News Feeds

The recent disruption of global fertilizer supplies motivates reassessing key myths that shape perceptions of agricultural policies. A century into modern conventional agriculture, still unfolding impacts on soil, water, biodiversity, farmers, and consumers fuel growing recognition of the need for farming and food system reform. Regenerative farming systems focused on building soil health offer the potential to reshape agriculture and chart a new path toward a sustainable future, but challenge the wisdom underpinning conventional, degenerative farming practices. My new book, ReGen: A New Future for Farming, Food, and Health, shares how regenerative farming practices that upend conventional thinking can reverse the age-old pattern of soil degradation.

In studying the history of soil degradation around the world I came to see how conventional farming today involves both physical and chemical disturbance of soil and soil life. As soil degradation from physical disturbance (tillage) reduced natural fertility, farmers came to depend on synthetic fertilizers to maintain high yields. Whereas organic farming eliminates chemical disturbance and no-till farming eliminates physical disturbance, regenerative farming systems do not rely on routine tillage or agrochemical use and instead minimize or avoid both styles of disturbance.

Over decades studying and writing about soil depletion and regenerative farming systems around the world, I’ve learned to see through key myths of modern agriculture that undermine progress to addressing one of humanity’s oldest problems—and our collective future. Three myths in particular stand out.

Myth 1 is that we must choose between protecting the environment and feeding the world. In my experience, conventional agronomists, journalists, and policymakers tend to assume inherent conflict between sustainable farming and the challenge of feeding everyone. But while commonly cited studies report 10 to 20 percent higher yields in conventional crops compared with organic crops, a 1990 study that compared organic and conventional yields found that in almost half the direct comparisons, organic yields were comparable to or exceeded conventional ones. And a subsequent 2007 global study expanded the comparison and found that organic yields were less than 10 percent lower on average than conventional yields in the developed world but exceeded conventional yields in the developing world. The study estimated that organic farming using legumes as cover crops could supply enough nitrogen to offset synthetic fertilizer use and still meet global food demands on currently farmed land.

Similarly, a 2015 review found that diversified organic crop rotations decreased the yield difference to less than 10 percent and concluded that enhanced investment in organic research could potentially eliminate the difference. And a 2018 study found that yield differences declined over time, with just several years of soil building in organic systems sometimes fully closing the yield gap. I’ve seen this first-hand on regenerative farms around the world that matched or exceeded conventional yields on neighboring farms—after restoring soil health.

In short, rebuilding healthy soils could sustain high yields—just not with now-conventional practices. We don’t have to degrade soil health to feed the world.

Myth 2 is that regenerative farming can’t scale up to replace conventional methods. While mainstream commentators tend to reflexively question whether or not regenerative farming can be done at scale, I’ve visited huge farms I’d consider regenerative. The largest covers 20,000-some-odd acres in South Dakota. On this highly mechanized farm the transition to no-till, cover crops, and diverse rotations dramatically improved soil health relative to that on neighboring farms. The effect on the soil was obvious across a dirt road at the edge of the farm. The neighboring, routinely tilled conventional field was bare, cracking, and pale, in stark contrast to the moist, mulch-covered dark earth of the regenerative field.

While this shows that large, highly mechanized farms can build healthy soils, lots of small farms present another way to scale up regenerative farming. Making small farms more profitable and economically viable could scale out soil-building farming systems. Both large and small farms can regenerate healthy, fertile soil but different approaches work best for different places and sizes of farms. Large farms are well suited for regenerative production of grains and row crops suitable for mechanized farming (such as soybeans, sunflowers, and canola), whereas small farms are well suited for regenerative vegetable production.

Moreover, large farms are not inherently more efficient or productive. A 2021 global review found that small farms produced higher yields, grew a greater diversity of crops, and harvested more food per acre than large farms. In other words, scaling up regenerative farming could entail supporting both large and small farms in different settings. The real question isn’t so much whether regenerative farming can scale up as it is about how to tailor practices on farms large and small to build rather than degrade soil health.

Myth 3 is that we need genetically modified (GM) crops to feed everyone. GM crops are a well-known flash point in agriculture, and it is common to hear their proponents claim we need them to feed the world. Indeed, when first introduced, GM crops were promoted as ways to boost crop yields and reduce pesticide use. Neither promise panned out.

Despite faith that GM crops would increase yields, corn yields in Europe, where GM corn is not allowed, increased at the same pace as in the United States. This means the GM character of U.S. corn was not what boosted yields. Instead, the parallel increases in Europe and North America came from crop breeding that benefited farmers on both sides of the Atlantic. This raises the question of what could be achieved if we dedicated research support to breeding crops for performance under organic or regenerative farming systems at levels comparable to what society showered historically on conventional agriculture and GM crops.

Among the most commercially successful GM crops are those engineered to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate. Crops engineered for resistance to glyphosate provided farmers with an easy button for weed control, boosting adoption of no-till farming. As a result, global herbicide use increased, causing cascading, inadvertent changes to soil life that harm soil health.

Still, I can see potential applications for which GM crops could prove useful for building soil health. For example, GM crops might enhance drought tolerance or nutrient density if we applied the technology toward such goals. So far, however, GM crops have tended to enable and rely on the use of products that scramble soil life, enhance pest resistance, and produce unintended consequences that create demand for more agrochemical products. That’s a better agribusiness model than agricultural strategy. While building soil health is not necessarily incompatible with GM crops, it matters how the technology is deployed.

Looking beyond the myths that fueled conventional thinking about agriculture over the past century, regenerative farming can help usher in a new, soil-health building future for farming, food, and health. To sustain intensive farming into a post-oil future, we need to integrate what we’ve learned about soil ecology in recent decades into soil-building farming systems based on minimizing both physical and chemical disturbance.

Conventional thinking misses critical aspects of how farming affects soil, soil life—and us. Soil degradation stems from farmers approaching soil ecology backwards, undermining soil life instead of enabling and engaging trillions of tiny farmhands.

Like it or not, agriculture will change this century as a growing global population confronts a shifting climate and ongoing soil loss and degradation. Business as usual risks the wellbeing of generations to come, we’ve got to do something different with our soils. Fortunately, regenerative agriculture could turn the tide of soil degradation. The hardest step may prove to be seeing through key myths of modern agriculture.

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 Satish Chand, Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | A New Future for Farming, Food, and Health appeared first on Food Tank.

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

HHS Announces Policy Reforms Targeting Food Safety and Nutrition

This week, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced two policy reforms targeting food safety and nutrition. 

The agency, alongside the U.S. Department of Agriculture, submitted the first proposed definition of ultra-processed foods. They say that the absence of a definition has limited research consistency across the federal government. 

The other proposal would require manufacturers to notify the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when concluding that the use of a substance added to human or animal food is Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS).

For the last two decades, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has allowed food and beverage industries to self-certify that a new food chemical is safe, or legally GRAS, without federal oversight. Whether companies inform the FDA of the new ingredient is voluntary. This loophole has allowed an unknown number of GRAS determinations every year. 

Some food and nutrition advocates aren’t impressed by the actions of HHS. Author and nutritionist Marion Nestle responded to the announcement, asking, “You have to be kidding. That’s all?” She says, “food advocates for years have called for making GRAS notifications mandatory.  So this move is obvious, and long-awaited.” Nestle also points out that even if the new requirement is an improvement, companies are still responsible for the science “and will still be hiring its own experts to say the additive is safe.”

Senate Farm Bill Fails to Advance

The Senate Agriculture Committee failed to advance a Farm Bill last week. 

The Committee’s Chair, Senator John Boozman (R-Ark) says they will reconvene for another vote in September. But he says it will be a “miracle” if the legislative package is signed into law before the midterm elections in November.

Zippy Duvall, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, expressed frustration with the outcome, stating that the country needs a “strong, bipartisan bill” at a time when food producers and rural communities “are facing multiyear losses.”

Some advocates were relieved to see the Farm Bill fail in its current state. Milton Jones, President of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union said it “cowers to powerful agricultural interests and leaves working families out to dry.” And Food & Water Watch’s Food Policy Director Rebecca Wolf calls the legislation “deeply flawed.”

Now, Wolf says, “Congress should use this opportunity to create a new Farm Bill that builds a resilient food system – not double-down on the same corporate model that created these problems in the first place.”

Microorganisms Offer Hope to Boost Sustainable Farming in Mexico

Researchers have identified microorganisms that show promise for improving crop productivity, restoring soils, and reducing dependence on artificial fertilizers and pesticides in Mexico. 

The findings come from a project led by the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), in partnership with Michoacan’s Agrosano program from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, the National Institute of Forestry, Agricultural and Livestock Research, and the Universidad Michoacana.

Scientists discovered native microorganisms in soils found in Michoacan and Oaxaca, as well as in marine environments, which can promote plant growth, improve nutrient availability, and offer protection against pests and diseases.

The research is focused primarily on small producers, who will be able to reproduce and apply biological inputs in their own fields. Participating farmers are already reporting gains in productivity even as they reduce the use of agricultural inputs and lower their production costs. 

COP31 Focuses on South-South Collaboration

Ahead of the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP31), Turkiye is pitching a new initiative to strengthen south-south cooperation. 

If established, the South-South and Triangular Cooperation Climate Initiative will focus on helping countries with practical solutions, expertise, technologies, and financing while supporting climate resilience and the implementation of their nationally determined contributions.

“COP31 presents a timely opportunity to demonstrate how South–South and triangular cooperation can drive climate implementation,” Dima Al-Khatib, Director of the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation, said during a recent policy dialogue in Ankara. 

The initiative is still a proposal, and decisions need to be made around funding and governance, but the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA) see it as an extension of work that’s already underway in Turkiye under the country’s Zero Waste Initiative. 

TİKA’s President Abdullah Eren says a practical roadmap can “transform ideas into concrete partnerships” and “deliver tangible outcomes for COP31.”

Extension Model Brings Solutions for Nigerian Farmers

Smallholder farmers in the northern and northeastern parts of Nigeria are increasingly exposed to climate shocks and violent conflict. To help, the Sasakawa Africa Association (SAA) is bringing them a solution that combines demonstration plots, community guides, post-harvest storage, and market connections to empower farmers and improve yields while building climate resilience. 

