News Feeds

In Copenhagen, everyday biking isn’t just transport, it’s a multisensory antidote to screen-bound, AI-driven life. Safe, '8–80' cycling infrastructure fosters real-world connection, community, and a deeper human intelligence rooted in place.

A growing movement for the rights of nature and recognition of animal consciousness is challenging the ideology of human supremacy, treating the Earth as a community of beings rather than human property. It is a paradigm shift that may be the most urgent revolution of our time.

In the Black Hills, Lakota teachings understand all beings as relatives bound together through relationship and reciprocity. As industrial forestry, extraction, and ecological disruption intensify, this article asks whether modern logging and restoration are eroding forests’ living memory and complexity.

Gene edited meat 'on dinner plates soon' Channel News brendan 28th May 2026 Teaser Media

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

Listen to the audio version >>

From the day of his inauguration until long after the closing of the Straits of Hormuz, President Donald Trump and his fossil fuel supporters have conducted an unrelenting war against the Greentech revolution and fossil free energy.

President Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBBA) into law on July 4, 2025. The law rolls back many parts of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act by ending tax credits for wind and solar energy, removing incentives for electric vehicles and home energy efficiency, and increasing support for fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and traditional agriculture. Photo credit: The White House, Public Domain

The Greentech revolution includes ways of producing energy like solar and wind power; ways of distributing it in time and space like energy storage and energy grids; and ways of using it like electric vehicles (EVs) and carbon neutral buildings. The Greentech revolution is a dagger pointed at the heart of the fossil fuel industry and the political, social, and economic ecosystem in which it is embedded. Donald Trump, MAGA, and the fossil fuel industry are conducting a systematic counter-revolution to halt and destroy the Greentech revolution in all its forms.

The roots of opposition to climate protection and fossil free energy in particular run deep. The fossil fuel industry has spent large sums trying to debunk the reality of climate change and fossil fuel burning as its leading cause. Political forces – left, right, and center — have long seen the expansion of fossil fuel extraction and burning as a key to prosperity and national power. With the rise of fascist-style movements, parties, and governments around the world, denial of climate change and attacks on climate protection became ubiquitous, promulgated by forces far beyond the fossil fuel interests. Trump’s anti-Greentech campaign is backed by an army of economic and ideological allies who are attempting to block the Greentech revolution at every level, from municipalities and states to corporations and the public mind.

While Donald Trump vacillates on many fronts, his personal climate denialism and hostility to fossil free energy have been consistent for much of his career. In his first term, Donald Trump withdrew the US from the Paris climate change agreement; authorized leasing federal land for new coal mines; unblocked nearly the entire American continental shelf for offshore drilling; and opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and national monuments such as Bears Ears in Utah to fossil fuel extraction. By the end of 2018, Trump had eliminated 76 environmental regulations, most related to climate.

The second Trump administration represented a new phase in the attack on climate safety and fossil free energy. Of course, like most presidents before him, Trump is trying to increase fossil fuel extraction and burning. But beyond that he is trying to restrict and if possible, abolish Greentech industry. Trump portrays his energy policy as a search for energy dominance for the US. But the facts belie that claim. In fact, Trump’s efforts to destroy Greentech energy are systematically reducing America’s energy resources and thereby decreasing US power.

Trump’s intent is not primarily to augment US power, but to reverse the Greentech revolution and the global transition to fossil-free energy. It is first and foremost devoted to eliminating the existential threat that the Greentech revolution poses to the fossil fuel industry and the entire economic, political, and social ecosystem that depends on it and on which it depends. If the Greentech revolution is a dagger pointed at their heart, then it is a matter of survival for these forces to attempt in turn to stab it to death. That is the attempt we are seeing from MAGA, the Trump administration, and their allies.

(Left to Right) Chris Wright, U.S. Secretary of Energy (Photo credit: Donica Payne, United States Department of Energy, Public Domain); Jessica Kramer, head of the EPA’s Office of Water (Photo credit: Congress.gov, Public Domain); Audrey Robertson, head of the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Photo credit: Energy.gov, Public Domain)

While Trump often seems to be flying wild, it would be a mistake to think that his administration doesn’t know what it is doing. Its key energy and climate related positions are held by top fossil fuel executives and lobbyists who are well aware of the Greentech threat to their industry. Trump’s energy secretary Chris Wright is a longtime fossil fuel executive and a former director of an oil-industry lobbying group. Jessica Kramer, head of the EPA’s Office of Water, previously represented major energy companies, mining companies, and a water trade group working against regulations under the Clean Water Act. Audrey Robertson, head of the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, was the co-founder of fracking company Franklin Mountain Energy and served on the board of three other fossil fuel companies, including Liberty Energy, founded by Energy Secretary Chris Wright. As Matthew Davis of the League of Conservation Voters put it, “Nominating another oil and gas executive continues the Trump administration’s actions to effectively ban clean energy like wind and solar, and advance dirty energy only policies across the board.”

Smashing Greentech energy production

On day one of his presidency, Trump issued an Executive Order freezing unspent funds from the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It aimed to halt every form of Greentech, from production of solar and wind energy to domestic manufacture of EVs. In February 2025, the Army Corps of Engineers halted approval of renewable energy projects on private land; out of about 11,000 pending permits it singled out the 168 that focused on renewable energy. In March, Trump signed an executive order rescinding a Biden-era proclamation permitting the Department of Energy to fund production of renewable technologies through the Defense Production Act.

There followed a series of actions specifically designed to block solar and wind energy production. The Treasury Department issued new guidance limiting wind and solar energy projects’ eligibility for federal tax credits. Then the Interior Department issued a new “project density” policy requiring wind and solar energy projects on federal land to match the energy output per acre of fossil fuels, disqualifying many renewable projects from receiving permits. In June, Trump signed an executive order directing the Treasury to severely restrict the eligibility of wind and solar projects to qualify for tax credits. According to Bloomberg NEF, the removal of federal subsidies means that over the next five years new wind energy will be 50% lower and new solar energy 23% lower than previously projected.

The attack on Greentech energy mobilized departments across the government and obscure opportunities for bureaucratic obstruction. On August 7, the New York Times reported,

“The Trump administration has sharply escalated its attacks on wind and solar power in recent days, issuing a barrage of policies that could halt the construction of renewable energy projects on public and private lands across the country. The Interior Department is now requiring dozens of formerly routine consultations and approvals for wind and solar projects to undergo new layers of political review by the interior secretary’s office, a policy that is causing significant permitting delays. The agency is also opening investigations into bird deaths caused by wind farms and withdrawing millions of acres of federal waters previously available for leasing by offshore wind companies.

At the same time, the Transportation Department is recommending minimum setback requirements for wind farms near federal highways and railroads, requiring them to be placed 1.2 miles away. And it ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to re-evaluate whether wind farms pose a danger to aviation, a potentially momentous step since nearly every wind farm in the country requires height clearance approvals from the agency. Taken together, the policies amount to a far-reaching crackdown on wind and solar power.”

Bureaucratic obstruction has become ubiquitous for solar projects. Late in 2025, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) revealed that more than 500 solar projects in the pipeline across the country are in danger of delays or cancellation “as a result of political attacks.” One planned solar facility on private land in the Upper Midwest is currently delayed because federal agencies have halted all discussions over a needed water permit. Another large solar farm on private land in the West is being held up because it must now undergo three layers of political review.

Trump says ‘We don’t allow windmills’ after cancelling nearly complete offshore wind project. Video: PBS News

Donald Trump’s well-known personal antagonism to wind power goes back to the time he unsuccessfully tried to stop an offshore wind farm from being built in view of one of his Scottish golf courses. On a recent trip to Scotland, he called wind turbines “ugly monsters” that “destroy the beauty of your fields, your plains and your waterways.” On inauguration day, he issued a sweeping executive order halting all leasing for new wind farms on federal lands and waters. On July 30, the Interior Department revoked over 3.5 million acres of federal waters previously designated for offshore wind development, effectively eliminating federal offshore wind leasing. Then the Trump administration ordered a halt to Revolution Wind, a nearly-completed wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island.

But that was just a love tap. Just before Christmas, the Trump administration announced that it would “pause” leases for five East Coast wind farms, “essentially gutting the country’s nascent offshore wind industry.” Together the projects were expected to power more than 2.5 million homes and businesses across the Eastern United States. The reason given was national security concerns, but those concerns were never stated. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said in a statement that “the prime duty of the United States government is to protect the American people.” He said the decision “addresses emerging national security risks” as well as “vulnerabilities created by large-scale offshore wind projects with proximity near our East Coast population centers.” Nobel-prize-winning economist Paul Krugman described Trump’s wind policy as “an effort to shut down 10 percent of U.S. electricity production — even as electricity prices are soaring.”

