News Feeds

The bulk of the Japanese conglomerate’s Energy segment business is in electrical grid equipment. Sales are strong, but inflation and long delivery timelines bear watching, company executives said.

“While we remain confident that California policymakers will ultimately take action, delay into 2027 will have significant and costly consequences,” said Edison International CEO Pedro Pizarro.

Ann Tanner is running on four hours of sleep and showing no signs of it. On a humid June morning, she greets me with enthusiasm and a surprisingly strong handshake as I join a group of volunteers...

Ann Tanner is running on four hours of sleep and showing no signs of it. On a humid June morning, she greets me with enthusiasm and a surprisingly strong handshake as I join a group of volunteers...

That was almost three times as much as what businesses producing and refining oil in the United States made in the same period in 2025.

By Rebecca F. Elliott and Keith Collins

Oct. 30, 2026, 6:35 a.m. ET

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/30/business/energy-environment/exxon-chevron-oil-profits-iran-war.html?unlocked_article_code=1.MlE.lwpl.pjx1bPwJvP7g&smid=nytcore-ios-share

The war with Iran has been very lucrative for American oil companies, which have earned more than $130 billion in profit as people pay much higher prices for gasoline, diesel and other fuel.

That is a conservative estimate based on the performance of more than 50 large U.S. oil and gas companies, most of them producers or refiners, in the six months from April through September. It does not reflect profits earned in March, the first month of the war, or in October.

These companies earned less than $47 billion collectively during the same period in 2025, a challenging stretch when oil was cheaper and companies were navigating the early fallout from President Trump’s trade war.

The blockbuster oil profits this year highlight longstanding concerns about who gains, and who pays the price, when wars interrupt the flow of energy. As of this week, Americans had spent an extra $147 billion on gasoline and diesel since the United States and Israel began striking Iran on Feb. 28, according to an analysis by Brown University’s Climate Solutions Lab. That amounts to more than $1,100 per household.

Some companies are benefiting more than others. U.S. refiners have fared especially well because fuel-making plants have been badly damaged by hostilities in the Middle East and Russia. With fewer refineries available to meet global demand, profit margins soared for those that remain online.

Refining Company Profits

Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.

U.S. Oil Industry Earned Over $130 Billion in Profit During Iran War – The New York Times

The wartime boom has extended to American producers, most of which are reaping greater income from higher prices without having to contend with the danger or cost of operating in conflict zones. That said, their profits generally remain below 2022 levels, when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused oil and natural gas prices to soar. U.S. oil prices averaged around $90 a barrel from April through September of this year, compared with roughly $100 during the same period in 2022.

Exxon Mobil and Chevron, the biggest U.S. oil companies, reported their highest third-quarter earnings in years on Friday, buoyed by their refining businesses.

“We certainly acknowledge that the higher fuel prices put pressure on families and businesses,” Neil Hansen, Exxon’s chief financial officer, said in an interview. “But this is one of those situations and type of business where you can’t invest your way out of these conditions overnight. The decisions that matter today were made years ago.”

Exxon’s third-quarter profit more than doubled. Chevron’s almost tripled.

“The cash is going on the balance sheet,” said Eimear Bonner, Chevron’s chief financial officer. “That’s an asset that obviously we lean on in hard times and we strengthen in times when we see higher prices.”

Dozens of other U.S. oil companies will report third-quarter results in the coming weeks. The New York Times analysis relied on a combination of financial results and, if those were not yet available, analyst estimates compiled by FactSet, a financial data firm. The review did not extend to pipeline companies or service providers, whose performance has been less directly affected by the global oil shock.

For now, many companies are following a similar playbook, paying down debt and parking their extra cash rather than investing in producing more oil than they originally planned or expanding refining capacity.

“We’re not going to change our approach to capital investments just because we have a lot of cash,” Homer Bhullar, chief financial officer of the refining giant Valero Energy, told Wall Street analysts last week. Valero’s third-quarter profit soared more than sixfold.

“Over time, all the excess cash we’re accumulating will ultimately be directed toward our owners,” Mr. Bhullar said. He did not discuss specifics, but that usually involves increasing dividends or buying back company stock.

U.S. refiners have performed especially well because a lot of the oil they process is delivered by pipeline, insulating them from sky-high shipping costs. These companies are a vital link between oil producers and consumers because they transform the crude oil that is pumped from the ground into usable fuels like gasoline and diesel. Some companies, such as Exxon and Chevron, produce oil and refine it, but many specialize in just one of those businesses.

Large European companies reported bumper profits, too. Shell earned $12.06 billion in the third quarter, more than doubling its profit from a year earlier, partly because refining was so lucrative. The French oil major TotalEnergies’ third-quarter profit also more than doubled, to $8.26 billion.

United Refining, a privately held fuel maker in western Pennsylvania, plans to use this year’s windfall to pay down debt, said John Catsimatidis, the company’s chief executive and a longtime Trump ally. Or, perhaps, to buy a new corporate plane.

“I am serious,” Mr. Catsimatidis said in an interview. “You know why? I’m 78 years old. If I don’t buy a new airplane now, when am I going to buy it? When I’m dead?”

Lisa Friedman contributed reporting.

Rebecca F. Elliott covers energy for The Times.

Keith Collins is a Times visual reporter and editor in the Graphics department.

By Natasha Lindstaedt, University of Essex

Authoritarian regimes have a history of keeping information about escalating disasters secret, even when it could harm their own citizens.

With more weather-related disasters caused by climate change predicted, the issue of whether governments are willing to act faster to share information with neighboring nations is an increasing concern.

The signs are not positive. After the recent massive floods on the Nepal-Tibet border, Chinese state media tightly controlled reporting with a focus on rescue attempts, rather than devastation. It also heavily censored unofficial accounts.

Handheld and security camera footage that showed the destruction at the border appears to have vanished from Chinese media platforms.

On this occasion and in the past, Nepal has accused China of not sharing information quickly about escalating dangers. But Beijing denied there was any disinformation, and said information was released in a “timely” way in this recent incident.

A new report says the Himalayas are approaching a tipping point in terms of the speed and risks of glacier melting and lack of monitoring – with millions of lives and livelihoods at risk. So this issue could not be more urgent.

The recent behavior of another world power, Russia, cast doubt on its willingness to be transparent during a disaster. When floods caused Siberia’s Ishim River to overflow in 2025, local officials hid much of the damage.

The severe consequences of such secrecy is apparent throughout recent history. In 1984, Ethiopian military dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam concealed and downplayed the catastrophic drought which led to a famine, in order to protect the country’s image. A strict media blackout was enforced, as Mengistu’s government refused to share data regarding the scale of the crisis or even acknowledge there was one.

Instead, he prioritized spending over US$100 million (£87 million) on celebrations to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Ethiopia’s Marxist revolution.

Mengistu ignored the ongoing mass starvation crisis in speeches. He also blocked international aid workers and journalists from entering the starving regions. An estimated one million people died due to this lack of action.

Another potential issue is the impact on shared water sources. If autocracies hide prolonged droughts, they may secretly over-extract shared resources, potentially drying out neighboring territories.

Chernobyl’s Coverup

History shows that lack of warnings about escalating dangers caused by a disaster can have devastating effects in nearby countries.

The nuclear power plant disaster in Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union in 1986 was also covered up. KGB archives revealed that classified information on the extent of the radiation and contamination were kept secret.

Critical information was not released to the Ukrainian people and inhabitants of western Europe until months, and even years, later. Advocacy group Greenpeace estimated that there were potentially between 100,000 and 250,000 additional deaths – mostly due to radiation in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia – because of this lack of transparency.

Myanmar’s quasi-military government has regularly hidden valuable information from journalists, aid workers and other countries after each disaster in that country.

A 7.7-magnitude earthquake that hit central Myanmar in April 2025 killed thousands of people, causing bodies to pile up. Rather than facilitate the support of aid workers, supplies were blocked and confiscated by the military.

Not allowing humanitarian aid to come through in a timely fashion can also accelerate a refugee crisis, as desperate populations may flee in search of help.

Censorship and Repression

Autocracies are more likely to censor and monitor media platforms than democracies. For instance, China recently stopped non-official content being shared about the August 2026 floods.

Some autocracies also restrict access for international aid workers, independent scientists and observers.

There’s another example from 2019. When Zimbabwe was hit by tropical cyclone Idai, its government restricted the involvement of international aid workers, which reduced recovery efforts.

Research has also shown that authoritarian regimes can escalate repression against their own citizens during disasters.

Greater levels of secrecy has implications for disease. Natural disasters frequently lead to infectious disease outbreaks. A government’s refusal to report a climate-driven outbreak could prevent neighbouring states from taking protective measures.

Authoritarian regimes also frequently suppress or delay data regarding extreme weather, glacial melts or industrial accidents to protect the regime’s image. This can compromise the safety, stability and economy of their own citizens and, potentially, neighbouring countries too.

Ecosystems and disasters do not respect political borders. Information censorship and the suppression of data will make us all more vulnerable as climate change-driven incidents escalate.

Natasha Lindstaedt is a professor in the Department of Government at theUniversity of Essex

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post The Hidden Climate Danger of Authoritarian Neighbors appeared first on The Revelator.

“The Hub” is a weekly round-up of transportation related news in the Philadelphia area and beyond. Check back weekly to keep up-to-date on the issues Clean Air Council’s transportation staff finds important.

Happy Halloween! There’s nothing scarier than losing access to democracy! Plan to vote on November 3. Find more information here.

Image Source: Philly Voice

Philly Voice: SEPTA affordability programs would be permanent under proposed Philly law – A proposal introduced by Philadelphia City Council could increase access to transit for Philadelphians. Councilmember O’Rourke introduced legislation to set aside 0.5% of the city’s General Fund for a transit access program in April of last year. The fund would support Zero Fare, Key Advantage, and Key Partner programs. These programs offer critical transit access to transit to low-income residents, families, and businesses across the city.

Image Source: Northeast Times

Northeast Times: SEPTA Ridership Hits Highest Level Since February 2020 as Bus Trips Climb 14% – In September, SEPTA averaged more than 822,000 riders across all modes per day. This is the highest average daily ridership SEPTA has seen since February 2020. Bus ridership has risen 14% from 2025. SEPTA is giving credit to the New Bus Network, and phase 1 of the plan began in August. Regional Rail is the only mode to decline, with average weekday ridership down 4% from last year. SEPTA notes capacity and frequency issues as the leading causes for the decrease in Regional Rail ridership.

