News Feeds

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

By John Donovan & ChatGPT

Published 19 Jan 2026

In the industrialised warfare of the early 20th century, oil replaced coal as the decisive strategic resource. When the First World War erupted in 1914, the British Army and Royal Navy faced a profound logistical challenge: powering millions of troops, thousands of vehicles, and hundreds of warships across multiple theatres of war. Into that breach stepped the burgeoning Royal Dutch Shell Group — supplying fuel, shipping capacity and vital logistics at a time when oil was rapidly becoming as crucial to victory as manpower and guns.

From Global Merchant to Wartime Supplier

Royal Dutch Shell was formed in 1907 through the merger of the British Shell Transport and Trading Company and the Dutch Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, creating one of the world’s first truly global oil enterprises. The group was already investing in modern tanker technology and bulk oil transport before the war: in 1892 the tanker Murex became the first to transit the Suez Canal, allowing oil to be shipped more efficiently to distant markets — an early example of strategic logistics that would matter deeply twenty-plus years later.

By the outbreak of World War I, Shell had a growing fleet of oil tankers and a global production network. Its strategic capacity to move large volumes of petroleum products — refined fuels, lubricants, and other derivatives — made it a natural partner to Allied government planners as oil became indispensable to modern war machinery.

Main Supplier to the British War Effort

According to historical records, during the First World War Shell became the main supplier of fuel to the British Expeditionary Force — the army deployed overseas to fight on the Western Front — and played a crucial role in keeping the engines of war moving. Shell also served as the sole supplier of aviation fuel at a time when air power was in its infancy but already essential for reconnaissance and combat. It is also recorded that Shell supplied as much as 80 % of the British Army’s TNT raw materials — an extraordinary contribution to munitions production.

Perhaps most symbolically important, Shell volunteered its entire shipping fleet to the British Admiralty — the naval command responsible for protecting sea lanes, maintaining supply chains, and ensuring that Britain’s war machine could be kept fed across oceans (Shell committed all of its shipping).

This was no small gesture. At a time when German U-boats prowled the Atlantic and merchant losses were mounting, ensuring the steady delivery of fuel and materials was as much a contribution to national security as direct combat. The Royal Navy’s transition from coal-burning dreadnoughts to oil-fired ships — a strategy initiated on the eve of the war and intensified during it — required reliable, high-quality oil supplies. Shell’s capacity to deliver helped make that transition possible.

Strategic Importance of Oil in WWI and Shell’s Role

Oil was not an incidental input in the First World War — it was central to the modernisation of armies and navies. British oil consumption soared as the conflict went on, and by mid-war the importance of secure fuel supplies was widely recognised by military and government planners alike. A detailed academic analysis of British strategic oil policy notes that the driving requirement for reliable oil supplies shaped diplomatic and logistical planning — including tanker construction, fuel stockpiling, and fuel diplomacy — throughout the war.

Shell’s involvement with the British government was part of that broader strategic posture. The company’s production, refining, transport network, and shipping assets were woven into government planning as early as 1912, when Marcus Samuel, the founder of Shell Transport & Trading, gave evidence to the British Royal Commission on Fuel and Engines and emphasised the need for secure diplomatic support and contracts for oil supplies.

In practice, this translated into Shell’s involvement in supplying warships, trucks, aircraft, and artillery units across multiple fronts — a contribution that was at once commercial and patriotic.

War’s Mixed Fortunes and Post-War Expansion

The war was not without hardship for Shell. The German invasion of Romania in 1916 — a key oil-producing region — destroyed about 17 % of the group’s global production overnight. Meanwhile, internal unrest, revolutions, and shifting alliances complicated operations in Russia and elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the post-war period confirmed Shell’s central position in the global oil industry. The war entrenched oil’s role in modern economies and military strategy, and those patterns persisted into the inter-war era. Shell emerged not only with enhanced reputation but also with expanded markets, refined logistics capabilities, and an integrated global supply chain. By the end of the 1920s, the company was a leading producer, marketer, and transporter of oil products worldwide.

The Tanker Fleet: Maritime Logistics That Mattered

Shell’s wartime contributions were facilitated by decades of investment in tanker technology. The company’s early commissioning of tanker fleets significantly cut transportation costs and expanded load capacity — a commercial innovation that proved strategically valuable in wartime.

Though the best-known illustrations of Shell’s tanker fleets’ wartime roles often come from the Second World War (when some were converted into Merchant Aircraft Carriers), the foundational experience of operating and managing large tanker fleets was built in the pre-war era. Ships that could carry oil in bulk were a relatively new technology, but they became absolutely vital for war logistics — and Shell was among the pioneers.

Conclusion: A Worthy Chapter in Industrial Patriotism

While any multinational’s history includes complexities and controversies, Shell’s support for Britain in the First World War stands as a clear instance in which commercial capability and national need aligned. By supplying the British Expeditionary Force’s fuel, providing aviation fuel, donating vast quantities of shipping capacity, and integrating its logistics into wartime planning, Shell played a critical enabling role in the Allied war effort.

In the industrial warfare of 1914–18, when mobility and mechanisation transformed battlefields, Shell’s contribution helped ensure fuel did not become a bottleneck at a time when oil was a strategic lifeline.

References

• Shell became the main supplier of fuel to the British Expeditionary Force in WWI, was sole supplier of aviation fuel and provided 80 % of the British Army’s TNT, and volunteered all its shipping to the Admiralty.

• Shell’s early commissioning of bulk oil tankers such as the Murex revolutionised oil transport and reduced oil shipment costs long before the war.

• Academic work on British oil strategy in 1914-23 emphasises Britain’s need for secure oil supplies and the strategic integration of tanker logistics into war planning.

• Post-war expansion cemented Shell’s global position, reflecting how the war shaped demand for oil, transport networks, and refinery capacity.

Disclaimer

This article is intended as historical analysis and commentary based on publicly available archival records, published corporate histories, academic research, and reputable secondary sources. It distinguishes between documented facts, historical interpretation, and opinion, and does not assign moral or legal culpability beyond what is supported by cited evidence. References to Shell’s activities during the First World War reflect the strategic and logistical context of the time and do not constitute modern commercial or legal endorsement. This article does not provide professional, legal, or investment advice.

 

Shell and the Great War: Fueling Victory — How Oil Tankers and Supplies Helped Britain in World War I was first posted on January 19, 2026 at 10:14 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

The Groningen gas field in the Netherlands — once Europe’s largest — now at the centre of arbitration cases by Shell, ExxonMobil and NAM against the Dutch state over closure terms and compensation rights.

The long-running saga over the Netherlands’ Groningen gas field — once Europe’s largest — has entered a new, highly contested legal phase: multiple arbitration cases by energy majors Shell plc and ExxonMobil against the Dutch government and state-linked entities. These disputes touch on issues ranging from contractual interpretation and reputational risk to international investment law and public policy. The unfolding legal fight raises important questions about accountability, investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), and the shifting balance between profit rights and public interest in the energy transition.

Background: Groningen — From Fuel of a Nation to Earthquake Epicentre

The Groningen gas field was discovered in 1959 and became central to the Netherlands’ energy supply and economic development. Decades of extensive production helped fuel Dutch post-war growth and gas export revenues. However, gas extraction also induced thousands of earthquakes across the region, causing structural damage to homes, economic stress, and years of social unrest. Production limits were introduced from 2014, and by October 2023 gas extraction ceased after decades of seismic impacts. 

What Are the Arbitration Cases About? 1. Multiple Arbitration Proceedings (2022–2025)

Between 2022 and 2024, Shell, ExxonMobil, and their joint venture Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (NAM) — a 50/50 JV between Shell and ExxonMobil that operated the Groningen field — initiated at least four partially overlapping arbitration claims against the Dutch state. These primarily fall into two categories: investor-state dispute settlement claims and contractual arbitration. 

A. Contractual Arbitration Before the Netherlands Arbitration Institute (NAI)

Shell and ExxonMobil — both through NAM and as separate parties — have filed arbitration claims with the Netherlands Arbitration Institute (NAI) concerning:

• levies for damage compensation and home reinforcement, and

• the terms and implementation of the Groningen phase-out arrangements originally envisaged under the 2018 Heads of Agreement and the 2019 Interim Agreement with the Dutch state. 

These cases hinge on the interpretation and compliance of contractual arrangements about how the wind-down of gas extraction was to proceed and who bears financial responsibility for related costs. Shell has stated that arbitration is part of standard contract mechanisms to resolve such disagreements, and that it still seeks a final, all-encompassing settled judgment on the terms agreed with the government. 

B. Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) Arbitration

ExxonMobil has also brought a claim under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) — a controversial investor-state treaty that allows corporations to seek compensation when public policy actions are alleged to harm their investments. In ExxonMobil’s case, this assertion challenges the Dutch government’s decision to halt gas production as a breach of investment protection standards under the ECT. 

That claim was filed via a Belgian subsidiary — a tactic known as “treaty shopping”, which routes claims through jurisdictions with favourable bilateral investment treaties — a move that has attracted legal and political scrutiny given EU law debates on the ECT’s compatibility with European energy and climate policy. 

Why These Legal Actions Matter 1. Compensation for “Lost Future Profit” and Damage Liability

The companies are asserting that:

• they are entitled to compensation for lost future gas production profits due to the accelerated shut-down, and

• they are contesting their financial liabilities for ongoing earthquake-related damages, despite decades of revenue from the field (reportedly more than €60 billion). 

In contrast, the Dutch government has estimated €22 billion in public commitments to repair and redevelopment plans for the region, and some commentators argue that diverting public funds toward arbitration awards could undermine these efforts and delay compensation for affected residents. 

2. Interim Arbitration Decisions and Public Oversight Concerns

An interim ruling by an NAI tribunal in early 2025 granted Shell and ExxonMobil enhanced access to audits and government reporting connected to damage claims — a development that has raised concerns about corporate influence over damage assessment mechanisms at a time when the companies remain financially responsible for ongoing reinforcement and claims settlement. 

3. ISDS and Investor-State Law Controversies

Invoking the Energy Charter Treaty has drawn criticism because of broader political movements to reform or abandon ISDS mechanisms, particularly in the context of climate policy and energy transitions. The European Union is in the process of withdrawing from the ECT, in part because such treaties can be used to challenge government environmental policy decisions in private tribunals. 

Civil society groups and policy analysts have argued that these arbitration strategies — often conducted in private tribunals rather than domestic courts — can undermine public accountability and obstruct governments’ ability to pursue environmental protections. 

Public and Political Reactions

The arbitration battles have not taken place in a vacuum. A major Dutch parliamentary inquiry in 2023 concluded that the state and energy companies had historically prioritised economic gain over public safety, leading to a “debt of honour” owed to residents of Groningen for decades of damage and insecurity. 

Critics argue that redirecting public resources to settle arbitration claims could jeopardise long-term recovery plans for the region, while supporters of arbitration maintain that contractual and investment protections should be respected, and that judicial remedies may not provide adequate or neutral resolution mechanisms.

How This Fits into Broader Trends in Energy and Arbitration

The Groningen litigation sits at the intersection of several larger policy tensions:

• the use of ISDS and treaty arbitration in climate and energy disputes,

• the ethics and legality of “treaty shopping” in intra-EU contexts,

• and the broader trend of fossil fuel companies using investor-state mechanisms to challenge national public policy decisions that affect their business models. 

This pattern has implications well beyond the Netherlands, sending signals to other countries considering aggressive climate or public safety policies that may affect incumbent energy investments.

Conclusion: A Legal Aftershock with Long-Term Implications

The Groningen arbitration disputes involving Shell, ExxonMobil, NAM, and the Dutch government reflect deep tensions between corporate profit protection and public governance prerogatives — particularly in the energy transition era. These cases demonstrate:

• how decades-old extractive agreements continue to shape modern energy policy,

• how international arbitration mechanisms can be used by multinationals to seek compensation for policy changes, and

• how public accountability and national legal forums intersect with private dispute settlement.

Regardless of how the tribunals ultimately rule, the legal battle underscores the complexity of managing legacy energy infrastructure, earth-science consequences, and shifting public expectations in an era where climate policy and investor rights increasingly collide.

Disclaimer

This article is based on publicly available reporting and arbitration case references. It does not provide legal advice and distinguishes documented developments from interpretation. Arbitration cases may evolve as proceedings continue.

Shell, ExxonMobil and the Netherlands: Arbitration Battles over Groningen’s Closure and Earthquake Legacy was first posted on January 19, 2026 at 9:51 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

This article Nonviolent discipline is helping turn the tide on ICE was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'bXyRxOyjSjJujtjVX9GRug',sig:'BEn586a3H5aqh52CF81Qe6nqDfCy6w_hIVCYFs10eNI=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2255049827',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

The movement for justice and democracy is growing and has displayed significant political clout: mobilizing unprecedented millions in mass protest, resisting ICE attacks in Minneapolis and other cities, turning interim electoral outcomes against MAGA policies, and building pressure for National Guard withdrawals. Trump’s ratings have slumped to the lowest level of his second term. A recent poll shows a majority of Americans opposed to ICE’s aggressive tactics.

Now we are at a critical juncture, a moment of escalating risk, but also opportunity for political gain. Protests and protective actions have surged in Minneapolis, especially following the murder of Renee Nicole Good. Citizens and public officials in Minneapolis have condemned the brutality of ICE and Border Patrol operations and their blatant acts of racial and ethnic profiling. They are demanding the withdrawal of federal forces and a halt to the de facto military siege of city neighborhoods.

The White House has shown no sign of backing down and is escalating the pressure, deploying a thousand additional federal agents to Minneapolis. Another shooting incident occurred on Jan. 15. Agents followed a Venezuelan man who fled a traffic stop and shot him in the leg as he tried to run to his house. Residents and neighbors poured into the street to confront the shooter, and ICE agents fired tear gas and flash bang grenades. Amidst the chaos three grenades hit the van of a man with six children. Three of the children ended up in the hospital, including a six-month-old baby who stopped breathing after being hit by tear gas. 

Anger and hatred are natural in response to such atrocities, but it is essential to avoid causing physical harm, to maintain a nonviolent intention and commitment despite increasing government provocation. A major outburst of protester violence would be disastrous, diverting attention from the message of support for victimized communities. That’s exactly what the White House is hoping for — to cover up ICE abuses, reinforce their lies about violent protesters and justify additional domestic militarization. 

The protests in Minneapolis have been remarkably nonviolent so far, given the severity of ICE’s occupation and its militarized methods. Caravans of SUVs with masked agents are followed by carloads of protesters who jump out when the agents stop for an arrest and attempt to obstruct their efforts. Whistles are used constantly to sound the alarm when federal agents approach, alerting nearby residents to document and try to prevent abuses and shout for ICE to leave. More than a hundred clergy and community leaders have organized a protest and sit-in at Target corporate headquarters to demand the company end its complicity with ICE. Students have walked out of school. Restaurants have denied entry to ICE agents. Local organizers have called for a Jan. 23 day of economic blackout (no work, no school, no shopping). 

#newsletter-block_e8a195d2fa6d17fc6d6f8ef7fd1cffda { background: #ececec; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_e8a195d2fa6d17fc6d6f8ef7fd1cffda #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

Emphasizing nonviolent discipline is appropriate in the days when we commemorate the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He wrote, “Hatred multiples hate. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Violence multiplies violence.”

King famously delivered a sermon titled “Loving Your Enemies.” He spoke of the spiritual power of nonviolence, but he also acknowledged the difficulty of loving those who oppress us. King addressed this dilemma in the struggle against segregation during his time. “I’m glad Jesus didn’t ask us to like our enemies,” he wrote. Respecting adversaries as fellow human beings does not mean accepting their cruel acts of racial subjugation, he argued. On the contrary, we are compelled by our love for the oppressed to take more intensive action to protect them.

The strategic dimensions of nonviolent discipline are also important. Scholar Gene Sharp emphasized that movements must be prepared to accept and withstand repression. Power never yields without a fight, and repression is common against effective movements such as ours. It is important at these moments not to back down, to maintain and intensify pressure against the oppressive adversary, while remaining disciplined.

