News Feeds

This article is part of Food Tank’s primer series, “Food Tank Explains.” Each installment unpacks the ideas, innovations, and challenges shaping today’s food and agriculture systems, offering clear insights into complex topics. To explore more articles in the series, click here.

Food justice recognizes food as a human right and seeks to address the structural causes of inequity throughout the food system. The movement’s goal is to foster equal access to nutritious, culturally appropriate food, fair treatment of food and farm workers, and opportunities for all communities to shape their own food systems.

According to the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, the struggle for food justice has never been more pressing. Despite sufficient food production to feed the global population, one in four people worldwide are not food-secure.

Women produce approximately half of the world’s food and constitute 40 percent of the agricultural labor force, according to the United Nations. Yet research shows that women often lack secure access to land and natural resources and remain underrepresented in agricultural decision-making.

In the U.S., 38 million people, including 12 million children, lack reliable access to nutritious food. Food system workers are twice as likely to experience food insecurity as workers in other industries. And Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities experience disproportionately high rates of food insecurity. Black children are three times more likely than white children to be food insecure. Indigenous communities are two to three times more likely to face food insecurity than white communities.

Ericka Huggins, a human rights activist, educator, and former Black Panther leader as well as Devita Davison, Executive Director of FoodLab Detroit, emphasize that current food inequities reflect historical systems of colonization, racial discrimination, and economic exclusion. “History informs the present,” Huggins says.

The modern food justice movement emerged during the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s, catalyzed by the 1962 Greenwood Food Blockade. Amid broader efforts in Mississippi to suppress Black political participation, Leflore County ended a federal program that supplied winter food to 90 percent of local Black sharecropping families, leaving over 20,000 people without a vital food source.

Community members organized, and students successfully petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reinstate the program. These communities’ mutual aid and solidarity underlined the connection between food justice and political participation.

The Black Panther Party built on these efforts by launching its Free Breakfast for School Children Program in 1969. The initiative expanded from a single church to at least 45 sites serving thousands of children each day. Although law enforcement efforts ultimately dismantled many of the Black Panther Party programs, they helped build public support and ultimately drove increased federal funding for school meals.

At the same time, movements to further labor rights, environmental health, and racial justice were gaining momentum. The United Farm Workers (UFW), led by César Chávez and Dolores Huerta, organized agricultural workers in the 1960s, securing rights for tens of thousands of farm workers, including higher wages, restricted pesticide use, and requirements for clean drinking water and rest facilities.

In 1987, the United Church of Christ’s Commission for Racial Justice published a report, documenting that hazardous waste facilities were disproportionately located in Black and Hispanic communities, revealing the connections between structures of racial injustice and environmental inequities.

Realizing the interconnected nature of these issues, the food justice movement expanded in the 1980s and 1990s beyond food access to encompass labor conditions, racial justice, and environmental protections.

Organizations today pursue food justice in many ways. Some expand access to nutritious food through local agriculture. Urban Tilth has established over 60 community gardens in California, while Just Food connects farmers with New York markets.

Other prioritize food sovereignty and self-determination in the food system. The National Black Food & Justice Alliance strengthens Black-led food systems, while Soul Fire Farm in New York offers reparations and land back initiatives and programs that train aspiring Black and Latinx farmers.

The Native American Food Sovereignty Alliance seeks to restore and reclaim Indigenous food systems through education and advocacy, and the First Nations Development Institute helps Native communities strengthen local food economies. According to historian Dr. Frederick Douglass Opie, “One of the most offensive things someone can do to you is deny you a place at the table.”

Other organizations focus on worker justice. Coalition of Immokalee Workers organizes to improve wages and working conditions, the Food Chain Workers Alliance advocates for workers across the food supply chain, and Restaurant Opportunities Centers United promotes better workplace conditions in restaurants.

Going forward, food justice advocates highlight that the importance of acknowledging and addressing the structural barriers that have shaped food systems for generations, and questioning how change is pursued. Rather than asking what can be done for communities, the movement encourages governments, nonprofits, researchers, and philanthropies to work with communities by supporting locally led solutions and sharing decision-making power.

“We cannot free ourselves until we feed ourselves,” says Devita Davison.

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 Wikimedia

The post Food Tank Explains: Food Justice appeared first on Food Tank.

The PJM Interconnection is considering setting “ride-through” standards after data centers tripped offline in Northern Virginia on July 22, the latest and largest such event in PJM’s history, the grid operator said.

How does a young wolf learn how to be a wolf?

Genetics certainly plays a role, but so do the knowledge and techniques passed on by the previous generation of wolves, who teach their young how to hunt, what areas to avoid, and how and when to howl (and what each variation in those howls means).

And much like human dialects and accents, wolf howls vary depending on where a wolf grows up. Research published a few years ago found that wolves around the world have at least 21 different types of regional howls.

In other words, wolves — and many other species — have unique regional cultures, just like people.

Should preserving those nonhuman cultures be a more important element of wildlife conservation?

A new short communication in the journal Oryx argues just that — and suggests how to make it happen.

Written by David Jennings, Heather Harl, and Andrew Carter of Defenders of Wildlife’s Center for Conservation Innovation, the paper does a deep dive into how behavior is reflected in decision-making for the Endangered Species Act and other conservation laws in the United States.

Behavior, they write, is one factor in a list of five that can be used to designate a distinct population segment of a vertebrate species as a discrete and significant group worthy of conservation (rather than or in addition to protecting a species as a whole). It can’t be the only factor, but in theory it could be a major one. (Other factors include physical, genetic, or ecological differences and international boundaries.)

Distinct population segments don’t receive Endangered Species Act protection very often — Atlantic salmon in the Gulf of Maine are a noteworthy example — and the authors didn’t find many examples where behavior played a deciding role to date. “[N]on-human animal culture was considered in distinct population segment listing determinations only twice,” they write, “both of which were for discreteness findings; once for the orca Orcinus orca in 2005, and once for the false killer whale Pseudorca crassidens in 2012.”

They found more evidence of nonhuman culture being used in the recovery plans required to be written for each species protected under the Endangered Species Act — but again, those were all restricted to whales.

The authors argue that it may be time to change that and start using nonhuman culture more often as a component of the best-available science required by the Endangered Species Act, because preserving culture may make animals more likely to survive. “Recognizing and conserving these cultures is important because socially transmitted behaviors can contribute to fitness, as well as indicate the extent to which groups may be able to adapt to changing environmental conditions,” they write.

On the other hand, they say using culture to establish a distinct population segment should “be used sparingly and not solely to divide a species and delist a specific population.”

Either way, it wouldn’t be easy. And as a strategy, it’s not immediately ready for widespread adoption because there aren’t many guidelines for using animal culture in this way — and because culture evolves rapidly. “Implementing the ESA for a distinct population segment based on distinctive cultures would potentially be challenging, given, for example, that cultures can be dynamic, and that conserving them may not always be as straightforward as simply protecting habitat,” they write.

Still, they provide several recommendations on how to start rolling it out, including integrating nonhuman culture into broader concepts of biodiversity protection in the Endangered Species Act and other laws and policies.

That seems unlikely to happen quickly given the Trump administration’s ambivalence, apathy, and antipathy toward wildlife conservation and the Endangered Species Act. But the paper serves as an important reminder that culture is worth preserving — whether it’s in our cities, our neighborhoods, or in the wild.

Here’s some additional recent research about nonhuman culture:

Patricia Izar, Erica van de Waal, Martha M. Robbins; Integrating culture into primate conservation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 1 May 2025; 380 (1925): 20240135. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2024.0135

Greggor, Alison L., ‘Animal Culture in Biodiversity Conservation’, in Jamshid J. Tehrani, Rachel L. Kendal, and Jeremy Kendal (eds), Applications, in Jamshid J. Tehrani, Jeremy Kendal, and Rachel L. Kendal (eds), Oxford Handbook of Cultural Evolution, Oxford Library of Psychology (2025; online edn, Oxford Academic, 23 Feb. 2023), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198869252.013.74

Whiten, Andrew, et al. “Collective Knowledge and the Dynamics of Culture in Chimpanzees.” Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, vol. 377, no. 1843, 2022, pp. 1–9. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27096992

Nöbel, S., Jacquet, A., Isabel, G., Pocheville, A., Seabright, P. and Danchin, E. (2023), Conformity in mate choice, the overlooked social component of animal and human culture. Biol Rev, 98: 132-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12899

Fredriksen, A. (2025). Re-sounding spring: listening to planetary crisis and survival in recombinant birdsong. Cultural Geographies, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474025138686

Pilar Roncero, Olivia de Mendonça-Furtado, Patrícia Izar, Human-induced rapid environmental change: A case study showing negative impact on animal culture, Journal for Nature Conservation, Volume 74, 2023, 126424, ISSN 1617-1381, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2023.126424

Fitzpatrick, S., Andrews, K. Animal cultures matter for conservation, but also to animals. Learn Behav 54, 163–179 (2026). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-025-00700-4 

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator:

Species Spotlight: The Straw-Headed Bulbul Sings About Extinction

 

The post Conserving Culture in Endangered Species appeared first on The Revelator.

Save ourselves from the climate crisis or prepare for war – it’s either, or…

Please note: the figures in these graphics refer to the budget of the EU as an institution. The budgets of individual member states are far higher.

By Paul Atkin

This graphic from Stop Rearm Europe deserves wide circulation in the climate, labour and anti war movements.

The militarist tunnel vision evident in the EU budget is also a risk in UK spending priorities – where the evident and immediate threat of climate breakdown is downgraded and played down, while the “whole society approach” that we need to combat it is instead cranked up to prepare for war; and resources sucked from one into the other.

We need clarity in all three movements – in responding to the acute crisis of fossil fuel prices caused by the war on Iran and the chronic impacts of heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and floods driven by the climate crisis, we should be campaigning on all of these three principles.

1. To stop the crisis we need to stop the war, tax war profits and transfer military spending
2. The transition to renewable energy and energy conservation is the solution.
3. Crisis measures must be social justice measures.

A draft motion for union and Party branches can be accessed here.

Please put it and lets shift this debate.

Join Us

Get in the loop! Sign up to receive future GJA Newsletters and Blogs here.

SIGN UP Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post Save ourselves from the climate crisis or prepare for war – it’s either, or… first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

The world’s butterflies are on the move.

Whether it’s the iridescent blue Godartiana byses flitting south in Brazil as temperatures rise or Europe’s endangered Danube clouded yellow losing ground to more intensive agriculture, roughly 1 in 10 of the world’s 19,000 butterfly species appear today in different places than they were once found.

That’s according to perhaps the most through accounting to date of how butterflies are changing locations as the planet changes around them, published last week in Nature Ecology & Evolution.

