News Feeds

In an increasingly unstable world of “strong arms and trade wars”, climate action is the “not-so-secret weapon” that can deliver security, the UN climate chief said in his first speech of the year.

Speaking in Istanbul alongside Turkiye’s COP31 president on Thursday, Simon Stiell warned that, while security is on most leaders’ lips at the moment, “many cling to a definition that is dangerously narrow”.

“For any leader who is serious about security, climate action is mission critical, as climate impacts wreak havoc on every population and economy,” he added. “Climate cooperation is an antidote to the chaos and coercion of this moment, and clean energy is the obvious solution to spiralling fossil fuel costs, both human and economic.”

Stiell’s remarks aim to reframe the global security debate at a time when climate change has slipped down the global political agenda.

Climate dropping down priority list

In much of the Western world, governments’ attention has shifted towards geopolitical tensions and spending redirected towards defence build-up following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and, more recently, US President Donald Trump’s military action in Venezuela and renewed pursuit of Greenland.

Climate change has also fallen sharply in public risk perception among advanced economies, according to the Munich Security Conference’s annual survey on national threats, released ahead of the annual gathering of leaders – including those of most European nations – which starts on Friday.

In 2021, respondents in the G7 industrialised nations ranked climate change as the top risk facing their countries. This year, it has slipped to sixth place, overtaken by worries about cyberattacks, financial crises and disinformation.

By contrast, climate-related threats continue to dominate risk perceptions in major emerging economies. In China, India, Brazil and South Africa, respondents consistently rank climate change, extreme weather and forest fires among the most serious dangers facing their countries, the survey found.

“Antidote to the chaos”

The shift in sentiment comes as global temperatures are on course to breach the 1.5C warming threshold widely regarded as a critical guardrail. Scientists warn surpassing that limit would significantly increase the likelihood of more frequent and severe climate impacts worldwide, from droughts to floods and storms.

“Growing greenhouse gas pollution means escalating climate extremes fuelling famine, displacement and war,” said Stiell on Thursday, adding that “climate adaptation is the only path to securing billions of human lives, as climate impacts get rapidly worse”.

Clean energy, meanwhile, is the best way to protect energy supplies and communities from fossil fuels’ volatile costs, he added.

“The fact is renewables are the clearest, cheapest path to energy security and sovereignty – shielding countries and economies from shocks unleashed by wars, trade turmoil and the might-is-right politics that leave every nation poorer,” the UN climate chief said.

Gas flaring soars in Niger Delta post-Shell, afflicting communities

Ahead of the Munich Security Conference, energy analysts are warning that Europe should be wary of its reliance on US gas, which has become a growing energy source across the continent following restrictions on supplies from Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.

Chris Aylett, research fellow at Chatham House’s Environment and Society Centre, said Trump’s pursuit of geopolitical energy dominance seeks to lock countries, including EU member states, into long-term oil and gas dependencies.

“During peace, this vulnerability to an unreliable – if not actively hostile – supplier would be a major constraint on Europe’s strategic autonomy,” he added. “During war it would be catastrophic”.

What role for climate diplomacy?

UN climate head Stiell met this week with officials from the Turkish and Australian governments – co-hosts of this year’s COP31 summit in Antalya – as well as Brazil’s COP30 presidency to kick-start climate diplomacy efforts for the year ahead.

The ability of UN climate negotiations to keep up with the urgency of the climate crisis is coming under increasing question. The deepening divisions seen in Belém last November have stalled meaningful progress on key issues such as the transition away from fossil fuels and climate finance.

• Jan 27, 2026 News COP30 chief calls for two-tier climate system to speed up action beyond consensus COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago argued in a new letter to countries that the Belém conference “shed light” on climate diplomacy’s limitations Read more
• Feb 9, 2026 News Vanuatu pushes new UN resolution demanding full climate compensation The Pacific island nation wants the UN General Assembly to enforce last year’s landmark court decision on states’ climate responsibility, a first draft shows Read more

In his speech, Stiell acknowledged that climate cooperation is “under unprecedented threat” from those determined to use their power to increase dependency on polluting coal, oil and gas.

But climate action needs to enter a new “era of implementation” with the UN process moving closer to the real economy and countries deepening cooperation with businesses, investors and regional leaders, he added. Stiell noted he has convened experts to advise on this, and will say more about it in the months ahead.

Stiell’s remarks on the evolving UN climate regime echo the words of COP30 president André Aranha Corrêa do Lago. In a letter last month, he said climate multilateralism needs to “mature” and called for a shift to a two-speed system, where new coalitions lead fast, practical action alongside the slower, consensus-based decision-making of the annual COP climate summits.

The post Climate action is “weapon” for security in unstable world, UN climate chief says appeared first on Climate Home News.

Australian iron ore producer Fortescue (ASX: FMG) has commissioned two battery electric locomotives in Western Australia’s Pilbara, marking a key step in its plan to achieve real zero emissions across its iron ore operations by 2030.

The locomotives, delivered by US-based Progress Rail, a subsidiary of Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT), are the first of their kind globally and form part of a $6.2 billion push by the Andrew Forrest-chaired company to fully decarbonize its Pilbara operations, which it says are the most comprehensive in the global mining sector.

Speaking in Port Hedland on Thursday, Fortescue Metals and Operations CEO Dino Otranto said rail remains one of the hardest sectors to decarbonize.

“We push 40,000 tonnes up 400 metres, 300 or 400 kilometres away, multiple times a day,” he said. “The forces and energy that’s behind that have been worked on for more than 200 years in the combustion two-stroke engine that has historically powered all of our fleet, but today, this is a turning point.”

Each locomotive houses a 14.5 megawatt-hour battery, the largest fitted to a land-mobile application, and can recover 40% to 60% of energy through regenerative braking. Together, they will eliminate about one million litres of diesel a year and operate on renewable electricity supplied through Fortescue’s Pilbara Energy Connect program.

Fortescue operates a fleet of 70 locomotives and will now test the first two units before transitioning the remainder over the next few years.

Full electrons ahead

The rail rollout sits within a broader electrification push across Fortescue’s 760-kilometre Pilbara network, which links five mines to its port and towage infrastructure in Port Hedland. The company expects to produce 195 million to 205 million tonnes of iron ore in the 12 months to June 30, 2026.

Otranto said 2026 would be a year of delivery for several major renewable energy projects. At North Star Junction, which supplies the Iron Bridge magnetite mine, Fortescue operates a 100 megawatt solar farm supported by a 250 megawatt-hour battery energy storage system capable of delivering up to 50 megawatts for five hours.

Construction of the 190 megawatt Cloudbreak solar farm is about two-thirds complete. The company has secured primary approvals for the proposed 644 megawatt Turner River solar farm, with construction expected to start later this year, and expects a decision on the 440 megawatt Solomon solar project within days.

Fortescue is installing about 3,600 solar panels a day and is deploying automation technology to increase that rate, Otranto said.

The company has begun building its first Pilbara wind project at Nullagine and recently acquired Nabrawind to support future wind developments. Across its operations, Fortescue now runs one electric drill and 12 electric excavators and has started taking deliveries of electric wheel dozers and trucks.