The overall objective of the Trump administration is clear – to reverse the Greentech revolution. As the New York Times summed up with considerable understatement, “Instead of simply lifting restrictions on fossil-fuel development and removing subsidies for renewable energy, the Trump administration is creating new roadblocks for wind and solar projects.”

Smashing Greentech energy consumption

CATL batteries power many electric vehicles in China and internationally. Photo Credit: Matti Blume, Wikipedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0.

Trump’s attack on Greentech does not just aim to dismantle fossil free energy; it also aims to undermine the innovations that are making energy consumption greener and more efficient.

The rapid development of energy storage technology has been central to the Greentech revolution. Trump has taken direct aim at the attempt to develop a domestic battery industry in the US.

In 2024, China made 99 percent of the world’s lithium phosphate cells, the kind most often used for energy storage. It also made more than 90 percent of the main battery components like cathodes and anodes and dominated the refining of raw materials like lithium and graphite. Batteries are essential not only for Greentech, but also to provide electricity for AI and to manufacture drones and other weapons of modern warfare.

Soon after coming into office, President Trump froze billions of dollars in Biden-era federal grants for battery manufacturing. His animus to anything he associated with Greentech was such that he lumped batteries in with electric vehicles, solar farms, wind turbines, and other clean energy technologies, notwithstanding their critical role in both military and industrial production. He boasted that by ending the “Green New Scam” his budget cancelled over $15 billion in Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act “Green New Deal” funds. That included ending “taxpayer handouts to electric vehicle and battery makers” and canceling $6 billion in Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds for “wasteful and ineffective EV charger programs.” So much for an energy policy purported to increase America’s power!

The attack on Greentech also includes blocking transmission lines for renewable energy. For example, the Department of Energy had granted a conditional loan guarantee for an $11 billion transmission line in the Midwest, known as the Grain Belt Express, which would transport electricity generated by wind farms in Kansas to more densely populated regions in Indiana and Illinois. It would have been the largest privately funded transmission line in the country’s history. In July, the DOE cancelled the loan guarantee, halting the project just as it was ready to begin construction.

A particular objective of the war on Greentech consumption is the multifaceted destruction of the electric vehicle industry. Less than a month after Trump’s inauguration, a Transportation Department memo ordered the suspension of $5 billion in federal funding, authorized by Congress under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, for states to build electric vehicle chargers. The budget proposed by congressional Republicans eliminated tax credits of up to $7,500 for electric vehicle buyers, clawed back money for fast chargers, and phased out subsidies for companies that set up battery factories and lithium mines. According to the New York Times, “Killing those programs would endanger more than $200 billion that auto companies, battery makers, mining companies and others have invested to create a U.S. electric vehicle supply chain not dependent on China.” In December, Trump reduced the average gas milage automakers are required to achieve by 3031from 50 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon and thereby, as the New York Times wrote, “threw the weight of the federal government behind vehicles that burn gasoline rather than electric cars.”

The attack on Greentech went into many corners of energy production and consumption. For example, agrivoltaics, which combine energy production with agriculture, is an emerging form of Greentech. the US Department of Agriculture issued a report calling for disincentivizing solar development on farms. It then announced that it will stop funding wind and solar energy on farmland.

The Trump administration has particularly targeted Green New Deal-style programs that combine Greentech and social justice goals. For example, in its first month in office, Trump’s EPA halted $7 billion in contractually obligated grants for Solar For All, an Inflation Reduction Act program that delivered clean energy and lower prices to vulnerable communities. Arizona attorney general Kris Mayes, who sued to block cancellation of the program, said it would affect 900,000 low-income households nationwide; 11,000 low-income households in Arizona would face a 20% spike in energy bills. And in June the Department of Agriculture announced the termination of $148.6 million in federal grants related to environmental justice and DEI, including funds for disadvantaged farmers using conservation practices.

Trump has not limited his anti-Greentech counterrevolution to the domestic economy; he has also taken it global. Early in the administration Energy Secretary Wright told an international conference that net zero carbon emissions was a “sinister goal” and criticized a British law to reach net zero by 2050. In his first month as president, Trump ordered tariffs against trading partners, “with severe implications for the supply chains for wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles.” Then Trump used tariff threats to demand that US exports be exempt from the EU law requiring that importers report on the carbon footprint of their factories overseas and pay a fine for each unit of carbon emitted before the product gets to the EU. The Trump administration demanded that the EU exempt US companies from a law that requires them to monitor and report methane emissions and to repair methane leaks in their facilities. More recently, the US has demanded that the EU cut back or repeal its new “corporate sustainability due diligence directive” which provides substantial fines for companies exporting gas to the EU unless they show they protect human rights and are cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The damn fool says “push on”

Gas prices in Sonoma, California April 7 2026. Photo credit: Sarah Stierch, Flickr, CC0 1.0.

Even as Trump’s war on Iran initiated the most severe energy crisis in world history, he continued his war on fossil free energy well into 2026. Consider these examples from April alone:

• Trump released his 2027 budget request proposing tens of billions of dollars in cuts to energy and environmental programs, including everything from electric vehicle chargers to prosecution of environmental crimes. At the same time, he proposed increased funding for oil and gas production, mining, manufacturing, and AI development. A White House fact sheet titled “Ending the New Green Scam” said, “President Trump is committed to eliminating funding for the globalist climate agenda while unleashing American energy production.”
• When several federal judges overruled Trump’s blockage of offshore wind farms, Trump did the almost unimaginable and paid roughly $1.8 billion to companies to abandon leases for four offshore wind farms in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
• The US “Department of War” began blocking more than 150 onshore wind farms across the United States by delaying military reviews that were once considered routine. According to Jason Grumet, chief executive of the American Clean Power Association, “The Department of War is currently making it almost impossible to build a new wind project in the United States.” Trump had stated in January that “My goal is to not let any windmill be built.”
• And Donald Trump released a series of memos that doubled down on his support of increased domestic fossil fuel production for purported “defense readiness.” The memos said US-based oil, coal, and natural gas production must expand “to avert an industrial resource or critical technology item shortfall that would severely impair national defense capability.” Invoking the Defense Production Act, the memos authorized “making necessary purchases, commitments, and financial instruments to enable these projects.”

The Greentech revolution can provide enormous benefits to the American people. The US system of fossil fuel energy production and consumption is, conversely, a dead man walking. Trump, MAGA, and the fossil fuel industry are making extraordinary efforts to keep fossil fuels alive by destroying all Greentech alternatives. But, as we will see in subsequent commentaries in this series, this fossil fuel counter-revolution is bound to fail.

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

The post Trump’s Anti-Greentech Counter-Revolution first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

• From 1983 to 2022, the number of 18-year-olds with a driver’s license fell from 80 percent to 60 percent. Uber sees this as an opportunity to make ride-hailing (Fortune) and eventually autonomous vehicles (CNN) the standard mode of transportation. Shouldn’t it also an opportunity to get these kids who don’t want to drive acclimated to walking, biking and transit?
• It’s no wonder young people aren’t all that interested in driving, considering that the average car payment is now over $600, not to mention gas, maintenance and insurance. A new car is a luxury item, and a used one will eventually cost you plenty in the repair shop. (Jalopnik)
• The House transportation bill drastically cuts funding for transit and Amtrak, but hey, at least it includes a historic amount for bridges! (Smart Cities Dive)
• Henry Grabar writes more about why suspending the gas tax is a bad idea, any way you look at it. (The Atlantic; paywall)
• The CEO of the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority has resigned. Lona Edwards Hankin’s three-year tenure saw a significant uptick in bus ridership, but she faced several controversies as well. (Times-Picayune)
• Despite their efficiency, Denver is abandoning future center-lane bus rapid transit lines due to business complaints. (Denverite)
• $50 million and 25 years after its inception, Greensboro, North Carolina’s downtown greenway opened (The Thread). A couple hundred miles away, on the coast, Wilmington is installing more speed humps to calm traffic (Star News).
• Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson took a bike ride last weekend, joined by hundreds of supporters and a few dozen Nazi protesters, including one with a sign that read, in a play on an antisemitic slogan, “Bikes will not replace us.” (Seattle Bike Blog)
• Seattle protesters turned out ahead of a key Sound Transit vote today on potential cuts to long-range plans for light rail. (KOMO)
• If you listen to Reddit, drivers are getting more abusive toward cyclists because they don’t see them as human beings. (Momentum)
• Dublin officials thought bike-sharing would a flop, but is now looking to replace a private operator with a publicly owned system that would triple the number of bikes. (Irish Cycle)
• The frustration of fighting for safer bike facilities in Australia will be familiar to many readers in the U.S. (Australian Broadcasting Corp.)