“We found butterfly species shifting their ranges on every continent where they occur. The scale is astonishing,” said Shawan Chowdhury, the paper’s lead author and head of Monash University’s Global Change Ecology Lab in Melbourne, Australia.

This isn’t the first time such butterfly shifts have been documented. But much of the past research has concentrated on insects in North America and Europe, where money and scientific infrastructure support more intensive and long-running research. That, however, isn’t where most butterfly species occur. They are concentrated in the biodiversity hotspots of the tropics.

To remedy this mismatch and create a more comprehensive picture of what’s happening to butterflies, Chowdhury and colleagues went beyond the usual sources of scientific papers. They sought out research published in languages other than English. And they surveyed 68 butterfly experts from 49 countries to get their insights.   

“When we included non‑English studies and expert knowledge, a completely different global picture emerged,” said Chowdhury. “Without these sources, we would have dramatically underestimated the global patterns of range shifts, especially overlooking key patterns in the tropics, where 80% of insect species live.”

 

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

 

The resulting picture was one of global turmoil, with butterflies buffeted by both climate change and habitat loss. Of the 1,758 species reported to have altered their location, 80% expanded their range, showing up in places where they previously hadn’t been seen, including Brazil’s little Godartiana. Those range expansions were concentrated in the tropics, where insects already live at the edge of the temperature limits they can tolerate.

In contrast, nearly 30% of species lost ground in some places, a phenomenon chiefly documented in Europe and North America. Meanwhile, 22% of species had moved to different elevations, a phenomenon often associated with rising temperatures, which organisms try to escape by moving to higher ground.

While the reasons for these changes are many, two major factors emerged most frequently in the literature. Climate change was identified as a major driver in 79% of the species in which scientists had identified causes of the butterfly movements. Habitat disturbance and agriculture were cited most often in cases where a butterfly species saw its range shrink.

These mass movements of butterflies around the globe highlight the need for conservation initiatives that can aid them, the authors write. That includes identifying and protecting places likely to provide the most hospitable conditions for a species as the climate changes; reducing harm from activities such as farming; preserving land that connects different patches of habitat to aid the butterflies in their movements; and forecasting where species are likely to move when considering what land to protect.

While butterflies are attention grabbing thanks to their beautiful colors and the remarkable metamorphoses they undergo from larva to adult, the alarm over the changes in their locations isn’t just about the insects. It’s also an alert that something bigger is amiss.

Much as Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” tied the pesticide-induced loss of insects to broader ecological mayhem, so people can read a bigger message into the movement of butterflies. “Butterflies are early warning indicators,” said Chowdhury. “If their ranges are shifting this dramatically, it signals profound changes across ecosystems.”

Chowdhury, et. al. “Extensive climate-induced range shifts in butterflies across the globe.” Nature Ecology & Evolution. Aug. 5, 2026.

Photo by Evie S. on Unsplash

Faced with enormous challenges, the experience of 2025 demonstrates our resilience and our ability to unite diverse struggles towards a common goal: unity in diversity, internationalist solidarity.

The post La Via Campesina – 2025 Annual Report appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Headline News:

• “Heatwaves In France: Is Thermal Comfort Becoming A New Property Criterion?” • Heat is a factor during property viewings in France now, after the heatwaves of this summer. Home buyers are paying more attention to the thermal comfort of a property, evaluating its exposure, shutters, air conditioning, ventilation, and shade of nearby trees. [Euronews]

Cottage in France (Pascal Bernardon, Unsplash)

• “Jellyfish Force Shutdown Of Three Reactors At Gravelines Nuclear Power Plant” • A nuclear plant in France shut down three reactors after a swarm of jellyfish clogged pumps used to cool its reactor units, EDF said. Overfishing, plastic pollution, and warming seas due to climate change have created conditions allowing jellyfish to thrive. [Euronews]
• “Vernon Now Faces Three Futures For The Valley That Once Held Vermont’s Only Nuclear Plant” • The decommissioning task for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant went to NorthStar Group Services, in 2019. NorthStar leased the site recently to PowerTransitions, which offers three use options: a data center, a battery center, or a nuclear plant. [Energies Media]
• “UK Set For ‘Warmest Summer On Record’ As Europe Preps For Yet Another Heatwave” • The UK is on course to record its “warmest summer on record,” according to the Met Office. Provisional statistics showed that the current recorded mean temperature across the UK from 1 June to 10 August was 1.88°C (3.38°F) above the average for 1991-2020. [Euronews]
• “Federal Government Ends Support For Key Arctic Climate Report” • For two decades, NOAA’s Arctic Report Card has provided a comprehensive view of the health and changing conditions of the Arctic, where climate change is having its greatest effect. But now, the agency has announced that it will no longer sponsor the annual report. [ABC News]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

Concerned about microplastics after watching The Plastic Detox documentary on Netflix? Read along and learn how to reduce plastic use, avoid microplastics, and support long-term solutions with simple swaps you can make at home.

If you've recently watched The Plastic Detox, you're not the only one wondering how much plastic finds its way into our lives. From food packaging and plastic bottled water to clothing and household products, tiny plastic particles known as microplastics have become increasingly difficult to avoid.

Now, more people are searching for practical answers to questions, such as how to avoid plastic and microplastics, and how to reduce microplastics in our bodies.

The good news is that reducing plastic use doesn't have to be aggressive and overwhelming. Simple everyday swaps can help lower your exposure to microplastics while reducing plastic waste sustainably. 

What are microplastics, and should people be concerned?

Microplastics are tiny plastic particles measuring less than five millimeters in size. These particles can either be intentionally manufactured for use in products or result from larger plastic items breaking down over time. As plastic pollution continues to accumulate, microplastics have spread far beyond oceans and waterways.

SEM image highlighting nanoplastic fragments and fibers detected in human sperm samples, from Ecoton.

Microplastics can now enter our bodies through multiple pathways. We may ingest them through food and water, inhale them in the air, or encounter them in products we use every day.

While scientists have detected microplastics in various parts of the human body, the science around their long-term health effects is still developing. Researchers have identified concerning associations between microplastic exposure and certain health outcomes, but many studies show correlation rather than direct causation. 

In other words, scientists are still working to understand exactly how microplastics affect human health over time, and further scientific research is required around the specific impacts. However, when something we never evolved to live with is now inside our hearts, our lungs, and even our maternal placentas, humanity needs urgent action. 

Protecting public health requires making decisions based on the best available information. Ideally, this means following the precautionary principle, which emphasizes caution and pausing to review scientific findings before adopting new technologies at a large scale in case they might prove dangerous. Plastics are still new in the timescale of human evolution, and we would do well to protect humanity from the potential impacts that these microplastics might be having on our health.

The safest path forward is clear: drastically reduce plastic production, shift to toxic-free reuse systems, and protect people and the planet from harmful chemicals. 

How to Reduce Microplastics in Our Bodies Through Everyday Habits Should You Stop Heating Food in Plastic Containers?

If you're wondering how to reduce microplastics in your body, one of the simplest places to start is the kitchen. Studies show that heating food in plastic containers can increase the release of both microplastic particles and chemicals from the plastic into food, particularly when containers are exposed to high temperatures in microwaves or ovens. Apart from plastic food containers, we’re also exposed to microplastics through the plastic cutting boards, utensils, plates, and bowls we use in the kitchen.

That doesn't mean you need to throw away every plastic container in your home. Instead of creating unnecessary waste (and succumbing to consumerism), consider replacing plastic food storage items with glass, ceramic, or other toxic-free alternatives when possible. 

Can Switching from Plastic Bottled Water Help Reduce Microplastic Exposure? 

The water you drink is often one of the first places people consider to avoid microplastics. However, studies have detected microplastics in both bottled water and tap water. Plastic-bottled water frequently contains higher levels of microplastic particles, partly because the water comes into contact with plastic packaging during production, storage, and transportation. While scientists are still studying how these particles affect human health over time, reducing unnecessary exposure is one practical way to reduce microplastics in our bodies.

For households with access to safe drinking water, using a home water filtration system and storing water in reusable containers may help reduce the use of single-use plastic bottles and eventually save on costs, too! Some communities also offer water refill stations that allow people to access drinking water without generating additional plastic waste.

At the same time, it’s important to recognize that access to safe and affordable drinking water is not equal everywhere. In many communities, bottled water may still be the safest or most accessible option available, and people should make the best choice available to them based on their circumstances. Long-term solutions require investments in safe public water infrastructure, accessible refill systems, and policies that reduce single-use plastics in the first place.

How can you reduce microplastics from clothing?

When people think about microplastics, they often picture plastic bottles or single-use food packaging. Textiles are the largest source of microplastics, responsible for roughly 35% of the microplastic volume in our oceans. Synthetic fabrics such as polyester, nylon, acrylic, and elastane shed tiny plastic fibers—known as microfibers—during everyday wear and washing. These microfibers can enter waterways through wastewater systems and eventually make their way into the environment. 

The good news is that you don’t have to purge your wardrobe. In fact, replacing perfectly usable clothes can create unnecessary waste and even promote overconsumption. 

When it's time to purchase new clothing, consider buying natural fibers such as cotton, linen, or wool over synthetic materials. Many natural fibers are also more breathable and comfortable, especially in warmer climates. Want to save up on clothes while choosing sustainably? Buy second-hand or “thrift shop” clothing made of natural fibers and could survive multiple wears.

Some might find this hard to believe, but how you care for your clothes can also make a big difference for the environment. Experts recommend washing garments only when necessary, using full loads, choosing cold water and shorter wash cycles, and air-drying clothes when possible. While these laundry habits won't completely eliminate exposure, they are among the simple swaps you can do at home to reduce microplastics while extending the life of your clothing and reducing plastic pollution at the source.

How to Reduce Plastic Use Beyond Individual Choices Why Reducing Plastic Isn't Only a Personal Responsibility 

A person can learn how to limit their exposure to plastics at a personal or household level, but behavior change as consumers can only do so much when single-use plastics are ubiquitous. 

Break Free From Plastic's Regional Brand Audit Report demonstrates how a small number of multinational companies continue to be among the biggest contributors to plastic pollution in Asia, particularly through single-use sachets and other disposable packaging. 

The harsh reality: plastic pollution is not simply the result of individual consumer choices, but also the result of the production and packaging systems that make plastics essentially impossible to avoid. For many people seeking to avoid microplastics, the challenge is not a lack of willingness to change habits, but a lack of accessible alternatives. Consumers deserve better options than having to choose between convenience and sustainability.

How Do Reuse and Refill Systems Help Reduce Microplastics? 

While simple swaps you can do at home to reduce microplastics can help lower everyday exposure, sustainable long-term solutions require reducing plastic production in the first place. 