While the shift requires significant capital, Otranto said every investment must meet strict financial hurdles.

“We are not doing this out of charity. We need these machines to be economic. We want them to compete on the open market against the old technology,” he said, adding that the Pilbara’s climate offers strong renewable energy potential.

Beyond decarbonizing its mining operations, Fortescue aims to produce its first green iron by the end of June. The company is building a plant at Christmas Creek and expects first metal this financial year.

“For us, that’s the next chapter of growth in the Pilbara,” Otranto said.

Following widespread reports that the oil and gas industry has been lobbying Congress for a liability waiver that could give fossil fuel companies complete legal immunity, a U.S. House Representative said yesterday that she is working to “craft legislation” aimed at “tackling” climate lawsuits and climate superfund bills that seek to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis.

“Multiple climate lawsuits are now advancing toward trial,” U.S. Rep Harriet Hageman (R-WY) said to Attorney General Pam Bondi during a hearing yesterday. “Clearly this is an area in which Congress has a role to play. To that end, I am working with my colleagues in both the House and Senate to craft legislation tackling both these state laws and the lawsuits.”

In January, the American Petroleum Institute announced that killing state climate lawsuits is a top 2026 priority for the oil lobby. Last year, 16 Republican attorneys general proposed creating a “liability shield” for fossil fuel companies modeled on a 2005 law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits. Lawmakers in Utah and Oklahoma have also introduced state-level immunity bills for the fossil fuel industry. Nearly 200 groups have urged Democratic leaders in the House and Senate to oppose these efforts.

Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, released the following statement:

“As communities across the U.S. move closer to putting Big Oil companies on trial to make them pay for the damage their climate lies have caused, the fossil fuel industry is panicking and pleading with Congress for a get-out-of-jail-free card.

“Let’s be clear: you don’t need immunity unless you are in fact responsible for the damages claimed in these lawsuits. A liability shield for Big Oil would bar the courthouse doors for communities across the country and stick U.S. taxpayers with the massive and growing bill for climate damages, while bailing out corporate polluters from having to pay for the mess they made.

“It’s time for leaders in Congress to speak out and make clear that Big Oil is not above the law.”

Background on U.S. Climate Accountability Lawsuits Against Big Oil

Eleven U.S. states — California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai`i, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont — and the District of Columbia, along with dozens of city, county, and tribal governments in California, Colorado, Hawai`i, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Puerto Rico, have active lawsuits to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for deceiving the public about their products’ role in climate change. These cases collectively represent more than 1 in 4 people living in the United States.

A growing number of cases — including those brought by Boulder, Colorado, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, the District of Columbia, and the states of Massachusetts, Vermont, Minnesota and Connecticut — are advancing toward discovery and trial after courts denied the oil companies’ motions to dismiss them.

Contact: Kayla Ritchie, kayla@unbendablemedia.com (CJA) / Ashley Sullivan, ashley.sullivan@weact.org, (917) 837-1183 (WE ACT/EJLF) / Isella Ramirez, info@movingforwardnetwork.com, (323) 854-1857 / (MFN) / Prerna Sampat, press@ceed.org (CEED/Platform for a Just Climate) / Stephanie Herron, sherron@comingcleaninc.org, 802-251-0203 ext.707 (EJHA)

Coalition of environmental justice networks representing millions of frontline and fenceline communities demand justice: Revoking the Endangerment Finding and vehicle standards is unacceptable and we will keep fighting for our rights.

NATIONWIDE – Today, the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its final decision to revoke the Endangerment Finding and vehicle emissions regulations. In response, the coalition made up of, the Moving Forward Network (MFN), Climate Justice Alliance (CJA), Platform for a Just Climate (formerly referred to as the Equitable & Just National Climate Platform), Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform (EJHA), and the Environmental Justice Leadership Forum (EJLF) shares that the injustice shown through this decision only strengthens our resolve to hold the EPA accountable to its mission to protect human health and the environment, while continuing to fight to protect the communities we represent across the U.S.

Last September, the coalition submitted written comments to the proposed repeal- signed by 100 organizations and individuals, alongside a powerful collection of testimonies that capture the real-world impacts of climate and transportation pollution, and frontline and fenceline communities’ need for robust environmental and health protections. As the coalition underscored, the EPA must be held accountable for violating its mission, by prioritizing the corporate polluter agenda while putting millions of lives at risk. This administration must answer for its betrayal of the public, especially environmental justice communities, who continue to be put in the greatest danger. With this decision on the heels of the EPA’s  55th anniversary, the coalition furthers our call on the Agency to renew its commitment to environmental justice, restore essential funding, and ensure protections for current and future generations.

“The Endangerment Finding ensures that the EPA can do its job to protect our health and well-being by curbing pollution. By revoking this, the administration continues to show that their priorities are grounded in sacrificing our health, endangering communities and commodifying the Earth for more corporate extraction and profits, at the expense of our future.” -Mar Zepeda Salazar, Legislative Director, Climate Justice Alliance

“One year ago, Trump rolled into office with a barrage of executive orders tearing down environmental protections and making corporate polluters’ toxic wishlist into his top priority. Now, Trump’s EPA is rolling back a critical scientific determination, the endangerment finding, opening the door to more pollution, more asthma attacks, more heat‑related illnesses, and more fires and storms fueled by climate change in our communities. But here is what this Administration needs to know: we’re still here, we’re still united, and we are still resisting these attacks on environmental justice communities. We refuse to accept a future where our communities are turned into sacrifice zones so corporate polluters can profit.” -Byron Gudiel, Executive Director, Center for Earth Energy & Democracy (CEED), convener of the Platform for a Just Climate.

“The EPA’s repeal of the Endangerment Finding is a harmful step backward for communities that have shouldered the greatest pollution burdens for generations. Environmental justice communities remain on the frontlines of air and climate hazards, and this rollback threatens to deepen those inequities. The EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment, and that responsibility must be fulfilled equitably across all communities. We will continue to speak out and organize for a safe, just, and healthy future where our communities can truly thrive.” -Denise Patel, Director of Organizing, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Environmental Justice Leadership Forum 

“The revoking of the Endangerment Finding and the vehicle standards puts American lives at risk. We will continue to uplift the EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment. We continue to be committed to fighting for clean air and a healthy environment. Justice is in the air.” -Isella Ramirez, Moving Forward Network

“EPA has the authority and moral obligation to do more, not less, to reduce the harms from toxic air pollution and climate change, both of which are disproportionately concentrated in poor and primarily of color neighborhoods. Instead of protecting public health, protecting the environment and creating a 21st century economy based on innovation and collective care instead of extraction and sacrifice zones, this administration wants to take us back to a time before the EPA existed– when rivers caught on fire, children were poisoned by lead, smog choked communities, and average life expectancy in the U.S. was about five years shorter. Communities like the ones that make up EJHA who are poisoned by industrial and vehicle pollution are sick and tired of sacrificing our families’ health for the profits of corporate polluters”. -Stephanie Herron, Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform (EJHA)

Additional Background:

The comments shared by this coalition provide a specific rationale for opposing the EPA’s flawed decision rescind its 2009 Endangerment Finding and GHG Vehicle Standards. This includes that:

1. This decision denies the lived experience, backed by science, of the effects of pollution on public health, the environment, and the climate. 
2. This decision does not consider the targeted and harmful effects that this “historic deregulation” effort will have on workers. 
3. This decision is based on flawed science. 
4. This decision is unlawful. 
5. This decision does not consider the benefits of climate and environmental protection.

