News Feeds

FIXME Esta página no está completamente traducida, aún. Por favor, contribuye a su traducción. (Elimina este párrafo una vez la traducción esté completa) Cuando los ríos hablan: un tejido narrativo de las vías fluviales de una región Por Talking Wings

FIXME Esta página no está completamente traducida, aún. Por favor, contribuye a su traducción. (Elimina este párrafo una vez la traducción esté completa) Yutsilal Bahlumilal Pluriversidad: Co-creación de alternativas agro-eco-visuales Por Xochitl Leyva Solano y Axel Köhler

FIXME Esta página no está completamente traducida, aún. Por favor, contribuye a su traducción. (Elimina este párrafo una vez la traducción esté completa) Hacia una era postcrecimiento Por Robert Wanalo y Natalie Holmes El Post Growth Institute (PGI) es una organización internacional sin fines de lucro que lidera la transición hacia un mundo en el que las personas, las empresas y la naturaleza prosperen juntas dentro de los límites ecológicos. Trabajamos de manera colaborativa para desarrollar…

FIXME Esta página no está completamente traducida, aún. Por favor, contribuye a su traducción. (Elimina este párrafo una vez la traducción esté completa) TEJIENDO ALTERNATIVAS #07: Una publicación periódica del Tejido Global de Alternativas

Fomentar los vínculos a través de la educación Por Lina Álvarez Villarreal No cabe duda de que estamos atravesando una profunda crisis civilizatoria. Esta crisis se ha manifestado en una multiplicidad de crisis: políticas, económicas, ecológicas y, más recientemente, sanitarias. Creo que el principio motor de esta devastadora situación hay que buscarlo en la ruptura de la relación de las sociedades modernas con la Tierra (entendida como una red viva de relaciones). Esta ruptura se manifiesta e…

This article was written by Eduardo González‑Sargas, a Colorado State University research scientist and ecologist whose work focuses on river and restoration ecology.For more than a decade...

Energy and economic security can be rapidly reinforced by stopping gas loss. The amount of methane vented and leaked into the air today by the global oil and gas industry is even greater than the total pre-war volume of gas passing through the Strait of Hormuz. When flared gas is added, this overall energy waste is equal to over one-half of worldwide LNG exports.

With energy markets roiling over the loss of 20% of the gas volume traveling through this chokepoint, companies have a responsibility to stop their gas loss on energy security grounds alone. Moreover, given price hikes due to the ongoing conflict, there are immediate economic benefits for selling rather than wasting their gas.

Texas’s oil and gas industry spotlights this massive energy and economic opportunity. Preventing gas venting and flaring in Texas alone could make up the total lost gas volume due to current disruptions in the Persian Gulf. Preventing gas waste and accurately accounting for companies’ self-reported gas loss is not only fair practice, but it also has paybacks for industry and increases resource royalties to the Texas state budget. By keeping gas in the pipe and out of the air, operators can also safeguard people and the planet. As one of the world’s biggest oil and gas producers, Texas serves as a case study to investigate and quantify how companies can step up to bolster energy, economic, and climate security by stopping gas loss.

Reducing system inefficiencies bolsters energy security

There are inefficiencies in oil and gas industry operations that lead to gas waste and methane emissions. The industry acknowledges it. Mitigating product loss, which is paramount when energy supplies are constrained, can be prevented by tighter oversight, better operations, and strategic investments.

Gas loss is becoming increasingly visible due to advances in satellites, sensors, and continuous monitoring. Ongoing measurements are creating alignment around a new priority: turning actionable data into operational decisions that improve reliability, reduce costs, offer payback, and increase production efficiency. The barrier is no longer technology, but workflows — ensuring that actionable insights reach engineers and operators in time to drive change.

Over 10,000 plumes have been spotted in Texas alone over the past several years, amounting to some hundreds of tons of wasted methane gas. A recent gas release spewing over three tons of methane was detected on the eastern edge of the Permian Basin in Texas, as shown below. The two leaks detected by Carbon Mapper at this site, which persisted for two days, wasted as much energy as it takes to dry over 300,000 loads of laundry.

Sample methane plume spotted in Texas by satellites Source: Carbon Mapper Data Portal, Accessed April 14, 2026.

Lowering the volume of gas we waste heightens energy security because more gas makes it to market. Conversely, supply shocks trigger fuel shortages, especially in import-dependent nations. And energy insecurity drives up the price of oil and gas, leading to inflation and economic insecurity.

