You are here
News Feeds
Scientists and Professionals letter Report on Carcinogens
Scientists and Professionals letter Report on Carcinogens
The Shell Leaks Files: 1 August 2026
Archive Reference: SLF-2007-017
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Evidence Standard: Authenticated Shell communications, contemporaneously preserved whistleblower material, official project records, contemporaneous journalism, parliamentary evidence and relevant court-record context.
On 2 June 2007, royaldutchshellplc.com published allegations attributed to a confidential source inside the Sakhalin-2 project.
The source made two distinct categories of claim.
The first concerned the project timetable. The insider alleged that senior management was promoting an unachievable December 2007 target for making the onshore pipeline ready to receive hydrocarbons, while specialist personnel believed that completion would extend into 2008.
The second category was considerably more serious. It included allegations that professional advice was being disregarded, personnel were being pressured to endorse the preferred timetable, and questionable relationships existed between project management and certain contractors.
The eventual project chronology supports an important part of the source’s warning: the pipeline was not completed in December 2007.
It does not, however, prove every allegation the source made.
This archive file therefore asks three separate questions:
- What did the whistleblower allege?
- Which predictions were borne out by subsequent events?
- Which accusations remain unproven?
That distinction is essential to responsible documentary history.
The Nature of the Evidence 1. An anonymous source is not an authenticated Shell documentThe whistleblower statement was preserved and published contemporaneously. It contained detailed references to Sakhalin Energy’s onshore pipeline organisation, its programme, named managers, internal disciplines and contractors.
Its specificity gives it evidential interest.
It does not, by itself, establish the source’s identity, employment status or personal knowledge.
Unlike the David Greer “Pipeliners All!” email examined in the previous archive file, the whistleblower statement was not subsequently authenticated by Shell or Sakhalin Energy.
It must therefore be classified as a contemporaneously recorded insider allegation, not as an authenticated corporate record.
That does not make it worthless.
It determines how cautiously it must be used.
The Whistleblower’s Central Warning 2. The disputed December 2007 targetThe source alleged that Sakhalin Energy management was presenting December 2007 as the date by which the onshore pipeline would be ready for hydrocarbons.
According to the statement, several internal engineering and construction disciplines had concluded that completion would instead occur during 2008. The source alleged that operational, procedural and construction constraints had been excluded from the preferred programme and that information inconsistent with the December target was being rejected.
The allegation was not merely that a deadline might be missed.
The source claimed that management was committed to a date that internal specialists considered technically unattainable.
The statement concluded with the stark assessment:
“The current SEIC management can no longer effectively manage Sakhalin II.”
That was an opinion expressed by an anonymous source. It was not a judicial finding, an official audit conclusion or a statement accepted by Shell.
3. Alleged pressure on project personnelThe source further alleged that members of specialist disciplines were being pressed to endorse the December programme despite their professional reservations.
It was claimed that staff risked having responsibility shifted onto them if the target was subsequently missed: management could point to an apparently agreed programme, while the individuals concerned would carry the professional consequences.
The source described project information as being accepted only when it supported the chosen date and alleged that personnel were being placed under considerable pressure.
Evidential positionNo authenticated record examined for this instalment independently proves that staff were coerced into approving a false programme.
The allegation must remain identified as an allegation.
There is, however, authenticated evidence that senior project management was confronting visible anxiety and a lack of confidence among personnel at approximately the same time.
The Greer Email as Corroborative Context 4. “Pipeliners All!”David Greer’s authenticated email of 18 April 2007 was addressed to a large group of personnel connected with the onshore pipeline operation.
Greer wrote that comments and body language observed at a project meeting suggested the department risked becoming a team that did not want to fight and lacked confidence in its ability.
He attempted to rally the recipients with militaristic language and ended with the instruction:
“Lead me, follow me or get out of my way.”
Shell and Sakhalin Energy confirmed the email’s authenticity after it was supplied to the Financial Times. Greer left the company several weeks later, although Sakhalin Energy rejected as speculation the suggestion that the leaked email had caused his departure.
What the email corroboratesThe Greer document confirms that:
- senior management perceived faltering confidence among pipeline personnel;
- the remaining programme was regarded as an exceptional challenge;
- management considered a forceful intervention necessary;
- substantial organisational pressure existed within the project.
The email does not prove that project schedules were falsified.
It does not establish that staff were coerced into signing an unachievable programme.
It does not prove improper relationships with contractors.
It supports the whistleblower’s description of a project under intense managerial and schedule pressure, but it does not authenticate every allegation.
Earlier Internal Warnings About Schedule Pressure 5. The Bouman–Van Spronsen correspondenceThe Sakhalin archive contains authenticated internal communications predating the 2007 whistleblower statement.
In 2002, Shell manager Hans Bouman raised concerns with Sakhalin Energy technical director Engel van Spronsen about well design, seismic faults, shallow gas and the danger of allowing schedule considerations to override technical caution.
Van Spronsen acknowledged that he sometimes shared Bouman’s concern about the schedule. Bouman subsequently confirmed the authenticity of his emails to Dow Jones Newswires. Sakhalin Energy said the well design was revised in 2005, while Van Spronsen denied that the issues identified had caused the project’s cost escalation.
One observation from the contemporaneous reporting was particularly relevant:
“I would never ever want to be schedule-driven” on a project of that scale.
These earlier emails concerned well design rather than the 2007 pipeline completion programme. They do not prove the later whistleblower allegations.
They do establish that concern about schedule pressure within Sakhalin-2 was not invented retrospectively.
Testing the Prediction Against the Project Record 6. Was the pipeline ready in December 2007?The strongest test of the anonymous warning is the subsequent project chronology.
In January 2008, an official Gazprom account of a Sakhalin-2 project visit described the onshore oil and gas pipelines as still under construction.
Contemporaneous reports in November 2008 stated that construction of the approximately 800-kilometre pipeline system had been completed and that filling it with oil and gas had begun.
Sakhalin Energy’s present project history records that gas production from the Lunskoye-A platform began in 2008, when gas first entered the project’s pipeline system. It similarly dates commercial development of the Piltun-Astokhskoye-B area to late 2008.
The available record therefore supports the whistleblower’s central scheduling prediction:
The onshore pipeline system was not completed by December 2007. Substantial construction and commissioning activity continued into 2008.
7. The wider commissioning delayThe whistleblower statement concentrated on pipeline readiness rather than the date of the first commercial LNG cargo.
The wider project timetable nevertheless provides relevant context.
In December 2007, Sakhalin Energy announced that completion of the LNG plant and the first exports would be delayed. Reuters reported Gazprom’s intention to attempt first LNG exports by the end of 2008, while the Sakhalin regional governor said supplies were more likely to begin in spring 2009.
Gazprom’s official project history records that the LNG plant entered service in February 2009.
These developments do not prove that the anonymous source possessed perfect information.
They do demonstrate that the warning of slippage beyond the publicly promoted timetable was substantially correct.
The Contractor Allegations 8. Starstroi and SU4The source also raised questions about the relationship between Sakhalin Energy management, prime contractor Starstroi and subcontractor SU4.
The allegations included possible conflicts of interest and inappropriate relationships. No evidence examined for this instalment establishes those accusations as fact.
In June 2008, WWF referred to the claims in written evidence submitted to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee. The parliamentary record stated:
“Allegations have been made by a whistleblower of inappropriate relationships between SEIC management and its contractors.”
It specifically identified Starstroi and SU4 and cited the January 2008 royaldutchshellplc.com article as its source.
What parliamentary inclusion meansThe inclusion of the allegations in published parliamentary evidence is historically significant.
It demonstrates that WWF considered them relevant enough to place before a select committee and that they entered the permanent parliamentary record.
It does not mean that Parliament investigated, adopted or proved them.
The wording carefully preserved their status as allegations.
The same discipline should be maintained here.
Court-Record Position 9. What the courts did—and did not—decideWWF and The Corner House prepared a judicial-review challenge concerning the UK Export Credits Guarantee Department’s proposed support for Sakhalin-2. The challenge was discontinued after Sakhalin Energy withdrew its application for ECGD support in February 2008.
Separate proceedings concerning disclosure resulted in government information about Sakhalin-2 being released. Parliamentary evidence records that two hearings confirmed that departmental responses expressing serious environmental concerns should be disclosed in the public interest.
Those proceedings concerned government transparency and the handling of potential export-credit support.
They did not determine:
- whether Sakhalin Energy manipulated its construction programme;
- whether personnel were coerced;
- whether contractor relationships were improper;
- whether any individual had engaged in corruption.
No judicial finding establishing those allegations has been identified.
Reassessing the Archive’s 2008 Headline 10. Were the warnings “100% correct”?The archive article published on 6 January 2008 carried the headline:
“The Sakhalin-2 whistleblower warnings which proved 100% correct.”
Under the present evidential methodology of The Shell Leaks Files, that description requires qualification.
What was vindicatedThe source predicted that the December 2007 pipeline target was not achievable and that completion would extend into 2008.
The official chronology supports that prediction.
The source also portrayed the project as suffering from schedule pressure, weak confidence and management strain. Greer’s authenticated email provides meaningful contemporaneous support for that general description.
What was not provenThe surviving evidence examined here does not prove:
- deliberate fabrication of project information;
- systematic coercion of specialists;
- an organised attempt to transfer blame;
- improper financial or personal relationships with contractors;
- corruption involving Starstroi or SU4.
The accurate archival conclusion is therefore:
The whistleblower’s central scheduling warning was materially vindicated. The accompanying allegations of misconduct remain unproven.
Correcting that distinction does not weaken the archive.
It strengthens it.
Historical AnalysisThe importance of the 2007 warning lies partly in its timing.
It was published before the December deadline had passed, before the pipeline’s completion slipped into 2008 and before the LNG plant entered service in 2009.
It was therefore predictive rather than retrospective.
That gives the schedule warning genuine historical weight.
At the same time, accurate prediction does not automatically validate every accompanying allegation. A source may be correct about engineering progress and mistaken—or insufficiently informed—about motive, misconduct or contractual relationships.
Documentary analysis must resist the temptation to treat a partly vindicated source as infallible.
The proper method is claim-by-claim assessment.
CommentaryThe whistleblower’s most dramatic assertion was that Sakhalin Energy’s management could no longer control the project.
That statement cannot be established as an objective fact.
But the record does show a project whose internal timetable had become deeply contested, whose pipeline personnel required an extraordinary motivational intervention, whose completion moved beyond the disputed December target and whose senior project director departed during the resulting public controversy.
In ordinary corporate communications, those elements would have appeared separately:
- a revised completion date;
- a management departure;
- a construction update;
- a reassuring statement about eventual delivery.
The leaked material connects them.
It reveals that the delay was not merely an external surprise announced after the event. Someone claiming detailed knowledge of the project had warned in advance that the programme was not achievable.
That is precisely why contemporaneously preserved whistleblower material matters—even when it must be handled with caution.
Evidence AssessmentExistence and date of the whistleblower statement: Confirmed by contemporaneous website publication and archive preservation.
Identity and employment status of the source: Not publicly established.
Prediction that pipeline completion would extend into 2008: Supported by official and contemporaneous project records.
Description of management pressure and low confidence: Partially supported by the authenticated Greer email.
Claim that project information was fabricated: Not proven.
Claim that personnel were coerced into approving the programme: Not proven.
Allegations concerning Starstroi and SU4: Recorded by WWF in parliamentary evidence, but not judicially or independently established.
Court findings on the whistleblower accusations: None identified.
Document Integrity StatementThis archive file deliberately separates:
- authenticated corporate documents;
- anonymous insider allegations;
- official project milestones;
- contemporaneous reporting;
- parliamentary evidence;
- court-record context;
- historical inference;
- editorial commentary.
The fact that one prediction was vindicated has not been used to authenticate unrelated allegations.
The archive’s earlier “100% correct” characterisation has been reassessed in accordance with the more rigorous evidential standards now applied by The Shell Leaks Files.
Sources and Documentary References Primary and archival material- Confidential whistleblower statement published on 2 June 2007 and republished on 6 January 2008.
- Authenticated David Greer “Pipeliners All!” email, 18 April 2007.