Reuse and refill systems prevent waste before it’s created by replacing single-use packaging with containers that can be returned, cleaned, and used again. These include refill stations for household products, reusable beverage bottle systems, and refill stores that allow customers to bring their own containers.

It’s important to address plastic pollution at its source rather than relying solely on waste management. Unlike recycling, reuse systems reduce demand for new plastic, helping prevent future plastic waste and the microplastics that can form as plastic breaks down over time. Because when you recycle plastic, it’s still plastic with a second life.

Why systemic change matters?

Sustainable long-term solutions depend on changing the systems that produce plastic pollution in the first place. Experts increasingly point to reduce and reuse measures such as packaging redesign, investments in reuse and refill infrastructure, and stronger policies that hold companies accountable for the waste they generate.

The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy principle was established to make producers all over the world to be accountable for the entire lifecycle of the products they place on the market.  In the Philippines, the EPR Act of 2022requires large companies to take responsibility for recovering and managing their plastic packaging, creating incentives to reduce unnecessary packaging and explore more sustainable alternatives.  

On the contrary, some organizations argue that well-designed EPR schemes work best when they prioritize waste prevention and reuse (not just recycling) by encouraging businesses to redesign products and packaging from the start, which makes more sense as we adopt the “polluter pays principle.”

Supporting policies and business models that reduce plastic pollution at the source can be just as important as the simple swaps you can do at home to reduce microplastics. It’s about time to put more pressure where it should be.

What can you do to demand systemic change?

Learning how to avoid plastic in our daily lives is an important first step—but it shouldn't stop there. 

Explore our wide array of films and documentaries on reducing plastic pollution at the source – whether you want to know how microplastics enter our bodies or are simply curious about plastic solutions driven by local communities.

Watching The Plastic Detox documentary might be like a real-life modern-day horror movie, but you don't have to be perfect to make a difference. Rather than striving for a perfect "plastic-free" lifestyle, focus on gradual changes that make sense for you and your household.

At the same time, beating plastic pollution requires more than individual action. We need businesses to redesign packaging, governments to invest in reuse and refill infrastructure, and stronger policies that reduce plastic pollution at its source.

Together, let’s make plastic-free choices more accessible for everyone.

NIGERIA: Forests, Critical Minerals, and the Crisis of Human Security NSAC 2026 See original article from HOMEF here

On 14 July 2026, Abuja hosted the Third Nigeria Socio-Ecological Alternatives Convergence (NSAC), convened by HOMEF and partner organisations under the theme: Deforestation, Mining and the Crisis of Human Security in Nigeria.

The gathering pulled in traditional rulers, frontline communities, academics, labour groups, youth and women’s organisations. The message from HOMEF’s Executive Director, Nnimmo Bassey, in his welcome address cut straight to the point: “We cannot restore forests while chainsaws are still roaring. We cannot heal rivers while mining waste continues to poison them.” With Nigeria losing up to 300,000 hectares of forest annually and already stripped of over 90% of its original forest cover, there was certainly cause for alarm in the room.

What brought that alarm to bear, however, was the question Professor Omolade Adunbi posed in his keynote: who benefits from the global push for critical minerals…and at whose cost? Nigeria sits atop lithium, nickel, copper, tantalite, and rare earth deposits that the world’s green energy industry desperately wants, yet beneath those maps are farms, rivers, sacred lands, and people. The demand from every attendee in the room was clear: that communities must have the power to say no before a single licence is issued, that primary forests and watersheds must be declared No-Go Zones, and that restoration cannot remain a post-damage promise.

As Professor Adunbi put it, critical minerals may be the new oil, but they do not have to become the new curse we must bear.

Read more here: https://homef.org/2026/07/22/forests-critical-minerals-and-the-crisis-of-human-security/

 

The post NIGERIA: Forests, Critical Minerals, and the Crisis of Human Security – NSAC 2026 appeared first on Yes to Life No to Mining.

Matthew LaPlante doesn’t have to go to a lab to see his research in action. On some mornings, he can just look out his own window in the mountains high above Salt Lake City. After a warm night when the temperature stays above freezing, he’ll wake up and see that the snow level has dropped by inches, revealing more of the aspens he taps for syrup.

“It feels like a monster came and just in the middle of the night, took a bite out of a snowpack,” said LaPlante, a journalist and climate scientist at Utah State University.

So it’s fitting that scientists have started calling these kinds of heat waves, marked by unusually high temperatures in the spring and early summer, “snow eaters.” 

LaPlante was part of a recent study, published in the journal Science Advances, that attempted, for the first time, to identify what conditions exactly make for a “snow eater.” Compared to normal warm spells or heat waves, the researchers determined that these events happen when temperatures stay above freezing through both day and night for multiple days, typically three to five. These events can roughly double the rate at which snow melts, causing flooding and making it challenging to manage water resources. 

“Snow eaters” appear to be occurring earlier in the year and becoming more widespread in the Western United States as the climate warms. Since the 1850s, the study found, the area affected by snow eaters has increased by an average of about 40,000 square miles per century, and the first snow eater of the season has been arriving about one month earlier per century. 

The term “snow eater” has a murky history. By at least the 1880s, people in the West were talking about “snow-eating” chinooks, warm mountain winds that make snow disappear quickly. More recently, the phrase “snow-eater heat wave” first made headlines in March, when an early heat wave enveloped much of the West, quickly wiping away snowpack in the Colorado Rockies and California’s Sierra Nevada. The scientists hope the catchy, evocative term can help draw more attention to this type of heat wave, since there’s still a lot to learn. The study only looked at the Western U.S., but snow eater heat waves almost assuredly occur elsewhere, LaPlante said.

Solar radiation is a major, but sometimes overlooked, driver of snowmelt, said Noah Molotch, a professor of geography at the University of Colorado Boulder who was not involved in the new study. When it interacts with heat waves, those impacts are amplified. As snow crystals warm up, they lose some of their structure and light-reflecting abilities, causing snowpacks to absorb more sunlight and melt faster. “It’s a little bit of a — no pun intended — a snowball effect,” he said.

Much of the Western U.S. saw record-low snowpack this spring. What was really unusual about it, Molotch said, was how widespread it was. Colorado received less precipitation than normal this winter, while California got lots of precipitation, but in the form of rain instead of snow. But across the region, “the one thing in common was above-average air temperatures,” Molotch said.

These conditions have likely helped fuel exceptionally severe wildfires in the West, from Utah to Spokane, Washington, where hundreds of homes burned earlier this month. “Drought stress for mountain forests around the Western U.S. is heavily dictated by the snow that accumulates each winter and then melts through the spring and summer,” Molotch said. “There is a direct connection there in terms of the water availability and drought stress that can provide one of the important ingredients for increases in wildfire intensity and frequency.”

If scientists are able to better predict what will happen to snowpack, it could help water managers plan for what’s coming. Early or rapid snowmelt poses problems for managing water resources in the West, where snowpack serves as a key source of fresh water in the drier summer months. “Water that would otherwise be stored as snow comes out early, and then we have to deal with it as a hazard instead of a resource at our reservoirs and along the rivers and streams,” said Ben Hatchett, a co-author on the study and a scientist at Colorado State University’s Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere.

Snow-eater heat waves also may pose risks to skiers, hikers, and anyone else on or near mountains. They could be linked to hazards such as avalanches, glacial collapses, and permafrost melt, Hatchett said, though scientists are still investigating those connections. He lives in the Sierra Nevada, and he’s noticed one tangible change over his lifetime: The soundscape has changed.

“At night, it used to be quiet,” he said. “And now it’s not quiet, because everything’s melting all the time.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Scientists define a new category of heat wave: ‘Snow eaters’ on Aug 12, 2026.

A new daily investigation into the documents behind the battle over Shell, oil pollution and accountability in the Niger Delta

Tomorrow we begin something substantial.

Over the coming days and weeks, we will be examining a remarkable collection of documents concerning Shell’s operations in Nigeria, oil pollution in the Niger Delta, pipeline integrity, oil theft, environmental damage and what senior personnel inside the company knew about the problems confronting its operations.

And we intend to examine them one story at a time.

Not with slogans.

Not by pretending allegations are proven facts.

And not by accepting corporate explanations without examining the documentary record behind them.

Our starting point is material made publicly available by Nigeria’s Human and Environmental Development Agenda — HEDA Resource Centre.

Who is HEDA?

HEDA — the Human and Environmental Development Agenda — is a Nigerian non-governmental and non-partisan civil-society organisation whose work encompasses good governance, environmental sustainability, human rights and social justice.

It has been operating for more than two decades and has been active on environmental accountability in the Niger Delta, including questions surrounding pollution, extractive industries and the responsibilities of multinational oil companies.

In June 2026, HEDA publicised newly released Shell documents which it said raised serious questions about the management of environmental risks and pollution associated with Shell’s historic Nigerian operations.

Those papers are now publicly accessible through HEDA’s website.

And they deserve to be read.

Carefully.

What are these Shell documents?

The collection contains internal Shell material disclosed in connection with litigation concerning pollution in the Niger Delta.

That distinction is important.

These are not simply newspaper allegations about what somebody believes Shell may have done.

They include corporate documents, internal communications, technical material and management discussionswhich can be compared with Shell’s public statements, its operating standards and the allegations being advanced by Nigerian communities and campaign organisations.

Their existence does not mean every accusation against Shell is automatically proved.

Nor does an internal email necessarily provide the complete context surrounding a complicated operational decision.

But corporate records can tell us something extraordinarily valuable:

what people inside the organisation were saying when they were not writing press releases for the public.

That is why we are interested.

What we are going to do

Beginning tomorrow, we intend to publish one investigation every day based upon this documentary record.

Each article will concentrate on a particular issue.

Among the questions raised by the material are:

• What did Shell know about the condition of important Niger Delta pipelines?
• Why were large numbers of clamps apparently being used on sections of infrastructure?
• What did internal assessments say about ageing pipelines and replacement schedules?
• What happened when illegal oil connections were discovered?
• Were pipelines allowed to continue operating despite known environmental risks?
• How effective was Shell’s leak-detection capability?
• How reliable were investigations used to decide whether spills resulted from equipment failure or sabotage?
• What concerns existed internally about contractors, employees and oil theft?
• What were senior managers being told about pollution visible across creeks and mangrove areas?
• What did Shell estimate eventual decommissioning and remediation might cost?
• And how much responsibility remained when Shell ultimately moved to divest its Nigerian onshore interests?

Some of those questions may produce uncomfortable answers.

Others may turn out to be more complicated than the headlines suggest.

We intend to publish both.

We are not going to pretend sabotage did not exist

Any credible examination of Shell’s Nigerian history must acknowledge the enormous problem of crude-oil theft, illegal pipeline connections, sabotage and makeshift refining in the Niger Delta.