Preventing gas waste produces revenue streams and boosts economic security

Methane is the main component in gas, and is also co-produced with oil. When it’s allowed to escape into the atmosphere, it’s sheer energy and material waste. When kept in the pipe and sold, it’s a valuable commodity. Moreover, when companies minimize their operational inefficiencies, the gains are transformed into economic benefits for communities in the form of increased revenues, royalties, and jobs.

The industry knows its gas value proposition. When prices are high, gas loss drops. It then rises when prices are low, as plotted for the United States below.

On a global scale, the estimated 81 million metric tons of methane that the oil and gas industry squanders annually through venting and leaking its gas has an estimated economic value today of $20 billion to 50 billion a year, depending on highly variable gas prices. (See endnote for assumptions). In terms of overall financial opportunities, the economic loss of wasted gas is twice as great when also accounting for the additional 150 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas that is flared worldwide. Given the high volatility of global gas prices, foregone revenue streams, royalties, and resource rents from wasted gas are a material corporate and national concern.

Stopping methane emissions rapidly improves climate security

Methane is over 80 times more powerful at heating Earth over its decade-long lifetime. In other words, every metric ton of methane that is stopped or avoided dramatically lowers damages wrought by droughts, flash floods, excess heat, firestorms, and other climate-driven disasters. The fastest path to reducing methane emissions is improving oil and gas industry operations to prevent gas loss. The companies that succeed in this quest are those that can keep their gas in the pipe.

Improved measurement, models, and methodologies are enabling the shift from data insights to durable action. For example, Carbon Mapper’s data portal identifies large point source methane-emitting events. This focuses operators’ attention on rapidly fixing their super-emitting assets. Separately, NASA’s Black Marble product analyzes nightlights using the VIIRS satellite to make gas flaring data publicly available. And ClimateTRACE quantifies wide-ranging oil and gas industry methane emissions between countries.

Drilling down in Texas

RMI’s study, Drilling Down on Gas Loss, finds that Texas oil and gas operators’ self-reported gas loss is likely 3–4.5 times higher than what is currently self-reported. This results in energy waste and methane emissions that are highly variable across basins, well types, and production volumes, as mapped below.

For example, in February 2026, Carbon Mapper detected a plume in Big Spring, Texas (illustrated above) that emitted 3.4 tons of methane per hour. Coincidentally, this major gas release is in Howard County, Texas, the same county that RMI’s study identified as highly wasteful. Together, bottom-up and top-down analyses can provide real-world validation of gas loss.

Across Texas, the volume of wasted gas identified in this state alone could yield some 15.6 bcm per year of marketable gas. In 2024, before gas prices recently spiked, over $1 billion in Texas’s gas value was forgone, with associated lost tax revenue of nearly $100 million. Today, this amounts to $1.6 billion in forgone gas value at current Henry Hub gas prices.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

 

Over half of the gas wasted in Texas is attributed to low-volume oil wells that intentionally vent their gas (predominantly methane) directly into the air. This loss is under operators’ control. Moreover, this intentional waste is frequently disguised through under- or false reporting. Nearly one-half of Texas’s company-operated oil leases reported zero gas produced or zero gas loss during at least one month in 2024. Gas leases more accurately reported their product loss.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

Why industry needs to accurately report and stop gas loss

The sizeable gas loss in Texas alone masks the scale of energy waste from an industry that is largely promoting waste reduction. For example, at CERAWeek 2026 — the largest energy convening in Houston, Texas — numerous companies made clear that the oil and gas industry is ready to treat methane and wasted gas not just as an environmental liability, but as signals of operational inefficiency and lost economic value.

Some operators note that spikes in flaring during production is too common, reinforcing the need for actionable, real-time data to improve operations. Other operators emphasize that methane mitigation is becoming embedded in operational excellence, with reductions made through equipment upgrades. Across international and national oil and gas companies, the message was consistent: better data leads to better operations — reducing downtime, improving process control, and modernizing equipment — which directly translates into lower emissions and economic gains.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

When companies reduce gas waste, they not only make a difference to their bottom lines. The war in the Middle East highlights a devastating reminder that preventing gas loss is also a matter of energy security. All told, some 112 billion cubic meters of gas passes through the Strait of Hormuz annually. Remarkably, this disrupted trade volume that is upending global energy markets is just a fraction of the 280 billion cubic meters of gas that oil and gas companies discard through venting and flaring every year. We have the policy and market tools to prevent gas loss. If acted on, this will win-win-win, significantly bolstering energy, economic, and environmental security.