New research shows that in a single year, SAA’s Value Chain-Based Extension (VCBE) model reached 455,200 producers across Nigeria. Their demonstration plots introduce farmers to new agriculture techniques that build climate resilience and result in bigger harvests.

Targeted training, focused on developing community guides, helps to spread knowledge even further. These guides teach farmers about climate-smart practices that protect their land from degradation. SAA is also showing households how to use local crops to prepare healthy meals and introducing storage bags and containers that keep grains safe from pests and weather. 

CGIAR researchers say that these aren’t short term fixes. Instead SAA is “creating a lasting ripple effect that lifts entire communities.”

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 Dylan de Jonge, Unsplash

The post Food Tank’s Weekly News Roundup: Senate Farm Bill, Soil Microorganisms, and South-South Collaboration appeared first on Food Tank.

Stormy times at sea, as U.S. ships endure months-long, record-setting deployments for a war nobody wanted that still has no clear objective, reason for being or end in sight and their thousands of hapless burned-out sailors endure bad food, water, plumbing and morale so low some are leaping overboard, or trying to, to end it all. Blame oblivious messianic Nazi clown Kegseth and fellow zealots who lured the faithful and gullible in and then abandoned them - a sordid regime hallmark.

On land, of course, things aren't much better these days. In short inept order, Trump has trashed the economy, deporting or terrorizing away over a million brown-skinned workers for the latest dismal jobs report; ordered toxic, nonsensical changes to longtime vaccine policies based on debunked theories, what "some people say," and the fever dream of a lethal "vaccination thing" the size of a soda bottle poured into "a little child's body"; spent over $900 million of our money on vanity construction projects in D.C nobody authorized or asked for; and invested $20 million on gloves for already abusive ICE thugs to give painful electric shocks to "non-compliant" victims in "a recipe for harm to the public" and what could possibly go wrong.

Meanwhile, the Iran debacle lurches on. The Pentagon is frantically shifting money from equipment, training and missile defense funds to pay for it, oil reserves and munitions stockpiles have shrunk to record lows, our 122% debt-to-Gross-Domestic-Product ratio means U.S. debt is now greater than the value of everything we produce in a year, "including The Odyssey," and Pete Kegsbreath shrugs it off with an inane, "It takes money to kill bad guys." He's so desperate to get his obscene $1.5 trillion, $3.18 billion a day - the biggest defense budget increase since World War II - he hijacked a ceremony renaming Joint Base Charleston to Joint Base Lindsey Graham by urging Congress give it to him 'cause there'd be "no greater tribute" to the guy who never met a war he didn't like.

A partisan hack, he's failed at...everything. He sabotaged his own agenda by blowing off half the Senate, locking Dems out of classified briefings on defense spending in a move even GOPers decried. He kowtowed to Grifters 'R Us by appointing to a tech advisory body handling billions in defense contracts two bros with ties to Don Jr.'s venture capital gig, various wingnuts and others "here to raid the cupboards." Required to give Congress 2025 (pre-Iran) data on civilian harm after gutting programs to mitigate or even track it, he declared no civilian casualties in boat strikes that killed over 220 "narcoterrorists" and Yemen actions that killed hundreds more, in a report officials called "sickening," "a fucking joke," and "a total whitewash."

Wildly out of his Planet-Fox-depth, he "helped" craft a military, political and moral fiasco in Iran that has left an equally clueless Private Bonespurs reportedly on the brink of "giving up" on a war that's yielded no nuclear deal and left an ever-more powerful Iran in charge of the vital Hormuz Strait, planning to charge tolls, and demanding $300 billion in reconstruction funds. Heckuva job, or what Dan Rather calls "one of the most catastrophic failures by a president in American history." Plus, Iran hardliners are saying they won't negotiate with the U.S. again until the current moron is gone. And he's so scared he just snuck out of Turkey hiding in a catering truck, prompting a barrage of brutal memes and toons. Sure, Donnie, nobody's laughing at America anymore.

Still, because an all-time low number of young Americans are inexplicably showing interest in military service, Christofascist Pete has turned to Jesus for more bodies, arguing the war in Iran is actually "part of God’s divine plan." (Also, so are Coke bottles that read ""Jesus is Lord," or they did until the Muslims took over.) Queasily merging Trump's botched "excursion" with a messianic Christian battle to bring the return of Jesus Christ, Pentagon social media accounts are running multiple, melodramatic ads featuring "warfighters" doing gallant warfighting things alongside the message "SEND ME." Hastily cribbed from Isaiah 6:8, it's when God asks the prophet Isaiah, “Whom shall I send?” and Isaiah replies, “Here am I. Send me.”

In many Christian traditions, the passage means willingly accepting God’s call to serve as one sees fit. In evangelical culture, says one historian, it's often a standalone text" used to render that mission divine. What they skip: the following description of a judgment on cities "without inhabitant" and a land "utterly desolate," the devastation falling on "the nation doing the sending." Asked to clarify the message here, a Pentagon spokesperson demurred: "Nothing to offer you on this." Never mind the inevitable uproar if a Muslim cleric cited the Quran before killing 170 schoolgirls and threatening nuclear annihilation, or the fact "blatant Bible-thumping" implying a religious war confirms longtime Iranian agit-prop the U.S., aka "Great Satan," is waging war on Islam.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation was already “inundated” by calls from soldiers complaining about zealot commanders invoking the rhetoric of Christian Zionist messianism; one declared Trump "anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark His return to Earth." The calls, says MRFF president and veteran Mikey Weinstein, "have one damn thing in freaking common - the unrestricted euphoria of commanders (who see) Biblically-sanctioned war as an undeniable sign (of) Christian End Times." Now it's gotten worse: The messaging is more hysterical, and thousands of sailors, stuck on record-long deployments, are more desperate to escape what have become "their floating nightmares."

This week, reports surfaced of a growing but unknown number of sailors jumping overboard in apparent suicide attempts after months of isolation, rotten food, broken plumbing, no mail, a dubious mission and morale, writes Jonathan Larson, "lower than Trump’s approval ratings" thanks to the longest, most ill-planned deployment in history. "Deployments have been extended repeatedly under the command of Hegseth and Trump," he notes, "who, in their defense, are to running history’s largest military as a water buffalo is to knitting." Since Nov. 21, 2025, he adds, 5,000 sailors have been on the USS Abraham Lincoln ship, "supporting U.S. operations against Iran, whatever those might be at the moment for whatever reason we’re going with today."

He goes on, "Deployment, was supposed to end in May, much like the war was supposed to end in weeks. That can happen when you're fighting a war your commander in chief says isn’t a war, for reasons that shift like the tides, that he already won, and that made pretty much everything worse for the entire world." The USS Lincoln sailors have been at sea for almost nine months, including 250 record-setting days without touching land. There've been two stops: Guam where most had to stay aboard, and Oman where those allowed off had to stay inside a compound. Most deployments run 6 to 7 months, "roughly how long human beings can operate in a floating industrial city working (on) a flight deck actively trying to kill them before they start to come apart."

It's not the first ship stranded by "leaders" endlessly extending a deployment because they didn't bother planning to rotate in a relief ship like a real military. Earlier, the USS Gerald R. Ford spent 326 days at sea, Venezuela to iran, famously suffering plumbing breakdowns - once, 205 over four days - from sewage overwhelming pipes. In April, food complaints also began surfacing, with sailors or their relatives posting images of half-empty meal trays, gross slabs of gray "meat," and "meals" of two tortillas and a half-cup of rice. Hegseth, with time only for lethality, called them fake news. Others called bullshit: "Half a cup of rice and 2 tortillas on a $13 million warship while $600 million in gold trim goes up where the East Wing used to be. Tally the score, America."

On the Lincoln, sailors and families say conditions are akin to ICE detention: Broken toilets, contaminated drinking water, long periods without hot water for (moldy) showers, no fresh produce 'cause it can't survive the trip, no milk in months, some frozen meat that's still often rotten, basic supplies like soap and toothpaste running out, mail so disrupted care packages get lost in transit for months (if relatives can afford gas to go to the post office). Now come reports of at least six sailors, possibly more, going over the rail "just for relief." Parents say they worry their kids will "die on that ship," that they and their shipmates "think constantly about going over the side"; one woman's husband wrote he hopes "he doesn't wake up tomorrow."

Last week, after enough reports of friends pulling friends back from the edge the ship's loudspeaker began asking people to stop trying to jump, about 200 relatives organized two town halls in San Diego to ask Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao and other officials, Are you going to bring our people home before or after somebody dies? The meetings were tense and tearful. The wife of a sailor who jumped, and spent an hour in the water before being put on medical leave, said the Navy didn't tell her for four days: "It was handled very poorly - they’re just trying to cover this up." A woman whose husband, a 13-year veteran who tried to jump, said now he's scared he'll get a dishonorable discharge, ruining his career, from the people who put him there, and, "That is not fair."

A high school senior whose mom is there wondered if she'd be home for the year’s milestones; she said it’s been hard to connect the past few months and when they do, “She’s definitely down. It sucks.” A father whose son is aboard said he always sounds exhausted. “I don’t want to worry this deployment will get the best of my son," he said. “That would be an unbearable burden on my heart.” Many said it's getting harder to feel proud of the service of relatives afraid they're killing innocent civilians; the first person to admit that drew applause from the crowd. Asked about the meetings, Hegseth, who's crowed about "death and destruction from the sky all day long,” dismissed those and other concerns: "We make sure that every ship, every crew, every captain has everything we can provide them at every single moment."

Joining Cao at the town hall was Vice Admiral Joseph Cahill, who reportedly told relatives of the long-suffering sailors, “I cannot even tell you how proud we are of them." He also said counselors and chaplains were available to help meet their loved ones' "spiritual needs," though one observer noted Hegseth has largely replaced them with "Christofascist proselytizers and ravenous, bloodthirsty, unthinking, religious berserkers whose approach appeared to be controversial among people at (the) meeting currently married to some of Hegseth's aspirational berserkers." Families were told USS Theodore Roosevelt would soon relieve the Lincoln; new reports say USS George Washington will, but no of course the Pentagon isn't confused, why do you ask?