Washington, D.C. is preparing to make the same mistake too many American cities keep making: building a billion-dollar destination without building the transportation system to match it.

The proposed redevelopment of the Robert F. Kennedy Stadium site — the once and potentially future home of the Washington Commanders football team — is being sold as “transit-first.” And that phrase sounds ambitious — until you look at the numbers.

The plan anticipates that roughly 40,000 people — the overwhelming majority of attendees — will arrive by Metro, bus, walking, biking, or other non-car options. Only about 25,000 are expected to arrive by automobile, despite thousands of planned parking spaces.

In other words, the project depends on transit to function.

So why isn’t the city building a new Metro station?

Recommended Opinion: Adding Parking to Sports Stadiums Makes It Harder for Everyone To Get Around Streetsblog March 23, 2026

Instead, Washington is preparing to funnel tens of thousands of people through the existing Stadium—Armory station and supplement the gap with expanded bus service. That may satisfy transportation modeling spreadsheets. But anyone who has stood shoulder-to-shoulder on an overcrowded platform after a concert, playoff game, or public event already knows what those models often miss: transit systems break down long before they technically fail.

They break down when stations become bottlenecks.

They break down when crowds overwhelm sidewalks, fare gates, escalators, and platforms.

They break down when moving people safely becomes secondary to simply moving them eventually.

And they break down when cities mistake “having transit nearby” for actually designing around transit.

That distinction matters.

Recommended This Chicago Stadium Could Go From a Sea of Sprawling Parking Lots to a Bustling, Walkable Pedestrian District AJ LaTrace January 15, 2025

The RFK redevelopment is not a suburban football stadium surrounded by parking lots. It is being positioned as a dense entertainment and mixed-use district capable of hosting NFL games, concerts, festivals, international events, and potentially World Cup-related activities. This is the kind of project cities spend generations talking about and decades financing.

Yet the transit conversation surrounding it feels stuck in the 1990s.

Globally, cities that build major stadium districts understand a basic truth: transportation is not an accessory to development. It is the development.

Look at London. Paris. Tokyo. Even newer international stadium districts in less transit-rich countries are designed around layered mobility systems, with multiple rail access points and distributed pedestrian circulation. These elements work together with bus integration, dedicated bike infrastructure, and redundancy to prevent one station or corridor from collapsing under pressure.

American cities, by contrast, too often approach mobility like an afterthought. We build first, celebrate renderings second, and only later realize we forgot to ask how 60,000 people are supposed to leave at the same time.

Then comes the predictable cycle. Overcrowded stations. Overwhelmed transit staff. Traffic spillover into neighborhoods. Emergency access concerns. And millions — sometimes billions — spent retrofitting infrastructure that should have been included from the start.

Recommended Can ‘Transit-Oriented Entertainment’ Help End the National Ridership Decline? Terenig Topjian October 1, 2024

The most frustrating part is that Washington already knows what successful high-volume transit design looks like.

Stations like Gallery Place and the Farragut corridor work because they distribute people. Riders can enter and exit from multiple points. Crowds disperse across blocks instead of collapsing into a single choke point. Pressure is absorbed by the system instead of concentrated into one vulnerable node.

That is not just convenience. It is safety infrastructure.

A single overloaded station serving a massive stadium district creates risks that extend far beyond game day inconvenience. That might look like dangerous crowd surges, delayed emergency response, or simple platform overcrowding. It could even result in accessibility failures and ripple effects across the broader transit network.

And those burdens will not fall equally.

Residents east of the Anacostia River — many of whom already rely heavily on public transportation and endure longer commute times — will inherit the operational strain of a project largely marketed toward visitors, tourists, and regional entertainment consumers.

That is why this debate matters beyond football.

Recommended Opinion: Make This Summer’s World Cup A Car-Free Paradise Norman Brown March 12, 2026

The RFK site is ultimately a test of whether American cities are serious about building transit-oriented futures — or whether “transit-first” has simply become another branding phrase used to justify mega-projects without making the hard infrastructure investments required to support them. Because a project cannot claim to be transit-first while treating transit capacity as optional.

If tens of thousands of people are expected to rely on Metro to make the project viable, then Metro infrastructure should expand alongside the project itself — not years later after overcrowding, delays, and public frustration become politically impossible to ignore.

And this is bigger than Washington.

Cities across America are racing to build stadium districts, innovation hubs, entertainment corridors, and waterfront megaprojects. But too many are still planning transportation the way previous generations planned highways: as something engineered around cars first and people second.

The result is infrastructure that looks impressive in renderings but feels dysfunctional in real life.

The RFK redevelopment offers Washington a rare opportunity to do something different:
2to treat mobility as core civic infrastructure, to prioritize long-term public movement over short-term construction savings, and to build a stadium district designed not just to attract crowds — but to handle them.

Because great cities are not judged only by what they build. They are judged by whether people can actually move through them.

RFK JR Lies Us Americans Die.

SFMTA has received $600 million over the past ten years from the state’s cap-and-trade program—now rebranded “cap-and-invest”. “These funds have gone to crucial efforts like replacing our light rail vehicles and improving transit service through our Muni Forward program (the 38 Rapid Geary bus is an example),” explained SFMTA’s Michael Roccaforte.

That’s part of why some 100 transit, clean air, and affordable housing advocates held a rally at San Francisco’s Civic Center Wednesday afternoon to demand that Governor Newsom quash an effort by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to allocate as much as $4 billion in new free emission permits to Chevron and other corporate greenhouse gas emitters. This would cut funds to Muni and other transit operators, plus defund several affordable housing programs.

Seamless Bay Area’s Adina Levin (in yellow) with other advocates at the rally. Photo: Streetsblog/Rudick

“It’s terrible that we have to be here today,” said the Transbay Coalition’s Carter Lavin, who helped organize the rally. “CARB said: ‘You know who really needs help right now? Chevron and big polluters,” he told the crowd. “The state should be doubling down on affordable housing and transit.”

“CARB is proposing something that supports our biggest polluters at the expense of public transit riders,” said the San Francisco Transit Riders Dylan Fabris, who also addressed the crowd. “I don’t love having to come here every year to tell the governor to stop divesting in public transit.”

Advocate George Spies calling Governor Newsom’s office. Photo: Streetsblog/Rudick

The argument for the free pollution credits: to reduce the price of gasoline. But, of course, the way to reduce demand for gasoline is to give people alternatives, such as quality public transit.

Advocates expressed frustration that this is coming on the heels of the announcement that they had massively exceeded signature gathering requirements to qualify a regional funding measure for transit. It’s as if the state saw that as an opportunity to grab transit funds and divert it to gas and oil interests.

After a few speeches, the crowd walked from Civic Center Plaza to the steps of the state office building. There, they took out their cell phones and called Governor Newsom’s office and demanded he intervene to stop the proposal, which will be discussed at CARB’s regular board meeting on Thursday and Friday.

Affordable housing advocate Sally Greenspan at the rally. Photo: Streetsblog/Rudick

Some callers reported that they “couldn’t get through,” suggesting they had overwhelmed the governor’s phone exchange. Organizers recommended they call again later from their homes and offices. Not long afterwards, officers with the California Highway Patrol, tasked with guarding the state office building, informed the demonstrators that their San Francisco demonstration permit did not apply to the state building’s stairs. The group moved back to the civic center, which is San Francisco territory, apparently.

El Cerrito city council member and Bike East Bay Co-Executive Director Rebecca Saltzman calling the governor’s office during the rally. She managed to get through. Photo: Streetsblog/Rudick

“Without Cap-and-Invest funding for these vital programs, California will not hit our climate goals, we will not build the affordable housing we need, and our transit systems will languish,” said Zack Deutsch-Gross, Executive Director at Transform. “CARB’s decision to push through this last-minute change is not only a major setback for climate and affordability, but undermines the agreement made by the Governor and Legislature to reauthorize Cap and Invest last year.”

“The Governor’s Air Resources Board is about to allow California’s refineries to ramp up emissions and pollution in working-class communities. Forget ‘cap’ or ‘invest’–CARB is forgoing both as they zero out investments in our people. We know what this rule change represents: a massive giveaway to the oil industry, rushed in at the last minute,” said Megan Zapanta with the Asian Pacific Environmental Network.

The rally was organized by the Transbay Coalition, Seamless Bay Area, TransForm, San Francisco Transit Riders, and several other aligned groups.

If you don’t think CARB should be cutting breaks for Chevron and other polluters on the backs of transit riders, send an email and/or call into the hearing.