Image Source: AOL

6ABC: SEPTA buys Canadian train cars to boost fleet – Two dozen Canadian EXO Transit rail cars are being serviced by SEPTA mechanics, with plans to phase them into service next year. The cars will help SEPTA meet daily service needs and should increase ridership. The new cars will seat an additional 60 to 70 riders, offer more handrails for standing passengers, and increase capacity for Regional Rail service.

Other Stories

NBC Philadelphia: Philadelphia Indego bike stations get high-tech upgrade with smart kiosks

WHYY: Pa. announces funding for 515 new electric vehicle chargers

Trains.com: Amtrak schedules event for public comment on restructuring

WHYY: NJ Transit is expanding a project to present art exhibitions at bus and train stations

Philadelphia Today: AIM Academy Mountain Biking Program in Conshohocken Turns 10

Philly Voice: Filmmakers who set out to produce a comedy on the PPA instead confront tragedies of a car-obsessed culture

The key question for regulators is no longer whether utilities can simply find a reason to install another gas turbine, write experts from Environmental Defense Fund and Minnesota’s CURE.

Researchers have found evidence that warming, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, reversed the advance of a new ice age.

Read more on E360 →

The Biden administration had sought to crack down on methane leaks, a big driver of climate change. Those rules are now being scaled back.

By Brad Plumer

Reporting from Washington

Oct. 27, 2026

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/27/climate/trump-methane-rules-epa-greenhouse-gas.html?unlocked_article_code=1.MFE.4WCG.UBsTE-ryBq8s&smid=em-share
The Trump administration is moving to weaken federal rules designed to force oil and gas companies to cut their emissions of methane, a gas considered a “super pollutant” because it traps so much heat in the atmosphere.

President Trump announced the plan at a campaign rally on Tuesday evening in Lubbock, Tex., for Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton. Mr. Trump said the Biden-era rules were “expensive and unnecessary.”

The move marks one of the most significant steps by the Trump administration to scale back federal policies designed to tackle climate change.

Methane, the main component of natural gas, traps about 80 times more heat in the atmosphere in the short term than carbon dioxide does. It is responsible for nearly one-third of the rise in global temperatures since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and experts have said that reducing methane leaks is one of the fastest ways to slow global warming.

The Biden administration issued rules in 2023 that would have required oil and gas facilities to monitor their operations and prevent methane from leaking into the atmosphere. The Trump administration had already delayed those rules from taking effect.

Now the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to relax requirements to curb methane emissions from hundreds of thousands of “marginal” oil and gas wells that are nearing the end of their useful lives and have relatively low output. These wells account for around 7 percent of U.S. oil and gas production but produce roughly half of the industry’s methane emissions, the agency has previously said.

Trump administration officials have cast the move as an effort to bolster U.S. oil and gas production and ease prices for consumers. High fuel prices, driven up by the U.S.-led war with Iran, are weighing on Republican candidates ahead of next week’s midterm elections. In Texas, the nation’s top oil-producing state, polls show Mr. Paxton trailing Democrat James Talarico, and Mr. Trump is aiming to boost his campaign.

Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator, said that the Biden-era rules would have shut down a number of smaller wells and estimated that easing the requirements would save the industry $45 billion through 2050.

“Behind every barrel of oil and every cubic foot of natural gas produced in the U.S. are millions of workers, businesses, and the heartbeat of this nation’s economy,” Mr. Zeldin said in a statement. “The Biden E.P.A. destructively targeted all this. President Trump promised to end the war on oil and natural gas.”

Oil and gas production is the largest industrial source of methane emissions in the United States. Methane can leak from wells, pipelines, storage tanks and other fossil fuel infrastructure. The gas can also come from natural sources such as cows, rice fields and wetlands.

Environmental groups criticized the rollbacks, saying that methane leaks from oil and gas operations were a form of waste that it made sense to curb. They also pointed out that the Biden-era methane rules had been expected to cut other harmful pollutants such as volatile organic compounds, which can form smog, and benzene, which has been linked to cancer.

“Methane leaks are the dumbest kind of pollution because the industry is losing the very product it is selling,” said David Doniger, senior strategist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Many large oil and gas companies have said they support at least some limits on methane emissions, noting that they have already invested in expensive technologies to monitor and capture the gas.

But a number of small and independent operators have opposed many of the regulations as costly and overly restrictive. They have said that requiring marginal wells that don’t produce very much oil to cut emissions would force producers to simply shut many of them down.

Mr. Zeldin indicated that the agency would rework regulations for marginal wells, typically classified as those that produce 15 barrels of oil equivalent per day or less. In 2024, those wells accounted for roughly three-fourths of the more than 900,000 oil and gas wells in the United States. While they account for a small fraction of total production, multiple studies have found that these wells yield an outsized proportion of methane emissions.

The E.P.A. is also planning to end its Methane Super Emitter Program, which would have empowered third-party monitors to use satellites and other sensors to quickly identify and report significant methane leaks. Some gas producers had complained that the program would have handed too much regulatory power to environmental groups.

And the agency is proposing to reverse a Biden-era rule that would have required operators to capture associated gas that comes out of oil wells and sell it. The agency said that doing so was not always practical, and that companies would be allowed to burn off the gas, a practice known as flaring, which produces carbon dioxide emissions.

The E.P.A. will solicit public comments on the proposed changes for 45 days before finalizing the rule.

The Trump administration has separately disavowed a Biden-era pledge to cut U.S. emissions roughly in half by 2035. And last year, Republicans in Congress passed a bill that would delay for 10 years a steep fee that Democrats and the Biden administration had imposed on oil and gas firms for larger methane leaks.

Some oil- and gas-producing states are nonetheless moving forward with their own methane regulations. Last month, Colorado adopted rules that would essentially replicate the Biden-era standards. New Mexico, the second-largest producer of crude oil after Texas, is also considering new methane rules.

Shortly after Mr. Zeldin previewed the E.P.A.’s proposal, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, highlighted satellite data that showed that the state’s existing rules had already cut methane emissions in half compared with neighboring Texas.

“Rolling back federal standards means more pollution drifting into the lungs of families living next to wells and flares, and a hotter planet for all of us,” Ms. Lujan Grisham said. “In New Mexico, we won’t stand for that. Our methane rules will remain firmly in place, and we’re planning to strengthen them while collaborating with other states to share our nation-leading best practices.”

Financial disclosures filed by Stephen Miller, a senior White House official, contain numerous inconsistencies between reported stock sales, share counts and disclosed family assets, according to a new investigation by Public Citizen. The discrepancies raise questions about the accuracy of the filings and the White House ethics office’s certification of Miller’s disclosures.

Public Citizen’s investigation found that at least 10 of the 27 stock sales listed in Miller’s August 2025 transaction report could not be reconciled with the corresponding certificates of divestiture. In multiple instances, the reported sale values appear too low to account for the number of shares listed on the certificates.

The investigation also identified discrepancies involving Miller’s children and wife, Katie Miller. The stock the Office of Government Ethics certified for sale from the three children’s custodial accounts was worth roughly $443,000 to $507,000 per account on the day of the sales, about $1.4 million in all, and the accounts held another $165,000 to $400,000 in other investments earlier that year. By the end of 2025, each account held just $1,000 to $15,000 in cash, plus $15,000 to $50,000 in Spotify stock in one account. Miller’s disclosures do not show where the rest of the money went. Separately, Katie Miller’s IRA held shares of MP Materials, Alphabet, Viking Therapeutics, Apple, Amazon and Arm in March 2025—none of them appear on Miller’s annual report, and his only transaction report lists no sales of Alphabet, Viking Therapeutics or Apple at all.

In response to Public Citizen’s questions, White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis said, “The White House regularly works with appointees to provide ethics guidance and help ensure compliance with applicable federal ethics laws and regulations. Stephen Miller complies with all ethics requirements.” The White House did not address the specific discrepancies.

“Stephen Miller is neither above the law nor the rules, and conflict of interest standards are not optional. This administration has demonstrated an objective to scrutinize alleged errors in other people’s paperwork, with very serious consequences,” said Lisa Gilbert, Public Citizen co-president. “If that is the standard set by the White House, then the rules should apply equally to everyone. Stephen Miller included. The American people deserve an answer on why these inconsistencies are present, as well as corrections and consequences.”

It is unclear if the discrepancies in Miller’s paperwork are due to sloppiness, bureaucratic error or another explanation.

What is clear is that the Trump administration has used alleged errors or inconsistencies in official paperwork to justify criminal investigations and prosecutions against perceived political enemies, immigrants and others.

Public Citizen is calling for a detailed explanation of the discrepancies, clarification of the basis of the White House ethics office’s certification, and corrections to the financial disclosures.

“Miller’s own filings don’t add up, and the White House signed off on them anyway,” said Zach Everson, Public Citizen Research Director. “Miller and the White House must explain how these numbers were reconciled and whether corrected disclosures are necessary.”

Public Citizen has provided a copy of this report to the Office of Government Ethics.

From Ethel Kennedy: The Extraordinary Life and Bold Legacy: “The day after we presented the CIW with the RFK Human Rights Award, Mum and I joined the group to protest outside a local Taco Bell.” “Mum left Immokalee even more determined to help the workers earn a decent living. Upon returning to Washington, Mum cold-called the CEO of McDonald’s. When he picked up the phone, she said, ‘Hi, this is Ethel Kennedy. Would you please give the tomato pickers another penny per pound?’ No deal. The CIW soon announced a boycott of McDonald’s, then Burger King.”

If you are a long-time ally of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, you may have met one of this country’s most tenacious human rights leaders without even knowing it.

Ethel Kennedy lived a life true to the tenets of her faith, defined by an unwavering commitment to justice that stretched across two centuries. From the movement to expand fundamental civil and human rights to all Americans in the 1960s — a turbulent decade that claimed the life of her husband, former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy — to the struggle to protect and preserve our country’s fragile democracy today, Mrs. Kennedy never shied away from joining in the fight to make the country, and the world, a kinder, more equal, more humane place.

Indeed, over two decades ago, Mrs. Kennedy joined the CIW in our fight against exploitation and abuse in the fields, when she awarded three CIW leaders — Lucas Benitez, Julia Gabriel, and Romeo Ramirez — the 2003 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award for their groundbreaking efforts to end modern-day slavery and bring abusive farm bosses to justice. Mrs. Kennedy presented the award to the trio of CIW leaders at a gala ceremony in the US Senate, and then promptly joined us in the streets of DC at a protest outside a Taco Bell restaurant (right).

