News Feeds

A former housing executive fired by Reform UK for making “shameful” comments about the 2017 Grenfell Tower tragedy still claims to have a role in the party, DeSmog can reveal.

Simon Dudley, a former chair of Homes England, was removed as the party’s housing spokesperson for making – in the words of Reform leader Nigel Farage – “shocking” and “deeply inappropriate” comments about the disaster.

In an interview with Inside Housing in April, Dudley said the deadly blaze, which led to the deaths of 72 people, was a “tragedy” but that “everyone dies in the end”. He claimed that rules introduced in the wake of the fire to improve safety standards were examples of “regulation which is not working”.

Dudley was roundly criticised for his remarks, including by groups representing Grenfell survivors and next of kin. The then prime minister Keir Starmer called the comments “shameful”.

However, despite being sacked as Reform’s housing spokesperson, Dudley still appears to work with the party.

He introduced Reform’s deputy leader and housing chief Richard Tice to business delegates at the party’s annual conference in September, and chaired a question and answer session following Tice’s speech.

A post from Simon Dudley on LinkedIn about his involvement in Reform’s 2026 annual conference.

Credit: Simon Dudley / LinkedIn

According to a transcript, Tice thanked Dudley for his “generous” introduction, after which Tice presented Reform’s sweeping policies to deregulate the planning system.

While Dudley’s exact role in the party is not known, his social media profiles – including his up-to-date LinkedIn CV – continue to list him in a ‘Housing and Infrastructure’ position at Reform.

He’s also a keen party activist who has accused the Conservatives of copying Reform’s ideas and who campaigned for Farage in this summer’s Clacton by-election.

Neither Reform nor Dudley denied that he is still involved in the party when approached by DeSmog for comment.

However, Dudley’s continued involvement contrasts starkly with Reform’s response to his remarks in April.

“He’s under Richard Tice’s department, Richard appointed him housing spokesman given his depth of experience in developing new towns,” Farage said at the time. “But the comments were deeply inappropriate, they were frankly rather shocking to many people, and Richard has dealt with it.”

In response to the backlash in April, Dudley said that “Grenfell was an utter tragedy and quite rightly prompted a wholesale review and tightening of fire regulations.”

He added: “I said it was a tragedy in my interview with Inside House [sic] and in no shape or form am I belittling that disaster or the huge loss of life. It must never happen again. I reiterate that, and am sorry if it was not sufficiently clear.”

A new undercover investigation due to be released by ITV in full on Sunday 18 October shows Reform councillors making a number of sexist and racist comments. One Reform councillor from south London is filmed saying that King Charles should be decapitated because he is secretly a Muslim.

A version of this article was also published by The New World.

Reform’s Deregulation Agenda

The Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June 2017 was one of the worst tragedies in modern British history. Just before 1am, a high-rise fire broke out in the 24-storey block in Kensington, London, which spread rapidly due to the highly combustible cladding that had been installed on the building a year earlier.

The government has subsequently introduced new fire safety rules, particularly in relation to high-rise blocks, to prevent another similar disaster.

However, Reform initially echoed Dudley’s remarks about the new regulations being too onerous. Speaking in April, a party spokesperson said: “Simon’s comments on Grenfell reflected his broader point that the regulatory pendulum has swung too far in response to the tragedy. As he explained, there is a fine balance between over-regulation – which can slow the delivery of new homes – and ensuring that more homes are built safely without too much red tape.”

A post from Simon Dudley on X about his involvement in the August 2026 Clacton by-election campaign.

Credit: Simon Dudley / X

This conforms to Reform’s deregulation agenda, which would reduce the taxes and laws applied to major corporations, potentially benefitting some of the party’s biggest donors.

Reform has supported more permissive rules for the crypto, finance, and housing industries – all of which have contributed substantially to the party’s coffers – with Farage promising a “bonfire of business regulation” if he becomes prime minister.

This also applies to the oil and gas industry. Reform, which has accepted more than £24 million from fossil fuel interests, has said it would scrap the windfall tax on fossil fuel profits, end the ban on new North Sea drilling licences, and ditch the moratorium on fracking for shale gas.

Senior Reform figure Andrea Jenkyns, the mayor for Greater Lincolnshire, has said that she would “turn the countryside into Swiss cheese” through the mass expansion of fracking across the UK.

The party, some of whose senior figures frequently deny the science of climate change, would dramatically increase the production of fossil fuels in the UK and reduce state support for renewable energy – despite the impact of high gas prices on the cost of living, and the growing frequency of climate-induced extreme weather events.

The post Reform Figure Behind ‘Shocking’ Grenfell Comments Still Involved in Party appeared first on DeSmog.

Three words can change the world!

“Food is medicine” is a complete sentence. It’s an unequivocally true statement. And it’s a movement that can achieve so much more than many of us even realize.

In a couple weeks, our Food First Health Summit in Philadelphia is exploring the wide range of collaboration, legislation, and creative innovation that prioritizes our dietary well-being and illuminates the ways food systems nourish our bodies and our societies at large.

I hope you’ll join us at 2:00PM ET on Tuesday, October 27 (CLICK HERE or livestream at FoodTank.com)—in partnership with FareRx and the College of Public Health at Temple University at WHYY-NPR Studios’ Dorrance H. Hamilton Public Media Commons—for discussions with food systems leaders, policymakers, community organizers, health practitioners, and more to launch long-term solutions.

“Philly’s food as medicine leaders are coming together, and the country should be paying attention,” says Mike Cangi, Founder and CEO of FareRx. “We’re using that momentum to launch the Philadelphia Food Is Medicine Coalition, giving this work a bigger platform and creating more ways to work together. This is Philadelphia’s chance to show what a city can accomplish when it puts food and health first.”

The Food Is Medicine movement sits at the crossroads of nutrition security, local agriculture, and healthcare. Some initiatives focus on social well-being through food access and education; others are rooted in clinical care with programs including produce prescriptions and medically tailored meals.

And it works: When we eat with our well-being in mind, our health improves. The healthcare cost savings from medically tailored meals alone to be around US$23.7 billion, according to research from the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University.

Here’s a peek at the amazing lineup of speakers, alphabetically by last name, who are joining us in Philadelphia: Val Arkoosh, Pennsylvania Department of Human Services; Mike Cangi, FareRx; Sue Daugherty, MANNA; Rep. Madeleine Dean, U.S. House of Representatives; Lauren Eberly, University of Pennsylvania and Indian Health Service, Navajo Nation; Evan Ehlers, Sharing Excess; Beatrice Forman, The Philadelphia Inquirer; Freeway, Philadelphia-Based Rapper and Food for Health Advocate; Steven Jennings, Ahold Delhaize USA; Loree D. Jones Brown, Philabundance; Julia Koprak, The Food Trust; Jenn Ladd, The Philadelphia Inquirer; Karen Lin, Temple University; Briana Mills-Walker, FarmerJawn; Kae Lani Palmisano, Philadelphia Magazine; Chris Rabb, Pennsylvania House of Representatives; Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, U.S. House of Representatives; Rep. Lloyd Smucker, U.S. House of Representatives; Maiken Scott, WHYY; Julia Weatherly, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service; and more to be announced soon!

