News Feeds

My family has feared water, depended on it, and moved uphill from it for four generations. The watching was never the point. What we did with what we saw was the point.

With the tenacity of salmon swimming home, Un-dam the Klamath is liberating their river before our eyes.

Solar recycling hopeful says it is "losing an insane amount of money" waiting for the federal government to restart its mysteriously suspended pilot program.

The post Solar recycler losing “insane amount of money” and about to shed staff as PV pilot program remains suspended appeared first on Renew Economy.

Gas drilling and lower-volume fracking near the North York Moors National Park should not go-ahead because of flaws in the official environmental assessment, a consultation has revealed.

Photo: DrillOrDrop

The Environment Agency (EA) has said it is minded to grant an environmental permit to Europa Oil & Gas for the proposal at Burniston, near Scarborough.

But participants in a final public consultation urged the EA to withdraw its draft decision. They said the EA should refuse or defer the permit until issues had been fully addressed through “robust, site-specific and independently verifiable evidence”.

The EA’s draft decision document, published on 3 August 2026, has been criticised for containing incorrect, inconsistent, incomplete and missing information, a DrillOrDrop analysis has found.

There are also concerns that it relies excessively on information that would be supplied after approval and that permit conditions were being proposed to overcome a lack of information about environmental risk.

“Questions unanswered”

Burniston Parish Council has asked the EA to reconsider a dozen issues and urged it to organise a village public meeting to listen to local concerns, before making a final decision.

The council’s chair, Richard Parsons, said in a consultation response:

“Burniston Parish Council do not consider that the current draft decision provides sufficient reassurance that the proposed activities can be carried out without unacceptable risks to groundwater, the wider water environment, air quality, local communities and the sensitive environment surrounding the site”.

Cllr Parsons added:

“Many of the questions still have not been answered, leaving too many doubts and a lack of any factual evidence that proves the environmental safety of this community.”

He said:

“The draft decision has not yet demonstrated that this high threshold has been met. Crucial information, that should clarify many of the questions that have remained unanswered by the applicant, remains unavailable, despite this project having already been in the public domain for well over two years.”

The EA has a responsibility “to be satisfied that the proposed activities can be carried out without causing an unacceptable risk to people or the environment”, Cllr Parsons said.

He said:

“If the Environment Agency cannot presently determine, from the available evidence, whether groundwater, air quality and other environmental receptors will be adequately protected, then the legal and technical basis for granting the permit should be reconsidered”.

Planning permission for the Burniston proposal was refused by North Yorkshire Council earlier this year. Europa has said it is considering an appeal. The environmental permit is separate from the planning process.

Incorrect and unclear information

Europa intends to use a lower-volume form of fracking to release gas at Burniston from the primary target, the Carboniferous sandstones. The company has said it plans four fracking treatments, each pumping 300m3-500m3 of fluid into the reservoir at pressures high enough to fracture rocks.

The EA described this operation as a proppant squeeze or reservoir stimulation and referred in the draft decision to “squeezing a small volume of oil-based fluid” into the formation (p4, Reservoir Stimulation).

We asked the EA for confirmation that oil-based fluid would be used in the proppant squeeze and what the regulator meant by “small”.

The EA told us

“The reference to the use of an oil-based fluid is a typographical error.

“No oil-based muds or fluids are proposed to be used at Burniston (Cloughton-2), and this will be corrected in the final version of the decision document.

“As no oil-based fluid is proposed, questions relating to the proportion of oil-based fluid injected are not applicable. The correction does not alter the assessment of the proposed operation.”

We asked for clarification about whether the final document would refer to a “small volume” of any fluid used in the proppant squeeze. If that wasn’t the case, we asked again how the EA defined “small”.

The EA replied:

“We can confirm that the final decision document will not refer to a “small volume” of any fluid used in the proppant squeeze. The reference to oil-based fluid was included in error and will be removed from the final decision document.”

At the time of writing, the EA has not corrected the references in the draft decision document, which remains open for consultation until 23 September 2026.

The draft permit also referred incorrectly to plans to “stimulate oil production”. The Burniston proposal is for gas appraisal, not production.

No 3D seismic survey

The EA acknowledged in its draft decision document that Europa had not yet carried out a 3D seismic survey around the proposed wellsite.

It commented that this was “unusual”. But it said 2D surveys covering the site and 3D surveys to the south and west provided “sufficient information to enable a decision to be reached”.

This has concerned some consultation participants.

Burniston Parish Council said:

“the lack of any such data means that no one knows, with any certainty the construction of the land below us and the effect hydraulic fracturing will have. Europa Oil and Gas Ltd have not provided the data and appear to expect the Environment Agency to make crucial decisions on the environmental impact of the process without providing the evidence.

“As there is no current seismological data in this application, the effect cannot be predicted. No-one knows if the land at the site and surrounding it, subject to the environment licence application, is suitable nor what harm may be caused.”

One consultation participant said:

“Because the applicant has failed to provide a robust seismic risk assessment that rules out threats to nearby residential structures, it is unsafe to grant this permit.”

One participant said:

“I ask the EA to explain how it has established that the geological structure is sufficiently understood to permit a high-pressure proppant squeeze.”

The EA has said no proppant squeeze would be authorized in the secondary targets, the Kirkham Abbey and Brotherton Limestone, because insufficient information had been provided by Europa.

But one participant asked:

“If the geological information was insufficient to permit stimulation of the secondary formations, I ask the EA to explain why it considers the geological and geo-mechanical information sufficient to establish safe fracture containment within the primary Carboniferous sandstone targets.”

Europa told DrillOrDrop it was waiting to see whether it got planning permission through an appeal before arranging the 3D seismic survey. The company also confirmed that no investor was in place to pay for the 3D survey. Europa announced nearly a year ago it was seeking investment of about £800,000 to fund the 3D survey.

The company also said the EA had set a pre-operational measure in the permit (8) which requires the verification of local fractures and faults through the drilling process.

Another consultation participant recommended the EA delay the permit decision until a hydraulic fracture plan (HFP) was published for Burniston. This is required before any form of fracking is carried out onshore and aims to predict and mitigate any induced seismic activity.