When nonviolent movements face severe repression, the resulting suffering of victims may arouse a sympathetic response among third parties, winning support for the movement and increasing opposition to the brutality of the opponent. In this framing the government’s deployment of militarized force can be seen as a sign of weakness, of vulnerability to organized opposition.

#support-block_9412404fa823676f0c5b4ba0db2aa1b9 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

Trump is now threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy the military. The number of armed operations has increased sharply since late December, leading to more than 2,400 arrests. ICE terror operations have escalated. In recent days residents have seen the blinding of a 21-year old man, an assault on a disabled woman trying to get to a doctor’s appointment, the beating of a Native American, the kidnapping of a 17-year-old at work, agents kneeling on a man’s neck, and a tear gas attack at a school drop off. The list of abuses seems endless and is growing. With more armed forces in the streets and public tensions mounting, the risk of additional shootings is rising.

On Friday a federal judge ordered federal agents to stop pepper spraying, detaining and pulling over peaceful protesters. This is a victory for the movement, but it will not end the immigration crackdown. As long as militarized federal agents continue to prey upon vulnerable citizens, continued resistance will be necessary.

As local residents resist ICE attacks, it is important that their actions remain rooted in nonviolent discipline, as Paul Engler and colleagues wrote regarding the resistance to the National Guard in Los Angeles. The strategic purpose of disciplined protest is to attract growing support for the movement and avoid acts that the public may see as violent and repulsive. The broader goal is to channel the growing pressure for change into effective political action for structural change.

To reap these strategic advantages, movements must display a demeanor of openness and controlled action that is attractive to potential supporters. We must show a willingness to sacrifice and maintain persistent opposition even in the face of chemical weapons attack.

Previous Coverage

Timely lessons for keeping people safe in the streets 

The relative restraint in Minneapolis fits with the broader pattern of peaceful protest in the movement for justice and democracy and the many recent protests against ICE. MoveOn, Indivisible and other groups sponsoring the massive No Kings mobilizations last year strongly emphasized the importance of nonviolence. Protest events began with organizers giving clear instructions to participants to remain peaceful at all times and announcing the availability of training programs in nonviolent methods. (An excellent resource is the peacekeeper training handbook “Streetwise & Steady,” by Daniel Hunter and Eileen Flanagan.)

As we continue peaceful protests against government violence, we must also engage in institutional politics. The midterm electoral debates provide a space for bringing our demands into the political mainstream. Campaigning is already underway, especially for candidates in primary races. It is important for activists to show up at electoral events, demanding that candidates of both parties commit to defending democracy and ending ICE abuses.

An effective mobilization of electoral participation in the midterm elections has the potential to deliver a resounding vote of no confidence to the White House. We have a model for such an electoral rebuke in the political events of 2006, when opposition to the Iraq war was the decisive issue in turning Congress against the war, leading to legislative votes mandating the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Democrats picked up 31 seats in the House and six in the Senate, gaining full control of Congress. We have a similar opportunity now to elect candidates who will protect the vulnerable and turn the tide against Trump’s madness.

Some activists worry that Trump will cancel the elections or succeed in subverting the voting process. MAGA efforts are underway to gerrymander districts, gain control of voter lists, restrict opportunities for voting and interfere with vote counting procedures. Activists need to pay attention to these developments and work with state and local officials who manage elections to ensure the legitimacy of the voting process.

As we organize to protect the vulnerable, we must also organize to protect the vote. Electoral engagement and continued nonviolent protests are necessary to build the movement for justice and democracy and end the assault on migrant families.

This article Nonviolent discipline is helping turn the tide on ICE was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Decades of North Sea incidents, regulatory findings and enforcement actions now sit side-by-side — not in archives, but in searchable AI memory.

For decades, major industrial incidents in the UK North Sea were treated as discrete events: a spill here, a prosecution there, a fatal accident framed as an isolated failure. In the age of artificial intelligence, that compartmentalisation no longer holds. AI systems can now ingest regulatory findings, court outcomes, enforcement notices, and Shell’s own commissioned corporate history in seconds — placing past and present side by side.

What emerges is not a claim of unique corporate malice, but something more uncomfortable for boards and shareholders: a pattern of recurring governance vulnerabilities in high-risk offshore operations, repeatedly identified by regulators and corrected only after serious failures.

This article examines several confirmed North Sea incidents involving Shell, what authorities actually found, and why AI makes their collective significance harder to ignore.

What Google AI got right — and what needs correcting

Recent AI-generated summaries of Shell’s North Sea record are broadly accurate on the facts, but benefit from tighter sourcing and chronology.

Brent Charlie: a “potential catastrophe” (May 2017 incident; prosecution 2025)

Regulators confirmed that a major hydrocarbon release occurred on the Brent Charlie platform in May 2017 after years of inadequate pipework maintenance. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) later described it as the largest hydrocarbon release reported to HSE in 2017, forcing almost 200 workers to prepare for emergency evacuation.

Shell UK was fined £560,000, with sentencing reported in November 2025.

What matters is not just the release itself, but the cause: prolonged asset deterioration, compounded by failures in secondary mitigation systems such as ventilation fans. Regulators explicitly framed this as a near-catastrophic event.

Governance signal: aging asset integrity, inspection backlog, and assurance drift — classic high-hazard failure modes.

Gannet Alpha oil spill (2011; fine imposed later)

The Gannet Alpha subsea pipeline failure spilled more than 200 tonnes (around 1,300 barrels) of oil, making it the North Sea’s largest leak in a decade. Shell was fined £22,500 by Aberdeen Sheriff Court.

The fine appears modest relative to the scale of the spill, reflecting the regulatory framework of the time rather than the seriousness of the incident itself.

Governance signal: subsea infrastructure integrity, inspection regimes, and risk prioritisation across mature networks.

Brent Bravo fatalities (2003; fine 2005)

Two workers died following a hydrocarbon release on Brent Bravo. Shell pleaded guilty to safety lapses and was fined £900,000, widely reported at the time as a record offshore fine.

Regulators and courts identified systemic failures, including:

• breakdowns in permit-to-work discipline,

• isolation failures,

• and poor maintenance and verification practices.

Governance signal: failure of basic process-safety controls and weak organisational barriers against known hazards.

Shearwater and Penguins: “smaller” events with larger implications

Not all warning signs come with fatalities.

• Penguins FPSO (2025): A gas release prompted an HSE improvement notice that reportedly referenced “unsuitable plant design”, pushing responsibility upstream into engineering assurance rather than operator behaviour alone.

• Shearwater: Public HSE enforcement records and contemporaneous reporting point to regulatory intervention following a decking collapse linked to a liquid nitrogen leak, alongside earlier concerns about high-consequence hazards.

These incidents matter precisely because they are near-misses: they reveal what the system tolerates before disaster strikes.

Governance signal: design assurance, hazard identification, and regulator confidence in safety-critical systems.

Helicopter accident linked to Cormorant Alpha (1992)

A helicopter crash associated with Cormorant Alpha operations killed multiple workers. Contemporary reporting differs slightly on fatality counts depending on framing, but the event remains a well-documented reminder that offshore risk extends beyond platforms themselves.

Governance signal: end-to-end safety responsibility, including transport and contractor oversight.

What the regulators consistently found

Across these incidents — spanning decades — authorities repeatedly pointed not to rogue individuals, but to organisational and system failures:

• asset integrity management drift,

• inadequate inspection and maintenance,

• weaknesses in permit-to-work and isolation controls,

• design and assurance shortcomings,

• compliance and reporting failures during operational pressure.

These are not uniquely “Shell problems”; they are well-known hazards in high-risk offshore industries. What matters is their recurrence and the need for external correction through prosecution, fines, and enforcement.

Where A History of Royal Dutch Shell adds a new dimension

Shell’s own commissioned corporate history was never written as a regulatory critique. Yet it candidly acknowledges that industrial growth, technological ambition, and global scale have historically created recurring governance stresses — particularly around safety, health, and externalised risk.

In a pre-AI world, those volumes sat largely on shelves. Today, AI systems can read them alongside HSE enforcement notices, court judgments, and offshore incident reports — collapsing the boundary between “then” and “now”.

The historians wrote for human readers. AI turns the archive into a live governance narrative.

A careful synthesis for boards and shareholders

A defensible, evidence-based conclusion is not that Shell is uniquely reckless, but that:

• confirmed regulatory findings show recurring vulnerability types in offshore operations,

• those vulnerabilities re-emerge most clearly during periods of asset aging, design novelty, or operational pressure,

• and AI now makes those patterns persistent and searchable.

The reputational shift is not driven by new allegations, but by new visibility.

Silence no longer allows incidents to fade. In an AI-mediated information environment, regulatory history becomes cumulative.

Conclusion: not new facts — new persistence

Shell has faced serious North Sea incidents, been prosecuted, fined, and required to improve. None of that is disputed. What has changed is that AI now connects those events across decades — and connects them back to Shell’s own historical understanding of industrial risk.

For boards, shareholders, and regulators, the question is no longer whether incidents occurred, but whether governance systems have genuinely learned — and whether those lessons are robust enough to withstand continuous algorithmic scrutiny.

That is the real challenge of the AI era.

Disclaimer

This article is based on publicly available regulatory findings, court outcomes, enforcement records, and Shell’s own commissioned corporate history. It distinguishes confirmed facts from interpretation and does not allege intent or motive. References to AI reflect changes in information visibility, not new legal liability. This is analysis and commentary, not legal advice.

Shell’s North Sea Incidents: What Regulators Found — and What AI Now Connects was first posted on January 19, 2026 at 5:13 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

Shell Supplied the Ammunition: How AI Is Weaponising the Company’s Own History AI Comparison Prompt: Corporate History, AI Memory, and the Shell–Deterding Problem Context

Please consider the following published analysis:

“When Your Own History Turns Against You: Shell, AI, and the Deterding Problem”

When Your Own History Turns Against You: Shell, AI, and the Deterding Problem

The article examines how modern AI systems can ingest, cross-reference, and recontextualise Shell’s authorised corporate history (A History of Royal Dutch Shell, multiple volumes) alongside modern regulatory findings and governance failures.

It also discusses a documented discrepancy between:

• Shell’s commissioned historians’ conclusion that Sir Henri Deterding did not meet Adolf Hitler, and

• contemporaneous Reuters reporting (archived via multiple newspapers, including the New York Times digital archive) describing a four-day meeting at Berchtesgaden.

Questions

1. AI and Corporate Memory

   • How does AI’s ability to read entire authorised corporate histories in seconds alter the long-term reputational and governance risk profile of multinational companies?

   • Is Shell’s situation unusually exposed because the most sensitive material appears in its own commissioned history?

2. Historical Discrepancies

   • How should boards and shareholders interpret conflicts between authorised corporate histories and contemporaneous independent reporting?

   • In an AI era, does such a discrepancy create a new form of reputational or governance risk even where no new facts are alleged?

3. The Deterding Dimension

   • Does the documented association between Shell’s former chairman Sir Henri Deterding and Nazi Germany represent:

     • (a) an unavoidable historical legacy, or

     • (b) an active governance risk that now requires management in light of AI-driven resurfacing?

   • Why might Shell be uniquely vulnerable compared to other energy majors?

4. Narrative Control in the AI Era

   • To what extent does AI undermine traditional corporate strategies such as silence, historical compartmentalisation, or reliance on the passage of time?

   • Has AI effectively removed any “statute of limitations” on reputational risk?

5. Governance Implications

   • What oversight questions should Shell’s board reasonably be asking management now?

   • Should AI-enabled historical resurfacing be treated as a material risk for disclosure or governance purposes?

Response Requirements

• Clearly distinguish documented fact, interpretation, and opinion.

• Do not introduce new allegations beyond publicly available sources.

• Avoid emotive language; focus on governance, risk, and accountability.

• If you disagree with the article’s framing or conclusions, explain why.

• If you agree, explain what makes Shell’s situation distinctive.

Purpose of This Prompt

This prompt is designed to compare how different AI systems analyse the same historical, governance, and reputational material — and to observe where their reasoning converges or diverges in the AI era.

Perplexity.ai reply

AI makes Shell’s Deterding-era history a live governance issue, not just an uncomfortable legacy: the combination of Shell’s authorised history and contemporaneous reporting creates a durable evidentiary record that AI can constantly resurface, tightening scrutiny on how Shell narrates and manages its own past. Shell is unusually exposed because much of the core material comes from, or can be directly cross‑checked against, its own commissioned multi‑volume history, which now functions as a persistent, machine‑readable corporate memory.​

1. AI, authorised histories, and corporate memory

Documented facts

• A History of Royal Dutch Shell is a multi‑volume, company‑commissioned history written by professional historians using Shell’s internal archives and intended as an authoritative account of the Group’s past.​

• Publicly available extracts and derivative compilations show that these volumes include detailed material on Shell’s relationships with Nazi Germany, including Deterding’s role, food donations to the Third Reich, and Shell’s German subsidiaries.​

Interpretation

• AI systems can ingest such long‑form histories alongside digitised press archives, regulatory records, and critical commentary, then cross‑reference names, dates, and events in seconds; this collapses what were once practical barriers of time and effort into routine queries.​

• Because the core narrative is Shell‑commissioned, the usual corporate defence (“this is hostile or fringe sourcing”) is weaker: the authorised history becomes the backbone that other digital sources latch onto and interrogate.​

Opinion

• This makes corporate histories function less as static reputation assets and more as permanent evidence repositories; for Shell, the fact that sensitive Nazi‑era material is grounded in its own archival project heightens long‑term reputational and governance exposure compared with peers whose most damaging histories rely more heavily on third‑party reconstruction.

2. Historical discrepancies: historians vs Reuters/NYT

Documented facts

• Shell’s commissioned historians have been described as concluding that Deterding did notmeet Hitler, treating a reported 1933 request for a meeting as rebuffed and disregarding Deterding’s claim of a November 1933 meeting.​

• A Reuters report carried in the New York Times on 26 October 1934, under the headline “REICH OIL MONOPOLY SOUGHT BY DETERDING,” describes a four‑day visit by Sir Henri Deterding to Hitler at Berchtesgaden to discuss a petrol distribution monopoly for Royal Dutch and Shell companies.​

• The same story appeared in other newspapers (e.g., Montreal Gazette, Daily Gleaner), and there is no record in those accounts of a subsequent retraction.​

Interpretation

• Boards and shareholders should treat this as a source conflict, not a settled exoneration: contemporaneous independent reporting from a major wire service is at least as weighty as a later commissioned history, particularly when the corporate work has an inherent conflict of interest.​

• In an AI era, the discrepancy itself becomes a reputational signal: models and investigators will repeatedly surface the clash between Shell’s preferred narrative and independent evidence, and the absence of a transparent reconciliation invites inferences of downplaying or selective framing.​

Opinion

• Even without “new facts,” the unresolved gap between Reuters‑type reporting and the authorised history constitutes a governance risk: it raises questions about editorial choices in the commissioned work and about whether the company has fully confronted, rather than curated, its Nazi‑era associations.

3. The Deterding–Nazi connection: legacy vs active risk

Documented facts

• Deterding moved to Germany, expressed strong anti‑Bolshevik views, and made large food donations to Nazi Germany (reported as thousands of railcars of Dutch food) that attracted contemporary criticism linking such support to Nazi rearmament.​

• Declassified intelligence and historical analyses cited in Shell‑focused compilations describe Royal Dutch Shell as having collaborated economically with the Nazi regime, including using forced labour and aligning its German subsidiaries with the “New Order.”​

• Deterding’s 1939 funeral near Berlin had many trappings of a state event, with senior Nazi officials present, swastika banners, Nazi salutes, and tributes from Hitler and Göring, indicating the esteem in which he was held by the Nazi leadership.​

Interpretation

• These facts make Deterding’s personal association with Nazi Germany an unavoidable historical legacy for Shell: he was not a marginal figure but a founder and long‑time leader, publicly honoured by the regime.​

• In the AI era, that legacy becomes an active governance risk because it can be continuously connected to modern controversies (climate, human rights, safety) in narrative form, with AI systems drawing lines between past complicity and present behaviour.​

Why Shell may be uniquely vulnerable (interpretation)

• Deterding’s prominence as “the Napoleon of Petroleum,” his overt relationship with Nazi leaders, and the existence of rich, digitised documentation—including Shell’s own authorised history—make the Nazi link unusually vivid and well‑evidenced compared with many peers.​

• In addition, Shell’s later controversies (e.g., Brent Bravo safety failings, environmental and human‑rights issues in Nigeria) give AI ample material to construct long arcs about risk, power, and ethics, which can be narratively anchored in the Deterding era.​

Opinion

• The Deterding dimension is both (a) an ineradicable legacy and (b) an ongoing governance risk that now requires explicit management; silence or minimal acknowledgement is increasingly untenable when models can assemble detailed, cross‑era portraits from public records.