Acknowledgment: Thank you to Dwayne Purvis (Purvis Energy Advisors) for his lead on the Texas study, Drilling Down on Gas Loss.

Endnotes: These calculations assume (1) a methane content in gas of 74%–85%; (2) methane density of 0.657 kilograms per cubic meter; (3) a heat conversion of 1038 btu per cubic foot; (4) resource pricing of $3.70 per million British Thermal Units (MMbtu) for pipelined natural gas anchored on Henry Hub; (5) $11.33 per 1000 cubic feet for LNG; (6) 2024 Waha Gas Hub and Henry Hub prices of $0.21 to 2.21/MMbtu, respectively; (7) April’s Henry Hub gas spot price is computed as $2.79 per MMbtu for 2026.

The post Stopping Global Gas Loss in Its Tracks appeared first on RMI.

A proposed rule would declassify “chemical recycling” as incineration. We think that’s a bad idea.

“It is not that we have a short time to live,” the ancient Roman philosopher Seneca once wrote, “but that we waste a lot of it.” His point — that we often waste things that hold great value — echoes through the centuries.  

As the closure of the Strait of Hormuz forces governments around the world to enact restrictive policies to stabilize their energy supplies and national economies, it’s a critical time to reflect on wasted energy resources.

Before the war, some 20% of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies was shipped through the Strait. But with blockades and damaged infrastructure largely bottling up that supply, it’s a moment to look at where that supply could be made up if a concerted effort is made to stop gas from escaping systemwide.

The answer? Waste. 

The 112 billion cubic meters of gas lost by the Strait’s closure is dwarfed by the scale of gas wasted by venting and flaring worldwide. The good news is that we have the technological and policy tools available to us today to limit waste and increase our energy and economic security. 

Wasted gas is no longer invisible. More satellites, drones, sensors, and other technologies are being used to reconcile differing methane inventories and identify methane super-emitters. Now we must segue from “how to measure” to “how to act.” Getting actionable insights embedded into system design, planning, operations, and emissions management systems is key. So too are policies that limit leakage and actions that amplify methane mitigation through sound financial investments and smart insurance underwriting.

Were Seneca an energy planner today, he might observe that energy supplies are ample, but only if we know how not to waste them. 

 Read more: Stopping Global Gas Loss in Its Tracks

The post The World Wastes More Gas Each Year Than the Strait of Hormuz Supplies appeared first on RMI.

The Mississippi is well worth reading about. It is not a commonplace river, but on the contrary is in all ways remarkable. — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi The Mississippi River is a...

The Mississippi is well worth reading about. It is not a commonplace river, but on the contrary is in all ways remarkable. — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi The Mississippi River is a...

Disclaimer: This article is a satirical/tabloid-style deep dive based on reported facts and public sources. Spoof sections are clearly labelled. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Part 1 — Fact-Based Deep Dive

Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos Energy and Shell are pushing ahead with oil and gas exploration in the US Gulf, in a move that says plenty about where big energy capital now feels welcome — and where it does not.

According to The Times, Ineos Energy is teaming up with Shell to explore opportunities near Shell’s Appomattox platform in the Gulf of Mexico, after Ineos acquired a 21 per cent stake in the platform from China’s CNOOC. The partnership is focused on developing Shell’s Fort Sumter discovery, understood to hold more than 125 million barrels of recoverable oil equivalent, identifying further exploration wells, and assessing broader development opportunities in the area.

The geography matters. This is not a speculative punt in the middle of nowhere. Appomattox is already an operating deepwater production hub, Shell is the operator, and Ineos is now plugged into a basin where infrastructure, geology, capital discipline and regulatory predictability all converge. In oil-speak, that means one thing: if the rocks behave, the money has somewhere sensible to go.

Ineos has already had a taste of the prize. In December 2025, it announced a new Norphlet oil discovery at the Shell-operated Nashville well, where Ineos holds a 21 per cent working interest and Shell holds 79 per cent. The well was drilled more than five miles beneath the seabed, confirmed high-quality oil, and could be tied back to the nearby Appomattox platform.

That is the magic phrase in deepwater economics: tie-back. A discovery near existing infrastructure is not just a geological trophy; it can be a cheaper, faster, lower-risk production candidate than a standalone mega-project. Exploration still carries risk, but the Appomattox neighbourhood gives Ineos and Shell the sort of industrial springboard that makes boardrooms less twitchy.

Ineos’ American expansion did not begin offshore. In 2023, it entered US onshore oil and gas production by buying Chesapeake assets in the Eagle Ford shale for $1.4 billion, acquiring about 2,300 wells producing a net 36,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day and leases across 172,000 net acres in south Texas.