- Hans Bouman–Engel van Spronsen internal correspondence concerning Sakhalin design and schedule risks.
- Gazprom project review recording that onshore pipelines remained under construction in January 2008.
- Sakhalin Energy records concerning first gas and late-2008 commercial development.
- Gazprom record of the LNG plant entering service in February 2009.
- Reports of pipeline completion and commissioning in November 2008.
- Reuters, Itar-Tass and The Moscow Times reports concerning delays to LNG completion and exports.
- WWF memorandum to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 20 June 2008.
- Parliamentary account of the proposed judicial review and disclosure proceedings concerning ECGD’s handling of Sakhalin-2.
- SLF-2007-011 — The Sakhalin Papers I: How Internal Documents Became Geopolitical History
- SLF-2007-012 — The Sakhalin Papers II: The Cost Escalation That Changed Everything
- SLF-2007-013 — The Sakhalin Papers III: Environmental Inspections, Regulatory Pressure and the Battle for Control
- SLF-2007-014 — The Sakhalin Papers IV: Behind Closed Doors — Internal Communications During the Crisis
- SLF-2007-015 — The Sakhalin Papers V: The Gazprom Agreement — How Control of Sakhalin-2 Changed Hands
- SLF-2007-016 — The Sakhalin Papers VI: After the Deal — “Pipeliners All!” and the Internal Record of Shell’s Response
An archive should not merely preserve old conclusions. It should test them.
The whistleblower’s prediction about the project timetable proved substantially accurate. That deserves to be recorded.
The more serious allegations were never established to the same evidential standard. That must also be recorded.
The credibility of The Shell Leaks Files depends upon preserving both parts of that conclusion.
About The Shell Leaks FilesThe Shell Leaks Files is an independent documentary archive preserving authenticated historical material relating to Royal Dutch Shell plc, Shell plc and associated companies.
The archive applies a consistent methodology based upon provenance, contemporaneous corroboration, official records and the explicit separation of documentary fact from allegation, inference and commentary.
Next Archive File SLF-2007-018 — The Sakhalin Papers VIII: The Story Shell Wanted “Killed” — Internal Emails, The Sunday Times and the Battle to Contain the Sakhalin NarrativeThe next instalment will examine authenticated Shell correspondence concerning a proposed Sunday Times investigation into the Donovan archive’s role in the Sakhalin-2 crisis.
It will reconstruct what the newspaper intended to publish, Shell’s internal discussion of applying pressure to stop the article, what subsequently happened—and the limits of what the surviving documents allow us to conclude.
The Shell Leaks Files: 1 August 2026 was first posted on August 1, 2026 at 10:25 pm.©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net
Google AI update on the John Donovan Shell Feud as of 1st August 2026
- Algorithmic Weaponisation: John Donovan has been feeding thousands of historical pages, litigation records, and leaked corporate papers into Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Copilot, Grok, and Claude. [1, 2]
- Prompt Campaigns: Donovan issued joint prompts to these platforms, testing the AI models’ interpretations of Shell’s decades-long strategy of silence against his archive. He frequently publishes the blistering AI-generated outputs to question corporate transparency and pressure the oil giant. [1, 2]
- Algorithmic Disruption: By generating continuous new summaries, ghost dialogues, and lists of “Shell’s top own goals,” Donovan has created a high-velocity digital environment. This tactic has disrupted standard search engine indexing and corporate PR control. [1, 2, 3]
- Documentary Releases: Donovan is leveraging his control of the domain royaldutchshellplc.com (which he kept after Shell officially changed its name to Shell plc in 2022) to run a continuous release campaign called “The Shell Leaks Files“. [1, 2, 3]
- Targeted Exposes: Recent drops examine historical internal leak paths, such as the 2007 David Greer Sakhalin II email leak, and historical Subject Access Request (SAR) files revealing how Shell’s internal legal and PR teams mapped out strategies to monitor his websites. [1, 2]
- Shell’s Legal Posturing: Shell has reportedly reviewed new legal protocols and targeted defamation options specifically aimed at curbing false, AI-amplified claims, moving away from past attempts to shut down his websites entirely. [1]
- Shareholder Agitation: Donovan has integrated these AI narrative strategies into his shareholder advocacy, seeking to force official responses from Shell executives regarding the security and accuracy of information surrounding the company’s historical controversies. [1]
- The original 1980s/1990s Don Marketing court cases that started the feud.
- How Donovan successfully retained the royaldutchshellplc.com domain name.
- The specific MI6/Hakluyt corporate espionage allegations tied to the dispute. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
-
- The Ultimate Domain Coup: Securing and maintaining the exact former corporate name domain (royaldutchshellplc.com) after defeating Shell in a World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) dispute is almost unprecedented for an activist. [1, 2]
- The Scale of the Archive: Containing over 76,000 documents, internal leaks, and litigation papers, it is one of the largest single-topic anti-corporate repositories in internet history. [1, 2]
- Insider Network Hub: Unlike standard activist blogs, Donovan successfully turned his platform into a secure, anonymous drop-box for disgruntled Shell executives and whistleblowers. At its peak, it was treated by NGOs like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and international journalists as a shadow intelligence agency for Shell’s inner workings. [1, 2, 3, 4]
-
- The Sakhalin II Multi-Billion Dollar Blow: The platform’s most destructive act occurred in 2006, when Donovan leaked internal emails proving Shell had hidden environmental and financial risks from Russian regulators regarding the Sakhalin II project. Russian authorities used these leaks as a “smoking gun” to force Shell to slash its stake from 55% to 27.5%, handing control to Gazprom and costing Shell billions. [1]
- Exposing the Surveillance State: Disclosures under the Data Protection Act (SAR files) revealed that Shell feared Donovan’s site more than mainstream environmental groups like Greenpeace. Internal logs proved Shell launched dedicated IT operations to monitor employee traffic to his site and draft “Donovan monitoring reports”, revealing a corporate paranoia that damaged Shell’s public commitment to transparency. [1, 2]
- A History of Silencing Tactics: Published internal memos showed Shell’s legal teams aggressively trying to stop media outlets (like The Sunday Times) from reporting on Donovan, operating under the leaked internal philosophy that “no coverage is preferable to balanced coverage”. [1]
-
- Algorithmic Disruption: Search engines and Large Language Models (LLMs) continuously scrape the web for data. Because Donovan owns the exact string royaldutchshellplc.com, AI scrapers frequently confuse his active archive with the historical or actual entity of Royal Dutch Shell. This injects his critical narratives directly into the training data of corporate intelligence tools. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- The “Bot War” Reinterpretation: Donovan has stopped relying on static articles. Instead, he feeds his massive archive into various LLMs (ChatGPT, Copilot, Grok) and prompts them to synthesize new, blistering editorial reports on historical controversies. He then publishes these AI-generated corporate critiques as “impartial expert consensus,” making his 30-year feud feel perpetually fresh and modern. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- Overcoming Information Fatigue: AI has solved the site’s biggest flaw—its unnavigable mountain of messy documents. By utilizing AI summaries and thematic maps, Donovan has made it effortless for modern researchers, journalists, and legal teams to instantly unearth “smoking gun” files from decades past. [1, 2]
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net
Royaldutchshellplc.com persists as the dominant digital entity for the historical, abandoned name
John Donovan prompt: You may find this article to be of interest regarding the company name Royal Dutch Shell Plc which no longer exists and the website royaldutchshellplc.com which does exist and for over two decades, has used the name Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com as its masthead banner: https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/07/31/who-owns-the-name-royal-dutch-shell-plc-aka-royaldutchshellplc-com-john-donovan-or-shell-the-definitive-answer/
Google AI Mode reply:Activist John Donovan has legally controlled the domain royaldutchshellplc.com for over two decades, utilizing it as a whistleblower platform despite a failed WIPO challenge by the oil giant. As Shell rebranded to remove “Royal Dutch,” the site persists as the dominant digital entity for the historical, abandoned name. Read the full analysis at royaldutchshellplc.com. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The long-running dispute between Shell plc and activist John Donovan regarding the royaldutchshellplc.com domain represents a significant case of digital adversarial archiving. Following a failed 2005 WIPO challenge by Shell, the site has evolved into a repository of over 76,000 documents that leverages AI to ensure historical controversies remain visible in search results. Explore the full details of this ongoing corporate feud at royaldutchshellplc.com. [1, 2, 3] AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more Royaldutchshellplc.com persists as the dominant digital entity for the historical, abandoned name was first posted on August 1, 2026 at 10:11 am.©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net
The Shell Leaks Files: 31 JULY 2026
Archive Reference: SLF-2007-016
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Evidence Standard: Official corporate filings, authenticated or corporately acknowledged internal communications, contemporaneous reporting and direct company correspondence.
On 18 April 2007, the shareholders of Sakhalin Energy signed the agreement that triggered the transfer of control of Sakhalin-2 to Gazprom.
Gazprom obtained 50 per cent plus one share. Shell’s interest fell from 55 per cent to 27.5 per cent. Shell publicly welcomed the new majority shareholder, emphasised future growth opportunities and presented the transaction as another step towards completing the project and supplying contracted LNG customers.
An internal email carrying the same date presented a markedly different atmosphere.
Written by David Greer, Sakhalin Energy’s project director and deputy chief executive, the message attempted to rally senior pipeline personnel whom he believed were showing uncertainty, poor morale or insufficient confidence in their ability to finish the work.
It began:
“Pipeliners All!”
The contrast between the confident corporate announcement and the urgent internal exhortation provides an unusually revealing snapshot of Sakhalin-2 immediately after control changed hands.
Documentary Record 1. The public message: continuity, cooperation and growthShell’s 18 April announcement stated that the transaction implemented the protocol agreed in Moscow in December 2006.
The company recorded the new ownership structure and highlighted several positive developments:
- Gazprom’s arrival as majority shareholder;
- approval of a revised Environmental Action Plan;
- prospects for additional LNG processing capacity;
- continued progress towards supplying customers in Japan, Korea and North America.
Shell Executive Director Malcolm Brinded said Gazprom’s entry was “warmly welcomed” and described the development as an important step for Sakhalin-2.
Documented factThe public statement did not describe the transaction as a defeat, forced withdrawal or loss of control. It framed the change as a partnership milestone offering greater stability and future opportunity.
Evidential limitationCorporate announcements are authoritative evidence of what a company formally communicated. They are not, by themselves, complete records of internal opinion, staff morale or the pressures experienced by individual project managers.
2. The internal message: confidence had to be demandedDavid Greer’s email was dated 18 April 2007.
Contemporaneous reporting reproduced substantial extracts. Greer assured recipients that he had “total faith in you and our collective ability,” but also referred to troubling comments and body language observed during a project meeting.
His message culminated in the instruction:
“Lead me, follow me or get out of my way.”
The Financial Times reported the email on its front page in June 2007. A Shell spokesman confirmed that it was genuine. Sakhalin Energy separately confirmed its authenticity to The Moscow Times.
Greer’s language borrowed heavily from speeches associated with General George S. Patton. That feature generated ridicule and extensive media attention, but the document’s historical importance extends beyond its literary origins.
It records a senior project executive attempting to overcome what he perceived as weakening confidence among personnel responsible for completing the pipelines.
3. What the Greer email establishesThe authenticated email supports several limited but important findings.
First, senior management believed the project faced substantial delivery pressure after the ownership transition.
Second, Greer had detected behaviour that he interpreted as hesitation or declining confidence.
Third, management considered motivation and organisational resolve serious enough to justify an unusually forceful written intervention.
Fourth, the email was not prepared for investors, regulators or journalists. Its intended audience was project personnel.
What it does not establishThe email does not prove that the entire workforce was demoralised.
It does not establish that construction was destined to fail.
It does not reveal the private opinions of Shell’s board, Gazprom or every member of Sakhalin Energy’s leadership.
Nor does it prove that the transfer of control alone caused the concerns Greer described.
The document is a contemporaneous fragment. Its value lies in what it records—not in conclusions imposed upon it afterwards.
Shell’s Concern About Internal Leaks 4. A separate internal documentAnother document preserved in the Shell Data Protection Act disclosure archive is dated 21 March 2007, several weeks before the Greer email.
