News Feeds

In a global context marked by the intensifying plastic pollution crisis, civil society organizations have taken on a key role in raising awareness of its environmental, social, and health impacts. In Mexico, one of the most persistent voices in this struggle is that of Fronteras Comunes, an organization with more than three decades of experience defending socio-environmental justice and human rights.

For Marisa Jacott, sociologist and director of the organization, the mission is clear and deeply political: “Fronteras Comunes is an organization dedicated to justice and the defense of the land, fighting to protect human and environmental health against chemical, industrial, and plastic pollution. We work through advocacy, the defense of economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights, research, and exposing public policies that allow and promote this type of pollution.”

Since its founding in 1994, Fronteras Comunes has addressed the issue of plastic as part of a broader system of structural pollution, coordinating strategies involving litigation, research, and community work. “We have made progress on several of the many fronts in the fight against plastic through networks, interdisciplinary work, and collaboration with social movements, scientists, and environmental journalism,” explains Jacott.

A Struggle Against the Colonialism of Plastic Waste

One of the central pillars of Fronteras Comunes’ work has been to denounce so-called “waste colonialism”: the systematic transfer of waste from industrialized countries to nations in the Global South.

Following China’s closure of its borders to waste imports in 2018, countries like Mexico began receiving increasing volumes of plastic waste, mainly from the United States. For Jacott, this phenomenon cannot be understood solely as a commercial problem: “Plastic pollution and toxic colonialism are not just economic issues; they are also health issues. It reaches our bodies and territories; it is a matter of the present and the here and now, not the future.”

Jacott notes that over the past two decades, Mexico has imported at least 1.26 million tons of plastic waste, mostly from the United States, highlighting the magnitude of the problem. This dynamic, he notes, is sustained by misleading narratives: “False solutions are promoted under the guise of the circular economy, with ‘valorization’ processes and toxic recycling that mask environmental dumping practices*.”

To raise awareness of this issue, Fronteras Comunes, together with other organizations, is promoting the México Tóxico platform, a geovisualizer that documents the flow of waste and its impacts on local areas. “We aim to show how plastic pollution is present throughout its entire life cycle: from oil extraction to disposal and massive importation as trash,” he explains.

A Historic Precedent: The Amparo Against Single-Use Plastics

Coordination among organizations has also led to significant legal advances. One of the most significant is an Amparo won in 2024 that compels the Mexican Congress to legislate on single-use plastics.

The case was filed by six organizations in 2023, in response to attempts to block local regulations such as those in the state of Oaxaca. The reaction from industry and certain sectors of the state government was strong. “We faced fierce opposition from industry and open support from government institutions to prevent the ban,” notes Jacott.

However, although the ruling was favorable, its implementation remains pending: “We won the ruling in August 2024, but to date the decision has not been enforced, so we continue working.”

The case has also gained international relevance. During a recent visit to Mexico, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on toxic substances and human rights, Marcos Orellana, expressed concern over attempts to circumvent this Amparo ruling through the General Law on the Circular Economy. From his perspective, such frameworks can only be considered adequate if they guarantee chemical safety and do not replace reduction obligations with insufficient technological solutions.

His statements echoed warnings from civil society organizations, which have pointed out that the law does not establish clear measures to limit the production of single-use plastics and opens the door to processes such as pyrolysis, which are questioned for their impacts on health and the environment.

The Power of Collective Action

Over the past decade, the Break Free From Plastic movement has demonstrated that global coordination can amplify local struggles. For Fronteras Comunes, this aspect has been central from the very beginning in alliances such as GAIA, which later gave rise to BFFP itself. “The importance of networking lies in the ability to work and share—from the local to the international level—the issues that unite us,” says Jacott. “Networking nourishes us, allows us to build and rebuild connections to move forward, and must be grounded in trust, transparency, and common goals.”

This coordination has made it possible not only to strengthen capacities but also to drive concrete initiatives. In 2022, organizations in Mexico convened the first national BFFP meeting, which was attended by representatives from 15 civil society organizations and two scientific institutions and culminated in the Xitla Declaration, a statement demanding a halt to imports of contaminated plastics into Mexico, transparency regarding the final destination of such materials, and respect for the rights of waste pickers. The declaration also calls for the strengthening of laws banning single-use plastics and for the elimination from legislation of all forms of incineration, co-processing, energy recovery, or thermal treatment as alternatives for plastic management in Mexico.

For Jacott, the value of belonging to a global movement is strategic: “BFFP gives us strength at the local, national, regional, and global levels. It has taught us the power of tools like brand audits, the value of citizen science, and the importance of exposing corporate responsibility and debunking false solutions.”

Toward a Global Plastics Treaty

The work of these networks also extends to the negotiation of a Global Plastics Treaty, a key process for establishing binding rules at the international level.

Jacott emphasizes that the treaty must go beyond general commitments: “It must adopt a precautionary approach, reduce plastic production, regulate toxic substances, and prevent the cross-border trade of waste.”

Among the critical points, she highlights the need to recognize the impacts of plastic throughout its entire life cycle, set limits on single-use plastics, and prevent these materials from continuing to be considered as fuels or energy inputs.

“The challenge is ensuring these agreements are actually implemented in countries like Mexico, where international commitments often do not translate into public policies,” she concludes.

Collective Awareness and Shared Responsibility

In recent years, public perception of plastic has changed. “There is indeed greater collective awareness and more stakeholders involved, from different perspectives,” notes Jacott.

However, he warns that this progress coexists with institutional narratives that promote insufficient solutions: “In Mexico, this awareness is being undermined by a state policy that promotes industrial and energy recycling of plastic.” Even so, he highlights the role of tools such as brand audits—even on a domestic scale—to demonstrate the responsibility of large corporations.

For Jacott, the challenge remains structural: addressing not only consumption but also production, associated chemicals, and waste management as part of the same system.

Taking stock personally, his reflection is forceful: “I never imagined the scale of the current plastic crisis, its pervasive and toxic nature, its structural damage. We need to keep building alternative paths in the face of a future that is no longer fiction.”

Ten years after BFFP, the message from organizations like Fronteras Comunes is clear: in the face of a global crisis, the answer still lies in coordination, evidence, and collective action. And in the conviction that another model—one where life comes before plastic—is not only necessary but urgent.

*Environmental dumping refers to the transfer of waste or pollutants from one country to another, typically from developed nations to developing countries, taking advantage of weaker environmental regulations and lower disposal costs.

Towards a transformative response to the fossil fuel energy crisis

Photo: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:War_is_a_racket_u_know_-_it%27s_time_for_peace!.jpg

The US/Israeli war on Iran looks like it will be lengthy. Trump’s announcement of an indefinite ceasefire while maintaining an equally indefinite blockade indicates that

1. the US/Israel are not able to impose their terms because a ground invasion aimed at regime change would not be viable. The apocalyptic threat of bombing Iran back into the Stone Age would call forth counterstrokes from Iran and a political fallout too devastating to risk.
2. Nevertheless, the consequences of backing off now, even while declaring victory, would be a visible defeat that would be too damaging to their capacity to project power elsewhere.
3. Therefore there is likely to be a prolonged stalemate based on overlapping blockades of the Gulf. This will cause enormous environmental and economic damage globally, on top of what is already done; and it will manifest more strongly in the coming months, growing stronger the longer it goes on.

The only question is how severe this will be. This poses a series of overlapping crises and challenges that the climate, peace and labour movements have to face up to, have answers for and mobilise together to achieve.

Fossil Fuel supply/price crisis–

1. Increased prices for fossil fuels and their derivative products which will lead to increased prices across the board
2. Increased profits for fossil fuel companies
3. Increased short term viability for investment in fossil fuel extraction
4. Increased costs for everyone else for everything else that has to be transported
5. Shortages of some energy products (jet fuel, CO2) and food supply
6. Increased imperative to transition away from fossil fuel dependence to reduce costs and political leverage
7. Increased attractiveness of EVs and domestic solar panels for those that can afford them.

