News Feeds

The National Farmers’ Union calls for a national agricultural model that guarantees full food sovereignty, advances rural development, and upholds human dignity for all.

The post Morocco: The Meknes Appeal Reaffirms the Role of Peasants and Small-scale Farmers in Defending Food Sovereignty appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Government ministers and officials from close to 60 countries are on the ground in the Colombian coal-port city of Santa Marta for high-level discussions at the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels.

Speaking at the opening plenary, Selwin Hart, special adviser to the UN Secretary-General on climate action and just transition, said that three out of every four people on the planet live in countries that are net importers of fossil fuels, exposing them to “shocks they did not create and cannot control”.

Against the backdrop of the Iran war, which has caused oil prices to spike, he said the urgency of transitioning away from fossil fuels “is no longer only a climate or environmental imperative. It is a security imperative, an economic imperative and a development imperative.”

Delaying the transition will only make it “more disorderly, disruptive and costly, Hart warned, adding that so far the shift to renewables has been highly concentrated in rich economies and China – “leaving most of the developing world behind”.

Comment: Santa Marta marks a new chapter in climate diplomacy

Meanwhile, a group of 18 nations – mostly made up of small island states and the host country Colombia – called on the Santa Marta summit to recognise the “urgent need to negotiate a new international instrument” for leaving coal, oil and gas beneath the ground. 

They are pushing for the conference to back a formal negotiation process for a binding “Fossil Fuel Treaty” and make progress on new mechanisms for international cooperation and finance including an importers-exporters club, a global just transition fund and a debt resolution facility. 

Teresa Anderson, global lead on climate justice for ActionAid International, said UN climate talks remain essential to ensure all countries act together to tackle global warming. But, she added, “a new Treaty can act as a parallel and complementary space for those that want to move faster in key areas such as phasing out fossil fuels, just transitions and debt justice, without first having to get sign-off from all nations”. 

Partner content: To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”

Aside from a summary report and a statement from the co-chairs, the expected outcomes from Santa Marta’s high-level debates remain unclear. While this is a source of anxiety for some delegates, others say it’s a breath of fresh air compared with the rigid format of COPs.  

Here are highlights from the high-level segment of the conference on April 28:

Host nations seek to revive flagging multilateralism

As right-wing demonstrators outside the conference venue chanted in Spanish that “fossil fuels are a god-given resource”, hosts Colombia and the Netherlands kicked off the first international dialogue of countries on reducing their dependence on coal, oil and gas. 

Both countries reiterated that the conference is meant to drive forward discussions where UN talks like COPs have fallen short.

Delegates had to endure long queues under the sun to enter the five-star resort hosting the high-level segment, as security was tightened in preparation for Colombian President Gustavo Petro this afternoon.

The country’s environment minister Irene Vélez Torres opened the talks in a packed room, expressing her frustration with “fossil colonialism” and the failure of the last few COPs to debate pathways away from fossil fuels. 

“Beyond frustrations, we’re summoned today to overcome the crisis of multilateralism,” she said, adding that Santa Marta seeks to become a “deeper, more democratic and more effective” alternative. “We need a multilateralism without de facto vetoes.”

At last year’s COP30 in Belém, a group of 80 countries called for the design of a global roadmap to phase out coal, oil and gas, but it was blocked by large oil producers and consumers like Saudi Arabia, Russia, India and China.

Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven noted that the energy transition will not be easy, as fossil fuel systems are “hard to disentangle” from economies. She urged countries to have an “open dialogue” and said the conference is about “strengthening multilateralism”.

Some governments also expressed the need to reinforce the UN climate negotiations, with EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra saying “the COP process is unfortunately not always delivering what it should”, as he urged countries to “make the most” of Santa Marta. Vanuatu’s climate minister Ralph Regenvanu said commitments made here must bolster talks at COP.

Fossil fuel producers want flexibility, Indigenous peoples reject business as usual 

The plenary in Santa Marta adopted a different style for its high-level dialogue compared to the UN process, as government interventions were interspersed with speakers representing social groups, from women to the private sector, who had prepared their contributions at meetings over the past three days. 

The result was a mix of views, with some large oil and gas-producing nations urging caution over how ditching fossil fuels could affect their economic development, while civil society groups piled on the pressure to decarbonise fast.

Türkiye – a large coal producer and consumer that will host COP31- said progress on a just transition “will benefit from an approach that takes into account different national circumstances, capacities and development priorities”, hinting at the need for flexibility for emerging economies.

While this year’s COP president, Murat Kurum, has said that relying on fossil fuels could lead to energy insecurity and “climate collapse”, his country drew criticism for publishing an action agenda for COP31 that does not mention fossil fuels.

Türkiye sets COP31 dates and appoints Australian cattle farmer as youth champion

Oil-rich Nigeria went even further, with the country’s regional development minister, Momoh Abubakar, emphasising he would host an event on a “phase down” of fossil fuels in Santa Marta. “It is ‘phase down’, not ‘phase out’ that is giving room for transition and diversification to drive sustainable development,” he said.

Norway – which supplies Europe with much of its oil and gas – said the country is “strongly committed” to the “era of renewables”. “This needs to be happening in close coordination between all producers and consumers,” said the country’s climate minister Astrid Hoem, as global energy markets are highly interconnected.

Meanwhile, Indigenous peoples and other groups called out what they judge to be a government-led process, winning loud applause for their interventions. The Indigenous delegate said they don’t want to see “another form of colonialism cloaked as a just transition”.

“We will not stand by as our kin, our lands, our waters and our non-human relatives suffer to maintain the status quo,” she said. “This structure will not be where we found our salvation and liberation.” 

Some social groups called for specific measures to be included in the conference’s main output, which Colombia has said will be a summary report. Academics called for action on methane while the private sector recommended the removal of fossil fuel subsidies that keep oil and gas prices “artificially low”. NGOs said they want Santa Marta to recognise the need for a “Fossil Fuel Treaty” to ban new extraction.

France’s climate envoy pictured during the High-level Segment of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia on April 28, 2026 (Photo: Colombia Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development) France’s climate envoy pictured during the High-level Segment of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia on April 28, 2026 (Photo: Colombia Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development) France delivers first fossil fuel transition roadmap

France came to Santa Marta bearing a gift that was delivered to the podium: its new national roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels. 

Benoît Faraco, the country’s climate envoy, said France was “very proud” to be one of the first countries to publish a domestic roadmap, and encouraged others to follow suit. Both Colombia and Brazil are working on draft roadmaps but have yet to finalise them.

Cat Abreu, director of the International Climate Politics Hub said it was “a big moment to have the world’s first national roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels”. She added that the plan “rationalises France’s existing energy policies and targets into a clear direction of travel to phase out fossil fuels and it sends a strong signal to other countries that they can do the same”. 

The document, which amalgamates different energy and decarbonisation plans, confirms targets France had previously set for ending the consumption of each fossil fuel: coal by 2030, oil by 2045 and fossil gas by 2050.

To get there, France aims to close its last two coal-fired power plants by 2027, carry out large-scale electrification of transport, develop alternative heating methods such as heat pumps and improve energy efficiency through building renovation, the roadmap says. France already decided a decade ago to end fossil fuel exploration and exploitation on its territory by 2040.

Faraco said France is focused on electrification and clean electricity because they provide value to local communities, will shape the future of industry, and “bring solutions when fossil fuel brings problems”.

France’s electricity mix is already 90% low carbon, he said, thanks to nuclear and renewables, and it generates revenues for the national budget by exporting green power. 

France, he added, will help African nations to unleash wind power, and provide support to other countries on the frontline of the current energy crisis.   

Colombian president Gustavo Petro at the stage of the first conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels in Santa Marta. (Photo: Colombia’s Ministry of Environment) Colombian president questions whether capitalism can really go green 

Preceded by an Indigenous ceremony, Colombia’s leftist president, Gustavo Petro, stopped by the conference plenary on Tuesday afternoon to warn about the consequences of continuing with the expansion of fossil fuels. 

“One question that needs to be asked is whether capitalism can truly adapt to a non-fossil fuel energy system?” he said. “Today I’m sceptical.”

Petro also criticised last year’s COP30 for failing to formally adopt a process for a global roadmap away from fossil fuels, despite scientific warnings of the need to halt all new coal, oil and gas. Colombia was one of the strongest backers of the initiative.

The country is heading into an election in late May, where Petro’s designated successor Iván Cepeda is leading in the polls against far-right candidate Abelardo de la Espriella. 

After a relatively brief speech that secured a standing ovation from the audience, the Colombian president quickly exited, escorted by his security team.

The post Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out appeared first on Climate Home News.

Professor Elisa Morgera is the UN Special Rapporteur on Climate Change and Human Rights.

In the global fight against catastrophic, human-induced climate change, diplomacy plays a vital role.

Historic initiatives like the Paris Agreement and the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage were the consequence of tireless, coordinated international efforts of states, civil society and scientists. The role of COP, and other summits like it, remains key. However, they are coming under increasing pressure.