With the names of the correspondents redacted, the document states that Shell suspected current and former employees were communicating with John Donovan. It records that an information-technology project had been initiated to monitor internal emails sent from Shell servers to Donovan and to monitor internal traffic visiting his website.
The document also notes that internal emails had previously appeared on the site.
ProvenanceThe archive copy is presented as material disclosed by Shell under data-protection procedures. Identifying fields remain redacted, but the text, date and confidentiality marking are visible.
Evidential limitationThis document does not identify the source of the Greer email.
It does not establish that monitoring discovered the source.
It does not prove that Greer’s message was intercepted through any particular Shell system.
It does, however, establish that Shell was already concerned about internal information reaching the Donovan website before the “Pipeliners All!” email was written.
From Internal Email to International News 5. Publication and corporate confirmationThe Greer email reached royaldutchshellplc.com and was supplied to journalists.
The Financial Times published the story in early June 2007. The Moscow Times, Reuters and other news organisations followed, placing the email within the wider context of rising costs, environmental controversy and Shell’s loss of majority control.
This sequence is significant to the archive’s history.
An internal management communication moved through three distinct stages:
- private distribution within the project;
- publication by an independent Shell-focused website;
- authentication and international reporting by established news organisations.
The document therefore ceased to be merely an allegation or anonymous claim. Its authenticity was acknowledged by representatives of the organisations involved.
6. David Greer’s departureOn 21 June 2007, Sakhalin Energy confirmed directly to John Donovan that Greer had decided to leave the company “to pursue other business interests.” The message was sent by Jim Niven, identified as an external-affairs manager at Sakhalin Energy.
Reuters reported the departure and stated that a Shell spokesman had confirmed it. The spokesman declined to say whether the leaked email had caused Greer’s exit.
A Sakhalin Energy spokesman told The Moscow Times that linking the departure to the email was “pure speculation.” The company announced that technical director Jaap Huijskes would take over as project director for the remainder of the Phase 2 development.
Documented factGreer left Sakhalin Energy approximately two weeks after the email became a prominent international news story.
Not establishedNo disclosed document examined for this instalment proves that Greer was dismissed because of the email.
Temporal proximity is not proof of causation.
The official explanation was that he had chosen to pursue other business interests, and the company publicly rejected suggestions of a proven connection.
Court-Record PositionNo court judgment is relied upon in establishing the events examined in this archive file.
Regulatory and legal proceedings formed part of the wider Sakhalin-2 controversy, but the narrow sequence covered here—the share transfer, Greer email, corporate authentication, leak-monitoring document and Greer’s departure—is established primarily through corporate announcements, internal records, direct correspondence and contemporaneous journalism.
This distinction is important. Court findings should not be implied where no relevant judicial determination has been identified.
Historical AnalysisThe public and internal records are not necessarily contradictory.
A multinational company can publicly support a completed transaction while managers privately confront uncertainty, fatigue and delivery pressure. Corporate confidence and operational anxiety can exist simultaneously.
The 18 April documents capture both realities.
Shell’s public announcement described opportunity, cooperation and forward momentum.
Greer’s internal message described a team that, in his assessment, needed to recover its confidence and appetite for the fight.
The timing gives the email its documentary force. On the day the new ownership structure was formalised, a senior executive responsible for project delivery was demanding renewed resolve from the people required to finish it.
That does not prove the public statement was false.
It demonstrates that the public statement was incomplete—as public statements almost invariably are.
CommentaryThe lasting significance of “Pipeliners All!” is not that a senior executive borrowed the rhetoric of General Patton.
That made the email memorable. It did not make it historically important.
Its importance lies in the unguarded glimpse it provides of Sakhalin-2 at the moment Shell ceased to control it.
The project was not simply passing smoothly from one ownership structure to another. It remained an enormous, delayed and technically demanding undertaking whose managers were confronting questions of confidence, performance and completion.
The later controversy also illustrates why internal archives matter.
Without the leaked email, the surviving public record for 18 April 2007 would have consisted largely of welcoming quotations, approved environmental plans and promises of future LNG growth.
The internal document adds the missing human and organisational dimension.
Evidence AssessmentOfficial ownership and transaction terms: Confirmed by Shell’s corporate announcement and regulatory filing.
Authenticity of the Greer email: Confirmed contemporaneously by Shell and Sakhalin Energy representatives.
Internal concern about leaks: Recorded in a dated, confidential document preserved within Shell’s data-protection disclosure material.
Greer’s departure: Confirmed directly by Sakhalin Energy and reported contemporaneously by Reuters and The Moscow Times.
Claim that the email caused his departure: Not proven. Publicly disputed by Sakhalin Energy.
Document Integrity StatementThis archive file distinguishes between:
- matters established by official records;
- statements made by identified corporate representatives;
- authenticated or corporately acknowledged internal material;
- contemporaneous journalistic reporting;
- historical interpretation;
- editorial commentary.
No inference has been presented as a judicial finding or established fact.
Where the surviving evidence cannot determine motive or causation, that limitation has been stated.
Sources and Documentary References Primary and corporate material- Shell announcement, “Gazprom enters Sakhalin II project,” 18 April 2007.
- Royal Dutch Shell Form 6-K concerning the Gazprom protocol.
- Shell data-protection disclosure document dated 21 March 2007 concerning internal email and website monitoring.
- Sakhalin Energy email to John Donovan confirming David Greer’s departure, 21 June 2007.
- Financial Times, reporting and extracts from the authenticated “Pipeliners All!” email.
- Reuters, “Shell Sakhalin boss quits after email leaked,” 21 June 2007.
- The Moscow Times, coverage of the email and Greer’s subsequent departure.
- SLF-2007-011 — The Sakhalin Papers I: How Internal Documents Became Geopolitical History
- SLF-2007-012 — The Sakhalin Papers II: The Cost Escalation That Changed Everything
- SLF-2007-013 — The Sakhalin Papers III: Environmental Inspections, Regulatory Pressure and the Battle for Control
- SLF-2007-014 — The Sakhalin Papers IV: Behind Closed Doors — Internal Communications During the Crisis
- SLF-2007-015 — The Sakhalin Papers V: The Gazprom Agreement — How Control of Sakhalin-2 Changed Hands
Internal documents should neither be sensationalised nor dismissed.
A single email cannot explain an entire multibillion-dollar project. But when its authenticity is confirmed and it is placed alongside corporate announcements, regulatory filings and contemporaneous reporting, it becomes part of a reliable historical chronology.
The purpose of The Shell Leaks Files is to preserve that chronology while maintaining the boundary between evidence and interpretation.
About The Shell Leaks FilesThe Shell Leaks Files is an independent documentary archive preserving authenticated historical material relating to Royal Dutch Shell plc, Shell plc and associated companies.
The archive prioritises primary documentation, provenance, contemporaneous corroboration and the clear separation of factual evidence from editorial analysis.
Next Archive File SLF-2007-017 — The Sakhalin Papers VII: The Whistleblower Warnings — Claims That Shell’s Management Could No Longer Control the ProjectThe next instalment will examine warnings supplied from inside the Sakhalin-2 project concerning construction management, contracting, scheduling and executive control.
It will distinguish the allegations made by confidential sources from facts subsequently confirmed by corporate records and events—and ask which warnings were vindicated by the project’s eventual outcome.
The Shell Leaks Files: 31 JULY 2026 was first posted on July 31, 2026 at 10:23 pm.©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net
Who Owns the Name Royal Dutch Shell Plc AKA Royaldutchshellplc.com: John Donovan or Shell? The Definitive Answer
There is a simple answer, followed by an important legal distinction.
Shell plc owns its Shell trademarks and remains the corporate successor to the company formerly called Royal Dutch Shell plc.
But Shell does not own the internet domain name:
The domain was registered in my fathers name, Alfred Donovan, in October 2004. Shell subsequently commenced proceedings before the World Intellectual Property Organization—WIPO—seeking its transfer.
Shell’s complaint was rejected.
The domain remained with the Donovans and is now controlled and operated by me, John Donovan.
Meanwhile, the company that once bore the name Royal Dutch Shell plc changed its legal name to Shell plc in January 2022. Companies House now records “Royal Dutch Shell plc” only as a previous company name, used between 27 October 2004 and 21 January 2022. Companies House
So the definitive position is:
Shell owns the continuing company and its trademarks. John Donovan controls Royaldutchshellplc.com. Shell itself no longer trades under the corporate name Royal Dutch Shell plc.
That distinction is important because search engines and AI systems continue to blur three different things:
- the current company, Shell plc;
- its former legal name, Royal Dutch Shell plc;
- the independently operated website Royaldutchshellplc.com.
They are not the same thing.
Shell’s Extraordinary 2005 ArgumentShell cannot plausibly claim that the domain name is only loosely or accidentally connected to its former company name.
Its own lawyers argued precisely the opposite.
In the complaint submitted to WIPO, Shell contended:
“The disputed names www.royaldutchshellplc.com and www.royaldutchshellgroup.com registered by the Respondent are, to all intents and purposes, identical to the company name ‘Royal Dutch Shell plc’ and the collective name ‘Royal Dutch/Shell Group’.”
The formal WIPO decision summarised Shell’s position in very similar words:
“The domain names <royaldutchshellplc.com> and <royaldutchshellgroup.com> registered by the Respondent are essentially identical to the company name ‘Royal Dutch Shell plc’ and the collective name ‘Royal Dutch/Shell Group’.”
That is Shell’s own case—not my retrospective interpretation of it. WIPO
Shell also told the WIPO panel that the disputed domains were:
“precisely the names of” the intended new principal company and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group.
It argued that an internet user might naturally expect Royaldutchshellplc.com to lead to the company’s own website. Shell alleged that the registration prevented the group from using the corresponding domain and caused embarrassment by directing visitors to a critical website. WIPO
In other words, Shell spent considerable legal effort persuading WIPO that the domain name and the new corporate name were, for practical purposes, inseparable.
The difficulty for Shell was that similarity alone was not enough.
What Shell Had to ProveUnder the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Shell had to establish all three of the following:
- that the disputed domain was identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Shell had rights;
- that the registrant had no rights or legitimate interest in the domain;
- and that the domain had been registered and was being used in bad faith.
The panel accepted that Royaldutchshellplc.com was confusingly similar to Shell’s registered marks. It expressly found in Shell’s favour on that first element. WIPO
But Shell still had to prove the remaining requirements.
The panel considered the non-commercial nature of the website, the Donovans’ long-running criticism of Shell and the absence of evidence that the domain had been registered for resale or direct commercial profit.
It concluded that the evidence did not show that Alfred Donovan’s purpose was to stop Shell from using its marks. Rather, the purpose was to draw public attention to criticism of Shell’s activities.
The panel therefore found for Alfred Donovan on the bad-faith element and ruled:
“For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.”
The decision was issued on 8 August 2005. WIPO
Shell Had Already Decided to Keep Shell.comThe case becomes even more peculiar when Shell’s own internal correspondence and contemporary reporting are examined.
A confidential Shell email dated 31 May 2005 discussed a Wall Street Journal enquiry about the dispute. The email recorded that the journalist wanted to know why Shell had filed a complaint:
“given that it is not our intention to replace shell.com with a url for royaldutchshellplc.com following the merger.”
That sentence is highly revealing.
Shell regarded Royaldutchshellplc.com as sufficiently important to launch WIPO proceedings, but it apparently did not intend to use it as its principal corporate website.
An internal Shell explanation said the action had instead been taken because Alfred Donovan had registered several domain names similar to legitimate Shell addresses, which Shell characterised as a pattern of bad-faith registrations. Shell News
The Wall Street Journal also reported that Shell’s main corporate website would remain Shell.com. Shell News
That does not mean Shell had no legitimate interest in defensive domain-name protection. Major corporations routinely secure domains they do not intend to use as their principal address.
It does, however, undermine any suggestion that Royaldutchshellplc.com was required for Shell’s day-to-day corporate operations.
Shell wanted control of the address.
It did not establish a legal entitlement to take it.
Shell’s Own Later Internal AccountA confidential Shell “Focal Point” document dated 15 May 2006 summarised the result with unusual clarity.
It stated that Shell had requested transfer of the domains, but:
“the adjudication panel did not accept that there were grounds for the transfer.”
The document added:
“There is no appeal from that decision.”