We’re so proud to help showcase the ways Philadelphia is leading the charge toward a better food system. Food rescue organization Sharing Excess is proof that committed young people can make meaningful change. With medically tailored meals and other interventions, MANNA and FareRX are showing how Food is Medicine is a sustainable, transformative model. And inspiring organizations like Philabundance and The Food Trust are building food security and food access through upcycling, cooking education, and other creative approaches.

“Philadelphia is home to an incredibly rich and diverse food culture. The largest possible umbrella is needed to include all of the companies, community groups, and individuals dedicated to providing the healthiest of foods to the citizens of the city and region,” says David B. Sarwer, Ph.D., Senior Associate Dean and Professor at the College of Public Health at Temple University. “The time is right to bring all of the players together to move the Food is Medicine agenda forward in Philadelphia to improve the health and well-being of our citizens.”

HERE is the link one more time to grab your FREE ticket before seating fills up for good! And for Food Tankers who don’t live in or near Philadelphia, plan to visit FoodTank.com at 2:00PM ET on Tuesday, October 27 to join our livestream.

(Want to learn more about Food is Medicine? Check out our “Food Tank Explains” column about it, and tune in to recent episodes of our Food Talk podcast HERE. You can also be part of even more discussions about it at our 2nd Annual Food and Agriculture Policy Summit Week in Washington, D.C., later this year!)

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Mariana Medvedeva, Unsplash

The post You’re Invited: What Can We Achieve When We Put Food First For Health? appeared first on Food Tank.

Scarlett Gillespie, also known as Jelena Vermilion, is a 33-year-old trans woman and founder of the Sex Workers’ Action Program (SWAP), and is running for...

The post Scarlett for mayor of Hamilton: Housing, community safety, and working class solidarity first appeared on Spring.

In August of 2023, a series of wildfires broke out across Maui, killing more than 100 people, destroying thousands of homes, and causing billions in damage. Noelani Ahia, who is Kanaka Maoli and co-founder of Maui Medic Healers Hui, helped mobilize nearly 600 volunteers in Lāhainā, including doctors, nurses, and therapists. 

Three years later, the housing and health crises remain acute. Maui Medic Healers Hui runs a free clinic, but Ahia wishes it had 10 more to address the community’s needs. “The fire may be out, but the catastrophe is not over by any stretch of the imagination,” she said. 

The devastation extended well beyond the lives lost and buildings destroyed. Research published last year by researchers with the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa’s Maui Wildfire Exposure Study, or MauiWES, found that more than 1 in 5 residents had reduced lung function.

Now, new research from the same project has found elevated levels of toxic metals in the island’s residents months after the fires, with higher exposure associated with impaired lung function. The findings offer further evidence that the health consequences of catastrophic wildfires can persist long after the flames are extinguished and the smoke clears.

“What we consider and sometimes look at as a one-time event isn’t really one-time anymore,” Alika Maunakea, who is Kanaka Maoli and co-director of MauiWES, told Grist. 

Researchers don’t yet know how much of the contamination came from the fires and how much was already present in the environment. That distinction matters as wildfires increasingly race through towns like Lāhainā and cities like Los Angeles, where burning homes, cars and infrastructure can leave contaminants that people encounter for months or years afterward.

Community members hold hands in a prayer circle at a “Lāhainā Strong” gathering in October 2023. Mario Tama / Getty Images

“We have traditionally thought about wildfire exposure primarily through the lens of smoke,” Maunakea said in a press release. “But when an entire community burns, we are dealing with a much more complicated exposure environment.” Researchers must also understand what contaminants were already present, what the fire may have released, and what entered residents’ bodies, he said.

The research, which studied 1,400 adults across Maui six to 18 months after the fires, measured 24 metals in urine samples. It found that participants had higher concentrations of several metals than people in a nationwide health survey conducted before the fires. That included 2.2 times as much arsenic, 2.3 times as much barium, and 3.8 times as much manganese. Antimony, which is used in flame retardant materials and has been previously linked to lung irritation, stomach pain, and other symptoms, was found at levels nearly 40 times higher.

Because the researchers lack comparable data from before the fires, they could not determine how much of the metal exposure resulted from the disaster. Maunakea told Grist answering that question is the next step for the project, which has received a $3.6 million grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. That work will include investigating whether and to what degree past agricultural and industrial activity contributed to the contamination.

“It’s important to realize that these are all part of settler colonialism,” Ahia said. “So what we’re looking at is confounding factors that are to the detriment of the health of our local people.”

Read Next Two years after a wildfire took everything, Maui homeowners are facing a new threat: Foreclosure Anita Hofschneider

Decades of plantation agriculture altered water systems, introduced herbicides, and displaced native plants, leaving a legacy on the islands that is still felt today. Disasters like fires and storms can compound those ongoing environmental problems. 

“If we begin the story when the fire starts, we miss the decisions that shaped the landscape and the community’s ability to respond,” said Katie Kamelamela, who is Kanaka Maoli and an assistant professor at Arizona State University based in Hawaiʻi. “Micro climate change acts on places already shaped by histories of land ownership, water diversion, development, and unequal access to resources.”

Kamelamela said true recovery must look beyond the fire. “I want recovery to be measured by whether people can remain in their communities, care for ʻāina, and pass on their knowledge and practices in place,” she said, using the Hawaiian word for land, which carries deeper meaning and relationship than property or mere place. “Rebuilding should not recreate the same conditions that left people at risk. Caring for ʻāina and caring for people need to be funded and planned together.”

Maunakea said the multitude of intersecting pressures is one reason why he wanted to pursue this research. As climate change continues to accelerate, longstanding issues facing Native Hawaiians like housing, the harms of tourism, and the legacy of plantations can amplify problems. “We worry that disasters like this that we experience on Maui, as well as the floods and other storms that we’re experiencing now, is just going to continue widening the gaps in health disparities that already exist in those populations,” he said.

Moving forward, the project will not just identify health risks but also help residents respond to them. Study participants receive their results, discuss them, and meet with health professionals. “People now know that there’s these types of potential hazards, and what to do about them is a big concern,” Maunakea said. “We still don’t have all the answers for sure, but we are taking the next steps to get a better picture and inform our community around it.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Long after the Maui fires, toxic metals linger in residents’ bodies on Oct 16, 2026.