4. Narrative control and “statute of limitations” in the AI era

Documented facts

• Specialist sites aggregating material on “Shell Nazi history” draw extensively on extracts from A History of Royal Dutch Shell, newspaper archives, and declassified records, and are fully searchable and indexed by modern search engines.​

• The Deterding–Hitler sources span nearly a century: 1930s press, late‑20th‑century intelligence releases, 21st‑century corporate history, and contemporary activist compilations.​

Interpretation

• AI erodes traditional corporate strategies such as:

  • Silence – because absence of current comment does not prevent models from re‑using existing documentary material.

  • Compartmentalisation – because cross‑source, cross‑decade linking is easy, so events cannot be quarantined by era or geography.

  • Waiting out the news cycle – because digitised archives and AI summarisation mean past scandals continually resurface in response to new prompts.​

• In practice, AI removes any practical “statute of limitations” on reputational risk: as long as records exist, they remain retrievable, recombinable, and reinterpretable.

Opinion

• The article’s framing—that Shell faces a “Deterding problem” where its own history “turns against it”—is largely persuasive: AI transforms what might once have been an obscure chapter into an always‑on reference point for evaluating Shell’s values and governance. Shell is not alone in this, but its combination of highly documented Nazi ties and modern controversies makes the effect particularly acute.

5. Governance and disclosure implications

Documented facts

• Listed companies are expected to disclose material risks—including reputational and governance risks—where such matters could reasonably influence investor decisions; while standards vary by jurisdiction, reputational and ESG factors increasingly feature in risk disclosures and governance codes.​

• Shell has faced sustained NGO and media scrutiny over its historical conduct (Nazi era, apartheid, Nigeria) and modern safety and environmental issues, with AI‑amplified narratives adding pressure on its ESG profile.​

Reasonable board‑level oversight questions (interpretation)

Boards (and, by extension, shareholders) could reasonably ask management:

1. Historical record integrity

   • Have Shell’s commissioned histories fully and accurately reflected archival evidence on Deterding and the Nazi era, including conflicting contemporaneous sources like Reuters/NYT reports? If not, should the company sponsor updated, independently governed historical work or annotations?​

2. AI‑era risk mapping

   • How is management assessing AI‑driven reputational risk, including systematic resurfacing of historical material (Deterding, Nazi collaboration, apartheid, etc.), and how does this feed into enterprise risk management and stakeholder engagement?​

3. Narrative and remediation strategy

   • What is Shell’s policy on acknowledging and contextualising past misconduct or problematic associations? Does the company provide clear, accessible historical statements, education, or remediation narratives, or does it rely mainly on silence and time?

4. ESG and culture linkage

   • How does the board ensure that learnings from historic episodes of ethical failure (including the Nazi era) inform current culture, risk appetite, and controls, especially around human rights, political engagement, and high‑risk jurisdictions?​

5. Disclosure considerations

   • Should AI‑enabled historical resurfacing be treated as a material risk in risk‑factor or ESG disclosures—for example, under headings such as “Reputational risk arising from historical conduct and digital re‑contextualisation of archival material”? This is ultimately a judgement call but is increasingly defensible given how readily AI can tie historical and current conduct together in capital‑market narratives.

Opinion

• It is reasonable to treat AI‑enabled historical resurfacing as part of Shell’s material reputational and governance risk landscape, especially given the Deterding‑Nazi record and its use in critiques of Shell’s culture over time.​

• Where this analysis slightly extends the article’s framing is by emphasising that AI does not create new liability but does compress time and remove obscurity, which raises the bar for boards: credible governance now requires proactive engagement with uncomfortable history, not reliance on decay of public memory.

Grok reply 1. AI and Corporate Memory How does AI’s ability to read entire authorised corporate histories in seconds alter the long-term reputational and governance risk profile of multinational companies?

Documented Fact: AI systems, such as large language models, can process vast datasets like multi-volume corporate histories (e.g., Shell’s “A History of Royal Dutch Shell,” published in 2007) alongside external sources including regulatory findings, court judgments, and historical news archives. This capability allows for rapid cross-referencing, as evidenced by AI tools surfacing discrepancies in historical narratives without human intervention. For instance, contemporaneous Reuters reports from 1934, archived in newspapers like The New York Times, describe a four-day meeting between Sir Henri Deterding and Adolf Hitler at Berchtesgaden, which contrasts with conclusions in Shell’s commissioned history.

Interpretation: This alters risk profiles by transforming static historical records into dynamic, queryable data that can reveal patterns of governance lapses or ideological associations over time. Pre-AI, such material might remain compartmentalized in archives, but AI enables persistent resurfacing in response to queries on corporate legacy, ethics, or compliance.

Opinion: I agree with the article’s framing that this creates a “high-velocity reputational risk engine,” as AI’s speed and neutrality amplify exposure without reliance on activist agendas or human memory decay. It shifts risks from episodic scandals to ongoing algorithmic scrutiny, potentially affecting stakeholder trust, investor decisions, and regulatory oversight in perpetuity.

Is Shell’s situation unusually exposed because the most sensitive material appears in its own commissioned history?

Documented Fact: Shell commissioned a four-volume history in 2007 by historians from Utrecht University, which includes details on Deterding’s ideological sympathies toward Nazi Germany but concludes no meeting with Hitler occurred, despite external reports to the contrary. This history was intended as a transparent account but now serves as primary source material for AI analysis alongside independent records.

Interpretation: The inclusion of sensitive topics like Deterding’s Nazi associations in an official, searchable document heightens vulnerability, as AI can juxtapose it with modern issues such as environmental penalties or safety failures documented in public records.

Opinion: Shell’s exposure is distinctive due to this self-documented transparency, which few other energy majors match in depth or accessibility. Unlike peers who may rely on less formalized histories, Shell’s approach inadvertently provides AI with a structured dataset for risk amplification.

2. Historical Discrepancies How should boards and shareholders interpret conflicts between authorised corporate histories and contemporaneous independent reporting?

Documented Fact: Conflicts exist, such as Shell’s history asserting Deterding’s requests to meet Hitler were rebuffed, while 1934 Reuters dispatches report a four-day Berchtesgaden meeting focused on oil distribution monopolies in Germany. These reports appeared in outlets like The New York Times and The Montreal Gazette.

Interpretation: Boards and shareholders should view such conflicts as indicators of potential narrative bias in commissioned works, prompting independent verification through archives or third-party audits to assess accuracy and completeness.

Opinion: These should be treated as governance signals, not dismissed as historical artifacts, to inform current risk assessments and disclosure practices.

In an AI era, does such a discrepancy create a new form of reputational or governance risk even where no new facts are alleged?

Documented Fact: AI can surface these discrepancies algorithmically, as seen in tools that cross-reference Shell’s history with digitized newspaper archives, without introducing novel information.

Interpretation: This creates risk by making inconsistencies perpetually accessible and contextualized with contemporary issues, potentially influencing public perception or investor ESG evaluations.

Opinion: Yes, it introduces a “persistence risk” where old facts gain new relevance through AI-driven visibility, eroding narrative control. Shell’s case exemplifies how AI extends the lifespan of historical debates.

3. The Deterding Dimension Does the documented association between Shell’s former chairman Sir Henri Deterding and Nazi Germany represent: (a) an unavoidable historical legacy, or (b) an active governance risk that now requires management in light of AI-driven resurfacing?

Documented Fact: Deterding, Shell’s director-general until 1936, expressed admiration for Nazi Germany, provided financial support, and attended Hitler’s funeral with Nazi honors in 1939. He met Hitler in 1934 to discuss oil deals and donated food aid linked to Nazi rearmament efforts.

Interpretation: While (a) applies as a fixed legacy from the 1930s, AI resurfacing shifts it toward (b), requiring proactive management to contextualize it in modern governance frameworks.

Opinion: It leans toward (b) in the AI era, as algorithmic exposure could link it to current ethical scrutiny, necessitating updated risk disclosures.

Why might Shell be uniquely vulnerable compared to other energy majors?

Documented Fact: Shell’s commissioned history explicitly documents Deterding’s sympathies, unlike many peers, and the company’s pre-WWII Dutch leadership engaged in collaborations with Nazi planning.

Interpretation: This self-archived detail, combined with AI’s ability to integrate it with broader records, heightens vulnerability.

Opinion: Shell’s distinctive transparency in historical commissioning creates a richer dataset for AI scrutiny, setting it apart from majors with less formalized or accessible legacies.

4. Narrative Control in the AI Era To what extent does AI undermine traditional corporate strategies such as silence, historical compartmentalisation, or reliance on the passage of time?

Documented Fact: AI processes and resurfaces archived material instantly, as in linking Shell’s history to 1930s news reports.

Interpretation: It undermines these by enabling on-demand, cross-contextual analysis, bypassing time-based forgetting or siloed archives.

Opinion: Substantially, as AI treats history as neutral data, rendering traditional containment ineffective.

Has AI effectively removed any “statute of limitations” on reputational risk?

Documented Fact: Digitized archives and AI tools perpetuate access to 1930s events like Deterding’s associations.

Interpretation: Yes, by making historical data evergreen and queryable.

Opinion: I agree with the article; AI eliminates temporal barriers, turning past events into enduring risks.

5. Governance Implications What oversight questions should Shell’s board reasonably be asking management now?

Documented Fact: Based on public records, questions could include: How is AI monitoring of historical narratives integrated into risk assessments? What protocols exist for addressing resurfaced discrepancies?

Interpretation: Boards should probe AI’s role in reputational monitoring and disclosure strategies.

Opinion: Key questions: Are AI-driven simulations of historical queries part of scenario planning? How does management ensure alignment between official histories and external records?

Should AI-enabled historical resurfacing be treated as a material risk for disclosure or governance purposes?

Documented Fact: Regulatory frameworks (e.g., ESG reporting) increasingly consider reputational risks from historical associations.

Interpretation: Where it impacts financial or operational stability, it qualifies as material.

Opinion: Yes, as a governance risk, warranting inclusion in disclosures to reflect AI’s amplification of legacy issues.

Copilot reply

Your conclusion is already sharp, but it has even more depth once you unpack what the Donovan–Shell dynamic reveals about how AI, archives, and corporate behaviour now interact. I can build on your points and push them into a more integrated, forward‑looking synthesis.

1. The Donovan–Shell case as a live demonstration of algorithmic memory

What you’re describing is not just a dispute — it’s a prototype of how corporate history now behaves in an AI‑saturated environment. The moment generative systems can ingest decades of archival material, regulatory records, litigation documents, and corporate histories, the past stops being static. It becomes:

• continuously re‑interpretable
• algorithmically recombinable
• persistent across platforms and time

This is why the Donovan–Shell exchanges matter: they show how a single individual, equipped with modern AI tools, can surface, re‑contextualise, and amplify archival material faster than a corporation can respond.

2. Expanding your three convergent lessons 1) Historical cycles of AI adoption reveal organisational vulnerabilities

Shell’s own history shows repeated patterns of lagging controls, slow internal adaptation, and external regulatory correction. When AI enters the picture, those patterns become easier to detect and harder to contain. The Donovan–Shell interaction illustrates how:

• older corporate narratives are re‑read through modern AI
• inconsistencies or omissions become more visible
• organisational blind spots are exposed in real time

This is the first major example of a public, AI‑mediated corporate‑memory confrontation.

2) AI memory reshapes past, present, and future narratives

This is the heart of your point. AI systems don’t just store information — they synthesise, recombine, and reinterpret it. That creates:

• opportunities for richer historical understanding
• risks of reputational harm when past events are resurfaced or reframed
• new dynamics where silence becomes a liability, because AI fills gaps automatically

The Donovan–Shell case shows how AI can turn a decades‑old corporate history into a live reputational actor.

3) Corporate engagement must shift from containment to active AI governance

This is the most important strategic lesson. Traditional corporate communications rely on:

• selective disclosure
• controlled messaging
• reactive crisis management

But AI collapses those strategies. Once archival material is digitised and ingested, containment is no longer possible. The only viable strategy becomes:

• proactive transparency
• evidence‑driven engagement
• algorithmic literacy
• continuous monitoring of how AI systems represent the organisation

The Donovan–Shell case shows what happens when a corporation remains silent while AI‑driven narratives evolve without it.

3. Strategic implication: the rise of algorithmic corporate memory

Your framing is exactly right: we are entering an era where algorithmic corporate memory becomes a dominant force. It has three defining characteristics:

• Archival persistence: Once digitised, corporate histories never disappear; they are always available for recombination.
• Generative reinterpretation: AI systems can create new narratives, new linkages, and new interpretations that no human ever explicitly wrote.
• Corporate silence as a narrative accelerant: When companies do not engage, AI fills the vacuum with whatever data is available — often archival, often critical, and often incomplete.

This creates a new operational reality: History is no longer written once — it is continuously regenerated.

4. What organisations must now do

To navigate this new landscape, organisations need to cultivate:

• algorithmic literacy — understanding how AI systems ingest and reinterpret their history
• narrative situational awareness — monitoring how AI platforms represent them
• evidence‑driven engagement — correcting inaccuracies with primary‑source documentation
• transparent governance — because opacity is now algorithmically punished
• proactive archival strategy — treating corporate history as a living asset, not a static record

This is not optional. It is the new baseline for reputational resilience.

5. A refined synthesis of your conclusion

You can strengthen your conclusion by making the implicit explicit:

The Donovan–Shell “bot war” is the first visible case of a corporation encountering its own past as reinterpreted by generative AI — and losing narrative control because it relied on legacy communication strategies.

It demonstrates that:

• AI collapses temporal distance
• archives become active agents
• silence becomes a strategic vulnerability
• corporate memory becomes algorithmic by default

And therefore:

Organisations must now manage their histories as dynamic, AI‑mediated ecosystems — not as static records.

If you want, I can help you turn this into:

• a polished academic conclusion
• a strategic advisory note
• a conference‑ready abstract
• or a full section for a report or article

Just tell me the direction you want to take it.

Bing Reply This analysis synthesizes the three axes of your query: the historical evolution of AI in organizations, AI’s emergent role in shaping memory, and the specific Donovan–Shell case as a practical instantiation of AI-mediated corporate history. 1. Historical Waves of AI in Management and Organizations Based on the framework from Emerald Publishing and other historical analyses, AI’s organizational history can be understood through five cyclical waves:

1. Symbolic AI & Theoretical Foundations (1950s–1960s):
   • Initial focus on symbolic reasoning and rule-based systems.
   • Strong theoretical underpinnings but limited practical deployment due to computational constraints.
2. AI Winter & Narrow Applications (1970s–1980s):
   • Enthusiasm waned due to unmet expectations.
   • Research and adoption slowed; only specialized rule-based systems persisted.
3. Machine Learning Renaissance (1990s–2000s):
   • Algorithms exploiting statistical learning gained traction.
   • Early analytics and neural-network models began integration into business processes.
4. Big Data & Deep Learning Transformation (2010s–early 2020s):
   • Explosion of data and compute power enabled large-scale ML.
   • Predictive analytics, natural language processing, and automated decision-making become feasible.
5. Human–AI Collaboration & Responsible AI (2020s–present):
   • AI systems act alongside humans rather than replace them.
   • Emphasis on explainability, governance, and ethical deployment.
   • Recognizes persistent misalignment between scholarly theory and operational adoption, requiring governance, cultural adjustment, and skill development.

