News Feeds

For the past year, “economic diversification” has been the magic phrase, as threats from the U.S., global political and economic instability, and climate volatility increase exponentially. It is perplexing, then, that B.C. appears to be quietly...

Türkiye’s COP31 presidency has struck a “strategic” partnership with the International Energy Agency (IEA), aiming to speed up the global clean energy transition amid “the biggest energy crisis in history” triggered by the Iran war.

The Paris-based watchdog will work with the host nation of this year’s UN climate summit on areas including energy supply and security, electrification and green industrialisation, Murat Kurum, Türkiye’s climate minister, said at a high-level summit hosted by the IEA on Thursday.

“We all have to act together and make sure that we transform the crisis into an opportunity,” the COP31 president said, adding that the “most critical step” is to accelerate the transition to clean energy.

The IEA’s executive director, Fatih Birol, said the agency is closely watching how governments are reacting to what he described as “the biggest energy crisis in history” and whether those national responses will push climate-heating emissions up or down.

The Paris gathering came hot on the heels of the first global conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels in Colombia, where many governments pointed to fossil fuel volatility as a risk for energy security and economic growth, and used it as an argument to move away from oil and gas towards renewables.

Clean cooking and waste emissions in focus

Though details of how the partnership will operate in practice remain limited, Kurum said one of its most important pillars will be finding solutions to expand clean cooking in developing countries, which the COP31 president promised to bring “to the centre of the global agenda”.

The IEA has been leading global discussions on helping the 2.3 billion people across the world – mainly in the Global South – using highly-polluting fuels like charcoal, firewood and waste switch to cleaner and more efficient cooking solutions to reduce emissions and damaging health impacts.

• Apr 30, 2026 News Santa Marta summit kick-starts work on key steps for fossil fuel transition The conference offers some 60 nations help to develop roadmaps to shift their economies away from coal, oil and gas, and make international trade green Read more
• Apr 29, 2026 Comment Six nations at Santa Marta could shape fossil fuel futures A small but critical handful of countries attending the conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels remain deeply committed to expanding their output Read more

The agency is organising a summit to improve clean cooking access for Africans this July, alongside the Kenyan, US and Norwegian governments. Clean cooking solutions set to be promoted include fossil gas, alongside electric and solar-powered stoves.

Kurum also added that the IEA will carry out special research on the impact of waste recycling on climate change, which will inform the COP31 presidency’s agenda on cutting emissions from garbage, one of Türkiye’s priorities which is spearheaded by the president’s wife.

COP28 chief missing

The IEA convened representatives from over 50 governments, together with business leaders, on Thursday for the first in a series of dialogues aimed at advancing energy discussions ahead of the UN climate summit in November, where Australia will lead the negotiations.

They were joined by previous COP presidents, including veteran French diplomat Laurent Fabius, one of the key architects of the Paris Agreement, and Britain’s COP26 chief, Alok Sharma.

Sultan Al Jaber, the UAE’s COP28 president, was “very sorry” for not being able to join the meeting, Birol said. As the UAE announced its exit from the OPEC oil cartel this week, Al Jaber, who heads up the Emirati oil company Adnoc, said the firm’s ambition was “to deliver more…across oil, gas, chemicals, and low carbon and renewable energy”.

‘Bleaker’ outlook

Sharma said the current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is “much bleaker” than what it looked like when he presided over negotiations in Glasgow in 2021.

At that time, the IEA calculated that if all new commitments made at the summit were met, global warming could be limited to 1.8C above pre-industrialised levels, offering an optimistic outlook. Today, the UN says the world has already failed to hold warming to 1.5C and is on course for a rise of 2.6-3.1C.

Santa Marta marks a new chapter in climate diplomacy

Sharma said he didn’t “want to be the skunk at the party”, but pointed out that little money is yet flowing to decarbonise hard-to-abate industries and to support clean energy development anywhere outside China, Europe and the US. “If you want to transition away from fossil fuels, you need to provide the finance,” he added.

New finance mechanism promised

Echoing his remarks, COP21 president Fabius said “not easy” subjects like finance will need to be tackled at this year’s climate summit if countries want to make progress on putting into practice what’s been agreed at previous talks.

“Without financial, concrete steps there’s no implementation and it’s all talk,” he added.

COP31’s Kurum promised the presidency would “follow up” on the UN climate finance goal negotiated at COP29, when rich countries agreed to provide at least $300 billion annually by 2035 to developing nations to help them lower emissions and adapt to a warming world.

“We are working on a new mechanism to match the right projects with the right financing and make access to financing as easy as possible,” Kurum said.

The post Türkiye’s COP31 presidency and IEA join forces on clean energy push appeared first on Climate Home News.

There are more than 210 remote communities in Canada, the majority of which located in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Quebec. Many of these communities are largely reliant on diesel fuel for heat and electricity – a system that comes...

As oil prices spike due to the Iran war, a new diplomatic process launched in Colombia will support a group of around 60 countries – among them large fossil-fuel producers – interested in designing national roadmaps and a new financial architecture to wean their economies off coal, oil and gas, as well as building a trade system that favours clean energy.

The first global conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels wrapped up on Wednesday in the coal-port city of Santa Marta after several days of discussions bringing together ministers, academics, Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, green groups, trade unions and business representatives.

It offered a space for governments frustrated by last year’s failed attempt at COP30 to develop a global roadmap away from fossil fuels to make progress on how to reduce their reliance on hydrocarbons in a fair and carefully planned way, in line with a commitment made at COP28 in Dubai. Large fossil fuel-producing countries have since blocked concrete advances at the UN talks on putting that into practice.

The Santa Marta outcomes will feed into a voluntary roadmap being crafted by COP30 hosts Brazil based on inputs from countries and civil society.

Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out

At Wednesday’s closing plenary, Colombian environment minister Irene Vélez Torres announced that a second conference will be held early next year in the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, co-chaired by Ireland, marking the start of a new policy-making process to run alongside the slower-paced climate COPs.

“For the first time, it demonstrates that it is possible to make a different type of environmental democracy,” Vélez Torres said, adding that improvements can be made to the methodology.

Colombia and the Netherlands, which jointly hosted the Santa Marta conference, said three workstreams had been set up to identify concrete ways to reduce fossil fuel dependence and strengthen co-operation between the 59 countries that attended, along with the European Union.