The EPA was built 55 years ago in response to the organizing and advocacy efforts from communities across the country as a call to protect human health and the environment, and serves several critical functions, including developing and enforcing regulations, providing grants, and studying environmental impacts. Since the beginning of the second Trump administration, we have witnessed dozens of unprecedented EPA rollbacks of hard-fought, peer-reviewed, research-based, and life-saving regulations, as well as the termination of millions of dollars in critical grants. For these reasons, the coalition demands that the EPA be held accountable for its deadly decision to rescind the Endangerment Finding and vehicle emissions standards.

###

The post As EPA Revokes Endangerment Finding, EJ Orgs Continue to Fight to Protect Communities from Climate Chaos & Hold EPA Accountable appeared first on Climate Justice Alliance.

In China, the rapid buildout of wind and solar power is pushing coal into decline. China is now upgrading its vast fleet of coal plants to serve as a complement to wind and solar, rather than as a source of baseload power. Analysts say the country is on track to retrofit almost every coal plant by the end of next year.

Read more on E360 →

Donald Trump has overseen more retirements of coal-fired power stations than any other US president, according to Carbon Brief analysis.

His administration’s latest efforts to roll back US climate policy have been presented by interior secretary Doug Burgum as an opportunity to revive “clean, beautiful, American coal”.

The administration is in the process of attempting to repeal the 2009 “endangerment” finding, which is the legal underpinning of many federal climate regulations.

On 11 February, the White House issued an executive order on “America’s beautiful clean coal power generation fleet”, calling for government contracts and subsidies to keep plants open.

On the same day, Trump was presented with a trophy by coal-mining executives declaring him to be the “undisputed champion of beautiful clean coal”.

These words are in sharp contrast to Trump’s record in office, with more coal-fired power plants having retired under his leadership than any other president, as shown in the figure below.

This is because coal plants have been uneconomic to operate compared with cheaper gas and renewables – and because most of the US coal fleet is extremely old.

Capacity of coal-fired power plants retiring under recent US presidents, gigawatts (GW). Source: Carbon Brief analysis of data from Global Energy Monitor.

In total, some 57 gigawatts (GW) of coal capacity has already been retired during Trump’s first and second terms in office, compared with 48GW under Obama’s two full terms and 41GW under Biden’s single term.

Even in relative terms, the US has lost a larger proportion of its remaining coal fleet for each year of Trump’s presidencies than for either of his recent predecessors.

Trump’s record hints at the many practical and economic factors that have driven US coal closures, regardless of the preferences of the president of the day.

Indeed, Trump made variousefforts to prop up coal power during his first term in office. These were ultimatelyunsuccessful, as the figure below illustrates.

Coal-fired power capacity in the US, GW. Source: Global Energy Monitor.

Coal plants have been retiring in large numbers over the past 20 years because they were uneconomic relative to cheaper sources of electricity, including renewables and gas.

These unfavourable market conditions, alongside air pollution regulations unrelated to climate change, have resulted in a steady parade of coal closures under successive presidents.

By 2024, wind and solar were generating more electricity in the US than coal.

More recently, analysis from the US Energy Information Administration shows that surging power prices have improved the economics of both coal and gas-fired power plants.

These rising prices have been driven by increasing demand, including from data centres, and by higher gas prices, due to increasing exports at liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals.

These factors saw coal-power output increase by 13% year-on-year in 2025, only the second rise in a decade of steady decline for the fuel, according to the Rhodium Group.

Nevertheless, many utilities have still been looking to shutter their ageing coal-fired power plants.

The vast majority of US coal plants are nearing retirement. Three-quarters of US coal capacity is more than four decades old and only 14% is less than 20 years old, as shown in the figure below.

Capacity of US coal plants by age group, GW. Source: Global Energy Monitor.

In response, the Trump administration has recently invoked legislation designed for wartime emergencies to force a number of uneconomic coal plants to remain open.

Despite Trump’s efforts, clean energy made up 96% of the new electricity generation capacity added to the US grid in 2025. None of the new capacity came from coal power.

Analysis: Coal power drops in China and India for first time in 52 years after clean-energy records

China energy

|

13.01.26

IEA: Declining coal demand in China set to outweigh Trump’s pro-coal policies

Coal

|

17.12.25

Guest post: China and India account for 87% of new coal-power capacity so far in 2025

China energy

|

27.08.25

Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop

China energy

|

12.08.25

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_5652fce17545da9da37eb0d8c1dfa16c .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Analysis: Trump has overseen more coal retirements than any other US president appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The aviation industry, which is responsible for 2.5% of global carbon dioxide emissions, according to the International Energy Agency. Zero carbon fuels for airplanes are an important part of decarbonizing flying. And while many are looking to making sustainable aviation fuels from biomass, it remains expensive and often competes with agriculture.

But now, researchers in Korea have come up with a way to convert landfill gases into liquid aviation fuels. Their integrated process is based on a special hybrid cobalt catalyst that they reported in the journal Fuel.

To take the research out of the lab, they built a pilot plant that can produce 100 kg of SAF a day, according to a press release.

Companies make SAF today mainly from used cooking oil and waste animal fats. These resources are limited. The team at the Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology (KRICT) instead turned to landfill gas, the methane-rich gases produced when bacteria consume organic waste in landfills and animal manure pits. It offers a cheaper, more abundant feedstock for making biofuels.

There is a well-known way to produce convert greenhouse gases into drop-in fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Called Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS), the method relies on catalysts to convert syngas—a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen—into hydrocarbon molecules that are found in liquid fuels.

 

.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:How sustainable are aviation biofuels really?

 

The synthesis process is energy-intensive because it requires high-temperature heat. Low-temperature FTS over cobalt-based catalysts produces a higher share of waxy hydrocarbons as opposed to liquids.

So the researchers developed a hybrid catalyst by combining cobalt with zeolite, common aluminum-and-silica minerals that have a porous structure. They fine-tuned the structure of the catalyst particles at the microscopic level so that the cobalt and zirconia atoms are close to each other. This boosted the production of liquid fuels over waxy products, increasing overall efficiency of the process. In tests, the catalyst selectively produced more than 79% liquid hydrocarbons in 900-hour runs.

For the reactor, the researchers came up with a microchannel design composed of alternating layers of catalyst and coolant channels. This allows the large amounts of heat generated during the chemical reaction to quickly be removed so that the catalyst is not destroyed. Because of the integrated design, the reactor has a smaller footprint compared to conventional systems.