It said that although a separate court challenge might have been possible, Shell did not consider further action justified. Shell News
That was effectively the end of Shell’s attempt to obtain Royaldutchshellplc.com.
There has been no successful later challenge.
Who Registered the Domain First?Companies House shows that the dormant company Forthdeal Limited was renamed Royal Dutch Shell plc on 27 October 2004. Companies House
Royaldutchshellplc.com was registered on 29 October 2004, immediately after the restructuring announcement.
The historic WHOIS record reproduced in Shell’s own WIPO complaint listed Alfred Donovan as the registrant and confirmed that the domain had been created on 29 October 2004. Shell News
Shell argued that this timing showed an intention to pre-empt the company.
The Donovan response was that the domain accurately described the subject matter of the existing criticism website; it had not been registered for sale, rent, advertising revenue or commercial trading; and it was being used as a platform for news and criticism concerning Royal Dutch Shell. Shell News
The panel did not accept Shell’s case that the required bad faith had been established.
That decision—not corporate displeasure, search-engine assumptions or subsequent mythology—determined the WIPO proceeding.
The Name Shell Later AbandonedFor more than sixteen years after the WIPO decision, the curious position remained:
- Shell operated the company called Royal Dutch Shell plc;
- Shell used Shell.com as its principal website;
- and the Donovans operated Royaldutchshellplc.com.
Then Shell abandoned the company name.
On 21 January 2022, Royal Dutch Shell plc officially became Shell plc.
Shell’s own materials confirm that the change formed part of the simplification of its corporate structure. Shell
Companies House records the history unambiguously:
- Forthdeal Limited: 5 February 2002 to 27 October 2004;
- Royal Dutch Shell plc: 27 October 2004 to 21 January 2022;
- Shell plc: 21 January 2022 to the present. Companies House
Therefore, anyone searching today for the current “Royal Dutch Shell plc share price,” “Royal Dutch Shell plc annual report 2026” or “Royal Dutch Shell plc investor relations” is being led by outdated terminology.
There is no current listed parent company bearing that name.
The shares, annual reports and investor-relations operation belong to Shell plc.
The Search-Engine ConfusionRecent correspondence with Bing Webmaster Tools arose because Bing continued to present search prompts and generated answers implying that Royal Dutch Shell plc remained a current company with its own shares, reports, investor-relations pages and official website.
In an email dated 30 July 2026, I explained that Shell had dropped the name in 2022 and that Shell.com was the official website of Shell plc—not an official website for a still-existing company called Royal Dutch Shell plc.
I also drew Bing’s attention to Shell’s own WIPO argument that Royaldutchshellplc.com was essentially identical to the former corporate name, and to the fact that Shell lost the resulting case.
Bing’s support representative replied that the matter was under investigation. At the time of publication, a final substantive response is still awaited. The supplied PDF contains the correspondence, search screenshots, WIPO extracts and supporting links. Domain Name Doc 31 July 2026.pdfPDF
Google, by contrast, appears to have acted on information concerning the distinction between Shell plc and the independent Donovan website.
The broader problem is not merely cosmetic.
A search engine that treats “Royal Dutch Shell plc” as a current listed company may produce inaccurate answers about:
- share prices;
- dividends;
- current annual reports;
- headquarters;
- investor relations;
- corporate nationality;
- and the identity of the “official” website.
Historical aliases are useful.
Presenting them as current legal identities is not.
Does John Donovan “Own the Name”?This is where precision matters.
I do not claim ownership of Shell’s trademarks, the Shell name, the shell emblem or the corporate goodwill belonging to Shell plc.
Nor does ownership of a domain name confer ownership of every word contained within it.
What the Donovan side owns and controls is the domain registration and independently operated website Royaldutchshellplc.com, subject to the registration agreement and applicable law.
Shell owns its corporate and trademark rights.
But Shell asked WIPO to transfer the domain and failed.
The panel did not award Shell ownership.
It denied the complaint.
Twenty-one years later, Shell has itself ceased using Royal Dutch Shell plc as its current corporate name, while Royaldutchshellplc.com remains active as an independent publication and historical archive.
The Definitive AnswerSo, who owns “Royal Dutch Shell Plc”?
The answer depends on what is being discussed.
The present companyThe current company is Shell plc, company number 04366849. It was formerly called Royal Dutch Shell plc.
Shell’s trademarks and corporate rightsThese remain with Shell and its relevant group companies.
The domain Royaldutchshellplc.comShell does not own it.
The domain was registered by Alfred Donovan, survived Shell’s WIPO challenge and is now operated and controlled by John Donovan.
The current official Shell websiteThat is:
The independent critical and historical archiveThat is:
The two websites are not affiliated.
And the company Royal Dutch Shell plc no longer exists under that name.
The irony is therefore complete.
Shell once insisted that Royaldutchshellplc.com was, to all intents and purposes, identical to the name Royal Dutch Shell plc.
Shell failed to obtain the domain.
Shell later discarded the company name.
The Donovans did not discard the domain.
Chronology and Source Documents 27 October 2004 — Forthdeal Limited becomes Royal Dutch Shell plcCompanies House: Shell plc company history
29 October 2004 — Royaldutchshellplc.com registeredThe historic WHOIS record is reproduced in Shell’s WIPO complaint:
Shell’s 44-page WIPO complaint
18 May 2005 — Shell submits its WIPO complaint 25 May 2005 — WIPO formally notifies Alfred DonovanWIPO Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Proceedings
31 May 2005 — Shell internal email discusses Wall Street Journal enquiryShell internal domain-name correspondence
2 June 2005 — Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg report the disputeWall Street Journal/Bloomberg domain-name reporting
Alternative Wall Street Journal copy
14 June 2005 — Alfred Donovan files his responseDonovan response to Shell’s WIPO complaint
8 August 2005 — WIPO denies Shell’s complaintOfficial WIPO Decision: Case D2005-0538
11 August 2005 — WIPO issues the formal decision notification 15 May 2006 — Shell records internally that there was no appealShell Confidential Focal Point document
2018 — Retrospective account of the domain dispute 21 January 2022 — Royal Dutch Shell plc becomes Shell plcShell announcement and corporate simplification record
8 July 2026 — Chronological record of external references to the websiteA Chronological Register of External References to Royaldutchshellplc.com
9 July 2026 — Request to search engines and AI platformsRoyal Dutch Shell Plc Search Results: Dear Google, Bing, ChatGPT, Copilot and Perplexity
29–30 July 2026 — Correspondence with Bing Webmaster ToolsBing confirmed that the issue was being investigated. A final response remained outstanding at the time of publication.
Editorial and Legal NoteThis article distinguishes between ownership and control of an internet domain, ownership of trademarks, and the legal identity of a registered company.
The 2005 WIPO ruling did not grant the Donovans ownership of Shell’s trademarks or corporate name. It rejected Shell’s request for transfer of the disputed domains under the UDRP because Shell did not establish all elements required by that policy.
The article does not suggest that Royaldutchshellplc.com is an official Shell website. It is an independent publication and archive operated by John Donovan.
Shell’s official corporate website is Shell.com.
The Practical Reality Behind the RegistrationOne historical detail is worth recording.
Although Royaldutchshellplc.com was registered in the name of Alfred Donovan, the practical arrangements were handled by his son, John Donovan.
In October 2004, Alfred was 88 years old and living with John in Colchester. John registered the domain on his father’s behalf and subsequently dealt with the correspondence, the WIPO proceedings and the continuing operation of the website.
Following Alfred Donovan’s death in 2013, John continued maintaining the website and expanding what has since become one of the world’s largest independent archives relating to Shell’s corporate history.
That continuity explains why the original WIPO proceedings refer to Alfred Donovan while the website is now edited and published by John Donovan.
Postscript: History Has a Sense of HumourHistory occasionally has an ironic streak.
Before it became Royal Dutch Shell plc, Shell’s new parent company was an off-the-shelf company called Forthdeal Limited.
More than twenty years after Shell unsuccessfully sought to obtain Royaldutchshellplc.com, John Donovan has also acquired the Forthdeal domain name—the very corporate name Shell itself abandoned when it created Royal Dutch Shell plc.
Nor does the story end there.
John Donovan has also registered RoyalDutchPetroleumCompany.com, preserving online the name of the company founded in 1890 from which Royal Dutch Shell—and ultimately today’s Shell plc—developed.
The objective is not to impersonate Shell or create confusion.
It is to preserve and document an important chapter of corporate history that might otherwise gradually disappear from public consciousness.
The irony is therefore complete.
In 2005, Shell argued before WIPO that Royaldutchshellplc.com was, to all intents and purposes, identical to the name of its new parent company.
Shell failed to obtain the domain.
In 2022, Shell voluntarily abandoned the corporate name Royal Dutch Shell plc and became Shell plc.
In 2026, Royaldutchshellplc.com remains very much alive.
And, thanks to Forthdeal and RoyalDutchPetroleumCompany.com, two other significant chapters of Shell’s corporate history have also been preserved online.
Sometimes history writes the best ending itself.
Who Owns the Name Royal Dutch Shell Plc AKA Royaldutchshellplc.com: John Donovan or Shell? The Definitive Answer was first posted on July 31, 2026 at 9:58 pm.©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net
The government canceled this nature study. Scientists finished it anyway.
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Neha Pathak
Most of us sense it without being told why: A walk in the woods or an hour in the park leaves us calmer, clearer, and restored. Increasingly, modern science agrees. A growing body of evidence links time in nature to better physical and mental health – and a major new effort is working to document exactly what that evidence shows.
That effort is called the Nature Record, and its survival is a story in itself. It began as the National Nature Assessment, a federal undertaking modeled on the long-running National Climate Assessment and mandated by a Biden-era executive order. Roughly 180 scientists volunteered to develop about a dozen chapters. The project had reached an early public-comment draft when the Trump administration canceled it. Rather than abandon the work, the authors decided to finish it independently under a new name, with foundation funding and National Academy of Sciences review.
Howard Frumkin, a physician-epidemiologist and a professor emeritus at the University of Washington, led the assessment’s chapter on human health. Yale Climate Connections spoke with him about how the report survived, what the science says about nature’s health benefits, why those benefits aren’t shared equally, and what it all means for communities and the healthcare system.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Yale Climate Connections: The connection between nature, health, and climate change pulls together fields that don’t usually sit at the same table. How do you frame that intersection?
Howard Frumkin: This intersection of the natural world and human health – in the context of climate change – draws on three different lineages intellectually.
The first is the scientific evidence on the health benefits of nature contact, which is what the Nature Record is focusing on. So if you or I take a walk in a forest or in a park, we have nature contact, and something about that is good for us. We don’t fully understand. It might be the visual appreciation of beautiful nature; it might be phytoncides – biogenic chemicals that we’re inhaling. It could be the quiet, could be the physical activity. But nature also delivers benefits without direct contact: The upstream ecosystem in the watershed that delivers clean water is good for health. We may never go up there, but we still benefit from it.
The second is the whole literature on climate solutions, indicating that coastal mangrove forests and sponge cities and tree canopy deliver benefits both in terms of climate mitigation and adaptation: We can store carbon, reduce temperatures of neighborhoods, we can manage storm water.
Then there’s a third line of thinking, which has to do with the human relationship with the natural world. In Indigenous and tribal wisdom, there’s talk of reciprocity, the shared relationship that we have as part of nature, the obligations for stewardship, the legal concepts of the rights of nature. All of that is related to, but different than, the climate benefits piece because it’s explicitly not instrumental; it’s not transactional; it’s relational. You come into that thinking about the right relationship that we as humans should have with the natural world – not because of what it gets us.
Yale Climate Connections: So how did the Nature Record come to be, and how did the project survive after the federal government withdrew its support?
Frumkin: It was a pretty simple concept: the idea that you can’t take good care of what you don’t know. There was a perception that if we were to be good stewards of our natural heritage in this country, we needed an inventory. We needed to take stock of what we had, and not just at a fixed moment in time but over time to understand the trends that were affecting nature and the benefits it delivers. The model for doing that was the National Climate Assessment, which is the every-four-year assessment of climate change in the U.S. – how it’s unfolding, what the impacts are on humans – mandated by federal legislation back in the 1990s. It comes with lots of federal procedures, in terms of scientific rigor, transparency, public review, and so on. Out of that conceptual commitment to taking stock of what we have, and using the model of the National Climate Assessment, an executive order in the Biden administration mandated the creation of the National Nature [Assessment].