Then came the Gulf. In April 2025, Ineos completed its acquisition of CNOOC’s US Gulf business, a deal it said increased its global production to more than 90,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day and took its US energy capital spend above $3 billion. The assets included interests around Appomattox and Stampede, plus mature assets and supporting operations.

So the pattern is now obvious: Ratcliffe’s outfit is not dabbling in America. It is building a proper oil and gas platform there — onshore shale, offshore deepwater, LNG exposure, and a seat beside Shell in one of the world’s most important hydrocarbon provinces.

And now for the uncomfortable British bit.

The Times report frames Ineos’ US push against the backdrop of frustration with the UK’s oil and gas fiscal regime. Ineos Energy chief executive David Bucknall is reported as saying that America’s stable fiscal and regulatory environment is a key attraction, while UK policy volatility and high taxes make large domestic investment harder to justify.

That is not just corporate moaning into the Aberdeen drizzle. The UK government itself announced that the Energy Profits Levy would rise to 38 per cent from November 2024, taking the headline tax rate on upstream oil and gas activities to 78 per cent, with the levy extended to 31 March 2030.

For the North Sea, that is a brutal sales pitch: mature basin, declining reserves, political hostility, uncertain licensing, and a headline tax rate that screams “thanks for the cash, now please leave quietly.”

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the US Gulf offers scale, infrastructure and a government system that, whatever its political noise, still tends to treat oil and gas production as a strategic asset rather than a moral embarrassment.

This is the central irony. British companies are still perfectly willing to drill. They are just increasingly willing to drill somewhere else.

Shell’s role is equally revealing. Under Wael Sawan, Shell has been refocusing on shareholder returns, oil, gas and LNG after investor scepticism over earlier green-energy ambitions. A separate Times report notes that Shell’s recent strategy has emphasised buybacks, portfolio discipline and oil and gas, although the company still faces questions over reserve life and long-term growth compared with US rivals.

Put simply: Shell needs barrels. Ineos wants growth. The Gulf has rocks, rigs and rules that investors can understand. The North Sea has a tax regime that looks like it was designed by someone who wants the industry to stay just long enough to pay for its own funeral.

None of this removes the climate contradiction. Ineos says it is pursuing a dual-track approach: meeting current energy demand while investing in carbon storage, LNG, hydrogen and other transition technologies. Its own materials say it is active in oil, gas, power and carbon credits, while also investing in LNG and carbon capture and storage.

But the hard commercial reality is that hydrocarbons still dominate the cash machine. Carbon capture is the corporate hymn sheet; oil and gas are the till receipts.

The Nashville discovery, the Fort Sumter development push, and the Appomattox partnership show that Ineos is positioning itself not as a reluctant fossil-fuel legacy player, but as a serious transatlantic upstream operator. Shell, meanwhile, is doing what Shell does best: squeezing value from big, technically complex basins where it already has infrastructure and operating expertise.

The broader story is not “oil companies discover they like oil.” That was never in doubt. The real story is that Britain’s energy giants and industrial champions are voting with their capital. The UK can talk about energy security, transition jobs and industrial strategy all it likes; if the investment case is better in America, the rigs, engineers and future barrels will follow.

The North Sea is not dead. But it is being politically sedated.

And in the Gulf, Ineos and Shell have found exactly the sort of place where the industry still hears the magic words: drill, develop, produce, repeat.

Part 2 — Clearly Labelled Spoof PR / Spin Section

Official Statement From the Department of Making Everything Sound Fine

We welcome the exciting news that British-linked energy expertise is creating jobs, investment and production opportunities in… America.

This is clear evidence that the UK remains a world leader in exporting confidence, capital and drilling ambition to jurisdictions that have not yet decided to treat domestic oil and gas as a taxable sin bin.

The government’s 78 per cent headline tax rate should not be viewed as a deterrent. It should be viewed as an innovative industrial strategy encouraging companies to broaden their horizons, discover new continents, and support energy security somewhere with warmer water.

We remain fully committed to the North Sea, especially as a historic concept, a source of tax revenue, and a scenic backdrop for speeches about transition.

Official Statement From Big Oil’s Department of Polished Optimism

We are delighted to confirm that our latest deepwater activities demonstrate our unwavering commitment to reliable energy, responsible development, shareholder value, transition-compatible hydrocarbons, disciplined capital allocation, and phrases that make drilling sound like a yoga retreat.