Shell has repeatedly argued that third-party interference has been responsible for a substantial proportion of oil spilled from its facilities.

That evidence must be considered.

But invoking sabotage does not end the inquiry.

It begins another one.

Once an operator knows that pipelines have been compromised, what does it do?

Does it shut them down?

Repair them?

Replace them?

Continue pumping?

What risks are considered acceptable?

Who makes those decisions?

And what happens to communities living beside the infrastructure while those decisions are being taken?

Those are questions corporate press releases cannot answer on their own.

Internal records sometimes can.

Shell will have its say

This series will not operate on the assumption that an accusation is a verdict.

Shell disputes important interpretations being placed upon the disclosed material.

The company has argued that extracts from internal documents can produce a misleading picture when divorced from the exceptionally difficult operating environment in the Niger Delta, including sabotage, organised oil theft and illegal refining.

Those responses matter.

Where Shell has offered a material explanation, rebuttal or alternative interpretation, we will report it.

Where something remains an allegation, we will call it an allegation.

Where litigation remains unresolved, we will say so.

Where we draw an inference from documentary evidence, we will identify it as an inference.

That is not deference to Shell.

It is how serious documentary investigation should be conducted.

But we will also call things what they are

Objectivity does not require timidity.

If an internal document reveals something extraordinary, we will say that it is extraordinary.

If corporate conduct appears difficult to reconcile with public assurances, we will examine the contradiction.

If people inside Shell were warning colleagues about environmental consequences, pipeline conditions or reputational risks, readers deserve to know exactly what those warnings said and when they were made.

And if the documents ultimately support Shell’s explanation on a particular issue, we will say that too.

The objective is not to manufacture a predetermined conclusion.

The objective is to expose the record.

One document trail. One investigation every day.

There is too much material here to compress into a single article.

Doing so would probably reproduce the very problem that makes large documentary releases difficult for the public to understand: sensational quotations appear, the story moves on, and the underlying evidence disappears into hundreds or thousands of pages.

We intend to do the opposite.

One issue.

One documentary trail.

One article.

Every day.

By the time this series is finished, readers should be able to see not merely isolated extracts but the much larger picture emerging from Shell’s own historical records and the evidence surrounding them.

Tomorrow we begin with perhaps the most fundamental question of all:

What happens when an oil company knows continued production could mean further environmental damage — and keeps the oil flowing?

The documents have something to say about that.

So will we.

The Shell Nigeria Files begins tomorrow.

Source note

The underlying Shell-document collection has been published online by HEDA Resource Centre, alongside reporting and analysis concerning the disclosed material. HEDA describes itself as a Nigerian civil-society organisation working on good governance, environmental sustainability and social justice.

This series is independently written from the source material. Publication of or reliance upon a document does not mean that every interpretation advanced by HEDA, campaign organisations, litigants or Shell is adopted by this site.

Site wide disclaimer also applies.

COMING TOMORROW: Inside the Shell Nigeria Files was first posted on August 12, 2026 at 9:33 am.
©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

In 2017, after about 10 years of discussions, then-superintendent Amy Shane finally got to see a much needed expansion at the O’Neill Public School District’s aging junior-senior high school get approved. Expanded classrooms, state-of-the-art science labs, a new gym. The difference-maker that helped push the $13.2 million project from proposal to reality: taxes on renewable energy developments. Over nine years, the school district has taken in about $7.6 million, which Shane said helped offset the expansion cost. 

“We could get something good for our students without putting a huge burden on our taxpayers,” Shane said. 

The project is an example of what economic development and renewable energy proponents have long argued: Renewable energy projects can help communities diversify their revenue streams and offset property tax burdens. The Nebraska excise tax, known as the nameplate capacity tax, requires qualifying renewable energy developments to annually pay $3,518 per megawatt of power that the facility can generate. The money flows to counties whose treasurers allocate it amongst local jurisdictions, including the county governments, community colleges, and school and natural resource districts. 

But in recent years, a number of Nebraska counties have enacted strict regulations on renewable developments, as opponents have raised concerns about property values, noise, health, safety, and fire risks. 

About 15 years after the tax was implemented, it’s worth looking at where the money has actually gone. Revenue distributed from the tax and the number of counties receiving it has risen over the years. In 2015, just nine counties received nameplate capacity tax revenue, which totaled $2.03 million, including penalties and interest, according to data from the Department of Revenue. In 2025, communities received over $13.6 million. But there’s an imbalance. More than 88 percent of that money went to just 10 of Nebraska’s 93 counties.

Lawmakers created the nameplate capacity tax in 2010 to replace personal property tax for renewable developments. This allows local taxing authorities to continue to receive a steady amount of tax revenue, said Jon Cannon, executive director of the Nebraska Association of County Officials. The landowner still pays property taxes.

“In county budgets, nameplate capacity tax revenue functions like other general fund revenue,” said Candace Meredith, deputy director of the Nebraska Association of County Officials, in a statement. “It helps offset the amount that would otherwise need to come from property taxes, allowing counties to keep up with state mandated essential services and inflationary costs.”

On average, counties get about 23 percent of the nameplate tax revenue, Cannon and Meredith said.

Recently, lawmakers have discussed increasing the rate. A 2025 proposal would have raised it from $3,518 per megawatt to $6,560. But the bill, part of a larger tax package, ultimately died. However, lawmakers did pass a bill this year that expands the tax to include qualifying battery energy storage developments. 

According to the state, 1 in 4 jobs in Nebraska are tied to agriculture. The state’s top commodities include cattle and calves, corn, soybeans, and hogs. So it may be no surprise that Nebraskans have raised concerns that renewable energy projects, specifically solar, will reduce farmland. However, there are areas of the state where the land isn’t productive and landowners could benefit from the added revenue. John Hansen, president of the Nebraska Farmers Union, said urban sprawl and acreage housing developments are leading threats to farmland in Nebraska.

“The one thing that we know in the ag sector is that we continue to be extremely dependent on off-farm jobs to subsidize our farming operations that are not working, and so every wind turbine is like an off-farm, part-time job, except that the farmer or rancher doesn’t have to leave their farm or ranch to get paid for it,” said Hansen, who chairs the Nebraska Wind and Solar Conference.

Some Nebraska counties have gone so far as to adopt moratoriums or strict zoning regulations that have effectively banned renewable energy developments or made them more difficult to site. 

But with rising power demand, advocates and experts see renewables as a contributor to future economic development in Nebraska. Pushback against renewables comes as utilities in Nebraska and across the country wrestle with an energy crunch caused by skyrocketing demand from electrification, manufacturing, and data centers.

Renewable developments, like this solar farm in Nebraska’s Saunders County, can help the utility manage energy costs and address peak demand when the grid is stretched thin.
Lily Smith / Flatwater Free Press

The Omaha Public Power District, which serves a large swath of eastern Nebraska, is taking an all-of-the-above approach, where coal remains on the grid, natural gas assets are expanding, and the utility plans to have more power purchase agreements with renewable energy developments. 

Renewables can help the utility manage energy costs and address peak demand when the grid is stretched thin, said Dustin Marvel, manager of government and community relations at OPPD.

Right now, renewables are affordable compared to other energy sources and can be built quickly, said Kenneth Gillingham, a professor of environmental and energy economics at Yale University. This is especially important for utilities since new nuclear plants can take time to build and the natural gas generator supply chain remains tight.

For Nebraska, adding more power to the grid now isn’t just about serving existing customers, it could also spur more economic growth from other industries, said Hunter Traynor, an executive vice president at Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Industry. A recent report commissioned by the Nebraska Chamber Foundation recommended the state take a more active role in promoting energy development.

“We have a lot of stated economic goals in Nebraska, and energy and public support for energy infrastructure, in particular, is a bedrock necessity right now to keep our economies all across the state flourishing and growing,” Traynor said.

Nevertheless, these projects face a few challenges. Currently, the infrastructure that transmits energy across the state is limited, which restricts where new energy generation can be located. It also takes time for new projects to connect to the grid. And then there’s community opposition.

“We do see oftentimes where a developer has an opportunity, maybe the project is advantageously located. However, due to community opposition or feedback, maybe that project loses steam or loses the ability to actually come to market,” Marvel said.

Cannon, with the Nebraska Association of County Officials, said that in order for renewable developers to actually make headway with communities that are skeptical, they need to be transparent about their intentions and address concerns early on.

Traynor said that these projects involve layers of regulatory approvals that can allow communities to assess if they are suitable. However, some projects get stopped by local resistance before they go through the regulatory process. He is concerned these experiences could cause a chilling effect on companies that are considering moving to Nebraska.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Some Nebraska communities are cashing in on renewables. Others are being left behind. on Aug 12, 2026.

A prolific writer, teacher and communicator trying to alert students, policymakers and the public to the limits to growth on a finite planet, Richard was, in my experience, also humble and a good listener, always interested in different perspectives.

Brussels, 12th August 2026 – As of today, 12th August 2026, the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) applies, marking a significant milestone in Europe's efforts to tackle the packaging waste crisis, despite an unprecedented last-minute industry lobbying push that aimed to delay and weaken the regulation.

This landmark regulation will contribute to protecting public health and the environment. Over the next few years, the regulation will introduce legally binding measures aimed at reducing packaging waste, increasing reuse and refill, restricting certain single-use packaging formats, and improving packaging design requirements.

As of today, food-contact packaging that contains ‘forever chemicals’ PFAS exceeding a critical threshold is banned from the European market. The use of these chemicals is used to make food packaging such as coffee cups and takeaway containers impervious, and is particularly concerning because the forever chemicals can leach into the food and can thus be ingested (1,2).

A recent study by the EU’s Joint Research Centre (3) showed that efforts to tackle the packaging waste crisis are urgently needed: The total amount of all packaging placed on the market amounts to a striking 98 kg per capita (this weight is very significant as packaging is usually so light). Food and beverage account for the largest share, covering 97% of the whole packaging material on the market. Plastic packaging, in particular, is a growing concern, as it is the only packaging category showing an upward trend between 2011 and 2025, growing by 11% in absolute terms.

As the PPWR application period kicks-in, there’s no time to waste. The Rethink Plastic Alliance and the wider BFFP movement commend the European Commission for safeguarding the PPWR and continue to offer support for effective implementation. At the same time, we urge national and local governments to implement the provisions of the Regulation with a high level of ambition by championing waste prevention and reuse and slash record levels of packaging waste across the EU.

Quotes

“Forever chemicals in packaging are harmful and unnecessary, posing a serious risk of contaminating our food and entering our bodies. With these new rules, the EU has taken swift action to remove PFAS from food contact packaging, helping to reduce our exposure to them as well as making packaging more circular. Industries and Member States must now keep up the pace and implement these rules without delay to protect consumers and the environment.” - Emily Best, Senior Programme Manager at ECOS.