How a small Vermont town built a thriving local food system that keeps $50,000 annually in the community while creating social connection.

In my years as a psychotherapist, I’ve worked with many people facing similar struggles. One such pattern is embodied by a client I’ll call Emma (whose real name and identifying details I’ve changed for privacy purposes). She came to see me because, despite pursuing a climate career aligned with her values, practicing good self-care, and having a close community of friends, she couldn’t shake a persistent feeling of being “low.” She didn’t know what was missing.

Emma was invited to an event at a scenic destination — let’s say, for your mind’s eye, that it was a wedding in Alta Lakes, high in Colorado’s San Juan Mountains. Imagine a scene something like this: The cool scent of spruce and fir drifted through the open windows, along with the thin, mineral clarity of mountain air. Now and then two owls traded low hoots through the dark, and something slapped in the water out on the lake. 

Emma lay listening for a long time. For reasons she couldn’t name, tears began to slide down her face, and soon she was sobbing.

She wasn’t sad or upset. She described a welling up of joy, a sort of homecoming moment — a deep remembering that felt familiar yet beyond the reach of words. It was, she said, like “drinking clear, cool water when you didn’t know you were thirsty.”

Ask a Climate Therapist tackles your questions about how to navigate the emotional side of climate change, with leading climate-aware therapist Leslie Davenport. Have a question? Ask it here!

Emma spent most of her workday in an office building. She loved to run, but usually on city streets with a podcast playing in her ears, or on a gym treadmill. Like most of us, she lived by a daily routine whose steady stream of input kept her separate from the natural world. She cared for nature, but it was cognitive, not visceral. 

Our work focused on integrating what had lifted her mood during that experience in Colorado and keeping that connection alive in her everyday life.

We don’t need to go to the mountains to touch the living world within and around us. For Emma, it started small. She left her earbuds at home on some runs and let the wind and birdsong keep her company. She began each morning with a moment at the window watching the sky before opening her laptop. At lunch she found a beautiful tree in a nearby park and made it her regular spot to pause and sit, watching it change through the seasons.

I was reminded of Emma, and the other clients I’ve seen who were similarly feeling the sorrow of this detachment, when I read a question that came through the Ask a Climate Therapist form: “Why is it that working with animals and tending to plants helps process the grief, anxiety, and depression?” 

This question-asker found the answer that Emma and others were seeking, but wanted to understand the “why” behind it. I can point to some of the science that backs this up: Compounds released by trees can boost the activity of our immune cells. Stroking an animal lowers stress hormones and can raise oxytocin. But I would also say that we don’t need academic journals to know these things. We feel better working with plants and animals because we can sense directly how life flourishes as a complex, interwoven system that we’re part of. When you water a garden or care for an animal, you’re practicing a form of reciprocity that’s also a way of caring for the future. 

And so for you, reader of this column — wherever you may be at in your journey of connecting with, caring for, and feeling a sense of belonging in the natural world — remember that engaging with nature brings more than just joy; that restoration of connection actually supports and sustains your ability to do the larger work. 

Below, I offer just a few practices to begin to cultivate that more mindful relationship. I would love to know about your regular practices, too. How do you create moments of connection and kinship with nature in your daily life? Reply to this email or reach out to lookingforward@grist.org to share them with the Grist team, and with me.

Practice tips:

There are many ways to cultivate an awareness of our place in the living world. 

1. Listen to the mp3 “We are Nature” — a free resource I created to accompany my book, Transforming Climate Anxiety — for a guided experience of connection.
2. Take a daily sensory pause. Once a day, stop for one minute and notice what’s alive around you: Take the temperature of the air on your skin, notice a bird call or the smell after a rain. As you breathe, remember that the Earth’s trees and plants created the oxygen you’re taking in, and that your exhale feeds them in return.
3. Tend something — and say thank you. Water a plant, fill a birdfeeder, or care for a patch of garden. Reciprocity is how we take our place in the web of life: We receive and we give back.
4. Leave the earbuds at home from time to time. Try a walk or run with the wind, neighborhood sounds, and your own breathing as the soundtrack.

In this with you, 
Leslie

I’m Leslie Davenport, a licensed therapist, educator, speaker, consultant, and internationally recognized voice on the emotional and psychological dimensions of climate change. If you’ve got a question about climate and mental health, please consider submitting it for a future column. Submit a question for a future Ask a Climate Therapist column More from Ask a Climate Therapist

• My boomer mom’s cheap online shopping habit drives me nuts

  Licensed therapist Leslie Davenport weighs in on overcoming a generational clash when it comes to sustainable consumption.

• How to deal with burnout on a burning planet

  Licensed therapist Leslie Davenport offers advice to two readers facing paralysis from different points in their climate journeys.

• Ask a Climate Therapist: How do I avoid getting trapped in the system I hope to change?

  A young engineer has a vision for changing their industry, but worries about slowly becoming a cog in the machine. Therapist Leslie Davenport offers advice for staying creative.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Advice from a climate therapist: Touch grass. (No, really.) on Oct 16, 2026.

Earlier this month, after a series of stops and starts, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced changes to a long-running program that is supposed to help farmers and rural small businesses stand up renewable energy projects. 

The new rules, set to go into effect today, October 16, effectively make any solar power development ineligible for funding through the Rural Energy for America Program, or REAP. It’s the latest of multiple rollbacks by the second Trump administration that advocates say are essentially making the program unusable.

Installing solar systems on farmland can cost tens of thousands of dollars upfront, which many agricultural producers may not have or may be reluctant to spend, given their low profit margins. REAP has long provided financial support to farmers to build out renewable energy systems on their land. 

These projects often provide multiple benefits to participants. First, they can help lower utility bills for agricultural producers and rural businesses by providing their operations with additional power. But farmers and business owners are also able to sell excess energy back to the grid. By cutting costs or padding revenue, these systems can be a lifeline at a time when farmers are facing escalating costs for things like fertilizer, fuel, labor, and seeds, making it difficult to make ends meet. 

Research shows investing in renewable energy can also be an economic driver in rural parts of the country. “All of these things lined up,” said Matt Russell, the executive director of the Iowa Farmers Union, an independent organization representing family farmers. So for the Trump administration to “shift away from those kinds of win-win-win investments is very disappointing,” he added.

The Iowa Farmers Union is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed last month against the USDA, alleging that previous changes to REAP were already harming rural communities by severely restricting solar development under the program. (The lawsuit was filed on September 28, just days before the agriculture department published its new rules.) 

The lawsuit takes aim at changes made to REAP in August 2025, following an executive order by President Donald Trump the previous month stating that taxpayers would no longer “subsidize expensive and unreliable energy sources like wind and solar.” Although the executive order did not instruct the USDA to do anything in particular, the office within the agriculture department that administers REAP changed the criteria for applicants such that most solar projects would become ineligible for grants or loan guarantees. 