The participant told the EA:

“I urge you to insist on seeing the Hydraulic Fracture Plan before making a final decision on this application and to carefully examine the fundamental information it contains to determine its environmental acceptability.”

Chris Garforth, chair of the Frack Free Coastal Communities steering group, said:

“We are concerned that the EA is prepared to issue the Environmental Permit without having seen evidence of faults / geological structures around the well bore and fracking sites. It seems crazy to us that the EA can tell them it’s fine to go ahead and drill, then collect the data from the drilling which will show whether or not it is safe to frack.

“Reading the decision document and the draft permit, it is clear that the EA is prepared to issue the permit and for Europa to carry out the first phase of the development (drill the well) before Europa draw up a plan for monitoring seismicity, or provide an updated Gas Waste Management Plan (Schedule S1.3B in the draft permit) – both of which are major concerns for the local community and on which they sought assurances in the EA’s consultation last year on the Environmental Permit application.

“The EA even admit that the absence of 3D data is ‘unusual’ but that has not stopped them from saying it’s safe to go ahead and drill.

“The timescales indicated in the Schedule also suggest that there could be several months delay between (a) drilling and (b) fracking and testing, giving the lie to the bland schedule of phases set out in the planning application.”

See more details on the HFP at the end of this article.

Behind closed doors

Professor Garforth said his group was also concerned about lack of transparency on the seismic survey:

“By the time Europa do carry out the seismic survey, the data/data analysis will not be in the public domain nor subject to public scrutiny.

“They will only do the survey if they get planning permission (i.e. after a successful appeal), by which time the EA is already likely to have granted them an Environmental Permit.

“The NSTA, which will consider the Hydraulic Fracture Plan, does its work behind closed doors without the public consultation and scrutiny required of planning authorities and the EA.”

Burniston Parish Council has also raised concerns about openness.

It said:

“The reasoning, evidence and uncertainties must be transparent.”

It said the EA should:

• Make evidence supporting the draft decision publicly available
• Clearly identify significant assumptions
• Explicitly acknowledge uncertainties
• Publish responses to substantive objections
• Make monitoring data accessible to the public
• Consult the public on any future variation of the permit

Several substantial responses to the public consultation are not accessible to the public because they were sent as attachments and not published online.

Uncertainty

One consultant participant said:

“[the] Draft decision seems premature as underlying uncertainties have yet to be resolved”.

Burniston Parish Council said the permit should “not depend excessively on information to be supplied after approval” (see also 3D seismic survey and HFP).

The council asked the EA to identify every matter that remains to be addressed after the permit is granted and explain why that information was not required before the draft decision was made.

It said the EA should not rely on modelling, predictions and monitoring by or interpreted by the operator. The council called for the publication of independent verification and results.

The council said:

“The site is located in a sensitive coastal area, close to residential communities and important environmental and landscape assets. In such circumstances, uncertainty should not be treated as evidence that no risk exists.

“Where there are credible uncertainties concerning groundwater, geological pathways, well integrity, emissions, waste management and the consequences of the proposed stimulation operation, the Environment Agency should apply a genuinely precautionary approach.”

Another consultation participant raised Europa’s estimate that 50%-70% of fracture fluid would remain in the rock formation. The participant asked:

“how has the EA demonstrated that retained fluid cannot migrate through natural fractures, previously unidentified faults or artificially created fractures into other formations or groundwater-bearing strata?”

Inconsistency

One consultation participant complained about inconsistent figures for the height of the permitted fractures.

In the draft decision document, the EA said the fractures would range from 65m-80m vertically.

But elsewhere in the document, the EA said the proppant squeeze was designed to extend 85m above and below perforations in the wellbore.

Specific concerns

Burniston Partish Council identified other concerns including:

Groundwater pollution risk: The EA must explain clearly how it had resolved its earlier objection because of an unacceptable risk of groundwater pollution. It must also demonstrate how it was satisfied that the well would provide adequate protection through the operational life and after abandonment.

Uncertainty over fracking: The EA should demonstrate that it had adequately assessed the likely extent and orientation of induced fractures and issues including the possibility of induced seismicity and fractures interacted with natural faults.

Lack of baseline data: Before any work began, the EA should ensure that robust, independent and publicly-available baseline monitoring was undertaken on surface and groundwater, methane, air quality, naturally-occurring geological contaminates.

Methane emissions: The EA should not assume emissions will be negligible because the operation is described as temporary.

Flaring waste gas: Flaring proposals during testing and production failed “to meet strict modern interpretations of minimising environmental waste”. The parish council said:

“The public should be able to see the evidence on which the Environment Agency has concluded that the proposed controls are sufficient.”

Waste management: The council said no waste management plan should rely on assumptions that have not been adequately tested against actual geological and operation conditions at the site.

Groundwater monitoring arrangements: The council said these had been insufficient defined so “the public is being consulted on a permit without being able to assess whether the monitoring system will be capable of detecting pollution promptly.”

More on HFP and 3D licence commitments

Europa told DrillOrDrop that local faults and fractures would be confirmed through the HFP to “verify that there are no material changes to the conceptual model before any proppant squeeze operations are authorised”.

The company added:

“A 3D seismic survey is required under the Hydraulic Fracture Plan and will be carried out before any proppant squeeze operation is conducted, ahead of that operation and assuming planning and other permissions are granted.”

DrillOrDrop has established that an HFP does not require a 3D seismic survey. The EA told us:

“There is no formal requirement in legislation or guidance for a 3D seismic survey to accompany a Hydraulic Fracture Plan.

“A 3D seismic survey is typically used to characterise geological structures at depth and can form part of the wider evidence base used to support the assessment of the subsurface. “However, while the Hydraulic Fracture Plan requires sufficient information to demonstrate the geological setting, faulting, and fracture behaviour at depth, it does not prescribe how this information must be obtained. As such, the use of a 3D seismic survey may support the Plan, but it is not a specific statutory or regulatory requirement.”

The Burniston 3D survey is a work commitment in Europa’s licence agreement for PEDL343 with the NSTA.