It got as far as a “zero order draft,” – what regular people call an outline – that was published in the Federal Record and made available for public comment. And no sooner did that happen than the Trump inauguration happened, and the Trump administration killed the National Nature Assessment.
By then we had rostered around 12 chapters with around 15 authors each, so we had 180 authors all volunteering time, representing academic institutions and agencies and NGOs across the country. And pretty much in the blink of an eye, everybody said, “Let’s do it anyway … This work is so important, and the value is so clear that we don’t need to be a federal undertaking.”
There were some legal issues, like we couldn’t use the same name; federal employees could no longer participate because of potential risks to them and to the project. We found foundation support in early 2025, and by mid-2025 [it was] clear that we had enough money, energy, and commitment that we could continue. We landed on the Nature Record, and we’re proceeding almost in some ways as if it were a federal document – with transparency, National Academy of Sciences review, very careful documentation of all factual claims – partly because rigor will give a lot of credibility to the report, and partly because it would be a good thing for this to return to being a federal effort. If we have followed all the rules, dotted all the i’s, and crossed all the t’s, this can be reimported into government.
That said, being nonfederal offers some advantages. We can be more flexible and nimble, more creative in the ways we undertake outreach and build partnerships, and publicize and disseminate what we find. In some ways, this is a blessing in disguise. We have, for example, a national poetry effort running alongside the Nature Record, and we’ve published a book of poetry. We’ve engaged young people in graphic arts related to the benefits of nature. Bringing that creativity to bear has been a really nice part of the project.
Yale Climate Connections: When you dug into the evidence for the health chapter, what were the biggest takeaways or trends you saw?
Frumkin: The first key message is that, in general, nature contact is good for people; it’s health-promoting. The second is that those benefits are unequally distributed across society. Some of us have much better or easier access to nature than others. It’s an equity issue, because poor people and people of color disproportionately tend to have less access to parks and high-quality park programming, through the legacies of redlining and other historical trends.
But it’s not just that conventional form of equity that’s important. People with disabilities have difficulty accessing natural places. Older people have difficulty because too many parks lack accessible trails and shade, and children often lack access because safe, easy access to green space is rare in many communities.
Another trend is more screen time and less green time. People are spending less time outdoors. On the other hand, there are some emerging technologies that may facilitate nature contact, such as Merlin [the birdsong identification app], which may help deepen people’s appreciation of nature, and there’s reason to think that being more familiar with it deepens nature connectedness.
Four takeaways about health and nature from the Nature Record- Nature contact is broadly good for human health.
- Those benefits are unequally distributed – by race, income, age, and disability.
- Long-term trends, such as rising screen time and falling green time, are reshaping how people benefit – for better and worse.
- Evidence-based interventions, like well-designed park programming, can reliably strengthen nature’s health benefits.
Yale Climate Connections: If the evidence that nature helps is solid, how much do we actually know about why – and about how much nature is enough?
Don’t miss out: If you sign up by August 1 to support our extreme weather coverage with a monthly donation, you’ll be invited to an exclusive conversation with our meteorologists later this season. Become a monthly supporter of Jeff Masters, Bob Henson, and Irene Sans’s extreme weather coverage today.
DonateFrumkin: One of the most interesting parts of this is that although we have pretty solid evidence that nature contact benefits health, we know precious little about how it works. So you may walk through a forest and benefit from seeing the natural beauty of the forest. We have lab evidence that T cells do better after contact with natural compounds than they otherwise would. It may be that the benefit comes from the fact that you’re walking through the forest with friends, and social contacts in natural settings are soothing and restorative. It may be that natural settings call on us just to get out there and take a walk, and the physical activity is a really effective promoter of good health.
Not knowing the pathways and mechanisms of benefits makes it a little difficult to prescribe. And we don’t know a lot about the varieties of nature and which ones are more or less effective. Do you need trees, or do shrubs do the trick? Do you need immersion, or viewing nature out the window? Do you need the real thing, or might virtual nature provide some of the same benefits? Do you need to get out every day, or does a few times a week suffice? So these are a lot of questions we still need to try to answer.
The potential benefits of nature contact are strong, much less expensive than pharmaceuticals, free of side effects, and don’t need to be prescribed by a licensed healthcare provider. The cost-benefit implications are potentially enormous if we get it right and understand best how to optimize those benefits.
Yale Climate Connections: As a physician, I hear a real fear of nature from patients: ticks and mosquito-borne disease, allergies, wildfire smoke, and extreme weather – and climate change is heightening those risks. How do you balance nature’s benefits against these threats?
Frumkin: Rarely in life can you eliminate risk altogether, but you can manage risk.
The risks of being outside: Well, there’s a risk of sunburn – but we can manage that risk with sunblock and with protective clothing. The risk of ticks – that’s a real risk. But we can manage that risk: inspecting ourselves after we’ve been in tick-infested areas and using bug repellent to keep the ticks away. So for each risk, we can reduce the risk by managing it well.
Yale Climate Connections: How do you hope communities will use the Nature Record?
Frumkin: So for communities, here’s an example. Almost every community in the country now has a housing shortage, and there is a need to build more housing. And to do that in economically and environmentally efficient ways generally means density. Density can collide with protecting nature. This report will make it clear that balancing the protection of nature with fulfillment of other human needs – like housing – is a key set of trade-offs we need to tackle and be explicit about.
Using the insights from this report, design strategies that both protect nature and provide nearby nature contact and also provide housing and transportation – which means in many cases nonmotorized transportation, active transport, cycling, and walking. The design of communities needs to take into account all these needs: environment, human, and equity.
Yale Climate Connections: Hospitals and health systems have a natural connection to health, not only through the care they provide but also through the spaces they create. As they consider land use decisions, including parking needs and opportunities for green space, what should they keep in mind?
Frumkin: Two thoughts. One is that we know a lot about how to build green, and that means the buildings themselves, with biophilic principles. It means the environmental performance of the buildings – what are called green buildings – and it means the situation of buildings in lots, protecting nearby nature. That’s a good way to build; it’s economical. There may be increased up-front costs, but they’re generally recoverable in a short number of years, and they deliver health benefits to patients and staff.
The second message is that nonprofit hospitals are required to carry out community health needs assessments and to invest in community health based on the findings of those assessments.
Nature deficit is a community health need, and in my view ought to be a part of every community health needs assessment. To the extent that it’s documented, hospitals can consider investing funds in local parks, either for developing parks or planning programming in parks that we know improve community health.
I would urge hospitals to think about nature deficit as one of those community health needs and then consider investments in nature contact for people in their catchment areas as a means of promoting public health.
Yale Climate Connections: Finally, what makes you most hopeful?
Frumkin: For me, one of the biggest potential sources of despair is the polarization and ideological hysteria that seems to be sweeping our country and many others as well. But this topic offers a counterbalance, because across the political spectrum people love the natural world and appreciate it.
Hunters and anglers and campers may be far right politically, but they have common cause with environmentalists who may be on the political left. There aren’t too many domains that can unite us across the ideological divide that bedevils the country now, but this is one.
I think the fact that we’re approaching this entire Nature Record in an apolitical way, and framing it in terms of benefits that all Americans can enjoy, gives me hope that we may be able to help overcome one of the biggest challenges we face.
It’s official: Data centers are slowing America’s shift away from coal
As tech companies have built hundreds of hyperscale data centers to power the artificial intelligence boom, they have triggered conflicting predictions over how these facilities will affect the nation’s power grid. Critics have argued that data centers will raise power bills and increase carbon emissions. Supporters claimed they could increase investment in infrastructure and clean energy, leading to lower prices and emissions.
We now have a clearer picture about at least one consequence of the data center boom, and it isn’t encouraging. A report released last week from the Energy Information Administration found that carbon emissions from the U.S. power sector rose by 4 percent last year — larger than the increase in the economy overall, where emissions only ticked up 2 percent. The agency attributes this rise to a 13 percent increase in coal power generation, partially driven by the proliferation of large-scale data centers.
The national increase in power sector emissions represents the reversal of a longstanding trend. Before the AI boom, U.S. power consumption had been flat for decades. Utilities, grid operators, and energy planners had assumed that pattern would continue, and many planned to retire their older and dirtier coal plants with the expectation that natural gas and renewables could replace them. Instead, electricity demand is rising much faster than anticipated. Data centers could make up more than 10 percent of U.S. electricity usage by 2030, and they operate around the clock, including when wind and solar farm output is low. That demand has extended the life of some aging coal plants.
“Commercial load is starting to grow, and that’s part of the data center story,” said Steve Piper, the director of energy research at S&P Global Energy, a market intelligence firm. “It’s kind of a rising tide lifts all boats phenomenon. While we think structurally coal will decline over time, [the AI boom] is going to slow down that decline.”
The increase in power sector emissions would have been even bigger were it not for the fact that solar and wind energy also surged last year. Utilities can now tap cheap, carbon-free energy during much of the day, which means they are less reliant on fossil fuel-burning plants that make up the backbone of the energy system. Solar now produces more power than coal during sunny months when demand is low. The climate problem is that while solar is still growing, coal is not shrinking.
The other driving factor behind last year’s increase was that coal became cheaper relative to natural gas, the country’s largest power source. As natural gas exports have increased, domestic gas prices have risen relative to coal.
The coal industry has also been buoyed by increased political support. President Donald Trump and Energy Secretary Chris Wright have vowed to revive the nation’s moribund coal industry by supporting new coal power plants and helping build an export terminal that can ship coal to Asia. Wright has issued temporary emergency orders to prevent the retirement of at least half a dozen coal plants around the country, forcing utilities to run plants they had previously sought to shut down. His department has argued that these orders are justified because hot and cold weather are straining the power grid.
But these orders aren’t actually the reason that coal emissions have rebounded. The plants that Wright has kept open are running at a lower capacity than they did before Trump took office, in large part because there are still cheaper sources of power than coal out there.
Take for example the J.H. Campbell coal plant in Michigan, owned by Consumers Energy. It was the first major coal facility that Wright prevented from closing. At the time, Wright said that the plant’s operation was necessary so that Michigan “[did] not lose critical power generation capability as summer begins.” Yet in each of the last three quarters, the plant has generated less electricity than it did in the equivalent quarter the previous year.
Instead, the increase is happening across the country. Outside of the Western U.S., nearly every state generated more coal power in 2025 than it did in 2024. One of the biggest jumps came in Virginia, home to the world’s largest AI cluster, where utilities almost doubled their coal power generation to serve the state’s growing clusters of data centers. Nearby coal states like Pennsylvania and West Virginia also stepped up their generation to match data center demand.
The report is especially concerning since decarbonizing the electricity sector, which accounts for about 25 percent of U.S. emissions, is an essential step toward meeting national climate targets. Unlike in the transportation sector, where electric vehicles still face significant cost and infrastructure barriers, and heavy industry, in which natural gas is still needed to make steel and cement at scale, the power sector has real cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels.
Once electricity became cleaner, switching cars, home heating, and other sectors from fossil fuels to electricity would sharply reduce emissions.
And there were signs of progress: Emissions from the power grid have fallen by about one-third from their peak around 2005 as utilities have replaced old coal plants with less carbon-intensive methods such as natural gas turbines, which emit about half as much carbon per watt of electricity. The rapid build-out of solar and wind power was supposed to reduce power emissions even further.
The stubborn presence of coal is a problem for that progress.
“Coal generation may sort of have a floor in our forecasts,” said Piper. He said he expects that in the long run, coal will continue to decline, but that “it will take something else” to dislodge it from the power grid altogether. And until we have a grid with enough round-the-clock power to render the dirtiest fuels unnecessary, the nation’s journey away from fossil fuels will be stuck at the starting gate.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline It’s official: Data centers are slowing America’s shift away from coal on Jul 29, 2026.