Responses

The response from the Right has been fast and hard and dressed grifting for fossil fuel companies and US global energy dominance up in the language of the common good.

1. Reduce taxes on fossil fuels (which in past experience benefits retailers not people having to fill up with them)
2. Reduce windfall taxes on FF companies, even as they are making gigantic windfall profits
3. Invest in new North Sea oil and gas, even though they know this will make no difference to costs, a tiny difference to supply, and will not halt the decline in jobs as the basin dries up; and/or put fracking back on the energy agenda, even though they know that the UK is geologically unsuitable for doing this viably
4. Relax mandates on car companies to transition to EVs and developers to build homes that aren’t expensive to heat or don’t use gas to do it
5. Push hard for more investment in nuclear power, which is the least flexible “back up” available, produces electricity at a cost greater than that of fossil fuels and renewables; and would take too long to build to have any impact at all.

This is all nonsense, but it is loudly and perpetually repeated by the Right and their associated media outlets in an attempt to drown out reality and paint anyone who recognises the reality of climate change and/or wants to put forward solutions that

1. Accelerate the transition and
2. Do it in a way that creates millions of jobs, is socially equitable – and therefore transformative

as “swivel eyed eco fanatics” from an “elite” determined to impose “eye watering costs” on ordinary people to deliver their “net zero obsession” (which, if you do the maths, would be £80 billion cheaper than the new investment in FFs that they have in mind). 

To combat this tsunami of misinformation and misdirection, the climate, social justice and labour movements need the most honest, clear and coordinated set of responses that we can put together, and all be proclaiming it with relentless positivity.

From the Greener Jobs Alliance, we’d like to propose four basic principles that we can all sign up to, within which we can collectively develop appropriate specific demands.

1. To stop the crisis we need to stop the war – so the government should give no support for it in any form and press for peace instead on the same lines as the Spanish government.
2. War profiteering is unacceptable and all windfall profits should be taxed at 100% to fund short term targeted measures like energy price caps to support people through the immediate crisis, and accelerate investment in the transition. Similarly, faced with a crisis on this scale, putting any additional investment into war preparation is, as well as wrong in its own right, a luxury we can’t afford. Freezing military expenditure at its current level and using the funds earmarked for increases to accelerate the energy transition, including restoring climate funding in overseas development, will be better for national security in all respects too.
3. The transition is the solution All possible measures should be taken to get off fossil fuel dependence and this can only effectively be done through collective measures, e.g. an accelerated effective insulation campaign requires properly funded local authority direct labour organisations with workers properly educated on the climate crisis as well as technical skills, targeting areas in fuel poverty as a social measure and not cutting corners as private sector micro companies all too often do. Similarly, even if the ban on new investment in North Sea FFs is lifted, it will have a marginal effect and won’t stop the erosion of jobs; so the solution has to be a planned retraining and redeployment alongside increased investment in accelerated deployment of renewable energy. This could most effectively be done through public ownership.
4. Crisis measures must be social justice measures. Rationing by price is inherently inequitable. ATM people who drive are managing by putting less fuel in their tanks when they “fill up”. This can only go so far. So, for example reduce FF demand (and therefore prices) by banning private jets, slashing public transport fares (even the Lib Dems have proposed a 10% cut and states from Tasmania to the Punjab have made it free) to encourage a shift. Pre-emptive limits on purchases of key food items in limited supply, to ensure equitable distribution of what there is.

This is not set in stone. It’s a catalyst to get a debate going that starts us all moving in the right direction and comes up with things that none of us have thought of yet.

So, in the next two weeks we’d like feedback on these principles and suggestions for specific proposals so we can pull them together into a public statement that could provide the basis for a campaign that can build up through the deepening of the crisis.

Online Thursday April 23 – 5.50 – 7.00 We’ll see you there! Join Us

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

SIGN UP Join the debate

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

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post Towards a transformative response to the fossil fuel energy crisis first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

Canada can maintain economic growth and continue oil and gas production while reaching a 2050 net zero goal by introducing stronger climate policies, according to the Pembina Institute’s analysis of new modelling from the Canada Energy Regulator (CER...

By: Green Knowledge Foundation

Nigeria is currently grappling with a waste crisis that poses significant threats to public health, the environment, and the overall quality of life in both urban areas and rural communities.

Annually, Nigeria generates approximately 25 to 32 million tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW), a figure that continues to rise due to rapid urbanisation. This waste stream is primarily composed of organic materials (over 50%) and plastics. 

Unfortunately, waste management practices in the country are largely inadequate, relying heavily on open dumpsites and suffering from low recycling rates. The sector faces numerous challenges, including insufficient funding, weak infrastructure, and inefficient waste collection systems, all of which contribute to serious environmental and health risks.

As Nigerian cities expand and consumption patterns evolve, the volume and complexity of waste are increasing faster than existing waste management systems can manage. Urgent action is needed to mitigate the crisis’s impact and implement viable strategies.

The Multi-Solving Action for Methane Reduction in Nigeria (MAMRN) Project is one of these strategies that offers a light at the end of the tunnel. As Nigeria intensifies efforts to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly methane. 

This project is simultaneously addressing the country’s mounting waste problem while creating new opportunities for communities.

The MAMRN project promotes a zero-waste system, an approach that aims to conserve all resources through responsible production, consumption, reuse, and recovery of products, packaging, and materials, without incineration and without discharges to land, water, or air that threaten the environment or human health.

It supports agriculture through nutrient-rich compost and black soldier fly (BSF) farming, whose larvae efficiently convert organic waste into high-protein feed. The project also strengthens income opportunities for waste pickers, whose services are crucial to the waste recovery value chain, ensuring that reusable and recyclable materials are collected from residential and commercial waste bins, landfill sites, and open spaces, and revalued to generate income.

To kick off the Multi-Solving Action for Methane Reduction in Nigeria (MAMRN) Project, a baseline survey was conducted in four major cities—Lagos, Abuja, Jos, and Benin City- to understand their waste composition and identify opportunities for methane reduction.

Lagos: A Mega-City Under Pressure

Lagos, Nigeria’s economic city, generates thousands of tonnes of waste daily. The baseline report highlights that a significant portion of this waste is organic, largely from households, markets, and food businesses. Plastics also account for a significant share, reflecting the city’s dense population and vibrant commercial activity.
While Lagos has made progress in waste collection, disposal remains heavily dependent on dumpsites, leading to high methane emissions. Yet, the large volume of organic waste presents a clear opportunity for composting, BSF farming, and recycling.

Abuja: A Growing Capital with Modern Challenges

Abuja is expanding rapidly, and its waste composition mirrors that of Lagos, with organic waste accounting for the majority of the stream. Despite its structured city layout, the baseline study found no formal system in place to address the growing volume of organic waste, particularly at the government-approved Gosa dumpsite.

As the seat of power, Abuja is strategically positioned to drive national policies, regulatory reforms, and circular-economy solutions. Combined with Lagos, Nigeria’s poster child in the fight against pollution, both cities offer strong potential for Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) and community-led recycling systems.

Waste composition in Abuja shows:

• 49.3% organic waste
• 28.8% plastics
• 6.88% paper
• 5.67% wood
• 8.9% others

Jos: Unique Climate, Similar Waste Patterns

Despite its cooler climate and smaller population, Jos faces many of the same waste challenges as other cities. The baseline survey revealed that 53.3% of its municipal waste is organic, unsurprising given the region’s strong fruit and vegetable farming culture. This creates clear potential for composting systems that support local agriculture while reducing methane emissions.

Other components recorded include:

• 21.8% plastics
• 8.8% paper
• 7.4% wood/furniture
• 16.9% others

Benin City: Rich Culture, Rising Waste

Benin City, a major economic and cultural hub, showed a balanced mix of waste materials. Its markets and commercial centres are major hotspots for waste generation.

Waste composition in Benin City includes:

• 36.1% organic waste
• 23% plastics
• 8.5% paper
• 9.85% wood
• 22.35% others

Across all four cities, one message is clear: Nigeria’s waste stream is rich in organic, recoverable and recyclable resources, essentially environmental, social, and economic ‘gold.’ However, without effective systems to capture these materials, this value is being wasted, ending up in open dumps and contributing to methane emissions, environmental degradation, and lost economic opportunities.