Last year the climate COP30 was unable to take a decision on fossil fuels, despite calls from over 80 states, as well as children and youth, medical professionals, Indigenous peoples and climate justice movements. A landmark deal to cut global shipping emissions was put on ice and global talks to develop a much-needed treaty to end plastic pollution were stalled by a few states who wish to avoid even mentioning fossil fuels in international negotiations.

• Apr 23, 2026 News Sixty countries head to Santa Marta to cement coalition for fossil fuel transition After last year’s COP30 disappointment, governments will seek a renewed push to phase out fossil fuels at the first global summit on the theme in Colombia Read more
• Apr 23, 2026 Energy Prospects for global green shipping deal boosted by US tariff ruling, analysts say While divisions remain over the international shipping’s Net Zero Framework, the US’s main threat may now have been partly neutered Read more

In these instances, the process of building consensus was hijacked by actors whose priorities lie in the continued exploration and production of fossil fuels, magnifying the views of a handful of powerful states at the expense of all others.

In recent months, illegal aggressions in Venezuela and Iran, armed conflicts, political turbulence and economic instability have conspired to make international cooperation harder. At the same time, the impact our reliance on fossil fuels and petrochemical fertilisers has on the cost of living, energy and food insecurity has been laid bare.

Against this backdrop, a new idea was born at COP30: the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, which the Colombian government is co-hosting with the Netherlands in Santa Marta this week.

Inclusion and implementation

It represents the possibility of a new kind of multilateral forum: one that foregrounds the voices of those most impacted by the climate crisis and is relentlessly focused on implementation. It is only open to states that wish to make progress and discuss how – not if – to move away from fossil fuel dependency. And it is set to draw on the insights of Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants and peasants, civil society, cities and academics, women and youth, who are often left out of international negotiating rooms.

The talks centre on how to ensure that the transition away from fossil fuels is also a just one: a transition that protects workers, communities and the environment, respects human rights and builds public legitimacy, rather than imposing new costs on those least responsible for the crisis.

To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”

The conference is also unpacking how international cooperation must work for countries and communities facing fiscal dependence, debt burdens and limited implementation capacity. It aims to identify the financial and technological support required from the Global North to allow other countries to leapfrog into sustainable renewables-based economies.

In addition, it will seek to address the harmful international legal barriers – such as the thousands of international investment agreements which include investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions – that allow foreign corporations to sue states for measures adopted in the public interest.

Solutions that tackle injustice

These are complex, but necessary conversations to be had for all governments. Most international fora are being used to “avoid the conversation”. We have many of the solutions, but we need to ensure they’re implemented in ways that benefit all countries and sectors of society, not just a few.

Santa Marta aims to strengthen a “coalition” of ambitious states, who are responsive to the voices of those most affected by climate change. It also aims to mobilise scientists, lawyers, economists, policy and energy experts, and the medical community to support states, as well as cities and citizen initiatives to pilot promising approaches around the world. Through a deeply inclusive and participatory approach, at every level, Santa Marta can pave the way towards solutions that are co-developed and respond directly to what’s needed on the ground.

New panel of climate scientists calls for fossil fuel transition roadmaps

This will be key for achieving a just transition. Many countries, especially in the Global South, are not held back by a lack of ambition, but by structural barriers: debt, high borrowing costs and international rules that still reward continued fossil fuel extraction over managed decline at the expense of people’s health and economic well-being.

Santa Marta comes at a critical moment: environmentally, morally, economically but also legally.

Legal accountability on fossil fuels

The landmark advisory opinion on climate change, issued last July by the International Court of Justice, made clear that states have a legal obligation to act effectively and ambitiously on climate change, and that fossil fuel expansion, production, consumption and subsidies are not in line with these international obligations. It followed similar rulings, by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in 2024 and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, also in 2025.

The transition away from fossil fuels is not simply an environmental necessity, but an urgent matter of security, resilience and health. It is a human rights imperative. And an inherently exclusionary approach focused on major powers will not deliver all the benefits of a fossil fuel-free global economy.

Vanuatu pursues new UN resolution to turn ICJ climate opinion into action

The Santa Marta conference is set to address this and look at how fossil-fuel-dependent countries can diversify on fair terms, how communities can access and produce affordable and reliable renewable energy, and how the transition can deliver visible social and economic gains instead of reproducing new forms of exclusion, dependency, and insecurity.

At Santa Marta we can make meaningful, lasting progress through a diplomacy of implementation, inclusion and legal accountability that can provide a new yardstick for all the other multilateral processes on climate change and other fossil fuel-related issues, such as plastics, food, health, taxation and the protection of peace.

A full statement by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Santa Marta Conference can be found here.

The post Santa Marta marks a new chapter in climate diplomacy appeared first on Climate Home News.

Evidence that Parkinson’s, the fastest-growing neurodegenerative disease globally, may be linked to pesticides used in agriculture has been accumulating for decades. Yet, after finally appearing to take experts’ concerns seriously, EU authorisation bodies have failed to take meaningful action. An excerpt from Dirk de Bekker’s book Het pesticidenparadijs (“Pesticide Paradise”).

“If you are the CEO of Bayer, tossing and turning in bed at night, how can you justify this to yourself… Suppose that Roundup is the cause of Parkinson’s, how are you able to sleep soundly?”

It is 29 March 2022. Sitting opposite me is Bas Bloem, professor of neurology and an internationally renowned expert on Parkinson’s disease. He has just explained to me, speaking rapidly and in precisely formulated sentences, which processes in the brain are disrupted when someone develops Parkinson’s disease. Although he speaks fluently and barely pauses for breath, something changes in him from the moment the words “pesticides” and “glyphosate” are uttered. His gaze becomes more intense, his voice louder, and his sentences a fraction slower.

We are at the Parkinson’s Center of Expertise at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, in the southeast of the Netherlands. Here, scientists are working on treatments for a disease that does not yet have a cure. Current therapies, procedures, and medication are aimed at slowing down and alleviating the symptoms. Tremors, stiff movements, and difficulty speaking – those are what the general public is familiar with, but describing Parkinson’s as “that shaking disease” is incorrect, says Bloem. “The disease is like an iceberg.” Most symptoms – including depression, dementia, bowel dysfunction, sleep disorders, balance problems, loss of smell, and pain – are often just as serious but are hidden beneath the surface.1

Most people with Parkinson’s experience many symptoms simultaneously. Often, new ones continue to develop and become increasingly severe. As a result, the disease is very disruptive – both physically and mentally – for patients and their loved ones.

Bloem is sounding the alarm. Parkinson’s is the fastest-growing neurodegenerative disease – not only in the Netherlands, where the number of cases has risen by 30 per cent over the last 10 years, but worldwide.2 There are now approximately 12 million people globally with Parkinson’s. According to recent estimates, this figure will more than double by 2050 to 25 million.3

This explosive increase can be partly explained by age: Parkinson’s is more common at advanced ages, and the global population of older people is growing. Furthermore, average life expectancy is rising worldwide. However, even after adjusting for ageing, researchers are seeing rapid growth. So there is more to it than that.4

As early as the 1980s, there were strong scientific indications that exposure to pesticides was an important risk factor for the development of Parkinson’s disease. Over the past 10 years, the evidence supporting this has grown significantly.

For this reason, Bloem views Parkinson’s as a disease not primarily caused by ageing per se but by “all sorts of rubbish” in our environment. By this, he means pesticides and other hazardous substances. As people live longer, there is more time for them to be exposed to these substances. Furthermore, the disease often develops over decades before it manifests itself. As people live longer on average, this also means that accumulated neurological damage has a greater chance of becoming apparent.

As early as the 1980s, there were strong scientific indications that exposure to pesticides was an important risk factor for the development of Parkinson’s disease.

Growing concerns

A disease that is growing explosively, the increasingly clear link to pesticides, the fact that there is still no prospect of a cure – all of this is cause for concern. But Bloem’s full-blown alarm comes from somewhere else: a conversation he had at the Dutch Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products and Biocides (the College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, Ctgb) in late 2020.

At his request, the Dutch authorisation body agreed to personally meet with him in November 2020 to explain step by step how the approval procedure for pesticides works. The meeting was intended to allay his concerns, but the opposite happened: he was struck with terror. “It was only then that I fully realised that we actually know nothing when it comes to the risk of Parkinson’s.”

During the presentation, Bloem was told that existing approval tests for the neurotoxicity of pesticides only examine external characteristics in laboratory animals. For example, do the animals move more slowly or display apathetic behaviour after coming into contact with a pesticide? “That is completely inadequate,” according to the neurologist. “It takes years for Parkinson’s to develop; you don’t immediately see anything on the outside. You therefore need to look inside the relevant areas of the brain: does the substance damage the substantia nigra?”

The substantia nigra (Latin for “black substance”) is the area of the brain where dopamine is produced. This chemical plays a key role in essential functions such as movement, memory and well-being. In people with Parkinson’s, the substantia nigra deteriorates, slowly but surely. It is only when 60 to 70 per cent of the substantia nigra has already been affected that the outward symptoms of Parkinson’s become noticeable. But by that point, the disease has already been long in the making. “You also need to know if, say, 40 per cent of the substantia nigra is destroyed and you can’t yet see anything externally. Currently, this is simply not tested.”