“The entry into application of the PPWR on 12 August marks a crucial milestone for Europe’s transition to a circular economy. After years of negotiations, now is time for an ambitious implementation that delivers on the regulation’s core promise: preventing packaging waste before it is created. The coming years must focus on turning reuse and waste-prevention obligations into reality through clear national measures to reduce unnecessary packaging and invest in well designed reuse systems. If Europe is serious about cutting packaging waste, reuse needs to become the norm, not the exception.” - Larissa Copello, Reuse and Packaging Policy Officer at Zero Waste Europe.

"The PPWR shows us a glimpse of what future-fit EU legislation should look like: preventing waste before it is created, accelerating the shift to reuse, and reducing exposure to harmful chemicals. As the EU prepares its Circular Economy Act, the packaging regulation offers a clear lesson for the next generation of circular economy legislation: true circularity starts with prevention and reuse." - Marco Musso, Deputy Policy Manager for Circular Economy at the European Environmental Bureau.

References 

1. Zero Waste Europe: Why is toxic food packaging still legal? - Zero Waste Europe 
2. European Environment Agency: What are the impacts of PFAS polymers on our health and the environment? | Press releases 
3. Joint Research Centre (2026): Packaging materials in the EU: quantities stay significant, plastic grew by 11% 
4. Rethink Plastic Alliance: 160+ environmental and health groups respond to last-minute attempt by Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Others to Reopen EU Packaging Law - Rethink Plastic 
5. Rethink Plastic Alliance: PPWR Implementation Guide for National and Local Governments

Bagi Raka, dunia game online awalnya tidak lebih dari cara sederhana untuk mengisi waktu luang. Seusai bekerja, ia biasanya duduk di depan komputer, memasang headset, lalu memilih permainan yang sedang ingin dicoba. Tidak ada ekspektasi besar. Namun, perlahan ia menemukan bahwa pengalaman bermain ternyata tidak hanya soal layar, tombol, atau skor yang muncul di sudut monitor.

Perubahan itu terasa ketika Raka menemukan sebuah platform yang memungkinkan satu akun digunakan untuk mengakses berbagai jenis permainan. Ia sempat berhenti beberapa detik di depan layar. Baginya, kemudahan tersebut terdengar sepele, tetapi dalam penggunaan sehari-hari justru terasa cukup berarti. Ia tidak perlu mengingat banyak data masuk atau berpindah dari satu layanan ke layanan lain hanya untuk mencoba permainan berbeda.

Dari sana, Raka mulai memahami satu hal: pengalaman dalam game online banyak dipengaruhi oleh bagaimana sebuah platform dirancang.

Satu akun dapat menjadi pintu menuju beragam pilihan hiburan digital. Ada permainan dengan mekanisme sederhana yang bisa dipahami dalam beberapa menit, ada pula judul yang menawarkan tantangan lebih kompleks sehingga membutuhkan waktu untuk mengenali aturan dan strateginya. Keragaman tersebut membuat aktivitas bermain terasa lebih personal karena setiap orang dapat menentukan jenis permainan sesuai minat dan waktu yang tersedia.

Namun, kemudahan akses juga membuat Raka belajar untuk tidak terburu-buru. Ia mulai membaca informasi permainan sebelum memulai, memahami aturan, memperhatikan fitur yang tersedia, serta memeriksa ketentuan penggunaan platform. Kebiasaan tersebut penting karena game online memiliki karakter yang berbeda-beda. Tidak semua permainan memberikan pengalaman yang sama, dan setiap fitur sebaiknya dipahami terlebih dahulu.

Raka juga menyadari bahwa keseruan tidak selalu identik dengan kemenangan. Ada kalanya ia menikmati permainan karena visualnya menarik. Pada kesempatan lain, ia tertarik pada sistem tantangan atau interaksi dengan pemain lain. Bagi dirinya, pengalaman terbaik justru muncul ketika ia mengetahui batas waktu dan anggaran hiburan yang telah ditentukan sejak awal.

Pemahaman itu sejalan dengan prinsip penggunaan layanan digital secara bertanggung jawab. Platform yang nyaman memang dapat membuat akses menjadi lebih praktis, tetapi keputusan tetap berada di tangan pengguna. Membaca aturan, menjaga keamanan akun, menggunakan kata sandi yang kuat, dan menghindari membagikan informasi pribadi merupakan bagian penting dari pengalaman digital yang aman.

Beberapa minggu kemudian, kebiasaan Raka berubah. Ia tidak lagi membuka game hanya karena merasa bosan. Ia memilih permainan dengan lebih sadar, mengatur durasi, dan berhenti ketika waktu yang tersedia telah selesai. Baginya, satu akun bukan sekadar alat untuk masuk ke berbagai permainan, melainkan akses menuju pengalaman digital yang perlu digunakan dengan bijak.

Pada akhirnya, Raka menemukan bahwa keseruan dunia game online bukan hanya terletak pada banyaknya pilihan. Yang membuat pengalaman terasa berbeda adalah kemudahan, pemahaman, keamanan, serta kemampuan pengguna mengendalikan cara mereka bermain.

Satu akun mungkin membuka banyak pintu. Tetapi bagaimana perjalanan setelah pintu itu terbuka, tetap menjadi pilihan setiap pemain.

The expense of low cost airlines Channel News brendan 12th August 2026 Teaser Media

The year is 2036. Connected Autonomous Vehicles comprise 25 percent of the cars on the nation’s streets and roads and fleets of robo-cabs crisscross cities. But after one such CAV blows a stop sign and kills a pedestrian, federal cybermarshal Dana Grant starts asking questions — but can Grant get to the bottom of the “accident” … or undercover a plot to use these connected AVs to kill thousands? That’s the plot of “Autokill” (Open Road Media) by “Gridlock” Sam Schwartz and playwright Cary Pepper. To purchase the full book, click here. But for now, curl up with Chapter 3, “What Was Wrong?” in this exclusive excerpt.

After staring at the computer screen for several minutes, Dana Grant sat back and slowly shook her head. She wasn’t happy and she didn’t know why.

The case seemed simple enough. Last week, a Connected Autonomous Vehicle killed a 35-year-old woman in California. She was sitting in a park, set back from the road some 50 feet, when she was struck by the vehicle. According to local police, the car ignored a stop sign, which was one reason the case landed on Dana’s desk. That, and of course, the fatality.

Dana Grant was a federal cybermarshal assigned to the National Transportation Safety Board’s Portland-based CAV unit, Western Sector. With thousands of robo-cabs, trucks, and buses on the nation’s roads and streets, the National Transportation Safety Board had created a new branch to investigate CAV-related accidents. It was similar to the division that investigated aviation incidents, but only two offices had been opened so far (Eastern Sector was head-quartered in Boston), its operating budget was smaller, its staff had not been provided with the in-depth training that allowed agents in the aviation division to effectively probe air-transport events, and, unlike the aviation division, the CAV unit had no NTSB Training Center.

The marshals had been promised such expertise, but the agency, despite being in existence for six years, was still getting “up to speed” and Congress (swayed by the powerful CAV lobby) had repeatedly failed to adequately fund it, leaving many marshals to obtain any special training they felt they needed on their own, at their own expense. Dana had overheard several of her colleagues proudly vowing not to “go all tech” as long as they had to pay for it themselves.

Not Dana. If she were doing the job, she wanted to be as good at it as she could be. Just as she’d gone the extra distance as a cop in Phoenix. Since joining the unit, she’d been taking workshops and reading as much as she could to educate herself on the intricacies of CAVs. When she needed help, she didn’t hesitate to reach out to the small network of advisors and consultants she’d slowly assembled around her during the five years she’d been on the job.

Influenced by those advisors and consultants, Dana had stopped using the word accident when talking about her cases. She investigated crashes.

An accident is an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause. But CAVs, obeying algorithms designed for maximum safety and free of road-rage-inducing ego, didn’t do things unexpectedly or take potentially-dangerous risks. So when a CAV collided with anything, it wasn’t an accident. It was a crash.

Dana also quickly learned that crucial to investigating and understanding any incident involving a CAV meant knowing how to read and interpret the information gleaned from its black box, which included every decision, maneuver, and change the vehicle made during a trip. It included interactions with passengers. It included everything the car did, saw, and heard. And because this data was all in computer code, it required knowing how to understand what you were looking at.

Even with all the time Dana had spent learning about this arcane corner of the universe, she still had large gaps in her knowledge of it. But she was light years ahead of every other agent in her office, and she knew it.

Now Dana sat pondering why the CAV ignored the stop sign. Programming error? Software failure? Faulty sensing equipment? If any of those were the issue, did the problem lie with Relyable, the company that manufactured the car? Or was it a matter of a repair, similar to fixing the brakes on a human-driven car? And if that were so, was the root cause a failure by the company that operated the vehicle to properly maintain it?

Or, if it was a programming or software error, did that signal a failure by the engineers at the company that made the car? Which would mean Dana had to see if the same company created both the computer code and the software, because it was possible that correct computer code had been negated by faulty software.

A third possibility was that someone tampered with the stop sign, which happened often in the 2020s, when kids defaced traffic signs or anti-AVers tried to demonstrate the weakness of autonomous infrastructure. Then came the 2029 Topeka School AV bus crash. A couple of teenagers out for kicks turned a 30-mph sign in to one reading 80 mph by making the three an eight. The bus raced around a sharp curve doing 80, left the road, and plunged 35 feet down an embankment, killing 21 children and the bus attendant.

For the next three years, all AV school buses had to have a human driver. Meanwhile, every inch of roadway in the United States was minutely mapped: every traffic sign, signal, lane marking, and channelization. And the federal government required any change, no matter how small, to be immediately entered in the central Geographic Information System Command file, the huge database where all this information lived. Failure to do so resulted in states and cities losing as much as billions in federal highway dollars. Now, any discrepancy between what an AV saw and what was in the GIS database, was detected by the CAV’s Command Center (all the companies that operated CAVs had command centers that controlled their fleet) in a nanosecond, and the GIS Command Center threw the vehicle into fail-safe mode, choosing the safest available option for its next action.

If a vehicle saw “80 mph” but the database listed “30 mph,” the GISCC would send an alert, slow or stop the vehicle, and a remote driver would take over the CAV. In addition, all other vehicles from that company would be alerted and a post-mortem would be conducted.

The system worked almost flawlessly in cities and on state roads; the only gaps now were the small towns and rural areas that didn’t have the ability to update the GIS files, or the few places where locals believed that routinely updating their files was an infringement by an overbearing government. Since 2033, there had been only nine instances of minor crashes due to un-updated traffic devices, and none due to vandalism. Could this be the first?