Sen. Richard Blumenthal wrote a letter to Hegseth and Cao expressing his "serious concerns" about conditions and demanding "a formal accounting," including answers to multiple questions, by August 27. He reflects a broad consensus the Pentagon is "burning through people like they’re disposable" as morale at sea is "cratering." "This is what the abuse of active-duty personnel looks like when it’s policy instead of scandal," writes Dean Blundell. "Mission planning is supposed to include the humans executing the mission. When your operational tempo requires denying reality in April, ignoring the warnings in July, and managing suicide attempts by loudspeaker in August, you don’t have a strategy. You have a slow-motion command failure."

Still Hegseth, who "treats every question about his conduct as an enemy operation," keeps pushing back on bad food and self-harm reports that have “completely misrepresented” things. His latest retort came during a manic, jittery Panama visit - "The Internet Wants Him to Take a Drug Test" - where he welcomed Colombia’s new right-wing president to a new "Counter-Cartel Coalition" that rebrands the drug economy as a terrorist enterprise. Its very statesman-like motto: "We do bad things to bad people." Now, he brags, he's "putting cartels on notice like ISIS" to "execute ruthlessly" blah blah and if you think boat strikes are war crimes just withdraw from the ICC, "the institutional equivalent of unscrewing the smoke detector because it keeps going off." What an asshole.

In a Friday speech in New York, meanwhile, Private Bonespurs blathered "after we finish defeating Iran, pretty soon I'll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States." (Iran disagreed.) He also said it's ok to be paying more for gas because "we're doing a great service to the world." Earlier, he randomly ordered the Navy to replace, for old time's sake, the electromagnetic systems carriers use to launch fighter jets with 50's-era steam-powered catapults he always liked,. Mark Kelly: He "should stick to ballrooms, bankruptcy, and bullshit.” Then he was asked if he agreed the burned-out sailors' deployment on the USS Lincoln was too long. "No, no, no," said Mr. Empathy. "Not nearly long enough." In response, many people reportedly flocked to him, saying 'thank you, sir,' with tears in their eyes. Then he went back to sticking gold gimcracks on "his" house.

Update: It seems sailors' families are some pissed at the "frustrating, false and careless" responses of Trump/Kegsbreath to legit concerns about the well-being of loved ones stuck in never-ending deployments on the Lincoln. No wonder, given each detail that emerges paints a bleaker picture. They describe "emaciated" sailors losing 20-30 pounds - "If they're losing weight, that means you're starving them" - undrinkable water, and such poor mental health support the one "deployment resilience counselor" quit months ago, a visiting Navy official told them "we can simply exercise our brains to make ourselves happy,” and the only psychiatrist has a five-week wait "unless you do like three of our shipmates and jump off the ship or take 27 sleeping pills." One sailor: "Keep praying for us." His mom: "My son signed up to serve his country. But why isn’t his country serving him?"

A large multicultural group of activists and organizers at the Solidarity Economy Assembly in Durham, NC in July 2026. Photo by Nica Guerrero.

Y’all. We don’t have to tell you that the organizing happening in the south is next level. That’s why Durham, North Carolina was a perfect place to gather for the Solidarity Economy Assembly for our Futures, hosted by the New Economy Coalition, of which MG is a proud member.

Panel featuring Anna Jeffries, Judge Beverly Scarlett, and Georie Bryant, moderated by Donnay Edmund, with sound bowls in the foreground. Photo by Nica Guerrero.

We had the honor to hear from the Black & Indigenous Solidarity Economies panel including Anna Jeffries of Handèwa Farms and the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, Judge Beverly Scarlett of Indigenous Memories, and Georie Bryant of the Symbodied marketplace. They challenged us to explore our relationships to land, to honor our ancestors, and imagine what polyrhythmic solidarity (different rhythms coming together to create one song) can look like in our movements.

People moving their bodies during a theatrical exercise at the Solidarity Economy Assembly.

Some of our Creative Wildfire team facilitated “Rehearsing the Next World,” a performance jam session weaving together speculative fiction, theater of the liberated/oppressed, improvisation, political performance, and other body-based tools for collective narrative creation.

We also participated in other member-led sessions, including “From Shock to Climate Survival,” led by Climate Mobilization Project. Grounded in learnings from CMP’s own work to resource and develop climate survival hubs (such as community farms, solar projects, mesh networks, cooperative housing on BIPOC-owned land, water resilience systems, and mutual aid networks), we explored concrete economic openings for solidarity economy development and what our initiatives need in order to become scalable engines of grassroots economic change.

A Black femme walking between trees towards a white house with a brick chimney at Historic Stagville. Photo by Nica Guerrero.

We visited Historic Stagville, where Georie Bryant offered reflections on land, its histories, and how that connects to labor struggles. We also spent time with Judge Beverly Scarlett on a native plant walk. And we turned up with organizers from the Union of Southern Service Workers, who are doing exactly what their name suggests—organizing the south, primarily low-wage service workers who need an organizing home.

Alexis Pauline Gumbs on stage speaking to a crowd at the Solidarity Economy Assembly in Durham, NC.

On assembly day, Black feminist scholar, poet, author, and activist Alexis Pauline Gumbs offered a powerful grounding that reconnected us to our collective spirit and the deeper reasons we gather. We then convened  in regional groups to reflect on shared needs, possibilities, and the tools needed to strengthen our polyrythmic movements. Across the west coast and Pacific Northwest, aka Salmon Nation, we identified our needs and desires for more regular land-based gatherings across our broad bioregion, as well as coordinated resource mobilization.

We left the Solidarity Economy Assembly so nourished, inspired, and fired up! Huge thanks to our friends and partners at the New Economy Coalition, and all the member organizations and allies who made the gathering so generative, soulful, and fun!

The sun sets on the now-empty cobblestone streets of Erfurt. Just hours earlier, roughly 17,000 activists from across Germany had converged on the eastern German city in one of the country’s largest antifascist mobilizations in decades (“Widersetzen,” literally “to resist”). They failed. Despite mass blockades, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) still held its party congress.

The critique is a familiar one: thousands descend on a city, disrupt business as usual for a day, then head home while the far right carries on. If the blockade failed, what was the point? For revolutionaries, the answer lies in a different question, however: Once the buses leave, what remains?

In Erfurt, quite a lot. Just months before the congress, the city had almost no organized antifascist activity. By the eve of the blockade, hundreds of local residents had passed through action trainings, more than 800 attended a citywide organizing assembly, and over 3,000 Erfurters joined the blockades. One resident remarked that it “felt like 1989 again.”

To understand how this transformation took place, I spoke with two organizers who relocated to Erfurt months before the congress. Their story is about how this city became the backbone of one of Germany’s largest acts of civil disobedience—and the kind of power that is built long before the blockades.

Aaron: Can you introduce yourselves? What kind of organizing were you involved in before Erfurt, and what led you to make the decision to move there?

Carlu: I’m organized in Marx21, a revolutionary socialist organization in Germany. I started organizing when I was 18 in the climate movement with Fridays for Future, then went into Wir fahren zusammen (“We ride together”—an alliance between climate activists and bus drivers), where I really started organizing and talking to people. In 2024 I switched to SGR (SGR, “Students Against the Far Right”) in Freiburg because of the resistance protests against the AfD party congresses.

I organized mobilizations from Freiburg for Essen, Riesa, and Gießen (the previous sites of AFD congresses). At some point I thought, I can do it another time, and maybe 100 or 200 more people will come from Freiburg—but it doesn’t make a huge difference if the city where the congress is taking place isn’t part of the protest.

So Charlie and I decided we had to move there. We had to organize the city itself. Looking back at Gießen (the previous direct action), there was no store open, nobody from the town was really involved. Twenty thousand people came from all over Germany, blocked the party congress for one day, then went back home. We thought we had to do it differently. To win local people over and organize them, we had to move there beforehand.

Charlie: I’m also organized in Marx21, a revolutionary socialist organization in Germany. I started organizing at 18 in the climate movement, first with Ende Gelände (Here and No Further), then End Fossil Occupy (both direct action climate justice groups), later the Kurdish movement, Wir fahren zusammen, and finally SGR around the first AfD party congress in Essen. Since then I’ve organized students at Freie Universität Berlin to travel to the AfD blockades.

After Gießen, a good friend who had gone earlier to organize came back totally frustrated. The local movement didn’t seem to want to blockade the AfD party congress, and he was basically alone. We realized we needed to change things. We had to go earlier and build a real structure that would last longer than a few days.

Aaron: What did you find when you arrived? What organizing already existed, what was the political atmosphere like, and where did you see opportunities or challenges?

Charlie: There was no real structure. There were youth organizations from the conservative CDU (RCDS), the center-left SPD (Jusos), and The Left (Linksjugend [‘solid]), but none of them were really active. There was also an open antifascist meeting once a month, but it didn’t really want to be part of Widersetzen.

There were a few people who had organized Widersetzen the last time, and coalitions like Zusammenstehen, Weltoffenes Thüringen, and Auf die Plätze—broad local alliances against the far right, but none of them were really mobilizing for July 4. When we arrived, maybe five or ten people were organizing.

We also met with a Left Party (Die Linke) politician who told us, “Erfurt is out-mobilized. There’s no chance.”

Carlu: I think they thought, “Okay, we’ll build a little infrastructure so people can come from all over Germany and make the protest happen.” But nobody really thought it was possible to organize people from Erfurt into the civil disobedience.

Aaron: Walk us through those first weeks. Where did you begin, and what were your priorities?

Carlu: The first thing we did was the organizing seminar at the end of March—a weekend training on how to build organizing committees, develop new leaders, and practice one-on-one organizing conversations. We managed to mobilize four or five people from Erfurt. There were about 80 people there from all over Germany, but only a handful from Erfurt. After the seminar, we thought we would go home and come back ten days later. Instead, we stayed. We had so many one-to-one meetings and group meetings to plan that we realized we couldn’t leave.