The NSTA told us operators could choose when to carry out licence commitments. It also said:

“It is important to note that commitments can be varied depending on the circumstances of the individual licence/field.”

In 2018, a legal challenge on licence commitments ruled that PEDLs were private contractual licence and that clauses or conditions could be changed if the parties agreed. In the Burniston case, the condition of a 3D survey could be removed if Europa and the NSTA agreed.

Stories for an emerging food system Channel Comment brendan 16th September 2026 Teaser Media

For renters watching rooftop solar spread across the neighbourhood, Australia’s energy transition can feel frustratingly distant. The case for legalising plug-in solar and batteries is now clear.

The post The case for plug-in solar and batteries has never been clearer – and renters deserve it appeared first on Renew Economy.

Since 2020, Australia's subsidies for fossil fuels have totalled almost six times the amount given in aid to the Pacific, Tuvalu's climate and environment minister says.

The post Pacific aid “doesn’t really matter” next to Australia’s fossil fuel subsidies, Tuvalu climate minister says appeared first on Renew Economy.

One minute, Victoria's new energy minister was promising industry stakeholders that Labor will hold the line on renewables. The next minute, her boss was saying the exact opposite.

The post Labor loses its spine on renewables as premier throws new energy minister, and transition, under the bus appeared first on Renew Economy.

• Car insurance and gas are both up over 50 percent since 2019, making the annual cost of owning a car nearly $6,000 a year. And that’s on top of payments, which now average $765 a month for new cars and $542 for used. (CNBC)
• Cities should be setting aside money for infrastructure maintenance. (Governing)
• The Federal Transit Administration awarded $233 million in grants for station accessibility (Transportation Today), including $20 million for Green Line station upgrades in Cleveland (Axios).
• New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani unveiled a new Vision Zero plan that includes lowering speed limits near schools, infrastructure improvements at intersections, speed-limiting devices on city-owned vehicles and potentially higher tolls for oversize vehicles. (NY Times)
• New Jersey is considering building its first true bus rapid transit line. (NJ.com)
• Boston bike advocates are underwhelmed by Mayor Michelle Wu’s track record on bike safety projects. (WCVB)
• Phoenix is starting an on-demand van service and expanding RAPID bus service. (KJZZ)
• Raleigh churches are considering turning their usually empty parking lots into affordable housing. (WUNC)
• Somebody was caught on video in Seattle driving at freeway speeds along a walking and biking trail parallel to I-90. (Seattle Bike Blog)
• Vancouver reopened Granville Street to cars after the World Cup ended, but the successful experiment could lead to pedestrianizing it permanently. (CBC)
• Biking and walking are booming in Limerick. (Independent)

First battery units arrive at what will be the biggest storage facility in Australia's most advanced renewable grid with a share of 75 per cent wind and solar.

The post First battery modules arrive at biggest storage project to date in Australia’s most renewable grid appeared first on Renew Economy.

Individual states may choose their own path on reliability and market design details as consultation on regulatory reforms continue, says one energy expert.

The post “A lot of unknowns:” Why states may go their own way in “balkanisation” of Australia’s main grid appeared first on Renew Economy.

Australia will miss its 2030 climate targets unless more renewable energy projects move beyond the planning phase and start getting built.

The post Enough wind and solar in pipeline, but not enough actually being built to meet 2030 target, scorecard finds appeared first on Renew Economy.

The U.S. Forest Service is rewriting its longstanding Travel Management Rule, which determines where off-road vehicles (ORVs) can travel across national forests and grasslands. This is the tool that land managers use to designate areas and trails for motorized use while also setting aside areas for human-powered recreation, wildlife habitat, and preservation of cultural sites.

The Trump administration wants to change—for the worse—how Utahns and other visitors experience national forests throughout the state, from the Wasatch Front to the redrock country outside of Escalante, Kanab, and Moab. The proposal places a heavy thumb on the scale to prioritize ORV use at the expense of all other uses and values, including the protection of wildlife, cultural sites, healthy streams, and the solitude of wild places. This will not improve access to public lands, but it will make the experience worse for all users, including hikers, bikers, hunters, anglers, and ORV riders.

The Forest Service is accepting public comments through Wednesday, September 23. Please tell the agency to protect national forests by keeping the Travel Management Rule intact!

Elk Ridge, Manti-La Sal National Forest. © Scott T. Smith

 Among other things, the Forest Service’s proposal would:

• Allow motorized vehicles everywhere on national forests and grasslands except where they are specifically prohibited, flipping longstanding policy.
  
  
• Force every forest or district to reconsider each year whether non-motorized trails, roads, and areas should be open to motorized vehicles.
  
  
• Create new pathways to expand ORV use with less public review.
  
  
• Eliminate the “minimization criteria,” which require the agency to locate motorized areas and trails to minimize damage to wildlife habitat, soils, watersheds, and vegetation and to minimize conflicts between different users.

In Utah, national forest lands help connect Bureau of Land Management landscapes proposed for wilderness designation in America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act. These include the important watersheds of the Manti-La Sal, Dixie, and Fishlake National Forests.

There are already hundreds of thousands of miles of Forest Service roads nationwide, and they’re facing a $9 billion maintenance backlog. Added to that is a $300 million Forest Service trail maintenance backlog and a $29 million recreation backlog. An expanded route system will only exacerbate these problems.

Both the proposed Travel Management Rule change and the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule (see our alert from earlier this week) are part of the administration’s systematic dismantling of the rules and safeguards that keep national forests healthy and safe for the benefit of all. Undoing these rules will bring increased chaos and uncertainty for everyone who uses national forests.

Click here to submit your comments by September 23

The post Tell the Forest Service to Keep the Travel Management Rule appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

by Roger Coryell
September 7, 2026
The Mendocino Voice

[Excerpt:] Dutch Charlie Creek drops over moss-covered rock west of Laytonville, Calif., on Saturday, Jan. 30, 2021. The state has spent more than $1 million since 2012 pulling legacy roads out of the watershed to keep fine sediment off the gravel where coho spawn. (Philip McGarvey/Friends of Dutch Charlie Creek via Bay City News)

MENDOCINO CO., 9/7/26 — Logging on 926 acres in the hills west of Laytonville is stopped under two court orders at once.