Maybe. Yet Dana had a gut feeling it was something else. There were thousands of Relyable delivery robos operating in the county and there hadn’t been similar incidents. Which suggested that the computer code, the software, and pretty much everything else in the vehicle was operating properly. So what else could it be?

Relyable had already responded to the police-finding that the car went through the stop sign. Company spokespeople maintained that the sign had been defaced with both a hole and grafitti, so the fault lay not with the vehicle and its sensing equipment, but with the town for not repairing the sign. Relyable also noted that the town had been cited four times for not complying with GIS Command. The company could not be held responsible, it reasoned, for signage or traffic signals that were not repaired or replaced in a timely manner.

Dana studied pictures of the sign; there was no question that it had been vandalized. A tagger had gone to work on it, and there was a hole dead center in the middle of the O. If it was a bullet hole, someone was quite a shot.

Did that mean the CAV had not seen the sign? Or had it seen the sign but was no longer able to identify it as a signal to stop, perhaps interpreting it as nothing more than a lamppost or structure designating street parking? Why did the Topeka fail-safe protocol fail?

“Oh, you caught that California thing.”

She hadn’t heard Kyle coming up behind her. But now there was that soft wheezing through his seemingly-always-clogged nasal passages. Perhaps if he lost some weight… The thought ran through her head almost every time she saw Kyle. He wasn’t obese. Just unnecessarily overweight, all in his belly, which hung over his belt in a loose fold.

Kyle Beaumont would always be overweight, always breathe heavily through his nose, always be, in Dana’s mind, one nasal breath away from a heart attack. Which of course she hoped would never happen. She didn’t hate Kyle or wish any bad would come to him. She just wished he wasn’t her boss.

Not because he was overweight and breathed through his nose. Because he was always hovering, and he wasn’t thorough. He’d been with the NTSB 20 years to her 5, and was more interested in clearing cases than conducting competent, thorough investigations.

So, rather than encourage his people to spend as much time as they needed to properly run a case, he’d be satisfied with a preliminary finding, even one still open to questions, if it added to the “Case Closed” log he submitted weekly to the head of the Portland bureau.

As a result, Dana’s unit had a high closure rate, which Kyle was determined to maintain. But given how they were achieving it, she wasn’t sure that was something to be proud of.

Their findings tended to hold the vehicles or companies blameless, and Dana sometimes wondered about that. But the truth was, in crashes involving CAVs and human drivers, it was almost always the human driver at fault. CAVs had proven themselves to be more consistent, more stable, and less erratic than human drivers. They were not distracted as easily or as often, never tried to beat a changing traffic light or speed past an approaching train, and had no interest in pushing themselves to test their power, speed, or endurance.

So the fact that Kyle’s long list of closed cases often found in favor of the CAV wasn’t surprising. Nevertheless, Dana often found herself wishing he didn’t reach that conclusion quite so fast.

Standing behind her looking over her shoulder, he’d moved closer. She knew, without turning, because the heavy breathing was now only inches from her ear.

“New perfume?” he asked.

“Nope.”

“You smell different. New shampoo?”

“Nope.”

“Different soap, maybe?”

She pictured him sniffing the air around her. Or, worse, sniffing her.

“Same soap.”

“Something about you is different. Are you …?”

It was time to end this. She shifted in her chair, sending it backward into his foot, then turned around and was “surprised” to see the wheel of the chair pressing on his shoe and the edge of her seat against his leg.

“Oh, sorry! I didn’t realize you were that close.”

“No harm done,” he assured her, reaching down to lightly rub his knee. “You still working on that?” he nodded toward her computer.

“Hmm-hmm,” she muttered, studying the screen again to indicate she was too distracted to talk.

“Stop sign was vandalized. The town didn’t update its GIS records. Like the company says, it’s their fault. Can’t you close it?”

“I’m not sure yet,” she started. “I—”

“You have ‘a feeling,”’ he finished for her. “Here we go.”

She hated when he did that. But it had been years since she took him seriously when he said those things in that tone of voice. That had stopped after working with him for two months, when she almost caved in the wake of his response to her first “feeling.”

That first time, still new to the unit and trying to find her way, she’d almost let him intimidate her because she was half-doubting herself: Had she really been on to something, or was it more an attempt to prove she could do the job?

But she stuck with it, and it paid off. Driver vs. CAV, and the driver swore the robo had swerved into his lane. There was activity to the right of the CAV that might have made it swerve toward the driver, but a check of the black box showed it swerved no more than a foot and did not cross the double yellow line that separated the vehicles.

On a hunch, Dana checked the driver’s cell-phone records and found that he’d been on the phone at the time of the accident. It was him, not the robo, that had swerved across the
double yellow line.

Two lessons learned: Always trust her gut, and never listen to Kyle about such matters.

It took her a while to stop railing at herself for letting him come as close as he did to shutting her down, but she finally landed in place of self-understanding: she was navigating new territory with insufficient training. She was allowed a few missteps; she could forgive herself. Afterward, she did more than that, using the episode to redefine their relationship.

Never one to be intimidated (easily or otherwise), not even as a child, she would never again be bullied by a bureaucrat now that she was 35, carried a badge, and believed (knew) that she was better suited for this work than he was.

“Here I go,” she corrected him. “It’s not gonna affect your life much.”

“Except what it’s gonna do to our clearance rate.”

“You mean my clearance rate?”

“Ours includes yours. You slow up, we slow up.”

“I’ll work this extra fast.”

“Work what? The cops confirmed the CAV went through the stop sign. No one’s contesting that. The cops confirmed the stop sign was vandalized. No one’s contesting that. The town didn’t update its GIS file. You wanna blame the robo? It’s like, someone blindfolds you, then blames you for walking into something. How much more open-shut can you get?”

“Looks that way.”

“Except you know better.”

“I just want to leave it open a little longer so I can—”

“You can have a little more time on this. But don’t take too long. And don’t neglect your other cases.”

“I never do,” she answered, fingers busy on her keyboard, focusing on her screen, as a way to end the conversation.

Finally sensing their talk was over, Kyle walked away, triggering a new train of thought for Dana: What kind of ratings was he getting on his quarterly evaluations? But why go there? For years he’d been part of a federal bureaucracy that valued meeting quotas and demonstrating its own skewered sense of “efficiency.” She knew exactly the kind of evaluations he was getting. And he knew exactly how to keep getting them. And keep his job.

She peered at the screen for real now, hoping to find something new. Kyle was right about one thing: It did seem like an open-and-shut case. The CAV had functioned perfectly until it encountered the vandalized stop sign.

So what was bothering her? What was wrong?

• Even accounting for manufacturing, swapping out a gas-powered vehicle for an electric one results in 50 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The break-even point is about 18,000 miles, which the average person drives in a year and a half. The benefits are greater for older cars built under less stringent environment standards and in places with green electric grids. The only exceptions are for plug-in hybrids that run mostly on batteries or a second car that isn’t driven much. (Grist)
• Rail projects are still moving forward despite the Trump administration’s animosity toward them. (Quartz)
• Robotaxis seem to be getting glitchier as Waymo grows, and the cities it’s expanding into are unprepared. (New York Times)
• Cities too often ignore medium-density “missing middle” development that encourages walking. (CNU Public Square)
• Walking to school has gotten a lot harder than many adults remember. (Upworthy)
• A town just outside Boston prioritized safety over speed, and the result has been zero traffic deaths over the past three years. (Christian Science Monitor)
• Richmond announced plans for quick-build safety improvements at 700 intersections as part of its Vision Zero program. (WRIC)
• Gov. Mike Braun may have been on shaky legal ground when he extended Indiana’s gas tax holiday. (Indianapolis Star; paywall)
• A Houston developer is building a 12-story, 2,000-space parking garage that takes up an entire city block. (Chron)
• The increasing popularity of giant U.S.-style trucks and SUVs in Australia has led to an uptick in pedestrian deaths, even as driver and passenger fatalities continue to decline. (The Conversation)
• In Bogota, bike advocates are fighting back against the gender stereotype that cycling is only for men. (The Guardian)
• The massive Grand Paris Express metro expansion will feature 68 new architect-designed transit stations. (Arch Daily)

The oil industry just posted some of its best profits in years while Americans pay more at the pump

President Donald Trump promised to “cut your energy prices in half” within his first year in office using his “energy dominance” agenda. Instead, energy dominance has produced record profits for oil companies and higher gas prices for everyone else.

Eight of the world’s largest oil companies made a combined $93 billion in profit in the second quarter of 2026, nearly double what those companies made last year, and more than $1 billion in profit every single day. The increase in profits is connected to the US-Israeli war on Iran, which disrupted oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and pushed global oil prices above $126 per barrel at their peak.

ExxonMobil reported $14.5 billion in profit, its highest quarterly total in four years, while Chevron posted $12 billion, its highest quarterly profit in at least six years. Shell earned $9.8 billion, its second-highest quarterly profit ever, and Saudi Aramco topped the list at more than $33 billion.

US refiners also raked in the profits. Valero Energy reported $3.7 billion in net income, up from $714 million a year earlier and its most profitable quarter on record by earnings per share. HF Sinclair’s profit roughly quadrupled year-over-year, and PBF Energy swung from a loss to over $1 billion in profit.

None of this windfall is reaching consumers. The national average price for a gallon of gas was $4.01 on August 10, and prices are higher than a year ago in every state. Refiners say fuel inventories will be slow to rebuild, meaning the high prices are likely to stick around even as the price of crude oil drops.

Oil companies aren’t using their record profits to expand drilling or refining, either. ExxonMobil alone returned $9.4 billion to shareholders in the second quarter through dividends and stock buybacks, and Shell started a new multibillion-dollar buyback program of its own. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has pointed to record US energy production as evidence that the administration’s regulatory rollbacks are “unlocking the full potential of our domestic energy resources.” But record production and record profits have not translated into lower prices, expanded supply, or any clear benefit for American taxpayers.

In fact, Congress and the Trump administration are giving the oil and gas industry a tax break for drilling on public lands. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025, cut the onshore royalty rate from 16.67 percent back to 12.5 percent. Interior has also moved to make it cheaper to drill on public lands, proposing a rule that would cut cleanup bonds from $500,000 to $25,000 and shrink the public comment period on lease sales from 90 days to 10. Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates the royalty rate decrease alone has already cost the public $489 million, a figure it warns could climb into the billions as 2026 lease sales get underway.

