirement could have a big impact on passenger rail service — and possibly bring some lines to a stop altogether. (Streetsblog USA)
• California first responders say the problem of stuck Waymos blocking the street is getting worse. (Wired)
• San Francisco residents who rented apartments specifically to be near transit stations could be forced to move or start driving again if a fiscal crisis forces BART to close 15 stations. (Standard)
• Baltimore residents are happy a grocery store is coming to their neighborhood, but in a reversal of the usual NIMBY arguments, say the suburban design includes too much parking. (Brew)
• San Antonio is considering expanding its on-demand van service. (News Express via Yahoo)
• Milwaukee passed Mayor Cavalier Johnson’s goal of building 50 miles of protected bike lanes, and is still building more. (Journal Sentinel)
• The Connecticut legislature removed a section of a transportation bill that would have allowed the DOT to set up automated speed cameras on highways. (CT News Junkie)
• Spokane will ask voters to renew a 0.2 percent sales tax for transportation this August. (Range)
• The Kansas City streetcar opens in two weeks, and businesses are hoping for a boost. (KCTV)
• Smooth Corinthian leather? Amtrak’s new commercials use the language of luxury car TV ads to sell the public on train travel. (Jalopnik)

One of Australia's biggest solar farms – and Neoen's second-biggest utility-scale PV asset, globally – is officially operational, ahead of the addition of a big battery.

The post Neoen powers up one of Australia’s biggest solar farms, co-located big battery to come appeared first on Renew Economy.

Forrest slams Australia's fossil fuel dependence, diesel rebate and use of fake offsets, and says Fortescue will be a prototype for the country to reach real zero.

The post “Despots, oligarchs, fruitcakes and invaders:” Why Andrew Forrest wants to stop burning fossil fuels appeared first on Renew Economy.

Trump's proposed rule change doubles down on an already broken and polluting food system

Source

Sarah Aubrey joins for the first time as co-host of The Driven Podcast as we unpack a record month for EV sales, the ACT’s extraordinary 34 per cent EV share, and what the next phase of the federal EV tax break could mean for buyers, novated leases and car makers.

The post The Driven Podcast: EV sales surge, FBT survives, and petrol starts to wobble appeared first on Renew Economy.

At the Smart Energy Conference, Andrew Forrest has called for the removal of Australia’s $2.5 billion diesel fuel rebate for large corporations, describing it as “free money” that hinders innovation.

The post Video: Andrew Forrest on diesel fuel rebate, real zero and the energy transition appeared first on Renew Economy.

WSPA and Chevron led oil lobbying against California’s Cap-and-Invest program. 

Sacramento, Calif. — Oil and gas corporations spent $10.3 million on California state lobbying and influence in the first quarter of 2026, the biggest first-quarter total on record, according to figures reported to the Secretary of State. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), a powerful industry trade group, was the top spender, pouring over $4.3 million into lobbying efforts, with its key member, Chevron, following at its heels with $3.7 million spent. 

Top 5 lobbying and influence spenders of Q1:

Company/Trade Association Amount  Western States Petroleum Association $4.3 million Chevron $3.7 million Phillips 66 $544,000 Marathon Petroleum $254,000 California Resources Corporation $156,000

BP America, California Resources Corporation, Chevron, Marathon Petroleum, Oxy Low Carbon Ventures, and WSPA all lobbied the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on the Cap-and-Invest program. This coincides with a misinformation campaign from Big Oil blaming climate policy for refinery closures and high gas prices, and pushing for a $2 billion bailout in Cap-and-Invest. Lawmakers and climate advocates are pushing back against these efforts.

WSPA, California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA), California Resources Corporation (CRC), Chevron, and Valero all lobbied against SB 1259, a common-sense transparency law that would require refineries to disclose estimated costs and timelines for closure and remediation.

“While Big Oil reaps record windfall profits from the war on Iran, they’re spending lavishly on Sacramento lobbyists to try to kill even the most basic community protections and transparency measures,” said Faraz Rizvi with Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) Action. “These lobbying numbers tell you everything you need to know — Big Oil isn’t struggling right now. They’re just determined to leave our communities holding the bag on their way out the door.”