It would be the first of many, many times that Mrs. Kennedy joined us in the streets, from her 2006 visit to Immokalee to kick off the “RFK Memorial Poverty Tour: A Tour for Social and Economic Justice”, to her annual appearances with hundreds of farmworkers and their allies on marches along glamorous Worth Avenue in the heart of her winter home of Palm Beach, Florida, calling on Wendy’s — and her fellow Palm Beach resident, billionaire investor Nelson Peltz — to join the Fair Food Program.

But perhaps the greatest highlight of the past two decades of Mrs. Kennedy’s tireless solidarity came in 2012, outside Publix headquarters in Lakeland, Florida. In a heartfelt callback to her role in supporting Cesar Chavez’s historic hunger strike for farmworker rights in 1968, in which Mrs. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy joined Chavez for the breaking of his 25-day fast, Mrs. Kennedy joined dozens of farmworkers and their allies as they ended their own fast, calling on Publix to join the Fair Food Program in an emotional and unforgettable ceremony.

Tragically, Mrs. Kennedy passed away in 2024 at the age of 96. In a memorial attended by nearly every living US president and countless other senior political and movement leaders, the CIW’s Lucas Benitez, Greg Asbed, and Laura Germino had the opportunity to eulogize Mrs. Kennedy, speaking to her pivotal contributions to the CIW and the advancement of the Fair Food Program.

Lucas’s words on that sad yet joyful day are worth remembering one more time:

“My colleagues and I are here today from the land of swamps and hurricanes, in the company of so many distinguished champions of this great democracy, because Mrs. Kennedy knew it takes all of us, from farmworkers to Presidents, to defend the human rights she held so dear.  She was the rare person who cares not who you are, but what you do for democracy, freedom and equal rights.

I came alone as a teenager to what would become my beloved adopted county, looking for work in America’s tomato fields and citrus groves, after growing up in a one-room, dirt-floor shack along with my five siblings (a big family, but not quite as big as the Kennedys!…).  And 30 years ago, when we as farmworkers from Immokalee began our fight against forced labor, sexual harassment and assault, and wage theft in the fields, Mrs. Kennedy (together with her daughter Kerry) stood with us from the very start.  Ethel saw the promise in our early efforts to bring brutal farm bosses to justice when no one else did, awarding us the RFK Human Rights Award two decades ago, lifting us up from Immokalee’s dusty streets to celebrate our efforts in the hallowed halls of the US Senate, and she stuck with us ever since, as that early promise grew into transformative change.

She picketed with us is in the streets as we boycotted Taco Bell.  She visited us in the fields and in our homes, and brought her friends with her to Immokalee to join the fight, leaders like John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO, and Senator Bernie Sanders.  She used her powers of persuasion to convince McDonald’s executives to join our growing program for human rights.  And she led marches with us in her beloved Palm Beach not once, but many times. I would push her in her wheelchair along Worth Avenue, her straw hat shielding her from the sun, past jewelry stores and shops selling furs.  Her friends and neighbors would stop her and say “Ethel, what in the world are you doing?” And she would say, “Come along and march with us, for justice and freedom!” And many of them dropped whatever they were doing and did!  Who could say no to Ethel?

Thanks in large part to her decades of untiring support – it’s never about just showing up, it’s about sticking around – today, we can say that we have built the most effective human rights enforcement program in the US agricultural industry, the Fair Food Program, which has eliminated modern-day slavery and sexual violence in the fields, and has forged America’s strongest workplace heat protections against the ever-worsening climate crisis.  We are in 23 states and counting, and our partners include 14 of the world’s largest corporations.

Mrs. Kennedy, we thank you, and as we say in Mexico, a person only truly dies when they are no longer remembered by anyone, and you, Senora Ethel — a true force of nature — will never really leave us because you will always live on in our hearts and our memories, in Immokalee and anywhere a farmworker harvests the food that feeds our nation. (read more from the unforgettable memorial service here)

Now, Mrs. Kennedy’s daughter, Kerry Kennedy — herself a stalwart supporter of the cause for farmworker dignity — has penned a biography of her late, great mother. Entitled Ethel Kennedy: The Extraordinary Life and Bold Legacy, the book tells the story of Mrs. Kennedy’s remarkable journey through the eyes of her daughter. Jam-packed with firsthand accounts and exquisite storytelling, the book takes readers beyond the towering achievements of Mrs. Kennedy’s public life to reveal the woman behind the legacy — her humor and heart, her convictions and struggles, and the experiences that shaped a lifetime of fighting for justice. Today, we’d like to highlight one passage in particular, which recounts Mrs. Kennedy’s unwavering support for farmworkers’ rights and her unique contributions to the Campaign for Fair Food.

We are sharing that excerpt below, but be sure to buy the book, which is for sale at all major retailers and online. Here is one part of Ethel Kennedy’s story, as told by her daughter:

“In 2003, Mum presented the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award to the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), a labor group based in Florida that was fighting for fair wages while exposing brutal and illegal conditions in the tomato fields. Along with his colleagues Greg Asbed, Laura Germino, and others, Lucas Benitez had emancipated over a thousand farmworkers from modern-day slavery… The CIW was also leading a nationwide boycott of Taco Bell, one of the major purchasers of Florida tomatoes. At the time, farmworkers received 32 cents for every bucket of tomatoes picked, a pittance that kept them in dire poverty. One of the CIW’s central demands was an additional penny for every pound, which could increase their earnings by $150 more per week. But the raise would be possible only if buyers like Taco Bell paid the growers a penny more per pound. They refused, and the boycott was on.

The day after we presented the CIW with the RFK Human Rights Award, Mum and I joined the group to protest outside a local Taco Bell. Mum hated having to boycott her favorite fast-food joint. “I love Taco Bell,” Mum said. “I called Taco Bell, but they wouldn’t cooperate, so I couldn’t eat there, and it really upset me.” Two years later, the company agreed to pay more for their produce, and Mum was again able to enjoy their supreme burritos.

But she was not finished helping the Florida farmworkers. In 2005, Mum invited the head of the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest trade union federation, and others to join her on a fact-finding tour of filthy, inhumane conditions in Immokalee. The rundown town, surrounded by tomato fields carved out of the swamps, was just 39 miles inland from the wealthy enclave of Naples, Florida, but a world apart. Mum and her guests got a firsthand look at the rotting trailers where the tomato pickers lived three and four to a room. They saw the workers line up for buses, hoping to be chosen by the bosses to spend 12-hour days picking tomatoes. Nearly all the women reported being sexually assaulted by the bosses, often forced to have sex in exchange for the privilege of being hired.

Mum left Immokalee even more determined to help the workers earn a decent living. Upon returning to Washington, Mum cold-called the CEO of McDonald’s. When he picked up the phone, she said, “Hi, this is Ethel Kennedy. Would you please give the tomato pickers another penny per pound?” No deal. The CIW soon announced a boycott of McDonald’s, then Burger King.

*Both Burger King and McDonald’s eventually came around and agreed to participate in the Fair Food Program. The boycott of Wendy’s… continues to this day.”

We truly hope you find the time to read “Ethel Kennedy: The Extraordinary Life and Bold Legacy”, you will be so very glad you did. We here at the CIW have always been honored to have known Mrs. Kennedy, but now, having read this exquisitely written love letter from her daughter Kerry, we miss her, and her indefatigable love of life, even more.

Shell’s latest financial statements reveal an anticipated $6.4 billion non-cash accounting loss arising from the transformation of its Dutch pension arrangements. The disclosure raises important questions about pension governance, regulatory oversight and the financial consequences of the transition — but it does not establish that pensioners will suffer corresponding losses.

By John Donovan — 30 October 2026

Just one day after Shell plc announced spectacular third-quarter earnings and another $5 billion share-buyback programme, a striking disclosure in the company’s financial statements deserves closer attention.

On page 33 of its report for the quarter ended 30 September 2026, Shell reveals that it expects to recognise an estimated $6.4 billion non-cash accounting loss in the fourth quarter of this year.

The anticipated charge arises from the restructuring of the Dutch pension arrangements operated by Stichting Shell Pensioen Fonds (SSPF).

The amount is extraordinary.

It is larger than Shell’s newly announced $5 billion share-buyback programme and comes at a time when the company is reporting exceptionally strong profits.

Yet this is not a straightforward case of Shell losing $6.4 billion in cash.

Nor does the disclosure establish that employees or pensioners face a corresponding reduction in their retirement benefits.

The explanation lies in a complicated intersection of Dutch pension reform, international accounting standards and the treatment of defined-benefit pension obligations.

Understanding what Shell has actually disclosed — and what remains unanswered — is essential.

The $6.4 billion disclosure

Shell’s financial statements describe the pending transition of its Dutch defined-benefit pension fund to a defined-contribution arrangement.

The company states that the transition is expected to take effect on 1 January 2027.

The associated accounting settlement is expected to occur on 31 December 2026.

At that point, according to Shell, the existing defined-benefit plan will cease to be recognised in the company’s accounts in its present form.

Under the relevant accounting treatment, Shell expects this derecognition to produce a substantial charge in its consolidated income statement.

The estimated amount, calculated at 30 September 2026, is $6.4 billion.

Shell explicitly describes the anticipated charge as non-cash.

It also warns that the figure remains subject to actuarial remeasurement during the fourth quarter and may therefore change.

This distinction matters.

A charge recorded in a corporate income statement does not necessarily represent a cash payment, an investment loss of the same amount or a reduction in the pensions payable to individual members.

Nevertheless, an accounting adjustment of this magnitude is financially material and deserves scrutiny.

Why is Shell changing its Dutch pension arrangements?

The background is a fundamental reform of the Netherlands’ pension system.

On 1 July 2023, the Dutch Wet toekomst pensioenen (Future Pensions Act) came into effect.

The legislation introduced a substantial restructuring of occupational pension arrangements, with existing schemes required to complete their transitions before 1 January 2028.

The reform changes how pension rights, investment risks and retirement outcomes are organised and communicated.

Shell’s Dutch pension fund has been preparing to comply with the new framework.

According to Shell’s financial statements, the SSPF trustee board formally accepted the transition plan in July 2025.

The planned effective date is 1 January 2027.

Importantly, Shell is not presenting this restructuring as an entirely voluntary decision to abandon its existing arrangements.