Source: SeongWoo Jeong et al. Comprehensive study of cobalt-based hybrid catalysts for selective liquid fuel production via Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. Fuel, 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

 

Tempest: For those tracking the housing issue during the election campaign, there were at least two notable moments pre-election which presaged Mayor Mamdani’s emerging housing policy. A “technocratic pivot” to a stated openness to working with private, for-profit developers, and, as your article details, the late endorsement of three ballot measures that had been proposed by Mayor Adams’ charter revision commission and which were meant to fast-track the construction of “affordable” housing. In backing the ballot measures, Mamdani lined up with significant forces within the mainstream of the Democratic Party, including Andrew Cuomo and Governor Kathy Hochul, as well as private developers and real estate industry advocacy groups. How do you assess these developments? Why the evolution within the campaign, including the very last minute endorsement of the ultimately successful ballot measures?

Ben Rosenfield and Holden Taylor: First, it’s important to note that the framing of ballot proposals 2-4 necessarily narrowed and abstracted the processes, dynamics, and relationships underlying the crisis tenants in New York City have been facing for years. The framing of the proposals was such that a ‘yes’ vote meant making changes to the status quo, whereas a ‘no’ vote meant a continuation of the status quo. In the context of an ongoing crisis, it’s easy to see why many may have thought or felt that some change is better than no change.

The problem is that this isn’t the case, and the aim of proposals 2-4, namely to build more and build faster, does nothing to empower tenants or create actual affordable housing. On the contrary, the proposals will not only give more power to the Mayor (Mamdani and future Mayors), but also a gift to developers and real estate more generally. Increased production (and the fast-tracking of said production) does nothing in and of itself to address the current crisis; the logic that it does is based in supply/demand economics.

It’s not particularly surprising that Mamdani ultimately came out in favor of these proposals. First, the proposals will facilitate the implementation and realization of his campaign goals. His campaign platform, released on February 3rd, 2025, mentions “creating 200,000 new units over the next 10 years, fast-tracking affordable developments, and increasing zoned capacity.” His goals and the aim of these ballot measures are entirely consistent with one another.

Secondly, a no vote would have pitted Mamdani against not only developers and real estate, who unsurprisingly were deeply in favor of these measures, but also, crucially, the right-wing of the socialist tenant movement in New York City, which is the pole that is most in line with Mamdani’s politics. Whereas in the past the socialist tenant movement would have been less likely to support these proposals, there is a growing ‘yimby socialist’ whose power and influence has been increasing. While the politics and ideology of this pole are not entirely hegemonic in the movement, they have taken advantage of the relative weakness of the autonomous and more radical wing of the movement. Accordingly, Mamdani had the backing of a not insignificant portion (in size and influence) of the socialist tenant movement in supporting the ballot measures.

Tempest: One of the targets of your article is what you describe as YIMBYism (“yes in my back yard”). It argues for an imperative on building more and more housing and that “obstacles to construction are problems to be solved, removed, or overcome…the target is “red tape”—a catchall term for any policy or state mediation that prevents construction.” You describe YIMBYism being adopted wholesale by social democrats and the right-wing of DSA whose theory of change rests on its belief that effectively administering the bourgeois state at various levels via governing coalitions and pressure campaigns will gradually improve material conditions for a broad sector of working people, thereby winning working class favor, thereby making more significant reforms possible. In the specific context of NYC’s housing crisis what is wrong with this approach?

BR & HT: A comrade puts it simply: “The fundamental division in the housing debate is not whether you support or oppose higher density, but if you view the market as the solution to the housing crisis or as the cause of it.” We’ve showed how the “affordable housing” that gets built through the market a) is not affordable and b) does not bolster our class power, our working-class organizations, whatsoever. Socialism is the double movement of improving our conditions and our class power.

Tempest: You clearly, if depressingly, chart the lines of continuity between the emergent housing policy of Mamdani and his two predecessors as Mayor (Adam and DeBlasio). You specifically point to: zoning and charter changes that further entrench market frameworks and “solutions”; a continuity of personnel (for example, Leila Bozorg the executive director of housing in the Mayor’s office under Eric Adam will serve as Mamdani’s deputy mayor for housing and planning); and a policy focus on the production of housing stock for middle-income and higher income New Yorkers resulting in less production or rental stock for more vulnerable, lower income NYers. Is it still possible for Mamdani to chart a different path? What do you see as the best ways to fight for an alternative housing policy?

BR & HT: The possibilities for Mamdani to chart a different path largely, if not entirely, depend on the ability of the autonomous/radical wing of the socialist tenant movement to put forth a clear and compelling alternative to that of the status quo generally and the YIMBY socialists more specifically. In order to accomplish this, we will need to (continue to) organize and build power in the movement so that those both inside and outside of the socialist tenant movement will have to engage and contend more seriously with our politics, ideas, and strategies.

In the article we spend only one paragraph (out of so many!) discussing where Zohran may mark a break from the past. This brevity is in part because those breaks–which are concerned more with the city government’s relationship to working-class and community organizations and the ‘masses’ than the capital-intensive world of real estate development–are still very much taking form. But the brevity is also because this was a point on which we disagreed most thoroughly.

Ben, for example, is much more skeptical regarding the possibilities of Zohran’s Office to Protect Tenants and his Office of Mass Engagement as it relates to the development of working-class tenant self-activity and the construction of independent working-class organizations. For Ben, demobilization and cooptation are not merely possibilities the socialist tenant movement will face as it navigates its relationship with the Mamdani administration–they are likely outcomes if the movement is not intentional regarding its strategy and politics and how it builds power. The movement is still relatively weak and lacks developed organizations and infrastructures; while there is exciting and meaningful organizing happening on these fronts, this reality increases the temptation of hitching our wagon to the Mamdani administration in a way that will undercut the very important work the movement is doing. This is not to say that we should not engage with these projects, but rather are an attempt to emphasize the importance of independence and autonomy as we navigate the contradictory terrain moving forward.

Holden thinks there are novel opportunities ahead, and that these offices–and the administration more broadly–might offer strategic tools. For example, the Office of Mass Engagement contacted thousands of Pinnacle tenants and gathered hundreds of them onto one call with the Mayor. While this obviously doesn’t equate to militant self-activity, it did give Union of Pinnacle Tenant organizers the opportunity to bring in dozens of tenant leaders into the union. It is a tricky balance, navigating these opportunities while maintaining class independence but it is, in Holden’s estimation, what must be done. But! As we say in the piece, there is the monumental risk (to take Ben’s view), of these offices to function as social justice veneers to a fundamental project of market entrenchment.

In short, we (Ben and Holden) agree that the Mamdani administration will present opportunities, obstacles, and dangers for the socialist tenant movement. We disagree, perhaps, on what exactly the balance sheet looks like and to what extent we should engage with the administration and its projects. We will have more substance to concretely engage with and struggle over as we move forward.

In the article, we outline four planks of a prospective program that the socialist tenant movement can and should cohere around; an immediate eviction moratorium, the expansion of rent stabilization, tenant-led, democratic expropriation, and the preservation and expansion of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Some of these will be more difficult to win than others, and some will be more palatable to both Mamdani and the right-wing of the socialist tenant movement.

Tempest: You argue that on the housing question, most socialists agree that our end goal should be decommodified, publicly-owned, democratically-controlled housing for all. Is this a goal that is shared by the Mamdani administration? In other words, is it an issue of strategic differences among socialists, i.e. how we get there,  or is there a different goal being prepared by Mamdani?