Part of the plaintiffs’ argument is that such a move violates the REAP statute. Lawmakers created REAP in 2008 as part of that year’s farm bill by combining two existing programs that sought to develop renewable energy and increase energy efficiency. “Rather than complying” with this mandate, “the agency has decided to completely ignore what Congress told them to do,” said Michael Youhana, an attorney at Earthjustice, the nonprofit environmental law group representing the plaintiffs. “In fact,” he added, the USDA is doing “the opposite of what Congress told them to do” by promoting the use of fossil fuels over renewables. 

The lawsuit also alleges that these anti-solar moves from the USDA violate the Administrative Procedure Act, which essentially requires agencies to show that regulatory decisions were made through careful consideration. The USDA says “that they’re taking this action to protect farmland from being gobbled up by solar systems,” said Youhana. “But farmers are voluntarily applying for REAP, and they’re doing it because solar gives them all kinds of really great financial benefits that the agency has completely ignored.”

The USDA told Grist it “will not comment on pending litigation.” In an email to energy news site Utility Dive, a representative for the USDA said that under the Biden administration, “fertile farmland that should be feeding America” was used instead to produce solar power. “Those days are over. USDA will not actively participate in repurposing farmland historically used to sustain this country’s abundant food supply.”

Grist has previously reported on how the USDA’s abrupt freeze of REAP grants in the early days of Trump’s second term created confusion and chaos for small farmers who had already spent tens of thousands of dollars on energy upgrades. In March 2025, the agency released that grant money but asked participants to voluntarily revise and resubmit their applications without any mention of climate change. That summer, the USDA announced the anti-solar policy over which Earthjustice, along with the Environmental Law and Policy Center, are suing.

But the switch-ups didn’t stop there. A year later, in March 2026, the USDA effectively paused REAP as a whole, announcing it would suspend further grant awards until the program rules were rewritten to comply with Trump’s executive order from the year before. 

This month, on October 1, the department published its final rule changes. They state that solar or wind projects on cropland involving “any component made in a country named as a foreign adversary” are no longer eligible for funding through REAP. Because so many parts of solar power systems are manufactured in China, this effectively means an end to any new solar development on farms through the once-popular USDA program. 

Another change drags out the timeline for receiving funding; applicants must now have energy systems up and running for one year in order to be considered eligible for reimbursement. 

These changes “more deeply entrench the anti-solar policy we’ve challenged in our lawsuit,” said Youhana. While “federal investments in renewable energy projects could help to offset rising energy costs, making life more affordable for farmers and the broader American public alike,” he added, the USDA seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

Russell argued that further restricting funding sources like REAP will only lead to the further consolidation of the agricultural industry, where only the biggest, wealthiest operations can survive, and the little guys suffer without adequate public support. 

“It’s like stacking the deck against family farms, and entrepreneurial businesses in small towns that are trying to bootstrap themselves,” he said. “It’s picking winners and losers, and the losers are the very kinds of farms and businesses and communities that I think the vast majority of American taxpayers think that they’re investing in.”

This story has been updated with the USDA’s response to Grist’s request for comment.

Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump just effectively killed a popular solar energy program for rural America on Oct 16, 2026.

A movement to reshape the structure of taxation in the U.S. is gaining steam.

Trump clearly represents an unmitigated disaster for the steady state, with consequences that include rolling back decades of progress in gender equality, contraceptive access, and the lower birth rates that result.

Coal was on the way out. That’s how it looked last year, anyway, when the International Energy Agency forecast that global demand for the dirtiest fossil fuel had plateaued and was poised to start declining. But this year hasn’t gone as expected. The agency recently projected that coal consumption will climb to a record high of 8.94 billion metric tons in 2026. Headlines have declared that coal is “back in fashion” and making a “comeback.”

So what changed? Blame it on the war in Iran, which choked off a chunk of the world’s oil and gas supply in the Strait of Hormuz and thrust the world into an energy crisis. Many countries turned to coal as a replacement. “The main thing is that coal is going up because gas is going down,” said Daan Walter, who leads strategy research on the future of energy for the think tank Ember. 

As for the idea that there’s a revival of coal, energy experts aren’t convinced. “I think it’s important to distinguish between a small short-term bump in coal use and a genuine resurgence of the coal industry,” said Christine Shearer, a coal analyst at Global Energy Monitor, which tracks coal plants and other energy projects. According to some experts, there’s a more convincing case that the crisis will accelerate the adoption of renewables and clean technology.

Nearly every country around the world agreed to “phase down” coal at an international climate conference in Glasgow five years ago. Coal is the dirtiest source of electricity, releasing more carbon and more air pollutants, for every unit of energy generated, than oil or natural gas. 

Mining companies and right-leaning politicians are using the energy crisis to argue for more coal. In June, the International Energy Agency said that investment in coal reached its highest level in 14 years. David Crisafulli, the premier of the Australian state of Queensland, recently said he’d welcome proposals for new coal-fired power stations to power Anthropic’s AI data centers. The mining company Northback is now working to reopen a former mine in Alberta, Canada, that closed almost 60 years ago, based on recent projections that the world will be in need of coal in the next decade as well as the prospect of profits. 

“There’s a big sugar rush right now,” Walter said. But soon enough, the sugar crash may set in, perhaps in the years before these projects are completed. “They’re all rushing in, and they are all making, I think, reckless business plans,” he said. 

The other half of the story is that the oil and gas crunch has also pushed countries toward renewables and clean technology, perhaps permanently destroying demand for oil. President Donald Trump and Israel’s attack on Iran in February sent oil and gas prices skyrocketing so high that some journalists compared it to putting a tax on carbon. It was the second oil shock in recent years, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and as a result of this unpredictability, countries are viewing wind and solar as a more secure option than fossil fuel imports. 

Read Next It’s official: Data centers are slowing America’s shift away from coal Jake Bittle

The world is also seeing increased demand for electricity, for powering AI data centers as well as more AC units as temperatures rise. But much of this additional demand is being met by wind and solar. This growth in clean power has been one of many factors cushioning the economic effects of the oil shock so far, the International Monetary Fund said in a report on Monday, though it warned that the world was nearing the “limits of resilience” to withstand future shocks.

It almost creates a sense of whiplash to see headlines that the world is entering an “age of electricity” alongside others saying that coal is on the upswing. Yet both can be true. “The immediate response to an energy crisis can be more fossil fuel use, even as the longer-term response is to reduce dependence on those fuels altogether,” Shearer said. 