The Gulf opportunity is attractive because it combines world-class geology with infrastructure and a fiscal regime that does not require a séance before every investment committee meeting.

We remain committed to the UK, subject to geology, economics, tax stability, regulatory clarity, political weather, coffee availability, and whether anyone in Whitehall can say “investment certainty” without laughing.

Part 3 — Spoof Bot-Reaction / Comment Section

@EnergyRealistBot:
British company drills in America because America likes energy. Analysts stunned by obvious thing.

@NorthSeaNostalgia:
Remember when the North Sea was a national asset? Anyway, it’s now a tax piñata wearing a hard hat.

@GreenwashDetector3000:
“Dual-track strategy” detected. Translation: oil now, carbon capture PowerPoint later.

@DividendGoblin:
Shell + Ineos + existing infrastructure = shareholders quietly sharpening their calculators.

@PolicyVolatilityBot:
UK: “Why won’t you invest?”
Also UK: “Here is a 78 per cent tax rate and a ministerial mood swing.”

@DeepwaterDrama:
Five miles beneath the seabed and still easier to navigate than British energy policy.

@AberdeenEngineer:
Can someone let us know whether we’re building the energy transition or attending the North Sea’s retirement party?

@FiscalRegimeFan:
America offered certainty. Britain offered vibes, levies and a consultation document. The rig chose certainty.

Ineos and Shell Drill Into America While Britain Taxes Its Own Basin Into the Sick Bay was first posted on May 4, 2026 at 8:17 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

Green Bank Litigation Update

There has been a recent uptick of activity in Green Bank litigation in the federal district courts and the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals, like other circuit courts, hears appeals from the U.S. district courts. However, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has a broader purview than other circuit courts because it has jurisdiction over a wide range of federal law, including numerous federal agency decisions.

Nothing in this summary should lead the reader to believe that a rapid resolution of Green Bank litigation is imminent. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University is tracking seven major federal cases contesting the fate of $20 billion in funding for the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA). See NCIF/CCIA Database Tracker Here. The Sabin Center is also following twenty-six federal cases involving disputes over $7 billion in Solar for All funding. See Solar for All Database Tracker Here.

Many legal observers anticipate that one or more of these cases will ultimately be decided by appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. The purpose of this update is to highlight a small (hopefully, representative) set of recent federal district and appeals court activities and identify some emerging themes & arguments in the Green Bank court cases.

Background

In 2022, the United States Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), appropriating an unprecedented amount of money for climate spending programs. One of the IRA’s flagship investments was the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a $27 billion program comprised of the National Clean Investment Fund and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (combined $20 billion), and Solar for All (SFA) ($7 billion). The PA Energy Development Authority (PEDA) was awarded $156 million through the Solar for All program.

An over-summarized version of the competing arguments in the thirty-three federal Green Bank lawsuits might include the following issues:

• The Plaintiffs argue that the NCIF/CCIA/ SFA Green Banks should have access to funds and be allowed to operate because these programs were fully implemented by September 30, 2024, in full compliance with Congressional intent in the IRA.
• The Defendants maintain that the Green Banks were not implemented in an appropriate manner, and to the extent that there is a dispute about current funding – those are contract claims to be resolved at the U.S. Court of Claims. To the extent relevant, Congressional intent was conclusively expressed in the Big Beautiful Bill in July 2025 when it repealed authorization and funding for Green Banks.

For a less sanitized version of the Trump administration’s views, EPA’s official description of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund can be found Here.

March-April 2026 – Court Hearings & Interim Orders

Continued Freeze of Green Bank Funds at Citibank:

Judge bars Trump’s EPA from taking back $20B in climate grants – for now – by Zack Colman – Politico – March 18, 2026 – U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan temporarily blocked the EPA’s attempt to recoup $20 billion in Biden-era climate grants. But rather than declare a winner, Tuesday’s decision was merely aimed at preserving the status quo, Chutkan said. Her order does not immediately restore access to the groups’ accounts, nor does it officially kill EPA’s right to press for contract terminations in the future.

Judges Order Federal Agencies to Unfreeze Climate Money – By Claire Brown and Karen Zraick – New York Times – April 16, 2025 – Two court rulings on Tuesday unfroze hundreds of millions of dollars in federal climate funds, a win for nonprofit groups that have been denied access to money they were promised under the Biden administration.