A few days later we mapped the entire university and the city—all the cafés, bars, restaurants, lecture halls, professors. We mapped everything we could. That was really the starting point.

The next step was an action week at the university. More than one hundred people from all over Germany came to help organize the campus.

Aaron: When did you realize the campaign was really taking off? What do you think made the difference?

Charlie: During the action week we spent three days talking to students across campus. For the first time, local students started thinking, “Oh my fucking God—we can actually win people. We can actually organize this campus.” By the end of the week, there was hardly anyone left who hadn’t heard about the SGR.

Eventually came our first public SGR meeting. We expected to get a room at the university, but the administration refused us any space. So we had two days to organize an open-air meeting with a stage, music, and speeches. More than 600 people came.

The most important thing was that the students organized almost all of it themselves. We helped with moderation and speeches, but every part of the meeting was organized by the students.

A week later we held the first public Widersetzen meeting in the city. We had spent days knocking on doors and talking to people, but we still weren’t sure anyone would come. Within minutes the room was full. More than 400 people showed up. That’s when we knew it was possible to organize the city, too.

Aaron: Once you knew it was possible to organize the city, how did you build the campaign from there?

Charlie: After the first Studis gegen Rechts and Widersetzen meetings, we split the campaign into two. At first we thought, “This is crazy.” We’d only just arrived in Erfurt, and now we were trying to run two campaigns instead of one.

One focused on the university, organizing students through their departments. The other focused on the city. We divided Erfurt into eight neighborhoods and had delegates responsible for each one. At every meeting, there were about 15 to 20 minutes of campaign-wide updates, then people split into neighborhood groups for about 45 minutes to organize locally. Over the months, people organized neighborhood festivals and built their own community groups.

That made a huge difference because it wasn’t always the same five people standing on a stage. As more people stepped into organizing roles, almost everyone knew someone helping lead the campaign—they were their neighbors.

Aaron: As July 4 approached, how did the campaign build toward the blockade?

Charlie: May was kind of a low phase. We spent those weeks trying out different ways of organizing the university and the city. The door-knocking campaign worked. The neighborhood organizing worked. The seminar outreach worked. We were constantly testing things, seeing what people responded to, and building on what worked.

Then came Science Against Fascism week. Students organized more than 70 seminars, going from class to class to persuade lecturers to turn their courses into part of a campus-wide week on fascism and anti-fascism. During the same week, we held the student assembly and, soon after, the city assembly. Those were our first real structure tests.

Then, in the last week before July 4, another hundred people came from across Germany to help organize. We talked to the whole city again. We talked to the whole university again. In the end there were around 3,000 people from Erfurt on the streets.

But actually, my favorite moment of the whole campaign wasn’t July 4. It was the night before.

As more people stepped into organizing roles, almost everyone knew someone helping lead the campaign—they were their neighbors.

We held the final action meeting in a church. People came in six different time slots of about 250 people each to get the information about where to meet the next morning. That was insane. It wasn’t just students anymore. It was the whole city coming to this church.

There was a real focus on the churches throughout the campaign. We held action trainings in churches, meetings in churches, and our plenaries in churches. It changed how people saw Widersetzen. Our strategy was “Erfurt lädt ein”—Erfurt invites you. It wasn’t radicals coming to Erfurt. It was Erfurt inviting people to come.

My parents never would have come to a Widersetzen protest before because they were scared. But they came now because they saw what was happening in Erfurt. It wasn’t just leftists running through the streets. The whole city was there—old people, young people, everyone.

Carlu: One especially memorable moment for me was at the final action meeting. We asked everyone if they were ready to stop the AfD party congress and the whole room stood up.

Really, throughout the campaign we didn’t just ask people what they thought about the AfD party congress. We asked, “What are you afraid of? What do you want to do against it?” Then we invited them to do something. No one had ever asked people in Erfurt that before.

Charlie: Another thing was that we always framed this vision. We told people that on the morning of July 4 they would look out their window and see the neighbor they’d never spoken to putting on a Widersetzen vest. They would put on their own vest, leave home at the same time, and the whole city would begin walking together toward the meeting point.

A friend told us afterwards that’s exactly what happened. She woke up around four in the morning, looked out her window, and saw her neighbor putting on his vest. They’d never spoken before. A few minutes later they left their homes for the blockade. It was the thing we had been telling people throughout the campaign. Then, on the morning of July 4, it was actually true.

One older person told us it felt like 1989 again. The last time they’d felt that sense that something was moving—that history was happening around them—was before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Hearing that was really incredible.

Aaron: You didn’t stop the AfD congress. For many people, that’s where the story ends. But after everything we’ve talked about, that seems like a very narrow way of measuring what happened. What do you think remains in Erfurt now, and what comes next?

Charlie: Of course, in the end we didn’t stop the party congress from happening. We always told people, “We need you because together we can stop this.” But what we achieved was that there wasn’t a single road into the congress that was open. We were so many people that it was impossible to get through the civil disobedience. That was a crazy win.

Of course, we can never trust the state in the fight against fascism. In the end they’ll always find a way around us. It was the SPD Interior Minister marching in the front row of the anti-fascist demonstration while secretly planning with the police to shuttle AfD delegates into the city between 1 and 3 a.m. During the day they marched with us; at night they protected the fascists. That really showed people you can’t trust the state in the fight against fascism—it radicalized people. Even my mom was like, “What the fuck just happened?”

Now it’s their responsibility to … decide what comes next. If they don’t do it themselves, they’ll never really own it.

It’s a win that we made it so the fascists only felt safe between 1 and 3 a.m. They couldn’t move through the city during the day because society was so clearly against them. We didn’t stop them—the state did everything it could to get them in—but we won Erfurt.

And that’s what remains. We built structures and helped people discover their own ability to organize. We had a meeting yesterday (July 8) to look back on the campaign and think about what comes next. People were saying things like, “We have to look at this strategically,” and I was thinking, you weren’t saying that four months ago. They learned so much. They made such big steps. They know themselves what is best for the movement now.

I don’t know exactly what comes next in Erfurt—we still have to talk with the people here. In the end, it’s not our decision. We came here to help start a movement and build structures. Now it’s their responsibility to build the group and decide what comes next. If they don’t do it themselves, they’ll never really own it. They know how to organize now, and they can do it in their own way. We’re trying to put as little pressure on them as possible, because it’s important that they decide what is best for the movement. I really trust them.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Steffen Prößdorf; modified by Tempest.

The post Building an anti-fascist city appeared first on Tempest.

A group of people sitting at tables in a gymnasium watching a speaker in front of a stage.

On July 15th, MG hosted the second of our newly re-started Community Dinners, this time in East Oakland.

Several dozen MG homies came out to Roots Community Health at the Parker Elementary School campus to savor some phenomenal potluck dishes — from Thai green curry and fresh-from-the-garden summer salads to mint basil lemonade and a vegan cheese charcuterie board. 

While we enjoyed the feast and the kids played nearby, MG’s Quinton Sankofa shared with us how teachers, parents, students, and community members occupied Parker Elementary when it was slated for closure by OUSD, and saved it as a community resource. Quinton also shared more about the powerful work being done in East Oakland by the Brotherhood of Elders Network and their partners on the 40×40 council to move resources to Black communities to meet their own needs in the face of increased public and private disinvestment. 

Inspired by plant starts offered by our friends at the Gil Tract Community farm at our first community dinner, we began what we hope will be a regular practice of bringing seeds to the dinner to share with each other. MG’s Gopal Dayaneni shared Yakteen (heirloom Palestinian gourd) Kousa  (Palestinian summer squash) seeds from Palestine.

We’re aiming to host the dinners at a range of accessible spots across the Bay. If you have a spot to offer, please let us know!

Construction of the SunZia Wind and Transmission Project is now complete, and the project's 550-mile transmission line is delivering renewable energy generated by 914 wind turbines from New Mexico to...

After a five-year long legal battle, the Constitutional Court of South Africa has blocked Shell and local partner Impact Africa’s permit to explore for oil and gas off the country’s East Coast, in a landmark victory for local communities and civil society.

“Today’s judgment makes me feel very happy and proud that the ocean is not for profit for mining companies,” said East Coast resident and environmental campaigner Siyabonga Ndovela. 

The verdict culminates a years-long process in which non-profits Sustaining the Wild Coast, Natural Justice, Greenpeace Africa, and others took legal action against Shell, Impact Africa and the South African government for failing to consult affected communities – a legal requirement in the country.

The Constitutional Court ruled that Shell and Impact Africa had not complied with resource governance law, had failed to meaningfully conduct public consultation and had failed to consider the impact on climate change, cultural rights, livelihoods and ecological harm. 

The ruling references last year’s landmark advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which states that countries have a legal duty to prevent and repair damage to the climate system. The South African judges argued climate change “transcends borders” and that states’ obligations “must be understood within the broader framework of international law.”

“This case must also be understood against the backdrop of well-documented struggles by coastal communities to protect their land, marine resources and ways of life in the face of extractive activities that they believe threaten their very existence,” wrote Justice Narandran Kollapen.     

Protesters march to the Constitutional Court in 2025 (Photo: Ihsaan Haffejee/GroundUp)

The Constitutional Court found that the exploration right had been unlawfully granted by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources.The ruling upholds a 2022 regional court decision against Shell and overturns a 2024 appeal that allowed the company to conduct fresh public consultations under the original exploration right. Today’s decision means the right, initially granted in 2014, must be set aside.

Celebrating the decision, Sherelee Odyar, oil and gas campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, told Climate Home News that the court confirmed “serious failures” in the awarding of exploration rights to Shell and Impact Africa, which “can not simply be corrected later”.

The Wild Coast is a biodiversity hotspot which has been conserved over generations by coastal communities who rely on the ocean and land. “Our land and sea are central to our livelihoods and our way of life. Over generations we have conserved them, and they have conserved us,” reads the founding statement in the case. 

A Shell spokesperson said it noted the ruling, responding that “we are committed to responsible offshore exploration, meaningful stakeholder engagement and environmental stewardship.”

The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication.