BR & HT: This is not the goal of the Mamdani administration. It may be what he personally desires, but, as we know, he and his administration will have to navigate the limitations and contradictions of the capitalist city and state. Mamdani will advocate for and support reforms, some of which will have the ability to meaningfully materially improve the conditions that tenants in New York City face.  That said, their goal is not to completely transform the state of housing and tenancy, and even if it were they are not in a position to be able to do so.

I think the majority of the socialist tenant movement (both the left and right poles) embrace this goal in theory. In practice, however, we argue that embracing yimbyism is simply incompatible with the realization of these goals.

Accordingly, it is our task as the left-wing of the socialist tenant movement to organize with the aim of building power and popularizing our strategies and politics such that they become hegemonic within the movement. The development of independent organizations committed to class struggle will be both the means and the end to carrying out this task.

It is our task to recenter and redefine what is possible for our movement and what our north star should be (decommodified, publicly-owned, democratically-controlled housing for all); to create a compelling, genuine alternative around which the movement rallies and coheres.

Tempest: Especially for those outside the day-to-day activism and organizing of the tenants’ movement, your article provides a much appreciated deep-dive into the political dynamics, tensions, and developments within this movement in NYC, including its different organizational forms and competing strategic outlooks. How would you draw a balance sheet to assess the impact of the Mamdani campaign and his election on this movement?

BR & HT: There’s a double movement; on one hand, there’s this tidal wave of the tenant-as-political-actor–which is something to channel and cultivate. On the other hand, we have nonprofit directors celebrating the moment as the horizon has been reached–on a recent coalition call, one director declared outright that “mass governance is here.” Sobriety is the remedy.

I think, if anything, within the left flank of the tenant movement there’s been a maturation, both in orientation and politics. Zohran’s election has raised the stakes for what we do. There are more eyes watching but also more people dedicating their energies to these efforts. There is, in this movement, more clarity in what matters and what doesn’t–and I think there is also trust among the different factions that our future is shared. Though there are political differences–as there is in any formation of any consequence–I think they are subordinated to a shared structural analysis, at least on the Left. How this Left asserts itself, both amid the broader housing movement coalitions as well as independent actors on their own, is incredibly consequential. Because of the right of the movement’s submission to the administration, there are crucial openings for political leadership by the Left, by the rooted and grounded. This right-wing, the non-profit coalition, will hesitate to critique or clash with Zohran, and will be nervous to be seen undermining his agenda. But there are issues that necessitate this; particularly, the questions of the Fulton & Elliott-Chelsea Houses (their demolition, conversion from Section 9 to Section 8) and, as we articulate in our article, pushing for an eviction moratorium until ICE leaves the city. These issues expose the contradictions of municipal socialism.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: SnippyHolloW; modified by Tempest.

The post Mamdani, the market, and the NYC housing crisis appeared first on Tempest.

In the cavernous halls of the US State Department last week, something unusual was on display: earnest cooperation rather than the usual diplomatic theatre. The inaugural Critical Minerals Ministerial wasn’t about tariffs, trade tantrums, or chest-thumping press releases. It was, quite simply, a collective admission that the West is behind, China is ahead, and time is not on our side.

For the United States, the stakes are no longer academic. Critical minerals aren’t just inputs for batteries and wind turbines. They are strategic building blocks for modern defence, advanced manufacturing and economic independence. This is not a commodities story anymore. It’s a power story. And Washington gets it.

The Trump administration is backing ambitious measures, including a proposed $12-billion (C$16.3-billion) stockpile of essential raw materials – “Project Vault” – meant to shield US industry from shocks and reduce reliance on Beijing’s dominance. The Americans have discovered, rather late in the game, that you cannot build fighter jets, EVs, or the next industrial economy off of Chinese processing plants.

Closing the gap

The shift in tone at the Ministerial, from coercion to collaboration, reflects something deeper than diplomacy. It reflects anxiety. Because for all the tough talk of trade wars, the United States knows that to close the gap between the West and China it will take collaboration on a grand scale coupled with an internal build-up of Ameria’s own intellectual and physical capacity. 

One senior US official captured the moment perfectly: the goal now is to persuade America’s brightest young minds not to join the next Silicon Valley startup, but to enter mining and minerals engineering. It seems mining is back, not as nostalgia, but as necessity.

Trump launches $12B project Vault to cut China reliance

Of course, the question lingers: after a year of transactional American diplomacy, are allies skeptical? More than likely. But reality has a way of concentrating minds. China’s dominance – roughly 60% of mining and nearly 90% of processing in key sectors – is not something you diversify away from with a well-worded communiqué. Western nations know they cannot afford inaction, even if coordination occasionally requires holding one’s nose.

For Canada, the implications are profound.

Sleeping giant hitting snooze?

Canada is blessed with world-class deposits: gold, lithium, graphite, nickel, cobalt, copper, rare earths. These raw materials will determine who leads the next industrial era. Geologically, we are sitting at the grown-ups’ table. Strategically, we too often act like we’re still waiting in the lobby.

Because geology is not strategy. Reserves alone do not confer power. Processing and refining do. And that is where Western supply chains, Canada included, still lag badly.

Canada’s Critical Minerals Strategy, backed by nearly C$4 billion and coordination across 15 federal departments, aims to build resilient value chains from mine to midstream to manufacturing. Ottawa has also helped unlock 26 investments and partnerships worth billions under the G7’s Critical Minerals Production Alliance. Canada is looking better on paper. The question is whether we can be good in practice. And at speed.

Three initiatives matter most: the Critical Minerals Strategy and infrastructure funds meant to build domestic supply chains rather than exporting raw rock and importing finished product; the G7 Production Alliance investments mobilizing capital into graphite, rare earths and scandium; and emerging national funding mechanisms, including proposals for a Critical Minerals Sovereign Fund to back equity and offtake agreements. 

The policy wheels are turning, but Canada will not get where it needs to go on the back of good intentions and interdepartmental working groups. Too often, political leadership excels at saying the right things and then falls down on execution. Canada’s chronic weakness is not vision. It is velocity.

Sharp minds but who’s moving fast?

To Ottawa’s credit, there are now some serious economic minds closer to the centre of power. Tim Hodgson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, brings senior experience from Goldman Sachs and Ontario Teachers’ pension fund. He’s earned strong marks from the resource sector so far.

Michael Sabia is the Clerk of the Privy Council, Canada’s highest-ranking civil servant, who manages the government’s agenda. Sabia is a rare figure whose credibility resonates as strongly in boardrooms as in ministries. He has been shaped by leadership roles at Bell Canada, Hydro-Québec and Quebec’s largest pension, CDPQ.

Both men understand the stakes. But the question remains: Do they have the willingness and the support to accelerate critical mineral development at the pace that this moment requires?

From the sidelines of the Ministerial, the scuttlebutt was that high-ranking US officials are talking about single-month permitting timelines for strategically important projects. Single-month. In Canada, we call that “the early stages of preliminary consultation.” Even if Washington’s timeline is aspirational, next to Canada’s glacial system it should be deeply uncomfortable. Permitting reform is not a bureaucratic detail. It is a strategic imperative.