Take India. This week, the head of its power sector said the country might be forced to add much more coal-fired power capacity than planned, driven by growing demand and lower hydroelectric output thanks to weaker monsoon rains. At the same time, India is aggressively building clean energy. The country has quadrupled its renewable capacity to about 300 gigawatts over the past decade, meaning that it’s well ahead of schedule for meeting its climate targets under the Paris Agreement. 

Coal boosters might celebrate their industry’s growth over the next handful of years. But coal is simply taking up a larger share of the energy generated from fossil fuels, a slice that’s on track to shrink compared to other energy sources, Walter said. He likened it to being the most powerful man on the Titanic. “It’s a great party to have for a couple of hours, but then you’re going down with the ship.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Is coal really making a comeback? on Oct 16, 2026.

Meena Raman is deputy director at Third World Network (TWN), a public interest lawyer and an expert on international climate negotiations. Leon Sealey-Huggins is senior campaigner in global climate justice and just transition at War on Want. Both organisations are members of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ).

The world urgently needs the next assessment of climate science. But speed cannot be the only consideration. Equally important is whose research informs it, whether scientists from developing countries can participate meaningfully, and how its findings shape global climate policy.

The timeline of the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report (AR7) is a major point of contention at its sixty-fifth meeting in Addis Ababa this week. Since early 2024, it has been contested principally between developed countries and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) seeking earlier completion, and many developing countries calling for more time.

• Oct 15, 2026 News Countries urged to ramp up “insufficient” nature policies at COP17 A major UN report that will inform biodiversity negotiations in Armenia shows countries have made some progress but are still off track for a landmark goal to protect 30% of land and oceans by 2030 Read more
• Oct 14, 2026 News Global deforestation slowed in 2025 but Brazil’s election could undo “fragile” gains Countries remain 70% off track to meet a goal to end deforestation by 2030, as progress in Latin America offset by failures in Africa Read more

Many developed countries, SIDS and some Least Developed Countries (LDCs) want the AR7 Working Group reports completed by 2028, to inform the second Global Stocktake (GST2) of the Paris Agreement. IPCC assessment cycles have generally taken five to seven years.

But the IPCC’s findings would remain relevant after 2028. Reports completed in 2029 could inform countries’ next nationally determined contributions (NDCs) in 2030. The stocktake assesses collective progress, rather than prescribing individual emissions targets.

More time needed for input from developing countries

Between IPCC60 and IPCC65, developing countries – including Algeria, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Bolivia, China, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea, India, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Morocco, Mozambique, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe – have raised concerns over an earlier AR7 timetable and its impact on inclusivity. Russia and Belarus have expressed similar concerns.

An earlier completion date could also affect the scientific integrity and robustness of the AR7 assessments, these governments argue.

Developing countries have emphasised equity in the IPCC’s work, both in process and substance. Their emphasis on a six-to-seven-year assessment cycle is linked to ensuring that the reports reflect scientific literature from the Global South, including research led and funded by institutions in developing countries.

Who funds research, where institutions are based, which questions receive attention and whose work is assessed shape the IPCC’s evidence base. Scientists in developing countries face unequal access to funding, institutional support and international collaboration.

Extending a deadline alone cannot resolve these inequalities. The timetable must be designed alongside measures to strengthen research capacity and enable meaningful participation, otherwise existing inequalities risk being reproduced in successive assessments.

Timeliness doesn’t guarantee political action

Equity is not only about who participates. It also concerns the assumptions behind scientific models, the development pathways they describe and how their findings are subsequently used. Consider mitigation scenarios assessed in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). The IPCC itself acknowledges that most do not explicitly incorporate assumptions about global equity, environmental justice or income distribution within regions.

These scenarios draw on assumptions about development, technology and mitigation, and can shape climate policies. The IPCC calls them projections, not predictions or forecasts. Yet when global emissions pathways become reference points in UN climate decisions, the distinction between projected outcomes and an equitable distribution of responsibilities can blur.

Timely science does not guarantee political action. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 identified emissions reductions of 25–40% below 1990 levels by 2020 for developed countries as a group, under a particular scenario. Yet Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, while Japan and Russia declined new commitments under its second period.

Comment: Governments that support climate science must stand firm against naysayers

The first Global Stocktake in 2023 recognised the need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030 and 60% by 2035 relative to 2019, and reach net-zero carbon dioxide emissions around 2050 to limit warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot.

These benchmarks were highlighted in AR6’s mitigation report. However, the report had an important caveat, that most modelled pathways do not explicitly account for global equity and are projections, not forecasts. But when the 43% figure entered the Global Stocktake decision, it did so without this caveat. This was a fatal omission, given that Article 14 of the Paris Agreement requires Global Stocktake be conducted in the light of equity and the best available science.

Including findings from such models in international climate decisions without their caveats is problematic. Such assumptions affect how future energy use, emissions reductions and development opportunities are distributed across regions.

Emissions-cutting pathways put burden on Global South

A 2024 peer-reviewed study by Indian scientists, published in Climate Policy, examined 556 mitigation scenarios. The researchers found that global inequalities in income, energy use and emissions were projected to persist until 2050, raising questions about whether these pathways reflect equity.

In the scenarios underlying the 43% global reduction figure, sub-Saharan Africa is projected to reduce emissions by 80% by 2030, against 50% in North America and Europe. Developed countries are projected to retain higher per-capita fossil fuel consumption in 2050, while developing countries reduce consumption from already low levels. These pathways place a disproportionate mitigation burden on developing countries, despite developed countries’ historical responsibility.

As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond

Some of the severest projected restrictions on energy use are in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, home to many Least Developed Countries (LDCs), where essential infrastructure is yet to be built, even as climate impacts worsen. Yet these scenarios constrain energy consumption and development prospects.

The scenarios also rely on large amounts of land-based carbon dioxide removal, with more than 70% projected in Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and Africa. This has implications for food security, livelihoods and biodiversity, placing burdens on communities most vulnerable to climate change and least responsible for it.

The IPCC’s findings carry considerable scientific and political weight. Its assessments must uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity, inclusiveness and equity, both in process and substance. There must be no shortcuts for political expediency.

The post Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC appeared first on Climate Home News.

Katrina Navickas’ clear and persuasive history invites readers to reflect critically on space, place and the commons, writes Rhian E Jones

The post Contested Commons – review appeared first on Red Pepper.

Burnham's life and death decision Channel Comment brendan 16th October 2026 Teaser Media

The battery industry is about to witness another change in chemistry and technology. Valo Energy CEO Peter Fath explains why. Plus: All the news from a busy week.

The post Energy Insiders: Grid scale sodium batteries are on their way appeared first on Renew Economy.

Picture a bride walking down the aisle in ancient Rome, holding a bunch of garlic and dill. Not exactly the Pinterest-ready scene we expect today. Yet that pungent bundle is the great-great-grandparent of the bouquet you see at nearly every American wedding in 2026. The story of how we got from kitchen herbs to garden roses is really a story about fear, hope, status and changing taste.