“Renewed strength” for communities

The ruling adds to a series of legal challenges brought by civil society groups against oil companies and the government as South Africa has expanded oil and gas development since 2014 under Operation Phakisa, a plan aimed at “unlocking the economic potential of the oceans”.

On the West Coast, Walter Steenkamp, Chair of Aukotowa Fisheries Cooperative, which is involved in a separate ongoing legal action against TotalEnergies, said that “today’s court case gave me renewed strength.”

The case could also set a precedent for future oil developments, said Alessandro Mazzi, legal governance researcher at the University of Wageningen. He added that the verdict “sends a strong signal to investors that where projects affect people’s land, livelihoods and environment, meaningful consultation and genuine ecological assessment are an integral part of responsible investment”.

Janet Solomon, coordinator of advocacy group Oceans not Oil, said that the Court’s emphasis on democratic participation, culture, livelihoods and the health of future generations in handing down the verdict signals a shift in jurisprudence on environmental governance, saying that this focus “may prove to be the judgment’s most enduring legacy.”

The post South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right appeared first on Climate Home News.

From 4 to 8 August 2026, La Via Campesina was present in Cotonou, Benin, responding to the mobilisation of its members and allies in Africa and joining the activities surrounding the arrival of the West African Caravan.

The post Building Peasant Internationalism: La Via Campesina in Cotonou appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

August 14, 2026

Mining Claims Filed Immediately After Trump Decimates National Monuments in Utah – 8.14.26  Attempts to file mining claims in Bear Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments shows industry clamoring to exploit landscapes

Contacts:
Grant Stevens, Communications Director, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA); (319) 427-0260; grant@suwa.org
Autumn Gillard, Coordinator, Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal Coalition; (928) 614-2600; autumnavielle@gmail.com
Perry Wheeler, Earthjustice, pwheeler@earthjustice.org, (202) 792-6211
Keri Gilliland, The Wilderness Society, (KGilliland@tws.org)
Chaitna Sinha, Conservation Codirector and Staff Attorney, Grand Canyon Trust; (970) 399-9565 (csinha@grandcanyontrust.org)
Amy Dominguez, Sierra Club, amy.dominguez@sierraclub.org, (385) 355-4631
Kris Deutschman, Conservation Lands Foundation, kris@conservationlands.org, (505) 498-0212
Andrew Scibetta, NRDC, (202) 289-2421, ascibetta@nrdc.org
Daniel Hernandez, National Parks Conservation Association, dhernandez@npca.org, (202) 573-2201

SOUTHERN UTAH – Within one day of President Trump illegally reducing Bears Ears National Monument by over 90%, a company staked multiple mining claims in areas cut out of the monument. On July 14, 2026, Kimmerle Mining filed 7 mining claims (see map) with the San Juan County (Utah) Recorder’s Office. Kimmerle Mining previously filed mining claims after Trump’s 2017 reduction of Bears Ears and excavated a partially reclaimed mine shaft on one of the claims – the so-called Easy Peasy claim (this mine has been re-buried); Kyle Kimmerle (a Managing Member of Kimmerle Mining) was also a plaintiff in one of the cases filed in the District of Utah challenging President Biden’s 2021 restoration of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments.  

Two mining claims were also recently filed in Grand Staircase-Escalante, less than one month after Trump’s attack. On August 6, 2026, Craig Rosequist filed two mining claims (see map) with the Kane County (Utah) Recorder’s Office in areas cut out of the monument by the Trump proclamations. According to public records, Rosequist previously located several mining claims in neighboring Washington County, Utah.

Under President Trump’s proclamations decimating Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, mining claims cannot be staked until 60 days after the date of the proclamation, which will be Friday, Sept. 11: “Appropriation of lands under the mining laws before the date and time of restoration is unauthorized.  Any such attempted appropriation, including attempted adverse possession under 30 U.S.C. 38, shall vest no rights against the United States.” In light of this prohibition and the illegality of the Trump proclamations, the Bureau of Land Management should reject these recently filed claims in both national monuments. Below are quotes from Tribal leaders, conservation groups, and additional information. 

“When we talk about Grand Staircase-Escalante, we are not simply talking about public land or a national monument. We are talking about our homelands — living landscapes with personhood and spirit,” said Autumn Gillard, Southern Paiute and Coordinator of the Grand Staircase Inter-Tribal Coalition. “New mining on lands unlawfully cut from the monument threatens not just the land’s natural beauty, plants, and animals, but our sacred places, our culture, and our history. We are all stewards of these lands, and it is our duty to protect them for all our future generations, yours and mine.” 

“This rush to locate new mining claims in Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments – even though premature and unlawful – reinforces the need to be vigilant over the next several years while we work to undo Trump’s illegal actions and restore the monuments.“said Hanna Larsen, Staff Attorney at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). “Mining claims like these often lead to real and long-lasting damage to the very qualities that make these monuments so special.”

“The rush to stake mining claims in Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante has already begun, nearly a month before new mining claims would be allowed even under the illegal Trump proclamations,” said Axie Navas, director of designation campaigns at The Wilderness Society. “It’s hard to imagine a clearer sign of where this administration wants to take our public lands. National monuments belong to all of us. They represent our freedom to experience some of the most extraordinary landscapes in the country. We owe it to future generations to protect them — not sacrifice them for the short-term profit of special interests.”

“Mining claims on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument puts crucial water resources at risk. The Monument protects over 2,510 river miles that could be negatively impacted by mining waste if claims are approved in haste. These rivers flow into Lake Powell and the Grand Canyon, which are visited by millions of people.” said Dr. Jackie Grant, Executive Director of the Grand Staircase-Escalante Partners. “If these mining claims are not being legally filed, what other illegal actions should we be worried about?”

“These illegal mining claims are proof that the Trump administration’s proclamations, if allowed to stand, would be devastating for public lands that are cherished by people across the country,” said Thomas Delehanty, senior attorney with Earthjustice’s Rocky Mountain Office. “President Trump’s proclamations were themselves illegal, and forthcoming litigation will seek to avoid this exact outcome. Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, incredibly significant to Indigenous communities and beloved by recreationists for their one-of-a-kind features, deserve better than to be sacrificed to industrial extraction.”

“The speed with which the mining industry moved to stake claims following the dismantling of the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments demonstrates the real-world consequences of stripping protections from one of America’s most important landscapes,” said Bobby McEnaney, Director of Land Conservation at NRDC. “This sequence of events underscores exactly why Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante were originally established and why these landscapes deserve lasting protection. These future mining claims amount to a virtual giveaway of public lands.”

“While it’s clear these Kimmerle Mining claims were illegally staked before the ink was dry on Trump’s proclamation stripping national monument protections from these areas, it’s important to recognize that any future mining claims in the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante cultural landscapes are unacceptable,” said Chaitna Sinha, Conservation Codirector and Staff Attorney with the Grand Canyon Trust. “The cultural values here are irreplaceable; this is simply the wrong place for destructive new mining.” 

“The mining claims we’re seeing submitted in Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante on the heels of their illegal reduction goes to show that the Trump Administration intends to turn the public lands we love into sacrifice zones for privatization and exploitation,” said Franque Bains, Chapter Director of the Sierra Club in Utah. “We are prepared to fight to ensure that national monuments and public lands don’t become pawns in a scheme to turn a profit for corporate interests.” 

“It’s clear this administration will cut every corner and violate laws and guardrails to accelerate the destruction of America’s natural treasures,” Chris Hill, CEO of the Conservation Lands Foundation. “The ideologues driving this anti-public lands agenda are willfully ignoring the millions of Americans who stood up to protect Bears Ears and Grand Staircase national monuments and the overwhelming majority of Americans who support protecting MORE public lands. They forget they are accountable to everyone who values these natural places and is determined to expose their corruption.”  

“Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante were established to protect over a hundred thousand ancestral sites and are among the most beloved public lands in Utah. Mere weeks after their downsizing, we are seeing the very first mining claims being staked among their cultural and natural treasures, enabled by an outdated mining law from 1872,” said Sara Cawley, Energy Director at the National Parks Conservation Association. “It’s clear the arguments about access were always about access for mining companies. This puts the connectivity and health of dozens of national parks, monuments and protected wildlife corridors all the way to the Mojave Desert at risk, a precursor for what we can expect on other public lands under this administration unless more permanent protections are enacted to safeguard our special places.”

Background Information on Mining claims: 

• Map of 2026 claims in Bear Ears, showing the 2021 and 2026 Monument Boundaries and noting the location of the Easy Peasy Mine, created by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA)
• Map of 2026 Claims in Grand Staircase-Escalante, created by SUWA
• Photo and video assets of Kimmerle’s Easy Peasy Mine and surrounding claims, please credit Tim Peterson.
  • Gallery & Gdrive 
  • Video b-roll

Background information about the national monument reductions:

• Statements from Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal coalitions
• SUWA Statement on Trump’s Illegal Reductions of Grand Staircase-Escalante & Bears Ears National Monuments
• Full Statement and Quotes Tracking
• Maps of the reductions
• Reporter Background Memo on National Monuments

###

The Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal Coalition, which includes the Hopi Tribe, the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, the Navajo Nation, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Zuni Tribe, advocates for Grand-Staircase-Escalante National Monument, for Tribal voices and perspectives to be heard and included in the management of the monument, and for protecting the monument for all Americans to appreciate and enjoy. Learn more at www.grandstaircasecoalition.org 

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) is a nonprofit organization with members and supporters from around the country dedicated to protecting America’s redrock wilderness. From offices in Moab, Salt Lake City, and Washington, DC, our team of professionals defends the redrock, organizes support for America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, and stewards a world-renowned landscape. Learn more at www.suwa.org.

The Grand Canyon Trust is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to safeguard the wonders of the Grand Canyon and the Colorado Plateau, while supporting the rights of its Native peoples. Learn more at www.grandcanyontrust.org

 

 

The post Mining Claims Filed Immediately After Trump Decimates National Monuments in Utah – 8.14.26 appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) — North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson is disputing Duke Energy’s description of a proposed electricity rate increase, arguing that the company misrepresented under oath how much residential customers would pay under a recent settlement agreement.