These workstreams are focused on designing national and regional roadmaps away from fossil fuels including coordinating support for implementation; reforming economic and financial architecture by reducing fossil fuel subsidies, unlocking investment and managing debt constraints; and connecting fossil fuel-producing and consuming nations to reshape the international trade system towards decarbonisation and green commerce.

A summary report of the conference said governments would receive policy support from a new panel of top scientists specialised in the energy transition, which will help countries develop roadmaps and align them with their national climate action plans (NDCs).

During two days of ministerial meetings, France was the first country to announce its own roadmap, which includes targets to end the consumption of coal by 2030, oil by 2045 and fossil gas by 2050 for energy purposes.

Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven said that, while “nobody is gonna force” governments to implement the anticipated roadmaps, “these countries came together because they want to transition to a different economy”, adding that the conference provides “safe space for dialogue”.

“The fact that we don’t have negotiations here gave us such different dynamics, so the psychology of the Santa Marta conference is something that we will definitely make sure to carry forward,” she told the plenary. Later she said at a press conference that the key was not to negotiate but to “collaborate”.

Call for a fossil fuel treaty

Countries gave mostly positive reactions to the conference proceedings and said the general mood had been uplifting. One government delegate from the Dominican Republic even had to fight back tears in the plenary as she thanked the hosts for inspiring the group of assembled countries.

While supportive of the Santa Marta discussions, oil-rich Nigeria advocated strongly for a “managed, just, orderly and equitable” transition away from fossil fuels, warning against any “sudden closures”. This stance was reflected in the summary report which notes that fossil fuels should “decline in a managed, fair, and politically viable way”.

• Apr 25, 2026 Energy Climate scientists call for fossil fuel transition roadmaps A set of scientific policy recommendations and a new expert panel launched in Santa Marta will help governments plot a path away from oil, gas and coal Read more
• Apr 24, 2026 Comment Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action Cities will help identify concrete pathways for an equitable shift to clean energy at the Santa Marta conference, with C40 members aiming to halve their fossil fuel use by 2030 Read more

Ghana, another fossil fuel-producing country, said oil and gas remain deeply tied to government revenues which fund public services. Nonetheless, the West African country urged others to join an initiative to negotiate a global “Fossil Fuel Treaty”, which a group of 18 nations called on the conference to endorse. The effort was not included in the Santa Marta workstreams.

Felix Wertli, Switzerland’s ambassador for the environment, said countries had found potential areas for collaboration around improving electricity grids, energy storage and green investments ahead of this year’s COP31 UN climate summit in Türkiye. “We are confident that this COP could support such a call,” he added.

“Groundbreaking” talks

Delegates said Santa Marta had offered a “more relaxed” and inclusive process than UN negotiations. Government officials met face-to-face in hours-long conversations and interacted with representatives of different social sectors, including Indigenous peoples, cities and academics in closed-door breakout sessions.

Panama’s climate envoy, Juan Carlos Monterrey, told Climate Home News that, while he had been sceptical of the process at first, it allowed for discussions to “flow” in a way that COPs do not. “That is groundbreaking – it is a massive change in how we deal with environmental diplomacy,” he said.

EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra told journalists that the fact that the conference had happened at all just a few months after a tense COP30 was an achievement in itself. UK climate envoy Rachel Kyte also noted that the Santa Marta dialogue “is a proof of point that we can talk maturely about a really difficult issue”.

Comment: Santa Marta marks a new chapter in climate diplomacy

Observers also largely praised the conference. Catherine Abreu, director of the International Climate Politics Hub, called it a “productive space” for discussing the “stickiest issues” in the energy transition. WWF’s Manuel Pulgar Vidal, also a former COP president for Peru, said Santa Marta made “hope swell into momentum”, adding that its urgency must be sustained beyond this one summit.

Patricia Suárez, from the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon (OPIAC), said Indigenous peoples were optimistic that the conference had placed “the urgency of moving away from fossil fuels on the table”. But more concrete measures must follow, she noted, including declaring key rainforest ecosystems as “fossil fuel exclusion zones”.

One area the conference was criticised for overlooking was the health harms caused by fossil fuels through air pollution, extreme heat and other impacts. Jeni Miller, executive director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance, which unites 250 health organisations, said leaders in Santa Marta “did not address the importance of protecting people’s health”, which should be put at the centre of the conversation.

Influencing UN negotiations

Most government officials at the conference recognised the need to grow the “coalition of the willing” cemented in Santa Marta into a larger network that can influence other spaces such as UN climate negotiations – and its organisers reiterated that the door is open for others countries to join.

Dutch minister van Veldhoven told the final plenary that while “we are here with an immense group in Santa Marta, it is still too small” to fully disentangle the world from fossil fuels. Colombia and the Netherlands did not invite some powerful fossil fuel-producing countries like Russia and the US to the gathering because of their “openly extractivist” views, and major players in the clean energy sector like China were also left off the list.

Comment: Six nations at Santa Marta could shape fossil fuel futures

Tuvalu’s climate minister, Maina Vakafua Talia, told Climate Home News that big actors like China should be at the table, saying the criteria for invitations could change for the second fossil fuel phase-out conference his country will organise in April 2027.

“If we are missing out the main players in the discussion, then we are moving in a loop,” he said. “We need to find somehow how we can engage with [them] because there is no point in talking to ourselves.”

Claudio Angelo, head of international politics at Brazilian NGO Observatório do Clima, said countries could decide to keep the ball rolling within the UN climate negotiations by presenting formal agenda items on roadmaps away from fossil fuels at the annual Bonn talks in June which set the scene for COPs.

Tina Stege, climate envoy from the Marshall Islands, argued “there is a strong recognition that what we’re doing here can complement the COP process and needs to inform that process” – a view backed by other Pacific islands.

This story was updated after publication to clarify the final number of countries that attended the Santa Marta conference.

The post Santa Marta summit kick-starts work on key steps for fossil fuel transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

Contact: kayla@unbendablemedia.com

WASHINGTON – Nearly 120 community, labor, climate and environmental justice organizations representing millions of people across the country today urged Congress to reject efforts to fast-track artificial intelligence or data centers through permitting reform or other must-pass legislation.

Despite growing nationwide opposition, data center expansion is moving ahead without basic safeguards or meaningful community consent. The data center boom is driving up electricity bills, straining water supplies, and worsening pollution from diesel generators and fossil-fuel-powered grids, while deepening environmental injustice by concentrating facilities in low-income communities and communities of color already overburdened by pollution and limited resources.