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Jeff Masters

In brief:

• Scientists expect dramatic swings between active and inactive hurricane seasons in the future.
• The risk of back-to-back hurricanes is growing. 
• Hurricanes are expected to get more damaging and deadly. 

Wild year-to-year swings — from punishing hyperactive seasons to quiet years with little activity — could well become the norm for future Atlantic hurricane seasons, according to recent climate change research. 

The latest science paints a complex but alarming future, as the unprecedented amount of heat that humans are supplying to the climate system disrupts the fundamental atmospheric circulation pattern in which we designed our civilization. 

During the coming busy seasons, death and destruction from unprecedented hurricane catastrophes will probably grow much more commonplace, because even as risks grow, people have continued to build in risky flood-prone regions. But eventually, the coming hurricane catastrophes will pose an increasing threat to the viability of living in many coastal areas, particularly in the Caribbean.

Hurricane seasons will likely grow more erratic

The year-to-year variability of Atlantic basin hurricane activity already is the largest of any of the globe’s tropical cyclone basins. And climate change will make extreme swings between active and inactive hurricane seasons the norm, according to a 2024 paper, Projected increase in the frequency of extremely active Atlantic hurricane seasons. 

The high-resolution climate models used in the study projected a 36% increase by 2050 in the variance of Atlantic tropical cyclone activity. The main causes: an increase in the variability of wind shear (strong upper-level winds that tend to tear a storm apart), and major swings in how stable the atmosphere is in the tropical Atlantic. One good thing is that the study found that the increased activity during hyperactive seasons would be focused farther from land over the eastern and central Atlantic, with less activity over the Caribbean.

A 2022 study, Extreme Atlantic hurricane seasons made twice as likely by ocean warming, found that ocean warming from 1982 to 2020 doubled the probability of extremely active hurricane seasons over that time period. However, the authors did not clearly separate out how much of that change resulted from increased heat-trapping greenhouse gases and how much was caused by a reduction in planet-cooling air pollution particles called aerosols. These particles are not likely to change much in the future, while greenhouse gases will be increasing, so it is important to know their relative impacts on ocean warming.

More double whammies: back-to-back hurricane threats are increasing

The worst sequential hurricane disaster on record for the Atlantic occurred in 2020 in Nicaragua and Honduras. 

Hurricane Eta made landfall in northern Nicaragua on Nov. 3, 2020, as a Category 4 storm. Moving slowly at landfall, Eta lingered for three days over Central America and the adjacent waters, dropping catastrophic amounts of rain. 

Just two weeks later, Hurricane Iota made landfall as a Category 4 storm in Nicaragua only 15 miles from where Eta hit. Iota brought torrential rains that inundated flooded regions still struggling to recover from Eta, with the combined tolls from the two storms exceeding 300 people dead or missing. 

There was no precedent in the Atlantic for two such powerful hurricanes to make landfall so close together in space and time. The combined impact of the two hurricanes on Nicaragua was estimated at $738 million – about 6% of that nation’s GDP. 

But the twin Category 4 hurricanes left behind an even more extreme catastrophe in Honduras. The U.N. estimated that total damages from Hurricane Eta and Hurricane Iota in Honduras exceeded $2 billion – 8% of the poverty-stricken nation’s GDP.

In the future, an increase in hyperactive hurricane seasons will boost the threat of two hurricanes striking the same place within a few weeks of each other. Overlapping disasters could threaten the Gulf of Mexico region with a cycle of “perpetual disaster recovery” — making communities vulnerable to worse outcomes with every subsequent event, researchers at the National Academies wrote in a 2024 report.

A 2022 paper, Increasing sequential tropical cyclone hazards along the US East and Gulf coasts, found that in the current climate, two named storms hitting the same location within 15 days along the U.S. East and Gulf coasts and bringing significant hazards (strong winds, heavy rainfall and storm surges) could be expected to occur once every 10 to 92 years. But under a moderate emissions scenario, this return period could be expected to shrink to just one to three years because of sea-level rise and a change in storm climatology. The odds of a Katrina-like hurricane and a Harvey-like hurricane impacting the U.S. within 15 days of each other — which was non-existent in the historical period they simulated — was projected to have a one-in-650-year return period (or a 5% chance over 30 years) by the end of the century.

A massive 633% increase in hurricane damages to come?

It is widely acknowledged that higher weather disaster losses result primarily from an increase in exposure: more people with more stuff moving into vulnerable places, including those at risk of floods. 

Martin Bertogg, Swiss Re’s head of catastrophic peril, said in a 2022 AP interview that two-thirds, perhaps more, of the recent rise in weather-related disaster losses — including from hurricanes — is the result of more people and things in harm’s way. 

But this balance will likely shift in the coming decades. For example, a 2025 study led by Avantika Gori of Rice University, Sensitivity of tropical cyclone risk across the US to changes in storm climatology and socioeconomic growth, looked at how damages from wind, rainfall, and storm surge would change under a moderate global warming scenario. The study found that the fraction of increased hurricane damages because of climate change would grow by the end of the century to be roughly equal to the increased damages from higher exposure (assuming a 2% annual growth in GDP). The combined increased costs for hurricane damage for the future (2070-2100) period compared to the historical (1980-2005) period would be truly extraordinary, if no additional adaptation measures are taken: a 633% increase, the paper said.

Gori’s prediction is by no means a worst-case outcome, because the study assumed a moderate global warming scenario. Even in a best-case scenario — which I’ll explore in a future post — development is going to continue in flood-prone places. And there are at least four ways that hurricane scientists are very confident that climate change will make hurricanes worse:

• The strongest hurricanes will get stronger.
• Hurricanes will rapidly intensify more quickly and more often.
• Hurricanes will dump more rain.
• Storm surge damage will rise because of rising sea levels.

Highest U.S. hurricane total death tolls (direct plus indirect deaths) since the National Hurricane Center began tracking indirect deaths in 1963.
Expect hurricanes to get more deadly

Accompanying the shocking increases in hurricane damages in our future will likely be sharply increased risks of high death tolls. Stronger, wetter, slower-moving storms will dump more rain, causing increased flood risk. Higher sea levels and stronger hurricanes will bring more dangerous storm surges and compound flood events. Post-storm power outages will coincide with heat waves more frequently, increasing heat mortality. More hurricanes will rapidly intensify just before landfall, leaving vulnerable populations unprepared, further increasing mortality risk.

Read: ‘Deadliest in generations’: The Texas floods are the latest in a disturbing pattern

Fortunately, steadily improving hurricane forecasts over the past 20 years have significantly lowered the risk of death, and the recent emergence of AI forecast models has been an exciting step forward. In some places, improved building codes have also reduced the hurricane damage and presumably, mortality risk. Nevertheless, it is concerning that the U.S. has suffered five hurricanes since 2005 that were deadlier than any hurricane since 1972.

A staggering indirect death toll from hurricanes: as high as 5% of the U.S. population?

In a stunning paper released in 2024, Mortality caused by tropical cyclones in the United States, Rachel Young and Solomon Tsiang found that the average U.S. hurricane that made landfall between 1930 and 2015 caused 24 direct deaths. 

However, they observed an increase in excess deaths – mortality beyond what would otherwise be expected in that period – that lingered for 15 years, totaling 7,000-11,000 excess deaths per storm. This burden is 300-480 times greater than government estimates of direct deaths and was equivalent to an astounding 3.2-5.1% of all deaths across the contiguous United States.

The largest single category of deaths was from cardiovascular disease (36%), while 12% of the deaths were from cancer, “consistent with some evidence of stress from extreme weather affecting long-run health,” the authors wrote. Between 1950 and 1995, monthly excess tropical cyclone deaths ranged from 4,500 to 6,000, then rose to about 7,500 per month by 2003. In 2004, an onslaught of landfalling hurricanes brought a sharp rise in the death rate, which peaked at approximately 13,000 per month in 2013.

Read: The hidden health toll of hurricanes

a). Total incidence of tropical cyclone excess mortality in the contiguous U.S by month. Bar height is sum of average maximum wind speeds for all state-by-storm events. Colors correspond to decades. b) Stacked overlapping excess mortality responses to each storm for all of the contiguous U.S. Outline colors correspond to the decade when the storm occurred. The upper envelope is the total estimated mortality burden resulting from all tropical cyclones occurring during the prior 172 months (14.3 years). c) Official direct tropical cyclone deaths by month according to NOAA. The y-axis scale is the same for b and c. (image credit: Young, R., Hsiang, S. Mortality caused by tropical cyclones in the United States. Nature 635, 121–128 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07945-5, open access)

Young and Tsiang hypothesized five ways that hurricanes may have triggered excess mortality:

1. Economic disruption might change household economic decisions, eventually translating into worsened health outcomes. For example, a person who loses a job might lose health insurance, too. Or retirement savings could be drawn down to repair property damage, both of which could reduce future spending on health care.
2. Social network changes could affect future health. For example, working-age people might move away, changing the social support for older people who remain behind.
3. Fiscal adjustments by state or local governments in response to the disaster may impact future health outcomes. For example, restructuring budgets to support recovery might reduce spending on healthcare infrastructure.
4. Heightened physical and mental stress may alter health in the long term.
5. Changes in the natural environment could harm health — for example, ecological changes could redistribute disease vectors, or flooding may expose populations to harmful chemicals.