The disagreement comes as Duke Energy seeks approval for a settlement that would raise rates by 6.8% over the next two years. The proposal would affect customers across the Triangle and other parts of the state.

…

Climate advocacy group NC WARN also raised concerns about the proposal.

“You know, last year, Duke reported a record $5 billion in profits, while many North Carolinians are really struggling to pay for their electric bills,” said Sara Heilman of NC WARN.

Jackson argues that residential customers would see a 9.3% increase rather than the 6.8% increase referenced by Duke Energy. Heilman said that level of increase remains unacceptable.

“But really, from our perspective, 9.3% is still too high of an increase for residential customers, especially when those increases in the bills that we’re paying are really going towards building unnecessary power plants, fueling these massive power-guzzling data centers that communities are not asking for and really not serving the interests of the average North Carolinian,” Heilman said.

Continue reading

The post NC attorney general challenges Duke Energy rate hike figure: ‘Details matter’ — ABC11 appeared first on NC WARN.

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

As exciting events continue in Philadelphia, learn how you can get around to major summer 2026 events without a car, or being stuck in traffic with GoPhillyGo: Car-Free Routes Map!

Register now to join Transit for All PA! for a statewide call on Wednesday, August 19th from 6-7 PM. Join to discuss how transit riders and transit advocates can win funding for transit in 2027. Register here! 

Transit 4 All PA is hiring fellows, with two paid positions in Luzerne and Lackawanna Counties: to support transit advocates in building local demand for transit. If you live in Luzerne or Lackawanna County, and you ride transit, apply TODAY. Application closes on September 2, 2026. Learn more here. 

Image Source: SEPTA

Metro Philadelphia: SEPTA’s 11th Street Station closing for major accessibility upgrades – Beginning early September, the Market-Frankford Line will be skipping 11th Street for around a year. The station will be closed though the end of August of 2027, according to SEPTA. Plans include building two elevators, improving lighting, and structural repairs, making the station fully ADA compliant as part of a $44 million project. Other than 11th Street, the 34th Street and Spring Garden stations are the only remaining inaccessible, with future plans to construct elevators at both.  

Image Source: WHYY

WHYY: SEPTA celebrates new Navy Yard bus service in the rapidly changing Philadelphia neighborhood – The Route 45 bus travels from Center City to the Navy Yard, simplifying a route that many commuters and riders previously relied on a shuttle bus transfer for. This change is part of the New Bus Network, which began in phase 1 this month. The planned goal is to consolidate routes and adjust service for riders. 

Image Source: Northeast Times

Northeast Times: Self-driving SEPTA buses unlikely soon, but a state bill aims to prepare – State Representative Ben Waxman, representing House District 182, which includes parts of Center City and South Philadelphia, has introduced a bill that bares completely autonomous transit vehicles. The bill would require transit vehicles weighing over 10,000 pounds and using an automated driving system to have a licensed driver on board. SEPTA has announced no plans to introduce autonomous buses, but Representative Waxman said he discussed the proposal with SEPTA officials. 

Other Stories

WHYY: Commission approves at least $300 million in funding to expand bike and walking trails in Philly area 

The Inquirer: Self-policing loading zones have worked in Center City, the PPA says, so they’re adding more 

Northeast Times: Bridge Street ramp to I-95 closing permanently this month 

PhillyVoice: Walnut Street will go car-free for seven Sundays this fall 

Philadelphia Today: PennDOT Launching $2 Million Repair Project on Historic University Avenue Bridge 

CBS Pittsburgh: Tolls on the Pennsylvania Turnpike will increase in 2027. Here’s how much more drivers will pay. 

“The load profile is different from anything utilities have planned for before,” said Aparna Prabhakar, chief strategy and sustainability officer, energy management, for Schneider Electric.

Power now accounts for as much as 40% of the company’s revenue, CEO Alexandre L’Heureux said during a second-quarter earnings call.

On August 11, a quorum of the Questa City Council, minus the absent Mayor John Ortego, called for a special meeting within 72 hours to address Kit Carson Electric Cooperative’s proposed hydrogen plant and solar array. Mayor Ortega, an employee of KCEC, has been accused of approving the hydrogen project, and the funding to support it, without oversight or approval of the City Council. Council members had been trying for months to get the project on the agenda and to meet with KCEC without support from the mayor.

Work on the project has been ongoing despite the fact that the Council doesn’t know if a proper County work permit has been issued and has never seen the United States Department of Agriculture’s application that supports the project (a FOIA request for all pertinent USDA information has been submitted). The Council never approved the $20 million that funds the solar array, where work has also begun. At one point Councilor Daryl Ortega, after questioning how the Questa city attorneys had failed to ascertain if KCEC had obtained a permit for the project, announced in frustration: “Without a permit this project needs to be shut down!” The crowd erupted in applause.

When the meeting was opened for public comment, Honorio Justin Rael, the law school student and Questa native who wrote the complaint filed by Questa acequias against the USDA’s approval of the hydrogen project, had this to say:

[T]onight I want to talk about some internal controls based on my 11,000-page IPRA [Inspection of Public Records]. So I reviewed the entire thing, and one thing has become crystal clear to me about the Village of Questa.

The people who make decisions for this town do not sit on that board. It is the Questa Economic Development Fund. The Questa Economic Development Fund is an independent Chevron-funded nonprofit partner, but they are not an elected governing body.

Yet their agendas are probably four times the size of any agenda I’ve seen from this village. And you know how we’ve never gotten any updates on what’s going on with this project? Well, they get monthly detailed updates from the mayor. Last year, they made teams to complete the zoning ordinance that allowed this project to move forward without a project-specific vote.

They made a team to develop a communication strategy concerning the project using the Questa del Rio News. And they’ve discussed ways that village meetings can be controlled to limit public backlash. The point being that an advisory board has been formulating zoning, public communications, lobbying grants, major financing strategies, and the public access to its own government with basically zero input from the village council.

The $20 million grant makes this problem concrete. Now, I’ve never heard of this, but on February 1st, the mayor submitted an ECAM [Energy Conservation and Management] grant on behalf of the Village of Questa. He requested approximately $35.2 million. And the application stated that the public funding would be used exclusively for infrastructure owned by KCEC. Then the people funding the grant, ENMRD, notified the mayor that Questa had received a reduced partial $20 million award. Kit Carson then told the mayor, quote, seems you only have to approve that you accept this partial $20 million and then we are good to go. All the other steps are the standard contracting that we can work through.

Kit Carson treated the acceptance of a $20 million grant as something that the mayor could approve alone, after which Kit Carson would handle the rest. Was there a resolution approving this application or accepting the award? No.

Now, who will own the infrastructure? Nobody knows. Who is responsible for compliance, repayment, or a potential claw-back? I’m asking you to put some guardrails on the Questa Economic Development Fund. Make it clear to them that they can advise and assist, but they may not represent the village, formulate final policy, or commit village resources without council authority.

La Jicarita will let readers know when the Questa City Council special meeting will be held once it’s determined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Print article Share

China has published a new five-year plan for coal, the latest in a slew of important policy documents for the country’s energy transition.

The 15th five-year plan for the development of the coal industry was published by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the National Energy Administration (NEA) on 10 August, covering the period 2026-2030. 

This is a key period, covering the years building up to China’s pledge to peak its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions “before 2030”.

Government-affiliated organisations had previously mooted the possibility of coal consumption peaking before 2027.

However, the new plan does not set a specific, government-endorsed year for peaking coal consumption, instead including a broader goal to peak use of the fuel in this five-year period.

It also discusses the “green and low-carbon transition” of the coal industry, coal-related methane emissions and the “clean and efficient use” of the fuel.

But, in general, the plan emphasises the importance of coal in China’s energy system and focuses on the systems underpinning its production.

Analysts tell Carbon Brief that the plan confirms a “broader trend” – driven by the conflict in the Middle East – in which coal’s role in China as a “cheap and secure” source of energy is reinforced – instead of plotting a phase-down or transition for the industry. 

Nevertheless, as the deadline for peaking CO2 emissions looms, the plan does warn the sector of the need to diversify into other industries – including clean energy and chemicals – as coal consumption peaks.

Below, Carbon Brief looks closer at what the plan means for China’s use of coal over the next five years and how it relates to wider climate targets.

• What does the plan say about peaking coal?
• What does the plan say about China’s coal production?
• What does the plan say about coal’s greenhouse gas emissions?
• How does the plan tell coal companies to evolve?

Article Contents Expand menu

• What does the plan say about peaking coal?
• What does the plan say about China’s coal production?
• What does the plan say about coal’s greenhouse gas emissions?
• How does the plan tell coal companies to evolve?

What does the plan say about peaking coal?

Five-year plans are a key tool in Chinese governance, used to guide economic and social development across the economy.

The plan for coal is the latest topic-specific document to address climate and energy matters within the 15th five-year plan period of 2026-30. It is subordinate to the overarching 15th five-year plan, which covers China’s broad socio-economic strategy. 

Other topic-specific plans for the period cover climate change, developing a “new-type energy system” and renewable energy, among other topics.

The coal plan opens by stating that coal is a “foundational [source of] energy” for China:

“[Coal is] vital to the national economy, people’s livelihoods and national energy security, and plays a crucial role in providing foundational support and systemic regulation within the energy supply system.”

However, the plan also covers the 15th five-year plan period (2026-2030), the final five-year period before China is expected to have peaked its carbon emissions.

The 15th five-year plan period marks a time of “significant transformation” for the coal industry, the plan says.

Policy documents issued in April 2026 called for the “strict control” of fossil fuels and created a framework for local governments to be graded on coal use in their region. 

Coal has traditionally been the largest source of energy in China and is responsible for around 80% of its emissions. 

But its role is gradually being superseded by non-fossil energy, which accounted for more than half of the country’s power mix in 2025. In the first half of 2026, coal supplied less than 50% of power generation, while its share of total energy consumption fell to 51.4%, as shown below.

The five-year plan for coal signals “continuity” of China’s aim of “safeguarding energy security while advancing the low-carbon transition”, says Kevin Tu, non-resident fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. 

Another key factor behind the plan is concerns from policymakers around energy security, exacerbated by the conflict in the Middle East.