The MAMRN baseline report offers a clearer picture of these challenges while highlighting a unique opportunity to transform Nigeria’s waste sector, from a system focused on disposal to one centred on resource recovery, climate action, and sustainable development.

This article is the first in a series on the Methane Reduction in Nigeria (MAMRN) Project, implemented in collaboration with CfEW Jos, SraDev Lagos, Pave Lagos, CODAF Epe Lagos, and SEDI Benin City.

The post How Nigeria’s Growing Waste Challenge Can Be Solved Through Methane Reduction first appeared on GAIA.

Morgan Ody, a small-scale farmer and the general coordinator of La Via Campesina, a global organisation of food and land workers and small farmers, said the lives of working people were increasingly at risk.

The post World food systems ‘pushed to the brink’ by extreme heat, UN warns appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

While the Trump administration is directing hundreds of millions of dollars to coal projects, miners in Appalachia are suffering from a resurgence of black lung disease. But industry pushback is delaying federal rules that would reduce miners’ exposure to deadly silica dust.

Read more on E360 →

Diesel Reduction Progress II presents Canada’s most up-to-date analysis of diesel consumption in Canada’s 210 remote communities. The report, following our original analysis in 2021, outlines the outcomes of a decade of strong policy and local,...

Since President Donald Trump took office, the Securities and Exchange Commission has made it harder for small and activist investors to raise concerns through the government filing system known as EDGAR. Now they’re pushing back with their own alternative platform, which they call the Proxy Open Exchange — or POE. 

Literary puns aside, the initiative is aimed at bringing greater transparency to an increasingly restricted space. In January, the SEC said it would no longer allow investors with less than $5 million in shares to use EDGAR to send communiqués called exempt solicitations to fellow shareholders. Such documents are often used to lay out an investor’s stance on a given issue, including climate action, board accountability, and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“We believe a free market requires communication,” said Andrew Behar, CEO of the shareholder advocacy group As You Sow, which spearheaded the new site. “If they’re going to take away EDGAR, we’re going to give them POE.”

The response has been swift. In less than a week, POE has 63 filings, with dozens more expected. EDGAR shows just 39 exempt solicitations so far in 2026. 

The SEC declined to comment about POE, but has previously told Grist that limiting access to the system is an attempt to rein in the scope of government, ease burdensome regulation, and curtail the “large volume” of requests that often require prompt attention. “Over the years, companies have expressed concerns that this misuse has caused confusion among their investor base,” an SEC spokesperson said at the time. “Shareholders can continue to conduct exempt solicitations through other commonly used means, such as press releases, emails, websites, and social media, and electronic shareholder forums.”

Critics of the move see it as an attempt to silence irksome investors.

The work-around is not the only attempt at an alternative to the official platform. The nonprofit Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, for instance, recently started putting exempt solicitations and proxy memos it receives about issues relevant to its members on its website. Still, POE is the most robust effort yet to fill the gap the government created.

It is designed to mimic EDGAR, Behar said. It even relies on the same set of codes — known as central index keys — to identify individuals and companies making posts. Although As You Sow reviews submissions for basic errors, it doesn’t filter content, making POE, like EDGAR, open to all viewpoints. 

“POE is a new and adventurous approach to try to set up a large public website that people of all persuasions can post their solicitations on,” said Tim Smith, senior policy advisor for Interfaith Center, who applauded the idea. “It could be an investor that’s filing a resolution on climate. It could be a conservative investor who decides to push a resolution that’s challenging diversity, equity, or inclusion.” 

Any filings are subject to the same anti-fraud legal provisions required by EDGAR, says Jill Fisch, a professor of business law at the University of Pennsylvania. “The postings have to be accurate, so that doesn’t change,” she said. What is new is that POE’s interface is much more user-friendly, she said, calling the government’s site “kind of old and glitchy.” 

Not everyone, however, is embracing the system. According to Behar, one of the world’s largest proxy advisors — which helps its clients research shareholder proposals — won’t consider any information that’s not on the official platform. The company, ISS, declined an interview request and did not respond to written questions. Still, Fisch said the pool of potential users of the new system is vast. 

“The great thing about these being public websites is that they’re available to mutual funds, to smaller institutions, to universities, and so forth,” she said. She’ll be curious to see data on who uses the site in the coming weeks and months. So far, though, “it’s way too early to tell.”

Fisch will also be watching how corporations respond. Some, like Exxon Mobil, which has often opposed shareholder advocacy, could see it as a threat (the company did not respond to an interview request) and start their own platforms. Or, perhaps, the existence of unregulated alternatives will encourage companies to ask the SEC to push people back to EDGAR, where everything will be in the same place. 

Whatever the rationale, it would be relatively easy for the government to reverse course. “Any new administration or new SEC could change this in a moment,” said Smith. That, in many ways, would be an ideal outcome for Behar, who hopes that POE will be temporary.

“We do not want this to be a necessary platform into perpetuity,” he said. “This is hopefully short-lived. When the administration changes and the SEC returns to its core mission, we expect EDGAR to be restored because transparent information sharing is essential for the free market.”

More often, though, Fisch finds that platforms like POE are one-way streets. Even if EDGAR is loosened back up, she expects people to continue finding the alternatives useful. “Once investors figure out how cheap and easy and convenient it is to use the internet and social media to communicate, I don’t think they’re going to stop,” she said. “The cat’s out of the bag.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The SEC tried to silence activist investors. Now they’re fighting back. on Apr 30, 2026.

Reform UK has received £24 million from oil and gas interests, accounting for more than two thirds of its total income, DeSmog can reveal.

Led by Nigel Farage, the party is calling for new North Sea oil and gas drilling ahead of UK-wide elections in May on the ill-founded claim that it will cut energy bills.

DeSmog’s analysis reveals that 67 percent of Reform’s funding to date has come from donors with financial interests in fossil fuels, totalling more than £24 million.

A further £2.4 million has been donated by individuals who have disputed basic scientific facts about climate change.

“What these extraordinary numbers make clear is that Reform is less a political party and more a very highly paid public-facing lobby group for oil and gas interests,” said Jolyon Maugham, executive director of the Good Law Project campaign group.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

The biggest chunk (£22 million) has been gifted by Thailand-based crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne, whose firm AML Global sells jet fuel, which is made from crude oil. More than half (£12 million) of this figure was donated in 2025.

Another £1.7 million has come from hedge fund boss Jeremy Hosking, whose investment firm Hosking Partners has $440.8 million (around £326.5 million) invested in oil, gas, and coal. As revealed by DeSmog, Hosking Partners has ramped up its fossil fuel investments in recent months during the war in Iran, which has caused energy shortages and windfall profits for oil giants.

Reform has received more than £2 million from its deputy leader Richard Tice, a property millionaire who has denied that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing climate change – instead calling it “plant food”.

Farage has himself claimed it’s “absolutely nuts” for CO2 to be considered a pollutant.

The party has also accepted £230,000 from management consultancy First Corporate Consultants, whose owner Terence Mordaunt is a former chair of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The GWPF is the UK’s foremost climate denial group, and has claimed CO2 emissions are a “benefit to the planet”.

In total, Reform has received almost £26.7 million from climate deniers and fossil fuel interests since it was set up by Farage as the Brexit Party in 2019 – roughly three quarters (74 percent) of its total £36 million income.

IN NUMBERS: Reform’s smoggy £26 million Christopher HarborneFossil fuel interest£22,190,000Richard TiceClimate science denier£2,257,919Jeremy HoskingFossil fuel interest£1,718,000Terence MordauntClimate science denier£230,000Ashley Mark LevettFossil fuel interest£200,000Jacques J. TohmeFossil fuel interest£50,000TOTAL£26,652,919

Reform – which is leading UK-wide polls at 25 percent – has vowed to “scrap net zero”, end subsidies for wind and solar power, approve new oil and gas exploration, lift the ban on fracking for shale gas, and open new coal power plants.