Canada’s Arctic, long treated as a distant abstraction, is becoming a frontier of real geopolitical value. Like Greenland, its mineral wealth is suddenly coveted. And rightly so.

But sovereignty is not flag-planting. Sovereignty is capacity. To unlock the North, Canada needs infrastructure: ports, rail, grids, logistics, and the ability to assert presence. Canada’s current plans remain incremental where the moment demands boldness. We must ask ourselves: are we building what’s needed for resource security, or watching opportunities pass while others consolidate alliances and claims?

Closing the window

Canada has the geological assets, the intellectual capital, and the partnerships to lead in the era of critical minerals. Our strategies appear sound. Our intentions are sincere. But intention is not a supply chain.

In this competition of geopolitics and economics, hand-wringing will spell victory for our rivals and a dangerous loss for Canada. Canada must streamline permitting drastically, scale industrial infrastructure, and harness the full force of government, capital markets, and industry. The stakes – sovereignty, economic independence, and global influence – are too high to settle for anything less.

History does not reward countries that move slowly while the world scrambles for leverage. And right now, leverage is buried in the ground.

_____________________
Anthony Vaccaro is President of the TNM Group, which includes MINING.COM, The Northern Miner and Canadian Mining Journal.

Headline News:

• “Trump Orders Pentagon To Invest In ‘Beautiful, Clean’ Coal Power” • President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed to sustain the US coal industry through federal funding, directing the Pentagon to purchase electricity from coal plants. He recently directed the DOE to distribute $175 million to fund upgrades at six coal plants. [ABC News]

USS Texas, the last coal-burning US warship, converted to oil by 1926 (USN employee, public domain)

• “Scientists Sound Alarm As Multiple Climate Systems Near Critical Tipping Points” • Scientists say multiple critical Earth systems appear closer to destabilisation than previously believed. This is putting the planet in increased danger of following a “hothouse” path driven by feedback loops that can amplify the consequences of global warming. [Euronews]
• “China Coal Power Output Falls 1.9% In 2025 Amid Renewable Surge” • China had a 1.9% decline in coal-fired power generation in 2025, signalling a significant shift in the country’s energy mix as the expansion of non-fossil fuel sources outpaced electricity demand growth for the first time in a decade, according to a report by Wood Mackenzie. [BioEnergy Times]
• “Trump EPA To Repeal Key Climate Finding” • The Trump administration will revoke a scientific finding that long has been the central basis for action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, the White House said. By contrast, the National Academy of Sciences says the growing harm of climate change is beyond dispute. [Euronews]
• “Haugland And Watson Terminal Services Ink NY Pact” • The Haugland Group, based in New York, signed a memorandum of understanding with Rhode Island’s Waterson Terminal Services to collaborate on port development in the state of New York to support offshore wind development. The project will draw on the expertise of both. [reNews]

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

The Popular Agrarian Reform program is a collective construction resulting from many years of organization and praxis.

The post In Brazil & Argentina Popular Agrarian Reform is a Unifying Axis for Peasant Organizations – ICARRD+20 Series appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Felix Horne is a senior expert with Climate Rights International.

When The Washington Post laid off more than 300 staff last week, including journalists who covered climate and the environment, it was more than another grim headline about the state of the media. The cuts marked the loss of expertise and sustained scrutiny at one of the world’s most influential newsrooms, at precisely the moment when the climate crisis demands more reporting, not less.

These decisions do not simply downsize a business. They weaken public understanding of how climate change impacts lives, how cause and effect connect, and how power can be held to account.

Without expertise and experience, wildfires are reported without the underlying climate context that fuels them. Energy stories lose their climate dimension. Pollution is treated as an unfortunate accident rather than a foreseeable harm from fossil fuel dependence.

The facts still exist – but fewer people are paid, protected, or empowered to surface them, and with that goes people’s understanding of how climate is intimately intertwined with our lives.

These cuts follow a broader pattern across mainstream media in the United States, Europe and beyond. In 2024 and 2025 alone, major US outlets announced thousands of job losses.

CBS, CNN, NBC and other broadcasters cut newsroom staff. The Guardian has acknowledged sustained financial strain and has reduced or consolidated reporting capacity in recent years.

Meanwhile, local newspapers, the primary source of reporting on nearby floods, heatwaves, refineries, pipelines and mines, continue to disappear. In the US, more than 3,200 local newspapers closed since 2005, leaving large parts of the US without consistent, on-the-ground reporting.

Threats and harassment

Beyond closures, climate journalists face numerous threats. Journalists covering climate and environmental issues report rising harassment, legal threats and violence, particularly when reporting on fossil fuels, mining and land conflicts. One study found that 39% of journalists and editors covering the climate crisis had been threatened because of their work.

Online abuse, often coordinated and sustained, has become a routine tool for silencing climate reporting. And this doesn’t count the many fixers, translators, drivers and other local employees who face threats because of their role in this reporting, many of whom face a further loss of their livelihood because of these cuts.

At Climate Rights International (CRI), we document climate harms and human rights abuses linked to fossil fuels, mining and deforestation, among many other subjects. But our investigations do not exist in a vacuum.

They are often strengthened, and sometimes made possible, by local journalists who first uncover these harms, and by climate reporters who amplify our findings, connect them to broader patterns, and further our investigations by focusing on new angles, ongoing efforts at accountability or updated findings over time. They are indispensable to what we do and the impact we are trying to have.

• 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
• Dec 8, 2025 Finance Deep in the Amazon, forest protection cash must vie with glitter of illegal gold The TFFF fund launched at COP30 aims to pay communities to protect the rainforest, but will it be enough? On French Guiana’s border with Brazil, the profits to be had from mining are far higher Read more

When journalism retreats, misinformation fills the gap. In the absence of trusted, verified reporting, false or misleading climate narratives spread quickly online. Confusion replaces clarity about the reality of climate change: its links to energy choices, connections with the food we eat, and the scale of action required. Urgency erodes.

Climate change becomes less politically important when it becomes less visible. What is not reported is not discussed. What is not discussed does not become an issue for most voters, and therefore for politicians. The climate crisis can be manipulated by politicians as just another issue of special interest groups to balance with other interests, rather than being treated as the existential threat it is.

Fragile progress

To be clear, progress has been made. In recent years, climate considerations have been more consistently integrated into mainstream coverage of energy, economics, and geopolitics. Energy costs, rising food costs, migration, extreme weather and supply chains are now more often reported with climate dimensions in view.

But that progress is fragile. It depends on reporters and editors with climate expertise sitting in newsrooms, able to ask the second question, to connect today’s flooding with the climate crisis, and to connect today’s energy story to tomorrow’s climate harm.

This matters profoundly for fossil fuels, deforestation and transition minerals. Who is reporting on LNG terminals, new gas fields, lithium or nickel mining, the burning and clear-cutting of remote forests, or rising energy costs determines whether these developments are understood as narrow economic stories, or as climate and human rights choices with long-term consequences.