The letter sent to congressional leaders today is backed by environmental justice leaders on the frontlines, including Memphis-based Young, Gifted & Green and Memphis Community Against Pollution. Those groups are fighting an xAI data center and working to ensure their efforts inform communities facing similar developments, serving as both a warning and a model for action.

“Our democratic process was sidelined when our most powerful leaders both elected and unelected championed a data center while community voices were shut out,” said LaTricea D. Adams, CEO and president, Young, Gifted & Green. “What happens in Memphis can happen in cities and states across the country. We need the U.S. Congress to do its job now to preserve and protect our rights as constituents and fight for our democracy.”

“Perpetuating the long-standing practice of environmental injustice costs our families their human right to clean air while burdening our bodies with illness that impact everything from breathing to birthings,” said KeShaun Pearson, executive director of Memphis Community Against Coalition. “Congress must put an end to the continual sacrificing of majority Black families and futures like ours. We deserve a healthy environment that doesn’t harm our communities and our planet for corporate gain.”

The letter warns that data center developers are replicating the fossil fuel industry’s long-standing pattern of targeting low-income communities, Tribal communities and communities of color. Nearly half of U.S. data centers are already located in these areas, deepening cumulative pollution burdens, raising utility costs and straining infrastructure in communities with the least resources to respond.

“Congress must not let Big Tech block oversight and hide data centers’ real harms from the public, including their immense energy and water use, dangerous pollution and rising local costs,” said Camden Weber, senior climate and energy policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Data center giants spend consumers’ money to gut regulations, buy up utilities and avoid accountability, enriching billionaires while shifting risks to everyone else. Members of Congress are supposed to represent their communities, not strip the people who elected them of the power to protect themselves from these massive operations moving into their neighborhoods.”

“We’ve seen this playbook before: strip away safeguards, sideline public input, and call it progress. But there is nothing ‘clean’ or responsible about an industry that drives up our energy bills, drains our water, and concentrates pollution in our communities,” said Mar Zepeda Salazar, legislative director at Climate Justice Alliance. “If lawmakers move forward with a deregulatory approach, what guarantees are there that anyone will be held accountable—to the law, to public health, or to the people most impacted? Our communities should not be forced to subsidize corporate growth with their health, their land, and their futures. Real progress means durable and enforceable protections, community consent, and investment that doesn’t come at the cost of environmental justice.”

“All communities deserve to have a say in what is being built in their backyards, especially for environmental justice communities facing a legacy of dangerous facilities polluting their neighborhoods,” said Yosef Robele, federal policy manager at WE ACT for Environmental Justice. “This is even more important now as harmful, undemocratic practices are being employed in the build-out of data center projects, such as using non-disclosure agreements that keep communities in the dark. These facilities often bypass necessary guardrails of both public input and impact analysis, threatening the health and safety of communities by polluting the air and water, while also guzzling critical water resources. This highlights the need for Congress to reject legislation that fast-tracks data center development, and to protect and strengthen bedrock laws like NEPA that protect communities’ rights, resources, and health.”

“It is time for Congress to stand up to Big Tech and reject these dangerous permitting rollbacks,” said Jim Walsh, policy director of Food & Water Watch. “Communities should not have to sacrifice their water so multibillion dollar companies can build data centers faster with less accountability, especially at a time when we are facing a water supply crisis across the United States. Rather than fast tracking these projects, Congress should listen to communities around the country that are rejecting the massive expansion of data centers and put the brakes on these projects so we can better understand the impacts on scarce water supplies and communities that depend on this essential resource.”

“Using permitting reform and other legislation to fast track the data center boom is a slap in the face to local communities who will be the ones to pay the price. No amount of giveaways to data center projects will stave off irreversible harm, including rising electricity costs and polluted environments,” said Raena Garcia, senior energy campaigner from Friends of the Earth U.S. “If Congress is truly committed to protecting our people and the planet, they will halt altogether the attempts from both the Big Oil and Big Tech industries to scale up data centers without meaningful protections.”

                                                                            ###

The post 120 Organizations Urge Congress to Reject Fast-Tracking of Harmful Data Centers appeared first on Climate Justice Alliance.

Headline News:

• “One Of America’s Oldest Weather Observatories Shows The Science Behind Our Climate” • Weather observers at Blue Hill Observatory and Science Center, a weather station fifteen miles south of Boston, have conducted weather observations every day for 141 years, building a continuous record of temperature, wind, precipitation, and other measurements. [ABC News]

Blue Hill Weather Observatory (Jameslwoodward, CC BY-SA 3.0)

• “EU Loosens State Aid Rules” • The EU will ease its strict state aid rules to help fuel-dependent sectors cope with higher energy prices and other economic effects of the crisis in the Middle East. With the emergency measures, member nations can subsidize up to 70% of extra costs of fuel and fertilizers for farmers, fishing firms, and road transport carriers. [Euronews]
• “Trump Met With Oil And Gas Executives As Iran War Drags On” • As fuel prices keep rising, the White House confirmed that President Trump and some of his top officials met with oil and gas executives. They discussed “steps we could take to continue the current blockade for months if needed and minimize impact on American consumers.” [ABC News]
• “CATL Inks Deal For 60 GWh Of Sodium-Ion Batteries Over Three Years” • Just last week, CATL had news about its latest iteration of a sodium-ion battery for EVs. And now, the company announced it has entered into an agreement with HyperStrong to supply it with 60 GWh of sodium-ion batteries over the next three years. [CleanTechnica]
• “‘Itching To Pump More Oil’: What Could The UAE’s Exit From OPEC Mean For The Climate?” • In recent years, the UAE has pushed back against OPEC production quotas that it felt were too low – meaning it wasn’t able to sell as much oil to the world as it wanted to. Now is on track to realize that goal with its exit from oil cartel OPEC. [Euronews]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond the generational divide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case that set a precedent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustainability by habit

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

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

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

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

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

Renewal needs the old

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Registered nurses, community members, labor advocates, and local supporters will hold a press conference on Friday, May 1 outside Bakersfield Memorial Hospital to demand hospital leadership reverse plans to close the hospital’s burn unit.

Two months ago, everyone was still wondering whether the First Conference for Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels would carry the relevance it promised in Brazil. Would governments around the world care enough to show up after the excitement of COP30 had faded? In a world that seemed to be sinking into new wars with global consequences?