It forms part of a wider legislatively mandated transformation of the Dutch pension system.

Nevertheless, the financial and governance consequences for Shell remain significant.

Dutch regulator gives conditional clearance

Shell’s disclosure identifies an important regulatory development.

On 2 September 2026, De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB), the Dutch central bank and pension supervisor, issued its decision not to prohibit the transfer of accrued pension entitlements into the new pension arrangement.

The Dutch terminology is Besluit geen verbod op invaren.

The decision was conditional.

Shell states that the funding ratio at the point of transition must remain within an agreed range.

Moreover, final approval by the SSPF trustee board was still outstanding when the quarterly results were published.

Shell expects that decision during the fourth quarter of 2026.

Consequently, the proposed transition has not yet been presented by Shell as an unconditional, completed event.

The precise outcome remains dependent on the relevant conditions and approvals.

That distinction should not be overlooked.

What does a $6.4 billion non-cash loss actually mean?

This is perhaps the most important question.

Under International Accounting Standard IAS 19, Employee Benefits, companies must account for defined-benefit pension commitments according to prescribed rules governing pension obligations, pension assets, actuarial assumptions and the recognition of surpluses or deficits.

In a conventional defined-benefit arrangement, the sponsoring employer may remain exposed to certain risks associated with meeting promised pension benefits.

A defined-contribution arrangement generally involves a different allocation of risks and responsibilities.

However, the precise legal and economic consequences depend on the structure of the scheme.

Shell’s proposed transition involves the derecognition of its existing defined-benefit arrangement.

The company explains that the accounting consequences include the operation of the asset ceiling provisions of IAS 19.

These provisions can restrict how much of a pension fund surplus an employer is permitted to recognise as an asset in its financial statements.

Shell states that in the third quarter of 2025 it recognised an adjustment reducing the pension fund surplus recognised in its accounts to nil, together with a liability associated with minimum funding requirements.

That adjustment produced a loss in other comprehensive income.

The asset ceiling has continued to be monitored and remeasured.

With the expected transition at the end of 2026, a further accounting consequence is anticipated.

The resulting $6.4 billion charge is expected to pass through Shell’s fourth-quarter income statement.

But there is an essential distinction between an accounting loss and money physically leaving the company.

Shell’s disclosure does not establish that it must pay $6.4 billion into the pension fund, that the fund has lost $6.4 billion in assets, or that members’ pensions will be reduced by that amount.

Indeed, the company’s explanation suggests that the anticipated charge is principally associated with accounting recognition and derecognition as the scheme changes.

The correct interpretation requires examination of the detailed actuarial and accounting calculations.

Those calculations are not fully reproduced in the quarterly disclosure.

What about Shell’s existing pension position?

Shell provides additional context in the same financial report.

At 30 September 2026, its consolidated balance sheet recorded:

Retirement benefits 30 September 2026 31 December 2025 Non-current pension-related assets $5.737 billion $5.052 billion Non-current pension-related liabilities $6.262 billion $7.136 billion Net recognised deficit $525 million $2.084 billion

These figures concern Shell’s recognised retirement-benefit assets and liabilities across its relevant plans, rather than representing the funding position of SSPF alone.

Shell attributes the improvement in the net position principally to higher discount rates reducing the measured retirement-benefit obligations, partly offset by investment returns below expectations.

That improvement provides an important contrast with the impending $6.4 billion accounting charge.

It illustrates why the value of pension assets, the actuarial measurement of pension commitments and the accounting consequences of restructuring must be considered separately.

A large pension-related charge in the income statement does not necessarily mean that the underlying pension scheme has experienced an equivalent economic deterioration.

What will happen to Shell pensioners?

The central concern for many current and former employees will be understandable:

Will the transition affect the pensions they receive?

Shell’s quarterly financial disclosure does not provide enough information to determine how every category of member will be affected.

The transition involves accrued pension entitlements, but its implications for individuals depend on the final scheme rules, funding position, allocation mechanisms and relevant Dutch legal safeguards.

It would therefore be irresponsible to suggest that Shell’s pensioners are about to lose $6.4 billion in promised retirement benefits.

The company’s announcement makes no such claim.

Equally, it would be premature to conclude that every pension beneficiary will experience precisely the same economic outcome under the new arrangements.

Those questions require examination of the SSPF transition plan and the communications issued to members.

Independent pension specialists may also be able to explain the consequences more fully.

Why should Shell shareholders be interested?

There are several reasons.

First, the anticipated charge is substantial in absolute terms.

A $6.4 billion loss recorded in a quarterly income statement can materially affect reported statutory earnings.

Second, Shell’s management will need to explain the accounting consequences clearly so that investors do not confuse a non-cash pension adjustment with a deterioration in the company’s operating performance.

Third, the transition represents a major governance development involving pension trustees, a national regulator and the sponsor of a significant retirement arrangement.

Fourth, there are legitimate questions about the longer-term consequences of changing the nature of Shell’s pension obligations and associated financial risks.

Finally, the disclosure warrants attention because the accounting treatment is not intuitive.

Shareholders reading headlines about billion-dollar profits, share buybacks and pension losses may reasonably struggle to reconcile the figures.

Shell has an interest in ensuring that its explanations are sufficiently clear to prevent misunderstanding.

The contrast with Shell’s quarterly profits

The timing is noteworthy.

On 29 October 2026, Shell announced adjusted third-quarter earnings of $10.814 billion.

The same results included a $2.116 billion impairment relating to a European biogas asset and a $1.787 billion reversal of an earlier impairment associated with a North American Integrated Gas asset.

Our previous investigation examined the contrast between those two energy investments.

The pension disclosure introduces a different but equally significant issue.

Whereas the biogas impairment reflects revised expectations about the recoverable value of a commercial asset, the projected pension charge arises from a change in the accounting treatment of retirement arrangements.

These are fundamentally different financial events.

Nevertheless, all three demonstrate why investors should look beyond headline adjusted earnings and examine the accompanying financial statement notes.

Some of the most consequential information in corporate reporting appears not in the headline announcements, but in the explanations accompanying the accounts.

The Shell historical archive perspective

The Independent Shell Archive has long examined questions surrounding the company’s corporate governance, financial reporting, legal responsibilities and relationships with employees.

The pension disclosure is relevant to that historical record.

Shell’s relationship with its workforce has developed over more than a century, encompassing changing employment practices, restructuring, pension commitments and corporate governance arrangements.

The transition now under way in the Netherlands represents another significant chapter in that history.

There is no basis in the present disclosure for suggesting misconduct by Shell, its pension trustees or the Dutch regulator.

Nor is there evidence that the anticipated accounting charge conceals an undisclosed cash liability of the same amount.

What the disclosure does establish is that Shell expects a major financial reporting consequence from a fundamental change in its Dutch retirement arrangements.

For an independent archive concerned with preserving contemporaneous corporate evidence, that is sufficient reason to document the event carefully.

It will also be important to preserve the distinction between what Shell disclosed before the transition and what ultimately occurs when the final arrangements take effect.

That is the same documentary principle underpinning The Shell Leaks Files: preserve the original evidence, identify what was known at the time, and compare statements with subsequent developments.

Questions Shell should answer

In the interests of transparency, Shell could usefully provide fuller explanations addressing several questions.

1. How is the $6.4 billion calculated?

What are the principal accounting components of the expected loss, and how much arises from the reversal of previously recognised pension-related balances?

2. What is the expected cash impact?

Although Shell describes the charge as non-cash, are there separate contributions, payments or funding obligations associated with the transition?

3. What happens to pension obligations?

How will the transition alter Shell’s future exposure to pension funding requirements and actuarial risks?

4. What protections exist for pension members?

How will accrued entitlements and the interests of current employees, deferred members and existing pensioners be treated?

5. What remains subject to approval?

Which decisions must still be taken by the SSPF trustee board, and what would happen if the agreed funding conditions were not satisfied?

6. How will the charge affect reported earnings?

Will Shell classify the anticipated $6.4 billion expense as an identified item excluded from adjusted earnings, and what additional reconciliation information will be provided?

These are questions of financial reporting, governance and pension administration.

They are not allegations of wrongdoing.

A significant disclosure deserving a clear explanation

Shell’s financial statements provide an unusually stark figure: a projected $6.4 billion non-cash loss arising from a change in pension arrangements.

The company’s explanation identifies the accounting mechanism and the regulatory background.

But it leaves important questions about the detailed calculation and practical implications for the pension arrangements.

The transition has not yet been completed.

Final trustee approval remains outstanding, and the estimated loss may change before the expected settlement date.

For employees, pensioners and shareholders alike, the priority should be clarity rather than alarm.

The public record establishes that a substantial accounting adjustment is anticipated. It does not establish that pension beneficiaries face a corresponding loss.

The proper question is not simply why Shell expects to recognise a $6.4 billion loss, but how that figure arises, what financial responsibilities change, and whether the transition protects the interests of the people whose retirement arrangements are being transformed.

Those questions deserve answers before the new pension arrangements take effect.

And the Independent Shell Archive will preserve the disclosures so that the company’s explanations can be evaluated against the eventual outcome.

Principal sources

Shell plc — Third Quarter 2026 and Nine Months Unaudited Results, 29 October 2026

Official Shell financial statements and quarterly results

See Note 7, particularly page 33, under the headings Retirement benefits and Dutch pension reform. This is the principal source for the $6.4 billion estimate, regulatory decision, transition timetable and accounting explanation.

Shell SEC filings

Shell’s official investor portal providing access to its regulatory and SEC disclosures.

Related Independent Shell Archive reporting

Shell’s $10.8 Billion Profit Bonanza: A $2.1 Billion Biogas Write-Down as LNG Canada Gains $1.8 Billion in Value — 29 October 2026

Our analysis of other material accounting developments disclosed in the same quarterly financial report.

Editorial note: This article is based primarily on Shell plc’s unaudited financial statements published on 29 October 2026 and supplied as part of its US regulatory reporting. The anticipated $6.4 billion pension-related charge is Shell’s estimate, not a completed loss. The estimate remains conditional and subject to change. The article does not allege that pension-fund assets or individual pension benefits have fallen by that amount, or that Shell or its pension trustees have acted improperly. Commentary and questions are independent editorial analysis.

Shell plc and Stichting Shell Pensioen Fonds are invited to provide factual corrections, accounting clarifications or information about the transition’s implications for pension members. Any substantive response will be considered for publication.