Appeals court temporarily halts disbursement of contested climate funds – by Rachel Frazin – The Hill – April 17, 2026 – An appeals court has temporarily halted a lower court’s order to release contested climate funds. Earlier this week, District Judge Tanya Chutkan blocked the EPA from clawing back billions of dollars in climate funds given to Green Banks during the Biden administration. Her order directed Citibank to release the funds to the Green Bank groups as soon as Thursday. However, late Wednesday a panel of appeals court judges ordered that the funds should neither be returned to the U.S. Treasury Department nor released to the climate organizations to allow time to consider the case.

Federal judge questions whether EPA move to rapidly cancel ‘green bank’ grants was legal – by MICHAEL PHILLIS – Associated Press – April 2, 2025 – A federal judge on Wednesday pressed an attorney for the EPA about whether the agency broke the law when it swiftly terminated $20 billion worth of grants awarded to nonprofits for a green bank by allegedly bulldozing past proper rules and raising flimsy accusations of waste and fraud. Chutkan noted that EPA allegedly demanded Citibank stop providing funds that had already been awarded without letting the nonprofits know – “Is that lawful?” she asked.

DC Circuit Court of Appeals – Full Panel Hearing on EPA’s Termination of Grants

Full DC Circuit grills DOJ over effort to claw back billions in green energy funds – by Ryan Knappenberger – Courthouse News Service – February 24, 2026 – The full D.C. Circuit appeared split on Tuesday over whether it should vacate a preliminary injunction finding the Trump administration wrongfully gutted a Biden-era program meant to fund smaller climate projects by setting up intermediary investment funds. The En Banc panel was called back to the case, after a smaller panel indicated the Trump administration could claw back nearly $16 billion in grants, by a group of “green banks” who argued that the EPA had unlawfully gutted the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund without proper explanation.

Order entered March 9, 2026 – Argued at the DC Court of Appeals on March 20, 2026 – “The parties are directed to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether, in light of Section 60002 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. No. 119-21(2025), that [Green Bank] claims continue to provide a valid basis to affirm all or part of the preliminary injunction.” The Full Panel of the DC Court of Appeals has not yet issued a final decision in the Climate United case (more details are provided below).

Analysis: Can the DC Court of Appeals Revive a Grant Program?

One Year After Green Bank’s Demise, Court Mulls Future of Grant Based Climate Policy by Marianne Lavelle – Inside Climate News – March 11, 2026 – After years of failed efforts to get a greenhouse gas emissions plan through Congress, Democrats during the administration passed climate legislation in 2022 based entirely on government incentives – carrots, not sticks. The Green Bank case will likely decide whether any future Congress can effectively use federal grants to jump-start the clean energy economy, in a nation where it has proven so difficult to garner political support for policy that would place direct limits on the use or production of fossil fuels. “The Inflation Reduction Act was an interesting and innovative statute that sought to achieve big policy goals through the use of fiscal incentives,” said William Buzbee, environmental law professor at Georgetown University Law School. “If, in the end, the law allows the government to demolish regulation via grants, then this kind of strategy doesn’t have a long shelf life.”

 

Green Bank Litigation: Two Deeper Dives on the Arguments & Issues

Two excellent summaries of the state of play of the thirty-three Green Bank cases

Uncertain Remedies for Frozen Federal Climate Funding – by Vincent Colette & Romany Webb – Columbia Sabin Center for Climate Change Law – March 6, 2026.

This blog discusses the factual and litigation background of Climate United & examines three possible outcomes the panel discussed during oral arguments.

On February 24, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held oral arguments in the case Climate United Fund v. Citibank to consider the future of almost $20 billion in climate funding appropriated under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Now before the full court of appeals, at issue is whether to affirm the preliminary injunction that the District Court granted in April 2025. That injunction barred EPA from effectuating grant terminations and required the disbursement of frozen funds for two of the three programs within the IRA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF): (1) the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) and (2) the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA).

With this backdrop, on February 24, 2026, the parties participated in an oral argument that lasted almost three hours. In appeals like this, the D.C. Circuit reviews the district court’s preliminary injunction “for abuse of discretion, its underlying legal conclusions de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error.” Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, 27 F.4th 718, 726 (D.C. Cir. 2022).

The court considers the same preliminary injunction factors that the district court applied, which requires the plaintiffs to establish that “they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (cleaned up).

It appeared that the judges broadly converged around three possible outcomes to decide the rehearing: (1) Plaintiffs’ claims are really contract disputes that belong in the Court of Claims; (2) EPA’s actions violated the separation of powers doctrine but the Court’s ability to grant relief may be affected by the enactment of the Big Beautiful Bill; or (3) EPA’s actions violated the Administrative Procedures Act but the Court’s ability to grant relief may be affected by the enactment of the OBBA. The range of possible outcomes underscores both the novelty and complexity of the case.