The party has doubled down on these policies during the Iran war. Earlier this month, Tice called for the UK to extract “every last drop” of oil and gas in the North Sea, and described new drilling as “our patriotic duty”.

Green Party MP Ellie Chowns told DeSmog: “When you receive nearly two thirds of your funding from vested interests, it is no surprise you dance to their tune.

“This exposes precisely why Reform wants to promote fossil fuels and undermine the green transition to renewables that would provide us with cheaper, secure energy.”

New climate modelling has indicated that a critical Atlantic current is significantly more likely to collapse than previously thought, while scientists have warned of a “rapidly closing window” to limit temperatures rises to 1.5C and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

In March, the UK’s independent Climate Change Committee said the entire cost of cutting emissions to net zero by 2050 would be less than a single fossil fuel price shock – two of which have been experienced by the UK in the past five years.

Meanwhile, a report by the New Economics Foundation last year concluded that Reform’s anti-renewables agenda could cost 60,000 jobs and wipe £92 billion off the economy.

“It isn’t exactly a shock to discover that the party most reliant on fossil fuel funding is also ignoring climate science and claiming that more drilling will solve all of our energy problems,” Angharad Hopkinson, political campaigner for Greenpeace UK, told DeSmog.

“But can they continue to hold that line as Trump’s war in Iran makes it more and more obvious that our dependence on oil and gas gives control over our energy prices to dictators and petrostates with no loyalty to the UK?”

Hopkinson added: “Reform is trying to walk a tightrope, presenting themselves as the party of patriotism while working to preserve foreign influence, rather than saving Britain money by switching to home-grown renewable energy and taking back control.”

Reform was approached for comment.

Reform’s Fossil Fuel Donors

Reform’s biggest donor is crypto investor Harborne, whose company AML Global supplies aviation and maritime fuel to a distribution network that includes “main and regional oil companies”, according to its website.

As reported by Private Eye, the price of jet fuel has doubled since the start of the war in Iran, which would benefit Harborne’s business interests.

One of AML Global’s past clients is the U.S. military, which made payments worth £115 million to AML Global’s Hong Kong division between 2020 and January 2026. It’s unclear if the U.S. military is still a client. 

Harborne and AML Global didn’t respond to DeSmog’s request for comment. In response to a similar enquiry in 2024, he posted a lengthy statement on the AML Global website, stating: “Firstly, I am not a climate science denier and secondly, I do not seek to influence any government through donations or lobbying regarding their policies on climate change or in favour of corporate interests.”

However, Harborne is by far the biggest donor to the UK’s leading anti-climate party. In addition to his £22 million in donations to Reform, The Guardian has revealed that he gave £5 million personally to Farage before the 2024 general election.

Copy: Farage’s foreign money
Infogram

DeSmog analysed Electoral Commission data going back to Reform’s founding, along with company accounts and investment registers.

Reform has also received £1.7 million from hedge fund boss Hosking, whose firm Hosking Partners has extensive fossil fuel holdings.

Its latest filings at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission show the hedge fund has $369.7 million (around £273.7 million) invested in oil and gas companies, and $71 million (around £52.6 million) invested in coal firms.

Hosking’s total fossil fuel investments increased by almost 54 percent in the first three months of 2026.

Hosking previously told DeSmog: “I do not have millions in fossil fuels; it is the clients of Hosking Partners who are the beneficiaries of these investments.” 

Reform also received £50,000 last year from Nova Venture Holdings. The company’s sole director, Jacques J. Tohme, is an oil executive with a long history in the industry. He is founder and managing partner at Samos Energy, which finances oil and gas projects in Southeast Asia. He previously founded Tailwind Energy – later merged with Serica Energy – an oil and gas company which operated in the North Sea and which “transacted” with Shell, BP, and ExxonMobil.

In November, the party accepted a further £200,000 from Ashley Mark Levett. He currently sits on the board of Monaco-based company, Levmet – a global commodities trader whose interests include fossil fuels.

Climate Denier Donors

Reform has also received more than £2.5 million from donors who have promoted climate science denial. 

The party’s deputy leader Tice has provided £2.3 million via his companies TISUN investments, Britain Means Business, and Leave Means Leave since the party’s founding in 2019.

Tice has described carbon dioxide as “plant food”, and told Sky News: “There’s no evidence that man-made CO2 is going to change the climate. Given that it’s gone on for millions of years, it will go on for millions of years.”

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading climate science body, has said it is “unequivocal” that human influence has caused “unprecedented” global warming.

Tice has been accused of hypocrisy for calling renewable energy “a massive con” while fitting solar panels and electric vehicle charging stations on his commercial properties.

In 2023, Reform received £230,000 from First Corporate Consultants, a company owned by Terence Mordaunt, who chaired the GWPF from November 2019 to October 2021.

The GWPF has claimed that carbon dioxide has been “mercilessly demonised” when in fact it should be “two or three times” higher than current levels.

In reality, the IPCC has said CO2 emissions are causing dangerous climate change, fuelling extreme weather, crop failure, and excess deaths around the world.

Despite their opposition to climate science and their fossil fuel donations, Reform MPs represent some of the constituencies most at risk from extreme heat and flooding, including Farage’s constituency of Clacton and Tice’s seat of Boston and Skegness.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage looking at the floodwater in Burrowbridge, Somerset.

Credit: PA Images / Alamy Other Big Donors of Note

Outside the scope of this analysis is Zia Yusuf, a multi-millionaire former tech entrepreneur and Reform’s home affairs spokesman, who has donated £206,000 to the party.

While he has attacked climate action, Yusuf has not explicitly denied the role of man-made CO2 emissions to global warming.

Yusuf donated to Reform ahead of the 2024 election, after which he was appointed as the party’s chairman.

Following the election, Yusuf attacked the Labour Party’s clean energy policies, saying: “Labour champagne socialists are restricting supply of the cheapest form of energy for ordinary citizens.”

He has called net zero “religious madness” and described North Sea oil and gas as “a gift from god”. He welcomed Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president in 2024 as a rejection of “net zero fanaticism”.

The same year, Reform received £247,000 from David Lilley, a metals and mining executive and a director at the investment firm Drakewood Capital. The company holds a 20 percent stake in VSA Capital, which claims to have “a deep knowledge of mining and oil and gas” and which provides banking and brokerage services to the industry. 

Lilley – an old friend of Farage – is also a director of Resolute 1850, a Reform-linked think tank rebranded as the Centre for a Better Britain. It was launched last year by right-wing academic James Orr to “support Reform with policy development, briefing and rebuttal”. Orr joined Reform as head of policy in February, having previously been a senior advisor to the party.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf.

Credit: ZUMA Press, Inc. / Alamy

Reform has received a further £990,000 from property billionaire Nick Candy, who is Reform’s treasurer and who claims to have sought party funding from oil and gas executives. 

As DeSmog has reported, Candy also has financial interests in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a Gulf petrostate. In late 2024, his firm Candy Capital entered into a “strategic joint venture partnership” with Modon Holding, which is chaired by a board member of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC).

Between 2023 and 2025, the party accepted £95,000 from Panther Securities, a property investment company chaired by former UKIP donor Andrew Perloff, who has blamed rising inflation on climate policies and defended climate science deniers.

In June 2022, Perloff wrote: “Whilst they [scientists], of course, could be correct that global warming is happening, I feel it is worrying that those with different opinions are often prevented from presenting them for consideration.”

Reform has also received £36,000 from Heathrow Airport, which was found to be the world’s second most carbon-emitting airport in 2019. Heathrow has also donated to Labour and the Conservatives in recent years.

Farage’s Millions

Alongside these donations, Farage has received £664,000 since July 2024 from the anti-climate broadcaster GB News, which employs him as a presenter. The platform is co-owned by Paul Marshall, whose hedge fund had £1.8 billion invested in fossil fuels as of June 2023.

As revealed by DeSmog, Farage has received gifts from the UAE, and has been lavished with £150,000 worth of flights to give speeches to U.S. anti-climate groups. 