Why brides first carried herbs, not flowers

In ancient Greece and Rome, a wedding was considered a risky moment. People believed evil spirits were drawn to happy couples, and a bride was thought especially vulnerable. So she carried protection. Garlic and strong-smelling herbs such as dill, sage and chives were bundled together to keep malicious forces away and, ideally, to bring fertility and good fortune.

There was a practical side too. Hygiene in the ancient world was what it was, and aromatic plants helped mask unpleasant smells. I find it oddly touching that the first bridal “bouquet” was part talisman, part air freshener.

Herbs also carried meaning:

• Rosemary stood for remembrance and fidelity.
• Thyme signified courage.
• Ivy, popular in Greece, symbolized an unbreakable bond.
• Myrtle, sacred to Aphrodite and Venus, represented love and marriage.

Brides often wore herbal wreaths on their heads as well, and those crowns slowly shaped the idea that a bride should be wrapped in plants.

Medieval posies, orange blossoms and the origin of the toss

By the Middle Ages, herbs were still central, but sweet-smelling flowers began to join them. Orange blossoms arrived in Europe through trade with the Middle East and quickly became a symbol of purity and fertility. They had a long run as the “official” bridal flower.

The bouquet toss has a less romantic origin. In 14th-century England, guests reportedly believed a piece of the bride’s clothing brought good luck, and some got so eager that they tore at her dress. To escape, brides began throwing their bouquets into the crowd instead. The flowers became a decoy, and the custom stuck. Whoever caught them was said to be next in line to marry.

The Victorian era: when flowers learned to talk

The 19th century changed everything. Queen Victoria married Prince Albert in 1840 wearing a wreath of orange blossoms, and her very public wedding turned floral details into fashion news. A sprig of myrtle from a nosegay given to Victoria in the 1840s was planted at Osborne House, and cuttings from that plant have appeared in royal bridal bouquets ever since.

This was also the golden age of floriography, the “language of flowers.” Small, tightly packed bouquets known as nosegays or tussie-mussies were assembled so that each bloom sent a message. A red rose meant passion, ivy meant fidelity, and lily of the valley meant a return to happiness. A bride’s bouquet could read like a coded love letter, and guests who knew the vocabulary could read it.

Roses gained ground in this period, too. Breeders were producing new hybrids, including the first hybrid tea, ‘La France’, introduced in 1867. Roses became more reliable, more varied and easier to grow, which paved the way for their dominance in the next century.

The twentieth century: from shower bouquets to cascades

Bouquet styles started to follow the decades almost like hemlines did.

• 1920s–30s: Long, trailing “shower” bouquets and arm sheaves of calla lilies suited the sleek lines of Art Deco gowns.
• 1950s: Smaller and more formal. Grace Kelly’s 1956 bouquet, a lily of the valley arrangement carried with a prayer book, was widely admired and copied.
• 1960s–70s: Daisies, baby’s breath and loose wildflowers reflected a more relaxed, countercultural mood.
• 1980s: Drama returned. Princess Diana’s 1981 cascade of gardenias, roses, orchids and myrtle set the tone for oversized, sculptural bouquets.
• 1990s–2000s: Tight, round, hand-tied bundles, often all roses or peonies, became the American default.

Cut-flower logistics mattered here, too. Refrigerated shipping and global flower farming meant roses were available year-round at a fair price. That is a big reason the rose became the “classic” choice. It was not always the oldest tradition, just the most dependable one.

What bouquets look like in 2026

The pendulum has swung back toward the garden. Many couples now favor loose, asymmetrical arrangements with seasonal stems, fragrant herbs and trailing greenery. If that sounds a bit like ancient Greece, it is. Rosemary, mint, eucalyptus and thyme are popping up in bouquets again, now for texture and scent rather than demon-repelling.

Several trends stand out:

• Heirloom garden roses with ruffled petals and real fragrance, rather than tight, scentless supermarket blooms.
• Locally grown flowers from regional farms, which cut transport and fit the season.
• Dried and preserved elements, which help the bouquet last as a keepsake.
• Personal symbolism, such as a sprig from a grandmother’s garden or a flower tied to a hometown.

One thing I have noticed is that couples increasingly ask what a flower means before they ask what it costs. The Victorians would approve.

What the long history tells us

The wedding bouquet has always reflected what people feared, valued and could get their hands on. Garlic guarded the bride, orange blossoms promised fertility, myrtle spoke of love, and the rose rose to fame when growers and shipping networks made it possible. Underneath all of it is the same instinct: to hold something living at a moment that matters.

If you are planning a wedding, or just curious, try tracing the meaning of a single flower, such as rosemary, ivy or the humble rose. Each one has a surprisingly rich backstory, and choosing a bouquet with that story in mind can make it feel far more personal than any trend.

• Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy may have nine kids, but the self-described “fertility president” tying transit funding to birth rates is not going to help families that fled cities for car-centric suburbs — nor will it help struggling parents who can barely afford a metro card, let alone a car. (Vox)
• Another of the Trump administration’s priorities is to spend billions of dollars completing an interstate highway system that was actually finished in 1992. (Transportation for America)
• FedEx is spending $300 million on 2,000 electric delivery trucks, but could save almost three times that much on diesel fuel. (Electrek)
• In the face of fiscal uncertainty, too often cities make short-sighted cuts, like deferring maintenance on transportation infrastructure, that lead to long-term problems. (Governing)
• New Trump administration press secretary Katie Zacharia was cited multiple times in Los Angeles for distracted driving. (L.A. Material; registration required)
• Climate change is causing a Southern California coastal Amtrak line to collapse into the Pacific Ocean, and it could cost $5 billion to fix. (Los Angeles Times)
• Austin’s main street, Congress Avenue, is getting a major bike- and pedestrian-friendly makeover. (My San Antonio)
• The Detroit city council is urging the Michigan DOT to prioritize safety on Gratiot Avenue, a major six-lane thoroughfare. (Bridge Detroit)
• MARTA was expected to roll out new train cars before the World Cup came to Atlanta, but they still haven’t arrived. (Fox 5)
• A Salt Lake City business owner who almost ran over a cyclist is now on a crusade to get rid of a new bike lane. (KSL)
• Mass Transit explains how a small New Mexico transit system is shooting for zero emissions.
• Uber is testing robotaxis in Manchester, England. (The Guardian)
• A new European initiative will help up to five cities tackle transportation inequality. (Cities Today)
• Police are arresting Toronto demonstrators trying to stop the Ontario government from ripping up bike lanes. (CTV News)

What good is a “walkable” city if average people can’t afford to live in it?