Paradoxically, the escalating aggressions by the United States and Israel in Southwest Asia (Middle East) have shown the world exactly why we need to leave behind our dependence on fossil fuels. Entire communities have been destroyed, families buried under rubble, children killed, livelihoods erased, all in a region whose political fate has been shaped for over a century by the control of oil and gas. People in Palestine, Lebanon, and across the region are paying with their own lives for the world’s thirst for fossil fuels.

These are not abstract arguments. They are the bombs that fall, the blockades that starve, the occupations that endure, all because fossil fuel wealth concentrates power in the hands of those willing to use violence to protect it. Not only do fossil fuels poison our planet, they fuel instability, deepen inequality, and tie our futures to volatile and unjust energy systems. Moving beyond fossil fuels is no longer a distant goal. It is a shared necessity.

The response? Fifty-seven countries representing roughly a third of the global economy came together, signaling that the transition is not only possible but already underway.

But what truly defined this conference was not just who showed up at the governmental level. It was who was finally let in.

Indigenous peoples from around the world, trade unions, youth groups, academics, Afro-descendant communities, peasant associations, women and diverse identities, activists and NGOs, among others, engaged for the first time in a participation mechanism that actually listens to their voices and puts their demands on the table.

And beyond the high-level spaces, communities were building, not just speaking. During both days of the Peoples Summit, 350.org with 32 organizations across Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and the Caribbean Islands a Fair of Alternatives, showing that futures beyond fossil fuels are already here. Community leaders hosted a panel within the Peoples Summit space, and their voices fed into the final declaration.

Frontline communities from all around the world had a voice on the Santa Marta conference

 

It was no small thing to see Indigenous women leaders from Putumayo and Bolivia connecting over their shared concern about an energy transition being carried out without consultation in their territories, one that threatens to bring extractive models for copper and lithium that would gravely affect their environments and communities. But ready, too, to share models of community energy generation through biodigesters they have built themselves. Because communities around the world have not sat around waiting for their governments to act. They have thought of solutions and carried them out.

That same spirit drove the Popular Assemblies we co-organized in three territories in Colombia and Ecuador, where affected communities named the crisis in their own terms. Two of the communities that led these Assemblies — Cesar sin Fracking and Alianza Libre de Fracking — attended the high-level Conference, including Yuvelis Morales Blanco, now a winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize. 350.org also held an organizing space toward a common Latin American campaign against fracking and LNG with leaders from Colombia, Argentina and Mexico.

These connections between communities were perhaps the most powerful thread running through the conference. Activists from across the world linked militarization and the climate crisis in a country with more than 60 years of armed conflict, where multinationals like Glencore and Drummond have used armed groups to displace and kill local communities, seize their lands and waters, and leave surrounding populations in misery and fear. The Climate Justice Flotilla traveled across Caribbean islands still under Dutch colonial rule to bring their voices to this space — possibly the first time Aruba and Curacao had representation at a conference like this, even as the Netherlands, their colonial power, co-hosted while opposing a fossil fuel transition treaty.

During the Santa Marta conference, activists and local communities blocked the entrance of one of the main coal ports in Latin America.

 

It was also no small thing to see these same activists blockade one of the largest coal ports in Latin America with solar panels — Drummond’s port in Ciénaga. The action put the demands of affected communities front and centre: making polluters pay for the loss of land, biodiversity and life, and the need for a just transition. For local communities, doing something like this would mean enormous security risks — just weeks earlier, armed groups had kidnapped 25 fishermen from the community most affected by Drummond. But these young people from around the world used their foreign origins as a kind of shield, standing in solidarity with the communities of Ciénaga, Santa Marta, and all of Colombia affected by this multinational. Those same solar panels used in this action will now go to the communities most harmed by that coal port.

So what did governments actually deliver?

Let’s be clear: they could have been far more ambitious. The world is on fire, sometimes literally, and the political outcomes of this conference reflect cautious, small steps that do not match the urgency communities are living every day.

Governments from 57 countries meet at the First Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels Conference, in Colombia

 

That said, the fact that this conference happened at all, that it finally named fossil fuels as the root cause of climate chaos and created a dedicated space to address them outside of the pressures of formal COP negotiations, is itself a significant victory. Five concrete outcomes came out of the high-level segment:

1. Continuity. A second conference has been announced for 2027, co-hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland, with the main event taking place in Tuvalu. And who better than our brothers and sisters from the Pacific nations, on the frontlines of climate chaos, to carry forward what started in Santa Marta and remind the world of the urgency?
2. A coordination group has been established to ensure continuity between conferences, bringing together countries leading different alliances and initiatives on the fossil fuel transition, including the co-hosts of the first and second conferences.
3. The outcomes will be handed over to the COP30 Presidency, shared ahead of the intersessional meetings in Bonn this June and formally presented at London Climate Action Week, with plans to bring them to the UN Secretary-General during New York Climate Week. The intention is to feed these results into the second Global Stocktake, making sure this process does not live in isolation from the UNFCCC.
4. Three workstreams have been launched to identify concrete opportunities for cooperation: one focused on national roadmaps guided by the Science Panel, another on economic dependencies and financial architecture, and a third on aligning fossil fuel producers and consumers toward trade systems free of fossil fuels. These workstreams will remain open for countries to join or lead.
5. A Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition will anchor the entire process in evidence rather than politics. Academics and scientists from around the world joined forces to ensure that science guides the process of leaving fossil fuels behind, and to help countries develop roadmaps aligned with the 1.5°C trajectory and to dismantle the legal, financial, and political barriers standing in the way.

Are these outcomes enough? No. Are they the kind of bold, binding commitments that the scale of the crisis demands? Not even close. But in a world where the largest historical emitter has abandoned climate action entirely, where wars rage over the very resources we need to leave behind, the fact that 57 countries sat down, opened the doors to movements and communities, and committed to a sustained process is not nothing. It is the floor, not the ceiling, and it is up to all of us to push it higher.

Communities everywhere will keep building the solutions their governments have been too slow to deliver. And the rest of us? We stay loud, stay connected, and keep showing up, because the transition has already begun, and it was never going to be led from the top.

Because if this conference showed anything, it is that the transition is not only about energy systems. It is about power. The power of who gets to decide. Who benefits. Who is heard. And for perhaps the first time at this scale, the answer is beginning to shift.