West Africa’s first lithium mine awaits go-ahead as Ghana seeks better deal 

Independent platforms, newsletters and Substack writers now produce some of the best climate coverage anywhere. They matter deeply. But they often reach audiences already paying attention to these issues. Mainstream media still plays a unique role: introducing climate realities to people who did not set out to read about climate change at all.

The erosion of climate journalism is unfolding alongside broader efforts to silence climate voices – through laws restricting protests, lawsuits aimed at stifling dissent, surveillance of activists and attacks on environmental defenders. CRI and others have documented how these tactics work together to suppress inconvenient facts.

Fewer journalists and fewer activists lead to less understanding of why climate is the story right now. The climate crisis will not pause because fewer people are paid to document it.

The question is whether societies choose to face our unfolding reality with evidence or allow silence and distortion to take its place. Supporting climate journalism is an investment in truth, accountability and a liveable planet for our children and future generations.

The post Why cutting climate journalism is a risk we can’t afford appeared first on Climate Home News.

Support workers with OPSEU Local 249 are in their twelfth week of a strike. They are fighting for better wages and have not seen a raise since 2020.

The post Worth striking for: Oakville care home workers fighting for decent pay  first appeared on Spring.

Last week, President Donald Trump announced the United States would temporarily increase the amount of beef the nation imports from Argentina — by 80,000 more metric tons this calendar year.

In an executive order, the president stated these beef imports would not be subject to tariffs, and that he came to the decision after discussion with Brooke Rollins, U.S. agricultural secretary. The White House described the move as part of its push to lower beef prices at the grocery store for American consumers. But almost as soon as the trade deal was announced, Trump was met with backlash from key allies and constituents, including ranchers who say that buying more beef from Argentina hurts U.S. producers.

“The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and its members cannot stand behind the president while he undercuts the future of family farmers and ranchers by importing Argentinian beef in an attempt to influence prices,” Colin Woodall, head of the trade group, said in a statement. Deb Fischer, a Republican senator from Nebraska, also stated that the trade deal will “sideline” cattle ranchers in the U.S.

Trade groups, lawmakers, and economists agree that the increased imports from Argentina are unlikely to lower the record-high beef prices in the U.S. That’s partly because Americans already consume so much beef, according to David Ortega, professor in the Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics department at Michigan State University. 

“The added volume is rather small relative to what Americans consume each year, under 1 percent of total supply,” Ortega said in an email, adding that this “probably won’t move retail prices much.”

But regardless of how unpopular the trade deal is, it almost certainly will spell trouble for the environment, especially in Latin America. 

“I don’t see how Argentina can meet its climate commitments by expanding its beef production for the United States,” said Stephanie Feldstein, the population and sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity. 

Raising cattle — ruminants that emit methane as part of their digestive process — for human consumption has a huge climate footprint, both in terms of land use and greenhouse gas emissions. Whether the additional cattle Trump is seeking are raised in North or South America, it will still lead to more methane and other emissions in the atmosphere. “By importing Argentina’s beef to the U.S., this administration is exporting its disregard for the climate crisis,” said Feldstein.

Around the world, climate change has scrambled the economics of growing food and raising livestock. In Argentina and the U.S. alike, cattle ranches have been hit hard by unprecedented droughts and rising temperatures. These factors, along with producers facing higher prices for inputs like fertilizer, labor, and machinery have caused the U.S. supply of cattle to plummet to a 70-year low.

Javier Milei, the far-right Argentinian president, spoke highly of the trade deal, saying it signaled the nation’s trustworthiness as a trade partner. But boosting beef production in Argentina to meet Trump’s new quota will force ranchers in the Latin American country to make difficult decisions. 

A herd of cattle stand at their stockyard before a cattle auction in Argentina. Tobias Skarlovnik / Getty Images

Currently, Argentina devotes a tremendous amount of land to raising cattle in pasture-based systems. Unlike the confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, found in the U.S. and other parts of the world, these pasture-based systems allow cattle to graze on a variety of grasses until the “finishing” stage, when they are fed corn- and soy-based feed before they are slaughtered.

Even despite the role it plays in deforestation, raising cattle on pasture is often considered to be a more sustainable practice than feedlots. But Silvia Secchi, natural resource economist and professor at the University of Iowa, pointed out that how you measure sustainability depends on how you define it — and when it comes to beef, both pasture-based and CAFO systems come with drawbacks for the planet.

CAFOs, which are also referred to as factory farms due to how little space livestock are afforded, pollute nearby air and waterways; local communities will often report manure and fertilizer runoff as well as noxious odors. These feeding operations are terrible for both the farmed animals and the laborers who work there. However, CAFOs are sometimes touted as climate-efficient — in essence, because the livestock have such short lifespans before slaughter that they emit less methane relative to cattle who live longer grazing on pasture.

Producing more beef means choosing between two flawed systems, noted Secchi. “To me, the only answer is, we need to eat less beef,” she said.

The evolving trade relations between the U.S. and Argentina demonstrate some uncomfortable truths about animal agriculture, and our food systems more broadly. First, it shows how farming and ranching are industries that are both on the frontlines of the climate crisis and contributors to it. 

Second, it reflects the toll that meeting the rising demand for animal protein has on critical ecosystems. In addition to its impact on ranchers, drought in Argentina has also slashed soybean production. Feldstein added that this has forced Argentinian farmers to import soybeans from Brazil, where their production is a driver of deforestation, particularly in the Cerrado, a savannah heralded for its biodiversity. 

These knock-on effects have implications for the planet as a whole, as areas like the Cerrado are major carbon sinks. 

As the Trump administration and MAHA leaders gear up to promote even higher animal protein consumption in the U.S., Feldstein agrees with Secchi’s assessment that consumers should strive, actually, to do the opposite. “There is no form of beef production that can be considered sustainable at our current consumption levels,” she said. 

toolTips('.classtoolTips7','A powerful greenhouse gas that accounts for about 11% of global emissions, methane is the primary component of natural gas and is emitted into the atmosphere by landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, and wastewater treatment, among other pathways. Over a 20-year period, it is roughly 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump’s beef trade deal is a lose-lose gamble that won’t lower prices on Feb 12, 2026.

Two new studies have identified an alarming connection between exposure to wildfire smoke during pregnancy and autism in young children. The unprecedented findings suggest the neurological consequences of breathing smoke are more profound than previously thought. 

The research builds on a robust body of evidence that shows wildfire smoke is supremely unhealthy — about 10 times worse than inhaling car exhaust and other pollution emitted by burning fossil fuels. The ultra-fine particles that trees and vegetation release during combustion penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream, exacerbating preexisting conditions like asthma and, recent studies suggest, damaging internal organs. 

In recent years, researchers have also begun to suspect that conflagrations like the one that leveled swaths of Los Angeles County last year impact neurological health, but the effects of smoke on brain development are comparatively poorly understood. Two new studies shed light on the complicated web of genetic and environmental factors that contribute to autism spectrum disorder, building on previous research that found connections between the developmental disability and exposure to air pollution in general.  

The first study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology, analyzed data on more than 200,000 children born in southern California between 2006 and 2014. It found that those born to mothers exposed to 10 or more days of smoke in their third trimester had a 23 percent greater risk of being diagnosed with autism by age 5. Pregnant women who endured between six and 10 days saw a 12 percent higher risk of such a diagnosis in their kids.