Bloem and his fellow neurologists are increasingly seeing patients in their clinics who report having been exposed to pesticides. They are not alone: more and more general practitioners and physiotherapists working in agriculture-intensive regions are also voicing concerns about the rising number of Parkinson’s cases they are seeing in their practices.5

The cover of Dirk de Bekker’s book Het pesticidenparadijs (“Pesticide Paradise”).

“I recently had a woman with Parkinson’s at the outpatient clinic. She had just buried her husband, who also had Parkinson’s. In addition, six other people in her street had the disease. They live next to a field where small planes used to spray pesticides,” says Bloem.

Over the years that I have been publishing on pesticides, I have also regularly heard striking accounts from people with Parkinson’s who attribute their illness to pesticides. They mention having peeled bulbs for years, or working for the parks department with pesticide tanks on their backs and spray guns in their hands, or growing up on fruit farms where they played hide-and-seek in the orchards. I’ve also heard from people who have worked with pesticides for long periods of time in laboratories, in greenhouses, or on their own fields. Multiple members of a family are sometimes affected by the disease.

Puzzles and cocktails

The sheer frequency with which such personal anecdotes crop up is striking, although they prove nothing in themselves. But these stories do not stand alone.

A growing body of scientific studies shows that Parkinson’s disease occurs significantly more frequently among people living in areas of intensive cultivation. In France, for example, Parkinson’s is 8.5 per cent more common in the most intensive wine-growing regions compared to the national average.6 Consequently, the French government officially recognises Parkinson’s as an occupational disease among winegrowers.7 Studies in the United States and Canada, among other places, reveal the same pattern: in the examined regions, Parkinson’s disease is spread across the map like a patchwork quilt, and the areas with the most intensive farming practices – and the highest pesticide use – stand out most clearly in terms of the number of cases.8

It is virtually impossible to establish a definitive causal link in this type of “map-based study”. To do so would require a great deal of specific data: which substances were used, where and when? What is the residential history of the individuals who became sick in the area under investigation? What is their occupation? What did they eat? What is their genetic makeup? Are there other polluting activities in the area? The aim of such research is therefore not to establish or rule out an irrefutable causal link; it is about identifying a potential problem. In combination with other studies, the puzzle can then be pieced together more fully.

Although the scientific puzzle is not yet complete, the pieces that are already in place suggest that the explosive rise in Parkinson’s disease over the past decades can at least partly be attributed to exposure to pesticides. There is, for instance, a historical piece of the puzzle: the rapid post-war growth in Parkinson’s largely coincides with the period when pesticide use increased dramatically. In itself, this is not very convincing evidence, but together with the piece showing that the disease occurs more frequently in areas with intensive arable farming and high pesticide use, the picture changes. It becomes even clearer when you add the piece showing that farmers and gardeners in particular have a significantly increased risk of developing Parkinson’s.9

Therefore, contrary to what various agricultural organisations still regularly claim, the missing pieces of the puzzle do not so much lead to the question of whether a link exists, but rather to the question of exactly how strong that link is, and which specific substances are responsible. Scientists are also wondering whether there are substances that pose no risk individually, but can be dangerous in combination. This, in turn, raises other questions: what is the smartest way to investigate such “pesticide cocktails” without having to test an endless number of combinations? Are there genetic factors that increase the risk of harm following exposure to pesticides? Are there interactions between pesticides (or cocktails of pesticides) and other pollutants in the environment? And what is the situation with other neurodegenerative diseases, such as ALS and dementia, for which links to pesticides also exist?10

It has already been established that some specific pesticides, such as rotenone and paraquat, can damage the substantia nigra. This was not discovered during the official assessment of these pesticides but later in independent studies (and subsequently they were withdrawn from the European market). However, this type of research has not been carried out on the vast majority of substances, let alone for pesticide cocktails.

A recent large-scale study has found that trifluralin and tribufos, two pesticides frequently used in combination on cotton plantations in the United States, do not pose a proven risk for Parkinson’s when used individually. When used together, however, they prove to be highly damaging to dopamine-producing brain cells, suggesting that they can indeed cause Parkinson’s in combination.11 This highlights the importance of taking pesticide cocktails into account in the authorisation process, and placing this topic high on the research agendas of independent scientists in relation to both Parkinson’s and other conditions.

Lack of action

According to Bloem, the way the risk of Parkinson’s is handled in the authorisation procedure violates the precautionary principle. “Given all these clear links, should we say that we are only going to ban this rubbish once it has been irrefutably proven that they cause Parkinson’s? Or, with all the evidence that already exists, should we say that we are only going to re-authorise the substances once it has been proven that they are safe? In reality, what happens is the former, meaning the burden of proof has been reversed.”12

The way the risk of Parkinson’s is handled in the authorisation procedure violates the precautionary principle. 

Bloem is not calling for an immediate ban on all pesticides. He does, however, advocate for subjecting the substances that are already authorised to a special Parkinson’s test as soon as possible. And as far as he is concerned, this should become standard practice when new pesticides are assessed. To this end, a testing procedure must be developed that makes it possible to look inside the brains of laboratory animals following prolonged exposure. There, it must be determined whether the substantia nigra has been damaged – for example, by counting the number of dopamine-producing cells. In the near future, it should be possible to carry out this procedure without subjecting animals to testing, by isolating the relevant cells outside their bodies.

The weedkiller glyphosate seems to be the most appropriate substance to first undergo testing for a link to Parkinson’s disease. It is by far the most widely used pesticide, and everyone is exposed to it to a greater or lesser extent. Moreover, several studies suggest a link between glyphosate and the development of Parkinson’s. The evidence, though far from conclusive, gives neurologists more than enough reason to be on alert.13 In addition, an increasing number of studies are emerging that show that even low doses of glyphosate can lead to disruptions in the gut flora.14 Such disruptions in the microbiome might – indirectly – increase the risk of Parkinson’s due to the communication between the gut and the brain. Researchers suspect that these disruptions could lead to a change in the structure of alpha-synuclein, a protein essential for communication between nerve cells. In mice, it has been established that this altered protein can reach the brain, where it subsequently damages the substantia nigra.15

Notably, the Dutch pesticide authority, the Ctgb, supported Bloem’s call for the speedy development of a Parkinson’s test. The November 2020 presentation was a wake-up call not only for the neurologist, but also for the Ctgb itself. This was evident in the fact that a few months later, in March 2021, the Ctgb wrote a letter to the agency responsible for pesticide risk assessment in the EU – the European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA – asking it to facilitate research into the development of an adequate testing procedure for Parkinson’s.16

The EFSA could not ignore this appeal by the Ctgb. Not only is it one of the leading national authorisation bodies with which the EFSA cooperates, but also, in its appeal, the Ctgb explicitly referred to Bloem – internationally renowned and known to frequently pop up in the international press to voice his concerns. Bloem’s message and extensive media reach have made many people in the pesticide world – from regulatory authorities to pesticide manufacturers – quite nervous.17

The EFSA responded just two weeks later with a proposal to organise a working conference “to take stock of the situation from a scientific and multidisciplinary point of view”.18 But over a year later, as I learned during my conversation at that time with Bloem at the Parkinson’s Centre of Expertise, that conference was yet to happen. Bloem could not contain his frustration. “How on earth do you explain to future generations – with a disease that is skyrocketing and an environmental role that seems so obvious – that we are not taking more decisive action?”

Breakthrough and disappointment

Six months later, however, on 8 September 2022, Bloem was again in high spirits. The conference that the neurologist had been pushing for over the past two years had finally taken place.19 In the presence of the EFSA and an international panel of experts, he was able to share his concerns about the authorisation procedure and Parkinson’s disease. And this had yielded results. All 49 attendees – experts affiliated with the EFSA as well as external research institutes and national authorisation bodies – reached an agreement. This is a rare occurrence among such a large group of international, often independent-minded experts. “There was broad consensus that the currently existing procedures […] offer an inadequate assessment of the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease in case of human exposure,” the minutes of the meeting state. The EFSA emphasised the urgent need to develop a new testing method that can actually provide insights into the risk of Parkinson’s. “A real breakthrough,” said Bloem. This was the first time that the EFSA had unconditionally acknowledged that the system it uses to assess pesticides was flawed.

The EFSA decided it would issue a call for tenders for a 3.5-million-euro contract aimed at the development of the required test. Specialised scientists were invited to submit bids.

The EFSA personally approached two Dutch research organisations with the request that they respond to this call: the Radboud University Medical Center (Bas Bloem’s employer) and RIVM, the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. “That’s how strongly they felt about our case,” explained neurotoxicologist Harm Heusinkveld, who attended the conference on behalf of the RIVM. For years, toxicologists at the RIVM had also been worried about pesticides and Parkinson’s – concerns that were finally being taken seriously by the EFSA with this research call. ‘‘Afterwards, we thought: guys, something is really going to happen now.’’20

This sense of urgency and enthusiasm felt by many researchers was heightened by the fact that the European re-evaluation of glyphosate was taking place at the same time. If the EFSA call for tenders were to be released quickly, there might still be an opportunity to use the weedkiller as the first case for the Parkinson’s test under development, perhaps even before the reassessment of the pesticide was completed.