The Great Power Shift has started. Join us!

The post Santa Marta was just the beginning appeared first on 350.

Anne Jellema is Executive Director of 350.org.

The war on Iran and Lebanon is a deeply unjust and devastating conflict, killing civilians at home, destroying lives, and at the same time sending shockwaves through the global economy. We, at 350.org, have calculated, drawing on price forecasts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Goldman Sachs, just how much that volatility is costing us. 

Even under the IMF’s baseline scenario – a de facto “best case” scenario with a near-term end to the war and related supply chain disruptions – oil and gas price spikes are projected to cost households and businesses globally more than $600 billion by the end of the year. Under the IMF’s “adverse scenario”, with prolonged conflict and sustained price pressures, we estimate those additional costs could exceed $1 trillion, even after accounting for reduced demand.

Which is why we urgently need a power shift. Governments are under growing pressure to respond to rising fuel and food costs and deepening energy poverty. And it’s becoming clearer to both voters and elected officials that fossil dependence is not only expensive and risky, but unnecessary. 

People who can are voting with their wallets: sales of solar panels and electric vehicles are increasing sharply in many countries. But the working people who have nothing to spare, ironically, are the ones stuck with using oil and gas that is either exorbitantly expensive or simply impossible to get. 

Drain on households and economies

In India, street food vendors can’t get cooking gas and in the Philippines, fishermen can’t afford to take their boats to sea. A quarter of British people say that rising energy tariffs will leave them completely unable to pay their bills. This is the moment for a global push to bring abundant and affordable clean energy to all.

In April, we released Out of Pocket, our new research report on how fossil fuels are draining households and economies. We were surprised by the scale of what we found. For decades, governments have reassured people that energy price spikes are unfortunate but unavoidable – the result of distant conflicts, market forces or geopolitical shocks beyond anyone’s control. But the numbers tell a different story. 

• Apr 28, 2026 News Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out Around 60 governments that want to make progress on transitioning away from coal, oil and gas are meeting in Colombia to work out how they can do it an equitable way Read more
• Apr 24, 2026 Comment Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action Cities will help identify concrete pathways for an equitable shift to clean energy at the Santa Marta conference, with C40 members aiming to halve their fossil fuel use by 2030 Read more

What we are living through today is not an energy crisis. It is a fossil fuel crisis. In just the first 50 days of the Middle East conflict, soaring oil and gas prices have siphoned an estimated $158 billion–$166 billion from households and businesses worldwide. That is money extracted directly from people’s pockets and transferred, almost instantly, into fossil fuel company balance sheets. And this figure only captures the immediate impact of price spikes, not the permanent economic drain of fossil dependence. Fossil fuels don’t just cost us once, they cost us over and over again. 

First, through our bills. Every time there is a war, an embargo or a supply disruption, fossil fuel prices surge. For ordinary people, this means higher costs for energy, transport and food. Many Global South countries have little or no fiscal space to buffer the shock; instead, workers and families pay the price.

Second, through our taxes. Governments around the world continue to pour vast sums of public money into fossil fuel subsidies. These are often justified as a way to protect the most vulnerable at the petrol pump or in their homes. But in reality, the benefits are overwhelmingly captured by wealthier households and corporations. The poorest 20% receive just a fraction of this support, while public finances are drained.

Third, through climate impacts. New research across more than 24,000 global locations gives a granular account of the true costs of extreme heat, sea level rise and falling agricultural yields. Using this data to update IMF modelling of the social cost of carbon, we found that fossil fuel impacts on health and livelihoods amount to over $9 trillion a year. This is the biggest subsidy of all, because these massive and mounting costs are not charged to Big Oil – they are paid for by governments and households, with the poorest shouldering the lion’s share. 

Massive transfer of wealth to fossil fuel industry

Adding up direct subsidies, tax breaks and the unpaid bill for climate damages, the total transfer of wealth from the public to the fossil fuel industry amounts to $12 trillion even in a “normal” year without a global oil shock. That’s more than 50% higher than the IMF has previously estimated, and equivalent to a staggering $23 million a minute.

The fossil fuel industry has become extraordinarily adept at profiting from instability. When conflict drives up prices, companies do not lose, they gain. In the current crisis, oil producers and commodity traders are on track to secure tens of billions of dollars in additional windfall profits, even as households face rising bills and governments struggle to manage the fallout. 

Fossil fuel crisis offers chance to speed up energy transition, ministers say

This growing disconnect is impossible to ignore. Investors are advised to buy into fossil fuel firms precisely because of their ability to generate profits in times of crisis. Meanwhile, ordinary people are told to tighten their belts.

In 2026, unlike during the oil shocks of the 1970s, clean energy is no longer a distant alternative. Now, even more than when gas prices spiked due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, renewables are often the cheapest option available. Solar and wind can be deployed quickly, at scale, and without the volatility that defines fossil fuel markets.

How to transition from dirty to clean energy

The solutions are clear. Governments must implement permanent windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies to ensure that extraordinary profits generated during crises are redirected to support households. These revenues can be used to reduce energy bills, invest in public services, and accelerate the rollout of clean energy.

Second, we must shift subsidies away from fossil fuels and towards renewable solutions, particularly those that can be deployed quickly and equitably, such as rooftop and community solar. This is not just about cutting emissions. It is about building a more stable, fair and resilient energy system.

Finally, we need binding plans to phase out fossil fuels altogether, replacing them with homegrown renewable energy that can shield economies from future shocks. Because what the current crisis has made clear is this: as long as we remain dependent on fossil fuels, we remain vulnerable – to conflict, to price volatility and to the escalating impacts of climate change.

The true price of fossil fuels is no longer hidden. It is visible in rising bills, strained public finances and communities pushed to the brink. And it is being paid, every day, by ordinary people around the world.

It’s time for the great power shift. 

Full details on the methodology used for this report are available here.

The Great Power Shift is a new campaign by 350.org to pressure governments to bring down energy bills for good by ending fossil fuel dependence and investing in clean, affordable energy for all.

Logo of 350.org campaign on “The Great Power Shift” Logo of 350.org campaign on “The Great Power Shift”

The post What fossil fuels really cost us in a world at war appeared first on Climate Home News.

DENVER—Interior Secretary Doug Burgum claimed in a Senate Energy and Natural Resources hearing this morning that President Donald Trump’s $10 billion “slush fund” request in his 2027 proposed Interior department budget is solely for deferred maintenance at National Park Service sites in and around Washington, D.C., and will not go toward any new construction. See their exchange HERE.