Oil and gas production, Converse County, Wyoming. BLM Wyoming

This isn’t the “energy dominance” Americans were promised. Trump’s declaration of a “national energy emergency” was based on the need to bring down energy prices for Americans, arguing that inadequate domestic supply “causes and makes worse the high energy prices that devastate Americans.” His “Unleashing American Energy” executive order relied on that “energy emergency” to justify a number of policy actions ostensibly aimed at increasing energy production, presumably to increase domestic supply and bring prices down.

If there were an actual energy emergency, and if the Trump administration was serious about addressing it, the administration would have spent the past year and a half investing in a rapid build-out of inexpensive domestic energy sources like solar, wind, and battery storage. But the administration has actually done the opposite, putting up roadblocks to renewable energy development and paying developers nearly $2 billion in taxpayer funds to abandon offshore wind projects that were already underway. Meanwhile, the administration is doing everything it can to rush oil, gas, and coal projects by cutting corners on environmental reviews and avoiding public comment whenever it thinks it can get away with it. Interior’s current plan would compress reviews that once took up to two years into a single month, and cut the public comment period for projects expected to cause environmental harm down to about 10 days.

This strategy is working splendidly for oil and gas companies. For American families, it’s been a disaster that’s squeezing them when they’re already struggling with rising costs in all other areas of their lives. Adding insult to injury, oil and gas companies are locking Americans out of their public lands by nominating and leasing public lands they don’t intend to drill, tying up both the land itself and management agency resources with unserious nominations and leases. The real energy emergency is the oil and gas takeover of our national public lands at the expense of preserving some of America’s most valuable natural places.

The post Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda is only helping oil and gas companies appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES SLF-2007-024 The Sakhalin Papers XIV: The Whales, the Scientists and the Financing Test

Archive reference: SLF-2007-024
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal record: IUCN Independent Scientific Review Panel records; Sakhalin Energy responses; Shell Sustainability Report 2005; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development records
Supporting record: UK Parliamentary material, High Court proceedings and contemporaneous press reporting
Evidence standard: Scientific findings, company statements, lender decisions, court records and campaign commentary are distinguished throughout. A lender’s decision that project documentation was suitable for consultation is not treated as a decision to finance the project.

Introduction

By 2005, the fate of approximately one hundred whales had become entangled with the financing of one of the world’s largest oil and gas developments.

The Western North Pacific gray whale population feeding off north-eastern Sakhalin Island was then classified by IUCN as critically endangered. The independent scientific review convened by IUCN recorded a population of roughly 100 animals and perhaps only 20–25 reproductively active females. At the same time, Sakhalin Energy was constructing platforms, pipelines and associated infrastructure in and around their feeding habitat.

This was not simply an argument between Shell and environmental campaigners.

Independent scientists were involved. Potential lenders were involved. The US Export-Import Bank hosted discussions. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development was carrying out due diligence. British ministers were being questioned in Parliament. Years later, the environmental controversy surrounding Sakhalin-2 would also appear in High Court proceedings concerning the disclosure of UK government records.

And the surviving documents establish something particularly important.

The scientists were not merely producing reports for public consumption.

Potential financiers were reading them.

1. The Whale Problem Was Already a Financing Problem

The preceding archive file examined Britain’s Export Credits Guarantee Department and its consideration of support for Sakhalin-2.

The whale issue sat directly inside that financing process.

On 5 March 2004, UK Trade Minister Mike O’Brien told Parliament that Sakhalin Energy’s proposed offshore pipeline would cross the southern part of the whales’ northern feeding ground. He said ECGD wanted reassurance that the potential impact would be minimised and repeated that support would be approved only if the issues had been satisfactorily addressed.

That statement matters because it fixes the chronology.

Before IUCN’s major independent review appeared in 2005, the whale habitat was already being treated by a prospective government lender as an issue capable of affecting a financing decision.

The environmental question and the money question had become inseparable.

2. Sakhalin Energy Asked IUCN to Convene Independent Scientists

The scientific process itself should be described fairly.

Sakhalin Energy did not simply ignore the existence of the whales. It initiated an independent review process, with IUCN convening a panel of specialists to assess the risks posed by Sakhalin II Phase 2 and possible measures for reducing them. IUCN’s archive says the panel examined conservation risks in the context of a population numbering only about 100 animals.

The scientists also acknowledged substantial expenditure and research by Sakhalin Energy. The 2005 review recorded that SEIC had invested significant sums studying the whales, assessing risk and developing mitigation measures.

That acknowledgement is important.

This was not a report written on the premise that the operator had done nothing.

The question was whether what had been done was sufficient for an exceptionally vulnerable population living beside a massive industrial development.

3. February 2005: The Independent Scientific Review

IUCN released the Independent Scientific Review Panel report on 16 February 2005.

Its underlying question was formidable: could the risks associated with Sakhalin II Phase 2 be managed so that oil and gas development did not further jeopardise the survival and recovery of this critically endangered whale population?

The report considered several categories of risk.

Industrial noise could disrupt feeding or displace animals.

Construction and support vessels created collision risk.

Pipeline construction could damage benthic habitat upon which the whales’ prey depended.

Oil or gas releases could affect whales, prey and sensitive locations such as Piltun Lagoon.

The report also examined cumulative effects rather than pretending Sakhalin II existed in isolation from other industrial activity in the region.

The scientific difficulty was amplified by the population’s size.

With so few reproductively active females, risks that might be tolerable for a large population could have very different consequences here.

4. The Existing Pipeline Route Was a Specific Scientific Concern

One conclusion was particularly concrete.

The panel examined three offshore pipeline alternatives linking the PA-A and PA-B platforms to shore.

The existing “base case” route crossed the southern portion of the primary gray-whale foraging area and ran close to the mouth of Piltun Lagoon. The two alternative routes passed farther south. The panel considered Alternative 1 safer in relation to construction noise, vessel collision and physical disturbance of benthic habitat, while also offering advantages in relation to possible spills reaching the principal feeding area.

This was no longer a generic demand that Shell should “do more for the environment.”

It was an engineering choice.

There was a route on the drawing board.

There were alternatives.

And the scientists considered one of those alternatives less risky for the whales.

5. The Precautionary Question

The later September 2005 record is unusually revealing because it reproduced the issues under discussion together with Sakhalin Energy’s responses.

In the Vancouver workshop table, the earlier scientific position was summarised in stark terms: the “most precautionary approach would be to halt operations” while the risk assessment was refined. If operations continued, risk management needed to be conservative.

That sentence should not be inflated into a claim that IUCN ordered Shell to stop Sakhalin-2.

It did not.

IUCN was not the Russian regulator, the project lender or a court.

Nor had the original panel been asked to issue a simple regulatory verdict of “approve” or “reject.”

But the documentary meaning remains substantial.

Independent scientists had concluded that the uncertainties were serious enough for temporary cessation to represent the most precautionary option.

6. Shell Changed the Pipeline Route

At the end of March 2005, Sakhalin Energy announced a major change.

The offshore pipelines would be rerouted away from the principal whale feeding ground.

Contemporaneous reporting described approximately 12 additional miles of pipeline, while Shell’s own Sustainability Report later described the move as placing the offshore pipelines about 20 kilometres farther from the feeding ground.

Shell’s report expressly credited the scientific process.

Its 2005 Sustainability Report stated that Sakhalin Energy had accepted the panel’s advice to move the offshore pipelines farther away and had also used acoustic modelling, vessel restrictions and scientific monitoring to reduce risks.

Contemporaneous reporting treated the rerouting as a major concession, although environmental organisations continued to raise concerns about the offshore platform and other project activities.

Documentary finding

The record supports a straightforward conclusion:

Independent scientific scrutiny produced a material design change.

Whether one characterises that as responsible adaptive management, successful environmental pressure, lender leverage, or some combination of all three is commentary.

The route moved.

7. Then the Potential Lenders Entered the Scientific Process Directly

The surviving Sakhalin Energy response document provides unusually clear evidence that the scientists’ report was influencing financiers.

On 24 February 2005 — only days after publication of the IUCN report — several panel scientists met representatives of potential Sakhalin II lenders at the US Export-Import Bank in Washington.

According to the SEIC document, following that meeting the prospective lenders told Sakhalin Energy that the remaining gray-whale issues identified by the scientific review needed to be resolved.

Sakhalin Energy then produced a structured response.

A further IUCN meeting took place at Gland, Switzerland, on 11–12 May 2005. Its stated purpose included informing decision-making by both Sakhalin Energy and potential lenders and helping the lenders understand whether SEIC’s revised plans adequately addressed the scientists’ concerns.

This is one of the strongest records in this instalment.

The financing institutions were not standing outside the scientific dispute waiting for somebody else to settle it.

They were asking the scientists questions.

They were seeking clarification.

And they were requiring the project operator to respond.

8. May Was Not the End of It

The Gland meeting did not resolve everything.

The SEIC record says the discussions failed to provide sufficient clarity for the decision-makers, particularly the potential lenders.

Those lenders consequently asked for another meeting with the independent scientists to assess Sakhalin Energy’s responses more closely.

That meeting took place in Vancouver from 17 to 19 September 2005.

The participants worked through the scientific issues, SEIC’s responses and the scientists’ assessments in detail.

The result was not a simple declaration that the project was safe.

Nor was it a declaration that the project could never proceed.

It was something much more characteristic of real scientific review:

progress in some areas, unresolved uncertainty in others, and continuing demands for monitoring, mitigation and independent scrutiny.

9. Noise Became One of the Hardest Questions

Industrial noise was particularly difficult.

The independent scientists recognised that modelling could help predict the acoustic footprint of construction, but the September record identified important limitations, especially at lower frequencies potentially relevant to gray whales.

Their assessment said model projections needed verification through measurements and could not by themselves establish an absence of biological effect.

The dispute was not merely about how loud a particular operation might be.

It concerned what received noise meant biologically.

Would feeding whales alter behaviour?

Would they move offshore?

Could repeated exposure matter cumulatively?

What threshold should trigger mitigation or shutdown?

The scientists wanted real-time monitoring of whale distribution, behaviour and acoustic conditions and recommended precautionary shutdown arrangements where agreed criteria were exceeded.

10. The “No Disturbance” Problem

Here the Shell and independent-scientist records deserve to be placed side by side.

Shell’s Sustainability Report stated that external scientific observers monitored noise during installation of the production-platform bases and that the work was completed without signs of disturbance to the whales.

The Vancouver scientific review was more guarded.

For some construction activity, it recorded that weather had prevented behavioural observations during portions of the work. The scientists concluded that, where observations had not been possible, an absence of effect could not safely be inferred. They also said opportunities to learn about whale responses had been lost to some extent.

These statements should not be lazily converted into an accusation that Shell’s account was false.

They operate at different evidential levels.

Shell reported that observers had not identified signs of disturbance during monitored activity.

The scientists warned that incomplete observation prevented the stronger conclusion that no disturbance had occurred across all relevant periods.