WSPA, CIPA, CRC, and Chevron also all lobbied against AB 2461 (The Oil Well Cleanup Accountability Act), which clarifies existing law to require full bonding for cleanup costs of any transferred oil wells, and worked on AB 2716, which would create massive loopholes in existing bonding rules by allowing what advocates call “pinky-swear” financial assurances in the form of corporate guarantees for transferred oil wells. 

“Big Oil’s eye-popping expenditures to fight legislation that keeps Californians safe shows how far the industry will go to evade common sense oversight,” said Hollin Kretzmann, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “The Oil Well Accountability Act, one of the industry’s targets, would help make sure oil companies actually pay to clean up their idle, polluting wells. It’s a basic protection for Californians, and lawmakers should pass it.”

As California’s transportation fuels transition and a tight state budget remain priority issues for lawmakers in Sacramento, advocates stress that without transparency and accountability for the costs of remediation, both idle oil wells and unplanned refinery closures threaten to saddle taxpayers and communities with pollution and cleanup costs. SB 1259, AB 2461, and AB 2716 are now before the Senate and Assembly Appropriations Committees.

Oil corporations successfully lobbied against SB 982, the Affordable Insurance and Reliability Act, which would have helped hold polluters accountable for insurance and rebuilding costs from fossil-fuel induced climate disasters, as well as AB 1536, which would have strengthened the state’s protections against President Trump’s offshore drilling push for California’s coast.

Three-quarters of the oil and gas entities spending went towards “other payments” to influence state policy—which include fees to consultants, trade association dues, and donations to industry front groups—rather than on direct lobbying itself: they spent $7.8 million on other payments and $2.6 million on in-house and external lobbyists.

Top industry front group Californians for Energy Independence scored nearly $1.8 million in itemized contributions in Q1, all of it from Chevron. The front group used most of that money to pay Winner and Mandabach Campaigns, a consulting firm that specializes in ballot measures. Winner and Mandabach Campaigns previously worked for Californians for Energy Independence during Big Oil’s failed attempt to overturn California’s health buffer zones between schools and oil wells. 

Other top payees of the oil and gas entities were ML Media Group ($1.2 million from WSPA), The Axis Agency ($507,000 from WSPA), California Business Roundtable ($500,000 from Chevron), and Flexpoint Advocacy ($500,000 from WSPA). Also of note is Washington, D.C.-based PR firm DDC Public Affairs, which is notorious for its work with industry front groups that pushed deceptive messages. The firm got $137,000 from Chevron and has increased its haul from oil and gas firms in California since 2023. 

The top five lobbying firms to service the oil and gas industry in Q1 were Buchalter ($371,000), Carpenter Garcia Sievers ($277,000), Axiom Advisors ($210,000), Kester/Pahos ($110,000), and Prime Strategies of California ($96,000; the firm also received $125,000 from Phillips 66, classified as “other payments”). 

The record lobbying spending comes as oil companies announce their first-quarter profits, with Chevron making $2.2 billion and Valero making $1.3 billion. Average gasoline prices in California topped $6 per gallon on April 30.

Additional information on Q1 lobbying activity is available upon request.

###

Methodology: This report analyzes raw data from the California Secretary of State’s Political Reform Division as of May 1, 2026. The analysis includes the lobbyist employers in the “oil and gas” category for the 2025-26 legislative session. The state’s definition of oil and gas lobbyist employers includes, in addition to traditional oil and gas firms, firms that advocate for biomass energy, compressed natural gas, and/or carbon removal. As of May 1, five filers had not submitted Q1 reports: Berry Corporation, E&B Natural Resources, Kinder Morgan, Synergy Oil & Gas, and Woodside Energy. Berry Corporation is now part of California Resources Corporation; E&B Natural Resources and Woodside Energy have terminated their registrations.

LCA LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We acknowledge that Sacramento is the traditional home of the Maidu, Miwok and Nisenan people. Part of our commitment to decolonizing ourselves, our language, and our organizations is a commitment to learning and better understanding the history of Indigenous Peoples of so-called California, including the history of contact, colonization and the extraction of resources from Indigenous lands which has been part of the continuation of modern colonization.

The post Big Oil spends record $10 million on lobbying to kill common sense climate and polluter accountability policy appeared first on Last Chance Alliance.