Last year, Farage helped launch a UK-Europe branch of the Heartland Institute, a U.S. climate denial group which has described itself as “the world’s most prominent think tank supporting skepticism about man-made climate change”.

In total, Farage has received almost £2 million in earnings and gifts since his election in 2024, including £675,000 from foreign sources.

The post Revealed: Reform’s £24 Million from Fossil Fuel Interests appeared first on DeSmog.

In February, the United States Department of Agriculture announced two proposed changes to federal rules governing the rate of production in meat processing plants — a move advocates say would endanger workers, public health, and the environment. One proposed amendment would raise the maximum line speeds in poultry slaughter from 140 birds per minute to 175 for chicken and from 55 birds per minute to 60 for turkey. For swine slaughter, the agency is proposing there be no cap on line speed at all. 

Last week, the public comment period for the proposed amendments came to a close. If finalized, these changes would “lower production costs and create greater stability in our food system” as well as help “keep groceries more affordable,” said Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins back in February.

The proposals are in line with other Trump administration policies that encourage higher meat consumption among Americans — like the revised food pyramid with its emphasis on eating more protein. But despite the promise of lower costs and higher efficiency, experts say these proposed rollbacks pose more risks than benefits to the public. 

“This is doubling down on an already broken and polluting food system,” said Dani Replogle, staff attorney at Food & Water Watch, an environmental nonprofit that submitted public comments against the proposed rules. 

The USDA will need time to review the tens of thousands of comments submitted, but the United Food and Commercial Workers, or UFCW, a union that represents workers along the food supply chain, estimates that over 22,000 comments oppose the poultry rule, along with over 20,000 oppose the pork rule. 

The union — which successfully sued and blocked the USDA from enacting a similar change to swine line speeds in 2021 — stresses that increasing line speeds in meat processing will result in more injuries for workers. While various parts of the line in these facilities are automated, the beginning of the line — where animals are corralled into the plants — is notoriously backbreaking and dangerous work. For chickens, workers who hang the birds by their feet often end up covered in fecal matter; in swine slaughterhouses, workers on the “kill floor” move pigs into stunning chambers. In both scenarios, unlike climate-controlled segments of the line, workers are exposed to the elements and face heat stress on very hot days. 

Read Next American farmers bet on solar. Then Trump changed the rules. Ayurella Horn-Muller, Melina Walling, Clayton Aldern, & M.K. Wildeman

Further down the line, workers handle knives and often labor shoulder-to-shoulder. They make repetitive motions for hours at a time, making the same cuts over and over to process hundreds or thousands of birds and swine. This workforce already runs the risk of developing carpal tunnel syndrome and enduring lacerations and amputations. Research has shown injury rates go up when line speeds increase.

The USDA contests this finding. In its proposed rule for poultry slaughter, the USDA states that a study funded by the agency’s Food Safety and Inspection Service determined that increased line speeds during the evisceration segment of the line — where internal organs are removed from dead animals — “are not associated” with a higher risk of musculoskeletal disorder. The study’s authors, however, have since said that the proposed rule “fundamentally misunderstands and mischaracterizes the scope and results” of their research. 

“The potential for injury to these workers, it’s just something people can’t deny,” said Mark Lauritsen, who leads UFCW’s food processing, packaging, and manufacturing division. “Quite honestly, line speeds are too fast now.”

In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson from the USDA said, “Decades of data prove that plants can run at higher speeds while maintaining process control and meeting every federal food safety standard.” They also added that federal inspectors in meat processing plants are still able to slow lines down if they discover a problem. 

Ultimately, the spokesperson said, “The USDA’s legal authority is strictly limited to ensuring food safety and process control; we do not have the power to regulate piece rates or how private companies manage their staff.” (Piece rate refers to the number of items — such as whole birds or parts — handled by a worker per minute.)

When it comes to meat processing, going faster “is not good for the environment either,” said Lauritsen. 

Packages of chicken at a supermarket in Texas. Ronaldo Schemidt / AFP via Getty Images

Slaughterhouses are incredibly water-intensive operations, due in part to the need to regularly spray down these facilities in order to maintain sanitary conditions while processing animals. In turn, they also produce a lot of waste — in the form of, yes, contaminated water, but also blood, guts, and fecal matter from animal carcasses. Both labor and environmental advocates argue that increasing the line speeds in slaughterhouses will necessarily increase the amount of water used and the amount of waste discharged into local ecosystems. 

In written comments submitted to the USDA, the Center for Biological Diversity stated: “Increasing line speed slaughter rates will increase slaughter capacity […] and lead to further damage to the environment, wildlife, animal welfare, worker safety, and public health (including food safety).” 

Replogle, the attorney at Food & Water Watch, also believes that if slaughterhouses go faster, then factory farms will decide to raise more animals. These farms, known as confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, are “another gigantic source of water pollution in particular and nitrate pollution,” said Replogle, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. Across the U.S., CAFOs are also linked to higher levels of air pollution in uninsured and Latino communities. 

In its proposed rule for poultry slaughter, the USDA states that increasing line speeds “would not affect consumer demand for the establishments’ products,” and that only “expected sales of poultry products […] would determine production levels in establishments.” But demand for meat in the U.S. is already quite high, with most Americans eating more than 1.5 times the daily protein requirement. 

It’s also unclear that increasing line speeds would actually lower the price of chicken and pork at the grocery store. Agricultural economist David Ortega, a professor at Michigan State University, said increasing slaughter capacity would only result in lower poultry and pork prices at the grocery store if slaughterhouses pass on their savings “through the supply chain.” That outcome, Ortega said, would run counter to the slaughterhouses’ economic incentives. 

For some workers, the proposition of increased line speeds has already been made real. Magaly Licolli is a labor organizer based in Springdale, Arkansas, where Tyson Foods, the largest U.S. meat corporation, is headquartered. She said that poultry workers in Northwest Arkansas, at companies she did not name, say they have already been told to work faster. “We had a meeting with workers from different companies. And all of them stated that the line speed had increased,” said Licolli. 

The USDA spokesperson said, “The safety and well-being of the workforce are essential to a stable food supply; however, worker safety is overseen by the Department of Labor, not USDA. The law is very clear on this.” They also added that meat processing plants have long been able to receive line speed waivers, which allow the facilities to operate at higher speeds — and that this may explain what workers are reporting to Licolli.

Debbie Berkowitz, a worker safety and health expert at Georgetown University, argued that increasing line speeds ultimately puts profits above all else. “I think the line speed issue is not about selling more chicken or pork, but being able to exploit workers and get them to work even harder and faster. That is how the companies save money,” said Berkowitz. In cases like this, Berkowitz argues that workers and the environment are treated as expendable. “It’s just churning through workers,” she said. In other words: “Exploitation 101.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump’s plan for ultrafast meat processing would be a disaster for workers and the environment on Apr 30, 2026.

Across cultures, practices that limit ego and hierarchy help sustain cooperation and trust. In an era of cascading crises, rediscovering these “social technologies” could strengthen community resilience and collective action.

In New Zealand, forest gardening is being reshaped to fit local climates, ecosystems and cultural contexts. Drawing on years of research and practice, this work shows how place-based adaptation can support more resilient, regenerative food systems.

For the past couple of decades, we at Post Carbon Institute have been pointing out that a transition to alternative energy sources will necessarily be slow and incomplete. Given that oil is a depleting, polluting, non-renewable resource, industrial society is due for a reckoning. We are all in an extended Wile E. Coyote moment.

Europe’s climate movement is often portrayed as the domain of younger generations. Yet from landmark legal victories to everyday practices of sustainability, a different picture is emerging: older Europeans are proving to be among the most committed and effective climate actors. As the continent continues to age, could this overlooked demographic reshape how climate action is understood and mobilised across Europe?

In April 2024, a group of Swiss women, most of them in their 70s and 80s, stood on the steps of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, surrounded by a wall of microphones and cameras from around the world. They had just heard the verdict in one of the most significant climate cases in European legal history. The KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz had won.