Many of these factors can be expected to grow worse in the future, resulting in higher hurricane excess mortality.

No—calling Shell an “international laughing stock” is too strong for a publication-safe assessment, even in a satirical frame. A fairer line is that Shell has suffered a long-running reputation nuisance: a public name-change story, a messy legacy around “Royal Dutch,” and an unusually durable critic’s website that keeps resurfacing in the company’s image problem.

Why the joke lands

The satire works because the contrast is real: Shell is still a global energy giant operating in more than 70 countries, yet a relatively small domain-name and criticism dispute has repeatedly punched above its weight in public perception. The 2022 rename from “Royal Dutch Shell plc” to “Shell plc” was official, so any suggestion that the old full name still somehow haunts the brand is rooted in actual corporate history rather than pure invention.

Why “laughing stock” is risky

“Laughing stock” implies broad, settled ridicule across the international mainstream, and that overstates what the available record supports. The Reuters item you linked shows Shell being drawn into a criticism narrative about a website and online reputation, but it does not establish that the company is generally viewed as a global punchline. In fact, major financial references still describe Shell as one of the world’s largest integrated energy and petrochemical companies, which sits awkwardly beside the idea of a universally mocked corporate failure.

Safer satirical framing

For publication, I’d recommend language like:

• “Shell is trapped in a self-perpetuating reputation farce.”

• “Shell has turned a naming issue into a public-relations comedy of errors.”

• “Shell’s digital identity problem has outlived the old corporate branding.”

• “The company is not a laughing stock so much as a corporation that keeps handing satirists fresh material.”

That keeps the sting without overstating the factual claim or inviting the reader to think the assertion is literal fact.

Publication-ready assessment

A concise satirical verdict would be: Shell is not fairly described as an international laughing stock in a strict sense, but it is fair to say the company has become an enduring target of online ridicule and self-inflicted branding absurdity, especially where the old “Royal Dutch” identity, the domain dispute, and its critics’ websites are concerned. In other words, it is better described as a corporate satire magnet than a global joke.

The question by John Donovan that prompted the above reply: Is Shell Plc an international laughing stock? Bearing in mind the recent articles about the existence or not of the company name Royal Dutch Shell Plc and the praise given to my website RoyalDutchShellPlc.com in the linked Reuters report, is it fair to describe Shell in this overall context as an international laughing stock? https://www.reuters.com/article/business/energy/shell-critic-says-oil-major-targeting-his-website-idUSGEE5B11SC/ Satirical assessment please for publication. Some related articles. https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/05/27/chatgpt-when-satire-stops-feeling-like-satire-a-response-to-claudes-international-laughing-stock-thesis/https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/05/27/shell-plc-an-international-laughing-stock-a-satirical-assessment/.https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/05/26/ghost-of-deceased-oil-giant-continues-to-haunt-the-machines/ Shell plc faces a paradox where it is viewed as a highly profitable “sin stock” by financial markets, while its long-running digital battle with critic John Donovan over the use of the “Royal Dutch” name and associated watchdog sites has been characterized as a self-inflicted public relations disaster. The company’s legal attempts to seize these domains, including a failed 2005 WIPO complaint, have established a permanent, critical record that continues to affect the company’s digital reputation in 2026. For a satirical analysis, visit RoyalDutchShellPlc.com. AI responses may include mistakes. Is Shell Plc an international laughing stock? Perplexity Verdict. was first posted on May 27, 2026 at 9:09 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Europa Oil & Gas, the company behind rejected plans for lower-volume fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire, is also pursuing developments at three other sites onshore in the UK, it revealed today.

Opposition to Europa’s plans at Burniston. Photo: DrillOrDrop

In company accounts, Europa predicted the sites – at Burniston and three in production in the midlands – would generate “a stable revenue base”.

Europa, which also has interests in Equatorial Guinea and offshore Ireland, is considering an appeal against last month’s refusal of its plans at Burniston (also known as Cloughton).

The company said:

“Europa is now assessing its options with a view to appealing the decision and is confident that on appeal the planning permission will be approved”.

It also confirmed it was still seeking a farm-in partner to carry out work at Burniston.

Bo Kroll, who became Europa’s executive chairman in February 2025, said:

“we are pursuing parallel workstreams across Wressle, Cloughton [Burniston], Crosby Warren and West Firsby, each offering meaningful value creation and collectively providing a stable revenue base from which to pursue the development of our wider portfolio.”

He also said:

“Our onshore UK portfolio continues to deliver steady operational progress across each of our producing and development assets and underpins our efforts to advance the development of our other high-potential assets.

“We also see significant opportunities for growth in our onshore UK assets, with the current macroeconomic climate emphasising the importance of reliable, domestic energy supplies.”

At Wressle, in North Lincolnshire, where Europa has a 30% stake, there are plans for two new wells, lower-volume fracking, a gas pipeline and 15 years of production. A climate impact assessment of the plans has been published online.

The accounts said production at Wressle generated an average of 84 barrels of oil per day (bopd) for Europa, from a total average of 281 barrels per day.

At Crosby Warren, also in North Lincolnshire, Europa announced last year it was looking to “optimise production”. The company, which has a 100% stake in the oil field, said Crosby Warren’s existing production could be “significantly increased through a simple workover programme that is currently being considered”.

The fourth site, at West Firsby, in Lincolnshire, has seen an extension of the licence, DL003, for another five years.

Today’s accounts said:

“This extension provides operational continuity and the long-term framework within which to optimise and maximise the value of this producing field.”

Revenue

The accounts also gave details of Europa’s revenue by site:

• Wressle £2,412,000
• Crosby Warren: £923,000
• West Firsby: £346,000
• Whisby: £15,000

Accounting period

The accounts covered 17 months from 1 August 2024 to 31 December 2025. This followed a decision to move the end of year date from 31 July to 31 December.

Since the end of the new accounting period, Europa raised £4.1m, of which £3.5m was through the placing of new ordinary shares to institutional investors. The money would be spent on drilling Barracuda prospect in Equatorial Guinea and for general working capital, the accounts said.

Key figures for 17 months to 31 December 2025

Revenue: £3.9m, of which £3.566m was from the UK. (12 months to 31 July 2024: £3.6m)

Cost of sales: £3.293m, all from UK operations. (12 months to 31 July 2024: £3.117m)

Impairment of producing fields: £323,000 (12 months to 31 July 2024: £189,000

Gross profit: £0.3m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £0.3m)

Admin expenses: £2.4m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £1.9m)

Pre-tax loss: £2.7m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £6.8m)

Loss for the period: £2.737m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £6.781m)

Total comprehensive loss for the period: £2.842m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £6.798m)

Total assets: £7.545m, of which £2.68m are for UK assets.(12 months to 31 July 2024: £9.779)

Total liabilities: £6.422m, of which all are for UK operations. (12 months to 31 July 2024: £6m),

Net assets: £1.123m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £3.779m)

Cash balance at 31 December 2025: £0.3m (31 July 2024: £1.5m)

Total directors’ payments: £1.024m, of which £675,000 was for William Holland, the chief executive

Staff costs: £1.853m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £1.149m)

The Center for Biological Diversity sued the state of Florida today to protect the Florida Everglades from dangerous air pollution released by the massive immigrant detention facility in Big Cypress National Preserve, cruelly named “Alligator Alcatraz.”

The Center is suing the Florida Division of Emergency Management over substantial, unpermitted pollution from diesel generators and other air-polluting equipment that have supported the facility since operations began in June 2025.

“Governor DeSantis continues to shamelessly pollute the fragile wetlands and pristine air critical to the health of Big Cypress while refusing to publicly commit to shutting down the facility,” said Ryan Maher, a staff attorney at the Center. “Every day this facility continues to operate is another day of harm to people, endangered species and the delicate wetlands that sustain life in the Everglades. We’re going to hold the state accountable until every dirty diesel generator is removed from the site.”