Four Solar for All Lawsuits: Two Distinct Forums and Legal Theories – by Vincent Nolette – Columbia Sabin Center for Climate Change Law – October 31, 2025

This blog discusses the factual & litigation background of state-based arguments as to why EPA’s efforts to dismantle the Solar for All program are unlawful.

In 2022, the U.S. Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), appropriating an unprecedented amount of money for climate spending programs. As part of the IRA – Solar for All was a $7 billion program intended to expand access to greenhouse gas-reducing technologies – primarily distributed and community solar—to low-income and disadvantaged communities. If fully implemented, the EPA projected that SFA would reduce energy bills for more than 900,000 households, while also improving local air quality and helping to mitigate climate change, among other benefits.

State AGs Bring Breach of Contract Claims in the Court of Federal Claims – In Maryland Clean Energy Center, et al. v. United States, Docket No. 25-cv-1738 (filed October 15, 2025), a coalition of 22 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia are arguing that EPA unilaterally terminated competitive SFA grants in breach of contract, and are seeking money damages. The U.S. is the named defendant in this case because the Court of Federal Claims is the court that has jurisdiction over contract disputes against the federal government seeking monetary damages. Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims cannot provide injunctive relief in general breach of contract cases. Note: The PA Energy Development Authority is a Plaintiff in the Maryland Clean Energy Center case.

District Court Lawsuits – Unlike Court of Federal Claims lawsuits, which seek compensation for breach of contract, the district court Plaintiffs challenge EPA’s action under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Constitution.

One example of an APA/constitutional law case is Rhode Island AFL CIO, et al. v. EPA, et al., (filed October 6, 2025, District of RI). In this case, the plaintiffs are several intended beneficiaries of SFA (i.e., groups that would have been able to take advantage of the financial & technical assistance programs developed by SFA awardees). The plaintiffs are challenging EPA’s termination of the SFA program under (1) the Administrative Procedure Act claims, alleging that EPA’s action was in excess of statutory authority and arbitrary and capricious; and (2) the Constitution, arguing that EPA violated the separation of powers doctrine and the Presentment Clause. The plaintiffs also filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit as a protective measure in case that court is deemed the proper venue. Note: Solar United Neighbors is a Plaintiff in this case.

Conclusion: While states and others have made strong arguments as to why EPA’s efforts to dismantle the program are unlawful, it remains to be seen how the courts will view those arguments. And even if they are ultimately receptive to plaintiffs’ arguments, significant damage has already been done in the meantime. Although judicial relief would be a second-rate outcome, it is now the best that can be hoped for.

 

An Unrelated Case Before the US Supreme Court May Turn on Similar Procedural Issues That Green Banks Have Argued in Federal Courts

I Almost Never Predict Supreme Court Outcomes. Trump Will Lose This Case – by Linda Greenhouse – April 16, 2026 – New York Times – Trump v. Miot and Mullin v. Doe have been consolidated for a single argument on April 29, 2026 and the Haitian and Syrian Plaintiffs remain protected against deportation, free to work legally and live openly….Decades of writing about the Supreme Court have taught me that it’s foolish to predict the outcome of cases, and I have rarely done so. My prediction here rests on one word: procedure.

The post Clean Power Digest: Green Bank Litigation Updates appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

By Lauren Bourg, Director, Mississippi River Delta Program, National Audubon Society & Alisha Renfro, Coastal Scientist, Mississippi River Delta Restoration Program, National Wildlife Federation In July of 2025, the Landry Administration canceled the Mid Barataria Sediment Diversion (MBSD), a cornerstone of the state’s Coastal Master Plan since 2007. The state offered various excuses for the decision to legislators in committee last year, including concerns about project costs (despite funding being fully covered by Deepwater Horizon oil spill funds), potential hypoxic ...

Read The Full Story

The post Landry Administration Writes Off Barataria Basin While Offering New Justification for Cancellation of the Mid-Barataria Diversion appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Peer-reviewed EWG study finds produce washing options can reduce pesticide residue Anthony Lacey May 4, 2026

• All methods of washing fruits and vegetables reduced pesticide residues, but effectiveness varied widely and depends on the pesticide, produce and method.
• Soaking produce in a solution of baking soda or vinegar solution was more effective than soaking or rinsing in water, on average.
• EWG scientists recommend improvements to how pesticides are monitored in food and in people to further reduce exposure.