…

The fight is over two timber harvest plans the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection approved on July 2 and 3. The agency’s notices list Redwood Timber Company LLC as landowner and Redwood Forest Operating Company LLC as the plan submitter. The larger plan, called Hot Tuna, covers 594 acres. The smaller one, Lincoln Logs, covers 332. Both call for selection logging rather than clearcutting. Court papers also call Hot Tuna by a second name, Lincoln Ridge. 

Friends of Dutch Charlie Creek, which litigates as Friends of Shaahnaa Lhook, sued Cal Fire on July 7, four days after it says the logging began. Its claim under the California Environmental Quality Act is that the plans never assess the sediment they will send into the creek, one of two reliable coho spawning streams left in the upper South Fork Eel, the group says. Coho on the Eel side of the county are listed as threatened under both the state and federal endangered species acts. 

. . .

Dutch Charlie Creek is the same water the state has spent more than a decade and a million dollars trying to repair.

. . .

The group’s press release says the timber harvesting plans include three miles of new road construction, including on steep slopes and near the creek. Its website says “millions” in state money went into road removal in the watershed. The grant record shows at least $1.03 million from the fisheries program. Other state funding sources were not checked. 

Roads shed fine sediment into streams, and fine sediment buries the gravel coho spawn in. The appellate court’s own briefing order in July asked the parties to address whether it is undisputed that logging would add sediment to what the court called an already impacted stream system. Cal Fire’s response to public comment says the Hot Tuna plan itself recognizes that the waters downstream are listed as impaired for sediment and temperature. 

. . .

To read the complete article, visit The Mendocino Voice:
Judge halts logging above Dutch Charlie Creek with most of it already done

Del 3 al 5 de septiembre, miembros de GAIA y de Break Free From Plastic en América Latina se reunieron en Santiago para compartir experiencias, celebrar logros y construir prioridades estratégicas para seguir fortaleciendo el movimiento. El encuentro recibió a 44 organizaciones de 14 países de la región. 

Septiembre, 2026 – El objetivo central del encuentro fue fortalecer la articulación regional, celebrar los aprendizajes colectivos y construir prioridades estratégicas compartidas para orientar el trabajo conjunto de los próximos años por la justicia ambiental y basura cero. 

En la primera parte de la jornada, se pensó colectivamente en la realidad política, social y ambiental de los distintos países. Se coordinaron espacios de conversación que trataron temas relacionados con basura cero en espacios educativos, pirólisis y residuos orgánicos, para luego dar paso a la celebración de los hitos que han marcado el trabajo desde la última vez que nos encontramos en Lima, en 2023.

Foto grupal encuentro de miembros GAIA y BFFP América Latina, Santiago, 2026.

Para Karla Escoto de Basura Cero Nicaragua, “Haber sido parte del encuentro ha sido gratificante, renovador.  Estos espacios no sólo nos permiten intercambiar las experiencias y acciones que están realizando cada unas de las organizaciones que trabajamos hacia basura cero, también nos permite tener ese contacto directo, humanizar nuestras acciones, compartir, replantearnos, y saber que a pesar de las diferentes circunstancias y contextos de cada país seguimos avanzando desde nuestros territorios, trabajando de la mano de la juventud, las comunidades y recicladores de base.”

Otros espacios importantes fueron las instancias de formación ejecutadas por los mismos miembros y las conversaciones que se dieron en torno a las prioridades estratégicas de la región, con el fin de avanzar en puntos comunes que permitan orientar el trabajo conjunto en los próximos años y reconocer las capacidades que existen dentro de la alianza. 

“El encuentro significó confirmar el valor de compartir lo que hacemos desde las comunidades. Pudimos llevar la experiencia de León Cortés, pero también escuchar y aprender de otras organizaciones de la región. Ese intercambio fortalece nuestro trabajo y nos recuerda que, aunque nuestros territorios son distintos, podemos aprender unos de otros.”, comenta Julia Picado de la Asociación Defensores del Monumento Natural Zona de los Santos, Costa Rica.

Los tres días de encuentro terminaron en un ambiente festivo con la feria de causas, donde las organizaciones presentaron el trabajo que están desarrollando en sus territorios. Las experiencias compartidas permitieron conocer mejor la diversidad del trabajo que sostiene el movimiento y las distintas formas en que las organizaciones están impulsando la justicia ambiental e iniciativas de basura cero.

Para Tania Ricaldi, de CESU-UMSS, Bolivia, “El Encuentro de Santiago fue un espacio de diálogo, escucha e interaprendizaje que permitió compartir experiencias de prácticas de basura cero que muestran que desde el accionar local, el trabajo solidario y creativo se están construyendo y reconstruyendo relaciones y transformaciones esenciales para el cuidado de la vida.”

El encuentro en Santiago será recordado como un momento donde se celebró lo construido y donde se delinearon los pasos para construir las estrategias que permitirán avanzar hacia nuevos objetivos y reforzar logros ya alcanzados. 

The post Tres días de encuentro para compartir y construir el futuro de nuestro movimiento first appeared on GAIA.

The Burnham government has confirmed it will not ban lower-volume fracking.

Energy minister Martin McCluskey. Photo: Parliament TV

In one of the new administration’s first public statement on the subject, junior energy minister Martin McCluskey said there was a distinction between the promised ban on fracking for shale gas and low volume hydraulic fracturing techniques which would still be allowed.

The minister was closing a backbench parliamentary debate, which called for a total ban on fracking.

He said of lower-volume techniques, such as proppant squeeze:

“This is not the same as hydraulic fracturing for shale gas extraction. This is not associated with the same safety issues.”

Like fracking in shale, operations like proppant squeeze also inject fluid at pressures high enough to fracture rocks to increase the flow of gas.

But they are not prevented by the current moratorium on fracking in England because the volume of fluid they inject is below the legal threshold (more than 1,000m3 for a single fracture stage or 10,000m3 for an entire operation). Opponents have described the threshold as a legal loophole that is being exploited by oil and gas companies.