Documentary assessment

“Nothing was observed” and “nothing happened” are not scientifically identical propositions.

That distinction became important because financing decisions depended not simply upon corporate assurances, but upon whether risks had been assessed to standards acceptable to external institutions.

11. The Scientists Still Had Reservations in September 2005

The September issues table records progress, but it also preserves criticism.

The independent scientists stated that Sakhalin Energy’s approach had not always been suitably or consistently precautionary and that its use of the ALARP risk-management concept had not always produced the least practicable risk to the whales.

They also identified continuing issues involving contractor compliance, independent monitoring, noise criteria and implementation of mitigation measures.

Sakhalin Energy did not simply reject the process.

Its responses defended aspects of the modelling and risk-management approach, explained operational constraints and accepted that a number of issues should be carried forward to a permanent advisory panel.

That balance matters.

The documentary record is not:

scientists warned; Shell ignored.

Nor is it:

scientists approved; controversy ended.

It is a record of continuing technical disagreement inside a process that the operator itself had entered and prospective lenders were actively following.

12. The Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel

One of the most consequential outcomes was institutional rather than engineering.

The September process produced agreement to establish a long-term Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel.

Sakhalin Energy supported its formation and funding, while the scientists envisaged a continuing mechanism through which independent expertise could review threats and mitigation measures over the life of industrial activity.

IUCN formally announced the new panel in October 2006.

It described a population containing only about 20–25 reproductively active females and said the panel would provide independent scientific advice concerning Sakhalin Energy and other relevant offshore activity.

In hindsight, the structure proved unusually durable.

IUCN’s specialist archive now records a 17-year scientific oversight programme running from the original 2004 process through the final advisory-panel work in 2021–22, involving hundreds of recommendations and specialist work on noise, oil spills, cumulative effects and monitoring.

13. December 2005: What the EBRD Actually Decided

This part of the archive requires particular precision.

On 14 December 2005, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development decided that the Sakhalin II project documentation was:

“fit for the purpose of consultation.”

That wording appears in EBRD’s own record.

Shell’s Sustainability Report described the same development: the EBRD had decided that Sakhalin Energy’s environmental, social, health and safety approach was fit for public consultation.

What that meant

It permitted the financing process to advance into public consultation.

What it did not mean

It was not final EBRD approval of a loan.

It was not a finding that every whale-related concern had disappeared.

It was not a legal ruling that Sakhalin II complied with every applicable environmental requirement.

The distinction is essential because contemporary reporting sometimes compressed the financing process into the simpler question: “Will the EBRD fund Shell?”

The official record was more incremental.

14. Contemporary Journalism Saw the Same Pressure

The financing stakes were obvious to journalists at the time.

In March 2005, The Guardian reported that the proposed route was under pressure because of the whale issue and that public lenders were being urged not to finance the project. After the rerouting, the newspaper reported that environmental campaigners still believed significant risks remained.

In June, The Observer described EBRD financing as being held back while environmental problems remained unresolved. Later reports continued to depict lender approval as commercially important to Shell and linked the whale controversy to the wider environmental scrutiny surrounding the project.

Those reports are evidence of contemporary perception.

They should not substitute for the formal EBRD record.

But they demonstrate that at the time — not merely in retrospective campaigning — the connection between environmental performance and financing was widely understood.

15. The EBRD Ultimately Did Not Finance Sakhalin II

The final outcome is another point where causation must not be invented.

EBRD’s own Independent Recourse Mechanism record states that on 11 January 2007 the Bank decided not to finance Sakhalin II because of the change in ownership of Sakhalin Energy.

That fact places a firm limit on the historical claim.

It would be inaccurate to say:

“The whales caused EBRD to reject Sakhalin II financing.”

The documentary record does not establish that.

Environmental issues, including the gray-whale question, plainly formed part of the financing scrutiny for years.

But the recorded reason EBRD ultimately ceased pursuing the financing was the changed ownership structure following Gazprom’s acquisition of control.

That distinction is exactly the kind of boundary this archive is intended to preserve.

16. The High Court Record Confirms the Whale Issue Was Material

The whale controversy subsequently entered the British judicial record through the dispute over disclosure of government documents.

In Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), the High Court dealt with ECGD’s attempt to overturn an Information Tribunal decision requiring disclosure of interdepartmental material concerning Sakhalin-2.

The court record describes proposed project finance of approximately US$650 million and identifies the endangered Western Grey whale among the environmental concerns surrounding the project. The High Court dismissed ECGD’s appeal against disclosure.

Again, the limits are important.

Mr Justice Mitting did not decide that Sakhalin Energy had harmed the whales.

He did not decide that Shell had committed an environmental offence.

He did not decide that financing Sakhalin-2 would have been unlawful.

The case concerned access to government environmental information.

What it confirms is that the whale and financing questions were sufficiently substantial to form part of a public-law dispute about what the British Government should disclose.

17. What Shell’s Own Record Shows

Shell’s Sustainability Report is striking because it does not pretend that the project passed through 2005 unchanged.

It records substantial adaptation.

The company said Sakhalin Energy listened to stakeholders, moved the offshore pipelines farther from the whale feeding ground, used acoustic modelling, introduced ship-speed and routing measures, supported independent scientific observation and worked toward establishing a permanent advisory panel.

Those are Shell’s own published claims.

They should remain in the archive alongside the independent scientists’ reservations.

Together they demonstrate that the whale controversy produced consequences beyond publicity.

Engineering changed.

Monitoring changed.

Institutional oversight changed.

And the financing process absorbed environmental conditions that the operator had to address.

18. Documentary Findings Established by the scientific and company record

The Western North Pacific gray-whale population feeding near Sakhalin was considered critically endangered and numbered roughly 100 animals, with only about 20–25 reproductively active females.

Sakhalin Energy initiated an independent scientific review through IUCN.

The scientists identified substantial risks involving noise, vessel collisions, habitat disturbance and oil spills.

They regarded the original offshore pipeline route as presenting additional risks because it crossed part of the primary feeding area.

Sakhalin Energy subsequently rerouted the offshore pipelines approximately 20 kilometres farther from that feeding ground.

Potential lenders met the scientists and required outstanding whale-related issues to be addressed.

Further scientific meetings were held specifically to help inform financing decisions.

Unresolved issues remained after the pipeline rerouting, particularly around noise, monitoring, risk thresholds and the precautionary approach.

A long-term independent advisory panel was established.

Established by the financing record

EBRD considered Sakhalin II for financing.

In December 2005 it determined that the project documentation was suitable to enter public consultation.

That was not final loan approval.

In January 2007 EBRD decided not to finance the project following the change in Sakhalin Energy’s ownership.

Established by the court record

The endangered whale issue and approximately US$650 million of potential project finance formed part of the factual background to the later High Court disclosure litigation.

The High Court upheld disclosure of government departmental responses.

The judgment did not determine whether Sakhalin II harmed whales or whether the project itself was environmentally lawful.

Not established

The record does not establish that Sakhalin II caused the extinction of the Western North Pacific gray-whale population.

It does not establish that EBRD rejected the project because of whales.

It does not establish that the IUCN panel ordered Shell to stop the project.

It does not establish that Shell ignored all scientific advice; the pipeline rerouting proves otherwise.

Nor does Shell’s adoption of mitigation measures establish that every scientific concern was resolved.

Commentary

The most revealing document in this file may not be a warning about whales at all.

It may be the record of the lenders meeting the scientists.

That changes the character of the story.

Environmental assessment was not simply an exercise taking place alongside the real commercial negotiations.

It had entered the commercial negotiations.

A pipeline route became a financing issue.

Noise modelling became a financing issue.

Monitoring protocols became a financing issue.

The credibility of mitigation plans became a financing issue.

And a population of roughly one hundred whales became one of the tests through which prospective lenders assessed a multibillion-dollar energy project.

There is also a useful lesson in the competing documents.

Shell’s own sustainability account emphasised adaptation and successful mitigation.

The independent scientists recorded both progress and continuing uncertainty.

The lenders wanted enough clarity to make financing decisions.

Campaigners wanted the precautionary principle applied more aggressively.

None of those records needs to be discarded for the others to make sense.

Put together, they show the actual mechanism of environmental scrutiny at work: contested evidence, design changes, unresolved questions, further monitoring and financial institutions deciding how much uncertainty they were prepared to carry.

That is more interesting — and historically more defensible — than either of the simplistic alternatives.

Shell neither sailed through the whale issue untouched nor had the project conclusively condemned by scientists.

It changed the project while continuing to build it.

And the lenders kept asking questions.

Source Record

The principal evidence for this instalment is the 2005 IUCN Independent Scientific Review Panel report, Impacts of Sakhalin II Phase 2 on Western North Pacific Gray Whales and Related Biodiversity; the September 2005 Western Gray Whale workshop record containing Sakhalin Energy’s formal comments and responses; The Shell Sustainability Report 2005; the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Independent Recourse Mechanism record for Sakhalin II; UK Parliamentary answers concerning the Western Grey Whale and ECGD financing; Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin); IUCN’s subsequent Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel archive; and contemporaneous reporting by The Guardian/Observerconcerning pipeline rerouting, environmental controversy and prospective project finance.

Archive disclaimer: Scientific concern is not equivalent to proof of environmental damage. A company response is not an independent finding. A prospective lender’s environmental review is not a judicial determination. EBRD’s December 2005 finding that documentation was fit for public consultation was not approval of financing, and its January 2007 decision not to finance Sakhalin II is recorded by EBRD as resulting from the project’s ownership change. No allegation of illegality or environmental harm should be inferred beyond the findings of an identified court, regulator or competent scientific body.

Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Next Archive File SLF-2007-025 — The Sakhalin Papers XV: A Thousand Rivers — Salmon, Pipeline Crossings and the Contractor Problem

The whales were offshore.

The next environmental battle ran almost the entire length of Sakhalin Island.

Shell’s own 2005 Sustainability Report acknowledged that the onshore pipelines would cross more than 1,000 rivers and streams, including approximately 180 regarded as environmentally sensitive. It also acknowledged that contractors did not always comply with the river-crossing strategy during the winter of 2004–05 and that Sakhalin Energy stopped the winter work programme when it became aware of the problem.

Contemporaneous journalists, environmental organisations and Russian authorities were meanwhile reporting allegations involving sediment, salmon-spawning habitat, contractor performance and regulatory breaches.

The next archive file will separate those allegations from what Shell itself admitted, what regulators actually established and what the documentary record says about a management problem that appears repeatedly throughout the Sakhalin Papers:

When most of the physical work is being performed by contractors, who carries responsibility when environmental commitments on paper collide with construction on the ground?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 11 AUGUST 2026 was first posted on August 11, 2026 at 10:40 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