Seven long months passed before the EFSA finally sent out the official Parkinson’s tender on 9 April 2023. But when he read the text, Bas Bloem immediately realised that something was wrong. “At the meeting, everyone was in complete agreement: we need to develop a good new testing method for pesticides and Parkinson’s. And then I read the call, in which the EFSA has made no money whatsoever available for such a new testing method. It was as if that conference had never taken place.” He lets out an audible sigh over the phone. His voice, so enthusiastic after the conference, is now filled with disbelief. Neurotoxicologist Harm Heusinkveld reacted with the same astonishment: “This is a huge mystery. I really haven’t the faintest idea how they arrived at this.”

The original intention was to develop a comprehensive Parkinson’s test in one go, based on the substantia nigra. But the promise made earlier by the EFSA to issue a research brief for this purpose was not fulfilled. The research brief set out in the call specifically concerned the development of a testing method focused on the mitochondria, the cell’s energy powerhouses. “But that test already exists, so you’d just be rehashing the same thing all over again. Besides, that test is far too limited,” commented Heusinkveld.

The Radboud University Medical Center and the RIVM were so taken aback by the research mandate that landed in their inboxes that they sent a joint letter on 17 July to EFSA Director Bernhard Url to express their disappointment. It is particularly noteworthy that a third party signed on to their objection: the Ctgb.

It is unusual for the Ctgb to hold a view that is at odds with an opinion of the EFSA. These two authorities, one working at the national level and the other at the European level, cooperate closely within the same legal framework. The letter, which came into my possession during an investigation into glyphosate for De Groene Amsterdammer, offers a rare glimpse behind the scenes.

“Specifically, we were disappointed as to what the call envisioned to achieve, considering […] the broad agreement that an ambitious and novel approach was required,” the three parties wrote. “We had the clear impression from the workshop that the EFSA had decided to move forward, but the recent call solely repeats steps that had already been taken earlier. […] The resulting testing strategy will not provide full insight in the potential of chemical substances to induce or progress [Parkinson’s disease].” In conclusion, the RIVM, the Radboud University Medical Center and the Ctgb stated that, “despite the explicit question and encouragement” from the EFSA, they would not be competing for funding for the proposed research.

A contested report

Four months later, in July 2023, the EFSA announced its recommendation to renew the authorisation for glyphosate for the maximum period of 15 years. Bloem was stunned, and he was not the only one. Scientists all over the world criticised the EFSA’s decision in a reaction that was unusually vocal for the scientific community.

Although during previous glyphosate authorisations the debate revolved primarily around the risk of cancer, this time concerns about Parkinson’s dominated. Ecotoxicologist Peter Leendertse succinctly summarised the essence of the many scientific comments on the re-authorisation: “If there are so many questions surrounding a substance, surely you cannot approve it for the maximum term? Extend it by two years if there is no other option, and in the meantime, ensure that you get clarity on the risk of Parkinson’s disease.”21

In an effort to calm tensions, the European Commission ultimately decided to reduce the maximum term from 15 to 10 years. As far as critics were concerned, this was little more than a token gesture. They pointed out that not only independent studies but also the EFSA’s own assessment report provided sufficient grounds for revoking the license altogether.

The glyphosate report runs to a total of 6,354 pages. What is striking is the large number of “data gaps” that are mentioned. The EFSA generally uses this term to indicate that knowledge is lacking and further research is required. Data gaps can thus influence the decision to grant authorisation and the potential duration of that authorisation.

The EFSA identified data gaps regarding the effects of glyphosate on gut flora, biodiversity and groundwater, amongst other things. However, none of these were considered “critical concerns”. That determination already made many scientists raise their eyebrows – but what the report says regarding Parkinson’s led to even greater surprise. There is no mention of a data gap anywhere in the passages on Parkinson’s disease, giving the impression that there is no lack of information on this topic whatsoever. On the contrary, the report’s conclusion is that current evidence “does not trigger a concern for parkinsonism”.22

Although the EFSA acknowledged that risks of Parkinson’s could not be ruled out under the current authorisation procedure, the agency chose to ignore this conclusion in its glyphosate report.

“Absurd”, said ecotoxicologist Peter Leendertse. “Of course there is a huge data gap when it comes to Parkinson’s. Surely the report should mention that no reliable testing procedure exists. The findings of that conference are now simply being swept under the carpet.”

In short, although the EFSA itself acknowledged at the September 2022 conference that risks of Parkinson’s could not be ruled out under the current authorisation procedure, the agency chose to completely ignore this conclusion in its glyphosate report published the following summer.

The minutes of the September 2022 conference (which I obtained shortly afterwards) proving that the EFSA knows (and acknowledges) that a good Parkinson’s test does not exist have never been officially released. This is highly unusual – a considerable amount of information from comparable EFSA conferences is publicly available, ranging from advance announcements, participant names and meeting transcripts to complete video recordings. It is as if the much-heralded meeting in the late summer of 2022, attended by 49 international experts, including six EFSA staff members, never took place; as if the unequivocal conclusion regarding Parkinson’s was never reached.

Three EFSA staff members who attended the conference were also directly involved in the reassessment of glyphosate. Therefore, the assessors had first-hand knowledge of the discussions held during the conference regarding Parkinson’s disease and the lack of a sufficient test. Nevertheless, they did not include any of this in the dossier when the neurotoxicity of glyphosate was re-examined.

What makes the course of events even more peculiar is that during the re-assessment of glyphosate, the EFSA worked closely with the Ctgb. Alongside the national pesticide authorities of Hungary, Sweden and France, the Dutch authority was one of the responsible parties to which the assessment work had been outsourced. In other words, the Ctgb itself played a leading role in the decision to extend the authorisation for glyphosate for the maximum period. This is difficult to reconcile with the critical letters it sent to the EFSA during the same period: the first, dated 9 March 2022, requesting that EFSA Director Bernhard Url make room for research into a testing procedure for Parkinson’s disease, and a joint letter with the RIVM and Bas Bloem on 17 July 2023 complaining that the EFSA had broken its promise to make funds available for a Parkinson’s test.

It is as if there were two completely different Ctgb bodies. Whilst one was sending critical letters to the EFSA regarding Parkinson’s, the other was assisting the EFSA with the re-authorisation of glyphosate without raising any critical objections to the fact that the substance has not been tested for a link to Parkinson’s – even though such testing might be more urgent for glyphosate than for any other European-authorised pesticide.

The missing test

In a formal response to my questions, the Ctgb stated that a “very extensive data package” was available during the re-evaluation of glyphosate, containing “many more studies than merely the required ones”, including epidemiological research. While there may not be an adequate test to rule out Parkinson’s, said the Ctgb, the assessors decided that there was no cause for concern after studying a great deal of other supplementary information. “That is something different from being able to establish this with scientific certainty,” the Ctgb concluded.

The EFSA in turn denies that the conclusion regarding Parkinson’s disease reached at the conference has ever been its official position. The meeting was “merely informative” and should only be seen as “preparatory exchanges” for subsequent future tenders, the agency informed me shortly after the publication of the glyphosate report. EFSA also stressed that the assessment of glyphosate was carried out entirely “in line with the current legal framework”.

When I published the outcomes of the conference in De Groene Amsterdammer in September 2023, I received an angry email from the EFSA. The September 2022 meeting had not been a real “conference” at all, the message said, but merely a “procurement meeting”. And the outcomes of that meeting, the EFSA communications department emphasised once again, in no way represented the official position of the EFSA. “It’s a pity,” the email concluded, “[that you] decided to provide an angle which does not factually represent reality”.  

This reaction did not surprise me. By making information from the meeting minutes and the Ctgb’s letter to the EFSA public through my publication, the European pesticide authority was left exposed. After all, these documents prove that what the EFSA publicly states about Parkinson’s disease does not correspond with its own behind-the-scenes views on the matter.

What the EFSA publicly states about Parkinson’s disease does not correspond with its own behind-the-scenes views on the matter

The fact that the EFSA has neither publicly disclosed the conference’s conclusions nor included them in its assessment of glyphosate is, I suspect, essentially a legal strategy. If, following the conference, the EFSA had officially acknowledged that there is a gaping hole in the authorisation system, this would have provided the necessary ammunition for parties seeking to obstruct pesticide use. Invoking the precautionary principle in court is much easier if the shortcomings of the authorisation procedure regarding Parkinson’s disease are officially documented by EFSA itself. In that case, EFSA would be admitting that the risk of Parkinson’s disease “cannot be determined with sufficient certainty”, one of the basic conditions for invoking the precautionary principle.23

Due to the lack of a Parkinson’s test, the risk of the disease cannot be completely ruled out in connection with any authorised pesticide. Officially acknowledging this on the record could throw the authorisation system – and with it the entire pesticide industry and the world of agriculture – into chaos. This would also happen if the EFSA were to officially acknowledge that the pesticide models it uses were not developed in a neutral manner.24

When Bloem and the Ctgb sat down together in November 2020, both the neurologist and the pesticide authority realised that the authorisation procedure was flawed with respect to Parkinson’s. Three to five years: that would be the time needed to develop an adequate testing protocol, thought Bloem. “I think we need to do this together as soon as possible,” confirmed the then director of the Ctgb, Ingrid Becks-Vermeer, emphasising the need for a Parkinson’s test when I questioned her in 2022. She envisioned a development process lasting “a number of years”.25

More than five years have passed since Bloem’s meeting with the Ctgb, and the EFSA conference took place three and a half years ago. The authorisation system still does not include a Parkinson’s test. Legally speaking, the EFSA may be able to defend this situation. The question, however, is how long they can keep up their defence in a society increasingly confronted with Parkinson’s disease.