The EU might weaken its landmark climate law — the ‘most impactful’ in the world
The European Union’s cap-and-trade system has long been considered the gold standard for market-based emissions-reduction policies, and it’s influenced similar efforts from California to South Korea. Since 2005, it’s helped reduce the EU’s industrial carbon emissions by about 50 percent, and a recent working paper called it the “most impactful climate policy in the world.” But a set of changes proposed earlier this month by the European Commission, the bloc’s legislative body, has called its credentials into question.
Wijnand Stoefs, EU policy lead for the European nonprofit Carbon Market Watch, likened the day of the proposals to Black Friday — and he wasn’t talking about the annual shopping event. Instead, he reached for another metaphor. “Smoke appeared from the 13th floor of the Berlaymont,” he wrote on LinkedIn, referring to the Brussels headquarters of the European Commission. “And it was acrid, tarry, black smoke.”
Stoefs’ account is unusually evocative, but he shares concerns with other policy experts who say the commission’s proposed updates — including slower emissions reductions and extra leniency for major polluters — will weaken the EU’s Emissions Trading System, or ETS, while potentially emboldening industry groups that want to weaken cap-and-trade systems elsewhere.
“I think they will have the perfect excuse to go, ‘Hey, the EU isn’t moving ahead as fast as they were,’” Stoefs told Grist. “It’s just, like, a belt of ammunition for industrial lobbyists.”
The ETS is the European Union’s flagship climate policy. It sets a cap on carbon emissions for about 10,000 EU oil refineries, power stations, and other companies that together represent 40 percent of the bloc’s total climate pollution. It works by requiring certain companies to buy “allowances” to cover their expected emissions for the year — and each year, the amount of available allowances shrinks, forcing companies to gradually reduce emissions. Sometimes a polluting company purchases more allowances than they’ll actually need, in which case they can sell their surplus to other firms. Companies that reach the end of the year without enough allowances, however, are subject to heavy fines.
Read Next Can a carbon price lower power bills? Virginia is betting yes. Jake BittleUntil earlier this month, the ETS was on track to steer the companies it covers to net-zero by 2039. The most significant update proposed by the European Commission would delay that timeline. Instead of reducing total emissions by 4.4 percent a year until 2039, the commission proposed to lower emissions by 3.7 percent annually between 2031 and 2035, and then just 1.7 percent thereafter.
In explaining the move, the European Commission said it would “bring relief to industry” while still lining up with EU climate law requiring member states to reduce economy-wide emissions by 90 percent below 1990 levels by 2040.
Sven Harmeling, head of climate at the nonprofit Climate Action Network Europe, disputed this claim, saying the bigger issue is all of the extra carbon that may now be released into the atmosphere over the next 14 years. “There are different ways you can get to 2040 with more or less emissions,” he told Grist, and a slower decarbonization timeline has the potential to allow much more pollution than a faster one. Carbon emissions warm up the planet and contribute to more frequent and intense extreme weather, including heat waves, wildfires, and storms.
According to one estimate, the European Commission’s new proposal would allow covered companies to emit roughly 2 billion metric tons more carbon pollution than the previous plan. That’s significant, given scientists’ projection that, as of 2025, the world can only emit another 80 billion metric tons of carbon pollution and still have a two-thirds chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) — a threshold beyond which risks to ecosystems and society escalate dramatically.
The ETS “only looks at where we’re going to be in 2040,” Harmeling said. “What happens between 2030 and 2040 is actually what matters to the climate.”
The commission also proposed continuing to dole out free emissions allowances to certain companies, including those it thinks might otherwise relocate in order to avoid paying for their climate pollution. Critics said this could not only disincentivize faster decarbonization; it could enrich big polluters. ETS-covered companies have regularly received more free allowances than they actually need, allowing them to sell and earn billions of euros from them.
Some of those companies, including the steelmaker ArcelorMittal and chemical company BASF, lobbied heavily for the ETS to distribute more free allowances.
To be sure, the details of the European Commission’s proposal may still change; they’re now subject to negotiation with the Council of the EU and European Parliament, and some European environment ministers have vowed to “fight tooth and nail” against a weakened ETS. The final rules are expected by early next year.
Milan Elkerbout, director of an international climate policy initiative at the think tank Resources for the Future, was less grave in his evaluation of the commission’s proposal. Yes, slower emissions cuts for ETS-covered sectors will require faster decarbonization elsewhere — like in agriculture and construction — but he thinks that’s still possible, keeping the EU’s 2040 target within reach.
The ETS remains, “by quite a margin, the most ambitious [carbon] trading system in the world,” he added. He said carbon trading mechanisms in California, Washington state, Quebec, South Korea, and elsewhere are different enough to be insulated from direct copy-and-paste modifications — and that, in fact, aligning them more closely with the ETS could raise their ambition rather than lower it.
Still, despite structural differences among regional carbon trading systems, polluters everywhere tend to share similar goals: cheaper emissions allowances, more free pollution permits, laxer rules on carbon credits — all of which serve to drive down the price of carbon. Big polluters in the oil and gas industry are already pushing for these reforms in places including California, which in May said it would expand free emissions allowances to oil refineries.
Stoefs said it’s hard to see how the European Commission’s recent retrenchment won’t be used to justify — or at least advocate for — similar concessions elsewhere. “If the EU waters down the ETS, I think those other systems will do the same,” he said.
toolTips('.classtoolTips4','The process of reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that drive climate change, most often by deprioritizing the use of fossil fuels like oil and gas in favor of renewable sources of energy.');This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The EU might weaken its landmark climate law — the ‘most impactful’ in the world on Jul 29, 2026.
Is it getting too hot for summer school?
Two days before the sweltering July 4 weekend, Martina Meijer, a New York City elementary teacher who occasionally substitutes over the summer, covered a class. The city’s summer school programhad just begun and that day temperatures reached 100 degrees.
“Even though the AC was on, it wasn’t working very well,” said Meijer. “There was no programming, no schedule, no plans shared.”
For four hours straight, Meijer and her students remained in the classroom. The stifling heat drained their energy, leaving them lethargic and making it difficult to focus. When she called the main office to ask if she could take them to the gym or outside for recess, school officials told her the weather was too hazardous, she said. They instructed her to stay in the classroom and give her class of 15 students indoor movement activities — commonly known as “brain breaks” — by following YouTube tutorials.
While many school districts prioritize placing students and staff in schools with air conditioning during summer programming, the blistering temperatures around the country sometimes mean it’s not enough. Problems like malfunctioning air conditioners still persist, and cooling systems have their limits during periods of intense heat like this July’s heat dome.
Climate change is increasingly testing the limits of how summer programs — when students take part in enrichment activities or remediation — can ensure academic needs are met while keeping students safe from the blazing heat.
Elementary teacher Martina Meijer at City-As-School in the West Village, Manhattan, on Wednesday, July 15, 2026. Yunuen Bonaparte for The Hechinger ReportFederal regulations that would protect workers like teachers from heat illnesses by mandating water breaks, rest periods and areas to cool off, have stalled for the foreseeable future.
In recent weeks, schools in major cities and rural communities alike have had to end classes early, close or completely restructure daily activities.
Kristen Hengtgen, the project manager of UndauntedK12, a national organization committed to reducing carbon emissions in K-12 schools, said that many educators rely on temporary or improvised solutions whenever possible.
“Smaller things that we are seeing now, like moving indoors, moving to air‑conditioned spaces, having hydration breaks and cooling periods when temperatures are unsafe, flexible scheduling, doing stuff earlier in the day — I think that will continue to happen,” said Hengtgen.
When classrooms become overheated or outdoor recess gets canceled, students struggle to focus and learn. Excessive heat impairs cognitive performance, putting students who need extra academic support during the summer at an even greater disadvantage.
“A lot of the kids in summer school may already be having academic challenges,” said Elizabeth Bechard, public health manager at Moms Clean Air Force, an environmental advocacy group dedicated to protecting children from the effects of climate change. “Asking them to catch up with their learning in very suboptimal learning conditions, when it’s too hot to learn, is not going to help so much.”
Elementary school students, staff and volunteers walk back to P.S. 94 The Henry Longfellow School from a trip to the pool before the summer school day ends in Sunset Park on Thursday, July 16, 2026. Yunuen Bonaparte for The Hechinger ReportChildren are especially vulnerable to heat-related illnesses compared to adults. This is because their thermal regulation systems are still developing. They tend to sweat less and breathe faster, Bechard said. And for those without air conditioning at home, the risks are higher for both their physical well-being and their ability to learn effectively.
“If students are going to schools that don’t have air conditioning, and then coming home to homes that also don’t have air conditioning, there’s no chance for the body to really rest and recover,” said Bechard.
On the last day of school in early June, the Philadelphia School District dismissed students early at 52 insufficiently air-conditioned schools due to extreme heat.
“When the mercury climbs above 85-90 degrees, we either send students home early or move those schools to virtual days,” said Tony Watlington Sr., the superintendent of the School District of Philadelphia.
Teachers are also trained to ensure children aren’t exposed to conditions that could lead to dehydration or heat stroke, he said.
“Our teachers do a really good job of using professional judgment and not having kids out in 90‑degree heat with that sun barreling down on what we sometimes refer to as concrete deserts,” Watlington said.
Without professional training or clear guidelines, however, some families worry about leaving critical heat safety decisions up to teachers.
unuen Bonaparte for The Hechinger ReportIn late June, parents in Virginia’s Alexandria City Public Schools received an advisory letter outlining precautions for staff during an anticipated heat wave, when experts warned the heat index could reach 112 degrees. School officials urged staff to restrict outdoor activities and remain vigilant for signs of heat exhaustion.
“I feel like it’s a mix of mostly saying the right things, but it’s also dependent on the discretion of various adults,” said one parent, who requested anonymity to maintain her privacy. “We have no idea what level of training they have — like, ‘Be aware of the signs of heat exhaustion and heat stroke’ is great, but how do we know people are?”
Higher temperatures are also sparking and intensifying the frequency of wildfires.
In mid July, Canadian wildfires clogged the skies with a thick haze of smoke, forcing programs like Summer Rising in New York City to move all outdoor activities for thousands of students inside.
While periodic indoor movement breaks keep students engaged throughout the day, they fall short of helping them release energy or recharge in the way outdoor play provides.
Read Next As climate change threatens student athlete safety, states try to adapt Neal Morton, The Hechinger ReportResearch shows that recess improves academic outcomes, social development and emotional regulation. If students can’t expend their energy outdoors, it can hinder their development.
“There’s this horrible chicken-or-egg situation that teachers have, which is: Kids really need to get out and run around, especially younger kids,” said V. Kelly Turner, a heat researcher and professor at UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. “If they don’t get their energy out outside, they can’t focus on their schoolwork inside. But if they’re outside roasting, then they can’t focus inside either.”
Nathan Cruz, a parent whose 6-year-old daughter attends Sharp Avenue Elementary School in Los Angeles, feels the weight of this predicament.
“Sometimes [the kids] forget to drink water, could get dehydrated, and there’s been conditions, like nosebleeds,” said Cruz.
On especially grueling days during the school year, when temperatures climb to triple digits, Cruz said children in the after-school program remain inside the school’s auditorium.
“It’s a lot of kids and it gets tight,” said Cruz. “It can be a challenge because you can’t keep them indoors every day, even though the weather could be over 95 degrees for over two to three weeks at a time.”
Read Next Teachers unions leverage contracts to fight climate change Caroline Preston, The Hechinger ReportSchools in the Northeast, like Philadelphia, face similar challenges and were not built to handle unusual and prolonged stretches of extreme heat.
A 2021 study by the Center for Climate Integrity, an environmental group that helps communities hold fossil fuel companies accountable, found that over 13,000 public schools nationwide — many built in a different climate era — would require $40 billion to install HVAC systems. In the Northeast, states that didn’t require air conditioning in the past — like Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont — need it today.
On average, public schools in the United States are nearing 50 years old, which means they require major structural upgrades to install proper HVAC systems and improve airflow. Philadelphia’s school buildings are even older — 73 years old, on average.
“Because it’s an old city and we have a lot of old buildings, we can’t go and just drop air conditioners in all of the windows,” Watlington said. “People ask all the time, ‘Why don’t you just put some $100 air‑conditioning units from Home Depot or Lowe’s and call it a day?’ It’s not that simple.”