The next documentary checkpoint is the SSPF trustee board’s final decision and Shell’s fourth-quarter financial statements, when the company should be able to confirm the actual accounting treatment and amount.

Shell’s $6.4 Billion Pension Bombshell: SEC Disclosure Reveals Major Accounting Loss Expected as Dutch Retirement Scheme Changes was first posted on October 30, 2026 at 2:22 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

At a Tuesday campaign rally for Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton in Lubbock, Texas, President Trump announced the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to roll back a Biden-era methane rule, setting up a likely future showdown in how the agency oversees climate pollution under the Clean Air Act.

The proposal marks a break from the agency’s previous approaches to greenhouse gas regulation by maintaining that — for now — the EPA still has the authority to regulate climate pollution from the oil and gas industry, though it might revisit this decision later. With affordability top of mind for many midterm voters, however, the President framed the move in economic terms.   

“Tonight I’m officially terminating Biden’s expensive and unnecessary methane regulations,” Trump announced to the crowd, located near the oil-rich Permian Basin. The new plan would loosen federal requirements for oil and gas operators to detect and repair leaks, ease restrictions on gas flaring, and eliminate the Super Emitter Program, a third-party monitoring and reporting system designed to identify major releases of methane, known as a climate super pollutant.

Trump said the proposal, which addressed a 2024 rule known as OOOOb/c, would “save consumers and energy producers $45 billion in costs, unlock vast quantities of Texas natural gas, and produce 210 million barrels of oil.” Under President Biden, the EPA estimated the rule would prevent the release of 58 million tons of methane and 16 million tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), leading to major public health and climate benefits. Climate change already is raising costs for American households by an estimated $400 to $900 annually, according to a 2025 Brookings report.  

Trump’s Lubbock announcement follows a series of sweeping deregulatory moves by the EPA in which the agency has stated it does not have the authority to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change under the Clean Air Act. EPA’s most notable decision came in February when the agency rescinded the 2009 endangerment finding, the U.S. government’s scientific finding that greenhouse gases harm human health and the environment and the legal basis for its rules addressing climate change. More recently, the EPA stated in September that it would no longer limit climate pollution for power plants, a move which would likely extend the lifespan of coal-fired power plants. 

In the wake of these decisions, however, legal experts and environmental advocates say that the EPA is attempting to assert power unevenly. On the one hand, the agency says it lacks the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars, trucks, power plants, and industrial sources under the Clean Air Act. On the other, the latest EPA proposal relies on, in some cases in the same section of, the Clean Air Act to regulate methane, a greenhouse gas, from the oil and gas industry.

In its latest proposed rule, the EPA addresses this tension, acknowledging that “stakeholders have also raised concerns” about the agency’s authority to regulate the oil and gas sector’s greenhouse gas emissions under the landmark air pollution law. Depending on the agency’s final handling of the issue with fossil fuel-fired power plants, the EPA states it could then use a “future rulemaking” to resolve the issue in the oil and gas sector. (The EPA is accepting public comments on its proposed repeal of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for fossil fuel-fired power plants until Nov. 2.)

Subscribe to Desmog

Get the weekly intelligence you need to hold polluters accountable

Email Address Sign Up Send me intelligence from: All US/Global team UK/Europe team Sign Up --> (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

Attacking EPA’s ‘flawed legal basis’

In 1999, the oil and gas industry’s largest trade group, the American Petroleum Institute (API), organized a meeting over whether it should “coordinate a multi-industry, trade group response” to the threat of what it called EPA’s “flawed legal basis” for regulating greenhouse gas pollution, including carbon dioxide and methane, under the Clean Air Act. In 2024, the API filed a legal challenge over the OOOOb/c rule, which was eventually consolidated into a lawsuit with states and other industry trade groups. That suit has been paused while the agency reconsiders the rule.

Parts of the oil and gas industry have flagged this distinction in how the Trump EPA is handling two different greenhouse gases under the same law. Shortly after the EPA repealed the endangerment finding, the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance (DEPA), an oil and gas trade association founded by fracking magnate and Trump donor Harold Hamm, wrote a letter to the EPA, thanking the agency for “restoring the rule of law.” The group called out “methane and other greenhouse gas emission requirements for the oil and gas sector” among its examples of “major regulations based on the Endangerment Finding.”

A flare burns over oilfield infrastructure in West Texas’ Permian Basin in 2020. Credit: Justin Hamel/DeSmog

A few months later, after the agency published an update on its proposed reconsideration of the OOOOb/c methane rule, DEPA wrote in an internal newsletter that EPA “does not explain its legal reasoning for continuing to regulate methane emissions when it has found that it does not have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from vehicles and has proposed it does not have the authority to regulate power plants’ CO2 emissions.”

On Tuesday in Corpus Christi, the president called out Hamm by name at another midterms rally shortly before the one announcing the methane rule rollback. “Harold Hamm is here, the great oilman,” said Trump, looking around the audience. “Hi, Harold.” 

‘The Very Definition of Arbitary’

Legal experts and environmental advocates say the EPA’s inconsistency leaves unresolved important legal questions about the federal government’s authority to regulate climate pollution, potentially keeping the door open to upend federal methane regulation entirely.

“Treating similar pollutants under the same statute differently, with no stated reason or evidence, is the very definition of arbitrary and capricious decision making,” said Alejandro Camacho, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Camacho argues that if the EPA adopts a broad theory limiting its authority over greenhouse gases, it must explain why that theory doesn’t also undermine its authority to regulate methane. “States have already sued over the power plant repeal, as have health and environmental groups, and they can and should attack this inconsistency too,” he added.

A lone pumpjack in Loving County, Texas, in the Permian Basin. Credit: Justin Hamel/DeSmog

The EPA’s proposal nods to the industry’s questioning of its authority and points to the agency’s history of handling the oil and gas sector separately, “but the agency hasn’t explained how it will navigate it,” said Rosalie Winn, senior director and lead counsel on methane and clean air policy for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Mary Sasso, an attorney for the Clean Air Task Force, said the agency’s decision to defer the question could leave the future of methane regulation uncertain. “I think that there’s very real concerns that we could see changes to EPA’s interpretation of its own authority finalized in some type of regulation that would be really damaging for public health and the environment,” she said.

Camacho agrees, and warned that the deferral could foreshadow future agency backtracking. “The deferral is less a reasoned distinction than a placeholder for the next rollback,” he said.

The administration also argues that the proposed changes will reduce regulatory costs, encourage domestic energy production, and help lower prices for consumers. “Since day one, President Trump has been putting real money back into the hands of American people by putting American energy back in the hands of the American workers, businesses, and communities,” said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in a press statement about the proposal.

Consumer savings uncertain

Although the EPA estimates that the proposed rollback to the methane rule would save consumers tens of billions of dollars, the relationship between domestic production and consumer prices is more complicated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In an emailed response to DeSmog, the EPA said its estimate reflected the anticipated cost oil and gas operators would save by not having to comply with regulations, their excess profits, and consumer savings. The proposed rule reflects this calculation in its Regulatory Impact Analysis section, but does not provide further details on how the agency determined these figures. These figures are not independently established consumer savings.

“As much as it would be easy to paint oil executives as cartoonish villains hiking prices while families suffer, individuals have little to no control over benchmark oil prices,” said Kelly Mitchell, the executive director of the oil and gas watchdog Fieldnotes.

“The administration may claim that new rules will incentivize new production, bringing online supply to counter the barrels trapped behind the Strait of Hormuz,” Mitchell said. “However, these new rules are primarily designed to help operators of marginal wells — wells that produce fewer than 15 barrels per day.”

Flaring methane gas in the Permian Basin, Texas. Credit: Justin Hamel/DeSmog

Mitchell questioned whether the benefits of the rollback would reach consumers, arguing that changes would primarily reduce costs for oil and gas operators without guaranteeing lower prices at the pump. “We’re left with an outcome where oil companies get to war profiteer, avoid using any of those profits to clean up a major pollution source, and fail to reduce prices. Now they have the gall to look us in the eyes and tell us this is a gift to the American consumer.”

Since rescinding the endangerment finding, the EPA no longer accounts for the cost of harms from additional climate pollution — only the economic harms — which does not figure into the new rule’s estimated savings. Meanwhile, in a study recapping the last decade of climate-induced health harms, the Lancet reported a record high of 710,000 heat-related deaths in 2023 — and almost 72 percent of them caused by climate change.

The proposed rule places particular emphasis on a class of low-producing facilities known as marginal wells, which typically produce relatively small amounts of oil and gas. The Trump administration alleges that regulations established under the previous administration stymied these wells. “Under crooked Joe Biden, ‘Dumocrats’ crushed the small oil and gas operators,” Trump said during the rally Tuesday. “There are small operators, they’re great operators too, I know so many of them — with crippling regulations and methane that caused prices to skyrocket.”

The EPA says many of these wells are family-owned operations that struggle with the costs of complying with Biden-era standards, but an Environmental Defense analysis found that nearly half of all marginal wells are owned by just 93 corporations.

The proposed methane rule reconsideration is the latest development in a broader campaign to weaken federal methane protections under the purview of Aaron Szabo, a former registered lobbyist for a member of a major trade group pushing for these rollbacks. Earlier this month, Szabo stepped down as the head of the EPA Office of Air and Radiation. Last month, DeSmog reported that members of the oil and gas industry had simultaneously voiced public support for federal methane rules while covertly working to “eviscerate”them during the second Trump administration, according to an investigation published by Fieldnotes.

The proposed changes to the OOOOb/c methane rule are not yet final. The EPA says it will provide at least 45 days for public commentafter publication in the Federal Register, including a public hearing.

The post President Trump Unveils EPA’s New Contradictory Methane Proposal at Campaign Rally appeared first on DeSmog.

350.org says oil companies cannot continue to reap the rewards of fossil fuels while households face rising energy bills and communities bear the costs of climate devastation.

As communities across the world face devastating heat, droughts, wildfires and growing pressure on public services, US oil giants Chevron and ExxonMobil are among five major oil and gas companies expected to make around $53 billion in combined third-quarter profits.

The scale of these forecast profits comes as families and small businesses struggle with energy affordability, while governments face mounting costs from extreme weather and climate impacts. As the US approaches the midterm elections, energy affordability is a growing concern for households and communities. Across the country, debates over rising electricity demand, the expansion of data centres, and the continued reliance on expensive and polluting fossil fuels are bringing questions about who benefits from the energy system ,and who pays, into sharper focus.