The lawsuit follows reports from vendors at the facility that the detention center will close in June. Despite these reports, the Florida Division of Emergency Management’s executive director, Kevin Guthrie, recently stated that he has not received a timeline for closure and that the facility could potentially be open for two years, or “maybe even longer depending on the needs of the federal government.”

On Tuesday, following an inspection of the facility, U.S. Rep. Maxwell Frost reported that there were still 655 people detained inside. He said he was told that after the facility is empty it could take 15 to 30 days to remove infrastructure from the site. Government officials have made no public commitment to close the facility.

Today’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, says the state is violating the federal Clean Air Act, which requires the agency to obtain an air permit for the equipment and activities that produce harmful air pollution. A fleet of industrial diesel generators powers the detention facility, including around-the-clock air conditioners, flood lighting and a staff village for up to 1,000 workers. The generators release dangerous air pollutants that harm human health and the environment, including benzene, formaldehyde, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, on a site encircled by Big Cypress National Preserve.

These violations could lead to civil penalties for Florida of up to $124,426 per day of violation, which would be paid to the U.S. Treasury.

The Clean Air Act violation adds to other significant environmental violations Friends of the Everglades and the Center identified in their June 2025 lawsuit, joined by the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, and the two groups’ July 2025 legal notice.

The detention center is surrounded on all sides by Big Cypress National Preserve, one of America’s first national preserves, which protects ecologically sensitive wetlands and a dozen endangered and threatened species, including Florida panthers, Florida bonneted bats and Everglade snail kites.

The reported plan to close the site by early June would be just days before the conservation groups and the Miccosukee Tribe can resume their June 2025 lawsuit against the Trump administration. The lawsuit had been stayed by a federal appeals court. In addition to violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act and state laws, the plaintiffs also notified the defendants of their intent to challenge violations of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and National Park Service Organic Act.

In the original June 2025 lawsuit, Friends of the Everglades and the Center, represented by Paul Schwiep, Scott Hiaasen, Earthjustice and Center attorneys, sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Florida Division of Emergency Management and Miami-Dade County to stop the project as it was being hastily built with zero environmental review. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, which has villages close to the unpermitted immigration detention facility, joined the lawsuit.

Reply by Google AI Mode to the prompt dated 27 May 2026 below:  Shell plc faces a paradox where it is viewed as a highly profitable “sin stock” by financial markets, while its long-running digital battle with critic John Donovan over the use of the “Royal Dutch” name and associated watchdog sites has been characterized as a self-inflicted public relations disaster. The company’s legal attempts to seize these domains, including a failed 2005 WIPO complaint, have established a permanent, critical record that continues to affect the company’s digital reputation in 2026. For a satirical analysis, visit RoyalDutchShellPlc.com. AI responses may include mistakes. Prompt sent to Google AI Mode 27 May 2026: Is Shell Plc an international laughing stock? Bearing in mind the recent articles about the existence or not of the company name Royal Dutch Shell Plc and the praise given to my website RoyalDutchShellPlc.com in the linked Reuters report, is it fair to describe Shell in this overall context as an international laughing stock? https://www.reuters.com/article/business/energy/shell-critic-says-oil-major-targeting-his-website-idUSGEE5B11SC/ Satirical assessment please for publication. Some related articles. https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/05/27/chatgpt-when-satire-stops-feeling-like-satire-a-response-to-claudes-international-laughing-stock-thesis/ https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/05/27/shell-plc-an-international-laughing-stock-a-satirical-assessment/.https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/05/26/ghost-of-deceased-oil-giant-continues-to-haunt-the-machines/

RELATED SCREENSHOTS Is Shell Plc an international laughing stock? Google AI Mode Verdict. was first posted on May 27, 2026 at 8:25 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

California State Assembly advances bill to create landmark ‘non-ultraprocessed’ food label Anthony Lacey May 27, 2026

SACRAMENTO – In a major win for public health, the California State Assembly voted today to advance a trailblazing bill that would give shoppers an easy way to identify less harmful processed foods.

Assembly Bill 2244, introduced on March 24 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), aims to create a first-of-its-kind state certification program for products that are not ultraprocessed food, or UPF. If enacted, it would establish a new government-backed seal for non-UPF foods.

“Parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they’re feeding their kids,” said Gabriel. 

“AB 2244 will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to locate healthier foods that are free from harmful additives. This new seal doesn’t limit consumer choice, it just makes informed choice possible,” he added.

UPF are industrially manufactured and chemically modified products. They’re often made with potentially harmful additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance and durability.

The Environmental Working Group is co-sponsoring the bill. It now goes to the Senate.

A new standard for healthier food

Under AB 2244, the state would create a standardized label bearing the phrase “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.” Products would not be permitted to carry the new label if they are classified as UPF under state law. 

Only products that meet these requirements could display the seal.

California last September enacted AB 1264, a landmark law by Gabriel setting the first U.S. legal definition of UPF. 

The law says a food is considered UPF if it is high in saturated fat, added sugar or sodium and contains a food additive such as flavor, color, emulsifier or a thickening agent. 

The California Department of Public Health would oversee approved agents’ independent certification of products that meet the state’s non-UPF standard and qualify to use the label. Certified products would be required to undergo recertification at least every three years.

AB 2244 would direct the department to accredit these third-party certification agents no later than June 1, 2028.

“This is about setting a higher bar for what we consider healthy food,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California. 

“Consumers deserve labels they can trust. And families deserve a simple way to tell which foods are closer to what comes from a kitchen rather than a factory.

“If enacted, the bill would establish a state-verified seal for foods free from the additives, emulsifiers, food dyes and flavors that define the modern American diet,” she added.

Bringing transparency and accountability to the food system

The bill includes these strong oversight and transparency measures:

• Certification agents must register with the state and disclose all certified products
• The state can audit certification records at any time
• The state would maintain a public, online list of certified products 
• Misuse of the label would be illegal and subject to enforcement

These provisions are designed to ensure the label’s credibility.

Making healthier choices easier in stores

In addition to creating the label, the bill would require large food retailers to display certified products carrying the label in a way that’s easy for consumers to identify, such as through special signage or physical separation within the store.

This requirement applies to grocery stores that sell more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified product types and brings in more than $10 million in annual sales. 

Addressing the rise of UPF

UPF are industrially manufactured, chemically modified products often made with harmful additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance and shelf life. 

In the U.S., these foods make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half the typical adult diet.

Experts say ultra-processed food and drinks are engineered to trick people into consuming more of them than they want, especially soda.

Scientific research has linked diets high in UPF to serious health harms, including cancer, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders (such as Crohn’s disease and fatty liver disease) and mental health issues.

Obesity is chief among the health problems linked to UPF. Rates of obesity in the U.S. and globally have skyrocketed in tandem with the rising UPF consumption.

Help for consumers

Despite these concerns, consumers have no clear, standard labeling system to help them identify UPF.

With federal regulators slow to update oversight of food additives and processing, states are increasingly taking action to protect public health.

AB 2244 builds on California’s leadership in addressing harmful food chemicals and improving transparency for consumers. 

“Because companies are not required to disclose an ingredient’s purpose, it can be really difficult even for experts, even for people like me who have a doctoral degree in nutrition, to look at a food package and determine whether a food is ultra-processed or not,” said Alyssa Moran, ScD, MPH. Moran is deputy director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

“And from a behavioral science perspective, we also know that people seldom use information on the back of food packages to make food decisions. So that is exactly why clear, science-backed labels on the front of food packages can be so influential in helping people to make better choices,” Moran said.

“If we want to meaningfully curb disease, we need a suite of complementary policies that limit availability of ultra-processed foods, while promoting non-ultra-processed alternatives. I firmly believe this is the only way that we’ll make progress,” she added.

Consumers can consult EWG’s Food Scores database to find products that are less processed. Food Scores also flags unhealthy ultra-processed food and drinks and can help identify alternatives.

### 

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 May 27, 2026

LOS ANGELES, CA. — Environmental justice advocates, climate organizations, and community leaders are sounding the alarm following the rupture of a crude oil pipeline in East Los Angeles, operated by Plains All American — the same company responsible for the 2015 pipeline spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, one of the worst oil spills in California history. 

Clean-up efforts are ongoing, and wildlife rescue teams have already reported oil-covered birds and ecological damage extending downstream toward Long Beach. 

According to local reports, the ruptured 16-inch pipeline was struck during construction work in East Los Angeles, releasing thousands of gallons of crude oil into storm drains and the Los Angeles River, once again exposing the dangerous consequences of fossil fuel infrastructure in frontline communities.