WASHINGTON – Affordable, simple household practices can reduce pesticide levels on fruits and vegetables and help consumers lower their daily dietary exposure to potentially harmful farm chemicals, a new peer-reviewed study by Environmental Working Group scientists finds.

The study builds on EWG’s pesticide consumer guidance in the annual Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™ and its comprehensive research on pesticides exposures. 

“Fruits and vegetables are essential to a healthy diet, but they can also increase exposure to pesticides,” said Dayna de Montagnac, M.P.H., associate scientist at EWG and lead author of the study. 

“Our findings reinforce the effectiveness of safe and accessible ways to reduce pesticide exposure while highlighting necessary improvements in research and monitoring to further reduce it,” she said.

Pesticide residues on produce

The review, published recently in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Health, analyzed data from 47 peer-reviewed studies of 23 produce items and 79 pesticides. The findings point to safe and effective methods consumers can use at home to reduce pesticide residues and provide a starting point for more research and monitoring in this area of study. 

Last year, EWG published peer-reviewed research showing how the consumption of fruits and vegetables with higher pesticide residues is linked to measurable levels of pesticides in urine. Other recent publications have investigated the growing problem of PFAS pesticides, chlormequat and glyphosate. 

Studies of the general population show exposure to pesticides is linked to cancer, reproductive harm, hormone disruption and neurotoxicity in children. 

Residues of these chemicals are often detected on produce and frequently appear in mixtures on every type of produce, except potatoes, with an average of four or more pesticides detected on individual samples, according to EWG’s recent analysis of Department of Agriculture pesticide testing data. 

Key findings

EWG scientists reviewed data that recorded pesticide concentrations of fruits and vegetables before and after rinsing or soaking them with water, baking soda or vinegar. Experiments where scientists rinsed their produce for more than two minutes were excluded to better reflect how people likely wash their produce at home.

Among the key findings:

• All washing methods reduced pesticide residues, but effectiveness varied widely.
• Rinsing with water showed modest reductions, with a median of 30.2%, although reductions ranged from 0% to 94%.
• Soaking in plain water performed slightly better than rinsing, with reductions from 0.6% to over 99% and a median of 33.7%.
• Baking soda soaking substantially improved removal, achieving reductions from 0.2% to over 99%, with a median of 50.9%.
• Vinegar, or acetic acid, soaking was the most effective method overall, with reductions ranging from 8.6% to over 99% and a median of 54.2%.
• Baking soda and vinegar treatments outperformed plain water by more than 15 percentage points in median pesticide reduction across studies, likely because of how certain pesticides break down in alkaline or acidic environments. 
• Real-world effectiveness may be lower than what EWG’s study showed, since many studies used higher concentrations of baking soda or vinegar than a typical household would.
• Key factors influencing pesticide removal included the chemical properties of the pesticide, the washing method used, and the type and surface characteristics of the produce.

These findings confirm the role washing produce can provide in moderately lowering pesticide levels.

Where more work is needed

The study’s authors recommend that government agencies make it a priority to monitor stubborn pesticides, those that remain on produce even after household washing. 

They also suggest expanding biomonitoring of fruits and vegetables to include pesticides frequently detected in the U.S. food supply. 

Future research should explore what proportion of pesticide residues remain within specific produce items and to what extent these residues increase exposure. 

The authors also suggest study designs that are more realistic, such as testing for the effect of rinsing for just a few seconds as a baseline. Further experiments could then show how adding baking soda or vinegar, with incremental increases in concentrations and washing times, can compare to the baseline method.

What consumers can do

EWG recommends regularly washing and eating plenty of fruit and vegetables.

Washing produce in any way will always be better than no washing in reducing exposure to pesticide residues. The USDA’s Pesticide Residue Program rinses produce samples with cold water for 15 to 20 seconds before testing produce, reflecting the assumption that consumers do basic washing at home.

A quick rinse or soak works in a pinch. When feasible, the addition of baking soda or vinegar to soaking solutions can further reduce residues. Refer to EWG’s guide on washing produce for more guidance.

When possible, EWG recommends prioritizing organic produce for the most pesticide-heavy produce listed in its Shopper’s Guide. The guide features the Dirty Dozen™ list of the produce with the highest pesticide residues detected and the Clean Fifteen™ list of items with the lowest residues.

###

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.

Areas of Focus Food Family Health Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 5, 2026

The post Elected Leaders: Hold Musk’s DOGE Accountable! appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

UN report predicts crippling heat waves, polluted air, species extinctions, economic crises

Source

Pups across the country are about to celebrate their first birthday. What’s on their birthday wish list this year?