Notably, the study found that average wildfire smoke concentration across the entire pregnancy or individual trimesters had no material effect on autism diagnoses. What did make a difference was the number of days a person in their third trimester inhaled the pollutant. Even one day of exposure had an effect. 

“The more you get exposed the worse it is,” said David Luglio, a postdoctoral fellow at Tulane University and the lead author of the study. “But we can’t necessarily answer why that is the case.” Luglio said he hopes future research will help untangle why prolonged inhalation made such a big difference. Future studies may also help refine these results by incorporating information on how much time the subjects spent outside during fires and whether they wore masks that help filter particulate matter.

The second study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environment International, examined a much bigger sample — some 8.5 million births in California between 2001 and 2019. It, too, found a link between wildfire smoke exposure and autism diagnoses, though its different methodology yielded more nuanced results. When researchers looked at average smoke exposure across all births, the association was relatively weak. But among women who experienced intense smoke episodes — particularly those in the top 10th percentile of exposure — the link was substantially stronger. And it was strongest in people who live where population centers meet undeveloped land and who are not exposed to very high levels of general air pollution normally.

For women in the highest percentile of wildfire smoke exposure who otherwise lived in areas with relatively little background air pollution — such as car exhaust and urban smog — the odds of having a child diagnosed with autism were 50 percent higher than among those with lower wildfire smoke exposure. The researchers adjusted their analyses for non-wildfire related sources of air pollution.

“It’s a really huge study,” said Rebecca Schmidt, a professor of public health at University of California Davis and the paper’s lead author — referring to the many millions of records her team analyzed. The earlier study was also quite large, she said, a sign that both findings are well-founded. “There’s more evidence when there’s replication of similar findings,” she said. 

Autism spectrum disorder affects 1 in 31 8-year-olds in the United States. The extent to which the neurological condition, which researchers widely agree is largely determined by genetics, may also be influenced by environmental factors remains an active area of research. In recent years, as wildfires have burned with more severity and frequency in some parts of the world, researchers have been considering their impact on the disorder. 

At the same time, public interest in autism and its causes has mounted since the late 1990s, when the esteemed British medical journal The Lancet published what was later found to be a fraudulent paper that claimed to find a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. secretary of health and human services and one of the world’s most prominent vaccine skeptics, has long championed that theory. Under his leadership, the agency has radically remade the childhood immunization schedule, stacked an expert vaccine safety panel with his skeptics, and wound down mRNA vaccine development, among other moves that public health experts say undermine confidence in vaccines and threaten disease elimination status. 

There is no credible evidence that vaccines cause autism. Even the two studies on autism and wildfire smoke do not indicate that wildfire smoke specifically causes autism. Credible experts who study the disorder, including the authors of these studies, agree that a diagnosis is very likely the result of several factors working in tandem. 

“All we can point out is this association in the third trimester,” Guglio said. “It takes other people down the line to investigate those pathways more directly.”

toolTips('.classtoolTips5','In scholarly research, a “peer-reviewed” study or article is one that has been independently evaluated by other experts in the field to assess scientific accuracy. Not all studies go through a peer-review process, so peer-reviewed studies and journals typically indicate a higher level of confidence in methodologies and results.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Growing evidence points to link between autism and wildfire smoke on Feb 12, 2026.

South America is emerging as the most stable and politically viable option for Western countries trying to rebalance critical mineral supply chains away from China, according to new research from Verisk Maplecroft.

The study comes as the United States and its allies intensify efforts to secure supplies of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, graphite and rare earth elements, driven by concerns over technology dependence, supply-chain resilience and geopolitics. 

Recent moves include US plans to expand strategic stockpiles and a 55-country push to establish a preferential critical minerals trade bloc.

Verisk Maplecroft assessed 10 emerging markets with major reserves using its Resource Nationalism Index and Political Risk Data, finding that Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Peru stand out for combining large resource endowments with comparatively moderate levels of state intervention and political risk. Other countries in the analysis included the Democratic Republic of Congo, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, the Philippines and Tanzania.

Low-risk Andes

Most South American producers do not rank among the world’s highest-risk jurisdictions for resource nationalism. Peru, Chile and Argentina are among the strongest performers globally, while DR Congo, Indonesia and Tanzania sit within the top 20 most exposed countries out of 198 assessed.

“What differentiates South America is not the scale of reserves, but the distribution of risk,” Verisk Maplecroft’s chief analyst Jimena Blanco said. “Producers consistently combine large endowments of tech-critical minerals with comparatively moderate levels of resource nationalism and political risk.”

The firm rates the region’s overall risk-adjusted opportunity as distinctly favourable, although it cautions that exposure to higher-risk jurisdictions will remain unavoidable for certain minerals. 

This is already reflected in recent Western initiatives, such as the EU’s free trade agreement with India, partly tied to rare earth ambitions, and the US Strategic Minerals Cooperation Framework with DRC launched in December 2025.

US Assistant Secretary of State Caleb Orr recently disclosed that the US is actively negotiating with Brazil to develop critical mineral processing capabilities, focusing on heavy rare earths. The announcement follows Serra Verde Group giving the US an option to acquire a stake in the company as part of a financing deal.

When political instability is considered alongside state intervention, many countries with major critical mineral reserves still fall into a medium-risk category, suggesting relatively supportive conditions for long-term investment. However, some producers combine high political volatility with assertive government control, increasing the likelihood of export restrictions, state ownership or domestic value-addition requirements.

India’s rare earth policies, as well as conditions in DR Congo and Indonesia, highlight this dynamic. The findings suggest that while Western governments cannot fully avoid higher-risk suppliers, South America offers a comparatively stable anchor in an otherwise constrained global landscape.

West-friendly tilt

The research also challenges assumptions about geopolitical alignment. Using its Geopolitical Alignment Tool, which tracks factors such as UN voting, trade agreements and security ties, Verisk Maplecroft found that most of the 10 countries analyzed sit on the pro-Western or neutral end of the spectrum.

Argentina and the Philippines rank as close US allies, while Chile, Madagascar and India show strategic alignment. Peru and Indonesia are broadly neutral. Only Brazil, Tanzania and DR Congo tilt further away from Washington, largely due to stronger ties with US rivals.

According to the report, the overlap between sizeable reserves, manageable political risk and favourable geopolitical alignment makes South America central to Western diversification strategies.

“Securing tech-critical minerals is no longer just an economic challenge,” Blanco said. “The race will be won not by eliminating risk, but by managing it better than competitors.”

RELATED: Bolivia’s lithium gamble tests US realignment in Latin America

In the absence of a reconsideration of total slaughter and structural protective measures for farmer incomes the unions has decided to boycott the inauguration of the Agriculture Show.

The post France: Confédération Paysanne will boycott the inauguration of the Agriculture Show by President Macron. appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

The hidden cost of beef Channel News brendan 12th February 2026 Teaser Media

ICE’s surge into Minneapolis-St. Paul continues. After the ICE murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, labor and community groups mobilized against the federal intervention. Listen in: In our latest,…