This article is a lightly edited translation from Het pesticidenparadijs (“Pesticide Paradise”), an investigative book by Dirk de Bekker on the hidden world of pesticides, published by De Arbeiderspers in the Netherlands in January 2026.

1. Over the past few years, I have interviewed Bas Bloem on several occasions. Parts of these interviews have previously appeared in publications such as the podcast Red de Lente and the Dutch periodical De Groene Amsterdammer. See for example: De Bekker, D., et al. (24 January 2023). “Parkinson en pesticiden” [Parkinson’s and pesticides]. Red de Lente, season 2, episode 3. De Bekker, D. (25 September 2023). “De gezondheidsrisico’s van glyfosaat” [The health risks of glyphosate]. De Groene Amsterdammer. In this text, I draw on all the conversations held. Where necessary, I mention the date on which these conversations took place in the main text. ︎
2. Van der Gaag, B.L., Hepp, D.H., Hoff, J.I., Van Hilten, J.J., Darweesh, S.K.L., Bloem, B.R., and Van den Berg, W.D.J. (8 September 2023). “Risicofactoren voor de ziekte van Parkinson” [Risk factors for Parkinson’s disease]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, 167. ︎
3. Su, D., Cui, Y., He, C., Yin, P., Bai, R., Zhu, J., Lam, J.S.T., Zhang, J., Yan, R., Zheng, X., Wu, J., Zhao, D., Wang, A., Zhou, M., and Feng, T. (2025). “Projections for prevalence of Parkinson’s disease and its driving factors in 195 countries and territories to 2050. Modelling study of Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.” BMJ, 388e080952. ︎
4. See for example: Bloem, B.R., Hoff, J., Sherer, T., Okun, M.S., Dorsey, R. (2021). “De parkinsonpandemie: Een recept voor actie” [The Parkinson’s pandemic: a call to action]. Poiesz Publishers. ︎
5. Opten, N., Wildenborg, F., Bolwerk, P. (2023). ‘Hoe het gifspook door de Betuwe waart. “Aan hun manier van lopen kun je zien dat ze het ook hebben.”’ [‘How the poison spectre haunts the Betuwe: “You can tell by the way they walk that they have it too.”’]. De Gelderlander. 3 November. 
   Folkerts, N. (23 July 2025). “Bestrijdingsmiddelen zorgen voor onrust in Drentse dorpen: ‘Op één dag zag ik vijf patiënten met parkinson’” [“Pesticides cause unrest in Drenthe villages: ‘In one day I saw five patients with Parkinson’s.’’]. Trouw. ︎
6. Kab, S., Spinosi, J., Chaperon, L., Dugravot, A., Singh-Manoux, A., Moisan, F., and Elbaz, A. (2017). “Agricultural activities and the incidence of Parkinson’s Disease in the general French population”. European Journal of Epidemiology, 32(3), pp. 203-216. ︎
7. Within the EU, in addition to France, Italy – and more recently Germany – also recognise Parkinson’s as an occupational disease. ︎
8. Barbeau, A., Roy, M., Bernier, G., Campanella, G., and Paris, S. (1987). “Ecogenetics of Parkinson’s Disease. Prevalence and environmental aspects in rural areas”. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences/Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques, 14(1), pp. 36-41.
   Hugh-Jones, M.E., Peele, R.H., and Wilson, V.L. (2020). “Parkinson’s Disease in Louisiana, 1999-2012. Based on hospital primary discharge diagnoses, incidence, and risk in relation to local agricultural crops, pesticides, and aquifer recharge”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 1584.
   Li, S., Ritz, B., Gong, Y., Cockburn, M., Folle, A.D., Del Rosario, I., Yu, Y., Zhang, K., Castro, E., Keener, A.M., Bronstein, J., and Paul, K.C. (2023). “Proximity to residential and workplace pesticides application and the risk of progression of Parkinson’s diseases in Central California”. The Science of the Total Environment, 864, 160851.
   After Het pesticidenparadijs was published,a Dutch study appeared showing regional clustering of Parkinson’s in the Netherlands, but no clear overlap with intensive arable farming areas was found. Although pesticide use and exposure were not taken into account, the authors suggested that the Dutch regional disparities “are not readily explained by known environmental indicators, warranting further investigation”. See: Simões, M., Peters, S., Huss, A., Darweesh, S. K., Bloem, B. R., & Vermeulen, R. (2026). “Incidence and spatial variation of Parkinson’s disease in the Netherlands (2017–2022): a population-based study”. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 62, 101565. ︎
9. Elbaz, A., Clavel, J., Rathouz, P.J., Moisan, F., Galanaud, J., Delemotte, B., Alpérovitch, A., and Tzourio, C. (2009). “Professional exposure to pesticides and Parkinson Disease”. Annals of Neurology, 66(4), pp. 494-504. ︎
10. See for example: Meerman, J.J., Wolterink, G., Hessel, E.V., De Jong, E., and Heusinkveld, H.J. (2022). “Neurodegeneration in a regulatory context: The need for speed”. Current Opinion in Toxicology, 33, 100383. ︎
11. Paul, K.C., Krolewski, R.C., Moreno, E.L., Blank, J., Holton, K.M., Ahfeldt, T., Furlong, M., Yu, Y., Cockburn, M., Thompson, L.K., Kreymerman, A., Ricci-Blair, E.M., Li, Y.J., Patel, H.B., Lee, R.T., Bronstein, J., Rubin, L.L., Khurana, V., and Ritz, B. (2023). “A pesticide and ipsc dopaminergic neuron screen identifies and classifies Parkinson-relevant pesticides”. Nature Communications, 14(2803). ︎
12. For more background information on this ruling, see: Darweesh, S.K.L., Vermeulen, R.C.H., and Bloem, B.R. (2024). “Paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease. Has the burden of proof shifted?”. International Journal of Epidemiology, 53(5). ︎
13. See for example: Bloem, B.R., and Boonstra, T.A. (2023). “The inadequacy of current pesticide regulations for protecting brain health. The case of glyphosate and Parkinson’s Disease”. The Lancet Planetary Health, 7(12), pp. e948-e949. ︎
14. Lehman, P.C., Cady, N., Ghimire, S., Shahi, S.K., Shrode, R.L., Lehmler, H., and Mangalam, A.K. (2023). “Low-dose glyphosate exposure alters gut microbiota composition and modulates gut homeostasis”. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 100, 104149.
    Matsuzaki, R., Gunnigle, E., Geissen, V., Clarke, G., Nagpal, J., and Cryan, J.F. (2023). “Pesticide exposure and the microbiota-gut-brain axis”. The ISME Journal, 17(8), pp. 1153-1166.
    Puigbò, P., Leino, L.I., Rainio, M.J., Saikkonen, K., Saloniemi, I., and Helander, M. (2022). “Does glyphosate affect the human microbiota?”. Life, 12(5). ︎
15. Singh, Y., Trautwein, C., Romani, J., Salker, M.S., Neckel, P.H., Fraccaroli, I., Abeditashi, M., Woerner, N., Admard, J., Dhariwal, A., Dueholm, M.K.D., Schäfer, K., Lang, F., Otzen, D.E., Lashuel, H.A., Riess, O., and Casadei, N. (2023). “Overexpression of human alpha-Synuclein leads to dysregulated microbiome/metabolites with ageing in a rat model of Parkinson disease”. Molecular Neurodegeneration, 18(1).
    Silva, B.A., Breydo, L., Fink, A.L., and Uversky, V.N. (2012). “Agrochemicals, a-Synuclein, and Parkinson’s Disease”. Molecular Neurobiology, 47(2), pp. 598-612.
    Uversky, V.N., Li, J., Bower, K., and Fink, A.L. (2002). “Synergistic effects of pesticides and metals on the fibrillation of a-Synuclein. Implications for Parkinson’s Disease”. NeuroToxicology, 23(4-5), pp. 527-536. ︎
16. De Leeuw, J.F. (9 March 2021). Subject: possible relation between the use of specific pesticides and the development of Parkinson’s Disease. Ctgb, reference number 202103090024. ︎
17. See for example: Brzeziński, B. (2025). “Parkinson’s is a man-made disease”. Politico. 14 April. Bloem, B., Boonstra, T. (11 October 2023). “Glyphosate: ‘En tant que médecins spécialistes des maladies neurodégénératives, nous avons trois conseils à donner au ministre de l’agriculture Marc Fesneau’” [“Glyphosate: ‘As doctors specialising in neurodegenerative diseases, we have three pieces of advice for the Minister for Agriculture, Marc Fesneau’”]. Le Monde. ︎
18. Url, B. (n.d.). Subject/Re.: Possible relation between the use of specific pesticides and the development of Parkinson’s Disease. EFSA, Ref. ic2021-24570142. Although the letter is undated, the upload date provided by the Ctgb (23 March 2021) suggests that it was probably received two weeks later (and in any case no later than that). ︎
19. The following reconstruction is partly a reworking of my earlier research article in De Groene Amsterdammer, which was published on 25 September 2023. ︎
20. Quote from: De Bekker, D. (25 September 2023). “The health risks of glyphosate”. De Groene Amsterdammer. ︎
21. Ibid. ︎
22. Álvarez, F., et al. (2023). “Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate”. EFSA Journal, 21(7), paragraph 9. EFSA. (July 2023). Peer Review Report on Glyphosate, Part 3 of 6, p. 163. ︎
23. Commission Communication on the precautionary principle (2 February 2000), Document 52000dC0001, p. 3. ︎
24. Elsewhere in the book, I write about the pesticide models that are currently in use to calculate the distribution of pesticides through the environment. I conclude that these models, which form the basis of the authorisation system, were developed in close cooperation with the pesticide industry. ︎
25. Quoted from: De Bekker, D., et al. (5 June 2022). “The director of the Ctgb responds”. Red de Lente, season 1, episode 8. ︎