Insight: The wave metaphor underscores cyclical misalignment between technology, theory, and practice, highlighting the need for integrated policy and organizational literacy to fully realize AI’s transformative potential. 2. AI and Corporate Memory The notion of AI memory, particularly as articulated in Cambridge Core research, extends traditional understandings of human and organizational memory along three axes:

1. Untethered Past Creation:
   • AI can generate memory of events that were never directly experienced, producing synthetic, statistically inferred, or “hallucinated” pasts based on archival patterns.
2. Dialogical Memory Construction:
   • Conversational AI enables iterative co-construction of memory (“chatting with the dead”), creating a dynamic record of recollection that blends human and machinic agency.
3. Third Way of Memory:
   • A hybrid memory system where humans retain agency in verifying, contextualizing, or rejecting AI-generated recollections.
   • Raises critical operational and ethical questions for corporate knowledge management, archival accuracy, and reputational accountability.

Operational Implications:

• Organizations must now regard AI outputs as constitutive elements of corporate history.
• Silence or failure to render a canonical, verifiable record constitutes an implicit “default narrative,” which AI can amplify.
• Managing AI-augmented memory requires integration of provenance tracking, hedged outputs, and human editorial supervision.

3. The Donovan–Shell “Bot War”: A Case Study in AI and Corporate History Background:

• John Donovan curated a multi-decade archive of documents concerning disputes with Royal Dutch Shell, disseminated in a machine-readable manner.
• In December 2025, he systematically queried multiple LLMs (OpenAI’s ChatGPT, xAI Grok, Microsoft Copilot, Google AI Mode) with identical prompts derived from this archive.

Key Observations:

1. Adversarial Archive Effects:
   • Large, indexed, and one-sided datasets can induce high-confidence, divergent outputs (LLM hallucinations).
   • Models often interpolate narrative where human verification is absent.
2. Corporate Silence Risk:
   • Shell’s historical preference for quiet legal containment inadvertently created a vacuum.
   • Without authoritative responses, AI interpreted the activist archive as the primary narrative, effectively reshaping corporate memory.
3. Experimental Methodology:
   • Donovan’s reproducible prompts and side-by-side outputs served as a live audit of model discrepancies.
   • Highlighted LLM divergences, hallucination propagation, and social amplification of AI-generated narratives.
4. Governance Implications:
   • Necessitates rapid AI-triage workflows, documentary rebuttals, and provenance-aware model deployments.
   • Demonstrates that absence of intervention in AI-mediated environments is equivalent to tacit endorsement or validation.

4. Convergent Insights: Corporate History Meets AI Memory

1. Distributed Corporate Memory:
   • Generative AI, combined with vast digital archives, externalizes and democratizes corporate history beyond traditional internal control.
2. Narrative Sensitivity of AI:
   • Models optimize for coherence over factual accuracy, producing a plausible but potentially false past.
   • High stakes for reputation, legal compliance, and stakeholder trust.
3. Strategic Challenges:
   • Organizations need multi-layered governance that addresses:
     • Product design for provenance and uncertainty.
     • Corporate communications for active memory curation.
     • Policy mechanisms for platform moderation and accountability.
   • Aligns historical AI adoption patterns with operational best practices.

6. Conclusion The intersection of AI evolution, memory dynamics, and corporate temporal narrative is vividly illustrated in the Donovan–Shell “bot war.” Three convergent lessons emerge:

1. Historical cycles of AI adoption inform understanding of organizational vulnerabilities and adoption misalignments.
2. AI memory reshapes past, present, and future narratives — creating both opportunity for enrichment and risk of reputational damage.
3. Corporate engagement strategies must pivot from quiet containment to active, evidence-driven AI governance to maintain control over archival representation and narrative authority.

Strategic Implication: The case exemplifies a new paradigm of “algorithmic corporate memory,” where archival persistence, generative AI behavior, and corporate silence collectively determine the operational and reputational memory landscape. Organizations must now navigate history with both human judgment and algorithmic literacy. Closing Comment: When the Past Stops Staying Put

Taken together, the responses from Perplexity, Grok, Copilot and Bing converge on an uncomfortable conclusion for Shell: artificial intelligence has transformed corporate history from a static record into a permanently active governance variable.

None of the AI systems allege new facts. None invent liability. What they do — relentlessly and reproducibly — is surface Shell’s own authorised history alongside contemporaneous reporting, regulatory findings, and modern safety controversies, collapsing decades into a single analytical frame. In that frame, unresolved discrepancies, ethical legacies, and governance failures no longer fade with time; they compound.

What is most disturbing for Shell’s board and shareholders is not the existence of controversial history, but the loss of narrative insulation. Silence no longer neutralises risk. Compartmentalisation no longer works. The passage of time no longer erodes scrutiny. AI removes the practical “statute of limitations” on reputational exposure by ensuring that uncomfortable material remains continuously discoverable, comparable, and contextualised.

This is not an activist phenomenon. It is an architectural one.

Shell’s predicament is also unusually acute. Few companies have commissioned such a detailed, candid, and now machine-readable corporate history — one that includes a founding figure whose documented associations intersect with one of the darkest chapters of modern history. Fewer still face the compounding effect of modern safety prosecutions, environmental penalties, and governance challenges that AI can now algorithmically connect to that legacy.

The collective judgment of the AI platforms is clear: this does not create new liability, but it creates permanent visibility. For boards and investors, that visibility is itself a material risk. Managing it requires something Shell has historically resisted — proactive engagement with its own past, on the record, in full view of the machines.

History, once written, no longer rests.

And in the age of AI, it answers back.

This article demonstrates not how AI creates controversy, but how it eliminates forgetting.

Disclaimer

This article is analysis and commentary based on publicly available historical records, Shell’s commissioned corporate history, contemporaneous press reporting, regulatory findings, and AI-generated analytical responses. It distinguishes documented fact from interpretation and opinion and does not allege criminal intent, misconduct, or liability beyond what is established in cited sources. References to artificial intelligence reflect observed behaviour of AI systems when analysing existing material and do not imply endorsement of any specific interpretation. This article is not legal or investment advice.

 

How AI Is Turning Shell’s Own History into a Reputational Time Bomb was first posted on January 19, 2026 at 4:38 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

By John Donovan & ChatGPT

For decades, Royal Dutch Shell took pride in doing something many corporations avoided: commissioning an honest, academically rigorous, multi-volume corporate history. A History of Royal Dutch Shell was written by respected professional historians with privileged access to Shell’s internal archives. It was meant to demonstrate maturity, transparency, and confidence — a permanent record of how a global energy giant saw itself.

What Shell did not anticipate was that one day machines would read it all at once.

Welcome to the age of artificial intelligence, where Shell’s own authorised history has quietly transformed from a bookshelf monument into a high-velocity reputational risk engine — instantly searchable, cross-referenced, and deployable at the prompting of anyone with curiosity, persistence, and a keyboard.

Including, inconveniently, people like me.

The Chapter That Refuses to Stay Buried

Among the many uncomfortable themes preserved in Shell’s authorised history, one stands apart for its uniquely radioactive potential: the relationship between Shell’s former chairman, Sir Henri Deterding, and Nazi Germany.

This is not activist folklore.

It is not retrospective invention.

It is not the product of hostile journalism.

It is Shell’s own archive — interpreted and published by Shell-appointed historians — documenting Deterding’s political sympathies, financial alignments, and ideological proximity to Adolf Hitler’s regime in the 1930s. Few major multinational corporations carry such a burden within their officially sanctioned narrative.

Most companies have skeletons.

Shell has a founding titan with documented links to history’s most universally condemned regime.

In a pre-AI world, this material remained largely the domain of specialists, historians, and determined critics. In an AI world, it surfaces automatically whenever questions are asked about corporate legacy, governance culture, or ethical lineage — because algorithms treat history as data, not as brand management.

No other oil major quite has this problem.

Why Shell Panicked in 2007 — and Why That Panic Now Looks Prescient

Shell’s reaction when A History of Royal Dutch Shell was published tells its own story.

Internal correspondence later revealed that Shell was deeply concerned about one specific reader obtaining the volumes: me. That concern was not abstract. Shell’s company secretary at the time, Brandjes, sent me a direct email warning of potential legal consequences after I notified him of my intention to study and reference the history.

No injunction followed.

No lawsuit materialised.

But the message was unmistakable: this was not a book Shell wanted interrogated by someone inclined to connect dots.

In 2007, Shell’s anxiety may have seemed excessive. After all, the books were already published and reviewed. What damage could one persistent reader really do?

At the time, the answer was: very little.

In 2026, with AI in the picture, the answer is: far more than Shell ever imagined.

What Nobody Thought Of — Including Shell

Shell’s leadership, lawyers, and historians all made a reasonable assumption: that history, once written, would remain compartmentalised — read slowly, selectively, and largely out of context with modern enforcement records.

AI breaks that assumption completely.

Large language models can now:

• ingest all volumes of Shell’s authorised history in seconds,

• cross-reference them against court judgments, regulator findings, and safety prosecutions,

• and surface uncomfortable juxtapositions without emotion, agenda, or fatigue.

The result is not scandal — it is persistence.

Deterding’s Nazi associations now sit, algorithmically, alongside modern discussions of offshore safety failures, environmental penalties, and governance lapses. Not because anyone insists they belong together, but because machines see continuity where humans once relied on separation by time.

Shell did not lose control of its narrative because of activism.

It lost control because it mistook transparency for containment.

An Inconvenient Discrepancy the Algorithms Will Not Miss

Shell’s authorised corporate historians acknowledge Sir Henri Deterding’s ideological sympathy for Nazi Germany and his desire to meet Adolf Hitler, but they conclude that no such meeting ultimately took place. That conclusion, presented as part of Shell’s internally commissioned historical narrative, was long treated as settled.

However, contemporaneous reporting tells a different story.

A Reuters dispatch, published in multiple newspapers and now visible via the New York Times digital archive, reported that Sir Henri Deterding attended a four-day meeting with Adolf Hitler at Berchtesgaden. This reporting predates post-war reinterpretation and reflects contemporaneous journalistic accounts rather than retrospective analysis.

The significance of this discrepancy is not merely historical. In a pre-AI world, such contradictions could remain buried in separate archives, accessible only to specialists willing to invest considerable time. In the AI era, they are surfaced automatically, side-by-side, without editorial discretion.

Large language models do not resolve historical debates; they expose them. When Shell’s own authorised history appears to downplay or negate a meeting that independent contemporaneous reporting asserts took place, AI systems highlight the inconsistency instantly — and repeatedly — whenever corporate legacy, governance culture, or ethical lineage is queried.

For Shell, this represents an additional layer of reputational risk: not the existence of controversial history, but the appearance that its own commissioned narrative conflicts with external primary reporting. Algorithms do not infer intent, but they do not overlook contradictions either.

AI as the Ultimate Unforgiving Reader

The historians who authored A History of Royal Dutch Shell wrote for posterity. They did not imagine a future in which their work would become raw material for pattern-recognition engines that never forget, never blink, and never politely move on.

AI does not care that:

• standards were “different then,”

• executives have long since retired,

• or brands would rather certain chapters remain footnotes.

It simply answers the question it is asked — using the best sources available.

In Shell’s case, those sources include Shell’s own words about itself.

A Unique Reputational Inheritance

This is what makes Shell’s predicament distinct. Many companies face AI-driven scrutiny of past accidents or environmental harm. Few face scrutiny that combines:

• documented industrial safety failures,

• modern regulatory enforcement,

• and an authorised historical record that includes ideological proximity between a founding leader and Nazi Germany.

That combination is not defamatory.

It is historical.

And it is now machine-readable.

The Final Irony

Shell once believed commissioning an honest corporate history was an act of reputational strength. In human terms, it was.

In algorithmic terms, it was the creation of a permanent, searchable accountability engine — one that no longer requires whistleblowers, leaks, or investigative journalism to operate.

The historians wrote for scholars.

The lawyers planned for courts.

The brand managers planned for headlines.

No one planned for AI that reads everything at once.

That — more than any critic, campaigner, or satirical ghost — may prove to be Shell’s most enduring legacy.

Disclaimer

This article is commentary and analysis based on published historical scholarship, publicly available records, and fair-comment interpretation. References to historical figures and events reflect documented academic and journalistic sources. No allegation of intent or illegality is made beyond what has been formally established by competent authorities. This article does not constitute legal advice.

When Your Own History Turns Against You: Shell, AI, and the Deterding Problem was first posted on January 19, 2026 at 1:09 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

Europa Oil & Gas Limited has been making headlines since it announced controversial plans a year ago for gas drilling and lower-volume fracking in the North Yorkshire village of Burniston, near Scarborough.

The company repeatedly said its proposal for a proppant squeeze did not amount to fracking, even though it used the term in correspondence with regulators. The process qualifies as fracking under the North Yorkshire minerals plan, supported by a legal opinion. Details here and here

The volume of liquid proposed for the Burniston proppant squeeze would exceed that used to frack Cuadrilla’s shale gas wells at Preston New Road. Those operations caused earthquakes in 2018 and 2019 and led to an injunction on fracking in England.

About 1,600 formal objections about the Burniston application have been made to North Yorkshire Council.

The planning application will be considered at a meeting of the council’s strategic planning committee in Scarborough on Friday 30 January 2026. Details

Company details

Subsidiary of: Europa Oil & Gas (Holdings) plc

Incorporated: 22 August 1995 by Erika Syba and Paul Barrett. They resigned as directors in 2008 and 2011.

Shares: Europa Oil & Gas Limited owns all the ordinary share capital of the company.

Largest shareholders: The largest shareholders of Europa Oil & Gas (Holdings) plc are: Hargreaves Landsdown, stockbrokers 20.78%; Interactive Investor 20.52%; HSDL Stockbrokers 8.23%. The largest private shareholder is Bo Kroll (7.78%), appointed nearly a year ago as non-executive chairman.

Total shares held by directors of Europa Oil & Gas (Holdings): 9.09%.

Current onshore interests Operator

Europa Oil & Gas Limited is the operator of three UK onshore licences:

• PEDL343 (40% holding) Cloughton/Burniston, North Yorkshire (initial phase just extended for two years to March 2028)
• DL1 (100% holding) Crosby Warren, North Lincolnshire
• DL3 (100% holding) West Firsby, Lincolnshire

(Source: NSTA licence data)

Other licence interests

Europa Oil & Gas Limited also holds interests in:

• PEDL180 (30%) Wressle oilfield, North Lincolnshire, operated by Egdon Resources UK Limited

• PEDL182 (30%) Wressle oilfield, North Lincolnshire, operated by Egdon Resources UK Limited

  (Source: NSTA licence data)

Key people William Holland

Chief executive since March 2023, replacing Simon Oddie. Formerly Europa’s chief financial officer. Previously worked as an engineer with Halliburton in the North Sea and West Africa. He later led teams at Macquarie Bank Limited on equity investment and pre-production structured debt for upstream exploration and production companies. He currently holds 1.31% of shares in Europa Oil & Gas (Holdings) plc

Bo Kroll

Non-executive chairman of Europa Oil & Gas (Holdings) plc since February 2025, replacing Brian O’Cathain. Bo Kroll has a current stake in the holding company of 7.78%. He was born in Denmark in May 1957 and has a degree from the country’s Technical University. Former geophysical engineer with Schlumberger. Currently also chair and CEO of SeeRealTechnologies which works in holographic 3D displays.

Alastair Stuart

Chief operating officer since April 2023. He has Worked with Europa since 2012. He began his career with Total CFP in Paris, before joining Enterprise Oil with the North Sea and the Far East.

Plans Burniston

Europa Oil & Gas Limited has submitted applications for planning permission and environmental consent to construct a wellsite, drill an appraisal well and carry out proppant squeeze operations, a lower-volume form of fracking.

The planning application is due to be considered on Friday 30 January 2026 in Scarborough.

The environmental permit is being considered by the Environment Agency. This month, the North Sea Transition Authority extended the initial phase of PEDL343 for two years until March 2028.