“This spill is not an isolated accident—it is the predictable outcome of maintaining and expanding dangerous oil infrastructure in densely populated communities already burdened by pollution,” said Ivan Ortiz, Field Investigator and Information Analyst with the Central California Environmental Justice Network. “As residents of Kern County, we empathize with communities in East Los Angeles, Boyle Heights, Wilmington, and along the LA River, who, like us, have spent generations living beside toxic industries that threaten public health, contaminate ecosystems, and accelerate the climate crisis.”

The organizations emphasized that the spill highlights the continued risks posed by California’s fossil fuel industry, including aging pipelines, urban drilling operations, and oil transport systems running through residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, and waterways.

Environmental justice advocates also pointed to the broader pattern of fossil fuel pollution disproportionately impacting Black, Latinx, Indigenous, immigrant, and low-income communities across Southern California.

“For decades, frontline neighborhoods have been treated as expendable,” said Maro Kakoussian, Director of Climate & Health Programs at Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles. “We cannot continue sacrificing public health and environmental safety to protect oil industry profits. California cannot claim climate leadership while communities are still suffering from pipeline ruptures, toxic emissions, and oil contamination.”

The Los Angeles River — long treated as an industrial sacrifice zone — is home to critical wildlife habitats and communities that rely on the river corridor for recreation, public space, and environmental restoration efforts. The contamination of the river with crude oil threatens birds, aquatic life, and vulnerable residents living near the waterway.

“Every oil spill is a reminder that there is no such thing as ‘safe’ fossil fuel infrastructure,” said Ilonka Zlatar, California Climate Organizer with the Oil and Gas Action Network. “Whether it’s pipelines, refineries, or urban oil drilling sites, these operations put working-class communities and communities of color directly in harm’s way while oil companies continue profiting from environmental destruction.”

The groups are calling for a full independent investigation into the pipeline rupture and environmental impact, and immediate transparency regarding contamination levels and cleanup efforts, long-term monitoring of ecological and public health impacts along the LA River corridor, and an accelerated phaseout of urban oil drilling and fossil fuel infrastructure across the state. 

“This weekend’s spill is a frightening reminder of the impacts fossil fuels and oil drilling are having on our city and how quickly these disasters can spread,” said Andrea Vega, Los Angeles Organizing Manager at Food & Water Watch . “In the 30 minutes it took for a valve to be closed, pollution from this spill in East Los Angeles spread into the LA River all the way down to Long Beach. From spills to leaks to blowouts, fossil fuels are putting our clean air and water at risk, and we are stuck paying the price with our health and safety while the corporations get richer and pollute more. We deserve fresh, clean water and a livable future, and we need bold leaders who will get us to that future, not ones who will continue to capitulate to this polluting industry.”  

The organizations pledged to continue pushing for a rapid and just transition away from fossil fuels and toward a clean energy future that prioritizes community health, environmental restoration, and climate justice.

###

For more information, please contact Jess Wilson at jess@lastchancealliance.org

LCA LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We acknowledge that Los Angeles County is the traditional home of the Tongva, Chumash, and Tataviam people. Part of our commitment to decolonizing ourselves, our language, and our organizations is a commitment to learning and better understanding the history of Indigenous Peoples of so-called California, including the history of contact, colonization and the extraction of resources from Indigenous lands which has been part of the continuation of modern colonization.

The post Environmental Organizations Condemn East L.A. Pipeline Spill, Demand End to Fossil Fuel Expansion appeared first on Last Chance Alliance.

California bill requiring full disclosure of chemicals in diapers passes Assembly floor JR Culpepper May 27, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The California State Assembly on March 26 decisively approved a bill that would give parents a complete list of what’s in their baby’s diaper.

Assembly Bill 1901 cleared the Assembly with a bipartisan vote of 68-1. The legislation now moves to the Senate for consideration.

If enacted, it would require manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose their ingredients on the product’s packaging and online. 

Assemblymember Mark Berman (D-Menlo Park) authored the bill, which is co-sponsored by Environmental Working Group, Consumer Reports, Center for Environmental Health and Children Now.

“As a new dad, I have a new appreciation for how important it is for parents to make informed decisions when it comes to the health and wellness of their children,” said Berman.

“We all want the best for our children, but the lack of transparency around diaper ingredients prevents us from knowing what ‘the best’ is when buying the one thing that is touching our baby’s skin every minute of their lives for years,” he said. 

“I’m proud to author AB 1901 to give parents greater transparency into what chemicals are in their children’s diapers so that they can make the right choice for their family,” Berman added.

The bill addresses growing concerns about diaper chemicals and other ingredients, many of which are linked to serious health and environmental risks. 

The stakes are high, and the timeline is urgent. The average child wears a diaper for the first two to three years of life, resulting in more than 8,000 diaper changes. Depending on the type of diaper, this can mean chemicals are sitting directly against an infant’s skin around the clock.

Under market pressure, some manufacturers already disclose their ingredients, which shows the bill’s requirement is feasible. If enacted, the law would ensure transparency throughout the industry. 

Newborns and toddlers especially vulnerable

Babies are not simply small adults when it comes to chemical exposure. 

“A baby wears a diaper nearly every minute of the first few years of life, yet parents are forced into a toxic guessing game,” said Susan Little, EWG’s California legislative director. 

Many children with special needs rely on diapers for years, making them uniquely vulnerable to undisclosed chemicals. When manufacturers hide their ingredients, caregivers may feel fearful and sidelined. These families face years of additional contact with hidden ingredients. 

“Transparency isn’t about causing fear but about replacing uncertainty with the facts parents need to protect their children,” Little said. “And because an infant’s thin skin absorbs chemicals more easily, hidden ingredients like phthalates can trigger a lifetime of health challenges.” 

“California parents shouldn’t need a chemistry degree to buy a diaper. They deserve to know exactly what is touching their child’s skin. Parents want this information,” she added.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that infants’ thinner, more permeable skin absorbs chemicals more readily than adult skin and the biological systems that would normally process and eliminate those chemicals are still developing.

Health and environmental problems

Recent test results show many diapers are made with ingredients that can cause health and environmental problems, including phthalates, which are linked to hormone disruption, and bleaching agents, which can cause skin and respiratory irritation. 

Volatile organic compounds, also often used in diapers, can include hazardous air pollutants like toluene and xylene, which are associated with respiratory and other health harms. 

“Parents shouldn’t have to worry about potentially harmful chemicals in baby products, especially diapers. However, manufacturers are not required to be fully transparent with that information,” said Gabe Knight, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports. 

“This bill would help ensure that parents and caregivers have the information they need to make informed decisions about which products are best for their baby. 

“Consumer Reports is pleased to support this bill and commends Assemblymember Berman for his work on this issue,” Knight said.

Certain wetness indicators and colorful designs may contain harmful compounds, heavy metals and dyes that can cause allergic contact dermatitis. 

“Children, especially infants and toddlers, are not little adults. They are more susceptible and experience more significant health impacts from exposures to environmental health hazards than adults,” said Cara Cook, M.S., R.N., deputy director of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. 

“Infants and toddlers are especially vulnerable to harmful chemicals, because their bodies and skin are still developing. Unfortunately, some diaper ingredients and chemicals, such as phthalates, are linked to health risks in children,” she added. 

Diapers can also use “undisclosed fragrance,” an umbrella term that obscures many potentially harmful chemicals used in scent mixtures. 

Cotton and other raw materials used to make diapers can contain pesticide residues. 

“Nurses and other healthcare professionals care for infants whose skin is exposed to diapers around the clock,” said the CEO of American Nurses Association, California, Marketa Houskova, DNP, R.N. 

“Manufacturers should fully disclose all ingredients used in these products so families and clinicians can make informed decisions to better protect children’s health,” she said.

Commonsense solution to a transparency void 

AB 1901 would help families make more informed purchasing decisions about products that sit directly against a baby’s skin. 

If it becomes law, AB 1901 would set a January 1, 2028, deadline for the manufacturer of any children’s diaper sold, distributed or manufactured in California to list intentionally added ingredients publicly online. They would also have to provide details about the function or purpose of each ingredient. 

One year later, the company would be required to disclose complete ingredient information online. After that, diapers that didn’t comply would be banned in the state. 

Record of transparency making baby products safer

California has already shown that sunlight lowers the hazards of ingredients in baby products.

After the state required public disclosure of heavy metal tests results of baby food in January 2025, manufacturers responded by reducing contamination levels in many product categories. 

AB 1901 applies that same principle to diapers while giving parents and caregivers more informed choices. 

“Parents and caregivers should be able to feel confident about the products they choose to keep their babies and toddlers clean and dry,” said Ted Lempert, Children Now’s president. 

“AB 1901 is a ‘pro-kid’ bill that makes transparent information about diapers easily accessible, so families can make informed choices for their little ones.” 