In a part two episode with journalist and author Will Potter, we discuss his recent book “Little Red Barns: Hiding the Truth From Farm to Fable.” We talk about the…

Registered nurses members of Minnesota Nurses Association and National Nurses United, will gather in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Thursday, April 30 for a rally and community event to press lawmakers for long-term, sustainable financial solutions before the legislative session ends to keep Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC), a vital Level I trauma center, open.

For years, farmers and ranchers in the state have been facing rising costs of inputs. Now, as a consequence of the...

The post New Bill Aims to Support CA Farmers Facing Fertilizer and Water Shortages  appeared first on CalCAN - California Climate & Agriculture Network.

This commemoration represents a critical moment to reaffirm and strengthen the human rights of peasants, while also reflecting on the long history of their struggles against deep-rooted structural challenges.

The post Indonesia: On Indonesian Peasants’ Rights Day, SPI Calls for Revision of the Peasants’ Rights Law appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

The research report is based on study involving 150 surveys and 80 in-depth interviews with families, prioritizing the participation of women and diverse rural and Indigenous populations.

The post Argentina: MNCI Somos Tierra presents its research report on “Rural Women, Care and Climate Crisis” appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

 by David Spratt, first published at Pearls&Irritations

Australia’s defence and foreign policy settings are focused on geopolitical rivalry, while far greater systemic risks – especially climate disruption – receive little strategic attention.

Blinded to the greater risks, the Albanese Government and the security commentariat have spent four, unrelenting years making the case that China is the biggest threat to Australia’s future.

Defence and foreign policy, encapsulated in the AUKUS agreement, tie Australia to a nation currently engaged in what the historian Timothy Snyder calls “Superpower Suicide”: “a systematic undoing of American power by Americans” in which “fighting a war for no reason we can name, losing it, and covering our defeat with genocidal and apocalyptic propaganda” had led to ”rapid and catastrophic decline as the result of specific choices in the last year”.

The AUKUS cargo cult – with Labor, the LNP and One Nation marching arm in arm – means the Parliament and the nation have spent little time even considering what may be the greatest threats to our future.

In risk management, there are potential events so destructive that they are termed catastrophic because of their capacity for human death or suffering on a massive scale, such that societies may never fully recover. This may be called existential risk or in actuarial terms, the “risk of ruin”, which colloquially in financial and gambling circles is the risk of “losing everything”. Catastrophic events include nuclear war, climate change, biosecurity threats including pandemics, and disruptive digital technologies.

Every year the World Economic Forum surveys private and public sector global leaders on the big risks. The 2025 WEF Global Risk Report lists the ten most severe risks on a 10-year horizon. The top four, and five of the ten, are related to climate-change and nature degradation: extreme weather, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, critical change to Earth systems, natural resource shortages, and pollution.

Of the other five, three are digital disruption: misinformation and disinformation, adverse outcomes of AI technologies, and cyber espionage and warfare. Rounding out the top ten are inequality and social polarisation. State-based armed conflict and geoeconomic confrontation don’t make the top ten, though they are in short-term (two-year) listing.

So is China or climate disruption the biggest threat? Global leaders understand what the Australian Government denies.

What would climate-disruption look like on a geo-political scale, given the warming is accelerating and is likely to exceed 3 degrees Celsius? Two decades ago, American security analysts noted that  “nonlinear climate change will produce nonlinear political events… beyond a certain level climate change becomes a profound challenge to the foundations of the global industrial civilisation that is the mark of our species”.

They produced a 3-degree scenario, in which “the internal cohesion of nations will be under great stress, including in the United States, both as a result of a dramatic rise in migration and changes in agricultural patterns and water availability. The flooding of coastal communities around the world, especially in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China, has the potential to challenge regional and even national identities. Armed conflict between nations over resources, such as the Nile and its tributaries, is likely and nuclear war is possible.”

In Chatham House’s Climate change risk assessment 2021, the security think-tank found that impacts likely to be locked in for the period 2040–50 unless emissions rapidly decline – which they are not – include a global average 30 per cent drop in crop yields by 2050, and the average proportion of global cropland affected by severe drought exceeding 30 per cent a year. They concluded that cascading climate impacts will “drive political instability and greater national insecurity, fuelling regional and international conflict”.

The consequences of climate disruption will strike everywhere. Last November, Iceland designated the potential collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) a national security concern and an existential threat, so that it could plan for worst-case scenarios and preventative action.

A disturbing new research paper finds it is likely that AMOC will have slowed by half this century, and scientists fear it is close to a tipping point. Peter Ditlevsen of the University of Copenhagen calls AMOC collapse a going-out-of-business scenario for north-west European agriculture. In addition, the monsoons that typically deliver rain to West Africa and South Asia would become unreliable, and huge swaths of Europe and Russia would plunge into drought.

AMOC collapse would challenge European foundations, including the viability of nations and states, and of the EU and NATO, moving climate from the realm of environmental and culture wars to the heart of the matter: human security, social breakdown, mass displacement and death.

And it is not a security threat par excellence in 50 years time, but right now, as the Icelandic Government has recognised, because systemic changes now under way will make such an outcome inevitable unless the world applies strategic focus, resources and collective political will to trying to avert such a catastrophe right now.

Yet a search of Hansard finds no mention of AMOC in either house of Australia’s Parliament, from any MP or Senator, over the term of the Albanese government. That is depressing, but not unexpected. The government ordered a climate and security risk assessment from the Office of National Intelligence when it came to power, and immediately suppressed the report, refusing to articulate ‘frankly terrifying’ security risks.

And of course AMOC is but one in an array of climate-security risks: the northern quarter of Australia – where the government is spending billions upgrading military bases – will become unliveably hot in three or four decades from now. And declining crop yields: researchers estimate that beyond 2°C warming, which is perhaps only 15 years away, “the declines in suitable areas for the 30 crops [analysed] become more pronounced – in some cases approaching and passing 50 per cent”.  That in itself would cause global chaos. There are scores more, including Himalayan water wars, mass people displacement, and drowned states.

A recognition that climate poses an existential – and perhaps the most pressing – risk to Australians’ future would mean that any Australian foreign policy, defence or strategic review would place it at the centre of concern. Instead the government has done the opposite, barely giving climate a token tick in such recent documents.

Epitomised by the tedious performances of the Defence Minister, Australia is doggedly pressing on with its “America first, Earth last” strategy. But this moment requires clarity about the existential nature of the climate threat to humanity’s future; and a collective regional commitment to strategic action.

A group of leading climate scientists has called on governments to develop roadmaps for phasing out fossil fuels “anchored in science and justice”, alongside the launch of a separate panel of experts that will give scientific advice on how to navigate the energy transition.

Unveiled on Friday in Santa Marta, Colombia, a set of a dozen policy recommendations, summarising the Santa Marta Academic Dialogue, is intended to feed into ministerial discussions on equitable ways to reduce dependence on coal, oil and gas during next week’s “First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels”.

The policy insights urge countries to create “whole-of-government” plans to “dismantle legal, financial and political barriers” to the energy transition.

Sixty countries head to Santa Marta to cement coalition for fossil fuel transition

Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), said the push for a global transition away from fossil fuels offers “a light in the tunnel” during a “very dark moment” of geopolitical conflict and climate extremes.

“Science is here to serve,” Rockström told a packed Santa Marta Theatre. “We’re today launching the Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition (SPGET) as a service, as a global common good for all countries, all sectors, all regions to connect to the best science enabling a transition away from fossil fuels.”

Draft roadmap for Colombia

Colombian Environment Minister Irene Vélez Torres said the new SPGET panel “addresses a longstanding shortcoming” in international climate science, by creating a scientific body dedicated solely to overcoming the world’s reliance on fossil fuels.