During the July 4 week that summer school classes proceeded in New York City, schools in Washington, D.C., canceled all outdoor programs, citing the high temperatures.
Read Next Cities are rehearsing for deadly heat. Will it help when disaster comes? Natalie DonbackOne district suspended bus routes because its buses lacked air conditioning. Smaller districts, like Joliet Public Schools in Illinois, switched to remote instruction, while the Central Falls School District in Rhode Island shut down all summer programs.
In the Midwest, the Madison Metropolitan School District in Wisconsin also canceled summer school for elementary students when meteorologists projected temperatures to feel as hot as 108 degrees.
Scott Chehak, senior executive director of building services at the Madison Metropolitan School District, said the district tracks weather forecasts to assess heat risks.
“If it does hit an extreme weather warning or extreme heat warning, we tend to close schools if we see it coming,” said Chehak. “Sometimes we’ll have calls on the weekends with our executive staff just to make sure that we’re looking ahead.”
They also designate larger, air-conditioned spaces, such as gyms and libraries, as “cooling centers” where students rotate throughout the day. There, children have access to fans, extra hydration centers and specialized cooling towels.
Chehak said they train their staff to look for signs that a child might be overheating, especially for students who might be underprepared for hotter weather.
“Are they starting to lose attention? Does it feel like they’re warming up? You can tell by human behavior,” said Chehak.
For 14 years, Denisha Jordan, a veteran physical education teacher, worked in one of the hottest regions in Los Angeles at a high school in the San Fernando Valley, where she constantly monitored signs of heat exhaustion.
“When it comes to the high heat, you see more heat illnesses,” said Jordan. “Their skin will be cherry red. [There’s] profuse sweating, even when the kids aren’t doing anything.”
During her entire time there, the gym and locker rooms never had air conditioning, Jordan said. Outside, beneath the relentless sun, she recalls a student showing her the melted soles of his shoes after playing basketball on the playground’s scorching asphalt.
“If it’s 80 degrees outside, our blacktop can easily reach 90 degrees and above,” said Jordan. “I would go and put my hands down and see how long I could keep my hands on there, and if I couldn’t keep my hands on there, then I would know that we’d have to be on the grass that day.”
As summers intensify and heat waves creep into the fall months, Hengtgen from Undaunted K12 believes schools will need to create long-term action plans, rather than ad hoc, one-off emergency responses, even during summer school when temperatures are at their highest.
“Sometimes things like an extreme heat plan may seem fluffy or extra when we have a literacy crisis,” said Hengtgen. “But we are threatening the mission of public education if we can’t provide buildings that are safe and comfortable and healthy spaces for kids to learn and for teachers to teach.”
Sign up for Hechinger’s climate change newsletter.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Is it getting too hot for summer school? on Jul 29, 2026.
China’s solar industry is losing money. The country is doubling down anyway.
Cheap, abundant Chinese solar panels have become essential to decarbonizing the global energy system. Without them, the world’s clean energy transition would have arguably been slower and more expensive. But China’s solar manufacturing industry now faces a bizarre problem: oversupply. Chinese solar manufacturers have built far more production capacity than the market can absorb. In fact, China now has enough factories to meet roughly twice the global demand for solar products, according to an analysis by the research firm Rhodium Group. If all newly announced factories get built, the country’s manufacturing capacity could double, further widening the gap between supply and demand.
The market imbalance has put Chinese solar panel makers in a precarious position. Market analysts and company executives say the industry’s central problem — a massive oversupply of panels — has triggered vicious “price wars” between competing companies and sent prices plummeting. In the first quarter of 2026, the country’s solar manufacturers announced $1.5 billion in losses, an extension of roughly three years of continuous unprofitability. Industry behemoths like JinkoSolar and Longi have also been facing slowing installations in China, U.S. trade barriers, and weaker global demand.
“There’s been an enormous amount of price wars internally in China, with companies just slashing prices to very, very low levels,” said Hannah Pitt, director of the energy and climate practice at Rhodium Group.
Chinese officials have spent years trying to curb the cutthroat competition, stem overproduction, and stabilize prices, with little success. For all but the most advanced solar products, prices kept falling, and companies kept building new facilities. Regional governments, which have invested heavily in solar supply chains, have been hesitant to trim local development. Some manufacturers even built illegal factories or produced panels without permits, according to reporting by the South China Morning Post.
“Everyone is wondering how long this can last,” said Martin Schachinger, a solar product wholesaler based in Germany. “Even TaleSun, a manufacturer we expected to go out of the market five years ago, still exists. So, it’s a little bit … spooky.”
China designated solar a strategic industry in 2010, prompting massive public investment. Local governments subsidized manufacturers, while private investors expanded every stage of the supply chain in anticipation of booming global demand. The resulting manufacturing ecosystem allowed Chinese firms to produce extraordinarily cheap solar panels for both domestic and international markets.
But production soon outpaced global demand, triggering a fierce battle as manufacturers slashed prices to win customers. The Chinese government dubbed this self-defeating competition neijuan, meaning “involution,” a term originally coined by Chinese students describing the relentless pressure to succeed with diminishing returns. Involution is a common trend in Chinese industries that receive heavy public support, including other clean energy sectors such as batteries and electric vehicles.
For the United States and the rest of the globe, the oversupply has meant consistent availability of cheap solar panels and components that boosted the adoption of renewable energy. Solar panels provided more electricity in the United States than coal for the first time on record in May, according to analysis of government data by Ember, an energy think tank. Globally, clean power sources, of which solar is the fastest growing, met all new electricity demand around the world in 2025, staving off an increase in fossil fuel generation. It’s helped China, the world’s largest net emitter of greenhouse gases, flatten its emissions growth, too. The country’s emissions appear to have plateaued and could soon peak.
If Chinese officials correct the oversupply problem, it could cool some of that rapid solar deployment. But experts say China is more focused on advancing its solar industry than rightsizing it, meaning the cheap solar panel prices may continue for years.
Read Next It’s official: Data centers are slowing America’s shift away from coal Jake BittleChinese officials have called for “concerted efforts” to rein in solar production as recently as April. But the country’s broader industrial policies and stated goals seem to be leaning away from strict discipline, focusing instead on upgrading solar supply chains to produce more advanced technologies, according to a May report by Rhodium Group. In other words, the oversupply problem isn’t scaring China away from its big bets on solar. In fact, its latest five-year plan signals that China will continue supporting its massive clean energy industries, including solar, “optimizing and upgrading“ those industries rather than clamping down on their oversupply.
“It’s a really interesting moment right now across Chinese industries. Instead of just trying to consolidate, Beijing is pushing industries to go further, to move into more advanced manufacturing,” said Pitt.
The strategy stands in stark contrast to the United States’ steady solar manufacturing growth, which relies on market conditions rather than government support. Over the past year, the Trump administration and Congress have weakened policy incentives for solar, cutting back tax credits expanded in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and impeding solar development on federal land.
But demand for cheap solar has kept the industry growing. Unlike China’s self-sufficient solar empire, U.S. producers can’t meet all domestic demand for solar panels and are still heavily reliant on foreign components, primarily from China. While the U.S. pursues a slower, market-led approach, China has chosen a long-term state strategy that prioritizes manufacturing dominance over near-term profits.
That manufacturing dominance is especially important now that other countries are pushing back against China’s near-monopoly in the industry. The country’s efforts to upgrade its supply chains and move into higher-value products could help it stay ahead as new technologies reshape the solar market and countries attempt to build their own competing industries.
“If a solar company in Europe doesn’t make a joint venture with Chinese companies and use the huge advantages of the Chinese systems, then it won’t be successful,” said Schachinger. “From time to time, Indian manufacturers try to step into the European market, but against Chinese products, they have no advantages, and the prices are higher.”
That means if unsustainable business models or geopolitical tensions don’t spoil the boom, the world will have at least a few more years of low-cost Chinese solar products to supply its decarbonization goals, experts suspect.
“This isn’t over yet,” Pitt said. “I think the data points to prices remaining low for the foreseeable future.”
toolTips('.classtoolTips3','Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases that prevent heat from escaping Earth’s atmosphere. Together, they act as a blanket to keep the planet at a liveable temperature in what is known as the “greenhouse effect.” Too many of these gases, however, can cause excessive warming, disrupting fragile climates and ecosystems.'); toolTips('.classtoolTips4','The process of reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that drive climate change, most often by deprioritizing the use of fossil fuels like oil and gas in favor of renewable sources of energy.');This story was originally published by Grist with the headline China’s solar industry is losing money. The country is doubling down anyway. on Jul 29, 2026.
Social media driving wild animal pet trade
Countryside campaigners strongly object to “harm” of Foxholes gas drilling
Gas drilling in a small village in the Yorkshire Wolds would cause “unacceptable harm”, a leading campaign organisation has said.
Entrance to the proposed gas site. Photo: DrillOrDropThe Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has strongly objected to the plan at Foxholes, about nine miles from Scarborough, in North Yorkshire.
CPRE said a planning application by Egdon Resources should be refused.
A detailed response by the organisation’s North and East Yorkshire branch said:
“The proposal is inappropriate in this rural location, would cause unacceptable harm to countryside character and amenity, raises unresolved environmental and water protection concerns, would generate significant traffic and operational disturbance, and is inconsistent with the direction of travel required by climate change policy and responsible rural planning.”
It added:
“The proposal would introduce an intrusive industrial hydrocarbon exploration operation into a rural landscape, with associated drilling, testing, heavy goods vehicle movements, lighting, noise, emissions, water protection risks and long-term landscape and climate implications.
It said the operation, if approved, would “erode the local character and tranquillity of the area and would be at odds with the public interest in protecting the countryside for its landscape, amenity, ecological and cultural value”.
The organisation also said the application was “contrary to both national and local planning policies, inconsistent with the protection of rural character and amenity, and fails to demonstrate that the development can be made acceptable in this sensitive location.”
The earmarked site is on the edge of the proposed Yorkshire Wolds National Landscape, a designation that would bring the same level of protection given to national parks.
Egdon proposes to drill an exploration well through the chalk drinking water aquifer and next to the Gypsey Race, a rare chalk stream. Both the aquifer and the stream are considered internationally significant.
6CPRE formal response to Foxholes gas drilling planningk application Download Key issuesCPRE said the proposal would generate some short-term construction work, possibly increase exploratory knowledge and may contribute to future gas production.
But the organisation said there were many disadvantages, including:
- climate conflict and lack of need for new gas
- harm to the Yorkshire Wolds and proposed National Landscape sensitivity zone
- unacceptable noise risk in a quiet rural area
- unresolved highway safety, congestion and emergency-routing issues
- risk to the Gypsey Race and chalk aquifer
- disturbance to residents, vulnerable road users, agriculture and tourism
- uncertainty over restoration and future production pressure
CPRE said the site is in the setting of the proposed Yorkshire Wolds National Landscape, a distinctive region of open, rolling farmland, dry valleys, historic villages and relative tranquillity. The site is also within the 3.5km sensitivity zone of what would be a protected area.
The organisation said:
“approving hydrocarbon exploration in this landscape would set an undesirable precedent for further industrialisation of the Wolds and their rural setting”.
It said North Yorkshire Council, which will decide the planning application, should “attach ‘substantial weight’ to landscape protection, rural amenity and the conservation of countryside character”.
CPRE added:
“The council should not ignore the national significance of the landscape evidence or permit development within its immediate sensitivity zone that would prejudice, undermine or conflict with the purposes of designation”.
“Traffic risks on rural roads”CPRE said the scheme should be refused because of the impact on local roads from a “significant number of heavy goods vehicle [HGV] and operational vehicle movements”.
It said:
“Rural roads in and around Foxholes are not designed to accommodate sustained industrial traffic without harm to local amenity, road safety, verges, agricultural access and quiet enjoyment of the countryside.
Increased HGV traffic would add noise, vibration, emissions, perceived danger for residents, walkers, cyclists, horse riders and other road users, the organisation said.
It added:
“the rural road network should [not] be used to support fossil fuel exploration where the claimed public benefit is speculative and limited.”
CPRE also raised concerns that the proposed lorry route to the Foxhole site crossed Staxton Hill, 515ft high with a 1:4 gradient.
It said Egdon Resources had not provided sufficient detail of any alternative or emergency route if Staxton Hill were closed or unavailable.