The ruling found Switzerland in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights for failing to adequately protect its citizens from the effects of climate change. The judgment, formally known as Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland, now sets binding legal precedent across all 46 Council of Europe member states. Switzerland has since pushed hard for the case to be closed, but the Committee of Ministers, which monitors its implementation, has refused the request twice.

The story of how about 3,000 Swiss women forced their country to one of the highest courts in Europe is striking in its own right. Yet it also points to something broader: a growing, largely invisible force within the climate movement that Europe’s ageing democracies might not be able to overlook for much longer.

Beyond the generational divide

The climate movement’s most visible faces – such as activists Greta Thunberg in Sweden or Féris Barkat in France – tend to be on the younger (if not much younger) side, and it has become common to identify Gen Z as its most fervent defender. But researchers who study the intersection of ageing and environmental engagement argue that the mainstream perception of generations within the climate movement may be flawed.

“There is a slight tendency for younger generations to have opinions that are more favourable towards climate policy,” said Jan Rosset, a sociologist at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland who has studied climate engagement across age groups in Switzerland alongside political scientist Jasmine Lorenzini. “But all generations are very favourable to climate policies. There is no real generational divide.”

That finding echoes the conclusions of a 2025 study published by Parlons Climat, a French research organisation, which found that older adults take climate change and environmental degradation just as seriously as the rest of the population. The myth of a disengaged older generation does not seem to hold up to scrutiny.

What differs across generations, Rosset and Lorenzini found, is not the level of concern but the form that engagement takes. Older adults are significantly more likely to buy local and seasonal produce for environmental reasons, to renounce air travel on ecological grounds, and to practice unglamorous household sustainability: buying second-hand, reducing electricity use, cooking from scratch. Younger people, on the other hand, might be more likely to adopt plant-based diets and participate in public protests. It should, however, be noted that the data is mixed.

Researchers who study the intersection of ageing and environmental engagement argue that the mainstream perception of generations within the climate movement may be flawed.

“On almost every indicator, it is people in mid-life, those between roughly 35 and 60, who engage the least,” Rosset says. “But that is not an ideological position. It’s a question of time and capacity; they have demanding jobs and family responsibilities. It is a life-cycle issue, not a generational one.”

Rosset and Lorenzini also found a consistent gender gap: across all age groups, but especially among older adults, women showed significantly more favourable attitudes toward climate action and higher levels of engagement than men.

“This gap was almost stronger than other socioeconomic factors, like income or education level,” Rosset said.

The case that set a precedent

When Greenpeace Switzerland began exploring the possibility of legal climate action in the mid-2010s, it ran into an obstacle: Swiss law does not allow class actions. Any case would need to be brought by individuals who could demonstrate they were personally and particularly affected. The research pointed to one group. Studies following the 2003 European heatwave – which killed an estimated 70,000 people across the continent, with the elderly among the hardest hit – had shown that older women died in disproportionate numbers. More recent research has confirmed this vulnerability: a 2024 study by Penn State researchers found that older women reach dangerous heat thresholds at lower temperature and humidity levels than older men and that middle-aged women are as heat-vulnerable as men over 65.

Heatwaves increase illnesses, causing heat stroke, heart and lung problems, diabetes complications, mental health issues, and trouble with daily activities. The vulnerability of older generations is not just physical: many live alone, have limited mobility, or cannot easily access emergency services. People in cities face “heat island” effects, where concrete and asphalt trap heat, while rural residents often have fewer cooling centres or medical resources. Climate change also worsens air quality, raising levels of ozone, fine particulate matter, and other pollutants, which worsen respiratory and heart conditions. These combined factors make ageing populations especially vulnerable to the health impacts of climate change.

One senior activist who committed herself to the Swiss climate fight is Elisabeth Stern, a cultural anthropologist and board member of KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz. “It was clear that when I got retired, I would use my time in a climate group,” she said. “I tried a few that were not the right fit for me until I found the KlimaSeniorinnen, who I sort of met on the same eye level.”

Stern’s fellow activist, Anne Mahrer, KlimaSeniorinnen’s co-president, had spent years watching climate policy stall in parliament as a member of the Swiss National Council. When a colleague reminded her of the Urgenda case in the Netherlands, where a court had ordered the Dutch government in 2015 to cut emissions, the question became: could something similar be done in Switzerland? In August 2016, KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz was formally established to achieve that goal.

The Swiss courts, however, were not moved. At every level, the association was told it lacked standing. One court noted that the women were concerned not only about Swiss emissions but wanted to reduce them worldwide. Another placed winter tourism in the same category of climate-affected interests as the health of women threatened by heatwaves. The most striking argument, Stern recounts, was that the women might not still be alive by the time global warming reached 1.5 degrees and therefore could not complain. “If you follow their reasoning, climate action in court would only be possible when it’s already too late,” Mahrer said.

The European Court of Human Rights took a different view. It declared the application a priority case, engaged seriously with reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and referred the case to its Grand Chamber of 17 judges. “Unlike politicians, who do not listen to scientists, the judges listened to the scientists, and they took into account the third-party interventions in support of the case,” Mahrer explained.

The court delivered its verdict on 9 April, 2024. It found Switzerland in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to respect for private and family life – which the court ruled encompasses a right to effective state protection against the severe effects of climate change on life, health, wellbeing, and quality of life. Switzerland was also found to have violated Article 6 – the right to a fair trial – for its domestic courts’ refusal to hear the case on its merits.

The ripple effects spread quickly and travelled farther than anyone had anticipated. The ruling is now cited in climate litigation across Europe. In South Korea, groups of young activists successfully pursued a similar case. In the Netherlands, residents of the island of Bonaire have taken legal action against the Dutch state, drawing on the KlimaSeniorinnen precedent. The International Court of Justice, prompted by the small island nation of Vanuatu, issued an advisory opinion in July 2025 stating that governments which fail to protect their populations from climate harm are acting unlawfully, reinforcing the Strasbourg ruling and opening new avenues for litigation worldwide.

Across Europe, a generation of older activists has been following a similar model. European Grandparents for Climate, active in Belgium and Norway, and Omas for Future in Germany and Austria, are building on the same instinct: that people who have watched the world change across six or seven decades have both a particular stake in the future and a special capacity to act.

European Grandparents for Climate participates in demonstrations, writes letters to ministers, and monitors parliamentary votes on climate at both the Belgian and European levels. In Germany, Omas for Future joins Fridays for Future strikes, runs climate workshops in schools, and has organised nationwide campaigns such as the “Klimabänder” initiative, in which thousands of handwritten climate messages were bicycled to Berlin ahead of the 2021 federal election.

Sustainability by habit

Beyond courts and campaigns, there is a quieter dimension to older adults’ climate engagement, rooted not in ideology but in force of habit and the practical knowledge of generations who lived before the age of mass consumption.

Serge Guérin, a French sociologist and author of Et si les vieux aussi sauvaient la planète? (“And what if the Elderly Also Saved the Planet?”), points to a kind of practical sustainability that older generations carry without naming it as such. They grew up returning glass bottles for a deposit, cooking whatever was in season, and mending rather than replacing. A startup working on bottle recycling, he recalls, found it far easier to explain the concept to older people because “When they were young, they used to return the milk bottle, the wine bottle, and get a few cents back. For them, it was totally normal,” he says.

Helene Blasquiet-Revol, a geographer whose research examines civic engagement among seniors in rural France, describes what she calls “ordinary” forms of climate engagement: practices so ingrained they are not even labelled as activism. For instance, she found that community gardens established by older residents in the Allier region gradually opened up to schools and youth workshops, transmitting practical knowledge in ways that were rarely planned or publicised.

There is a quieter dimension to older adults’ climate engagement, rooted not in ideology but in force of habit and the practical knowledge of generations who lived before the age of mass consumption.

Researchers are increasingly identifying the potential for a form of intergenerational knowledge transfer that is already happening informally, and which could be deliberately cultivated. Rosset, for instance, found that among older climate activists, there was no statistically significant relationship between having children or grandchildren and the propensity to get involved, meaning people were not fighting for their own descendants. “It is really universal,” Rosset said. “It is a solidarity expressed towards future generations, towards all of humanity. We did not expect that result at all.”