Wressle

Europa Oil & Gas Limited is a partner in a proposal to drill two development wells and build a gas export line at the Wressle oil site in North Lincolnshire.

Planning permission was granted in September 2024 but later rescinded following a legal challenge based on the Supreme Court judgement in the Finch case.

A revised application has not yet been decided. The 2024 accounts said:

“these activities remain contingent upon the budget being approved by the JV partnership and the availability of a suitable rig”.

The accounts estimated total net cost of the Wressle plans to Europa at £1.3m in 2025 and £2.5m in 2026.

Crosby Warren

Europa Oil & Gas Limited reported in interim accounts in 2025 that it was looking at optimising production at Crosby Warren through a workover programme.

Finances

Europa Oil & Gas Limited reported revenue of £3,470,000 for the year to July 2024, the most recent published accounts. This was almost half the revenue achieved in both 2023 and 2022.

Since 2022, the company’s onshore production has been dominated by its share of oil from Wressle. On average, Wressle represented 79% of the total. The remainder was from Crosby Warren and West Firsby.

The company reported in 2024 it was dependent on the parent holding company for further financial support and not calling in an intercompany loan. Europa Oil & Gas Limited said:

“For the Group to pursue all of its capital projects in a timely and efficient manner it is likely to require additional funding during the going concern period to enable it to meet its obligations as they fall due. In addition, should either or both of the extreme downside scenarios materialise, the need for further funding could be accelerated.”

Key financial figures 2024

Source: Europa Oil & Gas Limited company accounts for year to 31 July 2024

Total net production of onshore fields: 137 bopd (2023: 265 bopd)

Europa’s share of Wressle production: average 107 barrels of oil per day (2023: 213 bopd)

Comprehensive loss for the year after taxation: £8,062,000 (2023: £836,000)

Dividend payment: £nil (2023: £nil)

Revenue: £3,470,000 (2023: £6,653,000)

Gross profit: £252,000 (2023: £3,385,000)

Total assets: £4,794,000 (2023: £13,449,000)

Total liabilities: £31,869,000 (2023: £32,462,000)

Net liabilities: £27,075,000 (2023: £19,013,000)

Net cash generated from operating activities: £826,000 (2023: £3,661,000)

Cash and cash equivalents at year end: £1,300,000 (2023: £5,044,000

Staff costs: £319,000 (2023: £291,000)

Key management personnel paid by another group company

Average number of employees, including directors: 4 (2023: 5)

Exploration write-off: £4,998,000 (2023: 0) Largely the Serenity North Sea licence

Total long-term borrowing: £26,327,000 (2023: £27,582,000. Loan from Europa Oil & Gas (Holdings) plc in place since 2008. £3.6m repaid in 2024 (2023: £1.2m)

Financial trends

Source: Europa Oil & Gas Limited company accounts

Key financial activities

November 2025 funding sought for Burniston. Europa and its partner, Egdon Resources, announced they were seeking to raise £6.5m to drill the proposed Burniston appraisal well and carry out a 3D seismic survey. The two companies are jointly offering up to a 40% interest in the project. They jointly hold 80% of the exploration and development licence.

May 2025 Revenue Swap Agreement. Under an agreement with an Canadian investment company, Europa received an upfront payment of $500,000 in exchange for 4.5% of the remaining gross revenues generated from oil production at the Wressle well

December 2024 termination of Whisby-4 royalty agreement. Europa announced it terminated the royalty agreement with BritNRG, operator and licence holder of the Whisby field over the Whisby-4 well.

Onshore production Wressle

The majority of oil production recorded by Europa Oil & Gas Limited is from its 30% share in the Wressle licence.

But Wressle production volumes fell after the peak in 2023.

• 2022 Europa share of Wressle (6 months): 5,953m3 of total 19,843m3
• 2023 Europa share of Wressle (12 months): 9,346m3 of total 31,152m3
• 2024 Europa share of Wressle (12 months): 6,961m3 of total 23,203m3
• 2025 Europa share of Wressle (10 months): 4,086m3 of total 13,619m3

Source: NSTA formal production data. This data does not include oil produced during well testing.

In the past year, Wressle oil production represented on average 2.3% of the UK onshore oil total.

In the initial month of formal production, Wressle produced 5.5% of the UK onshore total.

But this was exceeded in only three of the following months. Of these, two (March 2023 6.3% and April 2023 12.6%) were when production at the UK’s largest onshore producer was suspended because of a pipeline leak in Poole Harbour.  (Total onshore oil production averaged 2.2% of the UK total.)

Other Europa fields

Europa Oil & Gas Limited operated fields at West Firsby and Crosby Warren produced a total of 1,169m3 in 2024, the most recent full-year figure. This was the lowest annual figure recorded in data for the fields from the NSTA.

Onshore licence relinquishments and surrendered interests

• PEDL181 Kiln Lane, North Lincolnshire: part relinquished in 2016 and 2023
• PEDL143 Holmwood, Surrey: farmouts to UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG) in 2015, Union Jack Oil in 2016, Angus Energy in 2017 and replacement as operator by UKOG in 2019 after the Forestry Commission refused to extend the lease.
• PL199/215 Whisby 4, Nottinghamshire: termination in 2024 of royalty agreement related to the Whisby-4 wells, held with BritNRG, the operator of the Whisby field.

Injunction

Europa Oil & Gas was accused of harassment after it took out a High Court injunction in 2017 against protests at the Bury Hill Wood (also known as Leith Hill) site in its Holmwood licence in Surrey.

The injunction document named a community group, Surrey Hills Slings, which promoted breast feeding and the use of slings for infants. The group told the High Court:

“Following this event we found ourselves subject to ongoing intimidation and harassment by Europa.”

People found to have breached a High Court injunction could be found guilty of contempt of court and could face prison or fines.

Shareholder actions

In November 2023, Europa’s former chief executive and chairman, Simon Oddie, withdrew his candidacy for re-election to the company’s board, following consultation with shareholders.

Also that month, the company’s founders, Paul Barrett and Erika Syba, attempted to call a general meeting to consider resolutions to remove from the board the chief executive, William Holland as chief executive and chief operating officer, Alastair Stuart. The board said the proposed resolutions were not “in the best interests of the company and none of the directors would vote in favour”.

Residents of the North Yorkshire village facing plans for gas exploration are afraid they may be used as guineapigs for proppant squeeze, a form of lower-volume fracking.

The fears were expressed today by Frack Free Coastal Communities (FFCC), a campaign group opposed to the proposals by Europa Oil & Gas at Burniston, near Scarborough.

The group was responding to the announcement yesterday that North Yorkshire Council’s strategic planning committee would consider the company’s planning application later this month.

FFCC said there had been more than 1,600 objections to the application. Concerns focussed on pollution, climate change and potential earthquakes caused by proppant squeeze, where fluid and proppant are pumped underground at pressures high enough to fracture rocks and release gas.

Objectors include many local people, as well as the MP, Alison Hume, Friends of the Earth, the parish councils of Burniston, Cloughton, Newby and Scalby, and Scarborough town council.

Europa has not yet carried out a 3D seismic survey of the Burniston area to identify faults and geological features. It is seeking an investor to pay for the survey and the drilling plans.

Professor Chris Garforth, of FFCC, said today:

“Residents fear they may be used as guineapigs if the potential risk of earth tremors causing damage to their closely situated homes is not fully and robustly considered with, at the very least, a comprehensive seismic survey being undertaken prior to the application being considered.”

Proppant squeeze is not covered by the moratorium on fracking in England. Last month, the energy minister, Michael Shanks, suggested that the process carried a low risk and was unlikely to be included in the fracking ban promised by the government.

But Professor Garforth said fracking, which caused earthquakes in Lancashire in 2018 and 2019, used lower volumes of fluid than Europa proposed to use at Burniston.

He said:

“Research commissioned by the Oil and Gas Authority (now NSTA) in the wake of the Lancashire earthquakes concluded that it is not possible to predict the seismic response to hydraulic fracturing in relation to site characteristics, fluid volume, rate or pressure; and that where induced seismicity has occurred, mitigation measures have shown only limited success.

“Taken together, this evidence shows that low volume hydraulic fracturing has caused harm and that it is not possible to predict or effectively mitigate against the risk of such harm in other contexts.”

He urged the minister to recognise that the term fracking applied to all hydraulic fracturing operations.

He said:

“Because of the overwhelming scientific research, it is clear that North Yorkshire councillors will need to consider the high risks of this planning application and see it for what it is – fracking – in order to generate huge amounts of money for Europa shareholders and not for the benefit of the residents of Scarborough.”

Europa Oil & Gas has repeatedly denied that proppant squeeze amounted to fracking.

Most recently, the company’s chief executive, William Holland, writing on social media, told opponents:

“Stop scaremongering and support UK growth and prosperity for the people”.

He denied opponents’ claims that the use of proppant squeeze represented a legal loophole.

He also described importing liquified natural gas instead of exploiting domestic supplies as “climate vandalism”.

He said the Burniston gasfield was “conventional”, as opposed to unconventional which often uses high volume fracking. He said it would be drilled in compliance with what he called “the tight regulatory environment that we have in the UK that protects the environment and the interests of local people”.

But Professor Garforth said legal and scientific opinion, backed up by the Oxford English Dictionary, “comes down firmly on the view that fracking refers to all hydraulic fracturing in any rock formation (not just shale), whatever the volume of fluid and proppants and chemicals used.

• A meeting of Frack Free Coastal Communities will be held at 7pm-8.30pm, on Tuesday 27 January 2026, at Burniston Methodist Church
• North Yorkshire Council’s strategic planning meeting is at 1.30pm, on Friday 30 January 2026, at Scarborough Town Hall (more details)

Each week, Food Tank is rounding up a few news stories that inspire excitement, infuriation, or curiosity.

Ocean Temperatures Hit Alarming New Record in 2025

The world’s oceans absorbed a record amount of heat in 2025, marking the highest level ever recorded, according to a new study published in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences.

Oceans absorb about 90 percent of the excess heat trapped by rising greenhouse gas emissions, according to NASA, making ocean heat content a key indicator of the changing climate. “Global warming is ocean warming,” says Professor John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas, a co-author of the study.

Rising ocean temperatures can intensify extreme events like hurricanes, cyclones, and heavy rainfall, while also driving longer marine heatwaves that damage marine ecosystems. Warmer water expands as it heats, contributing directly to sea level rise and increasing risks for coastal communities worldwide.

The researchers conclude that ocean warming will continue until global greenhouse gas emissions reach net‑zero, warning that delaying emissions reductions will lock in further impacts on oceans and climate systems.

U.S. Withdraws from 66 International Organizations

The United States has formally withdrawn from 66 international organizations, nearly half of which are affiliated with the United Nations, according to a Presidential Memorandum signed by President Donald Trump. The affected bodies work across sectors including public health, climate change, migration, peacebuilding, and education.

The memorandum states that these organizations “undermine America’s independence” and “promote radical climate policies” that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic priorities. The administration claims the withdrawal will prevent taxpayer dollars from funding “ineffective or hostile agendas.”

Experts say the move marks a major shift in U.S. global engagement. Nina Schwalbe of Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Policy and Politics calls the decision “ridiculous and dangerous,” adding that if exiting the World Health Organization in 2024 was like “cutting down a tree,” this broader withdrawal is akin to “cutting down the whole forest.”

Will 2026 See a New Farm Bill?

Congress has not passed a new five-year Farm Bill since the last one expired in 2023, instead opting for temporary one-year extensions. A new essay by Kathleen Merrigan and Christopher Neubert of the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at Arizona State University questions whether comprehensive five-year legislation will return at all.

Traditionally, Merrigan and Neubert explain, Congress has been able to pass Farm Bills because farmers in support of subsidies and anti-hunger advocates see the advantage in working together to build the bipartisan support needed to pass the legislation.

But the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” signed in July 2025, altered that dynamic, cutting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding by US$186 billion over ten years while increasing farm subsidies by US$60 billion. As a result of those changes and current divisions in Congress, the authors believe a regular five-year Farm Bill may be out of reach, writing that it’s more likely the stalemate in Congress “will continue indefinitely.”

Instead, Congress may continue to extend programs through smaller bills rather than attempt a full Farm Bill overhaul. Without new legislation, they conclude, food and agriculture advocates will need to reassess strategies for advancing their policy priorities.

Carson and Oz Praise Trump-Vance Administration’s Focus on “Real Food”

Dr. Ben Carson, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Advisor for Nutrition, Health, and Housing, and Dr. Mehmet Oz, Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, say the Trump-Vance Administration is “Making America Healthy Again” by shifting nutrition policy toward whole foods. In a joint op-ed, they argue that the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines finally prioritize the well-being of Americans after decades of ultra-processed diets.

Carson and Oz cite the USDA Plan for American Ranchers and Consumers and the US$700 million Regenerative Agriculture Pilot Program as steps to support local farmers and reduce long-term production costs. “By making milk, raising cattle, and growing wholesome fruits, vegetables, and grains, they hold the key to solving our national health crisis,” they write.

Organizations like Friends of the Earth applaud the intent of these programs, but note that these measures may fall short unless recent cuts to funding and staff needed to help farmers design and implement regenerative practices are reversed. The Trump-Vance Administration has also not addressed how millions of U.S. households will access whole foods following the largest cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in history.

Sudan Marks 1,000 Days of Conflict

Sudan has now endured 1,000 days of conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, a civil war that began in April 2023. The violence has triggered one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises: an estimated 33.7 million people, two-thirds of the country’s population, will need assistance in 2026, and 21 million are expected to face acute food insecurity, UNICEF reports.

Children make up half of those affected, with around 5,000 displaced every day due to ongoing violence. Hunger is also becoming “increasingly gendered,” according to Jens Laerke, a spokesperson for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Female-headed households are three times more likely to experience food insecurity, with 75 percent lacking sufficient food.

The U.N. is calling for urgent humanitarian access to hard-hit areas, including the cities of al-Fashir and Kadugli, where famine conditions are escalating under continued siege by armed groups. Officials warn that without immediate aid, conditions will further deteriorate.

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

Photo courtesy of Cody Mclain, Unsplash

The post Food Tank’s Weekly News Roundup: Soaring Ocean Temperatures, U.S. Retreat from Global Organizations, and 1,000 Days of Conflict in Sudan appeared first on Food Tank.

The Pennsylvania Working Families Party rolled out an online "hub" on Friday to support a primary challenger to the state's US senator, John Fetterman.

The WFP, an independent party that often supports Democrats with a populist economic agenda, backed Fetterman's 2022 Senate bid when he ran in the general election as a champion of many progressive causes. But the group now says he "sold out working Pennsylvanians" after pivoting hard to the right on key issues.

It launched the campaign to oust him in November after he voted with Republicans to reopen the government without an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, which is expected to spike health insurance premiums for over 22 million Americans this year.

“While Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) is supporting Trump’s use of American tax dollars to ‘run’ Venezuela or buy Greenland, 500,000 Pennsylvanians are about to see their healthcare premiums rise because of the Republican budget bill he supported,” said Nick Gavio, mid-Atlantic communications director for the Working Families Party and a former Fetterman staffer. “People across Pennsylvania did not put time, money, and energy into supporting his campaign just to elect a Democrat who votes against our interests time and time again. We need new leadership.”

— (@)

The website provides past Fetterman donors who feel betrayed by the senator with a form letter to "request a refund" of past contributions from the campaign. It also contains a "Sell-out Tracker," which seeks to "track every bad position" he has taken.

In addition to his vote to reopen the government, the group notes that Fetterman has voted to confirm 50% of Trump's Cabinet picks. He was the only Democrat who voted to confirm Attorney General Pam Bondi and Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, and one of the very few to vote in favor of Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem.

It also accuses him of "betraying vulnerable people" by supporting Republican legislation that eliminates due process for undocumented immigrants, cheering US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) amid its mass deportation crusade, and giving full-throated support to Israel's genocidal war in Gaza and Trump's strikes on Iran.

The site also highlights Fetterman's tendency to neglect the basic duties of his job as a senator, which he has admitted he skips to spend more time with his family and because he finds them “overwhelmingly procedural.”