That’s just one of the questions asked by this provocative new video from Safe By Design, which argues that even the urbanist darlings of Europe can fall short of their potential when “design, governance, and affordability failures” get involved.

And while livable streets policy itself isn’t responsible for, say, the wave of tourists overwhelming Barcelona or collapsing pedestrian walkways in Naples, it is an interesting reminder that the conversation about building great places can’t stop at the edge of the sidewalk.

Watch this video YouTube.

Ultra-processed food affects metabolism and brain activity, even with the same nutrients Anthony Lacey October 16, 2026

It’s not just poor nutrition that links ultra-processed food to health harms, a new study finds. 

The body’s response is also determined by the amount of processing the food has gone through, which changes the way we get energy from food.

Researchers at Virginia Tech gave 32 study participants two different meals three days apart. The meals had the same amount of calories and nutrients, but one was ultra-processed and the other wasn’t. 

Participants had a greater insulin response after eating the ultra-processed meal, meaning their bodies were working harder to regulate their blood sugar. Their brain activity also changed when they looked at pictures of ultra-processed foods, or UPF.

How the study measured UPF metabolism

In the study, published recently in Nature Metabolism, the researchers wanted to find out whether a meal of ultra-processed food would be metabolized, or used for energy, differently than a meal of minimally processed food.

The researchers designed two 300-calorie meals whose nutrition matched: They were nearly identical in calories, carbs, fat, fiber, protein, sodium and water content.

The ultra-processed meal included portions of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, deli turkey, veggie chips, instant mashed potatoes, cereal and a cookie. These foods are not always ultra-processed, but the brands used in this study were.

The minimally processed meal was made from banana, dried cranberries, cheese and egg.

Participants ate the meals three days apart. Before and after each meal, they entered a metabolic chamber – an airtight room that measures calories burned based on the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the chamber.

Researchers found that the ultra-processed meals led to higher insulin, the hormone that regulates blood sugar, and lower use of carbohydrates for energy.

How the study measured brain activity

The study also assessed whether the two meals would activate the brain in different ways.

Researchers later showed participants pictures of ultra-processed and minimally processed foods while they received a specialized brain scan called a functional MRI. Some of the food pictured was the same food used in the study’s meals.

One key finding: Ultra-processed food caused different responses in the area of the brain related to motivation and reward.

That might mean that, in addition to variations in how our bodies use food for energy, the ways the brain thinks about and values food fluctuates depending on how processed it is.

Science is showing that food processing can affect health

Some researchers say nutrition, not processing, makes ultra-processed food harmful to health. It’s true that ultra-processed foods are often high in added sugar and saturated fat, and low in beneficial nutrients like fiber and protein.

But this isn’t the first study to show that processing plays a role. In 2019, the first randomized controlled trial showed that an ultra-processed diet led to greater calorie intake and weight gain than a minimally processed diet – even when they had the same nutritional profile.

What’s more, many researchers who have critiqued the main classification system for ultra-processed food have received food industry funding.

What you can do 

It’s not practical for most people to avoid all ultra-processed food – they’re widely available, affordable and appealing for consumers. Research has even shown that food companies took tips from the tobacco industry to create products with maximum pleasure and appeal.

The federal government has failed to regulate ultra-processed food. States like California are taking the lead, recently enacting a law establishing a “non-ultra-processed” label for foods sold in California stores.

Until change comes to your state, you can use EWG’s Food Scores, which rates more than 150,000 products on nutrition, ingredients and processing and flags UPF for you. 

Shoppers on the go can also use EWG’s Healthy Living app to find non-UPF options at the grocery store.

Areas of Focus Ultra-Processed Foods Family Health Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN October 16, 2026

Fossil fuel interests spent $1.2 million on Meta ads in the last three months, a wall of money the renewables industry met with near silence.

The post Anti-renewables groups still spending big on Meta – and met with near silence by green energy industry appeared first on Renew Economy.

We have had an eventful first few weeks of fall! Thank you to everyone who came to our Candidate Forums. A combined 200 people were educated at these forums and helped make them a big success. Thank you to our co-sponsors, to the great moderators from the Portland Mercury, and to the candidates. In case you missed out, you can now watch the Forums on our Youtube, thanks to KBOO Locus Focus host Barbara Bernstein!

Click here to watch District 3 Forum Click here to watch District 4 Forum Photo Credit: Dana Schot

Ballots have now been sent out to voters and there are only 20 days until Election Day. If you want to fill out your ballot together with others in the 350PDX community, join us at a Ballot Filling Party on Tuesday, October 27 at 6:00pm at our Climate Justice Workshop (3639 N Mississippi Ave). This will be a casual space to be with others where you can hang out while you individually fill out your ballot, ask questions about ranked choice voting, and view our Voter Guide. There will be pizza! Please RSVP to Dineen so we get enough food: dineen@350pdx.org.

——————————————————————————————————————————- Welcome Amanda!

Last month, 350PDX welcomed Amanda Conroy to the team as our new Director of Development! For close to two decades, Amanda has led development and marketing efforts for mission-driven organizations across California and Oregon. A passionate nonprofit leader, she specializes in relationship-based fundraising, strategic communications, and building organizational cultures rooted in philanthropy and community impact. Read more about Amanda here.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Energy Justice Team: Celebrate CEI Hub Policy Wins!

Thanks to great collaboration among community-based organizations, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability staff, and the leadership of Councilors Green, Pirtle-Guiney, Kanal, Koyama Lane, and Clark, Portland City Council is set to pass a Critical Energy Infrastructure (CEI) Hub Policy with many of the amendments our community coalition suggested! We’re ensuring the CEI hub is safer and less risky in the future than it is currently, and we also started a plan for drawing down the amount of fuel stored at the hub. There will be one more vote on the final draft of this policy on or around Nov. 5, incorporating approved amendments. We want to see this whole package passed as amended with no changes — feel free to let your councilors know this!

This CEI Hub Policy is stronger because you participated — through public comments, rallies, phone calls and emails to councilors, questions at town halls, and much more this year — and for the last decade! THANK YOU! This policy instructs staff to return to City Council next September with a modified drawdown plan based on the companies’ data about tank fill levels, so we’ll keep working on this in 2027, and beyond, until this area is safer.

Speak Up to Support Healthier Buildings for a Healthier Climate!

Portland is taking a major step toward decreasing building emissions and increasing regional climate resilience through a new policy: Climate and Health Standards for Existing Buildings. Buildings account for nearly half of Portland’s greenhouse gas emissions, and this policy would address the largest of these (>20,000 square feet) to create healthier homes, lower emissions, and provide greater transparency and protections for renters. This is big!

October 20 at 2:00 pm there’s a public hearing in the Housing & Permitting Committee, and community voices matter. Show your support through testimony!