Trump’s proposed NPS budget requests the establishment of a “new $10.0 billion Presidential Capital Stewardship Program in order to carry out priority construction and rehabilitation projects in the Washington, D.C. area.”

But the Interior department estimates the NPS deferred maintenance backlog in D.C. to be just over $2 billion. Adding in the maintenance backlog for all of Virginia and Maryland brings the total to only $4 billion, leaving $6 billion or more unaccounted for in Burgum’s request for Trump’s slush fund.

Trump’s NPS budget also calls for a 55 percent reduction in the annual National Park Service construction and major maintenance budget, leaving NPS less than $50 million to address repairs at historic sites and national parks across the country, and a 53 percent, or $213 million, reduction in resource stewardship funds.

The Center for Western Priorities released the following statement from Communications Manager Kate Groetzinger:

“Doug Burgum finally gave Congress insight into the shady $10 billion request for ‘beautification’ projects in Washington D.C. But his answer doesn’t square with his own department’s deferred maintenance numbers. He’s already spent $17 million in taxpayer money on a fountain across from the White House. President Trump has made it clear he wants more vanity projects, from giant arches to sculpture gardens, in his own backyard.

“It’s time for Secretary Burgum to tell President Trump that all of America’s parks need attention, not just the ones outside the president’s window.”

Learn more:

• Burgum blunders through budget hearings, taking heat for NPS cuts and Trump ‘slush fund’ – Westwise

• DOI Deferred Maintenance backlog – Interior Department

• President’s Budget Proposal Slashes National Park Service Funding Amid Ongoing Attacks on National Parks – NPCA

• Firm Building Trump’s Ballroom Got a Secret No-Bid Contract for a Nearby Job – New York Times

The post Fact Check: Burgum claims $10 billion Trump slush fund request is for NPS deferred maintenance only appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

When we speak of a revolution’s failure, we usually mean that it did not fulfill its stated aims. In the case of Iran’s 1979 revolution, however, the failure runs far deeper. That revolution not only failed to achieve its declared objectives; it failed in the most profound sense. It brought to power a force even more reactionary than the one it overthrew. What occurred was not simply a transfer of power but a historical regression whose consequences endure to this day. This regression extended beyond politics into the social and cultural fabric and even reshaped the intellectual horizons of society, setting the trajectory of development sharply backward.

It is within this context that the discussion of the “bleak scenario” versus the “bright scenario” acquires meaning. This distinction does not stem from naïve optimism about revolutionary processes, but from a concrete historical concern. In classical—and, to some extent, ideological—communist theory, political change is typically imagined as a revolutionary process in which the working class and organized popular forces seize power from the bourgeoisie to establish a new order. This vision presupposes a minimum level of social organization, continuity of production, and the capacity for political reconstruction. In other words, even amid revolution, it assumes that society does not disintegrate entirely and that the essential foundations for rebuilding remain intact.

A coherent state in the conventional sense has never fully taken shape within the Islamic regime. What exists instead is a constellation of rival power factions.

The realities of Iranian society under the Islamic regime cast doubt on such assumptions. The systematic and often brutal destruction of every form of independent organization has rendered such social structuring practically impossible. For nearly five decades, the regime has crushed collective organization with extraordinary severity: dismantling political parties, dissolving councils, erasing labor unions, and imprisoning anyone who attempted to organize. Under such conditions, the idea of a coherent, conscious transfer of power to emancipatory forces seems less a political possibility than an expression of hope divorced from reality.

At the same time, Iranian society is caught in a structural deadlock. The Islamic Republic has reached a point where it can neither retreat nor advance. There is no clear horizon for resolving its intertwined economic, political, and social crises. Structural reform has become unfeasible, yet maintaining the status quo demands ever-deeper repression. This stalemate creates a situation where social explosions are always possible, but the organizational capacity to direct them is extremely weak—if not entirely absent. This tension between an explosive potential and the absence of conscious direction forms the primary foundation of the “bleak scenario.”

Moreover, the very structure of the Islamic regime has evolved into a permanent source of instability. From its inception, the system has been anchored in an apocalyptic religious ideology that has shaped not only politics but also economic life, culture, and foreign policy. This ideology, animated by a self-ascribed historical mission, transcends the rational logic of a modern state. Decision-making, therefore, has been guided not by functional necessities but by ideological and security imperatives. (I have increasingly come to believe that the Islamic regime does not perceive itself as a conventional state. Instead, it acts as a marginal, semi-insurgent force with nothing to lose—resembling groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, or Hashd al-Shaabi. Interestingly, Putin once referred to it in similar terms as a “rogue” entity.)

Continuous repression has destroyed parties and civil institutions, creating an ever-wider gulf between society and the state.

Over the following decades, segments of the ruling establishment began to recognize this contradiction. They understood that governing a complex society in the 21st century through rigid, theological instruments was unsustainable. Attempts were made—under banners such as “reconstruction” and “reform”—to adjust the system, yet always within the same ideological limits. Each time demands for change surfaced, core power centers and autonomous hardline networks blocked them. Thus emerged a dual reality: the necessity of change, and the structural impossibility of realizing it from within. The result has been the cumulative deepening of crises and a progressive erosion of governing capacity.

Consequently, a coherent state in the conventional sense has never fully taken shape within the Islamic regime. What exists instead is a constellation of rival power factions, shifting with each presidential administration, each seeking to consolidate its own position and privileges. These are not merely political rivals, but entrenched networks embedded across institutions. With each change at the top, these networks are reshuffled while the underlying logic persists. Each faction strives to expand its grip over resources—from state contracts to financial assets. Over time, this dynamic has produced a rentier, predatory political economy. Economic decisions serve factional interests, not societal needs. Development projects function primarily as mechanisms for distributing rents. Public wealth is systematically siphoned into private networks—oil rigs can vanish overnight. In such an environment, long-term planning becomes meaningless. Even at managerial levels, instability reigns: each political shift brings sweeping replacements, erasing institutional memory and undermining policy continuity.

A transition beyond the Islamic Republic will not, by necessity, produce a more progressive or stable order—though such a future remains possible and desirable.