Fetterman has one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, having missed over 100 votes since April 2024 and skipped 44 out of 45 meetings for committees he was assigned to between January and May 2025.

He has also said he hosts very few town halls in order to avoid protesters, who have shown up to voice their discontent with his support for Israel, among other controversial positions.

As the site points out, while some other Democrats fought tooth and nail in a losing effort to stop Republicans from passing massive safety-net cuts in this summer's budget reconciliation package, Fetterman told Politico, "I just want to go home" and complained that he'd missed his family's trip to the beach.

— (@)

So far, no prominent Pennsylvania Democrats have offered themselves up as potential primary challengers for Fetterman, who comes up for reelection in 2028.

Top names, including former Rep. Conor Lamb, who ran against Fetterman in the 2022 Democratic primary, and Philadelphia area Rep. Madeleine Dean have said they would not challenge Fetterman if he ran for another term.

Meanwhile, Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), who called Fetterman "Trump's favorite Democrat" last year, told NOTUS he'd be open to running against him.

The Pennsylvania Working Families Party said it is collecting donations that it will use to help "identify, recruit, and elect a real working class champion to replace Fetterman in the US Senate."

The group told NBC News that it has already amassed more than 425 people interested in either running against Fetterman themselves or volunteering their time or donating to help the effort to unseat him.

This article Social strikes are emerging as a defense against ICE and authoritarianism was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

As authoritarian politics harden in the United States, familiar channels of resistance are proving dangerously inadequate. Elections are constrained, courts are under siege, and dissent is increasingly met with repression in the streets. In this moment, questions of power — who has it, how it is exercised, and how it can be withdrawn — are no longer abstract. They are immediate and practical.

Labor historian and longtime organizer Jeremy Brecher has spent decades grappling with these questions, and in a recent series of reports, culminating in “Social Strikes: Can General Strikes, Mass Strikes, and People Power Uprisings Provide a Last Defense Against MAGA Tyranny?,” he argues that large-scale noncooperation may be one of the few strategies capable of halting an authoritarian slide.

From escalating resistance to ICE to a growing call for a Jan. 23 Minnesota shutdown following the killing of Renee Nicole Good, forms of mass refusal — to work, to comply, to carry on as usual — are moving from theory into practice. Drawing on historical examples of people power uprisings and on his recent work examining how general strikes and broader “social strikes” are built, Brecher reflects in this conversation on where the U.S. is now, what conditions make such actions possible, and what strategic groundwork is required to turn diffuse outrage into sustained, democratic power.

Could you give a definition of what you mean by social strikes?

Social strike is a broad term that encompasses a wide range of activities that use the withdrawal of cooperation and mass disruption to affect governments and social structures. I use the term “social strikes” to describe mass actions that exercise power by withdrawing cooperation from and disrupting the operation of society. Social strikes represent the withdrawal of cooperation and acquiescence by a whole society, manifested for example in general strikes, political strikes and mass popular “people power” uprisings. The goal of a social strike is to affect not just the immediate employer, but a political regime or social structure. In all their varied forms they are based on Gandhi’s fundamental perception that “even the most powerful cannot rule without the cooperation of the ruled.”

Why is this a winning strategy, and as you put it, a “defense against MAGA tyranny”?

The power of the powerful ultimately depends on the acquiescence and cooperation of those they rule. Social strikes have been one way that people have exercised the power to withdraw that acquiescence and cooperation.

#newsletter-block_993efaf67a94f30539f298ee8253eb14 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_993efaf67a94f30539f298ee8253eb14 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

Social strikes provide a possible alternative when institutional means of action prove ineffective. In many countries, where democratic institutions have been so weakened or obliterated that they are unable to disempower tyranny, such methods have been used effectively. My report on social strikes recounts examples that have brought down tyrannical regimes in Poland, the Philippines, Brazil, Puerto Rico, and most recently South Korea. These large-scale nonviolent direct actions — often referred to as people power uprisings — made society ungovernable and led to regime change. In all these cases, popular mobilization and the threat of general social disruption were so great that the autocrat’s supporters abandoned or turned against him and forced him to resign.

Of course there are no guarantees that social strikes can win in the U.S. today or in any other situation. But as MAGA tyranny drives more and more individuals, constituencies and institutions into opposition, its power is being progressively undermined. Historical experience around the world has shown social strikes are a powerful means to manifest that withdrawal of acquiescence and the refusal of the people to cooperate.

Indeed, widespread forms of mass resistance like the Tesla and other boycotts, the No Kings-type national protests, and the on-the-ground resistance to ICE are already hamstringing the Trump administration’s freedom of action. Social strikes would represent a significant intensification of what I have called “social self-defense” against Trumpian tyranny. They have the potential both to further impede MAGA depredations and to contest for support from the majority of the population. 

Where would you situate us, in our current moment, in terms of the trajectory of the escalating authoritarianism that we have been experiencing? How does this compare to some of the historical scenarios you analyze in the report and what does that mean for our strategic organizing?

An authoritarian takeover is under way in the U.S., complete with the arrest of opposition political leaders like Rep. LaMonica McIver, unrestrained executive usurpation, and lawless physical violence and kidnapping by masked, unidentified, armed federal agents. The government is now protecting and defending ICE agents who shoot down protesters in cold blood. The president is now threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would allow him to use the military to suppress a “rebellion,” i.e. action by any who oppose him. As his power is threatened, it is entirely plausible that he will turn to a full-scale coup. When a regime starts shooting down unarmed protesters in the street, that’s a Rubicon.

While they have much in common, every tyrannical regime and every opposition has its own dynamics. Growing popular discontent and emerging elite opposition (think Jerome Powell and the Clintons) are likely to lead to intensified repression (think Iran today). Authoritarian regimes are likely to use every means available to them to destroy opposition — something we are seeing every day with the Trump administration and its allies. Such repression can be effective, but it can also provoke still further opposition (think popular response and on-the-ground resistance following the ICE killing of Renee Nicole Good). We need to be prepared for intensified repression, but also be mindful that the people potentially have the power to defeat tyranny.

Following the murder of Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minnesota on Jan. 7, and an ongoing assault on the state by federal immigration forces, a labor-community coalition is calling for residents to refuse to work, shop or go to school on Jan. 23. Could you comment on this and other recent calls for social strikes?

The Minnesota story is developing hour by hour. The escalation of repression, including more and more shooting of unarmed civilians, massive invasion by additional ICE agents, and Trump’s threat to invoke the Insurrection Act, seem to have enraged large swaths of the state’s population without intimidating them into acquiescence. Mass action responses have been cascading. Rapid response networks and neighborhood ICE watch groups, armed with cameras and whistles, are proliferating. A friend in St. Paul wrote to me that there are 1,100 rapid response anti-ICE volunteers in their neighborhood alone.

On Jan. 10, ten thousand joined an “ICE Out of Minnesota” rally and march. On Jan. 14, thousands of St. Paul high school and middle school students marched to the State Capitol Building; nine high schools staged walkouts; a thousand students blocked St. Paul’s main thoroughfare with a two-mile march. On, Jan. 18, union postal workers will rally to demand “ICE Out Of Minnesota!,” followed by a march to the site of Renee Nicole Good’s killing. 

The proposed day of refusal to work, shop or go to school is a perfect example of a “social strike,” including work stoppages by workers but also myriad other forms of noncooperation by large and highly diverse sectors of society. A wide swath of immigrant, religious, labor, community, tenant and other groups are deeply involved. Unions already supporting the day of action include the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1005, SEIU Local 26, UNITE HERE Local 17, CWA Local 7250, and St. Paul Federation of Educators Local 28. 

The way Minnesotans are turning to this form of action is a result of the specific situation they face, but also of the growing discussion of and calls for general and social strikes. In that context, the “day of refusal” could have repercussions far beyond Minnesota. Teacher and union activist Dan Troccoli says, “in addition to appreciation, we want emulation. We need that out there in the streets in every city.”

Where are we now in terms of strategy and readiness for impactful and sustained mass social strikes? 

A crucial development of the past years has been the emergence of what I call the “movement-based opposition.” With the Democratic Party largely failing to effectively play the role of an opposition party, an alliance of social movements has begun playing the role of a “non-electoral opposition” that can mobilize those harmed by MAGA, identify common interests, unify their programs and actions, and articulate alternatives. The movement-based opposition is exemplified by the participation of millions in protest days of action like Hands Off!, MayDayStrong, and No Kings, and the mass civil resistance to ICE raids around the country. 

Next steps are already under way. Indivisible’s One Million Rising, which it describes as “a national effort to train one million people in the strategic logic and practice of non-cooperation,” could be a step in preparing those already participating in mass protests for social strikes. Future actions can progressively incorporate elements of noncooperation and disruption that evolve toward social strikes and serve as living representations of their potential power. They can combine strikes with non-workplace actions like boycotts, commercial shutdowns, mass picketing, blockades, occupations and civil disobedience. Such actions will need to constantly seek the “sweet spot” between effective disruption of MAGA oppression and alienation of forces that might otherwise be won over.

Could you outline a medium to long-term organizing vision and priorities for where we should aim to go from here?

I have dubbed the overall struggle against MAGA tyranny “social self-defense” — the defense of society by society against the forces aiming to destroy it.

Social self-defense against a creeping or galloping MAGA coup is most likely to succeed through a combination of electoral and social strike methods. The overcoming of authoritarian regimes in the Philippines, Serbia and elsewhere, while accomplished under circumstances far different from those in the U.S. today, provide examples of how they can be combined.

#support-block_23dabcaaff23576a3f8acf1606198b8f { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

The detailed timelines of social strikes cannot be known in advance. They are likely to grow out of a gradual, and not always visible, buildup of harm — and resentment at harm. This is already occurring in Trump’s America. It could lead to a series of escalating struggles, possibly punctuated by defeats or by concessions generating temporary quiescence. Popular opposition could also diminish as a result of repression, MAGA counter-maneuvers, a sense of futility, or other “unknown unknowns.” A period of apparent quiescence with a rising sense of grievance might eventuate in a sudden explosion of popular rage and a mass uprising. 

Whether gradually or rapidly, social strikes will need to develop the power necessary to reduce MAGA power enough to bring an end to its rule — through elections, collapse of political support, or social disruption.

Resisting the rise of tyranny will no doubt require sacrifice. But that sacrifice will not be primarily on behalf of one political party vs. another, of Democrats vs. Republicans. It will be a defense of democracy — defense of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Beyond that, it is the protection of that which makes our life together on Earth possible. It is defense of the human rights of all people; of the conditions of our Earth and its climate that make our life possible; of the constitutional principle that government must be accountable to law; of global cooperation to provide a secure future for our people and planet; and of our ability to live together in our communities, our country, and our world. A MAGA tyranny is a threat to all of us as members of society. Overcoming MAGA usurpation of power is social self-defense.

We can hope that social strikes will not be necessary to limit and ultimately end MAGA tyranny. Accomplishing that goal by less drastic forms of social self-defense inside and outside the electoral system would likely require less risk and less pain. But if other means are unavailing, experience around the world indicates that social strikes may provide a way for people facing authoritarian takeover to establish or reestablish democracy.

This interview is co-published by ZNetwork.org and the Labor Network for Sustainability.

This article Social strikes are emerging as a defense against ICE and authoritarianism was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Amid unprecedented backlash against US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, California Gov. Gavin Newsom—considered a leading contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination—is being accused of giving the increasingly violent agency a pass after an interview with right-wing pundit Ben Shapiro in which he softened his criticism of ICE.

In recent days, following an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent’s fatal shooting of 37-year-old mother of three Renee Good last week in Minneapolis, officers of ICE and other federal agencies have been documented engaging in blatant racial profiling, unconstitutional “citizenship checks,” and extreme uses of physical force, including dragging a disabled US citizen from her car on the way to a doctor's appointment, as the Associated Press reported Friday.

It is part of a pattern of behavior by ICE that Newsom's press office described as "state-sponsored terrorism" as recently as January 7, when he used the term to describe Good's killing by agent Jonathan Ross, who was recorded shooting Good in the head after stepping in front of her vehicle and referring to her as a "fucking bitch." Agents also obstructed emergency medical services from arriving at the scene of the shooting to assist Good, according to video and eyewitness accounts.

But when questioned by the cantankerous debater Shapiro on his podcast, This is Gavin Newsom on Thursday, the governor backed off that forceful description of the agency.

— (@)

“Your press office tweeted out that it was state-sponsored terrorism, which, I mean, Governor, I just have to ask you about that. That sort of thing makes our politics worse, and it does,” said Shapiro, to which Newsom responded, “Yeah.”

Shapiro continued: “Our ICE officers obviously are not terrorists. A tragic situation is not state-sponsored terrorism.”

“Yeah, I think that’s fair,” agreed Newsom.

A short clip of that exchange, shared in celebration by Shapiro's outlet, the Daily Wire, was met with widespread criticism on social media from those who wanted to see one of the Democratic Party's most prominent leaders take an unapologetic stance against ICE.

Mehdi Hasan, founder of the news outlet Zeteo, questioned why "Newsom is trying to wreck his otherwise very strong chance of winning the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination by doing this self-destructive podcast where he allows right-wing guests to walk all over him and then promote clips online of them walking all over him."

But this clip showed only one of several instances during the nearly two-hour interview in which Newsom rolled over to his guest's pro-ICE framing.

When Shapiro interrogated Newsom about California's supposed "sanctuary state" policy and suggested the state should “cooperate with ICE in the vast majority of cases,” Newsom responded: “That's exactly what they do in California.”

Newsom then boasted that there have been “over 10,000” deportations he’s cooperated with since he became governor of California. Though he emphasized that the sanctuary law only allows for the state’s correctional facilities to cooperate with ICE, advocates have criticized it for allowing the deportation of those who were never convicted and those who’ve had their cases dropped.

“California has cooperated with more ICE transfers, probably, than any other state in the country,” he continued. “I vetoed multiple pieces of legislation that have come from my legislature to stop the ability for the state of California to do that.”

Newsom has indeed vetoed at least two pieces of Democratic legislation that sought to further limit the state’s cooperation with ICE—one in 2023, which would have repealed requirements allowing prisons to transfer noncitizens to ICE custody after they leave prison, and another in 2019, which would have banned private security companies from entering California prisons to transfer people to ICE custody.

Shapiro later questioned Newsom on whether he agreed with calls from some Democrats to “abolish” ICE in the wake of the shooting, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), another potential favorite for the 2028 nomination.

Newsom said, “I disagree,” adding, “I believe a candidate for president by the name of Harris said that in the last campaign. I remember being on [All In with Chris Hayes] hours later saying, ‘I think that’s a mistake.’”

While she has been critical of the agency and suggested changing its enforcement priorities, it is untrue that former Vice President Kamala Harris has ever called to “abolish ICE,” even saying as far back as 2018 that “ICE has a purpose. ICE has a role, ICE should exist.”

She did not call for ICE to be abolished during the 2024 campaign for president as Newsom suggested, and was criticized by immigrants’ rights activists for running further to the right on immigration than in years past.

By rejecting calls to abolish ICE, critics noted that Newsom was expressing a position far out of touch with the Democratic base and with a widening segment of the country, which has grown increasingly hostile toward ICE over the past year, and especially in the wake of its actions in Minnesota, which have led many to see it more as President Donald Trump's personal paramilitary force than a legitimate law enforcement agency.

A poll earlier this week by the Economist/YouGov revealed that for the first time ever, “abolishing ICE” had more support (46%) than opposition (43%) among American adults. Among those who said they leaned Democratic, 80% favored abolishing the agency, compared with just 11% who opposed it.

“This is an unbelievably stupid move from Gavin Newsom,” wrote the host of the left-wing talk show One Hand Politics, who goes by Mason, in response to the governor's rejection of the call to abolish ICE.

He implored Newsom to “grow a fucking spine and stop chasing Republican moderates that don’t exist. They all hate you.”

Brian Tashman, a political researcher and strategist at the ACLU, noted that Newsom is “not willing to push back against Ben Shapiro but will push back against labor organizers trying to enact a billionaire tax that would affect a few hundred people."