“Without a fully assessed and consulted-upon emergency routing plan, the council cannot lawfully or rationally conclude that safe and suitable access has been demonstrated for all phases of the development”.
The organisation said the impacts of the scheme on local roads “should therefore be treated as severe, or at the very least inadequately assessed, and permission should be refused until the applicant has demonstrated safe and suitable access for all users and the absence of unacceptable or severe cumulative transport effects”.
“Unresolved risks to water resources”CPRE said the application had not “demonstrated that standard mitigation, monitoring and regulatory controls are sufficient to overcome the planning objection in this sensitive rural and hydrogeological context”.
It said the Yorkshire Wolds chalk aquifer was particularly vulnerable because groundwater can move through fractures and fissures and contaminants may travel unpredictably and rapidly.
It urged the council to apply a precautionary approach and “require clear, independent evidence that serious or irreversible harm can be ruled out”.
CPRE said North Yorkshire Council should not defer “fundamental questions of water protection to later permitting regimes where those matters are also relevant to land use planning.
The organisation added it would be “perverse” for the planning system to support a project to restore the Gypsey Race, “while simultaneously permitting a new fossil fuel drilling operation” nearby “without a compelling need and without eliminating the risk of harm to the chalk aquifer and chalk stream system”.
“Disturbance to residents”CPRE said of the drilling proposal:
“it would introduce noise, lighting, dust, odour and industrial activity harmful to residential and rural amenity”.
It said planning conditions would not “adequately protect residents and the rural environment”.
CPRE said the current night-time noise levels were very low. It specifically opposed Egdon’s suggested night-time noise limits.
It said:
“the Council should require Egdon to show why materially lower night-time limits cannot be achieved and why the operation cannot be designed to avoid night-time drilling noise impacts altogether.”
“Climate change and fossil fuel dependence”CPRE said it objected in principle to new hydrocarbon exploration because this would prolong dependence on fossil fuels when national policy, scientific evidence and public interest required accelerated transition to renewable and low carbon energy.
It said the planning case for the Foxholes proposal was “weak”. The development was not needed to meet a compelling local or national requirement for new gas extraction, the organisation said.
“The claimed economic benefits here are limited and temporary, while the proposal would enable a form of energy development that is inconsistent with the direction of national climate policy and the urgent need to decarbonise. On that basis, the development is not sustainable development and should be refused.”
TomKat Ranch Earns Audubon Bird-Friendly Land Certification
Update: New Little Nature Playgrounds are Coming to Cobbs Creek Park
Three new Little Nature Playgrounds are planned for Cobbs Creek Park. Designed with input from local residents, these welcoming spaces will encourage children and families to explore the park, learn about its history and ecology, and safely access the trail from nearby neighborhoods.
Each playground will feature a combination of nature-inspired elements, colorful asphalt art, and wayfinding maps that help connect visitors to Cobbs Creek Park.
Clean Air Council is partnering with Philadelphia Parks and Recreation, Tiny WPA, Amber Art and Design, and community organizations to bring this vision to life.
How does the Little Nature Playground Project help the surrounding community?- Connect neighbors to park resources and the physical, social, emotional benefits of green space.
- Offer fun, nature-based play and learning opportunities that encourage repeated visits to the park.
- Welcome the community into Cobbs Creek Park through safe, accessible entrances
Community input has shaped every step of this project. Over the past six months, Clean Air Council and community partners have presented the Little Nature Playground Project at almost a dozen in-person meetings and events.These conversations were designed to gather design and location feedback while ensuring the project reflects the community’s vision.
Partnering with the Cobbs Creek Community Environmental Center and area libraries, the Council shared updates through community meetings, educational programs, and events. The Council also held a series of “dinner and design workshops” to gain perspectives from neighbors and distributed flyers to encourage participation.
Workshop attendees offered feedback and insight into the project’s themes. Initial project locations were identified by using existing pedestrian safety infrastructure, including traffic signals, crosswalks, and pedestrian crossing signals. Community members voted on their favorite locations and the top three crossing sites were selected.
Throughout the last six months, online surveys and meetings with community stakeholders have helped refine the three playground locations and their themes. Project consultants are currently designing initial project sketches.
Little Nature Playground Proposed Locations- Woodland Ave. and Cobbs Creek Parkway (north side)
- Market St. and 63rd St. (north side)
- Spruce St. and Cobbs Creek Parkway (south side)
Location: Woodland Ave. and Cobbs Creek Parkway
Theme: Lenape history and connecting to the creek
“Karakung” is the Lenape name for Cobbs Creek and translates to “the place of the wild geese.” One element of the play structure could be different geese that people can climb and sit on. Above is a mock up of what one of the geese could look like.
Location: 63rd St. and Market St.
Theme: Nature of Cobbs Creek Park (native plants, flowers, animals)
Many neighbors talked about wanting a place to rest along the trail during different community feedback sessions. Above is an image of a mock up of a bench in the shape of a creek. Elements that may be highlighted in the play structure design include local animals, native flowers, and the creek.
Location: Spruce St. and 63rd St.
Theme: Celebrating Cobbs Creek communities
Inspired by conversations with community groups and neighbors, this location will celebrate the collective energy put into supporting and caring for the community. The design will recognize that supporting young people is a key part of the neighborhood’s success. The creek bench may also be included in this location.
How can the surrounding community continue to inform this project and lead the vision?Community members are encouraged to sign up to attend one or all of the upcoming Cobbs Creek Neighbors RCO community meetings, where we will be giving project updates and continuing to gain community feedback. These meetings will take place Monday evenings at the Blanche A. Nixon/Cobbs Creek Library, 5800 Cobbs Creek Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19143. Register for free below to keep updated on any changes!
- September 14, 5:30 – 7 p.m. Register
- November 2, 5:30 – 7 p.m. Register
- December 7, 5:30 – 7 p.m. Register
Follow @CobbsCreekWatershedCoaltion on Instagram and Facebook for updates!
Questions? Email Trails@cleanair.org
Fact brief - Do solar plants require backup from fossil fuels?
Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.
Do solar plants require backup from fossil fuels?Solar plants require backup, but it doesn’t have to be from fossil fuels.
A combination of renewables, energy storage, and long-distance transmission can reliably power the majority of the U.S. without relying on coal, oil, or natural gas, as one 2017 research paper describes. Renewables like wind can generate under cloudy conditions, while surplus solar from brighter weather can be stored in utility-scale batteries for rainy days. Additionally, transmission from neighboring regions can assist solar capacity drops.
The Department of Energy and Princeton have outlined decarbonization scenarios projecting expansion of solar and decrease in fossil fuels while maintaining reliability. Analysis of real-world outcomes has found that renewables growth has actually outperformed projections.
California is an example of improving reliability while transitioning from fossil fuels to solar. From 2015 to 2025, in-state generation saw a jump in solar reliance from 8% to 27%, while natural gas dropped from 60% to 36%.
Go to full rebuttal on Skeptical Science or to the fact brief on Gigafact
This fact brief is responsive to quotes such as this one.
Sources
The Electricity Journal Reliably integrating variable renewables: Moving grid flexibility resources from models to results
The Alliance for Climate Transition Institute Solar energy requires 100% fossil fuel backup
Princeton University Net-Zero America
University of Virginia Decarbonization by 2050: Are We on Track?
California Energy Commission CA Electric Generation 2001-25
California Energy Commission California Energy Leaders Report Progress on Grid Reliability Ahead of Summer 2026
MIT The Future of Energy Storage
Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles
Please use this form to provide feedback about this fact brief. This will help us to better gauge its impact and usability. Thank you!
About fact briefs published on Gigafact
Fact briefs are short, credibly sourced summaries that offer "yes/no" answers in response to claims found online. They rely on publicly available, often primary source data and documents. Fact briefs are created by contributors to Gigafact — a nonprofit project looking to expand participation in fact-checking and protect the democratic process. See all of our published fact briefs here.
Buying cookware? A California law makes it easier to spot PFAS in kitchen products
For years, the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS were used in many products that touch food, including popcorn bags, pizza boxes, pans and other cookware. Concerns about PFAS’ health harms then led many states to either restrict or outright ban the chemicals in specific items.
Eventually, outcry over these toxic substances led to manufacturers phasing out their use in food packaging nationwide. But they’re still allowed in kitchen products.
That doesn’t mean you’re stuck with PFAS when you’re shopping for pots and pans.
Thanks to a California law that banned PFAS in paper-based food packaging, it is now possible for consumers across the country to find out which companies use PFAS in their products. That’s because the law also included language ordering companies to disclose on their websites if they use PFAS in their cookware – information anyone can see, not just Californians.
Which companies use PFAS?Last week, the environmental group Defend Our Health compiled this data and released a public directory detailing PFAS usage claims by over 200 cookware companies. You can check the directory to see if a product you are interested in purchasing is labeled PFAS-free.
Of the 210 companies, about 40%, or 82 companies, disclosed their products contained PFAS. A total of 44 companies clearly disclosed through the California requirements that they don’t use PFAS in their products.
Another 23 companies stated that they do not use PFAS, but these claims could not be verified because the companies either did not provide a disclosure in keeping with the California requirement or may have been exempt from the disclosure requirement under California law.
Widespread contaminationTeflon and other PFAS-coated cookware are the poster child for a contamination crisis that extends across the globe, with the chemicals detected in soil, water and air.
Exposure to PFAS at incredibly low concentrations can lead to health harms that have been documented in nearly every system in the body. The chemicals have been linked to cancer, reproductive and immune system harm and other diseases.
When pans coated with the forever chemical PTFE are heated above roughly 400 to 500 degrees Fahrenheit, they can release hazardous fumes. Overheating has been linked to a documented condition called polymer fume fever, sometimes known as “Teflon flu.”
PFAS in nonstick cookware and other consumer and industrial products remain a concern throughout their lifecycle – from manufacturing and use to disposal – because they can pollute the environment and contribute to human exposure..
EWG for over 20 years has recommended consumers avoid nonstick pans. EWG commissioned tests of nonstick pans in 2003 and published a report, “Canaries in the Kitchen,” showing that pans can overheat and off-gas pollutants within minutes of use.
In 2021, EWG scientists summarized peer-reviewed studies showing that PFAS can migrate from containers and cookware into food. Our recommendation still stands: Seek out cast iron, stainless steel or carbon steel cookware.
States are leading the wayStates are taking steps to tackle PFAS in kitchen products.
In 2025, California Senate Bill 682, authored by state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), would have banned the sale of cookware containing intentionally added PFAS beginning in 2030. Despite passing the Legislature, the measure was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, meaning the chemicals can still be used in products sold in the state.
That veto didn’t slow other states from banning PFAS in cookware outright.
Amara’s Law ended the sale of PFAS cookware in Minnesota, the first state to do so. The law took effect in 2025. Maine and Colorado PFAS cookware bans took effect in January 2026. Connecticut, Vermont and Washington have bans on the use of PFAS in cookware set to take effect in the coming years.
States also set the first PFAS drinking water standards, and they continue to lead on tackling other sources of forever chemicals contamination.
According to the SaferStates PFAS tracker, 17 states have legislation pending that would end the use of PFAS in categories ranging from textiles and dental floss to cookware and firefighting foam.
This state-driven action is leading to real change. Online disclosure of PFAS use is an important first step for consumers, but more change is still needed. Some companies already go beyond what is required in California by independently verifying their products are PFAS-free.
Reducing your exposure to PFASPFAS exposure is widespread, because this class of chemicals has found its way into hundreds of products used every day by consumers.
Research indicates the source of exposure comes from food, water and PFAS that have migrated into dust from household products. No single step will completely eliminate exposure, but small changes matter.
Start with the sources you can control, including:
- Choose PFAS-free cookware
- Filter PFAS from your tap water
- Cook fresh food at home as much as possible and limit takeout
- Vacuum frequently with a HEPA-filter vacuum to remove household dust
- Avoid purchasing products marketed as “stain resistant,” “water proof” and “long lasting.”
Nature Journaling Protects Birds and the Places They Need
In Germany, Wind and Solar Overtake Fossil Fuels
In a first, Germany drew more power from wind and solar than from fossil fuels last year.
Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.