The real danger becomes evident when this exhausted structure faces an acute crisis. The same factions now competing over resources may become the drivers of the “bleak scenario” during collapse. Importantly, this scenario is not chiefly produced by opposition groups. While external opposition may play a role, the core threat stems from forces currently inside the system. Each network, in its bid for survival, may resort to violence—some through direct repression, others through paramilitary or localized armed groups. In such conditions, rivalry over resources may evolve into open conflict. Past experiences—the brutal crackdowns of January 2018 and November 2019, and the regime’s intervention in Syria—show that the ruling establishment recognizes no limits when it comes to violence. This violence is not merely reactive but intrinsic to its mode of survival. When real solutions are unavailable, repression becomes the only remaining tool—not to resolve crises, but to buy time. Yet this delay yields nothing: there is neither a strategy for exit nor the will for transformation. Each new wave of repression only deepens the crisis and moves society closer to explosion.

For this reason, whether in the context of external war or mass protest, the risk of widespread violence is very real. The ruling factions see themselves as the rightful owners of the country—and particularly its wealth—and perceive no viable path toward relinquishing power or achieving peaceful transition. Meanwhile, a society deprived of organization and intermediary institutions lacks the means to manage a complex transition. Continuous repression has destroyed parties and civil institutions, creating an ever-wider gulf between society and the state. In such conditions, large-scale protests risk encountering both extreme violence and the absence of structures capable of guiding them. This volatile mix is what makes the “bleak scenario” genuinely possible. At the regional level, the Islamic Republic’s close ties to aligned militant groups only heighten this risk, allowing domestic crises to escalate and spill beyond borders.

The central question … is how to carve out a … path amid this dark horizon … that neither rests on revolutionary illusions nor surrenders to the existing order.

Thus, discussing the “bleak scenario” is not an abstract exercise but a sober warning. It underscores that a transition beyond the Islamic Republic will not, by necessity, produce a more progressive or stable order—though such a future remains possible and desirable. The immediate aftermath may involve instability, violence, or even social fragmentation. Yet this is not a historical dead end. Eventually, society will be compelled to move beyond it. The crucial point is that this transition—whether imminent or delayed—will inevitably carry immense tension and cost. The current structure is incapable of stepping aside or yielding peacefully. The longer the transition is postponed, the deeper and more destructive the coming crisis is likely to be. Hence, the issue is not one of when, but of how—of the quality and character of that transition.

The central question now is how to carve out a genuine path amid this dark horizon—a path that neither rests on revolutionary illusions nor surrenders to the existing order. A path that, even under these harsh conditions, can nurture organization, solidarity, and conscious agency. Addressing this question demands further analysis, which I hope to undertake in a future piece.

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

The post Iran’s “bleak scenario” appeared first on Tempest.

PHILADELPHIA (April 29, 2026) — After the Shapiro Administration announced Tuesday a $267 million investment in industrial projects through the Reducing Industrial Sector Emissions in Pennsylvania (RISE PA) program, Clean Air Council and labor leaders are pointing to both the promise of the initiative and the need to ensure funds are directed toward truly clean solutions. 

At a press conference in Johnstown, Bernie Hall, District 10 Director for the United Steelworkers, underscored the opportunity to align economic growth with health and environmental progress.

“Too often people try to frame this as a choice between growing our economy and doing the right thing for our environment,” Hall said. “But good jobs and doing right aren’t mutually exclusive.”

Clean Air Council welcomed many of the awarded projects, including investments in solar, battery storage, electrification, energy efficiency, and industrial upgrades that can reduce pollution, cut energy costs, create jobs, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. 

“The funded projects show the tremendous potential to grow jobs, combat climate change, improve public health, and strengthen Pennsylvania’s industrial future,” said Alex Bomstein, Executive Director of Clean Air Council. “We applaud the RISE PA team for directing funds to the solutions to clean up and modernize our economy. But some of these grants miss the mark.”

The announcement included more than $31 million for projects to capture coal-mine methane, an approach that extends the reliance on fossil fuels rather than transitioning to cleaner technologies.

“Investments in fossil fuel infrastructure like mines and gas distribution, even in the name of efficiency, push our clean energy future farther out of reach,” Bomstein said. “The projects that truly modernize industry, like electrification and zero-emission technologies, are the ones that will deliver long-term economic, health, and environmental benefits.”

Yesterday’s RISE PA grants, funded through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants, are expected to reduce more than 1.3 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions in their first year. Another round of funding, totaling $52 million, will open on May 15.

The next round will be critical.

“As the next round of funding moves forward, Pennsylvania has a clear opportunity to invest in solutions that lower energy costs, reduce pollution, and create family-supporting jobs,” Bomstein said. “That means prioritizing projects that move us toward a zero-emissions future, not ones that keep us tied to outdated fossil fuel infrastructure.”

The Wednesday, April 29, 2026, Climate Justice Forum radio program, produced by regional, climate activists collective Wild Idaho Rising Tide (WIRT), features George Price, an indigenous and African American, organic farmer, history educator, writer, and eco-socialist advocate in Montana, talking about the critical planetary boundaries of human existence, destructive activities causing current ecological overshoot, and solutions that replace industrial capitalism with cooperative, alternative, societal and economic structures.  We also share news, videos, and reflections on the history and upcoming workers rights demonstrations of May Day as International Labor Day, public comment opportunities to resist the proposed Bridger tar sands pipeline from Canada across eastern Montana to Wyoming, and a crucial Atlantic Ocean current system that could soon collapse and bring catastrophic cold to northern Europe and sea level rise to the U.S. East Coast.  Broadcast for fourteen years on progressive, volunteer, community station KRFP Radio Free Moscow, every Wednesday between 1:30 and 3 pm Pacific time, on-air at 90.3 FM and online at KRFP and the Pacifica Network AudioPort, the show describes continent-wide, grassroots, frontline resistance to fossil fuels projects, the root causes of climate change, thanks to generous, anonymous listeners who adopted program host Helen Yost as their KRFP DJ.

International Labour Day: Know the History of May Day and How Workers Fought for Rights, May 1, 2023 In Depth

May 1 Actions, April 29, 2026 May Day Strong

Proposed Bridger Pipeline Creating Debate, April 9, 2026 Northern Plains Independent

See also for maps: Why a Proposed Pipeline Ending in Wyoming Draws Comparisons to Keystone XL, April 28, 2026 Wyoming Public Radio

See also to comment: Bridger Pipeline Expansion Project, March 31, 2026 Bureau of Land Management

A Catastrophic Climate Event is Upon Us. Here is Why You’ve Heard So Little about It, April 23, 2026 George Monbiot/Guardian

An Indigenous Perspective on Ecological Overshoot: In Conversation with George Price, April 18, 2026 System Change Not Climate Change

Christopher Wright is the principal analyst at CarbonBridge, a decarbonisation consulting firm.