Operators are currently seeking to carry out lower-volume fracking at three sites in England: Burniston in North Yorkshire, West Newton-A in East Yorkshire and Wressle in North Lincolnshire.

Mr McCluskey told MPs:

“There is no clear evidence that [lower-volume fracking] induces seismicity that is felt on the surface.”

He added:

“Low volume hydraulic fracturing operations are routinely used on conventional oil and gas operations. They target different types of rocks, create fractures close to the wellbore and are typically short single stage operations, as opposed to the continuous fracture characteristic of shale gas fracking.”

The minister said the Energy Independence Bill would meet the government’s commitment not to issue new exploration and production licences, both on and offshore, including those that could be used to frack for shale gas. He said:

“That will deliver on our commitment in law to ban fracking.

He added:

“There is no loophole and no hidden route by which shale gas fracking can resume.

“The effective moratorium remains in place and the government will not issue new onshore licences in England, including those that could be used for fracking for shale gas. That is a reassurance, that communities across the country are entitled to hear.”

Opposition

The Lib Dem Claire Young, who opened the debate, urged the minister to commit to defining fracking by its purpose and its effects, not by what she described as “an arbitrary measure of fluid used”.

She said:

“Proppant squeeze is just hydraulic fracturing at lower fluid volume.

“The intent is identical, fracking. The technique is identical. A company injects fluid at high pressure to fracture rock and release the gas inside, but because the volume is lower, the law treats it as something else entirely and waves it through.”

She also called for a ban on all forms of fracking.

“This government has been in power for two years and yet I see no indication that a full ban is due.

“It seems that this government is not taking decisive action to stop all fracking activity.”

Alison Hume, the Labour MP for Scarborough, whose constituency includes Burniston, said:

“There is strong evidence to suggest that small-scale fracking carries the same risks as large scale operations, particularly around seismicity.”

She said:

“Unless the government acts boldly and closes the loophole communities across the country, such as those in West Newton and Burniston, will have fracking operations on their doorstep.

“These communities love where they live. Don’t they count? It doesn’t matter to them, whether it’s a mini frack or the full-scale version.

“The net result is the same: drill pads, drill heads, gas flare and noise, 24/7 lights during the exploration stage and continuous HGV lorry movements.”

She added:

“Unless we legislate to ban all forms of fracking in our upcoming Energy Independence Bill, then our fracking ban will be symbolic rather than material.

“We have a unique opportunity to show climate leadership. We have an opportunity as a government to stand up to the frackers, to make our legislation watertight to safeguard the natural environment.”

Other arguments

Reform’s Richard Tice said it was “dogmatic and stubborn” to ignore what he called the “most valuable economic treasure of shale gas”. He said companies had already invested more than £200m in the potential for UK onshore shale gas. This proved, he said, that they believed the reserves were “very considerable”.

But the Lib Dem’s energy spokesperson, Richard Foord, said:

“There is a real danger that investments in fracking will be a catastrophic mistake as the fuels, the facilities and the resources become stranded assets.”

Labour’s Phil Brickell said:

“Fracking became a symbol of a political establishment refusing to listen to communities and refusing to recognise where public opinion had already moved.”

This nesting season was a historic one on Lea-Hutaff Island, with the largest Least Tern count ever and the return of Black Skimmers, which haven’t nested successfully on the island since 2022...

Two massive wind and battery projects are the latest referred to state's independent planning arbiter because of the number of mostly long-distance objections.

The post Two massive wind and battery projects held up by weight of objections, including 13 signed by one individual appeared first on Renew Economy.

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 15 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-058 The Sakhalin Papers XLVIII: “A Philosophical Difference” — When Regulatory Compliance Was Not Enough for the Scientists In November 2020, Sakhalin Energy and its independent scientific advisers arrived at an unusually candid point of disagreement. The company could satisfy Russian regulatory requirements and still fail to satisfy the evidential standards expected by the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel. The meeting record captured the difference in a phrase rarely encountered in corporate environmental reporting: there would always be a “philosophical difference” between conservation scientists and an oil company.

1. A meeting held in exceptional circumstances

The 21st meeting of the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel — WGWAP — took place by videoconference from 17 to 19 November 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

By then the Panel had spent well over a decade advising Sakhalin Energy on the protection of the endangered gray whales feeding off north-eastern Sakhalin.

Shell’s own Sustainability Report 2020 described WGWAP as an independent scientific panel established by IUCN to help mitigate environmental impacts. Shell stated that the Panel continued to advise Sakhalin Energy, in which Shell then held a 27.5% interest, and that WGWAP was preparing its final conclusions for release in 2021. (Shell)

This matters.

The dispute examined in this instalment was not between Shell and an environmental protest organisation standing outside the project.

It occurred inside the independent scientific-advisory mechanism that Shell itself cited in its sustainability reporting.

2. The company had data — lots of it

There was no suggestion that Sakhalin Energy had simply stopped studying whales.

Its monitoring programme was extensive.

Sakhalin Energy’s own 2020 sustainability reporting stated that the company and the Sakhalin-1 operator continued their integrated monitoring programme off north-eastern Sakhalin, which had begun in 2002.

The company reported that 175 individual whales were preliminarily identified during the 2020 field season, including nine calves and two previously unidentified adults.

It also reported acoustic monitoring at the boundary of the Piltun feeding area and said the measurements indicated a low level of anthropogenic noise from company facilities. (Sakhalin Energy)

WGWAP likewise acknowledged extensive monitoring and treated the annual photo-identification reports as useful.

The dispute was not primarily about whether information existed.

It was about what conclusions could legitimately be drawn from it.

3. Counting whales was not the same as estimating a population trend

The 2020 WGWAP report records a fundamental methodological disagreement.

Sakhalin Energy’s reporting had characterised the feeding aggregation in strongly positive terms.

The Panel considered the underlying surveys insufficient to support such broad conclusions.