In an article published in early August, the Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily noted the “severe volatility” the war has created in energy markets, adding that “China’s energy system has withstood these shocks”.

It quoted NEA head Wang Hongzhi stating in a press conference that “coal is [China’s] greatest source of confidence in ensuring a stable energy supply”. 

The conflict will “reinforce coal’s role in China’s energy system”, both as a source of energy and as a feedstock for commodities, Li Shuo, China climate hub director at the Asia Society Policy Institute, tells Carbon Brief.

The plan outlines a number of aims to be achieved by 2030, starting with a goal to “further strengthen” the coal industry’s “ability to be a ‘bottom-line guarantee’”.

The other targets in the plan, to be achieved by 2030, include:

• Peaking coal consumption;
• “Basically establishing” a modern coal-industrial system;
• Optimising the “layout” of coal production and development;
• Increasing the proportion of “high-quality, advanced” coal-production capacity;
• “Clearly improving” levels of “safe, green development” and “clean, efficient use” of coal;
• Increasing the share of coal produced by “large-scale, modernised coal mines” to 87%;
• Developing a diversified coal-based industrial structure;
• Improving mechanisms to ensure a “dynamic balance” between supply and demand.

The large share of China’s CO2 emissions that come from coal and China’s carbon-peaking and neutrality targets are not the main focus of the five-year plan.

“This is clearly neither a coal phase-out nor phase-down plan,” Tu tells Carbon Brief. He adds that it grants China “considerable flexibility…over the pace of the transition”. 

A pledge to peak coal consumption during the five-year plan period is reiterated several times in the document. Notably, the plan says that China will “promote coal consumption successfully reaching a peak”. 

This, it says, is “guided” by China’s “dual-carbon” goals for peaking and neutrality, but is also based on the premise of “guaranteeing the secure supply of energy” 

However, the plan does not provide a government-endorsed target year for peaking consumption. 

State-affiliated organisations, such as Xinhua, have suggested that coal consumption is “expected to peak around 2027”. Independent analysis has stated that emissions from coal consumption may have already peaked.

“The absence of a 2027 deadline is significant, but I would be careful not to over-interpret it,” Tu tells Carbon Brief.

While a 2027 peak for coal remains possible, in his view, it is dependent on factors such as “electricity-demand growth, renewable generation, industrial activity, weather conditions and coal demand from the chemical sector”.

Similarly, Li believes that it will be “market and technological progress”, rather than state directives, that determine exactly when coal consumption and emissions will peak.

“Beijing’s regulatory interventions, if any, will be limited to making sure the peaking timelines do not blow past 2030,” he says.

What does the plan say about China’s coal production?

The plan does not set a concrete target for coal production during the five-year plan period. In contrast, total coal production targets for 2015 and 2020 had been set in the 12th and 13th five-year plans.

The plan also reduces a target for “reserve production” capacity, which was first announced in 2024.

The plan reiterates that, by 2030, China should “establish a coal reserve-production capacity of 100m metric tonnes or more per year”. This was first mentioned in the 15th five-year plan for building a “new-type energy system”, published in June.

Despite China’s rapid buildout of renewable energy, reserve coal capacity is necessary, argues state news agency Xinhua. It says that, to balance the variability of renewable energy, coal will shift to “playing a supporting and regulating role to safeguard energy supply”. 

Nevertheless, the new reserve goal is lower than the target of 300m tonnes of coal set when China first announced the establishment of the system in 2024. 

“Overall, this five-year plan is targeted at the coal industry, not the energy transition”, says Yang Biqing, energy analyst at Ember, although the energy transition and the peaking of coal consumption form the overarching context for the plan.

Provinces in northern China will continue to provide the majority of China’s coal, according to the plan.

It reiterates a pledge from the new-type energy five-year plan that China will continue building “coal-supply security bases” in the provinces of Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi and Xinjiang. It says these bases will supply more than 80% of China’s coal by 2030.

This does not indicate a change in direction, as coal production is already increasingly concentrated in northern China. In 2025, 82% of China’s coal came from these four provinces.

New or expanded coal mines in these provinces – with the exception of southern Xinjiang – must have a minimum annual production capacity of 1.2m tonnes, says the plan.

This is an “important signal”, Tu tells Carbon Brief. He notes that the plans suggest that “China’s coal transition is not simply about reducing the quantity consumed”, but also about creating a “more concentrated, efficient, flexible and resilient” coal system.

The plan also calls for a more centralised approach to managing coal. It states that in 2026-2030, any new production capacity must be “included in the single ledger” – essentially meaning that it must be approved by the central government – before it can be implemented. 

Yang tells Carbon Brief that this could indicate that the government is trying to prevent a potential “rush” to get new capacity approved as coal consumption starts to plateau and fall.

What does the plan say about coal’s greenhouse gas emissions?

The plan includes sections on the need to “accelerate” the low-carbon transition of the industry, as well as the “clean and efficient use” of coal.

The former section largely focuses on the production and processing of coal, while the latter addresses emissions associated with its consumption. 

Suggested policies include promoting energy efficiency, water conservancy and electrification, coupled with greater use of renewable-energy sources at coal mines.

In addition to promoting a successful peaking of coal consumption, the plan also re-affirms existing policies around promoting energy efficiency and carbon-emission reduction.

It calls for “accelerate energy conservation and consumption reduction in key coal-consuming industries”, largely through methods already established by existing policies.

This includes phasing out inefficient coal-fired equipment, replacing coal-fired equipment with “clean energy” alternatives, reducing use of “dispersed coal” and promoting clean heating sources such as distributed solar heating and waste heat utilisation.

Tom Wang, executive director of People of Asia for Climate Solutions, describes the plan as “more of a coal exploration plan, rather than a coal transition plan”. He tells Carbon Brief that while several policies call for “green” or “smart” development, the plan does not address the greenhouse gas emissions underpinning each step of coal extraction, processing and combustion.

#gform_wrapper_6[data-form-index="0"].gform-theme,[data-parent-form="6_0"]{--gf-color-primary: #204ce5;--gf-color-primary-rgb: 32, 76, 229;--gf-color-primary-contrast: #fff;--gf-color-primary-contrast-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-primary-darker: #001AB3;--gf-color-primary-lighter: #527EFF;--gf-color-secondary: #fff;--gf-color-secondary-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-secondary-contrast: #112337;--gf-color-secondary-contrast-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-secondary-darker: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-secondary-lighter: #FFFFFF;--gf-color-out-ctrl-light: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.1);--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-darker: rgba(104, 110, 119, 0.35);--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-lighter: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark: #585e6a;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-rgb: 88, 94, 106;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-darker: #112337;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-lighter: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65);--gf-color-in-ctrl: #fff;--gf-color-in-ctrl-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-in-ctrl-contrast: #112337;--gf-color-in-ctrl-contrast-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-in-ctrl-darker: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-lighter: #FFFFFF;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary: #204ce5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-rgb: 32, 76, 229;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-contrast: #fff;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-contrast-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-darker: #001AB3;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-lighter: #527EFF;--gf-color-in-ctrl-light: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.1);--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-darker: rgba(104, 110, 119, 0.35);--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-lighter: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark: #585e6a;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-rgb: 88, 94, 106;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-darker: #112337;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-lighter: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65);--gf-radius: 3px;--gf-font-size-secondary: 14px;--gf-font-size-tertiary: 13px;--gf-icon-ctrl-number: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='8' height='14' viewBox='0 0 8 14' fill='none' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath fill-rule='evenodd' clip-rule='evenodd' d='M4 0C4.26522 5.96046e-08 4.51957 0.105357 4.70711 0.292893L7.70711 3.29289C8.09763 3.68342 8.09763 4.31658 7.70711 4.70711C7.31658 5.09763 6.68342 5.09763 6.29289 4.70711L4 2.41421L1.70711 4.70711C1.31658 5.09763 0.683417 5.09763 0.292893 4.70711C-0.0976311 4.31658 -0.097631 3.68342 0.292893 3.29289L3.29289 0.292893C3.48043 0.105357 3.73478 0 4 0ZM0.292893 9.29289C0.683417 8.90237 1.31658 8.90237 1.70711 9.29289L4 11.5858L6.29289 9.29289C6.68342 8.90237 7.31658 8.90237 7.70711 9.29289C8.09763 9.68342 8.09763 10.3166 7.70711 10.7071L4.70711 13.7071C4.31658 14.0976 3.68342 14.0976 3.29289 13.7071L0.292893 10.7071C-0.0976311 10.3166 -0.0976311 9.68342 0.292893 9.29289Z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-icon-ctrl-select: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='10' height='6' viewBox='0 0 10 6' fill='none' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath fill-rule='evenodd' clip-rule='evenodd' d='M0.292893 0.292893C0.683417 -0.097631 1.31658 -0.097631 1.70711 0.292893L5 3.58579L8.29289 0.292893C8.68342 -0.0976311 9.31658 -0.0976311 9.70711 0.292893C10.0976 0.683417 10.0976 1.31658 9.70711 1.70711L5.70711 5.70711C5.31658 6.09763 4.68342 6.09763 4.29289 5.70711L0.292893 1.70711C-0.0976311 1.31658 -0.0976311 0.683418 0.292893 0.292893Z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-icon-ctrl-search: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='640' height='640' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath d='M256 128c-70.692 0-128 57.308-128 128 0 70.691 57.308 128 128 128 70.691 0 128-57.309 128-128 0-70.692-57.309-128-128-128zM64 256c0-106.039 85.961-192 192-192s192 85.961 192 192c0 41.466-13.146 79.863-35.498 111.248l154.125 154.125c12.496 12.496 12.496 32.758 0 45.254s-32.758 12.496-45.254 0L367.248 412.502C335.862 434.854 297.467 448 256 448c-106.039 0-192-85.962-192-192z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-label-space-y-secondary: var(--gf-label-space-y-md-secondary);--gf-ctrl-border-color: #686e77;--gf-ctrl-size: var(--gf-ctrl-size-md);--gf-ctrl-label-color-primary: #112337;--gf-ctrl-label-color-secondary: #112337;--gf-ctrl-choice-size: var(--gf-ctrl-choice-size-md);--gf-ctrl-checkbox-check-size: var(--gf-ctrl-checkbox-check-size-md);--gf-ctrl-radio-check-size: var(--gf-ctrl-radio-check-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-font-size: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-font-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-padding-x: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-padding-x-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-size: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-border-color-secondary: #686e77;--gf-ctrl-file-btn-bg-color-hover: #EBEBEB;--gf-field-img-choice-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-size-md);--gf-field-img-choice-card-space: var(--gf-field-img-choice-card-space-md);--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-size-md);--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-icon-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-icon-size-md);--gf-field-pg-steps-number-color: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.8);}

CommentsThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Free fortnightly newsletter

.preheader p{ margin-top: 0; font-family: 'PT Sans', sans-serif; font-weight: var(--type--3--font-weight--bold); color: var(--button--color); font-size: var(--button--font-size, inherit); } .newsletter-inline{ display: flex; border: solid 1px #333333; padding: 1em; background: #ffffff; } .inline-email{ display:inline-block; margin-right:1em; margin-top:0 !important; margin-bottom:0.5em; } #field_submit{ display:inline-block; margin-top:0 !important; } .gform_wrapper .gfield+.gfield{ margin-top:0 } Email gform.initializeOnLoaded( function() {gformInitSpinner( 6, 'http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', false );jQuery('#gform_ajax_frame_6').on('load',function(){var contents = jQuery(this).contents().find('*').html();var is_postback = contents.indexOf('GF_AJAX_POSTBACK') >= 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_wrapper_6');var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_confirmation_wrapper_6').length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf('gformRedirect(){') >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery('html').css('margin-top'), 10) + parseInt(jQuery('body').css('margin-top'), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass('gform_validation_error')){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').addClass('gform_validation_error');} else {jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').removeClass('gform_validation_error');}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').offset().top - mt); }, 50 );if(window['gformInitDatepicker']) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window['gformInitPriceFields']) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery('#gform_source_page_number_6').val();gformInitSpinner( 6, 'http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', false );jQuery(document).trigger('gform_page_loaded', [6, current_page]);window['gf_submitting_6'] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('.GF_AJAX_POSTBACK').html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery('#gf_6').offset().top - mt);jQuery(document).trigger('gform_confirmation_loaded', [6]);window['gf_submitting_6'] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery('#gform_confirmation_message_6').text());}else{jQuery('#gform_6').append(contents);if(window['gformRedirect']) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger("gform_pre_post_render", [{ formId: "6", currentPage: "current_page", abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( "gform_wrapper_6" ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( "span" ); visibilitySpan.id = "gform_visibility_test_6"; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( "afterend", visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( "gform_visibility_test_6" ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 6, current_page ); if ( visibilityTestDiv ) { visibilityTestDiv.parentNode.removeChild( visibilityTestDiv ); } } function debounce( func, wait, immediate ) { var timeout; return function() { var context = this, args = arguments; var later = function() { timeout = null; if ( !immediate ) func.apply( context, args ); }; var callNow = immediate && !timeout; clearTimeout( timeout ); timeout = setTimeout( later, wait ); if ( callNow ) func.apply( context, args ); }; } const debouncedTriggerPostRender = debounce( function() { triggerPostRender(); }, 200 ); if ( visibilityTestDiv && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent === null ) { const observer = new MutationObserver( ( mutations ) => { mutations.forEach( ( mutation ) => { if ( mutation.type === 'attributes' && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent !== null ) { debouncedTriggerPostRender(); observer.disconnect(); } }); }); observer.observe( document.body, { attributes: true, childList: false, subtree: true, attributeFilter: [ 'style', 'class' ], }); } else { triggerPostRender(); } } );} );

Another major focus is on utilisation of coalbed methane, a significant source of China’s methane emissions.

China will “implement work plans to increase coalbed-methane reserves and production”, the plan says, including a “rapid ramp-up” of production in deep coalbed-methane sites.

Affixed to the main five-year plan is an appendix further detailing plans for coalbed methane.

It notes that utilising coalbed methane has “multiple benefits”, such as improving safety, “increasing the supply of clean energy” and reducing emissions. [Methane is a fossil fuel.]

The government is targeting 26bn cubic metres of coalbed-methane production and 6.5bn cubic metres of mine-gas utilisation by 2030, it says.

At least 18bn cubic metres will be sourced from the Ordos Basin, a region spanning several northern provinces, according to an action plan published by the NEA.

In its coverage of the Ordos action plan, the state-run newspaper China Daily said that developing coalbed methane is a “vital strategic move to optimise [China’s] energy mix and ensure domestic gas supply”.

Reporting by Xinhua and economic news outlet Jiemian said that coalbed methane could help China become an “energy powerhouse” and “secure [its] energy self-sufficiency”, respectively. 

In addition, the coal industry will “steadily advance methane-emission control” and “actively participate in the reduction of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions”, according to the appendix.

However, Sun Xiaopu, senior China counsel at the thinktank Institute For Governance and Sustainable Development, tells Carbon Brief, the plan “does not establish an absolute methane-emissions reduction target”. 

She notes that the implications for emissions may only become clear as implementation frameworks for meeting the utilisation targets are released.

How does the plan tell coal companies to evolve?

Despite reaffirming the importance of coal, the plan emphasises that the overall role of the fuel in China will change. It adds that the coal industry must adapt to this changing reality.

As the coal industry “modernises”, coal companies must “strengthen management” of mine closures and exit plans. They must also plan for a “smooth transition” and “prudently handle” workforce relocation, debt resolution and ecological restoration, it says.

Companies should also be supported in expanding into industries such as “power, new energy and chemicals”, according to the plan.

A number of major coal producers, as well as at least one oil giant, have already established wings focused on “new energy”.

But the focus on the use of coal to make chemicals is one of the “most consequential parts of the plan”, says Tu.

China must promote the shift to coal being used “equally” as a fuel and a feedstock, the plan says.

The plan urges policymakers to push through “construction of strategic coal-to-oil and gas bases”

The chemicals sector is China’s fastest source of emissions growth, although it remains well behind power and other industries in terms of total emissions. 

Tu notes that the plan calls on the coal-chemicals industry to decarbonise production, such as through low-carbon power, green hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage.

As such, he says, the policy signal is “not to exit coal chemicals, but to make them more efficient, higher-value and potentially less carbon-intensive”.  

Li echoes this, telling Carbon Brief that the sector is “likely to receive a major boost from the conflict in Iran”. He adds: 

“We will probably see further capacity expansion in the sector and I doubt environmental arguments will convince Chinese authorities to take a different approach.”

related Q&A: What is in China’s new five-year plan for climate change? 06.08.2026 China policy Q&A: What does China’s 15th ‘five-year plan’ for renewables mean for climate change? 29.07.2026 China policy Interview: Dr Sun Yixian on his new database tracking Chinese climate ‘leadership’ 09.07.2026 China policy Q&A: What do China’s provincial five-year plans say about climate and energy? 18.06.2026 China policy

The post Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action? appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Hannah Greenshields was pursuing a career as an opera singer when the COVID-19 pandemic changed her plans. Now, as co-founder of The Food Farm on Australia’s New South Wales Central Coast with her partner, Tim, she raises regenerative beef, chickens, and eggs while building a farming business centered on soil health, biodiversity, transparency, and community.

“You might be wondering how an opera singer becomes a farmer,” says Greenshields. “It all started in 2020 when I was on my first-ever regional tour…it got cut short because of COVID. And so, like a lot of people at the time, I had to pivot.”

Without farming experience or land of their own, she and Tim leased a quarter-acre plot to begin growing potatoes. They soon realized they had no equipment to harvest, so they invited members of their community to dig up the crop themselves. What started as a small local gathering became something much deeper.

“The people didn’t leave,” says Greenshields. “They stayed, playing in the mud. Adults were laughing with each other. Children were rolling around in it. And they were connected…to each other, themselves, and connected to something they didn’t even realize that they’d lost. There was a connection to being part of the living world.”

The experience convinced Greenshields that farming could not only produce food but also help connect people with one another, nature, and the origins of their meals. She believes openness helps people build trust in agriculture. Today, The Food Farm processes everything it produces on-site and welcomes customers to visit the farm shop and see how food is raised.

“People often ask us, ‘how can you eat an animal that you knew?'” she says. “And we ask with curiosity, ‘how can we continue to eat food and animals that we don’t know?'”

For Greenshields, reconnecting people with food means acknowledging that humans are part of the ecosystems that sustain them: “It’s something that the modern food system hides from us. We are part of the cycle. We are part of the living human biodiverse cycle,” she says.

The farm is also creating opportunities for people who, like Greenshields, never imagined a future in agriculture. Its team of 13 is made up largely of young women with no previous farming experience who “inspire us every day,” says Greenshields. “It’s a beautiful example of what happens when you invite young people back to the farm.”

And Greenshields’ musical background continues to shape how she thinks about healthy ecosystems. She compares regenerative farming to resonance in music, where harmony depends on every part working together.

“Resonance happens when breath moves through the body, and it becomes alive. When there’s tension, the song can get louder, the sound can get louder, but it becomes less alive. And that’s the same way that soil works,” says Greenshields, describing her farm as a beautiful ecosystem of microbes, fungi, worms, humans, and animals working in coherence.

For Greenshields, nourishment is ultimately rooted in presence, which means being connected to the food, the land, and the people who make meals possible.

“We all know the feeling when we bite into a tomato that truly lived,” she says. “You pick it off the vine. It’s warm. It’s juicy. You bite it, and it drips down your throat, and it tastes like literal sunshine. And that nourishment requires presence.”

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

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

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

Photo courtey of Hannah Greenshields

The post How an Opera Singer Found Connection Through Farming appeared first on Food Tank.

A little more than one year ago, Australia rolled out a program to heavily subsidize home batteries, part of a larger effort to make use of the huge volumes of solar energy that were going to waste. On Friday, officials announced that more than 500,000 batteries had been installed under the plan, helping to slash wholesale power prices roughly in half.

Read more on E360 →