Candice Fortin, US Campaigns Manager,

“As we head into the midterms, energy affordability is on everyone’s minds. Families and small businesses want reliable electricity they can afford, and communities want a say in how their land, water and energy resources are used. Yet as people struggle with energy bills and the impacts of extreme weather, the biggest oil companies are forecast to make billions.

“We need an energy system that puts people first. That means protecting households from losing access to essential electricity during extreme heat and cold, expanding affordable solar and wind power, and ensuring that new sources of electricity demand, including data centres, do not drive up bills or place additional pressure on communities. It also means making sure oil and gas companies pay their fair share towards the costs of the crisis, rather than leaving the public to pick up the bill.”

350.org says governments should make polluters pay through permanent levies on fossil fuel producers and taxes on exceptional profits, using the revenue to help energy-stressed households and accelerate the transition to affordable, clean energy.

The organisation is also calling for stronger protections for households facing disconnection or unaffordable electricity bills, greater access to rooftop and community solar, and transparent safeguards for data centre expansion. These should include requirements for genuinely new and additional renewable electricity supply around the clock, with benefits shared fairly with surrounding communities.

Two directors of GB News, which has loudly advocated for the new Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields, hold shares in the firms behind the projects.

Sir Paul Marshall, a millionaire hedge fund boss who also owns The Spectator magazine, and Lord (Theodore) Agnew of Oulton, a Conservative peer and donor, sit on the board of All Perspectives Ltd, the holding company of GB News.

Marshall is also one of its two principal funders, pumping money into the loss-making right-wing outlet.

GB News – which employs Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and former Tory Cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg – has strongly supported new North Sea drilling, with presenters recently calling Rosebank “a no-brainer” that should be approved “instantly”.

The Labour government last week approved the development of the Jackdaw gas field near Aberdeen and is expected to make a decision on Rosebank soon.

Rosebank would create an estimated 250 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions over its 10-year lifetime, roughly 70 percent of the UK’s total annual emissions. The oil and gas field near the Shetland Islands is 80 percent owned by Adura, an “independent joint venture” by the fossil fuel giants Equinor and Shell that also owns the Jackdaw site.

At the end of June, Marshall’s hedge fund Marshall Wace held $16.3 million (around £12.3 million) of stock in Shell, according to its latest filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Meanwhile, Lord Agnew is a shareholder in Equinor, owning a stake in the company worth at least £100,000 according to his parliamentary register.

DeSmog first revealed Marshall Wace’s huge fossil fuel portfolio in 2023, which increased to $2.8 billion (£2.1 billion) in the first quarter of this year.

One of Marshall Wace’s biggest backers, U.S. private equity giant KKR, is itself a major investor in fossil fuels.

Subscribe to Desmog

Get the weekly intelligence you need to hold polluters accountable

Email Address Sign Up Send me intelligence from: All US/Global team UK/Europe team Sign Up --> (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

“GB News has gone way beyond just covering the Rosebank decision. Presenters repeatedly attacked the energy secretary for considering rejecting it, and demanded that the government ‘drill baby drill’,” said Richard Wilson, director of the campaign group Stop Funding Heat.

“The public deserves to know when the people overseeing a TV station have a financial stake in the outcome it’s pushing for”.

Wilson also pointed out that media regulator Ofcom requires “due impartiality” from broadcasters on live policy decisions, potentially including the approval of specific oil fields.

“It’s time for Ofcom to take action,” he said. “In the meantime, it’s vital that advertisers continue to steer clear of GB News”.

Paul Marshall and Marshall Wace declined to comment. GB News and Lord Agnew were approached for comment.

GB News’s ‘Rosebank-tinted’ Coverage

Presenters and guests on GB News have vocally backed the Rosebank and Jackdaw projects.

On 26 October, Rees-Mogg, who lost his seat at the 2024 general election, was asked for his view on Rosebank, replying: “Oh, drill, baby drill. We should get on with it as fast as possible,” adding that the UK should also overturn its ban on fracking for shale gas.

On 19 August, GB News presenter Andrew Pierce interviewed Reform’s deputy leader Richard Tice about the two projects, saying: “If both of them were given the go-ahead, wouldn’t that instantly create some of the extra fuel security, energy security we need, apart from the revenue for the Exchequer?”

Tice replied, “Of course. Both should be given the go-ahead instantly,” adding that the government should grant new North Sea exploration licences, which would break its 2024 manifesto commitment.

On 22 October, Pierce himself called Jackdaw “brilliant” and said it was “madness” for Labour MPs to oppose Rosebank.

GB News political editor Christopher Hope has also made the case for Rosebank, remarking on 26 October: “We’re buying in the oil and gas we would take from Rosebank. Anyway, why not make it in [the UK] and get tax revenue from that asset?”

A few days earlier, on 16 October, he said: “It seems like a no-brainer to many, but not on the left of politics.”

GB News presenter and former Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Credit: GB News / YouTube

Last week, the GB News website ran an opinion article by Russell Borthwick, the chief executive of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, headlined: “Jackdaw approval is a victory for common sense. Now it’s Rosebank’s turn.”

As DeSmog has documented, GB News has long backed new fossil fuels and attacked climate action. It has also given a platform to climate science deniers, including from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a pressure group that says more CO2 emissions would be a “benefit to the planet”.

Marshall has also personally criticised policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, claiming in a speech to the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in February 2025 that the world has been infected by a “climate derangement syndrome”. He said “our economic prosperity and our people’s livelihoods” are being sacrificed “all for the sake of making some fractional changes to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere”.

In reality, reaching net zero emissions is predicted to cost only a fraction of UK GDP, while the extreme weather events caused by climate change could have a dramatic impact on the global economy.

Marshall’s Spectator magazine, edited by former Conservative Cabinet minister Michael Gove, has also strongly supported new North Sea drilling.

A piece last week by anti-net zero columnist Ross Clark hailed Jackdaw as “a small victory for common sense” but lamented that Labour will not approve Rosebank so long as the UK keeps its net zero targets.

The Spectator’s “gossip columnist” Steerpike also last week accused Labour MPs of “throwing a tantrum over Jackdaw”, and concluded: “It has taken years, and so much time has been wasted, but at least the most obvious decision facing the country has finally been made. The question is whether Burnham will be brave enough to approve Rosebank as well.”

The Spectator was approached for comment.

The post Two GB News Directors Have Investments in Oil Companies Behind Rosebank and Jackdaw appeared first on DeSmog.

The story we are often told about Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of replacement, particularly in agriculture. The machines are coming for the tractor, the picker, and then eventually, the farmer. But the real potential of AI in agriculture isn’t replacement but what happens when technology serves the people already in the system, extending their sight rather than overriding their judgment. Successful innovation starts with local knowledge and widens it.

Agriculture, while obviously important to our economies, is one of the slowest to integrate new technology. I learned this lesson in 2017 when I joined an AgTech startup called Artemis Ag, a software company focused on bringing people, processes, and farm data into the cloud. Our initial premise was that software could increase a grower’s view of the farm and drastically improve their efficiency. Initially, user adoption was slow. We learned that we hadn’t fully accounted for the farmer’s experience. We didn’t consider the level of knowledge that comes with years of growing in their local environments, nor the impact that tiny changes to input costs could have on their planning. We especially didn’t account for physical design decisions that affect how and where technology can be used or the fact that farmers, broadly speaking, are more likely to be outside and less likely to be on a computer. And this was just in the U.S.

Globally, it’s a different set of problems. On the ground, technology uptake is uneven and intensely local. In rural areas, 21 percent of people in Africa use the internet, compared with 75 percent in the Americas. Access is only one hurdle. A synthesis of 30 studies found that smallholders run into several barriers at once: capital, credit, weak supply chains, and plain doubt about whether a new tool will ever pay off. The technology itself is rarely the bottleneck.

A food system rests on six interdependent foundations—natural resources, production, manufacturing and supply chain, logistics, a strong consumer base, and effective governance and policy. When one gives way, the others feel it. For example, last year Hurricane Melissa destroyed Jamaica’s agricultural base, destroying many of its farms, roads and logistics infrastructure. In the aftermath, the government went to work to figure out the best policy and long-term plan needed, but it raised questions. How do you restart food production and manufacturing? And how do you rebuild the supply chain and logistics while balancing some of the country’s more foundational needs, such as new, more resilient homes, a better electricity infrastructure, and new roads? These questions present an opportunity for AI and innovation to help connect the dots between the six foundations.

A great example can be found in Aquaconnect, a startup my company SecondMuse worked with in 2019, when they joined our Seafood Innovation Project in Indonesia. We supported them as they explored bringing to Southeast Asia what it had built for shrimp farmers back home in India. Most of the shrimp eaten in India are not caught at sea but raised in farm ponds, a livelihood that supports whole coastal communities. The farmers who run those ponds carry real expertise, much of it learned by hand and kept in notebooks. When pond conditions slip, yields fall and the runoff can harm nearby waters. The farmers were not short on knowledge or effort. They were short on sight: a way to see what was happening in the water before it cost them a harvest.

Aquaconnect set out to close that gap by building on what farmers already knew. The company pairs local, on-the-pond expertise with AI and satellite remote sensing, using geospatial data and deep learning models to read a pond’s condition and stage remotely, without a site visit. The technology widens what the farmer can see and act on. Aquaconnect has grown from roughly 3,000 farmers when we first met them in 2019 to more than 90,000 aquaculture farmers across six Indian states today.

It’s here that AI proves its worth, not by doing the work, but by showing the worker the whole field and helping to close the trust-and-risk gap. It offers a bird’s-eye view across foundations, connecting a decision in one part of the system to its consequences in another.

AI and prediction technology lets us ask sharper questions of messy data. This was the power of Artemis when it was acquired by Iunu. Iunu wrapped Artemis’s technology into a Machine vision product that helped growers make stronger, more insight-driven decisions.

So how can we use AI to build a better future in agriculture? AI is not a substitute for engaging trusted local institutions and local growers. They are the key to providing the right mix of meaningful data. Often, farms have outdated legacy software. Be willing to do the hard work of collecting and cleaning up the data before introducing AI. It becomes the difference between building something truly useful and sustainable versus not.

In addition, don’t forget the humans behind the work and the expertise they’ve cultivated over generations. This is the step that enables u to bring in insights that may be obvious to a 30-year veteran farmer who is irreplaceable when they retire.