Its concern was that annual counts, locations and observations were being treated too readily as evidence of population stability or growth without sufficiently rigorous adjustment for matters such as survey effort, timing, observation-platform characteristics, observer capability and environmental conditions.

WGWAP therefore recommended a proper multi-year statistical analysis before strong claims were made about abundance and distribution.

That distinction is elementary but important.

More whales seen during one survey does not necessarily mean more whales exist.

A vessel can change.

Observers can change.

Survey routes can change.

Weather can change.

Timing can change.

The amount of effort can change.

Without accounting for those variables, apparent trends can be misleading.

4. Then came the remarkable exchange

The Panel said Sakhalin Energy’s reports appeared to satisfy Russian regulatory requirements.

But it also said the potential of the accumulated datasets was being under-used and that some conclusions were therefore insufficiently supported.

According to the official meeting record, Sakhalin Energy representative Jane Alcock accepted that there would always be a:

“philosophical difference between the goals of conservation scientists and those of an oil company.”

The minutes went on to explain the distinction.

One of the company’s objectives was compliance with the regulatory requirements under which it operated. It was therefore unsurprising, in Alcock’s view, that company reporting might not satisfy every scientific standard expected by WGWAP.

This was not an accusation extracted from a leaked activist memorandum.

It appears in the formal WGWAP meeting report.

And it is unusually revealing.

5. Compliance and knowledge are different tests

A regulator asks:

Has the operator met the legally required standard?

A conservation scientist may ask:

Do we understand what is happening to the ecosystem well enough to detect a subtle or long-term effect?

Those are related questions.

They are not identical.

The distinction becomes especially important when dealing with endangered wildlife.

Regulatory compliance may establish that an operator has carried out the prescribed surveys and mitigation.

Scientific confidence requires something different: sufficient data, appropriate controls, rigorous analysis and enough continuity to distinguish genuine biological change from statistical noise.

That is the heart of the 2020 disagreement.

6. The missing seabed data returned to the argument

The previous instalment examined the disappearance of long-term benthic monitoring after 2016.

That issue resurfaced directly in 2020.

WGWAP said the lost benthic time series made it substantially harder to interpret the reduced presence of whales in the nearshore Piltun feeding ground.

Sakhalin Energy maintained that it should not be expected to collect benthic information outside the area in which its activities could potentially affect the seabed.

That difference goes directly to the meaning of environmental responsibility.

The company’s position defined responsibility principally by reference to its potential operational footprint.

The Panel’s scientific question was wider:

What information is necessary to explain what is happening to the whales?

Those two boundaries were not the same.

7. The 2019 prey warning still hung over the discussion

This disagreement cannot be understood without the warning WGWAP had issued the previous year.

On 11 July 2019, IUCN publicly reported the Panel’s concern that the nearshore Piltun feeding area might be losing its capacity to support recovering gray whales.

The long-running benthic programme had shown a steep decline in amphipod prey biomass before monitoring was terminated in 2016.

At the same time, whales appeared increasingly to be using the more productive offshore feeding area. (IUCN)

WGWAP did not claim that Shell or Sakhalin Energy had caused the prey decline.

Natural oceanographic and ecological explanations remained entirely plausible.

But without continuing benthic measurements, it became harder to distinguish competing explanations.

That evidential gap was exactly what the Panel was still complaining about in November 2020.

8. Noise produced another disagreement over the strength of the evidence

Sakhalin Energy deserved credit for restarting some acoustic monitoring in 2020.

WGWAP expressly welcomed that decision.

Preliminary information suggested underwater noise had decreased, possibly in part because quieter service vessels had been introduced.

But the Panel objected to a categorical statement in Sakhalin Energy’s Marine Mammal Protection Plan that the company’s noise-generating activities had produced no effect on gray-whale abundance and distribution.

WGWAP considered the analysis insufficient to prove such a definitive proposition.

Again, the distinction is subtle but fundamental.

Failure to demonstrate an effect is not necessarily evidence that no effect exists.

That is particularly true where data were collected at incompatible temporal or spatial scales.

9. Sakhalin Energy had spent very large sums on mitigation

The meeting record also contains evidence that deserves to be placed firmly on the company side of the ledger.

Sakhalin Energy presented a high-level self-assessment of its compliance with International Finance Corporation Performance Standard 6, which concerns biodiversity and critical habitat.

According to that assessment, the company had spent more than US$300 million on impact avoidance and more than US$45 million on mitigation since the project design phase.

Sakhalin Energy concluded that its remaining impacts on gray whales had been reduced to levels it regarded as not significant and not measurable, and that it had complied with the principal requirements of the standard.

Those figures are part of the documentary record.

They should not be omitted merely because this archive is critical of Shell.

10. But “not measurable” was itself disputed

The Panel discussion immediately exposed the difficulty.

There was broad agreement that industrial operations at Sakhalin had not produced demonstrated acute lethal impacts on gray whales.

But WGWAP participants said there was no equivalent consensus concerning possible non-lethal chronic effects.

A biological effect could be real but too small, diffuse or complex to measure reliably.

And because Sakhalin Energy operated in critical habitat, the possibility of residual effects remained relevant even after substantial mitigation.

This is an important evidential distinction.

Not measured is not synonymous with non-existent.

Nor does the converse follow.

An inability to exclude a chronic effect does not prove that such an effect occurred.

The correct documentary position is uncertainty.

11. The argument therefore cut both ways

It would be misleading to portray the November 2020 record as scientists discovering environmental damage that Sakhalin Energy was trying to conceal.

That is not what the documents establish.

The company had financed extensive monitoring.

It had implemented significant mitigation.

It had restarted acoustic monitoring.

It had accumulated decades of whale observations.

Its own sustainability reporting continued to treat gray-whale conservation as an important environmental programme. (Sakhalin Energy)

But it would be equally misleading to convert those facts into a conclusion that every environmental question had therefore been scientifically resolved.

WGWAP plainly did not think so.

12. This is where the “philosophical difference” really mattered

Sakhalin Energy had to operate a major oil and gas project.

That meant engineering targets, production targets, safety obligations, regulatory requirements, financial constraints and environmental conditions.

WGWAP had a narrower institutional purpose.

Its task was to ask whether available science was sufficient to protect an endangered whale population.

Those missions overlapped.

They did not coincide.

What an operator regarded as enough information to demonstrate compliance could still be regarded by scientists as insufficient to resolve an ecological question.

And what scientists regarded as desirable long-term research could reasonably be regarded by an operator as extending beyond the impacts for which it considered itself responsible.

The November 2020 exchange is valuable precisely because neither side disguised that structural difference.

13. It was disagreement without institutional breakdown

The documentary record also prevents a more sensational interpretation.

The meeting did not end in rupture.

At its conclusion, representatives of WGWAP, Sakhalin Energy and IUCN all acknowledged the value of the process.

The Panel report described WGWAP as having provided a forum for frank, constructive and transparent exchanges which had often produced workable solutions to difficult problems.

That matters.

Independent scientific oversight is not proven effective because company and scientists always agree.

Arguably the opposite is true.

A panel that never disagreed with the company financing the process would deserve considerably more scrutiny.

14. Shell’s own public reporting confirms the relationship

Royal Dutch Shell plc’s authenticated Sustainability Report 2020 presented the IUCN relationship positively.

It stated that IUCN had been Shell’s global biodiversity partner for more than twenty years and that WGWAP continued advising Sakhalin Energy on assessing and managing its effects on western gray whales.

Shell also reported that the Panel was approaching the end of its mandate. (Shell)

Thus the criticisms in WGWAP-21 cannot sensibly be dismissed as observations by an organisation hostile to Shell.

They arose from the very independent advisory mechanism Shell highlighted in its own sustainability report.

15. The High Court record remains historical context only

The English litigation surrounding Sakhalin II belongs in the background.

In Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), Mr Justice Mitting dealt with access to environmental information concerning proposed British export-credit support for the project.

The judgment records the scale of the financing request and the environmental controversy surrounding Sakhalin II. The High Court dismissed ECGD’s appeal against disclosure. (vLex)

But the limits must again be explicit.

The court did not determine the adequacy of 2020 whale monitoring.

It did not rule on benthic sampling.

It did not decide whether Sakhalin Energy’s acoustic activities affected whale distribution.

It did not interpret IFC Performance Standard 6.

The case is relevant because environmental transparency around Sakhalin II had already reached the British courts more than a decade earlier.

Nothing more should be attributed to it.

Documentary Findings

Established: WGWAP considered Sakhalin Energy’s reports capable of meeting regulatory requirements while still falling below the level of statistical rigour the Panel wanted for some scientific conclusions.

Established: A Sakhalin Energy representative acknowledged a “philosophical difference” between conservation scientists and an oil company concerning objectives and standards of analysis.

Established: The Panel continued to regard the loss of benthic monitoring as scientifically important because it impaired attempts to explain reduced nearshore whale use. Sakhalin Energy maintained that it should not be responsible for collecting benthic data outside the area of its potential impact.

Established: Sakhalin Energy conducted acoustic monitoring in 2020 and WGWAP welcomed its return, but the Panel rejected the evidential basis for a categorical company assertion that noise-generating activities had produced no effect on whale abundance and distribution.

Established: Sakhalin Energy’s IFC PS6 self-assessment cited substantial expenditure on avoidance and mitigation and concluded that residual effects were not significant or measurable. WGWAP discussion recorded continuing uncertainty about possible chronic non-lethal effects.

Not established: The 2020 record does not prove that Shell or Sakhalin Energy caused the decline in nearshore prey.

Not established: It does not prove that Sakhalin Energy’s operations produced population-level damage to western gray whales.

Not established: Nor does the Panel report support a claim that Sakhalin Energy ignored conservation science wholesale. The documentary record contains repeated examples of mitigation, monitoring, expenditure and cooperation.

Commentary

The phrase “philosophical difference” could easily be turned into an accusation.

That would miss its real significance.

The problem identified in these documents is more fundamental than a dispute between good scientists and bad oil executives.

It concerns the boundary between regulatory environmental management and scientific understanding.

A corporation asks what effects it is responsible for measuring and mitigating.

A conservation scientist asks what evidence is necessary to understand the species and its ecosystem.

Sometimes the same dataset answers both questions.

Sometimes it does not.

The benthic argument illustrates the difference perfectly.

From Sakhalin Energy’s perspective, requiring it to collect environmental information beyond the zone of its potential seabed impact could become an open-ended research obligation.

From WGWAP’s perspective, without those wider data scientists might never discover why whales were abandoning part of their traditional feeding habitat.

Both propositions can be rational simultaneously.

What the documents expose is the gap between them.

There is also a larger lesson for corporate environmental reporting.

Statements such as:

no effect

no measurable impact

stable population

and

regulatory compliance

sound definitive.

Scientifically, they may describe very different levels of certainty.

One of the most valuable functions of an independent advisory panel is therefore not merely to recommend mitigation.

It is to challenge the language by which uncertainty gradually becomes corporate fact.

That is exactly what happened at Sakhalin in November 2020.

Source Record

The principal primary record is the Report of the 21st Meeting of the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel, held 17–19 November 2020. It contains the disagreement over population analysis, the “philosophical difference” exchange, the benthic-monitoring dispute, acoustic-monitoring discussion, Sakhalin Energy’s IFC Performance Standard 6 self-assessment and the Panel’s response.

WGWAP — Report of the 21st Meeting, November 2020

Royal Dutch Shell plc’s authenticated Sustainability Report 2020 confirms Shell’s 27.5% interest in Sakhalin Energy and records that the IUCN-convened WGWAP continued advising the venture on western gray-whale impacts. (Shell)

Royal Dutch Shell plc — Sustainability Report 2020

Sakhalin Energy’s 2020 Sustainable Development Report records continued whale monitoring, preliminary identification of 175 individual whales during the field season and acoustic monitoring at the boundary of the Piltun feeding area. (Sakhalin Energy)

IUCN’s contemporaneous 11 July 2019 public report provides the immediate background to the 2020 benthic dispute and records WGWAP’s concern about declining prey biomass and termination of the long-running benthic programme. (IUCN)

IUCN — Scientific panel calls for investigation of decline in prey of western gray whales, 11 July 2019

The judicial background remains Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin) and is cited solely for the earlier Sakhalin II environmental-information and UK export-credit context. (vLex)

Archive disclaimer: WGWAP was an independent scientific advisory panel, not a court or regulatory authority. Its criticisms of methodology and interpretation were scientific judgments. Sakhalin Energy’s statements concerning compliance, mitigation expenditure and environmental impact are identified as company positions where appropriate. No causal finding against Shell is inferred where the documentary record does not establish one.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers XLIX: “Unfinished Business” — Seventeen Years, More Than 600 Recommendations, and the End of the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel

The November 2020 meeting was already preparing for an ending.