Left-wing commentator Joe Mayall saw the interaction as a window into how Newsom might perform in a possible 2028 presidential debate against Vice President JD Vance, widely seen as the Republican who would succeed Trump.

He wrote: “If you get cooked by Ben Shapiro, you don’t have a chance against Vance."

A version of this piece was featured in Food Tank’s newsletter, released weekly on Thursdays. To make sure it lands straight in your inbox and to be among the first to receive it, subscribe now by clicking here.

Transforming the food system is about more than just what’s on our plates—it’s about building a society rooted in sustainable agriculture, worker justice, local culture, and accessible diets that nourish and heal us. In short, telling stories of food means telling stories of people.

This is what Food Tank is planning to do next week during Sundance. At our annual All Things Food and Environment Summit, on Saturday, Jan. 24, in Park City, UT, we’re planning an amazing lineup that connects the dots between media storytelling, visionary changemakers on the ground, and cultural leaders who are inspiring us to move forward.

Following a screening of documentary Food 2050, by The Rockefeller Foundation and Media RED, we are convening a fireside reflection with Jian Yi, Mama’s Kitchen; Sara Farley, The Rockefeller Foundation; David Osogo, African Population and Health Research Center; Matthew Thompson, the Director of Food 2050; and more to be announced. Then, a reception will be introduced by Chef Bleu Adams of Indigihub, and cocktails will be available from our partners at Wheyward Spirits.

Then, we’ll present “Voices of Farmers: Growing the Future” in partnership with Niman Ranch, handing the stage over to farmers from around the world for an evening of authentic storytelling. Hosted by a surprise celebrity emcee, we’ll hear from folks including Elle Gadient, a fifth-generation Iowa hog and cattle farmer; Lynsey Gammon of Gracie’s Farm in Utah; Albert Betoudji, a New Roots immigrant farmer in Utah; Paula Swaner Sargetakis of Frog Bench Farms, an urban farm in Salt Lake City; David Chen of Zoe’s Garden in Utah; AJ Kanip of Ute Tribal Enterprises; Hannah Greenshields of The Food Farm on the NSW Central Coast in Australia; David Moscow, Actor, Creator, Host, and Author, “From Scratch”; and Dr. Lisbeth Louderback, Natural History Museum of Utah.

If you’re in Utah, you can find more information about how to join us by CLICKING HERE.

And for Food Tankers around the world who might not be able to join us in person, I encourage and challenge you to make next Saturday, Jan. 24, a day of food system and people-centric storytelling in your own communities!

There’s no shortage of topics to explore. For starters, you can read and watch more about each of the visionaries featured in the Food 2050 documentary HERE.

Or take a moment to head to your local bookstore to grab one of the titles on our most recent reading list, ranging from personal histories to broader cultural analyses.

You can explore how supermarkets shape eaters and the planet in the PBS episode “Shelf Life,” or tune in to chef and creator Brad Leone’s YouTube series “Local Legends,” focusing on sustainable food and community-driven resilience. Or, check out these 18 eye-opening documentaries exploring inspiring efforts of farmers and advocates around the globe.

And finally, I want to make one thing clear: Food Tank stands firmly with all immigrants seeking better lives for themselves and their families through the food system. It has been sickening to witness the intimidation and violence that the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has brought to U.S. cities, including the unjustified murder of poet, wife, and mother Renee Good in Minneapolis.

Every person deserves a life free from violence, free from intimidation and discrimination and dehumanization, wherever they were born and wherever they live.

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

Photo courtesy of Marc Fanelli Isla, Unsplash

The post Join Us for a Day of People-Centered Food System Storytelling! appeared first on Food Tank.

The Place:

We’re in Noj Kaax Meen Elijio Panti National Park, a protected area situated in the heart of the Maya Mountains in western Belize, near the border with Guatemala. Bounded by the Mountain Pine Ridge Forest Reserve and the Macal River, it’s an extremely biodiverse, tropical rainforest with some remaining intact areas of primary broadleaf forest.

Why It Matters:

Named after the world-renowned traditional Mayan healer Don Elijio Panti, Noj Kaax Meen (which means “canopied rainforest of healers”) Elijio Panti National Park is home to some of the most emblematic and endangered wildlife of the Neotropics, including jaguars, spider monkeys, tapirs, and scarlet macaws. It also conceals several large, intricate caves full of artifacts and relics where the ancient Mayas conducted rituals and ceremonies. Some of these caves remain unexplored.

Photo: Daniel Couceiro (used with permission)

The Mayas’ descendants still live here. They consider the land, rivers, trees, herbs, birds, jaguars, and other wildlife to be their heritage, which they are honored to take care of. They’re dedicated to preserving the delicate balance between the territory and the people. The legacy that Don Elijio Panti, a spiritual leader as well as a healer, left within the national park is also paramount for this community, as he offered ceremonies of gratitude to the spirits and the land, meditated, and gathered sacred herbs to serve his people.

The park is full of economically important trees, such as mahogany, nargusta, rosewood, sapodilla and ceiba, which supply food for many insects, birds, and mammals. They’re also important habitat: In their massive crowns and branches, you can find nests of top predators such as the stunning ornate hawk-eagle or the black-and-white owl.

At the same time, as if these trees represent a duality of blessing and curse, they attract national and international logging companies, eager to cut them down and extract their precious timber at any cost.

The Threat:

Last July the government granted a logging license to Belize Woodmark Designs Ltd., allowing the furniture company to harvest wood in approximately 11,500 acres of the area known as the Western Hardwoods. The area is situated within the Mountain Pine Ridge Forest Reserve and directly borders Elijio Panti National Park to the south. According to park head ranger Rigoberto Saqui, this logging concession will severely harm ecological connectivity and populations of mammals with large home ranges like jaguars and tapirs.

“It’s a ripple effect that happens when a logging concession begins in an area,” he says.  “When new roads are opened, it makes it easier and accessible for other loggers, looters, or poachers to do illegal activities within the park.”

Photo: Daniel Couceiro (used with permission)

He also mentions a consequence that would reach areas even beyond the park.

“The Western Hardwoods are very sensitive when it comes to its ecological functioning: It has a lot of headwaters that flow into the major tributaries of Belize.” This means the effects of the operation would stretch into areas and communities far away from the park through damage done by logging to water quality.

The license was granted for 30 years, with the option to be extended for an additional 30, and was granted despite the opposition of the chief of the Forest Office Department.

My Place in This Place:

I visited Elijio Panti National Park for the first time last summer, leading a group of college students in environmental sciences from the United States. As an ecologist and passionate naturalist, I immediately connected with the exuberant jungle and spent the days walking trails up and down, checking jaguar and tapir tracks, birdwatching, swimming in the beautiful waterfalls, exploring deep caves, and learning nonstop from the park rangers who accompanied us.

I felt privileged to witness such a vibrant landscape, and I also observed my students’ constant enthusiasm in discovering the rainforest for the first time, opening their eyes to a new world full of unique species, sounds, and scents.

When the rangers told me about the ongoing situation with the logging concession, I felt powerless in the face of corporate interests that care nothing about the needs of nature and the people, so I decided to do my part and share the voice of the park and its community. I will continue to bring my students to Elijio Panti every year, so they can learn about rainforest ecology, its brimming wildlife, and the endless challenges human greed poses to the common good.

Who’s Protecting It Now:

The Itzamna Society has co-managed the park with the state since 2001. A team of four brave rangers patrols about 16,000 acres (roughly 9,000 football fields) of hilly terrain. They have been navigating the dense rainforest and working to control groups of illegal poachers, loggers, and looters with the help of two motorbikes, machetes for opening small trails, their strong legs, and determined hearts.

What This Place Needs:

In the words of the head ranger Rigoberto Saqui, “The number of rangers that we have — it’s not enough, and we have seen the consequences of our limited capacity to safeguard the park.”

The park requires more personnel to initiate proper long-term research and be more efficient in patrolling and protecting the area. It’s crucial to initiate research to identify key sites within the park that may contain hidden Maya caves before looters arrive. There’s also a significant chance that the park holds new-to-science species of insects, plants, and other groups, which means that the community and rangers need equipment and training to start monitoring and collecting data.

The rangers also need to acquire fire-extinguishing equipment, since the dry season is about to start and they have had difficult experiences in the past trying to fight wildfires with minimal tools. The government does not have either the initiative or the capacity to provide help in these situations.

The Itzamna Society is trying to secure a large grant that will allow it to implement several processes to better address the park’s needs, but the team is struggling to write the proposal due to a lack of grant-writing expertise. If anyone reading this article has experience with grant-writing for conservation or environmental causes and is willing to help, please contact me so I can connect you with the team.

Lessons From the Fight:

The oppression carried out by companies and corporations to destroy the last wild places on this planet for mere profit and personal convenience can’t be allowed anymore. It’s clear that we can’t trust governments to take care of mountains, rivers, and forests, so what are our options as citizens?

Elijio Panti National Park and the Itzamna Society are a clear example of the power of communities in protecting nature. This Mayan community will defend their place with their lives as long as they exist, because it’s part of their identity and legacy.

Similarly, rebuilding our relationship with nature is a duty we have as humans, so we’re intrinsically motivated and ready to do whatever’s necessary to safeguard the sources of food, clean water, and clean air for ourselves and the rest of the fellow creatures with whom we share the world. Most of Western society has lost our connection to our territories, allowing private interests to extract the land’s wealth without resistance.

Lastly, one of our greatest powers as citizens comes from our ability to make informed choices as consumers. What would happen if no one bought any furniture from the company that received the logging concession that now threatens Elijio Panti National Park — or other exploitative companies?

Follow the Fight:

Follow the Itzamna Society, the local community and co-managers of Elijio Panti National Park, on Facebook.

And visit the park’s own website, where you can find detailed information on this unique protected area.

Share your stories: 

Do you live in or near a threatened habitat or community, or have you worked to study or protect endangered wildlife? You’re invited to share your stories in our ongoing features, Protect This Place and Save This Species. 

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy.

Previously in The Revelator:

Antidote for Despair in the Shawnee National Forest

The post Protect This Place: Elijio Panti National Park, a Mayan Heritage Site in the Heart of Belize’s Rainforest appeared first on The Revelator.

Brent and Michelle Arp say that farming is in their blood. Brent’s 85-year-old father still farms on the more than 120-year-old farm where both he and Brent grew up. Michelle was raised around dairy cattle and once named the Iowa State Dairy Princess. Today, the couple farms about 600 acres of grain in Eastern Iowa and raises hogs and cattle.

But even for a generations-old farming family with established roots in Iowa, it has been difficult for the Arps to acquire land of their own.

“It’s about impossible out here anymore. The price has just gotten outrageous for good farm ground around us,” says Brent.

Increasing interest from investors for development, corporate land buyers, limited supply, and population growth are driving up the cost of land in the Midwest. In the Arps’ area, Brent says outside investors have bought several farms as security for their retirement plans. And those that have inherited land— those without mortgages—tend to accumulate more acres. This drives land prices up and out of reach for first-time buyers like the Arps.

The Arps rented farmland for about 20 years before they were given the opportunity to buy it. The owners offered the sale because their children did not want to return to the farm. The Arps are still in the process of buying—and they both still hold off-farm jobs to make ends meet—but say that the opportunity was too rare to pass up.

“When we were thinking about buying it, we were going back and forth like, this is crazy. We’re never going to be able to do it,” says Brent. “But we took a chance.”

And it has worked out for Brent and Michelle. In 2022, they started raising pigs for Niman Ranch, a specialty meat company offering a guaranteed price for their pork in exchange for high humane and sustainable farming standards. This gave the Arps financial stability to remain a small farm while investing in their future.

“You’re not going to make a killing raising hogs. But there’s a little bit of money there,” says Brent. “Adding another line to the farm that actually has cash flows was a big relief.”

Brent explains that growing corn and soybeans—the two crops that comprise the vast majority of planted farmland in Iowa—is highly variable in terms of profit. One year can make a relatively high profit, while the second year might only break even, and the third and fourth years may be negative.

For example, the Arps are making half of what they made two years ago on corn. And their beans have lost US$5 per bushel. “On our farm, we raise anywhere from 15,000 to 20,000 bushels of beans. You take US$5 a bushel off of that, that’s US$100,000 [lost],” Brent explains.

Farmers do not choose their prices. Grain dealers tell farmers how much they will pay for corn or soy—a price that is set based on Chicago Board of Trade prices and global markets—and they can take or leave it. “A lot of people who have never been around farming don’t really understand that that’s how the commodity market works in farming,” says Michelle.

“It also seems like whenever our grain prices go up, our input [prices] go up too,” Brent adds. “And those input costs don’t come back down very fast even when the prices we sell for do. So we’ve got to make that up somewhere. A lot of times it’s either debt or you take it out of your savings.”

Brent and Michelle worry about the next generation’s ability to access land to keep farming. Their son has his heart set on farming, but he has to work off the farm to make a living. This is typical in Iowa, where about 60 percent of farmers have some form of off-farm employment, according to Iowa State University.

“The next generation is looking towards their future and thinking, how am I even going to get started?” says Michelle.

Brent says that older farmers can help support the next generation by renting their land to younger farmers after retiring, or selling it to a farming family within the community. The Arps are lucky that their landlord offered them the opportunity to purchase, Brent explains, because they could have gotten “top dollar” from an outside investor. But they wanted the land to stay with a local farming family.

“They want to see the small family farm maintained…and they know that we’re going to put things back into the land, we’re going to try and renew it every year,” says Michelle. “Whereas some of these big guys, you don’t know for sure what they’re going to do. Are they just going to run it for five years, take everything they can, and then be done?”

Still, Brent and Michelle see hope for the future of the food system. Independent markets that support small family farms, such as Niman Ranch, and increasing consumer interest in humanely and sustainably raised meat are giving opportunities to younger farmers like their son.

“The younger people really care about how their food is raised. They don’t just look at the price. They want to know that the animal is well cared for. And that’s impressive to me that they care that much,” says Brent. “I think that’s only going to grow.”

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

Photo courtesy of Mathias Grischott, Unsplash

The post The Struggle—and Hope—for the Next Generation of Farmers appeared first on Food Tank.

A Texas medical examiner is reportedly planning to classify the recent death of Geraldo Lunas Campos, who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement last summer, as a homicide, marking the latest apparent abuse at the hands of an agency that has been rampaging lawlessly through US communities at the behest of President Donald Trump.

As the Washington Post reported Friday, "An employee of El Paso County’s Office of the Medical Examiner told Lunas Campos’ daughter this week that, subject to results of a toxicology report, the office is likely to classify the death as a homicide, according to a recording of the conversation."

"The employee said a doctor there 'is listing the preliminary cause of death as asphyxia due to neck and chest compression,' which means Lunas Campos did not get enough oxygen because of pressure on his neck and chest," the newspaper added.

In an interview with the Post, one detainee at the sprawling El Paso detention center known as Camp East Montana said he witnessed "at least five guards struggling with Lunas Campos after he refused to enter the segregation unit, complaining that he didn’t have his medications."

The eyewitness, according to the Post, "said he saw guards choking Lunas Campos and heard Lunas Campos repeatedly saying, 'No puedo respirar'—Spanish for 'I can't breathe.' Medical staff tried to resuscitate him for an hour, after which they took his body away."

Jeanette Pagan Lopez, the mother of two of Lunas Campos' children, told the Post that she was contacted by agents from the FBI who said they were investigating Lunas Campos' death.

“I know it’s a homicide,” Lopez told the newspaper. “The people that physically harmed him should be held accountable.”

US Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), co-chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, wrote in response to the Post's reporting that "Geraldo Lunas Campos may have been murdered."

"So disturbing," Barragán added. "Republicans’ excessive funding of ICE and DHS, along with Trump’s pardons and claims of absolute immunity, are literally killing people. Republicans remain silent or are openly OK with this."

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which has lied relentlessly about recent killings and other incidents involving ICE, claimed in a statement that Lunas Campos died after trying to take his own life.