This idea builds on years of groundwork. In 2019, The Rockefeller Foundation launched the Food System Vision Prize, inviting teams from around the world to propose transformational visions for the year 2050. These were visions that would enable local communities to describe, and ultimately attain, a regenerative, equitable, and nourishing food future. The Foundation distributed US$2 million in prizes to 10 winning teams, whose stories are featured in a series of documentary shorts. The Prize proved that communities everywhere, given the right framework, could imagine their own food futures with rigor and ambition.

We are working together on the next step in enabling ambitious ideas for future food systems. It is a platform SecondMuse is building, supported through a grant from The Rockefeller Foundation. It takes a proven food-system visioning methodology and puts it directly in the hands of communities, so they can build hope-filled visions of their own food future without needing outside facilitators or institutional backing. It is the thesis in working form: communities author their own visions; the structure helps them see the whole system rather than one slice; and it adapts to local context by design.

Aquaconnect works because it did not ask farmers to abandon what generations had taught them. It read their notebooks, added satellites and algorithms, and handed the result back to the same people who had been managing those ponds all along. Iunu did the same thing from a different angle, wrapping machine vision around what Artemis had already built, so growers could see patterns in their own fields they’d been too close to notice.

Do that across a whole food system and the picture changes. The grower sees not just the field but the weather bearing down on it and the market waiting past it. The founder fighting food waste sees whether the real problem is spoilage or a selling radius drawn too tight. The advisor sees which pond’s trouble is about to become the problem of the district. None of them stops relying on what they know. Each of them can finally see past it. That is the food system worth building with AI. Not one run by machines, but one where the people already inside it are no longer working in the dark.

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 Kat Kelley, Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | Putting Farmers First in the Age of AI appeared first on Food Tank.

Food accounts for a third of humanity’s greenhouse emissions. And sure enough, the most carbon-gushing foods are also the ones that tend to be the worst for our health, such as meats and dairy. So what if we tried taxing that carbon, to nudge people toward higher-plant diets that are healthier for people and planet alike?

A new study in Nature Food explores how these food emissions taxes could be applied to countries around the world with different levels of wealth and greenhouse emissions. It shows how they could be tweaked to manage the delicate interplay between food prices, poverty, hunger, and health—while still cutting billions of tons of annual emissions.

Economists have estimated that growing populations and increasing meat consumption worldwide could cause the environmental footprint of our food—including greenhouse emissions—to balloon by 50 to 90 percent by 2050. This has spurred recommendations that humanity shift its diet, toward fewer animals and more plants.

Emissions taxes paid by consumers buying foods are one way to encourage a shift away from meats, dairy, eggs, and sugars. But questions remain about how those taxes can be applied fairly to countries around the world—given that wealthier nations have more ability to pay them, and that many of these same nations also contributed disproportionately to rising greenhouse gases in the first place.

In the new study, researchers used economic, trade, and public health models to predict how well different types of taxes would curb greenhouse emissions—and also, how they would impact food prices and human health around the world.

 

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

 

They compared two tax scenarios. In one, emissions are priced the same worldwide, at a constant cost of USD$ 185 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent (tCO2eq). In this system, wealthy countries would still pay more taxes, because their food systems emit more tons of CO2. In the other system, the cost-per-ton of emissions is scaled up or down, based on each country’s wealth—thereby further increasing the taxes paid by consumers in wealthy countries (to as much as $969 per tCO2eq), while reducing those paid by lower-wealth countries (to as little as $21 per tCO2eq). The researchers compared these two scenarios both with and without a second provision, in which governments would also subsidize fruits and vegetables to further lower the prices that consumers pay for these low-carbon foods.

Their results suggest that taxes based on a fixed-price-per-ton would reduce food-related emissions most sharply—by up to 18.7 percent, or about 2.6 billion tCO2eq worldwide each year. But such taxes would likely worsen overall health in some countries such as India, Bangladesh, and Vietnam—even after accounting for reductions in heart disease and diabetes—because they might make food less affordable to some people, compromising nutrition.

The authors found that adjusting the price-per-ton of emissions based on national wealth would lessen this problem. And subsidizing the cost of fruits and vegetables would further decrease it. Together these two tweaks slightly reduced the emissions that were prevented—but they were still predicted to cut worldwide food emissions by 17 percent, or about 2.3 billion tCO2eq per year.

The authors recommended that these efforts to reduce the negative impacts on the poor could be further explored, with detailed studies of poverty in individual countries, and potentially by excluding some critical sustenance foods such as fish or rice from the taxes in some countries.

Bouyssou, et al. “Food emissions taxes can deliver health and environmental benefits with limited leakage.” Nature Food, 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

“We believe that we can, in fact, protect the planet” while serving growing demand, CEO Bob Frenzel said. The spending plan includes 9.2 GW of renewables and 2.3 GW of storage.

ZERO WASTE FOR CLIMATE: MOVE UPSTREAM, CUT EMISSIONS, DELIVER JUSTICE
Zero waste is on the climate agenda. Now we need to get it right.

At COP31 in Antalya, Türkiye, GAIA will champion zero waste as a practical climate solution that cuts emissions at the source, protects communities, and advances a just transition. From preventing waste and reducing methane and black carbon to financing community-led solutions, we know what works. Now governments and financiers must turn ambition into action.

What is COP31?

COP31 is the 31st UN Climate Change Conference (the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties), held at the Antalya Expo Center in Antalya, Türkiye, from 9 to 20 November 2026. Governments meet to negotiate the next steps in global climate action, and Türkiye’s COP31 Presidency has placed zero waste among its priorities. GAIA members from Africa, Asia Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe, and the US and Canada will be in Antalya and online to make sure zero waste delivers real emission cuts, and that incineration stays out of climate solutions.

At COP31, we call on:

• Policymakers to prioritize waste prevention, reuse, source separation, and organics management in climate policies, while keeping incineration and other polluting technologies out of zero waste solutions.
• Financiers to direct accessible climate finance towards proven, locally led zero waste systems that cut emissions, strengthen communities, and avoid polluting infrastructure.
• Governments and decision-makers to cut waste methane and black carbon at the source, reduce plastic production and fossil fuel dependence, and protect waste pickers and workers through a just transition.

Climate action must move upstream. The solutions already exist. What we need now is the political will and financing to scale them.

GAIA AT COP31

A global network of climate and zero waste advocates bringing community-led solutions, evidence, and frontline voices to the climate conversation.

At COP31, we will work to ensure zero waste delivers real climate action and environmental justice through events, engagement with policymakers and allies, and traditional and digital media.

Meet the GAIA Experts at COP 31 Check out and Join GAIA COP31 Events Join the GAIA@COP31 Broadcast Channel WHY ZERO WASTE MATTERS AT COP31

For years, communities around the world have demonstrated how zero waste solutions can cut emissions, protect public health, create local livelihoods, and strengthen resilience. Yet these solutions have too often been overlooked in global climate policy and financing.

COP31 presents an important opportunity to change that.

Türkiye’s COP31 Presidency has elevated zero waste and circular economy planning among its priorities, creating momentum to advance waste prevention, reduce waste methane, and transform how materials are produced, used, and recovered.

The Presidency’s Action Agenda includes two targets:

• Reduce the projected growth in global waste generation by 50% by 2035.
• Increase the global circular material use rate in production and manufacturing to at least 15% by 2035.

These ambitions create an opportunity to advance zero waste as a core climate solution. But targets alone are not enough. Their success will depend on what counts as zero waste, how progress is measured, which solutions receive investment, and whose voices shape implementation.

The challenge is to ensure that zero waste means preventing waste and cutting emissions at their source—not simply managing growing volumes of waste through conventional disposal technologies.

COP31 must move from managing the consequences of a wasteful economy to transforming the systems that create waste.

WHAT WE’RE CALLING FOR

At COP31, GAIA calls on governments, financiers, and other decision-makers to turn zero waste commitments into practical, equitable, and measurable climate action.

1. Make zero waste a core climate solution

Prioritize waste prevention, reuse, repair, source separation, recycling, and composting. Embed these strategies in climate and waste policies, and keep incineration and other polluting end-of-pipe technologies out of zero waste and climate finance.

2. Cut methane and black carbon at the source

Act on super pollutants to deliver rapid climate benefits. Prevent food waste, separate organic waste at source, and expand effective organics management to keep organics out of landfills. Prioritize prevention and diversion over approaches that simply manage emissions after they are created.

3. Finance solutions that work

Direct predictable, accessible climate finance towards proven zero waste systems, organics management, reuse, and locally led implementation. Support cities, communities, waste pickers, and local organizations instead of locking public resources into expensive, polluting infrastructure.

4. Put environmental justice and a just transition at the center

Recognize waste pickers and waste workers as essential climate actors. Protect livelihoods, strengthen social protection, ensure decent work, and give workers and affected communities a meaningful role in the policies, investments, and systems that shape their lives.

5. Connect zero waste to the wider climate transition

Reduce plastic production and dependence on fossil fuels through prevention and reuse. Reduce pressure on natural resources and transition minerals by extending product lifetimes, repairing goods, and keeping materials in circulation.

6. Scale community-led solutions beyond COP31

Show what works in practice. Build on successful zero waste models, Zero Waste Districts, and GAIA member experiences to strengthen commitments, mobilize resources, and support implementation long after the climate summit ends.

Zero waste is practical climate action—but only when it tackles waste at source and is rooted in justice.

GAIA@COP31 LATEST RESOURCES

Previous Next Building Community Resilience and Green Jobs through Organic Waste: The Case of Bandung, Indonesia

The Neglasari pilot project in Bandung, Indonesia demonstrates that community-based organic waste management can be financially feasible when the government finances the public-service functions that markets do not pay for, particularly land, source-separated organics collection, education, and waste treatment. This model is financially attractive as it generates public goods such as recoverable organic products, local livelihoods, and avoided landfill costs. 

Building Community Resilience and Green Jobs through Organic Waste: The Case of Bandung, Indonesia

Building Community Resilience and Green Jobs through Organic Waste: The Case of Durban, South Africa

The Durban Zero Waste Project pilot shows that decentralized organic waste management can deliver powerful environmental and economic outcomes when regarded as a municipal public service rather than a commercial enterprise. The model reduces costs already borne by the municipality through avoided landfill disposal, avoided transport, avoided compost purchases, and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Building Community Resilience and Green Jobs through Organic Waste: The Case of Durban, South Africa 

Methane Emissions Mitigation by Waste Pickers: The Case of Valparaíso

The National Waste Pickers Movement of Chile (ANARCH) is taking foundational steps to find solutions for organic waste through management models led by waste pickers. Among these is a pilot project in the city of Valparaíso, in collaboration with its local affiliate, the El Molle Workers’ Cooperative. The project aims to mitigate methane emissions from the waste sector through the separate collection and composting of organic waste from the El Cardonal wholesale market, the resulting reduction in the amount of waste sent to landfills, and the creation of new economic opportunities for waste pickers.