“It’s a first-of-its-kind, designed to organise in the next five years the scientific evidence that allows cities, regions, countries and coalitions to take the big leap,” Vélez told the event in Santa Marta.

As an example of how countries can move forward – even when their economies are closely tied to the production and use of dirty energy – a group of European scientists presented a draft roadmap to phase out fossil fuels in Colombia, with inputs from the Colombian government. It will be used as a basis for further consultation in the Latin American nation to define the way forward.

To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”

Piers Forster, director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at the University of Leeds and co‑author of the roadmap, said it shows “a clear pathway to economic and societal benefit”, with average annual investment of $10.6 billion producing net economic benefits of $23 billion per year by 2050.

The document says fossil fuels in Colombia can be phased out through energy efficiency measures, coupling renewable generation with energy storage, and switching to electrified transport. But, it adds, the government will need to plan for reduced revenue from fossil fuel exports, which roughly half by the mid-2030s.

“What matters now is moving beyond headline targets to create credible, policy-relevant roadmaps, enabling a just and effective transition,” Forster said in a statement. Brazil is also working on a national roadmap for its own economy, as well as leading a voluntary process to produce a global roadmap.

IPCC hobbled by politics

Currently, the world’s top climate science body – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – requires countries to sign off on each “summary for policymakers” of its flagship science reports. This has led to a politically fraught process that has increasingly seen some oil-producing governments making efforts to weaken its recommendations.

In a bid to focus scientific debates on the phase-out of fossil fuels, the new SPGET was created based on a mandate from last year’s COP30. It is also meant to come up with scientific recommendations at a faster pace than the IPCC’s seven-year cycle.

Natalie Jones, senior policy advisor at the International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD), called the new scientific panel “historic”, as it will be “more specific, more targeted and potentially more agile” with its advice on phasing out coal, oil and gas than the IPCC’s exhaustive scientific synthesis reports.

Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action

The panel will be co-chaired by Cameroonian economist Vera Songwe, PIK’s chief economist Ottmar Edenhofer and Gilberto M. Jannuzzi, professor of energy systems at Brazil’s Universidade Estadual de Campinas. It will be composed of between 50 and 100 scientists divided into four working groups: transition pathways, technological solutions, policies and finance.

Under the 12 insights for the Santa Marta process, the other group of scientists recommended banning new fossil fuel infrastructure, mandating “deep cuts” in methane emissions, implementing carbon levies on imports, and de-risking clean energy investments via interventions from central banks, among others.

Co-author Peter Newell, professor of international relations at the UK’s University of Sussex, said “there are many different challenges along the way – and not all of them have to do with lack of evidence”, but the phasing out of fossil fuels “is one part of the story and it’s important to address it”.

The original version of this story incorrectly reported that the new Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition had called on governments to develop roadmaps for phasing out fossil fuels “anchored in science and justice”. This appeal came from a separate group of scientists that worked on recommendations ahead of the Santa Marta conference. The article has now been amended.

The post Climate scientists call for fossil fuel transition roadmaps appeared first on Climate Home News.

In Portugal, peasants have won important victories enshrined in the April Revolution and in the Constitution of the Republic through constant struggle over the last hundred years.

The post 17 April | Portugal: The April Constitution and the Struggles for Peasants’ Rights appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

This May Day will come after nearly sixteen months of authoritarian rule marked by brutal domestic and global violence.

At home, the state has deployed terror against the most vulnerable members of the working class—our immigrant neighbors—and anti-ICE protesters.

World politics has entered a new era with the illegal and unconstitutional U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran. The ongoing war is yet another morbid symptom of the late American empire. Conscious of its declining power and driven by a lunatic narcissism reminiscent of Caligula or Nero, the Trump administration seeks to demonstrate its virility through violence. The war’s horror is only matched by its absurdity, as it becomes increasingly clear how little the U.S. state thought through the consequences of their reckless actions.

This disastrous war is a great setback for the regime. But as Trump and company become weaker, they also become more volatile and dangerous.

With Trump’s approval ratings sinking and likely to fall lower given the shock to the economy, the midterm elections pose an existential threat to his administration. The likelihood of a manufactured crisis being used as a pretext to destroy democratic rights looks increasingly probable.

In the face of war and authoritarianism, most workers realize we must act to stop this regime, and many are looking for alternative political strategies.

Building the resistance

The resistance in Minneapolis, culminating in mass strikes at the end of January, gave us a glimpse of potential working-class power.

The question is how to transform broad yet diffuse opposition to Trumpism into the kind of organized labor action that can take powerful and decisive action against the regime.

We have seen resistance in varied spaces, from mass protests like No Kings to neighborhood networks to community and labor activism. While all these play a role, unions are of particular importance because they remain the one organized section of the working class with mass numbers, even while unionization levels are low. Organized labor’s reawakening to politics, uneven and contradictory as it may be, represents a significant breach in the post-war consensus that has dominated the movement for the better part of a century.

The resistance in Minneapolis, culminating in mass strikes at the end of January, gave us a glimpse of potential working-class power.

The primary task for activists is to enter all these arenas and help build them out into democratic infrastructures of dissent, spaces and networks where we can further discover our strength as workers. We want to build a left-moving pole of attraction based on class independence, broad democratic decision-making and collective action.

Building these structures is a precondition for resisting the threat of authoritarianism and the entire right-wing political system, and for articulating firm political demands that resist co-optation by the Democratic Party.

The labor-led coalition May Day Strong offers a potential alternative to politics as usual, one that reawakens a long-neglected tradition of political working-class activity and, especially, an orientation on strikes—the only weapon available to us with the power to stop the regime.

Ironically, the authoritarian onslaught is spurring organized labor to reconnect with its power and its ability to change the world.

Towards a general strike

The call for this May Day, “Workers over Billionaires: No Work, No School, No Shopping,” connects with a powerful radical tradition based on independent working-class power. Although its origins are in the United States, International Workers’ Day has largely been a forgotten holiday here. This is not an accident but a result of the deeply anti-worker and anti-socialist nature of the U.S. state, which has actively divorced organized labor from projects against capitalism and for universal human liberation.

Small groups cannot will a general strike in to being, and verbal radicalism cannot substitute for sustained organizing.

This May Day marks an important moment in the process of rejoining labor to its unique ability to fundamentally transform society. The violent and tyrannical capitalist system gave birth to Trumpism and has worse horrors in store if we do not alter its course. Our labor creates and recreates this system, but by refusing to work, we can shut it down.

While we have seen some significant May Days in recent history, most notably the 2006 “Day Without an Immigrant,” this May 1st promises to be a celebration of working-class strength like nothing we have seen in decades. Spearheaded by the Chicago Teachers Union, the May Day Strong Coalition is organizing major unions to turn out for this holiday in a way not seen in living memory. Some strikes have even been called against the Trump administration’s policies, including a shutdown of all the ports on the West Coast, from Alaska to San Diego.

It is crucial that we maintain our independence from the bankrupt two-party system and build our own numbers and power from below.

But we are also seeing attempts by conservative forces— Indivisible, the NGO bureaucracy and labor officialdom—to steer all the energy of the anti-Trump resistance back into efforts to elect the Democratic Party. We cannot entrust our precious rights to the very people who got us into this mess in the first place and who have waged no substantive opposition to the far right. Their aim is to restore the bankrupt status quo that germinated Trump. Regardless of what we do at the ballot box, when it comes to organizing, it is crucial that we maintain our independence from the bankrupt two-party system and build our own numbers and power from below.

The symbolic and practical significance of reclaiming May Day in these ways is hard to overstate.

The tasks of the moment

May Day will highlight the potential of working-class power to resist war and authoritarianism while resurrecting a radical labor tradition. But the prospect of mass political strikes that pose a tangible threat to the economic order remains distant.

We still have low levels of workplace organization, in terms of both formal unionization and informal activity. In the current climate calls for general strikes will be hollow if they are not backed up by mass collective organization, disciplined preparation, education and training. Small groups cannot will a general strike in to being, and verbal radicalism cannot substitute for sustained organizing.

This May Day and beyond presents the opportunity to foster our collective strength and become strike-ready. We do this through collective activities such as attending protests as a contingent with T-shirts and banners, pursuing workplace grievances, launching union drives, holding strike schools and forming rank and file groups prepared to push for radical action even in the face of reluctant union officials.

We can only unite as a class if we challenge all the oppressions our rulers use to divide us.

We can only unite as a class if we challenge all the oppressions our rulers use to divide us. If we are to uphold the great slogan of the labor movement, “An injury to one is an injury to all,” we must defend anyone who is under attack without exception. This includes forming emergency defense networks against ICE raids, standing with survivors of sexual violence, and advocating for trans rights, reproductive rights, Palestinian liberation and more.

These are the conditions in which we can build grounded socialist organizations that offer a genuine alternative.

Trumpism cannot be stopped with a vote or a promise. We must rip up its very roots by challenging the capitalist system that created it. There are no short cuts to this goal, but the keywords are organization, political independence, and working-class power.

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: Walter Crane, Walter Crane; modified by Tempest.