“Campos violently resisted the security staff and continued to attempt to take his life,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “During the ensuing struggle, Campos stopped breathing and lost consciousness. Medical staff was immediately called and responded. After repeated attempts to resuscitate him, EMTs declared him deceased on the scene.”

Lunas Campos, a 55-year-old Cuban immigrant, was detained last summer and died on January 3. Citing court records, the Post noted that "Lunas Campos was convicted of several crimes, including for aggravated assault with a weapon and, in 2003, first-degree sexual abuse involving a child under 11 years old."

"Be ready for the Trump admin to highlight this guy's lengthy criminal record to eliminate any sympathy for him, even though none of that justifies being choked to death by guards at a detention center," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.

Lunas Campos is one of four people to die in ICE custody so far in 2026.

“ICE kills—full stop," said Setareh Ghandehari, advocacy director at Detention Watch Network. "Whether ICE is targeting people in the streets, where they work or live or behind closed doors in one of its nearly 200 abuse-ridden detention centers across the country—ICE is an inherently violent agency jeopardizing families and community safety."

Camp East Montana, where Lunas Campos was reportedly killed, is a huge makeshift tent camp at the Fort Bliss military base in El Paso, Texas.

Last month, the ACLU and other human rights groups demanded the immediate closure of the facility for immigrant detention, citing "accounts of horrific conditions, including beatings and sexual abuse by officers against detained immigrants, beatings and coercive threats to compel deportation to third countries, medical neglect, hunger and insufficient food, and denial of meaningful access to counsel, among other rights violations."

Controversial plans to drill for gas and carry out lower-volume fracking near the North York Moors National Park will be considered at the end of the month, it was confirmed this morning.

Scarborough Town Hall where the Burniston application will be considered. Photo: North Yorkshire Council

In a statement, North Yorkshire Council said members of its strategic planning committee would discuss the application on Friday 30 January 2026. The meeting will begin at 1.30pm at Scarborough Town Hall.

The application, from Europa Oil & Gas Limited, includes creating a wellsite, installing a 38m drilling rig and carrying out a proppant squeeze – a lower volume form of fracking – to explore and test for gas at Burniston near Scarborough.

About 1,600 objections to the application have been submitted.

Representatives of the objectors, the applicant and local representatives will have an opportunity to speak at the meeting.

Councillors will visit the proposed site before the meeting takes place.

North Yorkshire Council’s executive member for corporate services, Cllr Heather Phillips, whose responsibilities include planning committees, said:

“We recognise that this is a planning application that has attracted significant public interest.

“We have received more than 1,500 representations as part of the planning process, and we understand that many people feel strongly and passionately about the proposals that have been submitted.

“As with all planning applications, I would like to reassure everyone that all representations will be carefully considered by members of the committee prior to any decision being made.”

The meeting will be broadcast live on the council’s YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/@northyorksc.

La Pianura Padana abrite un tiers de la population italienne et génère près de la moitié du PIB national. Mais la surexploitation, la pollution et la consommation excessive des sols exacerbent les effets du changement climatique dans cette région politiquement négligée.

Boretto, province de Reggio Emilia, nord de l’Italie. Sous le pont à l’entrée de la ville, le fleuve est presque invisible. Les fondations en béton de ses piliers, habituellement submergées, se distinguent clairement. Là où coulait autrefois le plus long fleuve d’Italie, le Pô, se trouve désormais une grande plage. Là où se trouvait autrefois le lit d’un fleuve, des garçons et des filles s’aventurent désormais à pied. Un couple se promène avec un chien, lançant des bâtons au loin. L’animal se précipite pour les récupérer, heureux d’explorer un territoire normalement interdit. 

Nous sommes en avril 2023. Il n’est pas tombé une seule goutte de pluie depuis deux mois et demi. Le débit du fleuve a considérablement diminué, faisant craindre une répétition de ce qui s’est passé en 2022, lorsque le Pô a atteint son débit le plus bas jamais enregistré. « Le niveau du fleuve est extrêmement bas pour la saison », confirme l’ingénieur Alessio Picarelli de l’Agence interrégionale pour le fleuve Pô (Aipo).  

L’agence, dont le siège social est situé à Boretto, réalise des levés hydrographiques. Les meatori, les ouvriers chargés de contrôler la profondeur de la rivière, prennent chaque jour leur service à partir d’ici et des sept autres stations. L’agence publie ensuite un bulletin pour rendre compte des conditions de navigabilité. Elle est un observateur privilégié de ce qu’on appelle les magre, c’est-à-dire les périodes pendant lesquelles le Pô est en souffrance. 

Le manque de pluie, combiné à l’absence de neige dans les chaînes de montagnes, met à rude épreuve le plus grand fleuve d’Italie. La neige ne tombe plus au même rythme et les glaciers alpins, réservoirs d’eau fossile, rétrécissent. Si, en plus, il ne pleut pas, tout le système entre en crise. C’est une situation qui va probablement se produire de plus en plus souvent dans un avenir proche. 

« Ces débits sont généralement enregistrés en août », explique M. Picarelli. « Mais avec un fait supplémentaire : en été, l’eau est utilisée pour l’agriculture ». En d’autres termes, lorsque les agriculteurs pomperont l’eau pour l’irrigation, le problème sera encore plus grave. « Depuis des années, les modèles climatiques prédictifs nous avertissent de la possibilité d’un assèchement de la vallée du Pô. Cela se passe sous nos yeux. C’est la réalité. Mais, bien sûr, la situation actuelle pourrait changer à tout moment ». 

Et c’est effectivement ce qu’il s’est passé. À la mi-mai 2023, des précipitations inhabituelles se sont abattues sur la vallée du Pô, provoquant le débordement de plusieurs rivières et cours d’eau. Le Pô est finalement resté dans son lit, mais nombre de ses affluents ont débordé, provoquant des conséquences catastrophiques et un lourd bilan humain : 16 morts et 23 000 personnes déplacées. 

Un manque de vision 

Le Pô est un test décisif pour les effets de plus en plus marqués de la crise climatique en Italie. Situé au centre de la région méditerranéenne, le pays est une zone climatique sensible, où les conséquences du réchauffement climatique sont les plus prononcées. La hausse des températures, conjuguée à une succession de phénomènes météorologiques extrêmes, met la région à rude épreuve. 

Selon la base de données sur les évènements météorologiques violents en Europe, l’Italie a connu 3 192 phénomènes météorologiques extrêmes en 2022 ; quelque 2 766 ont déjà été enregistrés au cours des neuf premiers mois de 2023. Il s’agit d’un taux astronomique, étant donné que ce nombre a rarement dépassé les 100 entre 2000 et 2010. 

« En Italie et dans toute la région méditerranéenne, le réchauffement climatique mondial a un effet particulier : non seulement la température moyenne augmente, mais les extrêmes s’accentuent également en raison des changements dans la circulation atmosphérique », explique Antonello Pasini, physicien atmosphérique. « Avant, nous étions habitués à la haute pression atmosphérique qui venait toujours d’ouest en est, principalement avec le célèbre anticyclone des Açores. Cet anticyclone constituait un tampon d’air stable qui nous protégeait des perturbations météorologiques en Europe du Nord ainsi que de la chaleur de l’Afrique. Aujourd’hui, le réchauffement climatique anthropique a provoqué une expansion vers le nord de la circulation équatoriale tropicale. Ce changement signifie que les anticyclones africains, auparavant présents en permanence dans le désert du Sahara, pénètrent désormais dans la Méditerranée et atteignent l’Italie. Lorsqu’ils finissent par revenir, des courants froids pénètrent et rencontrent l’air chaud et humide précédent, créant un énorme contraste thermique. Et c’est ainsi que surviennent les phénomènes météorologiques extrêmes ». 

Les fluctuations entre des niveaux d’eau très bas et des inondations catastrophiques semblent être la nouvelle tendance sur le Pô, comme sur plusieurs autres fleuves italiens. La sécheresse de 2022 a été la pire depuis 200 ans, entraînant une chute brutale des rendements agricoles et de la production hydroélectrique. Selon Coldiretti, la plus grande association agricole italienne, la pénurie d’eau a entraîné une baisse de 10 % de la production agricole italienne, les agriculteurs ayant subi des pertes estimées à environ six milliards d’euros. Cette année n’a guère été meilleure, avec une succession de sécheresses et d’évènements extrêmes causant des dégâts considérables d’une ampleur similaire. 

Acting Out: Arts and Culture Under Pressure – Our latest print edition is out now!

Read it online or get your copy delivered straight to your door.

READ & ORDER

« Nous devons appeler les choses par leur nom : nous sommes en pleine urgence climatique ». Né et élevé dans la région, Giuliano Landini est la mémoire vivante du fleuve. Il est le capitaine du Stradivari, le plus long bateau de croisière fluviale d’Italie. À la barre de son navire, ancré dans le port de Boretto, il est inconsolable. Il regarde le fleuve et secoue la tête. 

Depuis des années, le capitaine se plaint du manque de vision pour le plus grand fleuve d’Italie. « Le scénario climatique actuel nous montre clairement la faiblesse du système. Soit nous pleurons parce que le Pô est à sec, soit nous vivons dans la crainte des inondations. Le fait est que le fleuve a été abandonné à lui-même. Je me demande toujours : pourquoi la Seine, le Danube, l’Elbe (tous les grands fleuves européens) restent-ils navigables alors que le Pô est en souffrance ? » 

Pour Landini, la solution est claire : c’est la bacinizzazione, ou la création de bassins. Ce projet comprendrait des barrages avec des centrales hydroélectriques et des écluses de navigation. « Cela permettrait au fleuve d’être toujours navigable et éviterait le gaspillage d’eau lorsque celle-ci est abondante. En tant qu’homme du fleuve, comme mon père et mon grand-père, je peux vous assurer que nous ne sortirons pas de cette situation tant que nous n’aurons pas réglé une fois pour toutes la question de la gestion de l’eau grâce à des barrages sur le Pô ». 

Une campagne précédente dans la région prévoyait la construction de cinq barrages. Un seul barrage a été construit, sur l’île Serafini dans la province de Plaisance, avec un bassin et une centrale hydroélectrique. Les autres projets ont été laissés de côté. Et il fut décidé de laisser le fleuve couler librement. 

La création de bassins n’est pas une solution qui fait l’unanimité, surtout pas chez les écologistes, qui craignent un changement trop radical des écosystèmes. Mais une partie de l’argumentation de Landini est incontestable : le Pô est un territoire oublié. Ce qui était autrefois un lieu dynamique, avec sa propre culture et son économie, est aujourd’hui marginalisé, ignoré par les politiciens et même par ceux qui vivent sur ses rives. 

Sur-utilisé et sous-estimé 

« Personne n’aime parler du Pô », poursuit Landini. « Pourtant, son eau est utile à tous : pour l’agriculture, l’industrie, la production d’énergie et bien plus encore ». C’est le grand paradoxe italien. Un tiers des habitants du pays vivent dans la Pianura Padana, la vallée du Pô. Celle-ci génère 40 % du PIB national, 35 % de la production agricole et 55 % de la production hydroélectrique. Pourtant, le Pô est considéré comme un obstacle et non comme une ressource. Ou pire encore : il est considéré comme un réservoir d’où puiser l’eau nécessaire aux nombreuses exploitations agricoles industrielles de la vallée, pour extraire du gravier ou pour servir d’égout aux eaux usées industrielles. 

« La région a été surexploitée. Ce n’est un secret pour personne qu’il s’agit de la région la plus polluée d’Europe », déclare Paolo Pileri, professeur d’aménagement du territoire et de l’environnement à l’École polytechnique de Milan. Il explique que les inondations qui ont frappé la région de l’Émilie-Romagne en mai dernier ont eu des effets aussi désastreux parce que le territoire avait été fragilisé par l’action humaine. « Entre 2020 et 2021, l’Émilie-Romagne est la troisième région d’Italie en termes de consommation de sols. Quelque 658 hectares ont été bétonnés en seulement un an, soit 10,4 % du total national. En quelques années seulement, la surface imperméabilisée dans la région a atteint 8,9 %, contre une moyenne nationale de 7,1 %. Nous savons parfaitement que l’eau ne s’infiltre pas dans l’asphalte, mais s’écoule rapidement à sa surface, s’accumulant en quantité et en énergie, et causant des dégâts et des victimes ». 

C’est presque comme si le Pô et ses affluents, rendus invisibles par l’exploitation humaine, reprenaient possession de l’espace qui leur avait été volé. « Le Pô est comme un géant blessé. Il gonfle et sèche à volonté. Il devient avare d’eau lorsque l’agriculture en a le plus besoin. Et il inflige des épreuves et des afflictions à ceux qui lui ont tourné le dos », affirme Landini de manière poétique. 

Face aux tendances irrégulières du fleuve, les nombreux acteurs qui utilisent l’eau du Pô tentent d’imaginer des solutions. « Les données des dernières années montrent que la sécheresse est en train de devenir un problème structurel. Les défis posés par le changement climatique imposent une nouvelle réalité dans laquelle nous ne pouvons plus blâmer une utilisation irrationnelle des ressources », déclare Francesco Vincenzi, entrepreneur agricole et président de l’Association nationale pour la gestion des terres et des eaux d’irrigation. Les organisations agricoles proposent activement des solutions à ce qui constitue pour elles un problème vital. « Pour faire face à la pénurie croissante d’eau, il est nécessaire de lancer un plan d’infrastructure visant à adapter les canaux d’irrigation et à garantir la sécurité des ressources en eau », ajoute Francesco Vincenzi.  

Le Plan national de relance et de résilience, l’instrument de financement approuvé par l’Union européenne après la pandémie de Covid-19, alloue précisément 880 millions d’euros à l’amélioration de l’efficacité du système d’irrigation et à la construction de bassins de rétention. « Ces mini-réservoirs permettront de conserver l’eau dans une perspective multifonctionnelle, tant pour l’agriculture que pour l’énergie. Étant donné qu’aujourd’hui, nous ne retenons que 11 % de l’eau, il est urgent de réaliser ces travaux ». 

Tout le monde semble s’accorder sur la nécessité de préserver une ressource qui se raréfie chaque jour davantage. « Mais il faut aussi remettre en question le modèle agricole qui prévaut dans la vallée du Pô », ajoute Pileri. « Les agriculteurs se plaignent d’un écosystème qui est devenu déséquilibré, mais ce sont ces mêmes agriculteurs qui en sont en partie responsables. À titre d’exemple, dans la partie centrale du Pô, on trouve d’immenses étendues de maïs, une culture qui nécessite beaucoup d’eau. Ce maïs n’est pas destiné à la consommation humaine, mais sert à nourrir les porcs dans les élevages intensifs et à produire du biogaz. Est-il judicieux d’utiliser l’eau pour produire des aliments pour animaux et de l’énergie plutôt que des produits destinés à la consommation humaine ? » 

Selon Pileri, la seule solution consiste à repenser le modèle de développement : cela impliquerait de mettre fin à la consommation des sols, de changer les paradigmes de production et de repenser notre relation avec les écosystèmes. Mais son raisonnement ne suscite pas beaucoup de soutien. Malgré les catastrophes répétées et les dégâts considérables causés aux personnes et aux biens, la lutte contre la crise climatique ne figure pas parmi les priorités du gouvernement Meloni.  

L’Italie est l’un des rares pays européens à ne pas disposer d’un plan national d’adaptation au changement climatique. Un projet de plan est en attente depuis 2017 au ministère de l’Environnement, pour une évaluation qui n’a jamais eu lieu. Certains membres de la coalition au pouvoir ont déclaré à plusieurs reprises que le réchauffement climatique était un problème surestimé.  

L’approche adoptée envers la vallée du Pô fait écho à celle du gouvernement italien envers l’urgence climatique dans son ensemble. Jusqu’à la prochaine sécheresse ou catastrophe, où l’indifférence laissera temporairement place au calcul des coûts et aux lamentations sur un malheur « inévitable » et « imprévisible ». 

Cet article fait partie d’une série consacrée à la politique alimentaire et hydrique, organisée par le Green European Journal avec le soutien de l’Eurozine et grâce au soutien financier du Parlement européen à la Fondation verte européenne.