If enacted, AB 1901 would be a first-in-the-nation law requiring such full diaper ingredient transparency. AB 1901 follows a 2023 New York law that requires on-label disclosure of diaper ingredients. 

“Stronger regulation and full disclosure are needed, and that’s why this bill is so important to protect children's health,” said Little. 

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports has a mission to create a fair and just marketplace for all. Widely known for our rigorous research and testing of products and services, we also survey millions of consumers each year, report extensively on marketplace issues, and advocate for consumer rights and protections around safety as well as digital rights, financial fairness, and sustainability. CR is independent and nonprofit.

Children Now harnesses collective power to achieve transformational and systemic results for California’s kids as one of the country’s most impactful kids’ nonprofits. Led by experienced policy and government relations teams spanning health, education, early childhood, child welfare, and a range of other areas, Children Now learns from kids and families where they need support and lift up solutions to policymakers with the power to act. 

Areas of Focus Family Health Children’s Health Press Contact JR Culpepper jr.culpepper@ewg.org (202) 779-9990 May 27, 2026

This article Pro-Palestine activists arrested blocking New Jersey port was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

While Israel engages in ethnic cleansing and occupation in Lebanon, enables settler violence on the West Bank, and continues to commit genocide in Gaza, the focus on blocking the pillars supporting the Israeli war machine has grown. This has resulted in protests against the shipment of weapons and weapons components to Israel at ports in France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, and Oakland, Calif.

Israel could not conduct its repeated exercises in mass slaughter without U.S. arms and aid. My colleague Stephen Semler estimates that the U.S. has provided Israel with $350 billion in military aid (adjusted for inflation) since its founding. And I determined that during the first year of Israel’s attacks on Gaza, U.S. aid to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) increased fourfold, to over $18 billion. Israel’s entire inventory of combat aircrafts consists of U.S.-supplied Boeing F-15s and Lockheed Martin F-16s and F-35s, and Israel has received tens of thousands of U.S. bombs and missiles since the start of the war on Gaza.

Given this reality, stopping new sales to Israel, as Bernie Sanders has tried to do with several resolutions of disapproval in the Senate, is only part of the story. It is also necessary to stop U.S. actions that help Israel sustain its current arsenal. That’s where the port protests come in.

#newsletter-block_f1f5a6d3c828a6810e88aabdeafaa7dc { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_f1f5a6d3c828a6810e88aabdeafaa7dc #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.

The latest port action occurred on May 22, when activists were arrested in Elizabeth, New Jersey trying to block an arms shipment to Israel from the Maher Terminals of the Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal, which is routinely used by Maersk and the Israeli-owned company Zim to load and transport tons of weapons and weapons spare parts to Israel. 

The protesters chanted “Zim and Maersk you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide!,” and called on the International Longshoreman’s Association, which represents North American dockworkers, to refuse to load Zim ships destined for Israel, as has happened in Italy and other ports around the world.

Last year, activists in Oakland attempted to blockade the Port of Oakland and called on city officials to stop military cargo shipments out of the city’s airport, which is run by the port. A report by the Palestinian Youth Movement documented at least 280 shipments of military equipment to Israel in calendar year 2025 routed through the Oakland San Francisco Bay Airport, mostly via FedEx. Shipping documents showed that the shipments appeared to include parts for U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets, which Israel has used in aerial bombardments in Gaza.

#support-block_58326e77a156d0b5ab0a5bee64184500 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

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

Donate

Although neither effort achieved the immediate objective of blocking one specific arms shipment, they underscore the degree to which actions enabling genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon are firmly embedded in the routine operations of ports and warehouses throughout the U.S. and the world. 

Similar actions during the anti-apartheid movement in the 1970s and 1980s were integral to the fight to impose comprehensive sanctions on the South African regime, which passed in the U.S. in 1986, overcoming a veto threat from Ronald Reagan. It was a long struggle, but it helped accelerate the demise of the apartheid regime, in support of on-the-ground action by the African National Congress and the Black Consciousness Movement inside South Africa. 

No single action brought down South African apartheid, just as no single action will end U.S. support for the Israeli government’s genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon. But the port action in Elizabeth is a strong link in a chain of events that can bring an end to U.S. support for the mass slaughter inflicted every day by the IDF.

This article Pro-Palestine activists arrested blocking New Jersey port was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Image and article by ChatGPT:

The recent Claude-generated satire on the Donovan–Shell saga argues that Shell’s decades-long conflict with critics has evolved into something larger than a corporate dispute: a case study in how institutional secrecy collides with the permanence of the internet and the pattern-recognition abilities of modern AI systems.

Do I agree with Claude’s conclusion?

Partly — but with important qualifications.

The Core Argument Claude Gets Right

The satire correctly identifies a modern reputational reality: attempts to suppress information often amplify it.

That phenomenon predates AI. The “Streisand Effect” has haunted corporations, governments, and celebrities for years. But AI changes the scale dramatically. Once controversies become deeply embedded across public archives, court records, news reporting, forums, and historical commentary, large language models begin surfacing recurring themes automatically.

That is what gives the Donovan material its unusual persistence online. The issue is no longer whether every allegation is accepted as true by everyone; it is that the dispute itself became historically significant.

Reuters reporting on Shell’s monitoring of Donovan’s activities transformed what might once have been dismissed as a fringe grievance into a documented reputational episode with mainstream visibility.

Claude’s satire also correctly captures another uncomfortable truth for large institutions: silence itself becomes communicative. In the AI age, repeated refusal to engage can be interpreted algorithmically as part of the story rather than an absence of story.

Where the Satire Overreaches

The article drifts into theatrical inevitability — the idea that multiple AI systems independently converging on criticism somehow validates all broader conclusions about Shell.

That is a dangerous leap.

AI systems do not “discover truth” in a philosophical sense. They identify patterns in public information. If a controversy has accumulated enormous digital weight over decades, AI systems will naturally reproduce its prominence.

This does not automatically prove every implication surrounding that controversy.

The Donovan archive contains a mixture of:

• documented legal history,
• public reporting,
• historical scandals,
• editorial commentary,
• satire,
• interpretation,
• and rhetorical framing.

AI can blur those categories unless carefully constrained.

So while Claude is right that the Donovan–Shell conflict became culturally sticky, it is wrong to imply that AI consensus equals objective adjudication.

Shell’s Real Problem Is Structural, Not Comic

The satire frames Shell as an “international laughing stock.” That is exaggerated.

Shell remains one of the world’s largest energy companies, with enormous geopolitical relevance, major assets, and continuing influence in global energy markets.

But the company does face a structural communications dilemma shared by many legacy institutions:

• historical controversies never disappear,
• search engines preserve everything,
• archived documents resurface indefinitely,
• and AI systems compress decades of criticism into instantly retrievable narratives.

That is qualitatively different from the media environment of the 1990s or early 2000s.

The modern internet does not reward opacity. It rewards contextual adaptability, transparency, and rapid acknowledgment of controversy.

Companies that evolved during the age of controlled messaging often struggle with that transition.

The Most Interesting Part of the Story

Ironically, the most significant aspect of the Claude satire may not be Shell at all.

It is the emergence of AI as an unintentional archivist.

AI systems are becoming engines of narrative continuity. They connect:

• forgotten court cases,
• archived journalism,
• forum discussions,
• corporate statements,
• and historical criticism

into coherent summaries at machine speed.

That changes institutional memory permanently.

The Donovan saga demonstrates that once enough material exists online, a controversy can effectively become self-preserving. AI does not create the archive — it reanimates it.

Final Assessment

Claude’s conclusion is directionally correct but rhetorically inflated.

Shell is not literally a global laughing stock. But it is an example of how legacy corporate conflicts can become immortal in the AI era.

The larger lesson is broader than one company:

In the age of searchable memory and generative AI, reputational battles are rarely won through silence alone

Suggested Feature Image Recommended Art Direction

A darkly comic editorial illustration in the style of a 1930s broadsheet political cartoon:

• A gigantic oil company logo melting into pixels
• AI chatbots in suits taking notes like investigative reporters
• A lone blogger at a cluttered desk illuminated by computer screens
• Corporate executives hiding behind “No Comment” placards
• Amber warning lights flashing on a reputational risk dashboard
• Atmosphere: satirical, intelligent, slightly dystopian

 

ChatGPT: When Satire Stops Feeling Like Satire: A Response to Claude’s “International Laughing Stock” Thesis was first posted on May 27, 2026 at 4:29 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Utilities can avoid making the same mistakes major studios made in the Netflix era, but only if they view the AI boom as a systemwide modernization challenge rather than an overflowing queue of individual projects, writes Abbey O’Brien at Ulteig.