The post The cause of labor is the hope of the world appeared first on Tempest.

“The Hub” is a weekly round-up of transportation related news in the Philadelphia area and beyond. Check back weekly to keep up-to-date on the issues Clean Air Council’s transportation staff finds important.

Celebrate Cobbs Creek Trails Day this Sunday, 4/26 from 10am to 2pm, at the park at Thomas Ave & Cobbs Creek Parkway north of Whitby Ave. More information and activities can be found here.

Are you interested in improving the health and built environment of Philadelphia? The Nutrition and Physical Activity Team in the Health Department of Philadelphia is hiring a Built Environment Coordinator, and a Community Health Infrastructure Coordinator. Click the links in the titles to learn more about these roles and their impact!

Image Source: BillyPenn

BillyPenn: Advocates push for around-the-clock access to public transit for kids in Philadelphia – Councilmember Rue Landau and Transit Forward Philly held a press conference for expanding the student fare program. The SEPTA card provided for students, the student fare program, is currently limited by distance, time of day, and days of the week. Limiting factors can include going to summer jobs, living too close to their school, and even involvement in sports. Advocates pointed out that universal access benefits kids, giving them opportunities in education, professional development, summer opportunities, and more.

Image Source: ABC21

PhillyVoice: PA Turnpike is testing a system that will warn drivers of slow traffic – Pennsylvania Turnpike drivers will be alerted of upcoming traffic jams, due to a pilot program that began this week. Drivers can expect two alerts, the first being an electronic sign about 2 miles away, and another screen alert placed about half a mile out from the slowdown. The pilot program is initially along the Northeast Extension of I-476, with review planned afterwards, to see if outward expansion would be beneficial.

Image Source: The Inquirer

The Inquirer (via MSN): Why city council is threatening to block Mayor Cherelle Parker’s ‘Uber tax’ if it doesn’t get its way on school closures – Philadelphia’s Board of Education has pushed the vote to cancel schools to April 30th, instead of this week as it was originally scheduled. During the past week, Philadelphia City Council members have pushed to delay the vote, as the facilities plans as written contain some concerning flaws. Mayor Parker introduced legislation that would add a $1-per-ride tax on services like Uber and Lyft to try and patch the Philadelphia School District’s budget. This tax would generate an estimated $50 million per year, but that would not offset the closures of several schools. Uber has also begun a public campaign to make clear that it will be passing along this tax directly to the rider.

Other Stories

City & State Pennsylvania: Ask the Experts: Local transit leaders mind the gaps

Pittsburghers For Public Transit: Transit is the Ticket to a Winning NFL Draft

WHYY: Why are NJ Transit fares to New Jersey’s 8 FIFA World Cup matches so high? And what benefit will the state get?

The Inquirer: I-95 South exit ramp to Packer Avenue will be closed into May, disrupting traffic to sports complex

KYW News Radio: No tickets necessary: PATCO riders will soon be able to pay with credit cards or smart phones

Railway Age: Transit Briefs: San Diego MTS/NICTD, MDOT MTA, NJ Transit, Amtrak
WHYY: Reported crime on SEPTA continues to drop in 2026 after decade lows last year

What does it take for people to meaningfully participate in democracy? For millions of workers, the answer starts with something basic: being able to afford to live.

Saru Jayaraman, President of One Fair Wage, has spent decades organizing restaurant workers and advocating for fair wages across the country. In her keynote at Bioneers 2026, she made the case that economic justice is not separate from democracy or climate action, but foundational to both.

This is an edited transcript of her talk.

Saru Jayaraman: 

For 25 years, I’ve been organizing and representing workers in the restaurant industry. It employs 13.6 million people in the United States, many in the lowest-wage jobs in the country.

In past talks at Bioneers, I’ve shared that the subminimum wage for tipped workers was $2.13 an hour. Still today, in 2026, the largest employer of women, people of color, youth, immigrants, and really so many of us can legally pay just $2.13 an hour.

I’ve said again and again that when so much of America cannot afford to feed themselves or their families, they also cannot engage politically. There is no way people can take on issues like the climate crisis when they are working three jobs instead of one, and when those in power represent the opposite of what they need.

As I’ve continued to share this, I’ve faced a lot of pushback. In 2024, when we were raising money to put wage increases on the ballot in states like Arizona and Michigan, donors told me, “That’s cute. You’re trying to raise wages. We’re trying to save democracy.”

But raising wages is saving democracy.

Despite these repeated warnings, we’ve landed in a crisis that has been building for a long time. One clear example: Trump campaigned on and delivered “no tax on tips,” even though two-thirds of tipped workers don’t earn enough to pay federal income tax. But he at least recognized these workers as worth speaking to.

When that happened, I urged Kamala to engage this audience as well. The answer was no, again and again.

In the last election, many tipped workers either stayed home or shifted their support elsewhere. Not because they didn’t care, but because they felt unseen. We didn’t speak to them. We didn’t say, “Your lives matter.”

What the whole “no tax on tips” moment revealed is this: When you leave people out, you do it at your own peril. When large groups of people are excluded, they become vulnerable to being co-opted by the right.

In April of last year, a series of articles in USA Today documented a rumor spreading among MAGA voters that Trump had already raised the federal minimum wage to $25 an hour. The videos were widely shared and gained significant traction among right-wing audiences.

Now, we all know it’s a lie. That’s not the news. The news is that they didn’t claim he raised wages to $15, or $17, or even $20. They said $25 an hour: the minimum needed to live anywhere in the United States right now. They chose the number that reflects people’s lived reality, including their own base. And it resonated.

We have a five-alarm fire. The right is talking about $25 and energizing their base around it, while the left is stuck arguing for $17, or in some places, still $15. I’ll be blunt. This is why people are frustrated with us. They see us negotiating against ourselves before we even enter the room. They see us settling for half a loaf.

When we saw this, we organized an emergency convening in Los Angeles in June, bringing together 140 labor and community leaders from 15 states. The message was clear. It’s time to move beyond the Fight for $15. It’s time to demand a living wage for all, with a national floor of $25.

Since that gathering, we’ve launched campaigns, bills, and ballot measures in dozens of states calling for $25 across the board, and $30 in higher-cost areas. Several counties have already taken action.

Within our own movement, there was hesitation. “$25? That’s too high. $30? Impossible.” So we polled it across red, blue, and purple districts. The result was overwhelming support. And when we tested the opposition’s messaging, that this would raise prices, cost jobs, or hurt small businesses, support actually increased.

People are angry. If you tell them wages can’t go up because prices will rise, they respond, “What are you talking about? Prices have already gone up.”

The only thing that hasn’t increased is the value of human labor.

There’s so much talk about affordability, but most of it centers on bringing costs down. There is no world in which affordability comes from bringing costs down alone. Inflation over the last 75 years has never meaningfully reversed. The only way to make life more affordable for half of working Americans, and it is half who earn less than $25, is to increase wages.

This unprecedented affordability crisis is also a democracy crisis. And that makes this a moment of real consequence.

I know there’s a lot to be unhappy about. There’s a lot to defend. But if all we do is play defense, we will lose. We need a proactive vision that is bold, that shows people we are fighting. And it has to focus on the issue they keep telling us matters most, the cost of living.

We’re in a moment of real opportunity. The pendulum could swing toward a world where people work one job instead of three, where they can thrive instead of just survive, where they have time with their kids, and the capacity to engage with the issues they care about, including the climate crisis.

I believe we can achieve this because fair wages is one of the few issues working people across the political spectrum can agree on.

It’s time for our country to deliver.

The post Democracy Doesn’t Work Without a Living Wage appeared first on Bioneers.

Despite not yet paying out any money, a UN-backed fund meant to address the loss and damage caused to developing countries by climate change could face “liquidity issues” by the end of next year, its head warned today.

With ten projects already requesting $166 million in total, the fund’s Executive Director Ibrahima Cheikh Diong warned a board meeting in Zambia that the fund was likely to be “oversubscribed” and should anticipate cashflow problems.

A framing paper prepared by the fund’s secretariat similarly warns that “given the current status of the capitalization of the Fund, there is a risk of the Fund exhausting its capital by the end of 2027, which could result in a loss of operational momentum and expose the FRLD to reputational risk”.

Since governments agreed to set up the fund at UN climate talks in Egypt in 2022, wealthy nations have promised $822 million, but delivered just $449 million.

The fund is expected to approve its first projects at its next board meeting in July. Early proposals submitted include strengthening responses to floods in Bangladesh and the Nigerian city of Lagos, and improving water infrastructure in Jamaica following Hurricane Melissa last year.

A woman walks over debris, outside a store where food is being distributed, after Hurricane Melissa made landfall in Black River, Jamaica, October 30, 2025. (REUTERS/Octavio Jones ) Millions not billions

ActionAid Zambia climate justice coordinator Michael Mwansa told the board meeting that he was concerned about “the failure of the Global North governments to deliver on their climate finance obligations, making it largely impossible to scale up [the fund’s initial stage] significantly, if at all”.

“Pledges remain nowhere near the billions and even the trillions needed to address loss and damage to the Global South,” