News Feeds

This article 25 years after 9/11, how do we build a movement to stop endless wars? was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Twenty-five years after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, on the surface it may seem that American foreign policy has followed a course filled with continuity. A quarter century ago, the U.S. launched the “War on Terror” in response to 9/11. Today, Trump’s attacks on Iran have embroiled the country in another conflict in the Middle East.

Yet while the War on Terror gave rise to a disastrous wave of military intervention, it also produced a historic surge of antiwar activism, which played a critical role in discrediting “forever wars” across the political spectrum. Whereas the Iraq War began with 70 percent public approval, Trump’s war in Iran has been widely opposed from the beginning, with only around a third of Americans currently in support. 

Jeremy Varon, a historian at the New School for Social Research, recently released the first definitive history of antiwar organizing against the War on Terror. His book is entitled “Our Grief Is Not a Cry for War.” I spoke with Varon to discuss the organizing that took place against the war in Iraq that started in 2003, the impact the movement had, and how that activism has been popularly remembered — or, too often, forgotten. 

We also discussed the prospects for antiwar organizing today, when Trump’s attacks on Iran are wildly unpopular, and yet we lack a movement that can be a mechanism for raising the political costs of interventionism. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

There is a very common impression — maybe the dominant impression of antiwar activism under George W. Bush — that the movement was a failure because it did not stop the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. I think that is a distorted perception of the impact the movement did have. What is your assessment?

The first thing to say is that success and failure are relative. And indeed, certainly with regard to the invasion of Iraq, the movement failed in its overarching goal to stop the war before it started. A lot of people intuitively knew that when the bombs started falling, disaster would follow, and that reorienting American policy would be like turning around a tanker, not a tugboat. 

If you look at American military casualties, the implosion of Iraqi society, civilian casualties and so on, the calamity that people feared came to pass. I can appreciate the sense of failure many activists felt, because the stakes were so high — literally life and death.

Previous Coverage

Lessons from the movement to stop the ‘war on terror’

That said, the antiwar movement can claim accomplishments as well. It substantially delegitimated the war before it ever started, especially within the realms of global public opinion and even geopolitics. The United States went to war with just one significant military and political ally: the United Kingdom. It didn’t have the support of traditional allies in Western Europe, like France and Germany. Most of Latin America, Asia and Central Europe rejected the U.S. position. The United Nations, while not declaring the war illegal, fundamentally disapproved of it, and Secretary General Kofi Annan privately thought the war would be a grave mistake. So the actual military campaign was inhibited by both a domestic and a global movement arguing that the war was wrong-headed and likely illegal. 

In a way, the antiwar movement peaked before the Iraq War even started. On February 15, 2003, you had thousands of coordinated antiwar protests all over the world. Between 15 and 30 million people turned out to protest the war. It was the largest single day of protest in human history. For sure, many people on the streets that day were gravely disappointed that the demonstration didn’t have the intended effect of preventing the war. Some percentage maybe never came back to the antiwar movement, because they were so dispirited. But organizing the mass demonstrations built a protest infrastructure that lived on. The main antiwar coalition in the U.S. came into its own through those demonstrations.

I give enormous credit to the people who had the tenacity and stamina to keep grinding away at protest. I’m thinking of Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, World Can’t Wait and all of these smaller grassroots formations throughout the country that continued to organize.

When the war started, public opinion in the U.S. was substantially in its favor, around 70 percent right after the “shock and awe” invasion. But that was a soft 70 percent, with people in the middle rallying around the flag. They wanted the swift victory Bush promised, which would mean limited American casualties. But as the war bogged down, the antiwar position grew steadily more salient, and antiwar sentiment grew steadily bigger. 

Eventually, public opinion caught up with the antiwar movement. The most recent polling is from 2023 or so. Something like 60 percent of the American public, by that point, thought that the Iraq War was a mistake. A similar percentage thought the Afghanistan War, long considered the “good war,” was a mistake. And a whopping 58 percent of veterans of both deployments think that the wars were not worth fighting.

We’ll never know with any certainty the extent to which the war itself or the antiwar movement was the driver of shifts in public opinion. But in my book I cite observers who argue that the antiwar movement likely limited the duration and intensity of the war in Iraq, and therefore saved lives. That’s a highly general statement, but I think it’s a fair statement. Others note that it may have constrained the neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration from pursuing military action in places like Iran and Syria, which had very much been on their agenda. 

In the book you write that, as the Bush administration launched its invasion of Iraq in 2003, “For months, the public had been schooled in the reasons for the invasion, and expectations for it. Americans were also versed, if to a lesser degree, in the case against the war. Events on the ground would determine which position was right.” 

I think that’s a very important point: In relation to the War on Terror, the movement created a counter-narrative about what the administration was doing and what actions were actually going to make us safer. And so when the war started going bad, there was already an explanation in place for why this was always a horrible idea and why there should be political consequences.

Yes, and this is important for understanding how public discourse and policy interrelate. There was a counter-narrative about the war coming from the movement. It said that Iraq doesn’t pose a clear and present danger, that there’s no proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, that lots of people are going to die, and that it may plunge the region into chaos. Over time, more and more observers could see the reality aligning with those warnings. 

#newsletter-block_49211cb9e613de99c9abf99466e50a26 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_49211cb9e613de99c9abf99466e50a26 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Rather than having to create arguments against the war from scratch, people who were growing increasingly critical could appeal to an existing body of antiwar criticisms and bring them into the public square in a new way. Eventually, you have the political class catching up with where the public already was — aligned, more or less, with the core positions of an antiwar movement. It’s a long and complex process by which dissenting ideas achieve a kind of hegemony and then compel shifts in policy. Even endless wars can end, when they lose legitimacy in the eyes of the nation waging them. That process begins at the grassroots.

Of course, the end of the war came too late to spare untold death and destruction. But the antiwar movement at least limited the damage, and that’s a real achievement.

One of the ways in which the antiwar movement had a swifter impact was in shifting the debate within the Democratic Party. You quickly go from having the leadership of the party voting in favor of the war in Iraq, to there being a complete revolt from the base. This results in the rise of figures such as antiwar candidate Howard Dean in 2004, and it leads to the eventual Democratic nominee John Kerry trying to position himself as an antiwar candidate — even though he’s not an entirely credible one. 

In the 2004 election, George W. Bush was an incumbent, wartime president who most analysts expected to coast to victory based on the massive surge of patriotism after 9/11. And instead this election, in no small part, became a referendum on the war and became an extremely close race. If just 60,000 votes in Ohio had gone the other way, Bush would have been ousted.

During the electoral season in 2004, much of the antiwar movement considered Bush’s defeat to be the quickest way to end the war. The war had already started to crash and burn, but ultimately not badly enough to turn the tide against Bush. Remarkably, he won the so-called “security vote.” Bush had gifted political operatives, notably Karl Rove, who had him run on culture war issues and turned out droves of evangelicals. Last, there was an enormous effort by the right to discredit John Kerry over his opposition to the Vietnam War. As it is, he was a kind of wishy-washy alternative on the war in Iraq, whom the antiwar movement only grudgingly backed. 

It ended up being a close election. Bush’s win was a huge disappointment, even a shock for progressives. Still, the antiwar movement found a way to write another chapter.

By late 2005, the failures of the Iraq War — along with the callousness of the administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina — had turned George W. Bush into a premature lame duck president, hamstringing him for the rest of his second term. I would argue that antiwar activism played a big role in that. What is your take?

After the 2004 elections, a new wave of antiwar activism emerges, with powerful new advocates and constituencies.

With Cindy Sheehan, most famously, it had a grieving Gold Star mother asking, “For what noble cause did my son die?” She was really asking, for Bush and the nation to hear, why the war was being fought at all.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'3cEXwTAYTnpykwTTvNGP-w',sig:'kyEsLbpiQ1cHAWrNWps3ZQ_6lTGTiYSt75dM88ZGrDE=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'53458598',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

For weeks in the summer of 2005, Cindy Sheehan and others set up Camp Casey — named after her son — near Bush’s ranch in Texas. Veterans, antiwar activists, celebrities, everyday people and important politicians all gravitated to it. It became ground zero, if you will, for the antiwar movement. And it got intense coverage: CNN, Anderson Cooper, Oprah Winfrey and all sorts of global media. It was the first time since the big demonstrations in 2003 that the antiwar movement drove the narrative. For millions of Americans, the suffering and folly of the war felt real in a new way. 

From the start, some families of 9/11 victims had opposed war, and their voices had unique power. You also had groups like Veterans for Peace working to communicate the bitter lessons of Vietnam to the American public. By 2005, they were joined by a growing mass of veterans of the Iraq War, and even active duty soldiers, reporting that American conduct had nothing to do with spreading peace and freedom and democracy. Instead, it was menacing Iraqis and turning the Iraqi people against the occupation. They had seen it themselves. 

With the activism of the military community, the antiwar movement took on a somewhat different class character. Sheehan is a kind of upper-working-class, all-American mom from small town California, and veterans typically hail from the working class. The U.S. military is a working-class institution. It is also racially a very integrated institution. So you have heartland spokespeople, speaking from a heartland perspective, denouncing a war that is chewing up their lives and falling far short of the high-minded ambitions that Bush had set for it. And I think this gives a kind of permission structure for everyday Americans, who may consider themselves conventionally patriotic, to say, “Wait a second. Who is this war helping?”

Then Hurricane Katrina hits in late August. The botched response is a massive policy failure for the Bush administration, which claimed it had things under control. The whole nation could see that was a lie. Camp Casey breaks up, with a whole contingent, led by Veterans for Peace, leaving Crawford, Texas and rushing to New Orleans. In and around the city, they distribute massive amounts of food, water and other necessities. They use satellite phones to help the Red Cross save people from rooftops. They help people get legal services and deal with insurance companies. They felt duty-bound to rally to the suffering present in America. And they absolutely made the connection of the misuse of resources to wage a foreign war that the country no longer wanted with the neglect of urgent problems at home. 

Then, in September, a pre-planned demonstration happens in Washington that very much connects conditions at home and overseas. It was in some ways the most ambitious of all the antiwar protests — three days that included lobbying, civil disobedience, art exhibits, interfaith events and on-the-ground organizing. 

By late 2005, you see a cratering of public opinion in support of the war. And the pro-war stance never again becomes the majority position. 

Soon enough, you have powerful people in Congress giving new credibility to the antiwar position. There was the famous “Murthquake,” in which John Murtha, a military veteran and initially a big supporter of the war, comes out against it. He himself said that the political class was way behind public opinion. 

And then you have the 2006 midterms, where this sentiment is translated into a major defeat for the Republicans.

Yes. The Democrats have blowout wins, functionally retaking control of both houses of Congress based on an antiwar message. After that it was really a question of when and not if the war ends, with the U.S. far short of having achieved the military and geostrategic objectives that Bush set. From 2006 on, you have the painful extrication of the United States from a quagmire of its own making. 

What I consider the most significant Congressional action after 2006 was the impaneling of the Iraq Study Group. That was a bipartisan group to diagnose what went wrong and advocate a way forward, which was ultimately some form of U.S. withdrawal. You have the eminences of the American foreign policy establishment basically calling bullshit on Bush’s signature policy. When they release their report, it’s a bestseller. It’s being sold in bookstores and airports and downloaded something like two million times. 

Reading the narrative you present in your book, and remembering all of the organizing that took place on so many different fronts, it’s startling how much of it has been utterly forgotten in the media and in the popular imagination. What do you think accounts for that?

The movement, in its own day, was woefully underreported on. I blame the legacy media and major cable outfits — almost all of the press, really — for confusing post-9/11 patriotism with an excuse to abdicate its responsibility to report on domestic dissent. For years, activists struggled to get sustained attention to their efforts.

I was part of this movement, but probably 90 percent of what I report on in my book, I had no idea was happening at the time. Part of the intent of the book is to give this big, robust, spirited, movement its due, while also understanding why knowledge about it was suppressed. 

#support-block_f20b5ddf86a1e542d2dee92d4c3194b8 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Become a monthly donor today!

Monthly donations sustain our vital movement journalism. Please donate today!

Donate

The larger purpose is to try to induce a broader legal, political and moral reckoning with the totality of the War on Terror. My argument is that we hear so little about the antiwar movement in part because we hear so little about the War on Terror itself. It’s as though the Iraq War never happened. It was so consequential, it was so costly in blood and treasure. But, historically speaking, it feels almost like a non-event. My college students know almost nothing about it.

I was born in 1967, and I came of age in the post-Vietnam War era. That war had a massive, lasting impact on American political life and culture. There was the “Vietnam Syndrome” that discouraged new wars. There was the Vietnam Veterans War Memorial in Washington. Every Hollywood auteur made a Vietnam War movie. It was understood that the United States had been through something big and traumatic, and that the nation needed soul-searching to examine its foreign policy, the meaning of patriotism and the appropriate uses of the military. 

The War on Terror, in its most intense phase, has not been succeeded by anything like that kind of public reflection. We badly need it. My thesis is that the War on Terror was so ugly, so confusing, so divisive, that we simply don’t know what to do with it. And when you don’t know what to do with something, the easiest thing is to ignore it. 

Of course, there are millions of people for whom forgetting isn’t a luxury: all the Iraqis who were murdered or displaced or dismembered, and all these veterans suffering from traumatic head wounds or who have missing limbs. We owe it to them to remember and learn from past mistakes.

Today, we face a unique situation in that Trump’s war in Iran is incredibly unpopular, and across political parties there is huge opposition to the U.S. getting into so-called “forever wars.” And yet, we lack any large antiwar movement that is actively raising the political cost of unpopular interventionism. 

It’s stunning. My take is that Trump doesn’t like “endless wars” for all of the obvious reasons. At the same time, he is eager to use the lethality of the American military to project his own power on the global stage. For him, stupid wars are simply wars that the United States can’t easily win. So he craves “victory.” He got very excited by the intervention in Venezuela and the initial strikes against Iran. And he thought that, with advances in military technology, we could have these quick-hit mini-victories with minimal, if not negligible, cost in American lives. 

Previous Coverage

Where’s the resistance to the Iran war?

Right now, we’re in this weird limbo with the Iran conflict. On the one hand, it’s a war frightfully outside traditional constraints on a president, which Trump disdains. He doesn’t believe in limits set by Congress, international law, the U.N., or the opinions of allies. 

At the same time, he likely recognizes that some number of U.S. casualties would be unacceptible to Americans and would sink the war. So that lesson from Iraq, from Vietnam even, he does seem to get. My fear is that low-intensity conflicts, like in Iran, may grow routine and become background noise in American political life that never quite rile the public to demand their end. The trick for Trump is to continue waging war without prohibitive costs that would trigger widespread outrage among a disapproving but disaffected public. 

I think the midterms will be a crucial test of whether disapproving public opinion can have a real price. If the Democrats win big, we may have part of the answer.

I would love it if there were a dedicated antiwar movement addressing Iran as well as possible intervention in Cuba. Personally, I don’t think we’re going to have such a movement. Barring some dramatic escalation of the war in Iran, which is still possible, I think we’re going to have a continuation of the current circumstance where dissatisfaction with the war is one of a number of grievances with Trump — along with the public corruption, inattention to issues of affordability, vanity projects, et cetera. If Republicans get routed, public opinion experts will have to sift through the data to find out how important the war has been. 

What lessons do you draw from antiwar organizing in the years after 9/11 that you think are relevant for movements today?

I think there are strategic lessons for activists today. One is that, while a movement’s message matters, the messenger matters enormously as well. When it’s a Gold Star mother, when it’s a veteran, when it’s an ex-general, when it’s a formerly pro-war politician articulating an antiwar position, the message behaves very differently than it might otherwise. Effective movements always need to think about how to present and highlight those voices that have the greatest credibility among the broader public and political class. We may bristle at this dynamic, but historically our most successful social movements have understood that.

Another takeaway is the general power of conscientious dissent to alter political conditions. If you think of Bush declaring “Mission Accomplished,” which he did on May 1, 2003, it was a great moment of bluster. But then you look at the profound turning of the American public on the War on Terror over the two years that followed. It’s a remarkable difference. That change would have been incredibly hard to predict. 

That’s part of political life and part of life more generally. We can be thoughtful, we can be strategic, we can identify goals, but we can’t ultimately know the consequences of our actions in advance. 

America and the world would have been much better off if antiwar voices had genuinely been listened to, and not belittled and ignored. People with enormous expertise and good moral instincts captured the truth of the moment. So one needs to work really hard — against the biases of the media and government alike — to make one’s truth heard. There are rewards of stamina, even when things seem bleak. Any number of issues, from global warming, to Gaza, to the abuses of immigrants, feel incredibly bleak now. But temporary setbacks shouldn’t be a reason for resignation. History has too many examples of the rewards of holding on to hope. 

This article 25 years after 9/11, how do we build a movement to stop endless wars? was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

29 September | Online

Join Carbon Tracker and Transport & Environment, with guest panellists from the investor and sector community, for a 60-minute briefing on Carbon Tracker’s recently published report Trucking’s Tipping Point and an Investor Statement on zero emission freight. Drawing on the University of Exeter’s FTT model and Carbon Tracker’s market and asset data, the session sets out why heavy-truck electrification is becoming an economic rather than a regulatory decision, what that means for transition risk in the sector, and how exposed European incumbents are to faster-scaling Chinese competitors.

It will also introduce the Investor Statement on zero emission freight, coordinated by Transport & Environment, in the context of the current EU CO₂ standards review. For investors, this raises a pointed question: are automotive and industrials portfolios carrying transition risk that isn’t yet being priced in?

The post Trucking’s Tipping Point: Are Markets Underpricing the Electric-Truck Transition? appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

Amy Youngman is a legal and policy specialist at the campaigning group Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA).

