News Feeds

The Western Arctic’s wetlands, lakes, and tundra provide essential habitat for millions of migratory birds and other wildlife, sustain Indigenous subsistence livelihoods, and store vast amounts of...

Written by Leo Chan Gaskins.We’ll start off with the problem to solve – unfortunately, many marsh birds are in decline in the Great Lakes due to habitat loss and degradation. Marsh bird...

New FEC filings show the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, has become the dominant funder of the Senate Leadership Fund, the leading Republican Senate super PAC. Musk was responsible for 58% of the fund’s third-quarter fundraising, and his latest contributions bring his total giving to the Republican group to $168 million. His contributions to a single party super PAC appear poised to exceed the previous record by approximately $100 million.

In response, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said:

“Elon Musk is pouring unprecedented sums of money into Republican super PACs, giving him extraordinary financial leverage over the party’s political future, in an attempt to sway the midterm results with his net worth. The current state of our campaign finance system allows one billionaire to supply the overwhelming share of a major party’s political funding. This is undemocratic and flat-out wrong. America should be a nation where the voices of regular people are heard just as loudly as the ultrawealthy. And where the billionaire class is prevented from consolidating political power.”

Musk also has his own pet super PAC, which he has given $126 million according to recent analysis by Public Citizen. In 2026, Musk has contributed a total of $366 million to super PACs and other political groups in an effort to help Republicans win in November.

When Albert Betoudji’s family—who are from Chad—visited him in Utah, he took them to his farm. They were surprised to see maize, squash, okra, and other familiar Central African crops growing so far from home.

“My mom was very, very happy,” says Betoudji. “They showed me [how to farm] at a young age, and I continue doing the same thing here in the United States.”

Growing up in Chad, Betoudji’s grandparents taught him to plant seeds and harvest crops when he was just five years old. He would later return home during school breaks to farm with his parents, learning to pay attention to and time planting around the seasons’ climates.

But in 1979, civil war forced Betoudji to leave Chad, and he traveled to West Africa in search of safety. He eventually settled in Burkina Faso, where he earned his high school diploma, studied management accounting at the University of Ouagadougou, and started teaching accounting. And in 1999, he emigrated to the United States.

For several years, Betoudji helped other refugee families settle into life in their new communities—everything from navigating public transportation systems to using American kitchens and toilets. Then in 2005, he began growing food again, starting simply with corn, tomatoes, and peppers in his backyard.

Betoudji soon became one of the first farmers in a Salt Lake County, Utah, community farming effort that would eventually become the International Rescue Committee’s New Roots program, which supports refugee and immigrant farmers as they build sustainable livelihoods through agriculture.

Betoudji was able to expand to growing crops he remembered from home, including okra and roselle, a type of hibiscus native to Africa that cannot fruit in Utah’s cooler climate, but he grows it for its edible leaves.

Eventually, with help from the New Roots staff, he began selling produce to stores and restaurants and at farmers’ markets. There, Betpoudji says, he and fellow refugee and immigrant farmers sell food while sharing the stories behind it—where they come from, how they arrived in the United States, and how to eat the crops they grow.

The income from farming can be limited, Betoudji says, but the work is meaningful: “Working at the farm makes me happy, because it is a physical activity; you use all your body.” This includes not only the arms and legs but the mind, Betoudji says, which “helped me with my mental and physical health.”

The farm also connects Betoudji to a community of people who, like him, have arrived in Utah from different places and backgrounds: “I came to Utah as a refugee, and I met other refugee families with different backgrounds, different cultures, but we farm together.”

For him, these relationships are at the heart of New Roots: The name reflects the experience of people who have left one place and built lives in another, bringing their knowledge, traditions, and foodways with them.

“We come from different backgrounds, but we farm together in the same place, and we grow food for family and for community,” says Betoudji.

Watch Betoudji’s story below and find others from our farmer storytelling events on Food Tank’s YouTube channel.

This article is part of Food Tank’s ongoing Farmer Friday series, produced in partnership with Niman Ranch, a champion for independent U.S. family farmers. The series highlights the stories of farmers working toward a more sustainable, equitable food system. Niman Ranch partners with over 500 small-scale U.S. family farmers and is committed to preserving rural agricultural communities and their way of life.

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.

The post For Refugees in Utah, Farming Is a Connection to Home appeared first on Food Tank.

“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.

Are you ready to vote on November 4th? Find Voting & Election information here.

Image Source: Metro Philadelphia

Metro Philadelphia: New SEPTA Regional Rail schedules start Sunday – Current SEPTA Student – Sunday, October 18 will see the start of new Regional Rail schedules for SEPTA. Daily parking rates will also be reduced at all SEPTA parking garages, from $4 to $2 per day, through December 31, 2026. The new schedules can be viewed here.

Image Source: Transit Forward Philadelphia

Transit Forward Philadelphia: Week Without Driving 2026 – This year’s annual Week Without Driving challenged Pennsylvanians that normally drive to go car-free as much as possible from September 30 through October 6. More than one-third of people living in the United States are nondrivers. Advocacy groups with Transit Forward Philadelphia challenged Philly to go beyond one week. They advocated for affordable and reliable transit, expanded student fare cards, accessible transit stops, and building out the Transit Access Fund to expand SEPTA for all Philadelphians.

Image Source: Philly Voice

Philly Voice: City Council makes bike lane around City Hall permanent a year after it was installed by PennDOT – The existing bike lane surrounding City Hall was codified into a bill by City Council approval this week. The bike lane was installed by Pennsylvania Department of Transportation last year but was considered a pilot program. The bill, introduced by Councilmember Jeffrey Young Jr., keeps the lane in place. Cycling advocates submitted a 1,200-signature petition and sent over 400 emails in favor of the lane. The bill awaits the mayor’s signature, but was passed unanimously by City Council, meaning it can become law with or without the signature.

Other Stories

BillyPenn: Less honk, more handlebar: Philly Bike Ride rolls back into town

Philadelphia Today: Why Philadelphia Ranked as America’s Worst City to Drive in 2026

PennDOT: Seven Day, 24-Hour Work Begins October 19 on the Dolby Street Safety Improvement Project

CBS Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Regional Transit announces plans to permanently close the Wabash Tunnel

6ABC: AC Expressway widening project aims to improve safety and reduce congestion

In the wake of LCMC’s “Spirit of Charity Gala” last week, Registered Nurses from University Medical Center (UMC) in New Orleans, La., will hold a press conference on Friday, Oct. 16, to highlight their patient safety concerns, including short-staffing, high turnover, and wage theft.

The board of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) will decide on Thursday on whether to “provisionally set aside” $20 million for Nepal to deal with some of the effects of the climate-driven flood it suffered in August.

The motion, seen by Climate Home News, has been drafted by a group of board members from both developed and developing countries and so is likely to pass easily at the fund’s first-ever extraordinary board meeting on October 22.

It invites the government of Nepal to submit a proposal for how to use the money, with the board then deciding at one of its regular board meetings whether to approve the proposal or not.

While Nepali officials have described $20 million as merely “symbolic” in the face of the $4.8 billion estimated costs of recovery and reconstruction, it would be the first time the new FRLD – agreed in 2022, months after devastating floods in Pakistan – has set aside money for a specific disaster.

Residents walk along a muddy road following flash floods on August 27, 2026 in Trishuli, Nepal. (Photo: Ezra Acayan/Getty Images)

Until now the fund has only taken requests through a single call for proposals, launched at COP30 in Belém last November, that gave countries six months to submit requests.

Most of the 180 projects the FRLD is currently considering are designed to help countries avoid damage from future climate disasters, for example by strengthening responses to floods in Bangladesh and Lagos.

The draft decision says Nepal’s proposal will serve as a pilot for how funding requests can be submitted outside of the fund’s current timetable. That could let governments seek funds quickly after a climate disaster strikes, rather than waiting for the next call.

This arrangement would set the fund apart from other United Nations funds designed for climate adaptation or cutting emissions like the Green Climate Fund.

Climate campaigners from Fill the Fund said the draft decision is “a real step forward” as it is “the first time this Fund has moved to respond to a specific disaster”.

Too little, too late

The FRLD was agreed by governments at COP27, set up and operationalised at COP28 in 2023 but has yet to award any money. The 180 funding requests it is currently considering would cost around $2.8 billion, but it only has $350 million to allocate.

The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has described the amount of money available in the fund as “ridiculously small” and Fill the Fund said $20 million “is a meaningful signal but it is a drop against an ocean of need”.

A glacial rock and ice collapse sent a torrent of water and debris through Nepal and the Chinese-administered region of Tibet on August 26. It killed more than 1,400 people, left thousands more missing and destroyed homes, bridges, roads and hydropower plants. Nepal’s finance and environment ministers quickly appealed to the FRLD board for funds, saying that “time is of the essence”.

Their call was followed swiftly by a letter from developing country FRLD board members urging the board’s co-chairs to organise an extraordinary meeting to allocate funds to Nepal.

But developed countries initially called for an informal consultation rather than a full board meeting. It took a further 45 days for the board’s co-chairs to organise an extraordinary board meeting for October 22 and to draft a motion for adoption.

Fill the Fund called for a permanent way for the FRLD to respond rapidly to disasters, as “Nepal should not have required historic letters, an informal drafting group and the Fund’s first-ever extraordinary meeting simply to unlock an emergency response. The next country cannot wait two months and a bureaucratic marathon. Speed must be built in, not improvised.”

The post UN’s loss and damage fund set to give Nepal $20m for flood recovery appeared first on Climate Home News.

URGENT ALERT: Mining pushes through in Palawan, local resistance rises

The Barricade at Linao, Brooke’s Point Palawan

Yes to Life No to Mining calls for the immediate withdrawal of Calmia Nickel Inc. from private indigenous lands in Palawan

Calmia Nickel Inc. (CNI) has crossed every line. At dawn on October 1, heavily armed guards illegally entered private coconut land in sitio Linao, Brooke’s Point, fencing it with barbed wire to force their way into the uplands — land that is part of the ancestral domain of the Pala’wan people.

Indigenous landowners immediately built their barricade, refusing to let mining equipment advance. Within hours, dozens of Pala’wan families gathered in solidarity. Vice Mayor Mary Jean Feliciano, SB Member Jaymart Naigue, former IP councillor Victor Colili, Church leaders, and civil society stood with them.

Calmia’s rush uphill is already destroying decades-old coconut groves, uprooting fruit trees and threatening the primary forest next. The Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) has been alerted as communities witness their livelihoods being bulldozed.

 

 

Company armed mining guards at the barricade

Pala’wan representatives from Linao and nearby barangays are now demanding transparency from Calmia and the pro‑mining IPDO BICAMM regarding royalty funds — questions that remain unanswered. But the violations run deeper:

• Calmia is operating without a Mayor’s Permit. 

• Mining activities overlap a CADT area application, where indigenous communities hold legal rights. 

• Tenements intrude into the Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (MMPL). 

• FPIC processes led by NCIP were not based on consensus, as required by the Indigenous Peoples Right Act (IPRA law), but on majority voting — a direct violation of customary law. 

Once again, NCIP, the agency meant to defend Indigenous rights, is siding with the oppressors.

Global solidarity is growing. The Rainforest Rescue petition against mining in Palawan and Brooke’s Point is nearing 49,000 supporters.

Coconut plantation being flattened by Calmia

Since 2016, mining permits in Palawan have allowed 321,066 trees to be cut or earth‑balled — a devastating trend worsening water scarcity as El Niño intensifies across the Philippines.

It is time for the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) to uphold its mandate, and for DENR–MGB to revoke Calmia’s permit before more irreversible damage is done.

Defending the Pala’wan people and one of the Philippines’ last great forests is not optional — it is imperative.

Defending the Barricade

Is your community, organization, or network interested in becoming a YLNM member? Would you like to know more about us? Please send an email enquiry to membership[at]yestolifenotomining.org

Subscribe to our bi-monthly newsletter Suscríbase a nuestro boletín

Yes to Life No to Mining global solidarity network since 2012 | Contact Us

• Follow
• Follow
• Follow
• Follow

The post PALAWAN: MINING PUSHES THROUGH, LOCAL RESISTANCE RISES appeared first on Yes to Life No to Mining.

“The only current restriction on getting American gas is our ability to get the gas to market and the infrastructure bottlenecks,” FERC Chairman Laura Swett said.

Yesterday, the New York Times revealed that Elon Musk has spent at least $366 million to sway the results of the midterms. I suppose that makes today as good a moment as any to reflect on the harm that Elon Musk and his DOGE cronies have caused over the last two years.

Scores of people dead. By some estimates Musk’s boastful dismantling of USAID has resulted in the deaths of at least half-a-million children. If accurate, that would mean the world’s richest man caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of the world’s poorest children. 

Explosive diarrhoea. As this fired FDA worker warned, months before the cyclosporiasis outbreak that resulted in “exploding diarrhea” for tens of thousands of Americans, DOGE’s gutting of the government’s food safety programs made such an outbreak far more likely.  

Stealing from every living American. Whistleblowers have gone on the record, alleging that a DOGE staffer stole the sensitive personal data of every living American and told colleagues he wanted to share it with a private corporation. 

It’s no wonder that Musk and his cronies are terrified that they’re going to face real consequences and accountability in the new Congress. And Musk’s fears must be growing. 

Since our Investigate DOGE campaign launched, 17 Members of Congress have responded to our campaign. Here’s a snapshot of what they’re saying:

 

“There needs to be accountability for Elon Musk (…). They don’t talk about the 4.5 million children around the world who he possibly sentenced to death by dismantling USAID. He needs to answer for that. He needs to be subpoenaed. He needs to face investigation. He needs to answer for what he did with DOGE.”

– Rep. Ro Khanna (CA)

“Elon Musk and DOGE slashed the VA, gutted Social Security and undermined dozens of lifesaving federal programs – all in the name of ‘savings.’ Unsurprisingly, their math doesn’t add up. DOGE’s actions need to be investigated, and the Privacy Act needs to be updated so these failures can’t happen again.”

– Rep. Lori Trahan (MA) – MA-3, August 10, 2026

“I strongly support efforts to investigate the full extent of DOGE’s actions, including any coordination between DOGE and election deniers or other non-governmental organizations that have sowed chaos and distrust in our government’s institutions.”

– Senator Cory Booker (NJ), July 28, 2026

“Elon Musk needs to testify under oath. DOGE gutted the federal workforce and fired experts we need to keep America safe. He must answer for the damage he caused.”

– Rep. James Walkinshaw (VA) – VA-11

 

On November 4th, we’ll find out what the new Congress looks like. But no matter the results, this age of impunity for billionaires needs to come to an end, and first and foremost that means Elon Musk being held accountable. 

 

To join the Investigate DOGE campaign and make sure you get the latest updates, join 38,000 others and send your Members of Congress an email now. 

 

In Solidarity
– Alec Connon, Stop the Money Pipeline, coalition director

News & Updates from the Coalition

– STMP is Cleaning House

Stop the Money Pipeline launched in January 2020 as a coalition of 32 organizations. We grew rapidly to be a network of 230+ groups. However, since then some groups moved on to other work, fallen out of touch, or no longer even exist. (A lot can happen in 7 years.)

That’s why we’re currently running a coalition recommitment process – inviting existing coalition partners to formally recommit to the network and inviting new organizations to consider joining. So far, nearly eighty organizations have recommitted to being a part of the coalition.

So this seems like a good time to say, if you’re a member of a community group that might be interested in joining the Stop the Money Pipeline network, complete this interest form and we’ll be in touch. (Please note: this is only for organizations interested in joining the network; not individuals)

– Developing the climate movement’s leadership

Perhaps the single most important element of successful social movements is their commitment to continually developing leadership. That’s why, over the last nine months, we’ve run the Local Leads, Global Impacts program, putting a dozen climate movement campaigners through a rigorous nearly year-long training and mentoring program.

This month, we wrapped up the cohort. Here’s what one cohort member, 350 Seattle’s Aki Chatterji, who’s leading the critical Make Polluters Pay WA campaign, had to say about the program:

“The cohort gave me frameworks, language, and practical tools I know I’ll keep returning to, and the weekly 1:1 mentorship has been absolutely invaluable in developing my skills, navigating thorny challenges, and managing the day-to-day of running a campaign.”

As the cohort comes to an end, we’re excited to see how Aki and all of this talented group of campaigners put these skills to use in the real world, building power and leading campaigns to end the fossil fuel industry.

 –As the rest of the world ditches coal, Wall Street – and Citibank – doubles down

At the Glasgow climate talks in 2021, the world’s governments made a landmark commitment to phase-out coal. A new analysis from Urgewald shows that since then coal financing has flatlined, but banks are moving in very different directions. 

Since 2022, European banks have slashed their financing of coal in half, and banks across Japan, India, and South-East Asia have cut funding for the dirtiest of fossil fuels. At the same time, US banks have increased their financing of coal by 23%. Citibank was among the worst offenders.

So, all the more reason to keep the pressure up on Costco, one of Citibank’s largest clients, demanding it break ties with the coal-loving bank. Which is exactly what we’ve been doing: over the last month, activists across the Gulf South have been visiting Costco warehouses, demanding it drops Citibank as its co-branded credit card partner.

And wherever you are, you can take action with the Costco: Clean Up Your Credit Card campaign by taking any of these simple actions.

 – Aligning your money with you values:

Our partner Third Act is hosting a training series on how you can align your money with your values.

Next up, they are sharing how you can ensure that your home and auto insurance isn’t with a company that’s fueling the flames of the climate crisis. Join the session on October 19th at 1PT/4ET. 

– Energy is growing for real solutions to the climate-driven insurance crisis

During NY Climate Week, we partnered with RAN and NYCC to bring together state legislators, policy experts, and community leaders to talk about the climate-driven insurability crisis and what we can do about it.

We heard powerful stories from New Yorkers who have faced real financial hardship when insurers raised rates, and denied claims. We also heard all about how the insurance industry is making record profits, as it passes the costs of the climate crisis onto everyday people.

Most importantly, we plotted out how we can pass the Insure our Communities Act, the country’s strongest piece of legislation to jointly tackle the insurance industry and the fossil fuel industry’s role in the climate crisis. If you want to nerd out on all of this & more, watch the entire panel here.

And if you’re in New York and you have a story about insurance industry malpractice, we’d love to hear from you. 

– Polluters must be made to pay

Last month, Big Oil tried to move its “legal immunity bill” through the House of Representatives. Thankfully, after thousands of you contacted your Members of Congress to demand they stop the bill, the legislation stalled before the House went out on recess.

But we need to be vigilant. We expect Big Oil’s puppets in Congress to try and move the legislation forward again in the lame duck session after the midterms. So if your Members of Congress haven’t heard from you on this yet, make sure they do. 

And on that note, it seems appropriate to close with the words of the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres when he addressed world leaders in New York last month: polluters must pay.

The next learning session is on Monday, Sept 14th at 1PT/4ET. RSVP here.

The post October Newsletter: Musk’s Reckoning is Coming. appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

A federal judge ruled that two lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s rollbacks of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah can proceed.

District Judge Tanya Chutkan reopened cases originally filed in 2017 by environmental groups and Tribal entities to oppose President Donald Trump’s downsizing of both national monuments during his first term. Judge Chutkan put the case on hold after President Joe Biden restored the boundaries of both monuments in 2021. In July, President Trump once again slashed the size of both monuments by nearly 3 million acres. In September, a group of environmental organizations and Tribal entities filed a request to reopen the cases, asking the judge to vacate the monument rollbacks and declare them unconstitutional. Chutkan’s order requires the Trump administration to provide 48 hours notice to the plaintiffs before any ground-disturbing activities commence.

“We are reaching out to every Tribe and non-profit to stand together to provide protection of the Earth at Bears Ears,” said Philip Rentz, the board chairman of Utah Diné Bikéyah in a statement when the request was filed. “In 2017 and most recently, President Trump acted illegally in significantly reducing National Monument protections and tried not only to divide Tribes, but to dismantle collaborative efforts that honored trust and treaty responsibilities.”

Quick hits Judge unfreezes lawsuits filed over downsizing of Utah monuments

Arizona Republic | Bloomberg Law

A uranium mine near Grand Canyon National Park raises fears of arsenic contamination in the water

Science Line

Lawsuit challenges Trump administration’s military zone on New Mexico border

Santa Fe New Mexican

Report: How the Trump administration is trading away public lands for corporate benefit

Center for American Progress

Trump funding cuts halt repairs, critical work at national parks

Arizona Republic | Nevada Current | Desert Sun

AI data center water use grows in drought-stricken areas

Bloomberg

Trump’s logging push is reshaping who controls America’s forests

E&E News

Opinion: Access to public lands should unite all Americans

TIME

Quote of the day

At a time of growing loneliness, division, and stress, being outside can improve physical and mental well-being, strengthen community, and reconnect us with one another. For millions of Americans, public lands make that possible.”

—Mary Beth Laughton, president and CEO of REI Co-op, TIME

Picture This

@nmdeptwildlife

Sandhill crane migration season is just around the corner! New Mexico is a very important wintering area for sandhill cranes. The valleys of New Mexico provide a mild winter climate, shallow water roosting sites, and good food resources for wintering cranes. The need to conserve these important areas of crane habitat cannot be overstated to ensure that cranes persist in NM into the future, which is why we oversee the Bernardo Wildlife Management Area.

A sandhill crane can live 20 years or more, which is very long-lived for a bird. Sandhill crane migration lengths are variable, but some birds will migrate very long distances to breed, with some birds that winter in New Mexico breeding as far away as Siberia. Sandhill cranes represent one of the oldest surviving bird lineages on Earth—their presence today connects modern ecosystems (including humans!) directly to deep ecological past. They were here long before any human knew how to use fire.

Featured image: Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. Source: BLM Flickr

The post Judge unfreezes lawsuits filed over downsizing of Utah monuments appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Marcia Ciro
Pause
Charles River, Dover, Massachusetts
Infrared photography
© copyright Marcia Ciro

“I’m not sure of the species, just got ‘ray-finned fishes’ on apps. I’ve been exploring local underwater environments in nearby rivers and lakes. I am fascinated by the complexity that lurks just below the surface.” Image taken with a digital camera modified to shoot infrared images.

 

 

 

 

Marcia Ciro
Untitled
Ipswich River, Ipswich, Massachusetts
Infrared photography
© copyright Marcia Ciro Both photos were taken with a digital camera modified to shoot infrared images. Marcia Ciro’s website is papertracestudio.com if you want to see more of her work, including more landscapes in color and infrared.

 

 

 

 

Barri Hitchin
Alien Visitor
Somerset Levels, United Kingdom
Inspiration: Surreal Wetland
Photograph
© copyright Barri Hitchin

 

 

 

 

Karl J. Findling
Hell’s Canyon, Oregon
Oregon Pack Works
Bend, Oregon
© copyright Karl J. Findling

 

 

 

 

 

María Isabel Dabrowski
SSSSlithering Through the Jungle
Bocaracá
Eyelash palm pitviper/Bothriechis schlegelii
La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica
© María Isabel Dabrowski

“While at La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica for a training, I met a lovely wildlife biologist who is studying this species at La Selva to learn more about what, if anything, impacts the color variation of the Bocaracá. While we were admiring this bright yellow danger noodle from a respectful distance, the snake began moving along the tree branch; as this species mostly moves at night, the wildlife biologist we were with was super excited to watch the Bocaracá’s tongue-flicking and branch-wending in daylight.”

 

 

 

 

 

Lizann Michaud
Black-Tailed Rattlesnake (Crotalu molossus)
Mule Mountains of southeastern Arizona
© 2026 Lizann Michaud

“We knew this small black-tailed rattlesnake was there only when it began to move (and we of course hopped back a safe distance in reply). It didn’t rattle, and appeared remarkably relaxed, so I took a golden sunset-lit photo of this curious beauty.”

 

 

 

 

 

Stephen Reed
Colorado Columbine and Greenback Trout
Rocky Mountain National Park
© copyright Stephen Reed

“Here’s an unintentional double exposure from Rocky Mountain National Park. It shows the state flower (blue columbine) and the state fish (greenback trout) in a tribute to the 150th anniversary of the state of Colorado.”

 

 

 

 

Stephen Reed
Bison Profile
©copyright Stephen Reed

“Here’s a bison profile taken with a 300mm telephoto lens near Soda Butte Creek in Yellowstone. What caught MY eye was the knot of fur near the nose (shaped like a false eye) that makes that nose look like a monkey face within the image. I cannot un-see it…”

 

 

 

 

Kate Chabarek
European Black Bee on Teasle
Basque Country, Spain
Photography, edited with Adobe Lightroom Classic (manual tools only)
© copyright Kate Chabarek

“My three-year-old son and I saw the European Black Bee by the Urumea River, near the town of Hernani, where we live. He warned me quite strenuously about the “erlea” (bee) and how it would “mina eman” (give pain), in the Basque language. I want to encourage him to be interested in nature, and I enjoy talking with him about plants and animals in English, so he can talk to his grandmother in the United States about them.”

 

 

 

 

Puffball
The Adirondacks in Northern NY
© copyright Kate Chabarek

 

 

 

 

 

Red Eft or eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens)
© copyright Kate Chabarek

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Ross
Wildlife Observing the Wildlife Photographer
Red foxes
Dean Hill Road, Wellsboro, Pennsylvania
Canon Powershot SX70 HS
© copyright Robert Ross Robert Ross
Wildlife Observing the Wildlife Photographer
Red foxes
Dean Hill Road, Wellsboro, Pennsylvania
Canon Powershot SX70 HS
© copyright Robert Ross

“While trying to get good photographic evidence (for the 3rd Pennsylvania Breeding Bird Atlas) of a mother Bobolink feeding its young in a hayfield, I noticed a family of red foxes watching me the whole time from their upscale home nearby. These moments are what makes the project well worth the time spent.”

 

 

 

 

Candace Galen
Complementary Colors
Little blue butterfly (Icarica) on a purple aster
Hoosier Ridge — part of the Continental Divide just north of Hoosier Pass in central Colorado.
Photography, using a Sony Alpha II camera with telephoto lens and a continuous shoot setting so as not to disturb the butterfly.
© copyright Candace Galen

“Though tiny, these are truly the smallest of butterflies, their luminescent blue color is a showstopper. This one, flitting from flower to flower in an alpine meadow was irresistible.

An interesting fact: this species was given its scientific name by the Russian writer, Vladimir Nabokov, better known for his literary contributions (for example, Lolita). Exiled from Russia in the 1940s, he hired on as Curator of Lepidoptera at the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology.”

 

 

 

 

Linda Carroll
Moth Feasts on Sunflower
© copyright Linda Carroll

“I confess I don’t know the moth species. The photo was taken in Spokane, Washington. I went out to water the plants one summer morning and was taken by the beauty of the moth and the grouping of bright colors. I took a number of photos, moving closer each time but trying to do so without the moth noticing me. It wasn’t easy because the sun was behind me and I didn’t want to create a shadow, which would have disturbed the moth and spoiled the photo. This was the closest I got and the best shot. Shortly thereafter, the moth became annoyed with me and flew away.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guidelines to get your masterpiece into the Revelator Gallery:

• • Original photos and art from you
  • No AI-generated or enhanced images
  • Images can be horizontal, square, or vertical
  • We accept only .jpgs and .png files
  • No limit on submissions
  • No people in the images, just wildlife and landscapes (animals, plants and trees, insects, sea life…)

Send your submissions to ccrary@biologicaldiversity.org with the following information:

• • Your name
  • Title of image (if applicable)
  • Species of wildlife
  • The location (where it was created)
  • A brief description of what inspired you to capture or create this image
  • Medium: Photography (many types, be specific), painting, drawing, pottery, sculpture, textiles/fabric art, mixed media, glass, etc.
  • Let us know if you want us to include a specific copyright notice “©”

All submissions are considered intended for publication; submission does not guarantee publication. Monthly galleries will be distributed to our partner publications under a Creative Commons license, but you retain the copyright on your individual images. There’s no prize or payment, just  bragging rights.

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy.

 

The post The Revelator Gallery: October 2026 Exhibit appeared first on The Revelator.

CALGARY— DAVID PICKUP, director of the Electricity program at the Pembina Institute, made the following statement in response to new offshore wind investment by the federal government and a new data centre project powered in part by onshore wind:...

Burning plastic waste releases toxic gases including dioxins and furans, as well as CO2 emissions, making plastic incineration one of the hidden drivers of the climate crisis. When plastic burns, it does not disappear — it transforms into airborne poisons that settle in the lungs, soil, and bloodstreams of the communities living closest to the smoke.

People living near incinerators have a right to know what they are breathing. This explainer delves into what is released when plastic is burned in incinerators (sometimes called “waste-to-energy”), why it worsens the climate crisis, and who is statistically most impacted by these facilities.

Plastic incineration is the burning of plastic waste — whether in an open pit, a backyard barrel, or a large incineration or “waste-to-energy” facility — to dispose of it and/or generate energy. While often marketed as a solution to the plastic crisis, it is anything but.

What toxic gases does burning plastic waste release?

Burning plastic releases a cocktail of hazardous compounds. According to GAIA’s research in The Hidden Climate Polluter: Plastic Incineration, these emissions include some of the most dangerous pollutants known to science.

The primary toxic gases and pollutants released when plastic is burned include:

• Dioxins and furans — persistent organic pollutants that build up in the food chain and are linked to cancer and reproductive harm.
• Particulate matter — microscopic particles that lodge deep in the lungs and enter the bloodstream.
• Hydrogen chloride — a corrosive acidic gas produced when PVC and chlorinated plastics burn.
• Heavy metals and volatile organic compounds — released due to plastics’ additives, dyes, and stabilizers.

Dioxins and furans are among the most toxic chemicals ever studied — they persist in the environment for decades and accumulate in living tissue.

These are not trace emissions. They are the predictable byproducts of setting synthetic, fossil-fuel-derived materials on fire.

Why plastic burns dirty

Plastic is made from fossil fuels. When you burn plastic, you are burning oil and gas in one of the most polluting ways possible. The additives that make plastic flexible, colorful, and durable become airborne toxins the moment they combust.

Why plastic incineration is a hidden climate polluter

Plastic incineration is a climate problem, not just an air quality problem. Because plastic is fossil-based, burning it converts stored carbon directly into carbon dioxide — while releasing the toxic gases named above.

Waste-to-energy incineration is frequently sold as a clean way to handle waste. GAIA’s research documents that these facilities contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollution rather than reducing them. The “energy” recovered is dwarfed by the climate cost of burning material that could have been reduced, reused, or composted.

The framing matters. Every ton of plastic sent to an incinerator is a ton that was never prevented at the source — and a fresh release of climate-warming and health-harming emissions into the air.

The health impacts on frontline communities

The communities living nearest to incinerators and open burning sites breathe the consequences first. These are disproportionately low-income neighborhoods and communities of color — the frontline of what environmental justice advocates call sacrifice zones.

Exposure to the toxic gases from burning plastic is associated with serious health effects, including respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress, and elevated cancer risk from long-term dioxin exposure. Children, older adults, and pregnant people face the greatest danger.

This is not an abstract risk. It is the daily reality for people who never chose to host a facility that turns the world’s plastic waste into the air they breathe.

Why this is an environmental justice issue

Waste infrastructure is rarely built in wealthy neighborhoods. The burden of plastic incineration falls on communities with the least political power and the fewest resources to fight back. Centering these voices is central to GAIA’s mission for a just, zero waste world.

Why burning plastic won’t solve the plastic crisis

Burning plastic is a false solution — a strategy that appears to solve the problem while deepening it. GAIA’s analysis in Burning Plastic Won’t Solve the Plastic Crisis shows why incineration is a dead end.

Here is the core logic:

1. It does not reduce plastic production. Incineration creates demand for a steady stream of waste to burn, which locks in more plastic, not less.
2. It trades one crisis for another. Solid waste becomes toxic air and ash.
3. It undermines real solutions. Money spent on burners is money not spent on reduction, reuse, and community-led zero waste systems.

The real answer is to stop making so much plastic and to build community-led systems that keep it out of both landfills and incinerators. That is the work GAIA and its global network advance every day.

Frequently asked questions about burning plastic What gases does burning plastic release?

Burning plastic releases dioxins, furans, particulate matter, and hydrogen chloride, along with heavy metals and volatile organic compounds. Dioxins and furans are especially dangerous because they persist in the environment and accumulate in the food chain.

Is burning plastic worse than coal?

Burning plastic is a fossil-fuel-based combustion process, so it releases climate-warming carbon dioxide much like burning coal or oil. It also releases toxic pollutants such as dioxins and hydrogen chloride, which is why GAIA classifies plastic incineration as a climate and health threat rather than a clean energy source. The EU excludes general waste-to-energy incineration from sustainable finance taxonomy lists.

What health effects does plastic smoke cause?

Exposure to plastic smoke is linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress, and increased cancer risk from long-term dioxin exposure. Frontline communities living near incinerators and open burning sites face the highest risk, with children and pregnant people most vulnerable.

Why is plastic incineration called a false solution?

Plastic incineration is called a false solution because it appears to dispose of waste while creating new toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It also locks in continued plastic production instead of reducing it at the source, undermining genuine zero waste alternatives.

Take action against burning plastic

The science is clear: burning plastic waste poisons the air and accelerates the climate crisis. The good news is that community-led, zero waste solutions already exist — and they work.

Share this explainer with your network, learn more about GAIA’s work on plastic, and join the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration. Every voice makes the movement to end plastic incineration stronger.

The post Burning Plastic Waste: The Toxic Gases and Health Risks first appeared on GAIA.

Communities can refuse incineration by organizing early, demanding air-quality monitoring, and advancing zero waste plans before waste-to-energy contracts are signed. That single sequence — organize, monitor, propose an alternative — is how residents have stopped proposed incinerators from breaking ground.

To refuse incineration means treating burning waste not as an inevitable “solution” but as a false one that can be blocked through collective action, legal pressure, and a credible zero waste plan. This guide equips organizers and residents facing a proposed incinerator or waste-to-energy (WTE) facility with the concrete steps to fight back — and win.

Anti-incineration protest in Chile. © Oren Langelle

What does it mean to refuse incineration?

To refuse incineration is a community strategy: residents reject the burning of waste — including WTE, plastic-to-fuel, and chemical recycling — and organize to stop proposed facilities before contracts are signed.

Waste incineration is often marketed as “waste-to-energy,” a green-sounding label for burning trash to generate electricity. It is a false solution. Incineration of waste releases toxic air pollutants, undermines recycling and composting, and locks communities into decades-long contracts that require a constant stream of garbage to feed the burner.

Refusing incineration is not only about saying no. It is about saying yes to something better — a zero waste plan that reduces waste at the source, protects public health, and keeps decision-making in the hands of the community rather than the industry.

Incineration is not a climate solution. GAIA’s research documents that zero waste approaches cut climate pollution more effectively than burning trash, without the air-quality harm that falls hardest on frontline communities.

How to Refuse Incineration: A Step-by-Step Community Guide

Here is a practical, extractable sequence communities have used to refuse incineration and stop proposed facilities.

1. Organize early — before the contract is signed. The window to stop an incinerator is widest before permits are issued and financing is locked in. A core group of 5–10 committed residents can map local decision-makers and draft a campaign timeline. The goal is to begin before any permits are submitted.
2. Map the proposal and the permits. Identify the developer, the proposed site, and every permit the project needs. Incineration permits typically require environmental and air-quality approvals from local and national regulators — request every public document. Knowing exactly which agencies hold approval power tells you where to concentrate legal and public pressure.
3. Demand independent air-quality monitoring. Do not accept the developer’s own data. Push for community-led air monitoring and independent review, and make air quality the center of your public case. Independent data is often the most persuasive evidence in permit hearings and media coverage.
4. Expose the false-solution framing. Waste-to-energy, plastic-to-fuel, and chemical recycling are marketed as green. Document what they actually emit and who bears the harm. GAIA’s webinar on incineration as a false solution breaks down the arguments organizers can use. Sharing this evidence early shapes media coverage and public opinion before the developer’s narrative takes hold.
5. Build a coalition rooted in environmental justice. Incinerators are disproportionately sited near low-income communities and communities of color. Center the voices of directly impacted residents, and bring in health professionals, waste pickers, unions, and faith groups. A broad, visible coalition signals to decision-makers that opposition is not a fringe position.
6. Intervene in the legal and permitting process. File public comments, request hearings, and — where the case supports it — challenge permits in court. Legal pressure has delayed and defeated projects, as in Chile’s Araucanía region. Even interventions that do not immediately block a project create delay, raise costs for developers, and generate public record.
7. Put a zero waste plan on the table. Refusing incineration is strongest when paired with a credible alternative. Present a zero waste plan that shows decision-makers a better path (see the section below). A concrete alternative removes the “no other option” argument that developers rely on.
8. Keep the pressure public and sustained. Rallies, media coverage, petitions, and testimony keep the issue visible until the proposal is withdrawn or rejected. Decision-makers are more likely to act when they know the community is watching and will not disengage between official hearings.

Local groups protest incinerator plans in Indonesia. Source: WALHI

Building a zero waste plan as the alternative

A zero waste plan is a community roadmap to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost the maximum amount of waste — so there is nothing left to burn or bury.

This is the yes that makes the no credible. When residents refuse incineration without an alternative, decision-makers claim there is “no other option.” A zero waste plan removes that excuse.

A strong community zero waste plan usually includes:

• Source separation and organics diversion — composting food and yard waste, which is the largest and most burnable fraction of the waste stream.
• Reuse and repair systems that cut waste before it is generated.
• Integration of waste pickers and recyclers as recognized workers, not an afterthought.
• Producer accountability that shifts the cost of packaging and plastic back onto the companies that create it.

GAIA’s Zero Waste Academy has trained more than 500 participants across regions from Africa to Latin America to build exactly these kinds of plans. Learn how communities design zero waste systems through GAIA’s work on zero waste for all communities and the evidence that zero waste beats incineration in cutting climate pollution.

Communities that refused incineration and won

Communities have refused incineration and won by combining early organizing, legal action, and zero waste alternatives — from Canada to Chile. For more examples, explore 20 Inspiring Stories of Victory Against Incinerators, GAIA’s Global Week of Action series spotlighting communities that stopped incinerators around the world.

GAIA’s case documentation on stopping waste-to-energy in Canada records how community and civil-society pressure has challenged proposed WTE projects and pushed decision-makers toward waste reduction instead of burning.

In Chile, residents in the Araucanía region carried their fight into the courts. GAIA’s coverage of the case — WTE Araucanía awaits the tribunal’s resolution — documents how the community used the legal system to contest a proposed incineration project, demonstrating that permitting and tribunal processes are real leverage points for refusing incineration.

The pattern across these cases is consistent: organize before the contract is signed, make air quality and public health the core argument, and offer a zero waste plan as the alternative.

These are not isolated wins. They are part of a global movement in which residents, waste pickers, and organizers refuse to accept incineration as the price of managing waste.

Frequently asked questions about stopping incinerators Can a community legally stop an incinerator?

Yes. Communities can legally stop an incinerator by intervening in the permitting process, filing public comments, requesting hearings, and challenging permits in court. In Chile’s Araucanía region, residents took a proposed WTE project to a tribunal, showing that legal channels are a real path to refuse incineration.

What is a zero waste plan?

A zero waste plan is a community roadmap to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost the maximum amount of waste so that little or nothing needs to be burned or landfilled. It typically includes source separation, organics composting, reuse systems, integration of waste pickers, and producer accountability.

How long does it take to block an incinerator?

It varies. Some campaigns win in months by mobilizing before a contract is signed; others take years of sustained legal and public pressure. The earlier a community organizes — ideally before permits and financing are locked in — the shorter and more winnable the fight tends to be.

What agencies regulate incineration permits?

Incineration and waste-to-energy facilities generally require environmental and air-quality permits from local and national regulators. The exact agencies depend on the country and region, so a key early step is to map every permit the project needs and request all public documents.

Refuse incineration with us

Burning waste is not inevitable — and it is not a solution. Communities everywhere are proving that incineration can be refused and replaced with community-led zero waste. You don’t have to fight alone.

Join the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration. Take part in the Global Week of Action to connect with organizers, access campaign resources, and help build the zero waste alternative in your community.

The post How Communities Can Refuse Incineration and Win first appeared on GAIA.

If your community is being pitched a “waste-to-energy” incinerator as a clean, modern fix for its garbage, this page equips you to evaluate that claim with evidence rather than industry marketing.

The short version: a waste-to-energy incinerator is not renewable, not cheap, and not clean. It is one of the most expensive ways to manage waste, locks cities into decades of burning materials that should be reduced, reused, and composted, and releases pollutants into the neighborhoods least able to fight back. If that weren’t bad enough, it’s a climate disaster, emitting almost twice as much CO2 per unit of energy than coal. Zero waste solutions cut climate pollution, cost less, and create more jobs.

This is GAIA’s evidence base for policymakers, community organizers, and journalists assessing incineration proposals. It draws on GAIA’s more than two decades of research and community organizing across the global zero waste movement. Read it, share it, and download the full brief to bring the receipts to your next council meeting.

What is a waste-to-energy incinerator?

A waste-to-energy incinerator is a facility that burns municipal solid waste at high temperatures to produce heat, which drives a turbine to generate electricity. “Waste-to-energy” (often shortened to WTE) is the industry’s preferred name for what is, at its core, mass-burn incineration.

The term is a marketing frame. Burning trash to make a small amount of power does not make incineration a clean or circular technology. It converts discarded materials — much of which could be recycled or composted — into ash, air pollution, and greenhouse gases.

How waste-to-energy incineration actually works

Mixed municipal waste is fed into a combustion chamber and burned at roughly 850°C or higher. The heat boils water into steam, the steam spins a turbine, and the turbine generates electricity. Whatever is left becomes bottom ash and fly ash, both of which require disposal — often in a landfill.

This is the detail the industry rarely leads with: incineration does not make waste disappear. It transforms one waste stream into three — air emissions, toxic fly ash, and bottom ash — while destroying the material value of everything it burns.

Why “energy recovery” is a misleading label

The amount of energy recovered from burning waste is low relative to the energy that was embedded in producing those materials in the first place. Recycling an aluminum can or a plastic bottle saves far more energy than burning it ever recovers.

Burning waste for a modest electricity yield destroys that embedded energy permanently. GAIA’s research shows that a zero waste approach — reduce, reuse, recycle, compost — retains far more value and cuts far more climate pollution than any “energy recovery” from an incinerator.

Why incineration of waste harms the climate and communities

The incineration of waste harms the climate because it emits more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than coal, and it harms communities because it releases hazardous air pollutants into the neighborhoods surrounding the plant.

Waste-to-energy incinerators emit 1.7 times as much greenhouse gases (GHGs) per unit of electricity produced compared to coal-fired power plants. They also emit more air pollutants than other sources of energy.

That single comparison dismantles the “clean energy” claim. A technology that out-pollutes coal per megawatt-hour cannot credibly be sold as a climate solution. GAIA’s peer analysis found that zero waste beats incineration in cutting climate pollution, and the emissions math is the reason why.

The pollutants a waste-to-energy incinerator releases

GAIA’s WTE Facts and Figures brief documents that waste-to-energy incinerators release a range of hazardous pollutants, including dioxins, furans, mercury, lead, and particulate matter. These are not trace nuisances — they are among the most toxic substances in industrial air pollution.

Dioxins and furans are persistent, bioaccumulative, and linked to cancer and reproductive harm. Mercury and lead are neurotoxins. Fine particulate matter penetrates deep into the lungs and is associated with heart and respiratory disease. The exact pollutant profile of any given plant depends on what is burned and how emissions are controlled.

Environmental justice: who lives next to the smokestack

Incinerators are not distributed evenly. They are disproportionately sited in low-income communities and communities of color — the same communities that have historically had the least political power to refuse them.

This is the heart of GAIA’s objection. A waste-to-energy incinerator does not just produce emissions; it concentrates them where the people breathing them did not consent. Community air-quality monitoring by GAIA members repeatedly documents this pattern. That is why more than 100 organizations have urged UN-Habitat to stop promoting waste-to-energy as a false solution.

The true cost of waste incineration vs. zero waste

Waste-to-energy incineration is one of the most expensive waste management options available — incinerators carry very high upfront capital costs, long-term debt, and “put-or-pay” contracts that lock cities into feeding the burner for decades. For a detailed breakdown, see GAIA’s resource on the high cost of waste incineration.

That one sentence is the answer most policymakers are searching for: what does a waste-to-energy incinerator cost? It costs more than nearly any other disposal method — and the bill lasts far longer than a single budget cycle.

Why incinerator cost is higher than it looks

The sticker price of an incinerator is only the beginning. A full accounting of incinerator cost includes capital financing over decades, ongoing operations and maintenance, pollution-control equipment, ash disposal, and the health and environmental costs borne by nearby residents.

Because the facilities are so expensive to build, they are financed with long-term debt. To service that debt, operators need a guaranteed volume of waste to burn. That is where the trap closes.

The put-or-pay trap

Many incinerator contracts include “put-or-pay” clauses. A put-or-pay clause is a contractual guarantee that a city will supply a minimum tonnage of waste — or pay a penalty as if it had.

This creates a direct financial disincentive to reduce, reuse, recycle, or compost. Once a city signs, cutting waste means paying penalties. The incinerator’s economics actively fight against the zero waste progress a community wants to make.

What communities get instead when they choose zero waste

Zero waste systems require far less capital, scale incrementally, and create more jobs per ton of material handled than incineration. Recycling and composting infrastructure can be built in stages, funded without decades of debt, and adjusted as a community’s needs change.

Crucially, zero waste keeps money and materials circulating in the local economy rather than sending them up a smokestack. It is the flexible, lower-cost, community-controlled alternative that a put-or-pay incinerator contract forecloses.

Zero waste alternatives that beat incineration

Zero waste alternatives — waste reduction, reuse, expanded recycling, and organics composting — cut climate pollution, cost less, and create significantly more jobs than a waste-to-energy incinerator. They are not aspirational; they are already working in cities across the GAIA network.

Reduce and reuse first

The cheapest, cleanest ton of waste is the one never created. Waste reduction and reuse — refillable systems, repair, product redesign, and bans on the worst single-use items — shrink the waste stream at the source before disposal is ever a question.

This is why incineration and zero waste are fundamentally incompatible. An incinerator needs a steady diet of waste; zero waste is designed to starve that diet down to nothing.

Recycling and separate collection

Separating materials at the source keeps recyclables clean and valuable. When waste is mixed and burned, that material value is destroyed forever. When it is separated and recycled, it displaces the far larger energy and emissions cost of producing materials from scratch.

GAIA’s global network has documented zero waste cities that have driven diversion rates high enough to make incineration unnecessary — proof that the model scales in the real world.

Composting and organics

Organic waste — food scraps and yard trimmings — is wet and heavy, which makes it a poor fuel and a major driver of an incinerator’s inefficiency. Diverted to composting instead, that same material becomes soil, sequesters carbon, and supports local agriculture.

Removing organics from the waste stream is one of the fastest ways to cut both landfill methane and incinerator emissions at the same time.

The trans-local model behind the movement

GAIA supports these alternatives through a trans-local organizing model — distributed leadership across regional communities rather than a single top-down blueprint. Programs like GAIA’s Zero Waste Academy equip citizens, policymakers, and organizations with the scientific knowledge and political frameworks to build community-led systems that make incineration obsolete.

Frequently asked questions about waste-to-energy Is waste-to-energy renewable?

No. Waste-to-energy incineration is not renewable. It relies on a continuous supply of discarded materials — much of it fossil-based plastics — and emits 1.7 times as much greenhouse gas per megawatt-hour as coal-fired power plants. Burning finite materials to make power is the opposite of a renewable cycle.

Is incineration better than landfill?

No — framing the choice as “incinerator or landfill” is a false dilemma. Both are disposal methods that destroy material value, and incineration adds hazardous air emissions and toxic ash on top. The real alternative is zero waste: reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost so that far less material needs disposal at all.

What does a waste-to-energy incinerator cost?

A waste-to-energy incinerator is one of the most expensive waste management options, with very high capital costs and long-term contracts that often lock cities in for decades. The full picture — including financing, operations, ash disposal, and health costs — is detailed in GAIA’s the high cost of waste incineration.

Does waste-to-energy reduce waste?

Not really. Incineration reduces the volume of waste but leaves behind bottom ash and toxic fly ash that still require disposal, and it destroys recyclable and compostable materials in the process. It converts one waste stream into three — air emissions, fly ash, and bottom ash — rather than genuinely eliminating waste.

Are waste-to-energy emissions regulated?

WTE incinerators are subject to air-quality regulations, but regulation does not make them safe. Emission limits vary widely between countries, monitoring is often intermittent, and pollutants like dioxins, furans, mercury, and lead are hazardous even at low, “permitted” concentrations. Community air-quality monitoring by GAIA members frequently reveals gaps between what is permitted and what communities actually breathe.

Take action against waste incineration

Waste-to-energy incineration is a false solution — more polluting than coal, more expensive than the alternatives, and a decades-long lock-in that punishes communities for choosing zero waste. The evidence is clear, and the movement to stop it is growing.

Download the full WTE Facts brief to bring GAIA’s complete data set — emissions figures, cost analysis, and pollutant profiles — to your next hearing, article, or campaign. Enter your email and we will send you the brief and updates from the movement.

Add your name to GAIA’s campaign against waste incineration. Communities across the global GAIA network are refusing incineration and building zero waste systems that work. Join the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration, and help make the next proposed incinerator the one that never gets built.

See the evidence from twenty incinerators worldwide in GAIA’s Burn Book, and read GAIA’s new report on waste-to-energy in Africa.

The post Waste-to-Energy Incineration: The Facts, Costs & Risks first appeared on GAIA.

Three storms at once

Today is World Food Day. This year it finds African farmers caught between three storms at once: a super El Niño, a war in Europe and a war in the Gulf.

None of these storms began in Africa. Africa did not heat the Pacific Ocean. It did not start the war in Ukraine or the war around the Strait of Hormuz. Yet it is African farmers, pastoralists, fisherfolk and families who will pay the highest price, in empty granaries, dead livestock and children going to bed hungry.

That is what I want to say plainly today. These crises are not creating Africa’s vulnerability. They are exposing it. And that vulnerability was not an accident. It was built.

A super El Niño that hits Africa hardest

The El Niño now under way is one of the strongest on record. The World Food Programme warns it could push at least 49 million more people into acute hunger by the end of 2027. Around 24 million of them are in Africa: more than 18 million in East and Southern Africa, and nearly 6 million in West and Central Africa.

The damage is already visible. The June to September rains failed across Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan and Uganda’s Karamoja. South Sudan and Karamoja are on track for their driest year on record. Now the Horn of Africa faces the opposite danger: heavy rains and floods along Somalia’s rivers, where famine is a real risk.

In Southern Africa, forecasters expect late, poor rains and long dry spells over the season that is starting now. Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia, Angola, Madagascar and Lesotho are of greatest concern. The worst hunger will come not now but in the lean months of 2027 and early 2028, when the food from a failed harvest runs out.

For a farmer who depends on rain, one failed season can mean selling the last goat, pulling a child out of school or eating seed meant for next year. A family can take years to recover.

Wars far away, hunger at home

The war between Russia and Ukraine has entered a new phase on the Black Sea. Both sides are now striking each other’s grain ports. Russian wheat exports fell by more than half in August. The FAO Food Price Index reached its highest level since November 2022. African and Middle Eastern countries, among the biggest buyers of Black Sea wheat, are low on stocks and will have to buy at higher prices.

The war in the Gulf has hit even closer to the farm. Since 28 February, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has been largely blocked. About a third of the world’s seaborne fertiliser normally passes through it. Urea more than doubled in price, from about US$400 to over US$850 a tonne in April.

World prices have since eased, but African farmers have not felt the relief. In July, urea still cost about US$975 a tonne in Malawi and US$933 in Tanzania, more than double the world price. Weak currencies, freight costs and port delays keep it high.

Fuel tells the same story. Ethiopia lost more than 180,000 tonnes of fuel deliveries, halving its daily diesel supply. In Kenya, record fuel price rises pushed transport fares up by about a quarter. Zimbabwe’s fuel import costs rose 40% in under a month.

Every one of these numbers reaches the farm. Diesel moves the harvest to market. Fertiliser that a farmer cannot afford means a smaller harvest next season. And the bread, rice and cooking oil that city families buy cost more each week.

Same storm, different shelter

The same shocks are hitting the whole world. What differs is who has shelter.

When fertiliser prices jumped, India raised its fertiliser subsidy by 11%, to 415 billion rupees for the summer season alone. The European Union proposed €540 million in emergency relief for its farmers, which member states can top up to about €1.5 billion. France added its own fertiliser aid. These governments had the money, the institutions and the political room to act within weeks.

Most African governments did not. Many entered this year already squeezed by debt. In nearly four in five sub-Saharan African countries, governments now pay more in interest than they spend on health or education, according to the World Bank. A treasury that sends its money to creditors cannot shield its farmers. Countries such as Ghana, Malawi and Sudan could not even pay cash for fertiliser imports.

So the shock that a rich country absorbs as a budget line falls on an African family as hunger. That is not a difference in weather. It is a difference in power.

A vulnerability that was built

Africa is not weak by nature. Its vulnerability was built over generations, and it is still being built today.

• Colonialism reshaped African farming for export. The best land, roads, railways and research went to cotton, coffee, cocoa and groundnuts for European factories. Food for Africans came second. Many of those patterns remain.
• Structural adjustment dismantled our defences. From the 1980s, loan conditions pushed governments to close grain reserves and marketing boards, cut extension services and open markets to subsidised imports. We lost the buffers that once carried us through bad years.
• We were taught to import our food. Sub-Saharan Africa’s food import bill was projected to reach about US$65 billion in 2025. Every rise in world prices and every weak currency now lands directly on our tables.
• We were taught to import our soil fertility. A farming model built on purchased fertiliser and hybrid seed ties the fertility of African soils to gas fields and shipping lanes thousands of kilometres away. The Strait of Hormuz has shown what that means.
• Debt keeps the cycle going. Money that should build irrigation, storage and rural roads goes to pay interest. Climate finance, when it comes, too often arrives as loans, adding new debt to repair damage Africa did not cause.
• The rules are written elsewhere. Trade rules, seed laws, intellectual property regimes and credit ratings are largely set by and for the powerful. They narrow the policy space African governments need to protect their own farmers.

These are not separate problems. They are one system, and it was designed to keep Africa supplying raw materials and buying finished goods. El Niño and the wars did not create this system. They have simply shown us, once again, how it works.

What must change

This year’s World Food Day theme is “Innovate today. Nourish tomorrow.” The innovation Africa needs most is not another imported package. It is the courage to rebuild food systems that Africans control.

1. Act now on El Niño. Governments and agencies must move before the lean season, not after it. Pre-position food, protect livestock and seed, and get cash to families early.
2. Rebuild public food reserves. National and regional grain reserves, run in the public interest, are a basic defence that structural adjustment took away.
3. Invest in agroecology and healthy soils. Compost, manure, legumes, trees and diverse crops build fertility that no blockade can cut off. Public money now spent on imported fertiliser should shift steadily towards them.
4. Protect farmers’ seed. Farmer-managed seed systems hold the drought-tolerant varieties we need. Laws that criminalise saving and exchanging seed must change.
5. Feed Africa from African farms. Support territorial markets, local processing and public procurement, including school meals, that buy from our own producers.
6. Cancel unjust debt and pay climate finance as grants. No country should have to choose between paying creditors and feeding its people. Adaptation finance must reach farmer organisations directly.
7. Give Africa its policy space. Trade and investment rules must allow African governments to protect their farmers and their food.

Africa can feed itself

Africa has the land, the water, the seed, the knowledge and the farmers to feed itself. Our small-scale producers already grow most of the food Africans eat, often with little or no public support.

What we lack is not ability. It is control over our own food systems, and freedom from the debts, rules and dependencies that keep us exposed to every storm.

On this World Food Day, I call on African governments, the African Union and our international partners to stop treating each crisis as a surprise. The next El Niño, the next war and the next price shock will come. Let them find Africa ready, fed by its own farmers and standing on its own soil.

Million Belay (PhD)
General Coordinator, Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)
16 October 2026

Vegetable farms and solar farms both need lots of sunlight and open space. But how do we divide our limited lands between these two priorities? One elegant solution is to put crops and solar panels on the same land—and share the broad spectrum of incoming sunlight between them.

A new study in Cell Reports Physical Science does this with photovoltaic cells that are semi-transparent: They capture some wavelengths of sunlight to make electricity, while letting the wavelengths most critical to photosynthesis pass through and reach the plants below. The new study suggests that broccoli can be grown in the magenta shade of these solar panels—without sacrificing the harvest.

Agrivoltaic schemes—putting plants and solar on the same land – could help us avoid clearing more land for human use. Climate studies suggest that this might work especially well across a wide sunbathed swath of the United States, from Texas up to Nebraska and west to California. Devoting just one percent of U.S. farmland to agrivoltaics could cover up to 20 percent of the nation’s electricity needs.

But traditional photovoltaic panels are opaque—and by shading plants, they can reduce crop yields. So engineers are trying to create new photovoltaic cells that divide the spectrum of sunlight between plants and electricity generation—similar to how governments segment different frequency bands for television, radio, cell phones, and other uses.

A 2020 study looked at panels that allow red wavelengths, critical for photosynthesis, to pass through—while harvesting green and blue wavelengths to make electricity. Basil grown under these panels produced similar yields, while spinach yields decreased. But the researchers estimated that by selling both electricity and crops, farmers growing spinach could generate 35 percent more income from the same land.

 

.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:New study compares growing corn for energy to solar production. It’s no contest.

 

In the newest study, scientists evaluated a different kind of semi-transparent panel that lets most red and some blue wavelengths pass through—casting a magenta light on the plants—while converting much of the rest to electricity.

Broccoli cultivated under them grew more slowly, requiring an additional 25 days for harvest, but produced roughly the same yield. Meanwhile, these magenta sunscreens improved the microclimate below, reducing the “vapor pressure deficit”—a measure of when plants need to halt photosynthesis to avoid excessive water loss. This may have improved the plants’ efficiency in converting sunlight into plant biomass, which increased by 2.8- to 4.5-fold compared to unshaded plants.

The shaded plants’ levels of macronutrients such as calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus were either higher than or similar to unshaded plants, while levels of some micronutrients such as iron, copper, and zinc were slightly lower.

This was only a preliminary study. Future studies should look at larger plots, farmed across multiple seasons, and in different locations with varying climate and sunlight. It suggests that for now, the future of agrivoltaics might be best seen through rose-colored glasses.

Lu et al. “Evaluating land productivity with semi-transparent colored CdTe thin-film PV and broccoli cultivation in agrivoltaic systems.” Cell Reports Physical Science, 2026.

Image: Broccoli growing beneath semi-transparent, colored solar panels at the experimental site at Kärrbo Prästgård farm in Sweden. ©Silvia Ma Lu

The World Bank president said on Friday his organisation will continue to support some gas projects in developing countries alongside renewables, nuclear and hydropower, despite criticism from climate campaigners who say fossil gas is expensive and polluting.

“Homes, mines, factories, farms, and growing cities – what do they need? Reliable, affordable baseload power,” Ajay Banga told the bank’s annual meeting in Bangkok on Friday. “Our approach is balanced by design – a full mix of renewables, hydro, gas where appropriate, nuclear when it makes sense, transmission, grids, storage – the whole thing.”

His comments come in a week during which he faced pressure from the US to finance more gas projects and from climate campaigners to stop funding fossil fuels altogether, part of a tightrope he has walked on the bank’s climate policy since Donald Trump’s re-election in 2025.

The bank ended its support for coal around ten years ago and last year, for the first time, funded no oil projects. It has ended support for gas exploration but still backs some projects to do with transporting and using gas, such as a $140-million project to help Benin, Côte d’Ivoire and Togo in West Africa to import liquefied natural gas (LNG).

While its overall support for fossil fuels wanes, the bank’s support for clean energy has been at historic highs over the last few years, with funding of just under $10 billion a year in 2023, 2024 and 2025 – compared to under $1.5 billion a year for fossil fuels.

On Monday, the head of Pakistan’s Indus Consortium, Hussain Jarwar, asked Banga at a civil society townhall meeting why the bank is supporting a “volatile” energy source like LNG, which is pushing economies and consumers into debt “when real renewable energy solutions like solar [are] available and supporting communities and industries for clean, accessible and affordable energy source”. Global LNG prices hit record highs earlier this year as the Iran war squeezed supplies.

Banga replied that the bank is working with countries to source “baseload productive power” and that “if Pakistan wants to build an energy system that is more self-reliant by going further on different forms of baseload plus top-up energy, we’re more than happy to work with it”. “We’ve got no biases in the system – our job is that electricity and water are human rights,” he added.

His answer did not satisfy climate campaigners. Sunil Acharya, just transition lead at Recourse, an NGO that works on sustainable development finance, said in a statement that the bank is moving in the wrong direction and Banga’s “framing of wind and solar as a ‘top-up’ to nuclear, hydropower and gas misses the opportunity to transform energy systems”.

“Fossil gas is bad economics – it exposes countries to volatile global markets and debt while locking public resources into costly infrastructure,” the Nepali campaigner said. “The World Bank must stop reproducing the extractive development model of the fossil fuel era and redirect public finance towards 100% renewable economies that deliver energy for all, protect people and nature, and put people’s priorities before private profit.”

US pressure from Scott Bessent

On Wednesday, however, Banga was pressured from the other direction. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who skipped the Bangkok meeting, issued a statement praising the bank for “beginning to refocus on its core mission of reducing poverty and raising economic growth” after what he called “years of mission creep”.

He said the bank should “formally retire its prohibition on financing” gas and oil exploration and production as it “cannot credibly invoke country ownership while categorically excluding upstream projects before their development merits are even assessed”. He argued that supporting gas projects would help extend electricity access in Africa.

The US is a major gas exporter and analysts are warning its gas companies will struggle to sell their product abroad in the coming years, as US LNG production expands while buyers in Europe and Asia move away from gas to cleaner sources of electricity.

• Jul 2, 2026 Finance World Bank’s climate work can endure without finance target, experts say Even though the global lender has ditched a headline goal for its financing with climate benefits, it has decided to continue its climate action plan in the face of US pressure Read more
• Jan 14, 2025 Energy In a major reversal, the World Bank is backing mega dams Despite opposition, the bank has approved the first of five big dam projects expected to get its support in the coming months Read more
• Oct 15, 2026 News Countries urged to ramp up “insufficient” nature policies at COP17 A major UN report that will inform biodiversity negotiations in Armenia shows countries have made some progress but are still off track for a landmark goal to protect 30% of land and oceans by 2030 Read more

In July, under US pressure, the World Bank scrapped its target for 45% of its finance to go to climate projects. But, with support from a broad majority of countries, it renewed its climate change action plan. The compromise “could have been a lot worse”, E3G climate policy advisor Danny Scull said at the time.

Other multilateral development banks that have the US as a major shareholder, like the Inter-American Development Bank and Asian Development Bank, are now expected to face pressure to scrap their climate finance targets too.

In June 2025, the World Bank ended its ban on support for nuclear power – a move that was welcomed by the US. In his speech on Friday, Banga said the bank would support nuclear retrofits – the modernisation of existing nuclear power stations – alongside the International Atomic Energy Agency, noting that this was “the first such work in 50 years for the bank”.

The post Under US pressure, World Bank says it will back gas “where appropriate” appeared first on Climate Home News.

Prompt: What is the legal status of the royaldutchshellplc.com website?

Google AI Mode reply

The royaldutchshellplc.com website is an independent, non-profit critical commentary and watchdog archive owned and operated by John Donovan, with no official affiliation to Shell plc. [1, 2] Ownership and WIPO Ruling

• Domain Registration: Alfred Donovan registered the domain name in October 2004. [1]
• WIPO Dispute: Shell attempted to seize the domain through a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) arbitration proceeding (Case No. D2005-0538). [1]
• Outcome: WIPO rejected Shell’s complaint, ruling that the Donovans held a legitimate right to use the domain for non-commercial criticism and freedom of expression. [1]
• Current Control: The website is lawfully operated by John Donovan. [1, 2]

Corporate Status vs. Domain Status

• Name Change: The multinational energy corporation previously known as Royal Dutch Shell plc officially simplified its name to Shell plc in January 2022. [1, 2]
• Official Website: Shell’s official corporate and operational portal is located at shell.com. [1, 2]
• Legal Separation: While Shell retains its corporate trademarks, it does not own the royaldutchshellplc.comdomain. The site operates under an explicit disclaimer stating it is an independent news, opinion, and watchdog platform. [1, 2]

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more Legal status of the royaldutchshellplc.com website was first posted on October 16, 2026 at 12:15 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