The Santa Marta Conference has rightly been hailed as a pivotal opportunity to re-imagine the world’s relationship with fossil fuels. However, the sixty-odd countries gathered this week represent only 15% of the world’s total fossil fuel production, and a small but critical handful of nations in attendance remain deeply committed to expanding their fossil fuel output.

While the discussions at Santa Marta have focused on overcoming economic dependency on fossil fuels, the reality on the ground for many of these countries is that fossil fuel production continues to rise. Despite the rapid global growth of renewable electrification, fossil fuel output has similarly increased.

• Apr 28, 2026 News Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out Around 60 governments that want to make progress on transitioning away from coal, oil and gas are meeting in Colombia to work out how they can do it an equitable way Read more
• Apr 21, 2026 News Fossil fuel crisis offers chance to speed up energy transition, ministers say As climate diplomacy resumes in Berlin, ministers say the Iran war-driven fuel crisis is exposing the risks of fossil dependence Read more

This trend is evident even among the countries gathered at Santa Marta, where according to a CarbonBridge analysis, net fossil fuel production has grown over the last five years, particularly driven by expansions in oil and gas output.

Across all countries gathered in Santa Marta, approximately 14 countries are responsible for the lion’s share of oil production, which has increased by 4% since 2020. Similarly, just eight countries account for 96% of the conference’s natural gas production, which has collectively grown by 5% over the past decade. 

While coal production has seen a slight decline since 2020, recent production increases in Turkey and Pakistan, with renewed growth in Australia, could similarly see increased production in the near future.  

However, most surprisingly, only six countries present at Santa Marta account for over 80% of fossil fuel production among all nations in attendance: Canada, Australia, Brasil, Mexico, Norway and Nigeria. 

For these nations, the transition journey ahead is complex. All six countries are aiming to significantly expand renewable energy capacities, and Norway stands as a global leader in electric vehicle adoption. 

However, fossil fuel production is not merely a domestic concern for these countries; it plays a central role in their international exports, and remains a foundational pillar of their economic utures. In fact, a deeper look into trends and regulatory frameworks across this suite of countries indicates that their current trajectories are geared toward continued fossil fuel expansion.

Canada

In Canada, oil and gas production continues to climb, with 2025 marking a year of record highs. Oil production rose by 4% to reach 5.34 million barrels per day (MMb/d), while natural gas production surged by 3.4%, reaching 8.2 billion gigajoules. And only yesterday, Shell made a $13.5 bln bet on Canada’s oil and gas future.

Led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, Canada is set to implement an industrial carbon pricing scheme and could double Canada’s clean energy capacity over the next two years. However, he has also been vocal about his support for new oil and gas expansions, new pipeline developments, and has even set a goal to transform Canada’s largely non-existent liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry over the next 15 years, with aspirations to rival the production capacity of the US by 2040.

Brazil

Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras has committed to a massive USD $109 billion expansion of their production to 2030. This hefty investment follows a record 11% production increase in 2025, with Petrobras pumping out 3.77 million barrels per day. Despite hosting the UN climate negotiations last year and generating 89% of the country’s electricity from low-carbon sources in 2025, Brazil’s drive for fossil fuel expansion highlights the gap between national climate transitions and critical export opportunities. 

Australia

Australia, the world’s second-largest coal exporter, faces a similar dislocation between its domestic electricity transition and its export economy, as it prepares to assume a leadership role at COP31. Australia is home to the world’s highest solar power per capita and leads the world in home battery rollouts. However, it remains critically dependent on fossil fuel exports, even as questions arise over long-term demand. Currently, gas export volumes, which dipped in 2025, are projected to reach record levels by 2027; pending legal action against the Barossa, Scarborough, and Browse expansions. While thermal coal production is projected to decline slightly through 2030, increases in metallurgical coal are expected to offset these declines, in part due to recent pro-mining regulatory shifts in Queensland.

Mexico

Mexico is one of three major oil producers that make up over 60% of the conference’s annual oil production. However, its oil industry recorded the largest output declines of any major producer in Santa Marta over the last decade. The state-owned oil company Pemex, currently carries close to $100 billion in debt, and was granted $12bn in debt support from the government last year. When combined with import shifts from the US, and potential competition from Venezuela, there is a real chance that Mexico’s oil production could decline further going forward. However, the goal right now from Pemex and the Mexican government, is to increase current production by close to 10% by 2030.

Nigeria

Nigeria’s national oil company, NNPCL, has similarly seen declines over the last decade, but is now pursuing a $60 billion partnership to expand its oil and gas output and solidify its role as one of Africa’s largest fossil fuel producers. This comes even as the federal government was granted $800,000 to explore opportunities to transition away from oil expansion last year. 

Norway

In contrast to these countries, Norway stands as one of the few major oil producers at the conference projected to decrease its fossil fuel output. With a forecasted 15% reduction in oil and gas production by 2030, Norway appears to be taking early steps toward a transition. However, the decline in production is more a reflection of the age of its existing oil fields than a proactive shift in government policy. Despite acknowledging the need to diversify its economy, the Norwegian government continues to explore new oil and gas fields, plans to launch new licensing rounds, and hopes to spur on further oil and gas investments, which have almost doubled since 2017.  

For these nations, the road ahead is fraught with complexities. While the Santa Marta conference offers an opportunity for dialogue, and renewable energies will undoubtedly continue to expand, the largest fossil fuel producers gathered in Colombia remain structurally focused on growth, rather than phase-downs.

Dollars and cents continue to drive economic decisions, especially in the midst of a global energy crisis. Despite growing calls to utilise this opportunity to reshape development pathways, countries most economically embedded in existing energy markets will need far more convincing, before turning their backs on billions in fossil fuel revenues.

The post Six nations at Santa Marta could shape fossil fuel futures appeared first on Climate Home News.

This profile is part of an ongoing series that introduces members of CalCAN’s newly formed Stewardship Council. The Stewardship Council serves...

The post CalCAN Stewardship Council Profile: Thomas Nelson appeared first on CalCAN - California Climate & Agriculture Network.