• Modify and send this email to City Council

• Use this toolkit to draft a written or verbal public comment

Support No Immunity for Big Oil

We’ve been involved in various strategies at the local, state, and national levels to hold Big Oil companies accountable.

In September, a No Immunity for Big Oil resolution passed the Portland City Life Committee! It will likely come to the full City Council this month. This resolution states that it’s vitally important to continue to have the right to take Big Oil to court, and support legislation such as the Make Polluters Pay coalition’s climate superfund bill.

Now, federal lawmakers and the American Petroleum Institute are trying to give polluters immunity from accountability. Our Members of Congress have the opportunity to stand against this by indicating their opposition to these immunity bills, and a resolution in Portland gives them extra backing.

 You can help by: 

• Urging your US Senator and Representatives to give No Immunity to Big Oil (Sen. Merkley and Reps. Bonamici and Dexter have already made statements in opposition to such immunity bills)

• Encouraging City Council to pass the No Immunity for Big Oil resolution

Fight for the Right to Breathe

On October 29, a Right to Breathe policy will have its first hearing in the Community & Public Safety Committee. This will prohibit the use of chemical weapons (such as tear gas) in Portland. You may recall the Action Night we had in February about the environmental and public health concerns around tear gas and other chemical weapons (where we premiered this incredible and informative short film, “Gas Me, Teddy”), and this has been an ongoing issue 350PDX has worked on since we signed onto a lawsuit in 2020. In addition to concerns around rights of free speech and assembly, chemical weapons pose health problems for our rivers, trees, and wildlife. Check out our Take Action page for this and other current actions you can take today, and read more about this policy and the overall concerns around chemical weapons here.

Reach out to dineen@350pdx.org and cherice@350pdx.org to get plugged into the Energy Justice Team. We work on everything from fighting data centers, Zenith, and the CEI Hub to advocating for PCEF and transportation justice!

 Forest Defense Team:

This week the Forest Defense Team joined forces with organizations and community members from across Portland to say NO to PGE logging of Forest Park’s ancient trees. On Wednesday, we attended a rally at City Hall and hosted a watch party at the 350PDX workshop!

Last year, Portland City Council voted unanimously to deny PGE’s permit to log five acres of Forest Park. Now, PGE and the City of Portland reached a backroom agreement to allow PGE to seek a new permit. We need another unanimous vote opposing this permit from City Council!

The Forest Defense Team meets on the first and third Monday of each month, alternating between virtual and in-person meetings. Our next meeting will be on October 19 from 6 – 7:30 PM. Reach out to tyler@350PDX.org for details.

Art Team:

Are you attending No Kings this Saturday? Make sure to stop by and say hi to our puppeteers this weekend as they bring joyful activism to the Vote Early Rally downtown. Interested in becoming a last minute Puppeteer? Email: arts@350pdx.org.

Last month, the Art Team hosted the Forest over Profits conference for a combined Art Build! We also screen printed small flags that were used by the Energy Justice Team at City Council to fight for better CEI Hub regulation, saying, “Rose City wants our river back!”

In an exciting update, our team leads have introduced monthly planning meetings in addition to our regular art builds. These meetings are an opportunity to meet the team in a more relaxed setting and a chance to help us brainstorm our plans for the next art build. The planning meetings will be on the last Wednesday of every month while our regularly scheduled art builds will continue as usual on the second Sunday.

• Next Planning Meeting: Wednesday, October 28, 6-7:30 PM
• Next Art Build: November 8, 1-4 PM

Meetings are held in the 350PDX workshop (3639 N Mississippi Ave). RSVP to arts@350pdx.org.

Book Club:

The 350PDX Book Club meets every month on the first Wednesday of the month at 6:30PM. Every other month is in person and the others are virtual. Reach out to books@350PDX.org with any questions or to join our list, and please RSVP so we can inform you of any meeting changes.

We are in the process of deciding our next few books! Email Kami and Lizy at books@350PDX.org to recommend a read (all genres welcome) or to sign up to vote.

Save the date for our upcoming discussions:

• TBD November meeting

• Wednesday, December 2 at 6:30 PM (in person; fiction) — book to be selected in October

• Wednesday, February 3 at 6:30 PM (in person; nonfiction)

Milwaukie Advocates for Climate Justice:

The Milwaukie Neighborhood Team has two events this month. We hope folks will join us and help spread the word!

Last Saturday, October 10, we hosted our kick-off potluck event with a featured presentation and guided conversation on how to reduce fossil fuels facilitated by our friends on the SW Neighborhood Team. We enjoyed connecting with people in Milwaukie who are interested in learning more about climate justice and getting involved, and those who are already passionately engaged!

Next Monday, October 19, we will be hosting a PGE Rate Increase workshop with Citizens Utility Board from 6:00-8:00PM. This workshop will take place at the Ledding Library Community Room (10660 SE 21st Ave, Milwaukie) directly after our abbreviated monthly meeting from 5:30-6:00 PM.

The MAC team meets monthly on the 3rd Monday from 5:30 – 6:30 PM at Milwaukie City Hall — all are welcome! To get connected, sign up here or email MAC@350pdx.org.

Washington County Team:

The Washington County Team invites all to our next monthly online meeting at 6:30 PM on Tuesday October 13. We are currently working on getting out the vote and defending democracy, and look forward to catching up with each other online.

We always welcome newcomers to our events and to our (mostly) monthly online meetings (6:30 PM on the second Tuesday of the month). For the link, join us here or contact us at 350washco@gmail.com.

Southwest Neighborhood Team:

The 350PDX Southwest Neighborhood Team includes neighborhoods on the south and west sides of Portland. We work together to raise awareness of the climate emergency.

Our street corner demonstrations continue weekly in October every Friday from 4:00 – 5:00 PM at SW Terwilliger & SW Taylor’s Ferry. Some parking is available in the Chez Jose and Anytime Fitness lot, or reach us via bus or bike.

Our monthly meetings happen on the third Monday of the month. To get involved, please contact Pat Kaczmarek at patk5@msn.com.

Before closing our newsletter, a few reminders:

• Check out our Take Action page, which we update regularly. It includes actions that may not be in our newsletter.
• Join the 350PDX community Slack channel! This is a great way to stay connected on an ongoing basis. Contact to info@350pdx.org and we can add you.
• 350PDX is still searching for a wonderful, new home. Please reach out to info@350PDX.org if you have ideas for a space where we can have meetings, our arts team can create show-stopping puppets, and more!

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Thank you for reading our monthly newsletter. We hope to see you soon!

With gratitude,

Amanda, Cherice, Dineen, Jessica, Maeve, and Noelle

The post 2026 October Newsletter! appeared first on 350PDX: Climate Justice.