The chair’s August Aid to Negotiations is being sold as a pragmatic way to rescue the global plastics treaty. However, the text is starting to resemble the architecture of a Paris Agreement-style framework: a patchwork of vague commitments, nationally determined action and reporting, with the hardest substantive decisions left to a future that, my experience following these negotiations tells me, would never arrive.

In March 2022, governments adopted UNEA Resolution 5/14 by consensus, launching negotiations for a legally binding international instrument to end plastic pollution. I joined the global plastics treaty process in Paris in 2023, where hopes of drafting a treaty capable of confronting one of the defining environmental and human health threats of our time were first derailed by procedural warfare.

• Aug 12, 2026 News “We’ve gone backwards” – new plastics treaty text dims hopes for production curbs During troubled talks, fossil fuel-producing nations have pushed for a global pact to tackle only plastic waste rather than reducing the size of the problem Read more
• Aug 21, 2025 Comment Why we couldn’t agree on a plastics treaty in Geneva – and what might happen next Switzerland’s lead negotiator at INC-5.2 reflects on why the talks didn’t succeed – and the options now for getting an effective agreement Read more

Five months later, in Nairobi, I watched the chair close a meeting while delegates still negotiated -allegedly to catch a flight. In 2024 and 2025, in Ottawa, Busan and Geneva, the same small group of blocking states grew bolder, cloaking opposition in language about defending the vulnerable while subsidising a system that fuels the pollution crisis. Offended by ambition, ashamed of nothing.

A year after the last formal attempt to negotiate a treaty, we are tasked with protecting a fragile process. And despite long-standing support, including legal, policy and technical expertise from my own Environmental Investigation Agency, the chair has excluded observers from the rooms where the treaty’s fate is being decided.

In that orchestrated quiet, the loudest proposal emerged: the suggestion that the instrument be a “framework convention.” The new Aid, intended to shape the late-September Heads of Delegation meeting, never uses the word “framework”. It does not need to. It strips back substantive obligations and presupposes future action.

A framework is no match for this crisis

Framework conventions outline broad principles and leave each country to develop its own plan, often delaying tough decisions to future negotiations that may never happen. This tactic is a political shell game: persuading states that want action now to give up meaningful, binding measures to reach agreement.

The Chair’s Aid arrives at a framework by subtraction rather than by proposal, which makes it harder to name and potentially easier to accept. Using the Aid, effectively the rejected text from Geneva, as a basis for the next informal meeting in Bangkok will be sold as a way to preserve a distressed UN system and reach consensus in a fractured geopolitical environment.

This is diplomacy drowning in wishful thinking that the countries fighting binding rules today will approve tougher ones tomorrow. Four years of negotiations and decades of climate diplomacy taught us that this is not a bridge to ambition – this is how ambition dies.

Modou Fall, 45, head of Senegal Propre (“Clean Senegal”) Association is covered with plastic cups and bags to raise awareness of the damage on the environment caused by waste as he cleans a beach during World Cleanup Day in Dakar, Senegal September 15, 2018. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra Modou Fall, 45, head of Senegal Propre (“Clean Senegal”) Association is covered with plastic cups and bags to raise awareness of the damage on the environment caused by waste as he cleans a beach during World Cleanup Day in Dakar, Senegal September 15, 2018. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Production is driven by global oil, gas and chemical markets, while products and waste travel across borders. No singular government can regulate its way out of a problem created and amplified by a globalised system.

Countries have tried, and production kept rising. Now there is plastic everywhere we look, and the cost falls hardest on the people least responsible.

That failure is why there was consensus to negotiate a treaty, because this crisis requires global action. The purpose was never to list national efforts and call that progress but to create common global rules to address pollution.

The most politically sensitive issues cannot simply be postponed. How much plastic is produced, which toxic chemicals are allowed in it, which throwaway products are banned, and how future decisions are made are precisely the issues that require global answers. An instrument that refuses to negotiate them will be easier to adopt but useless on arrival.

Learn from climate governance

Supporters of a framework approach may point to the ozone treaty as proof that it can work. But the Vienna Convention succeeded for one reason: governments quickly adopted binding upstream controls on ozone-depleting substances.

Climate offers the opposite warning: a framework followed by contested, delayed and insufficient measures, while emissions keep rising.

The new chair not only deleted a direct reference to “production and consumption” and bracketed similar preambular language copied from the original mandate. The article on reporting borrows language from the Paris Agreement. Another summer of record heat, fires and floods offers a glimpse of how well that model is working.

Nothing suggests that the states blocking binding rules today will suddenly accept them tomorrow, and the exponential rise in unchecked plastic production will not pause while governments wait for courage. Blockage is not being resolved, but just pushed forward.

A framework would lock in the wrong response: unlimited upstream growth with waste management attempting to handle it downstream. No waste system can keep pace with a material engineered for endless growth. 

Keeping to 1.5C of warming is no longer possible – but we must still limit the overshoot

After four years of INC negotiations, governments know this. States must reject the false choice that the only path to agreement is an instrument too weak to solve the problem it was created to address. Compromise is part of diplomacy. Surrender is not.

And if the UN keeps pushing that choice, the countries prepared to act must be willing to pursue alternative pathways. Groups of willing governments have built effective agreements before, and existing environmental regimes can deliver new rules without inventing a new empty instrument. 

This process was never meant to find a lowest common denominator. It was to create the rules necessary to change our direction. Bangkok in September will be where the second iteration of this text is shaped. If ambitious countries do not push back, the argument about a framework convention will already be lost by default.

Negotiations cannot end with governments accepting the crisis rather than solving it. The science is clear and the damage is accelerating. The world does not need another promise to act later. It needs the treaty governments promised to deliver in 2022. 

The post The world doesn’t need a Paris Agreement for plastics appeared first on Climate Home News.

Interview series made during the GTA Assembly 2026 in Indonesia Franco Augusto and Shail Sathi conducted these conversations during the “Global Confluence on Radical Democracy, Autonomy and Self-Determination (RaDASD)”, April 11-17, 2026. The recording were produced by Franco Augusto and ??, edited by Marco Andrade.

Joel Mayne is a motorcycle instructor and Desert Storm veteran who lives near the Wyoming border north of Craig, Colorado. Mayne is organizing fellow Moffat County residents to protest the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) sale of the mineral rights beneath Bakers Peak mountain, taking the fight all the way to the Interior Board of Land Appeals in Washington, D.C. In his November 2025 protest letter, Mayne said the elk migration path runs across the mountain and the peak provides high-priority habitat for mule deer and moose as well. “This region’s ecological sensitivity and biological significance demand a level of caution and stewardship consistent with both federal and state conservation mandates,” Mayne wrote. “I trust the BLM will uphold its commitment to responsible stewardship of public lands.”

Under the second Trump administration, the BLM has offered 287,765 acres in Colorado for oil and gas drilling, and is slated to offer more than 400,000 acres of land in Colorado by the planned December 2026 lease sale.

Mayne is not alone in his opposition to the BLM’s leasing plans in Colorado, as environmental groups, state wildlife officials, and local governments are protesting an unprecedented wave of public land oil and gas lease sales across the state. “We are seeing roadless areas leased, lands with wilderness characteristics, we are seeing places designated as outstanding waters leased, and it is hard to keep track,” said Peter Hart, legal director of the advocacy group Wilderness Workshop. “We are seeing these offered in every lease sale.”

Quick hits Trump is quietly planning to majorly change how national parks are run

NOTUS | Wes Siler’s Substack

Forest Service could open much more of Colorado’s 11 million acres of public land to motorized vehicles

Denver Post

Developers eye Native Nations, Tribal communities for new data center projects

Daily Montanan

Oil and gas lease sales meet local opposition in Colorado communities

Colorado Sun

Feds seek to ‘streamline’ Arctic oil permitting, ending environmental reviews of individual projects

Alaska Beacon

New Mexico town of 50 packs gym as residents push county to ban uranium drilling

The Cool Down

Data center planned on Nevada public land is temporarily halted

Nevada Public Radio

Trump signs order to remove protections for wolves

USA Today | Politico Pro | The Land Desk

Quote of the day

The folks who want to push forward their agenda of sales, extraction, development, and divestment don’t want us unified. They know they can’t win when we’re standing arm in arm. They know they can’t give away our public lands when we’re a concerted bloc. They can’t fight us all.”

—Jonathon Klein, editor-in-chief of RideApart

Picture This

@usinterior

You know what they say about small predators? Big personalities.

The American marten is a quick, agile member of the weasel family that makes its home in forests across northern North America. Don’t let that adorable face fool you. This little hunter is built to climb, chase and absolutely thrive in the woods.

Photo by @jacobwfrank

Featured image: Photo credit: BLM Colorado, Flickr

The post Oil and gas lease sales run into local opposition in Colorado appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Twenty-five years ago, in the ashes of the September 11th attacks, the United States launched what it called the "Global War on Terror." While the country was afraid and vulnerable, neoconservatives in the Bush administration, like then-Vice President Dick Cheney, saw an opening for expanding empire and U.S. hegemony by selling the country and its allies a story of revenge and "freedom." What they ushered in, however, was a brutal invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq that spanned over two decades, both of which had nothing to do with 9/11. For the past 25 years, the "Global War on Terror" has been used by the United States to wreak havoc in the SWANA region with an endless cycle of violence that has cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars.

CODEPINK's Medea Benjamin reflects: "As CODEPINK, we went to Iraq 25 years ago to meet the people our government was preparing to bomb. What haunts me today is not only the devastation of the invasion, but how little accountability there has been for those who lied us into war—and how those same lies are now recycled to justify the attack on Iran."

The loss of human life, injuries, environmental damage, and destroyed infrastructure is staggering. A Brown University report shows over 900,000 killed directly, with an estimated 3.6 to 3.8 million more dying indirectly, reminding us of the profound human cost and the importance of resisting this cycle of violence. This brings the total death toll to at least 4.5 to 4.7 million lives. Over 38 million people from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya, and Syria have been displaced in the past 25 years. That is tens of millions of lives forever changed by this decades-long war waged by the United States.

The "War on Terror" was never about keeping the citizens of the United States safe. It was about the unchecked growth of power, the expansion of the U.S. empire, the destabilization of the region, and the enrichment of the war economy. The “War on Terror” was a vehicle to use fear to dismantle civil liberties, such as with the PATRIOT Act, paving the way for the surveillance state that tracks our every move today. It was about stoking anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant hatred as a means to divide regular working people, a playbook that politicians and complicit media are continuing to pull from to wage war on countries like Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran.

At the start of this war, we watched in horror as feminist organizations were cynically trotted out to manufacture consent for the invasion of Afghanistan, wrapping brutal colonialism in the language of women's rights. In November, First Lady Laura Bush had begun framing the war as a mission to "free Afghan women,” followed by leaders from Feminist Majority Foundation petitioning the State Department and other senior administration for the "establishment of Democracy" in Afghanistan. They asked the Bush administration to do "everything in their power to restore human rights of Afghan women." In its 2002 spring edition, Ms. Magazine called the invasion a "coalition of hope."

The idea that war liberates women was a shameful lie then, and it is a shameful lie now, as it has been used to justify the genocide in Gaza after October 7, 2023, as well as a false provocation for the war on Iran.

The utter lack of accountability for what was actually a "Global War of Terror" has paved the way for a Pentagon budget ballooning toward a grotesque $1.5 trillion, and a Homeland Security apparatus that now stalks our streets and executes people in broad daylight, as well as invasive surveillance cameras that spy on the public without cause. And then there's Guantanamo Bay, a torture black site and a monument to lawlessness, still standing open inside a country we are threatening with another invasion. The same impunity that has shielded the architects of the Global War on Terror now emboldens the war criminals behind the genocide in Gaza and the Minab School massacre in Iran.

The Global War of Terror did not end. There are currently around 2,500 service members still stationed in Iraq, as well as U.S. access to select military installations, such as Al-Harir Air Base, in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region. Outside of its physical presence, the war of terror became entrenched in the infrastructure of our daily lives.

Ending this reign of violence doesn't just mean pulling troops out of a country or closing a few bases; it means dismantling the entire architecture built by the Bush administration that every administration has since expanded. That means cutting the Pentagon budget and reallocating those billions to healthcare, housing, climate justice, and reparations. It means abolishing ICE and DHS. It also means holding those accountable for countless war crimes committed, from the architects of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to the torturers in black sites, to the media who shamefully gave cover for it all. It is time to end the impunity and finally see those behind it all face justice.

Like in every war, nobody wins except war criminals and billionaires. We now live in a culture of war, violence, aggression, and dehumanization. The reign of terror cost an estimated 8 trillion dollars, yet the world is no safer today than it was on 9/11. The citizens of the United States not only paid for this with their tax dollars but also live in the constant state of anxiety it has created.

Twenty-five years is an entire generation lost to endless war. Today, we mourn the dead, we honor those who resisted and continue to resist, and we recommit to building a world that invests in life, not death.

What does the Pacific Ocean have to do with the electricity you need to charge your phone?

Quite a lot, actually.

Scientists are monitoring the development of El Niño, a natural climate pattern that begins with unusually warm ocean temperatures in the Pacific. It might seem a long way from South Africa, and it is, but changes in the Pacific can influence weather patterns thousands of kilometres away.

For Southern Africa, that can mean hotter and drier conditions, putting more pressure on water supplies and agriculture while increasing the risk of fires.

In the Western Cape, officials are already warning that the months ahead could bring higher temperatures, increased fire risk and greater pressure on water resources.

We don’t often connect what is happening with the climate to what is happening in our energy system. But we should. Our electricity system doesn’t operate in a vacuum. It operates in a world that is getting hotter, drier and more extreme. That changes things.

More extreme heat can drive up electricity demand as households and businesses try to keep cool. Fires, floods and severe storms can damage power lines, substations and other infrastructure used to distribute electricity. Water shortages can create additional challenges for parts of the electricity system that depend on reliable water supplies.

These impacts can have very real consequences. Damaged infrastructure can leave people without power. Rising demand can put an already stretched system under even more pressure. Repairs and replacements can increase costs. When the grid is under pressure, electricity becomes scarcer and more expensive.

When we connect the weather and electricity, one thing becomes clear: climate change is changing the conditions in which our electricity system has to operate.

South Africa’s electricity system isn’t exactly starting from a position of strength. We’ve spent years dealing with loadshedding, load reduction, breakdowns and expensive diesel backup, all of which have made the system unreliable, unaffordable and inaccessible.

Unpredictable weather caused by climate change adds another layer to these challenges.

At the same time, South Africa is in the middle of a major reform of its electricity system. We’re talking about electricity market reform, new generation, transmission infrastructure, electricity pricing, the future of Eskom, the role of renewable energy, and how to make electricity more affordable and accessible.

These decisions will shape our energy future. That means we can’t just ask, “Will the lights stay on?” We also need to ask, “Will the energy system we’re building be resilient to climate change?”

We may not have all the answers yet. But the current reforms give us an opportunity to think beyond simply producing more electricity and start thinking about the kind of energy future we want and need.

One that is reliable.

One that people can afford.

One that everyone can access.

One that can withstand a changing climate.

 

 

Written by: Boitumelo Masipa for 350.org

Sources:

Western Cape warns of El Niño risks as summer heat, fires and water pressure loom 

Transforming our energy system to ensure reliable and affordable electricity for all | South African Government 

The post Can South Africa’s Electricity System Weather What’s Coming? appeared first on 350.

To many visitors a mangrove forest appears as a stretch of trees standing between land and sea. But if you walk through the same forest with a local fisher returning with the tide, a honey collector searching for wild hives, or a boatman who has spent a lifetime navigating its creeks, another landscape comes into view. What seems to be a single landscape is understood as many. Diverse names distinguish places where fish breed, honey is gathered, storm surges lose their force, or tides behave differently.

Across the eastern and western seaboards in India, coastal communities have developed distinct names for tidal forests that reflect ecological function as much as geography. In Bengal, Sundarban evokes a forest historically associated with the sundari tree and its life-sustaining tidal ecology. Along the Godavari–Krishna delta, the Telugu expression mada vanalu refers to brackish tidal forests that nurture fisheries and soften the impact of cyclones. Tamil and Malayali people use terms built around kandal to distinguish salt-tolerant coastal habitats, while related expressions across the Konkan and Gujarat coast identify creek-edge forests, honey-collecting areas, and other ecosystems.

These names are far more than local expressions. They reflect generations of close observation about how the forest functions and how people have learned to live with it.

Much of this vocabulary is quietly disappearing. In administration, education, and even conservation practice, diverse coastal landscapes are increasingly gathered under a single term, mangroves. The forest remains, but the distinctions that once helped people recognize its ecological diversity begin to fade.

Conservation has become notably good at measuring environmental change. Forest cover, species recovery, and habitat loss are monitored with increasing precision. Still, an irony remains. Even as technologies sharpen the view of nature, the ecological languages through which Indigenous peoples have long interpreted these ecosystems and processes are becoming less visible.

Before ecosystems disappear, the ability to read them often begins to erode.

Conservation routinely monitors species richness and habitat extent but rarely asks whether the vocabulary needed to recognize those habitats is itself surviving. That is conservation’s overlooked blind spot. Protecting biodiversity is not only about safeguarding species and habitats; it also requires sustaining the languages that enable people to understand the many distinctions within an ecosystem in the first place. Conservation cannot fully succeed while the ecological languages that make landscapes intelligible continue to disappear.

When Conservation Loses Resolution

Ecologists classify habitats by their vegetation, hydrology, and species, while people who have lived in these landscapes for generations have long relied on another system of classification — language. Their vocabularies did not evolve to describe nature in the abstract. They emerged from everyday interactions. In tidal forests people learn to distinguish places shaped by tides, soils, fisheries, storms, and seasons, allow them to understand differences that matter.

The problem arises when these locally evolved classifications are absorbed into broader, standardized terminology. A common vocabulary undoubtedly makes administration, education, and scientific communication easier. Yet it also carries an unintended consequence: Ecosystems begin to appear simpler than they really are.

India’s mangrove coast illustrates this shift.

These are not simply regional names but ecolexicons that condense generations of environmental observation into everyday language.

As this mosaic of ecological vocabularies gives way to the single label mangroves, something more than linguistic diversity is lost. It’s like reducing the resolution of a satellite image: The coastline remains visible, but its finer ecological distinctions begin to disappear.

This process may be understood as linguistic flattening — not merely a dilution of linguistic richness and a loss of words, but also the gradual loss of ecological resolution. Long before a language falls silent, it can lose the nuances that once helped people read landscapes.

Language as Conservation Infrastructure

Linguistic flattening also weakens the systems that have long governed how people interact with ecosystems.

Language is often treated as a medium of communication, yet in many Indigenous societies it functions as something more fundamental. It carries practical rules, ethical obligations, and ecological boundaries that are learned not from policy manuals but through everyday speech, stories, and customary practice. In this sense, language is part of conservation infrastructure.

The Māori understanding of harakeke (New Zealand flax) offers a striking example. The central shoot, or rito, represents the child, while the surrounding leaves symbolize parents and grandparents. This is more than a metaphor. The vocabulary itself shapes harvesting practices: Inner shoots are never cut, because removing them threatens the life of the plant. Only the outer leaves are taken, allowing regeneration to continue. Even the flowering stalks (kōrari) are managed with care so that nectar remains available for native birds, supporting pollination and the wider ecosystem.

This appears to be a biocultural expression but in practice is a sophisticated system for managing relationships between people and nature. The language does not simply describe ecological relationships; it instructs people how to behave within them.

Similar patterns are found across Indigenous societies, where names, stories, and customary expressions regulate seasonal harvesting, identify sensitive habitats, and define responsibilities towards land and water.

Conservation recognizes the value of Indigenous knowledge, yet it often overlooks the languages through which that knowledge is organized, remembered, and transmitted. Protecting place-based knowledge while allowing the languages that sustain it to disappear is rather like preserving a library after removing its catalogue. The books may still exist, but their meaning becomes increasingly difficult to recover.

Vanishing Languages, Vanishing Environmental Archives

Modern conservation depends heavily on data. Satellite imagery tracks forest loss, climate models project future change, and ecological surveys measure species abundance with precision. Yet most of these records span only a few decades. They rarely capture and interpret the much longer histories through which communities have understood environmental changes.

That longer record often survives in language. Across Indigenous societies, names for plants, animals, winds, tides, and seasons are not arbitrary labels but accumulated observations refined over generations. They preserve knowledge of when rivers shift their course, when particular fish arrive, how flowering responds to rainfall, which plants indicate groundwater, or where storms repeatedly reshape the coast. Much of this information was never written down because it did not need to be. It remained alive in speech, memory, and everyday practice.

When a language slips away, the environmental archive becomes fragmented, and we lose part of nature’s archive. Individual observations may still be recorded by researchers, but the wider system that connected them — linking species, habitats, seasons, and human experience — is gradually lost.

Conservation then faces an unusual paradox. We invest heavily in collecting new ecological data while allowing centuries of carefully accumulated environmental knowledge to disappear unnoticed.

Seen in this light, language loss is not simply a cultural concern. It also represents the quiet erosion of one of conservation’s oldest and least recognized ways of understanding nature. Protecting biodiversity therefore also means sustaining the living archives that have preserved ecological memory across generations.

Conservation Literacy Beyond Species Lists

Conservation governance has made important progress globally in recognizing Indigenous peoples as partners in biodiversity protection. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework calls for respecting and applying traditional knowledge in biodiversity governance, while IPBES has repeatedly shown that indigenous and local knowledge strengthens conservation outcomes. Likewise, UNESCO’s International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022–2032) emphasizes that these languages sustain knowledge systems shaped through long relationships with place.

Yet an important gap remains. Conservation frameworks celebrate traditional knowledge but rarely ask how that knowledge survives across generations. Knowledge does not exist independently of the language through which it is observed, evolved, organized, and passed from one generation to the next. A conservation strategy that values Indigenous knowledge while overlooking Indigenous languages risks protecting the product while allowing the process that continually renews it to fade.

This calls for a broader understanding of conservation literacy. Alongside species inventories, habitat maps, and ecological monitoring, conservation should also recognize the value of ecolexicons, the place-based vocabularies that enable Indigenous communities to distinguish habitats, seasonal change, and ecological processes.

Supporting community-led language documentation, multilingual ecological education, and regional diversity of Indigenous vocabularies are therefore not simply a cultural exercise. It strengthens the knowledge infrastructure of future generations to interpret and care for the landscapes they inherit.

Reading Nature Before It Falls Silent

Biodiversity conservation has long measured success in hectares restored, species recovered, and habitat protected. These remain essential benchmarks. Yet this understanding argues that another measure deserves attention: whether the languages that enable communities to understand, interpret and care for those landscapes are also surviving.

A forest is more than the trees it contains. It is also the vocabulary through which generations have learned to read its tides, seasons, species, and silences.

The next frontier in conservation is not simply protecting more land but protecting the many ways in which people understand that land. Every ecological language that survives preserves a way of noticing what others might overlook while their disappearance reduces the world’s ability to see nature in all its complexity.

Conservation cannot claim to protect the living world if it allows the languages that have long interpreted that world to disappear unheard.

Long before a forest falls silent, its words often do.

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

The Extinction of Languages Is an Environmental Issue

The post Conservation’s Blind Spot: Why Language Matters for Biodiversity appeared first on The Revelator.

When Donald Trump was elected, we knew our strategy would need to change. Up until that point we’d been laser focused on pushing Wall Street to stop backing Big Oil ― but when the world changes, your strategy needs to as well.

That’s why, in early 2025, we officially expanded our mission to have a twin approach: fighting fossil fuels, and fighting the rising threat of fascism in this country. 

Since then, a lot of our campaigns have centered on Elon Musk. We’ve supported the Tesla Takedown movement; pushed pension funds and local governments to break ties with Musk; and led a campaign to get thousands to cancel their T-Mobile contracts, owing to its ties with Musk and Trump. 

Our focus on Musk is down to a simple fact: in the fight to preserve democracy, Elon Musk remains a uniquely dangerous threat. 

Since January, Musk’s AI, Grok, has created and distributed millions of fake, nonconsensual sexualized images of women and girls, including thousands of sexualized images of children. 

Between last October and mid-April, Musk posted on X about white grievance politics 850 times, posting nearly daily about white supremacist conspiracy theories such as their being a “genocide” happening against white people. This week, Musk has been busy encouraging race riots in the UK. 

And, after spending nearly $290 million to get Trump elected, Musk caused untold harm in his role at DOGE. Tens of thousands of dedicated public servants were fired, core functions of the government were shredded, and Musk destroyed USAID, an act that killed more than 500,000 of the world’s poorest children in just the twelve months that followed. 

Former DOGE staff, who worked under Musk, are under investigation for stealing the sensitive data of every living American, and for stealing huge troves of data related to labor union organizing and labor complaints. 

That’s why we’ve launched the DOGE Accountability campaign, calling for Members of Congress to commit to hold Congressional hearings and investigations into DOGE in the new Congress.

So far, our petition to Congress has been signed by over 50,000 individuals, 50+ organizations, the labor unions SEIU and CWA, which represent nearly 3 million workers, and the Climate Justice Alliance, a network of 95 leading environmental and climate justice groups across the country.

Next up, between June 12th and June 18th, we’re organizing a week of action. All across the country, activists like you, who care about holding the world’s richest racist accountable, will deliver copies of the campaign petition to their Members of Congress and urge them to hold Musk and DOGE accountable.

You can sign up here to deliver a petition, and help build the people power needed to push the new Congress to hold Elon Musk accountable. Once you’ve signed up, our campaign lead, Nancy, will plug you into an organizing meeting and share everything you need to join the week of action.

I’m genuinely excited about the momentum this campaign has generated already. Not only because it would be really satisfying to see Musk squirm before Congressional hearings, but because it’s critical that the new Congress stands up to billionaires like Musk. 

What kind of message does it send if Musk can destroy huge swathes of the government and not face any accountability for his actions? What kind of message does that send the rest of the tech oligarchs and billionaires?

That’s why this campaign matters: it’s about showing there are meaningful checks on the power of billionaires; it’s about sending a message to the entire billionaire class: if you break the law, you will be held accountable. 

So, join the week of action and be a part of a movement taking on the world’s richest far-right extremist,

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

News & Updates from the Coalition

– Meeting with Santander Bank’s leadership

In April, 33,000 of you sent emails to Santander executives, calling out the bank for rolling back climate promises, financing fossil fuel expansion, and supporting Big Oil’s latest attempt to water down global climate policy.

This week, I joined other representatives from the STMP network to meet with the bank’s top sustainability managers. During the meeting, they made their frustrations at receiving 33,000 emails clear – a sure sign of the effectiveness of the tactic. 

And while we didn’t come to an agreement with the bank during the meeting, we did make it  crystal clear: so long as Santander continues to undermine the energy transition, they can expect push back.

– Insuring communities, not fossil fuels.

The insurance industry is emerging as a critical villain in the climate story. Not content with abandoning communities while continuing to underwrite new fossil fuel projects, the top insurance lobbying group recently filed an amicus brief siding with Big Oil in the pending Supreme Court case over whether local governments can sue fossil fuel companies for damages from climate disasters.

That’s why one of our top priorities right now is building the power required to pass the Insure our Communities Act in New York. If passed, this bill would force insurance companies doing business in New York to stop insuring new coal, oil, and gas projects.

If you’re in New York State, you can join the Insure our Communities New York campaign here.

And no matter where you are, join our partners at Green America on June 16th for a webinar discussing how the largest property insurance companies are fueling the climate crisis, and how you can find climate-smart option insurance options.

– Gulf South environmental justice leaders visit Tokyo

This month, Gulf South-based environmental justice leaders, Manning Rollerson, Gwendolyn Jones, and Melanie Oldham, traveled from Texas to Tokyo to submit a first-of-a-kind series of coordinated complaints against the Japanese financiers of Freeport LNG.

These complaints are a key first step in holding Japanese financiers – some of the largest funders of the build out of LNG in the Gulf South – accountable for funding harmful LNG projects across the Gulf South. The complaints detail the 2022 explosion, health harms, and climate & environmental damage done by Freeport LNG. Read more here and here; watch here and here.

– Letting Costco know: the Gulf South demands it dumps Citibank

The recently-released Toxic Finance report revealed that Citibank, Costco’s credit card partner, is the #1 funder of petrochemicals in the United States. So, we’re teaming up with Texas Campaign for the Environment to deliver copies of the Toxic Finance report to every Costco warehouse in Texas and Louisiana to let Costco know that Gulf South community members want toxic Citi out of our Costcos.

If you live in Texas or Louisiana, join a team delivering a report to your local Costco or sign the letter to Costco here.

– Trump’s latest climate idiocy

The stupidity of the Trump Administration on climate change should surprise no one, but this month saw several noteworthy developments.

Yesterday, the Administration announced $700 million of investment in the coal industry – a move that comes shortly after Trump paid Total Energy $1 billion to not build wind farms in the country.

And in early May, Trump’s Security and Exchange Commission moved to rescind the climate disclosure rule implemented under the Biden Administration, robbing investors of critical information to assess companies’ climate transition plans. STMP partners at the Sierra Club and Green America have useful breakdowns of what this means. back. 

– No immunity for Big Oil

With the fossil fuel industry’s puppets in Congress introducing a bill that would give the fossil fuel industry blanket immunity from any laws or lawsuits that could hold them accountable for climate damage, now is a good time to call your Member of Congress and urge them to oppose this poisonous bill.

– Fundraising gala report back

Last month, we had a great time at Brighter Futures, our annual community celebration and fundraising gala. We were joined by movement leaders Bill McKibben and Dr. Roishetta Sibley Ozane, as well as climate activist and professional cellist, John Mark Rozendaal, who performed Bach on his cello.

In the end, not only did we have a grand ol’ time, but we blew past our fundraising goal, raising nearly $11,000 for critical climate work. Thank you to all of our friends who donated auction items, and to everyone who chipped in. If you weren’t able to make it, but would like to make a donation you can do so here.

– And finally, don’t forget: it’s time to hold Musk accountable

Join the DOGE Accountability Week of Action here.

The post June Newsletter: Congress must hold Musk accountable. appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

This report assesses whether additional export pipeline capacity from the Western CanadianSedimentary Basin (WCSB) is needed and economically feasible, and how a new West Coastbitumen pipeline would compare with existing and alternative...

This briefing note focuses on trade and its effects on peasantry and food sovereignty in Africa.

The post Briefing Note on Africa Trade Issues: Impacts of Trade Liberalisation on Peasants appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Despite numerous complaints, the government of Daniel Noboa signed a Free Trade Agreement with Canada, even though the public had not been made aware of the final text of the agreement.

The post Ecuador: Trade Agreement with Canada Threatens Indigenous Peoples’ Rights appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

By several measures, Chinese industry is becoming less dependent on fossil fuels, according to a new analysis.

Read more on E360 →

By Cyrus Malama, 2026 Africa Zero Waste Academy Participant

When I boarded my flight on July 26, 2026, I was more than just a Junior Councillor; I was a young Zambian with a vital question: How can we transform the waste problem in our communities into a solution? This question drove me to Accra, Ghana, for the Africa Zero Waste Academy 2026, hosted by the Green Africa Youth Organization (GAYO) and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). 

My purpose was not only to learn about waste management but also to explore culture, leadership, and Africa’s future.

Learning the Principles in Kpong 

The first phase of the Academy took place at Ensign Global University in Kpong, Eastern Region, from July 27 to 30. Our days were filled with energy and learning as we discussed:

• Climate action and its significance for African youth
• Zero waste principles—understanding that waste is not an endpoint but a starting point for jobs, composting, and clean energy
• Communication and advocacy—recognising that as young leaders, we must express our ideas clearly to effect change
• The Conference of the Parties (COP)—exploring the role of youth in global climate conversations

However, the best lessons awaited us outside the classroom.

Learning from the Ground in Accra

On July 30, we moved to Accra and settled in at the AH Hotel in East Legon. For the next three days, Ghana taught me through its hands, its people, and its stories. 

At Kpone Landfill, I witnessed the harsh reality of waste—the mountains, the smoke, and the individuals working under difficult conditions. It reminded me of home and reinforced the urgency of our mission.

At the launch of the Federation of Informal Sector Waste Pickers Association, I met heroes—men and women who collect and recycle daily, often without recognition. Seeing them honoured made me proud and reminded me how important it is to include everyone in creating solutions.

At the Multi-Facility Recovery Centre, I witnessed circularity in action: one person’s waste became another person’s resource. At Kwame Nkrumah Memorial Park, I paused to reflect. Surrounded by Ghana’s history, I thought about leadership. Nkrumah fought for Africa’s independence, and now, our generation is fighting for Africa’s climate future.

Between site visits, I laughed, shared meals, and exchanged stories with youth from across the region.  We learned new greetings, tasted different foods, and realised that while waste challenges may vary across Africa, the solutions all begin with people. This cultural exchange was as powerful as the training.

Cyrus and other participants during a session Coming Home with Commitment  

On August 2, I said goodbye to Accra and landed in Lusaka on August 3 at 3:00 AM, where my family welcomed me. Although I was exhausted, my heart was full. 

The Africa Zero Waste Academy was transformative. It changed my view of waste—from a problem to something with economic and environmental value. Most importantly, I returned committed to advocating for inclusive, community-driven zero-waste initiatives in Zambia. I aim to apply what I learned in Ghana to make a difference in Lusaka.

I returned with:

• Practical knowledge of zero waste systems
• Enhanced advocacy and communication skills
• A network of African youth committed to developing climate solutions

Most importantly, I returned with a commitment: to advocate for inclusive, community-driven zero- waste initiatives in Zambia. I aim to apply what I learned in Ghana to make a difference in Lusaka. I am deeply grateful to GAYO, GAIA, and everyone who supported me in representing Zambia in Ghana. Thank you for investing in young leaders. This experience was not just a trip; it was a turning point.

Writer’s Bio

Cyrus Malama is a Junior Councillor based in Lusaka, Zambia. His work centres on child rights, climate action, community development, and issues affecting young people. He believes that because the future belongs to youth, leaders must actively listen to young voices and take action to protect every child.

The post A Zambian Youth’s Journey to the Africa Zero Waste Academy 2026 first appeared on GAIA.

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

Antimicrobials are medicines used to treat infectious diseases caused by microorganisms like bacteria, fungi, viruses and parasites. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) occurs when disease-causing microorganisms develop resistance to the medicines designed to treat them. As a result, infections become difficult or impossible to treat, increasing the risk of disease spread, severe illness, and death.

Public health agencies and researchers worldwide agree that AMR poses an urgent threat to global health. The World Health Organization (WHO) ranks AMR among the top 10 global public health threats, while the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and researchers writing in The Lancet, Healthcare, Science, and JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance have each warned of its consequences for global health.

An estimated 5 million deaths were associated with drug-resistant infections in 2019, including 1.27 million deaths directly attributable to AMR, according to a Lancet study. The CDC estimates that more than 2.8 million antimicrobial-resistant infections occur in the U.S. each year, resulting in more than 35,000 deaths.

AMR also poses a significant threat to global economic stability, according to the Center for Global Development. AMR drives health-care costs largely through longer hospital stays and increased need for intensive care. It can require additional diagnostic testing and reliance on second-line antibiotics. AMR was associated with almost US$700 billion in hospital costs globally in 2019, according to research published in BMJ Global Health.

Researchers warn that the burden of AMR could increase substantially in the coming decades. By 2050, drug-resistant infections could claim 10 million lives each year, while imposing trillions of dollars in economic costs.

AMR can develop through a range of interconnected factors. It can develop naturally as microorganisms adapt to their environments. But according to FAO and research published in JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare, the primary driver of AMR is antimicrobial use. When exposed to these medicines, susceptible microorganisms may be killed while resistant ones survive and multiply.

Evidence has linked the development and spread of resistance with the misuse and overuse of antimicrobials in human health, animal health, and food production. Meanwhile, global human antibiotic consumption increased by 65 percent between 2000 and 2015. And a Science study found that the proportion of animals carrying resistant bacteria in low- and middle-income countries nearly tripled between 2000 and 2018.

Antimicrobials have played an essential role in agriculture for decades, helping treat diseases in livestock, crops, and aquaculture. But the scale and manner of their use have raised concerns about agriculture’s contribution to AMR.

More than 70 percent of antibiotics worldwide are used in animals raised for food, and resistance in food animals has risen sharply. Part of the concern centers on antimicrobials used for purposes other than treating disease.

Several reports indicate that antimicrobials are used imprudently in agriculture, often being given to healthy animals for growth promotion and prophylactic purposes.

Experts suggest limiting antimicrobial use in food-producing animals when it is not needed to treat disease. WHO has called for restrictions on medically important antibiotics used for growth promotion and routine disease prevention in healthy animals.

FAO recommends reducing the conditions that create demand for these drugs. For example, by improving hygiene, biosecurity, and ventilation animal welfare, reducing crowding and stress, and farming breeds better adapted to local conditions.

Increasingly, experts approach these measures through a One Health approach, which treats human, animal, and environmental health as interconnected. A resistant bacterium that develops in livestock, for example, may spread through manure into soil and water, creating pathways for resistance to move between agricultural systems, animals, and people. Addressing AMR therefore requires coordination across sectors rather than focusing exclusively on antimicrobial use in human medicine or agriculture.

“One-Health is pivotal to combating AMR,” Haileyesus Getahun, Director of Global Coordination for the Joint Secretariat on AMR, tells Food Tank. “No sector or country acting alone can tackle AMR.” The Joint Secretariat—comprising FAO, WHO, the U.N. Environment Programme, and the World Organisation for Animal Health—coordinates international efforts to address AMR across human, animal, and environmental health.

Consumers can also influence antimicrobial demand in agriculture through their food choices. One study co-authored by Ramanan Laxminarayan found that limiting meat consumption to 40 grams per person per day could reduce antimicrobial use in livestock by 66 percent.

His advice to consumers is straightforward: “Don’t purchase meat raised on antibiotics. Reduce consumption of meat. Ask questions about where your food comes from,” Laxminarayan tells Food Tank.

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 Bastian Wardana, Unsplash

The post Food Tank Explains: Antimicrobial Resistance appeared first on Food Tank.

Probiotics are a popular dietary supplement, promising to boost people’s health by populating their guts with healthy microbes.

People trying to help coral endure heatwaves might soon be reaching for something similar. Infusions of a special probiotic cocktail helped coral stay healthier as they stewed in overheated water in the Red Sea near Saudi Arabia, scientists reported last week in Cell Reports. Even a mix of dead microbes, a so-called postbiotic, proved beneficial.

While scientists have seen promising lab results that such microbial tweaks might help ailing corals, this is the first report from real world conditions: wild coral in the open ocean during a real underwater heatwave.

“When an innovative idea like this actually works—particularly under field conditions—we are positively surprised,” said Erika Santoro, a postdoctoral researcher at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in Saudi Arabia. “The most exciting takeaway is that this study opens a new avenue for coral microbial therapies.”

People might picture coral as rigid, brightly colored underwater sculptures. But they are so much more. This “skeleton” is just the mineral home to colonies of thousands of tiny coral polyps, identical clones resembling little sea anemones. Then there are the symbiotic algae that live inside the polyps, providing much of the coral’s energy through photosynthesis. Finally, there’s a stew of microbes living in an around the coral.

Scientists are experimenting with each of these kinds of organisms in a desperate bid to help coral endure the underwater heatwaves proliferating across the world. Without help, most corals are expected to be killed by the end of the century, as the oceans absorb much of the excess heat generated by global warming. That would lay waste to one of the most productive and diverse marine ecosystems on Earth.

 

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

 

Researchers are altering coral genetics in hopes of boosting heat tolerance by measures such as crossbreeding coral from different parts of the world. They are working to find and breed strains of algae that will do the same, in some cases accelerating evolution in overheated laboratory waters. They are also studying the microbial communities surrounding coral, in search of mixtures that might help coral stay healthy.

In this new research, Santoro and colleagues tested two different microbial mixtures collected from Red Sea corals and identified as likely candidates based on their genetic profiles and performance in earlier experiments. In 2022, during a prolonged underwater heatwave in the Red Sea that pushed temperatures to nearly 32° Celsius (90° Fahrenheit), the scientists dosed colonies of spiky Acropora valida in a reef near KAUST with one of five mixtures. Two got different probiotics. Two received dead “postbiotic” combinations of the same blends. The last got a salt water placebo with no microbes.

Over 15 days, the scientists watched for changes in color that indicated the coral might be ejecting their algal companions, a response to heat stress. They also measured how efficiently the algae were using sunlight for photosynthesis.

The results were encouraging. While they saw little difference in color changes, coral treated with the placebo and one postbiotic experienced a big drop in their photosynthetic performance. By contrast, corals that got either probiotic or one of the postbiotics showed no decline in photosynthesis over the 15 days.

A survey of the microbial population around the corals at the end of the experiment showed that the communities in the healthier corals looked different than in the sicklier ones. That difference was also reflected in chemistry tied to their metabolic activity.

The success of one of the postbiotics was “particularly exciting,” said Santoro. That’s because dead microbes could be more practical to use on a large scale, because they can be stored more easily since they aren’t alive.

A single 15-day experiment is hardly evidence of a silver bullet. There likely won’t be a single measure that gives coral the key to surviving, and no one is talking of measures that could rescue coral if climate change continues on its current trajectory.

Take this as a glimmer of good news amid an ocean of bad news for coral.

Santoro, et. al. “Probiotic and postbiotic treatment improves coral health and promotes specific metabolic and microbiome changes in situ during a heatwave.” Cell Reports. Sept. 3, 2026.

Image courtesy of Coral Probiotics Village

With June’s UN climate talks inching towards gridlock, a group of diplomats calling themselves “Friends of Science” issued a stark warning: climate science was under attack in Bonn.

The coalition, spanning the world’s richest to its most vulnerable nations, pointed the finger primarily at those who think “science threatens their economic prospects” – a thinly-veiled reference to fossil fuel-dependent states accused of casting doubt on long-held scientific tenets in the UN climate process.

Fiji’s lead negotiator, Sivendra Michael, went still further. He denounced what he called “a very polluted narrative” taking hold outside the negotiating rooms and singled out ECO, a daily newsletter on the talks produced by Climate Action Network (CAN) International, for overlooking the issue. 

“They are representing developing countries, but they are not representing us,” Michael said. His words hinted at how a rift between governments over the science of global warming has created tensions inside the climate movement.

Watchers of the UN climate talks have told Climate Home News there is growing unease over where the world’s most influential coalition of climate NGOs stands in an increasingly heated debate about how scientific messages produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are crafted and turned into global climate policy. 

UN sets out narrow path back to 1.5C warming after inevitable overshoot

CAN’s international leadership has publicly backed a line of argument, championed by some big emerging economies including India, that questions how fair and equitable the models underpinning the work of the IPCC – the UN’s climate science body – are because they are dominated by research from the Global North. 

But some climate activists, including from nations on the frontline of the climate crisis in the Pacific, are increasingly disappointed by CAN’s silence in a connected row over whether the IPCC’s forthcoming assessment report should be finished in time to inform the next UN scorecard of global climate action.  

Over the last two years, India, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and Kenya have pushed back against attempts by a large coalition of nations to align the IPCC’s AR7 report timeline with the second stocktake of national climate plans under the UN climate process. They claim this would put a burden on developing countries with limited resources and restrict their ability to provide scientific input into the process.

India flags bias in IPCC assumptions

CAN International Executive Director Tasneem Essop spoke at an online event last month in which panelists challenged the “Friends of Science” campaign launched at the Bonn talks. 

During the webinar, an Indian scientist and government negotiator set out her view that the IPCC’s way of working and scientific assumptions perpetuate inequity between developed and developing countries – and yet its reports have come to be treated as “scripture” that cannot be questioned. 

In her intervention, Essop did not comment directly on the Bonn science campaign nor on the IPCC timeline issue. But the participation of CAN’s leadership in an event where such criticism of the IPCC was aired has sparked concern in some parts of the NGO community.

“The way in which CAN International is playing into what could be the destruction of the IPCC inputs into the climate process is very concerning,” said Bill Hare, who was involved in CAN’s establishment nearly four decades ago and now runs think-tank Climate Analytics. 

Science ‘under attack’ from fossil fuel interests at UN climate talks

He added that it was a mistake for CAN International to align itself with arguments made by India and Saudi Arabia, when those countries are blocking the conclusion of the IPCC’s next key report on cutting emissions in time for it to feed into the next global stocktake, which is due to conclude in 2028.

Like other insiders Climate Home News spoke to, the veteran Australian climate scientist fears these tensions could hamper CAN’s widely recognised power to influence the talks.

“The CAN International voice has been very, very important in the process. That voice doesn’t need to be diluted at this moment in history – that would be a really bad move,” Hare said.

Dialogue to reconcile differing views

Over the last decade, CAN has been working to transform itself into an organisation that is more representative of, and responsive to, voices and needs in the Global South. In 2019, it appointed Essop – a South African expert on climate, energy, poverty and social justice – as executive director, shifting further away from its European and North American roots.

CAN International, which functions as the broader network’s secretariat, says it is discussing how to reconcile varying views on the IPCC and the science and equity question among its hundreds of member groups spread across 130 countries.

“We acknowledge that there are different perspectives within a global network of over 2,000 members on these issues,” CAN International’s Essop said in response to questions from Climate Home News. “Given this diversity, we have democratic processes to build internal agreements.” 

“Science and equity are both fundamental principles for effective climate action and are firmly embedded in CAN’s work,” she added in a written statement. “Putting these principles into practice in a painfully unjust world is not always straightforward, which is why we need continued dialogue across the network.”

Calls for “fair share” approach

The webinar in late August – which aimed to untangle what organisers described as “a growing narrative” that “treats science and equity as opposing priorities” – opened with a presentation by Tejal Kanitkar, a prominent Indian climate scientist who also serves on her government’s delegations at the IPCC and UN climate talks. 

Outlining the findings of a paper she co-authored, Kanitkar argued that the IPCC had used scenarios for future emission reduction trajectories based primarily on assumptions put forward by Global North researchers that are skewed against the world’s poorest nations. These, she noted, were then incorporated into the first UN review of global climate action in 2023 and turned into widely cited emissions-cutting targets for limiting warming to 1.5C – a goal the UN has now conceded will be breached, at least temporarily.

Tejal Kanitkar speaking at a meeting of the IPCC in March 2026. Photo: IPCC Secretariat | Melissa Walsh Tejal Kanitkar speaking at a meeting of the IPCC in March 2026. Photo: IPCC Secretariat | Melissa Walsh

Kanitkar said the “Friends of Science” group included “some of the people who have over-consumed the carbon budget and now use science as a slogan”. When Climate Home News raised the participation of diplomats from vulnerable countries, she said they should be asked why they “accept outcomes that burden the poorest the most”.

Commenting on Kanitkar’s presentation, CAN’s Essop said everyone knows that “imbalances of power dictate who sits at the table, who designs the models and who determines the assumptions underlying them”.

Her wider intervention focused more generally on the need to ensure that emissions-reduction pathways follow an equitable approach and account for the “fair share” of action countries need to take based on their historical responsibilities for climate change. 

IPCC working to update models

Hare later acknowledged that most of the IPCC models used for 1.5C scenarios fail to account for the higher cost of capital and transition financing faced by developing countries. But as this is a “well-known” limitation, the IPCC gives a nuanced reading of the scenarios, and the next generation of models it uses is expected to include more consideration of equity, he added.

Echoing this, a climate scientist from a developing country currently involved in the IPCC process, who did not want to be identified, told Climate Home News that economic models inevitably contain biases and IPCC authors are already working to identify and correct them. 

• Sep 2, 2026 Science UN sets out narrow path back to 1.5C warming after inevitable overshoot Leading scientists say warming must peak at 1.8C to be able to reverse course this century, but current government climate policies are way off track Read more
• Sep 2, 2026 Comment Keeping to 1.5C of warming is no longer possible – but we must still limit the overshoot We need a strategy for navigating the huge risks to ecosystems and societies Read more

Despite criticisms of how IPCC scientific reports have been produced, all governments must sign off on every line of a key “summary for policy-makers” at a dedicated meeting. In 2023, the approved summary included the emissions reduction figures in question that informed the UN’s first global stocktake. 

Irrespective of this wider debate, Hare said the “Friends of Science” campaign, which he supports, is focused on the timing of the IPCC’s next assessment cycle rather than the equity of its models.

Unresolved row over IPCC report timeline

A political battle over that time-frame has dragged on for more than two years at successive meetings of the science panel, with governments repeatedly failing to find a solution. 

A large majority of nations have been pushing for a timeline that would ensure the next round of AR7 reports can feed into the UN’s global stocktake. But a group of countries, including Saudi Arabia, India, China, Russia and Kenya, have said at previous IPCC meetings that this would put a burden on developing countries with limited resources and have lobbied for a longer process.

Member of the “Friends of Science” campaign wears a pin in Bonn. Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth Member of the “Friends of Science” campaign wears a pin in Bonn. Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth

In Bonn this summer, the coalition that wants to align AR7 with the 2028 stocktake – which includes diplomats from Fiji, Nepal, the European Union, Switzerland, Sierra Leone and Panama – vowed to ensure that decision-making in the UN climate process remains based on the “best available science”, including the IPCC assessment reports. 

They pointed the finger at “the usual suspects” but stopped short of singling out any countries at the public press conference. Discussions in the previous week had seen Saudi Arabia and India play down the centrality of IPCC reports in the UN stocktake and oppose calls in draft texts to encourage scientific work on scenarios to limit an overshoot of the 1.5C warming goal.

Bonn upset fuels further tension

A campaigner with knowledge of internal discussions told Climate Home News that many civil society groups from some of the world’s most vulnerable nations, including the Pacific islands, had expected CAN International to back calls in Bonn defending the centrality of the IPCC in UN climate policy-making. 

Despite this, a day before the “Friends of Science” press conference, CAN published an ECO newsletter that did not mention the issue. Instead, it voiced surprise over the claims of an attack on science happening in the negotiations and accused some of the IPCC’s loudest-defending governments of hypocrisy for continuing to expand fossil fuels and not delivering “fair shares” of emissions cuts and finance to the developing world.

“We were really shocked we could not find a common position and then this jarring narrative was being pushed,” the campaigner added. 

After divisions hardened in Bonn, Hare said his organisation was approached by “very upset” CAN members from various regions about the stance taken by the network’s international leadership on the issue.

Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push

While Climate Home News understands that internal discussions have continued during the summer, including at a CAN leadership meeting in Nairobi in recent days, the campaigner said that CAN International’s endorsement of the recent webinar that directly challenged the “Friends of Science” coalition did not send a reassuring signal. 

Some observers said they feared it would inflame tensions over how climate science is defined and utilised for policy purposes, with consequences reaching well beyond Bonn.

In a statement to Climate Home News, Essop said that “at a time when communities are experiencing the most horrific impacts of climate chaos, our collective energy must turn to solutions such as filling the Loss and Damage Fund, the phasing out of fossil fuels led by the Global North, and justice for people who are least responsible for this climate emergency”. 

The post As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond appeared first on Climate Home News.

Headline News:

• “Parched Summer In Rockies Sends Bears Into Urban Areas” • A black bear opened the door of a Toyota SUV and got trapped inside it. The animal ripped apart the Toyota’s interior, as it tried desperately to escape. It was one of hundreds of examples of bears getting into more trouble than usual in the parched Rocky Mountains this summer. [ABC News]

Black bear (sawyer, Unsplash)

• “Why Moscow Still Has A Role In Europe’s ITER Fusion Project” • The EU and Russia are geopolitical adversaries, with Russia under sweeping EU sanctions and its ties to the EU cut back. Yet inside the world’s largest nuclear fusion experiment, the two remain linked by a partnership forged decades ago and built to endure for generations. [Euronews]
• “Global Trade Made Up 35% Of The EU’s Carbon Footprint In 2023” • The EU is making a full-on effort to cut its emissions, but 35% of its carbon footprint was generated abroad in 2023, data from the European Climate Foundation and climate consultancy Matière says. And globally, over 20% of greenhouse gas emissions are linked to global trade. [Euronews]
• “BYD Sales Outside of China Grew 134% To Record 189,466 Vehicles In August” • BYD reportedly sold 189,466 vehicles in August outside of China. That was 134.5% more than it sold outside of China in August 2025. BYD also achieved 5% growth, month over month. That happens often, and BYD’s sales outside of China often hit new records. [CleanTechnica]
• “Ball State Study Finds Utility-Scale Renewable Projects Have No Significant Effect On Indiana Home Prices” • A research brief from Ball State University outlines an analysis of 20 years of data for home sales near large renewable energy projects in Indiana. It finds no statistically significant negative impact on residential property values. [pv magazine USA]

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