Renewal needs the old

Europe is ageing fast. According to projections from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, the share of older adults across EU member states is growing steadily and will continue to do so for decades, driven by declining fertility rates and rising life expectancy. This demographic shift also increases the need for climate-adapted healthcare, adequate urban planning, and social support systems for vulnerable seniors.

“There is a widespread idea that with generational renewal, the problem will be solved, that new generations will be more environmentally conscious,” Rosset said. “Our research shows this is not the case. And in addition, there will be more and more older people.”

Guérin also notes that designing urban environments, housing, and transport for ageing populations often produces outcomes that are better for both people and the planet. Accessible public transport means more people leave their cars behind. Shared housing models reduce per-capita energy consumption. Local services cut down the need for long-distance travel. And when older people are less isolated, they are in better health.

“When you reduce isolation, people use fewer resources, they are less at risk and share more,” Guérin said, adding that these shifts can lower both land use and carbon footprints. “When you take vulnerability into account, you very often improve things for everyone. And it’s really when people feel their capacity to act, especially at the local level, that things begin to move.”

Stern sees the perception gap playing out in real time in media coverage. “There are certain media and certain politicians who want us to believe that interest in the climate has vanished,” she says. “It is in their interest to tell people: ‘It has vanished anyway, so you don’t have to get involved, just enjoy life.’ But the truth is, when you ask people what concerns them a lot, the climate crisis comes up either first or second.”

The KlimaSeniorinnen continue to monitor Switzerland’s compliance with the Strasbourg judgment, sending observations to the Committee of Ministers, lobbying ambassadors, and speaking at universities across the country. For Stern, meaningful compliance means confronting Switzerland’s financial sector, which through continued investment in fossil fuels generates emissions many times greater than those in the country itself. A documentary about the association’s decade-long legal journey recently toured cinemas.

Whatever the future of the climate movement and its coverage, it is clear that the generational conflict narrative is not accurate. The evidence from researchers points to something more complicated and more hopeful: a Europe where different generations, engaged in different ways, with different tools and different knowledge, are already working on the same problem.

By Jeremy Brecher,
Senior Strategic Advisor, LNS Co-Founder

Listen to the audio version >>

Radical, unanticipated developments in electrification, storage, distribution, and other technologies are transforming not only the way energy is produced but also the way it is used. Like the transformation in energy production, these advances in energy consumption are transforming economies and creating new opportunities to protect the climate and improve our lives.

Nissan LEAF charging at the Freedom Station in Houston, TX. This is an eVgo Network station with both Level 2 and DC fast chargers. Photo credit: evgonetwork (eVgo Network). Original image was trimmed and retouched (lighting and color tones) by User:Mariordo, Wikemedia Commons, CC BY 2.0.

In the previous commentary we examined the impact of the Greentech revolution on the production of energy. But energy production is only one side of the Greentech revolution. The other is providing that energy where it is needed when it is needed, shifting energy consumption from fossil fuels to electricity, and using that energy more efficiently so less of it is required. As the FT wrote in “The Reshaping of Energy Consumption,” “Just as important as the development of new wind and solar farms to generate electricity without carbon dioxide emissions” is “the overhauling of vehicles, heating systems, and factories.”

Energy Storage

After energy has been produced it often must be stored until it is needed. Enter the Greentech revolution in energy storage. Over the past 15 years the cost of energy storage has dropped 95%. In 2025, Chinese batteries appeared headed for a further 30% decline. In 2025, the world was expected to add eighty gigawatts of grid-scale storage, eight times as much as in 2021.

More change is at hand. For example, sodium-ion batteries are safer than lithium batteries and do not require destructive extraction of materials like lithium, cobalt, phosphorus, and copper. Materials for sodium batteries are far cheaper those for lithium batteries. BYD opened a sodium-ion battery factory in 2024, and is producing a large sodium-ion battery energy storage system (BESS) called MC Cube-T. Sodium-ion storage is likely to make it possible to replace fossil fuels with electricity in such until-now intractable areas as heavy trucks and long-distance shipping.

This is only one of several impending battery breakthroughs. For example, long duration energy storage is increasing today’s typical storage time of about 4 hours to many times as long. Google recently announced investment in long duration energy storage (LDES). “Through a new long-term partnership with Energy Dome, we plan to support multiple commercial projects globally to deploy their LDES technology.” Toyota has developed an all-solid-state battery that provides EVs with smaller, more durable batteries that charge in minutes and deliver longer ranges between charges.

Energy Distribution

Construction workers build the frame for a one-megawatt solar microgrid project at Fort Hunter Liggett, Calif., Dec. 22, 2011. Photo credit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District Licensing, Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain.

After energy has been produced it needs to get to where it is needed. Led by China, there is a revolution in long-distance power transmission. One ultrahigh-voltage Chinese power line stretches more than 2,000 miles from the sparsely populated far northwest to the populous, industrialized southeast — the equivalent of sending electricity from Idaho to New York City. This is one of 42 long-distance power lines, each able to carry more electricity than any utility transmission line in the United States. China’s transmission technology is far more efficient than others. And China plans systematically; it is now building the world’s first nationwide grid of ultrahigh-voltage power transmission lines. By 2050, China plans to have three times more ultrahigh-voltage routes in operation.

At the opposite end of the scale, microgrids are providing new ways of distributing energy locally. According to the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a microgrid is a group of “interconnected loads and distributed energy resources that acts as a single controllable entity with respect to the grid.” It can connect and disconnect from the grid to operate in grid-connected or island mode. It can therefore keep a local grid running even when the wider grid fails. Microgrids allow coordination and synergism among small-scale, local energy infrastructure like generators, renewables, and batteries. That allows them to save costs, reduce the need for energy, and make money by selling excess electricity.

Microgrids are now being used in hospitals, universities, neighborhoods, and many other venues. In Petaluma, CA for example, the newly constructed 131-unit Meridian at Petaluma North Station affordable apartment complex includes a solar and energy storage microgrid. The net-zero project will generate and manage all its energy onsite. Its microgrid includes a 1-MW solar array consisting of rooftop-mounted panels and solar canopies in the parking lot. A 4.3 MWh battery is designed to support the complex for three to four days during a power outage. Parking spaces with bidirectional EV chargers directly wired into the microgrid will allow EVs to charge from the solar array — and provide electricity back to the building when needed.

Transportation

The largest shift so far from fossil fuel burning to electricity is the replacement of gas guzzlers with electric vehicles (EVs). Not only do EVs use electrons rather than gasoline; they use 2-4 times less energy than their fossil fuel counterparts. Sales of EVs have been rapidly growing globally, increasing by over 33 times, from 0.5 million (1% of all car sales) in 2015 to over 17 million (more than 20% of all car sales) in 2024. EVs now account for almost half of all car sales in China, 20% in Europe, and more than 10% in the USA. EV sales in Asia and Latin America increased by over 60% in 2024 to almost 600,000. Electric vehicles made up 80% of Norway’s new car sales last year. Electric car sales in 2025 were expected to exceed 20 million worldwide, more than a quarter of all cars sold.

EVs are only part of the Greentech transformation of transportation. Electrification and system reorganization have the potential to transform rail transportation: In the English town of Aldershot, solar collectors are directly delivering electricity to drive trains; the developer says, “If you are a railway, this is the cheapest electricity you can buy.” In China, 30,000 miles of high-speed rail lines run on electricity. Buses, subways, light rail, and other public transit can now be provided at far less than the cost of auto transportation due to electrification and technological improvements. Due to emerging battery technologies, ships and planes may be electrified at competitive cost. At the other end of the scale, electric bikes providing “micromobility” are already a rapidly expanding transportation niche. One recent example is a four-wheeled bike for individual and commercial cargo haulers.