The Panel’s mandate was due to conclude in 2021.

Its final meeting took place that November.

Then history intervened.

In early 2022, the Panel set down what it called its “Unfinished Business”: long-term monitoring, transparent data sharing, prey studies, underwater-noise assessment, population modelling and the need for all operators to be judged on the same scientific basis.

It also recorded an extraordinary new uncertainty.

Shell and Exxon were withdrawing from Russia.

The advisory structure painstakingly assembled over seventeen years was disappearing just as the political and corporate foundations of the Sakhalin projects themselves were being transformed. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

The next file examines the final reckoning:

What did seventeen years of independent scientific oversight actually achieve — and what remained unresolved when the Panel closed its files?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 15 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 15, 2026 at 9:46 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

Overview

Job Location: Solano County/Greater Bay Area
Projected Position Start Date: December 1, 2026
Job Classification: Salaried, Exempt
Salary Range: $70,000 – $90,000/yr
Reporting To: Senior Director of Planning and Research

APPLY HERE About this Opportunity:

Greenbelt Alliance is looking for a Climate Resilience Campaign Manager who will be the primary field representative for our Solano County work, supporting local efforts to shape a future for the county that includes vibrant, affordable cities, a thriving agricultural community, and protected ecosystems. This role includes managing the Solano Together coalition, identifying and supporting new and ongoing Solano projects focused on climate resilience and adaptation, and fostering partnerships across the county.

This is a special opportunity to be at the helm of a high-profile campaign and coalition that has continued to grow, evolve, and is eager to engage in shaping their community’s future. It is a great fit for someone energized by connecting and coalition building and passionate about political advocacy and community organizing, who enjoys springing to action when needed.

This role requires frequent interfacing with the press and public officials, as well as periodic attendance at evening and weekend in-person meetings or events. Greenbelt Alliance’s offices are in Oakland, CA. Greenbelt Alliance has a hybrid work schedule which is based on the location of primary work responsibilities.

What You’ll Be Working On

Responsibilities include, but are not limited to

• Manage day-to-day operations of the Solano Together Coalition, including workplan implementation, budget oversight, and planning and facilitating regular Coalition meetings, driving strategic action and follow-through.
• Partner with the Greenbelt Alliance marketing and communications team to produce compelling social media, web, email, and print content for Coalition audiences.
• Build and sustain relationships with local elected officials, agency staff, and community stakeholders.
• Serve as a public-facing spokesperson, engaging press and community groups on the Coalition’s positions and priorities as well as representing the organization and the Solano Together Coalition at public meetings and other events.
• Support volunteer trainings, canvassing, tabling, and outreach events.
• Advance the Solano Sea Level Rise Adaptation Planning Project through public engagement and event support.
• Cultivate new and existing partnerships to expand climate resilience work across the county.
• Supervise and mentor at least one part-time Resilience Fellow.

Desired Skills and Qualifications

Required:

• 5+ years of experience in community organizing, coalition building, campaign management, or government/legislative affairs
• Demonstrated success building and maintaining relationships with elected officials, agency staff, and community stakeholders
• Experience managing multi-partner projects with competing deadlines, including budget oversight
• Strong public speaking and writing skills, with comfort serving as a spokesperson to press and public audiences
• Ability to regularly and reliably attend in-person meetings and events across Solano County
• Availability for evening and weekend meetings and events, as needed
• Demonstrated ability to work collaboratively with a diverse team
• Bachelor’s degree or equivalent professional experience

Preferred:

• • Experience with land use, housing, or environmental policy advocacy
  • Familiarity with Solano County’s political landscape, local government structures, and/or the California Forever development
  • Experience supervising staff, fellows, or volunteers
  • Spanish or other bilingual skills
  • Background in sea level rise, climate adaptation, or resilience planning

How to Apply

Applications for this position will be considered on a rolling basis; however, priority consideration will be given to applications submitted by October 12, 2026. Please allow several weeks for a response as we are reviewing applications. Be sure to attach both a cover letter and professional resume as PDF documents to your application. Apply Today.

About Greenbelt Alliance:

Greenbelt Alliance’s mission is to educate, advocate, and collaborate to ensure the Bay Area’s lands and communities are resilient to a changing climate. We work at the intersection of climate resilience, land-use planning, and equity to protect natural and working lands while advocating for climate-smart housing and community resilience.
We focus on data-driven and innovative policy solutions, foster much-needed regional collaboration to plan and invest in resilient communities, and leverage our expertise to realize a climate-resilient Bay Area.

Work Authorization:

At this time, Greenbelt Alliance is unable to offer assistance to noncitizens or nonresidents in obtaining employer-sponsored work visas. All employees must have authorization from the federal government to work lawfully in the United States of America. Authorization would include US citizenship, US permanent residency (“green card”), or any other type of unexpired work authorization visa issued by the federal government.

Equal Employment Statement:

Greenbelt Alliance is an equal opportunity employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, disability, gender, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other category. We strongly encourage people of color, LGBTQIA+ persons, people of different levels of physical ability, people with diverse national and class origins, and all qualified persons to apply for this position.

Greenbelt Alliance encourages candidates of all abilities to apply to this position! In the case you may require any kind of special accommodation in order to complete the application or hiring process, please contact Sadie Wilson via email.

Photo: Rain garden installation in Suisun City.

The post Climate Resilience Campaign Manager appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.