(EN) Methane Emissions Mitigation by Waste Pickers: The Case of Valparaíso

(SP) Mitigación de emisiones de metano a cargo de recicladores de base: el caso de Valparaíso

Managing Organics With Waste Pickers: A Briefing for Policymakers

The report, co-presented by the International Alliance of Waste Pickers and supported by the Climate & Clean Air Coalition, outlines a series of recommendations for governments, including recognizing waste pickers as formal service providers, ensuring fair compensation, investing in decentralized waste infrastructure, and incorporating gender-responsive policies. It also emphasizes the importance of sustained public funding, noting that while composting and other organic waste outputs can generate some income, they are not sufficient on their own to support livelihoods at scale.

(EN) Managing Organics With Waste Pickers: A Briefing for Policymakers

(ES) Gestión de residuos orgánicos con recicladores de base: informe para responsables políticos (coming soon)

(Infographics) Waste Pickers: Cutting Methane Emissions through Organic Waste Management

Separation at Source (S@S): 12 Real-World Zero Waste Practices That Work

Establishing waste separation at source (S@S) is the foundation of zero waste systems. It means separating different types of waste—such as organic, recyclable, and residual materials—at the point where waste is generated, keeping materials clean and preventing contamination. This publication presents 12 diverse successful cases from five regions: Africa (Tanzania), Asia (India, The Philippines), Europe (Greece, Slovenia, Italy), North America (USA), and Latin America (Costa Rica). The communities featured range in scale, from Tilos Island with a permanent population of 700 residents, to megacities such as Bengaluru, where the zero waste systems reach approximately 2 million people. Across these jurisdictions, source separation rates vary according to local mandates and frameworks, ranging from 30-33% organic waste diversion in Portland to outstanding rates of 80- 95% in places such as Varkala, San Fernando, and Dar es Salaam, and reaching 100% in Tilos Island.

(EN) Separation at Source (S@S): 12 Real-World Zero Waste Practices That Work

(SP) Separación en origen: 12 prácticas reales basura cero que funcionan

Financing Zero Waste: Practical Guidance for Immediate Action by Local and National Governments

Zero waste is emerging as one of the most powerful, immediate climate actions available to governments. This publication provides practical, context‑specific guidance to help local and national governments finance and sustain zero waste systems that cut methane, improve public health, strengthen livelihoods, and build fiscal resilience.

(EN) Financing Zero Waste: Practical Guidance for Immediate Action by Local and National Governments

(ID) Pembiayaan Zero Waste: Panduan Praktis untuk Tindakan Segera oleh Pemerintah Daerah dan Nasional (Coming soon)

(SP) Financiando Basura Cero: Guía práctica para la acción inmediata de gobiernos locales y nacionales

Financing Zero Waste: A High-Level Synthesis Report

This high‑level synthesis distills the core insights from Financing Zero Waste: Practical Guidance for Immediate Action by Local and National Governments, showing how governments can finance zero waste systems by aligning local implementation with national enabling conditions—and by recognizing the broader public value that zero waste generates across climate, health, livelihoods, and resilience.

(EN) Financing Zero Waste: A High-Level Synthesis Report

(ID) Pembiayaan Nol Sampah (Zero Waste): Laporan Sintesis Tingkat Tinggi (Coming soon)

(SP) Financiando Basura Cero: Informe de síntesis de alto nivel

Previous Next

/

GAIA@COP31 REGIONAL LENS

Previous Next AFRICA

GAIA Africa’s Priorities at COP31

At COP31, GAIA Africa will spotlight four key priorities: integrating food loss and waste management into Africa’s climate commitments, recognizing waste pickers as essential climate actors, challenging waste-to-energy incineration, and scaling up proven organic waste diversion models across African cities.

Integrating Food Loss and Waste into Africa’s NDCs: We will advocate for stronger food loss and waste commitments in African Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), positioning organic waste management as a key strategy for reducing methane emissions. 

Recognizing Waste Pickers as Climate Actors: We will champion waste pickers as essential contributors to climate action, calling for their meaningful inclusion in waste management and climate policies. We will highlight the importance of strengthening waste picker movements, protecting livelihoods, and scaling up waste picker integration across African countries.

Challenging Waste-to-Energy Incineration: We will challenge the promotion of waste-to-energy incineration as a solution to Africa’s waste management challenges. Drawing on an analysis of 15 waste-to-energy incineration projects and proposals across 11 African countries.

Scaling Up Organic Waste Diversion Across African Cities: Through insights from the Methane Reduction in Nigeria (MAMRN) Project, we will showcase organic waste diversion efforts in Lagos, Abuja, Jos, and Benin City. We will share data, practical lessons, and replication resources to help more African cities establish and scale their own waste diversion programmes.

[Photo Credit: Green Knowledge Foundation, GKF]

ASIA PACIFIC

At COP31, Asia Pacific demands that climate financiers and national governments stop funding debt-heavy, ineffective incineration technologies, like Waste-to-Energy (WtE), and instead redirect public finance toward upstream, community-led zero waste systems. With organics making up over half of the region’s municipal waste, governments must embed separate collection and decentralized composting into updated NDCs to rapidly cut methane, scale reuse models to reduce  fossil-fuel packaging at the source, and ensure a just transition that legally protects and funds informal waste workers and waste pickers. 

LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN US & CANADA

At COP31, the GAIA U.S. & Canada region advocates for tangible methane action and urges governments to consider real solutions to our growing waste problem, such as community-led composting. Our members’ campaigns against toxic waste facilities not only work to close incinerators and stop landfill expansions, but also to implement change at the community level and through policy. As a region, our core priorities include:

Reducing methane emissions through actionable zero waste interventions. Much of the “waste” we burn or bury can be recovered — organics that can be composted and materials that can be recycled. 

Mitigating the damage that toxic waste management infrastructure creates in overburdened communities. We empower our members to lead the change in their communities.

Advocating against waste colonialism and ensuring that waste from the Global North is not exported to vulnerable countries in the Global South.

EUROPE

At COP31, Zero Waste Europe will bring two lessons from Europe’s experience: how to manage leftover mixed waste in the most climate-friendly way, and why waste incineration must not be exported to the rest of the world as a climate solution.

Managing residual waste the climate-friendly way: While cities work to prevent and separate more of their waste, some mixed residual waste still needs to be managed along the way. We will make the case for Material Recovery and Biological Treatment (MRBT) as the most climate-friendly option for managing it. MRBT recovers the remaining recyclables, such as metals, plastics and paper, and biologically stabilizes the organic fraction before landfilling, sharply cutting methane emissions. It is cost-effective, needing a fraction of the investment of an incinerator per tonne of capacity, and easily scalable: modular plants can be up and running in around two years, work well at small scale, and adapt as separate collection improves, instead of locking cities into burning waste for decades.

Making the economic case for methane reduction: Food waste prevention, separate bio-waste collection and effective bio-waste management are essential to reducing methane emissions. We will highlight the climate and economic benefits of these measures, alongside solutions such as MRBT that recover valuable materials and reduce methane emissions from residual waste. We will showcase which economic and fiscal tools governments can use to make food waste prevention and bio-waste management more financially attractive than disposal. Drawing on our local methane work, we will highlight practical approaches that can deliver emissions reductions while making better use of resources and public investment. 

Exposing false solutions: waste incineration: Waste incineration, often marketed as “waste-to-energy”, is a false climate solution. Europe is a clear warning: emissions from waste incineration have roughly doubled since 1990, while the EU’s overall emissions have fallen. Every new plant locks in fossil emissions, mostly from burning plastics, for decades. We will share how Europe is starting to tackle the problem, including the move to bring municipal waste incineration into the EU Emissions Trading System, and what the alternatives look like in practice: waste prevention, reuse, separate collection, and MRBT for what is left.

Building support for Extended Producer Responsibility for Food Products (ERPFP): COP31 will also be an opportunity to test the ground for ERPFP, build interest and alignment among potential partners, and map opportunities to advance producer responsibility as a way to support food waste prevention and more sustainable food systems.

Previous Next COP31 and Zero Waste: Frequently Asked Questions When and where is COP31?

COP31, the 31st UN Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC), takes place from 9 to 20 November 2026 at the Antalya Expo Center in Antalya, Türkiye, under Türkiye’s COP31 Presidency.

Why does zero waste matter for the climate?

Waste is a major source of methane and black carbon, two short-lived super pollutants. Waste prevention, reuse, source separation and organics management cut these emissions at the source, create local jobs and protect communities, without locking cities into incinerators.

What is GAIA calling for at COP31?

GAIA calls on governments, financiers and decision-makers to make zero waste a core climate solution, cut methane and black carbon at the source, finance solutions that work, put environmental justice and a just transition for waste pickers at the center, connect zero waste to the wider climate agenda, and scale community-led solutions beyond COP31, while keeping incineration out of zero waste and climate finance.

What are the COP31 Presidency’s waste targets?

The COP31 Presidency’s Action Agenda sets two targets for 2035: reducing the projected growth in global waste generation by 50%, and increasing the global circular material use rate to at least 15%. GAIA argues that their success depends on how zero waste is defined and measured.

Is waste incineration a climate solution?

No. Waste-to-energy incinerators emit more greenhouse gases per unit of electricity than coal, lock cities into long contracts that depend on a steady supply of waste, and harm nearby communities and waste pickers. GAIA’s statement Incinerators Out of COP31 explains why climate finance should fund zero waste instead.

GAIA@COP31 NEWS & UPDATES

Follow GAIA’s COP31 engagement through our latest:

• MEDIA ADVISORIES AND PRESS RELEASES
• COMMENTARIES AND BLOGS
• EVENTS AND PRESS CONFERENCES
• NEWS COVERAGE
• PHOTOS AND VIDEOS FROM COP31

From community-led solutions to global climate policy, GAIA will share the stories, evidence, and voices demonstrating why zero waste is essential to climate action.

Zero waste is practical climate action—when it tackles waste at source and is rooted in justice.

The post GAIA at COP31: Zero Waste for Climate first appeared on GAIA.