Agriculture

Solar is growing in Alaska, ACEP is helping the industry and communities. Video credit: Alaska Center for Energy and Power | UAF

Agricultural techniques are turning farms from producers to reducers of greenhouse gases. For example, regenerative agriculture provides farming and grazing practices that withdraw carbon from the atmosphere by restoring degraded soil biodiversity. New technologies are allowing farmers to grow crops underneath solar panels. The New York Times recently featured an “agrivoltaics” installation in Houston, Alaska, adapted to the farm’s extreme northern location. “The rows of panels on the 45-acre site are set 50 feet apart, much wider than at lower latitudes, and they collect solar power on both front and back in order to capture the maximum amount of summer sunlight as the sun dances across the horizon all day and all night.” The electricity produced from such agrivoltaics can run farm equipment and be sold to provide an extra source of income for farmers; the food produced can help meet local food shortages.

As in so much Greentech, China is creating radical advances in agrivoltaics. For example, the Chinese company GCL says it has combined four new agrivoltaic technologies: Bifacial solar panels harvest sunlight from both sides, enabling them to assume a space-saving vertical position when needed. Tunable solar panels that enable more or less light to pass onto crops can be adjusted to a range of 15-40% light pass-through. Elevated racks can be raised to 9 feet with tracking capability to optimize the sun-collecting angle. Advanced system management integrates meteorological data, crop growth sensors, inverter analytics, and AI algorithms to optimize module tilt and irrigation schedules.

Greentech Unlimited

There are thousands of Greentech goods, services, and systems that have been introduced or are in development around the world that will increase efficiency and reduce GHG emissions – far too numerous and diverse to review here. For a knowledgeable review, see Mark Jacobson’s Still No Miracles Needed. A few of the most important additional sectors of Greentech advance:

• Climate-safe factories are now being built around the world. For example, Ford has opened a carbon neutral assembly plant in Cologne, Germany, to produce EVs for the European market. According to Ford, the plant uses “digital advancements that connect machines, vehicles and workers” including “self-learning machines, autonomous transport systems, and big data management.” New technologies are even reducing the carbon released in steelmaking, one of the most intense greenhouse gas producers on earth.
• Circular reuse and recycling include the upcycling of waste materials into new products, promoting a cycle of continuous use, and GHG-reducing waste management practices like composting. It can include air and water filtration systems, waste-to-energy technologies, and methods for safely disposing of or repurposing industrial waste.
• Public transit may well be the most cost-effective single way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• Green construction is substituting low-carbon materials like hempcrete and recycled steel for more climate-destructive materials.
• Greentech building decarbonization is creating carbon-neutral buildings.It includes insulation, electrification, and on-site renewable energy. Improved heat pumps can produce three or more units of heat for every unit of electricity they use.
• Protecting and restoring ecosystems can rebuild degraded lands, preserve endangered species, and support sustainable agriculture practices.

These are only a few of the many examples of Greentech transformations of consumption. More are being implemented every day.

Infographic: Who has pledged an INDC so far, and what percentage of the world’s emissions are covered. Credit: Rosamund Pearce, Carbon Brief, based on EU data. Only UN parties have been included in the emissions total. Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark, not covered by the EU’s INDC. It is not a UN party. Taiwan is also not a UN party. Source: Carbonbrief.org

Reducing energy consumption can make an important contribution to the transition to climate-safe energy. For example, the IEA’s modelling of a world on track to meet the Paris agreement targets for GHG reduction shows final energy consumption falling by as much as 15 percent compared with current levels by 2035, even as GDP continues to grow. That’s because of electrification and other energy efficiency measures such as better insulation.

As shown in this and the previous commentary, Greentech production and consumption are now far more efficient and therefore far less costly and more competitive than fossil fuel-based systems. This Greentech revolution will have profound effects on the future of the US as well as the rest of the world.

Donald Trump and his MAGA allies are determined to reverse the Greentech revolution. Their success would mean catastrophe for the US economy and the American people. Conversely, the Greentech revolution has enormous potential benefits for the US economy and for the American people. Subsequent commentaries in this series will explore what the Greentech revolution means for the American people – and how we can take advantage of it.

Get “Strike!” via EmailGet “Strike!” via Substack DONATE ONLINE

The post Greentech Revolution: Energy Consumption first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Read and subscribe to our monthly newsletter and support our work.

The post Latest Newsletter first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Carlos Torrealba currently is the Network and Formations Manager at Taproot Earth, where he’s helping build the Gulf South to Appalachia Formation, a powerful 17-state network of over 100 frontline organizations.

For the past decade, Carlos has been building the new while fighting the bad; from creating community-led disaster response systems to deepening and building labor and climate justice solidarity across local, regional, and national movements. His work leans heavily on not only building local alternatives but also linking them to regional, national and international movements of decolonization, anti-neoliberalism, and anti-imperialism. His political roots were shaped in undergrad while engaged in pipeline fights and Palestinian Solidarity work in Vermont. Carlos is also deeply engaged in Latin American solidarity and food sovereignty efforts. Outside movement work, Carlos enjoys travelling, early French Modernist Literature, and vinyl collecting.

The post May LNS Spotlight: Carlos Torrealba first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

What does a Black climate activist say when interviewed by someone who describes themselves as a “Redneck Gone Green”? Here’s how LNS executive director started his rap:

“I appreciate as a black Southerner the idea of starting with joy. In my old church tradition they’ll say, “Out of all the things I’ve been through, I still have joy.” And I think that joy and love are still the key attributes of what is to be done. This radical notion of love, love that calls you to a responsibility of taking care of yourself and the ones around you. The responsibility of this moment, of this political moment, this socioeconomic moment, this rise of authoritarianism. And if we don’t start practicing that love and moving our boots and moving our asses, then we just may be in the dystopian future that we fear.”

Watch Joshua’s “Same Boss, Same Enemy” interview on “Redneck Gone Green” here.

The post Same Boss, Same Enemy first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Photo credit:Yasmin Gabriel, LNS Development Manager

My kids are climate justice leaders in our household, always looking for ways of reducing our carbon footprints. They see themselves as stewards of the planet and I am aware that it is crucial for us to alleviate disproportionate energy burdens and reduce exposure to environmental hazards. According to ScienceDirect.com, Black families emit 20% less CO2 than average households but we suffer higher energy costs and poorer health outcomes, making sustainable action a key strategy for health and financial equity.

As a family, we chose a solution that would reduce our financial obligations and carbon footprint. Over the winter break, I researched how to safely get around with two kids. We settled on a cargo bike, allowing me to transport multiple kids, pets, and plants, all at the same time. According to the Guardian, bike riding reduces your carbon emissions by 90%, compared with electric vans that reduce by one-third. We are able to demonstrate to our community what reducing a family’s carbon footprint actually could look like – choosing to ride a bike around town instead of driving.

I know the cargo bike saved us money, but what about the impact it has on our family joy? Our bike recently broke, devastating to me, but my 4-year-old daughter offered to ride her bike to school and my 8-year-old son offered to walk the 2 miles to school, so we could continue to spend time with each other and do our part for the planet. The impact on our family’s quality of life is immeasurable, and yet so clear! If you are interested in talking or learning more about cargo bike journeys, feel free to reach out to me via email at yasmin@labor4sustainability.org.

Happy working to ensure everyone has a livable wage on a livable planet,

The Gabriel Family

The post Stewards of the Planet first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

LNS invites you to a national webinar on May 5 at 4 PM ET, co-hosted by Taproot Earth and the Hotel & Gaming Trades Council (HTC), in partnership with U.S. Climate Action Network, Labor Network for Sustainability, and Just Transition Alliance.

As Climate Week NYC approaches, we’re deepening solidarity between the climate justice and labor movements. With the NYC hotel workers’ union contract set to expire this summer, this moment offers a powerful opportunity to align our values and actions. This session is designed for decision-makers and operations leads at climate organizations participating in Climate Week NYC. We’ll explore how to show up in solidarity and support workers in their fight for a fair contract.

Click here to register.

The post Solidarity in Action: Mobilizing Labor & Climate Justice at NYC Climate Week and Beyond first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.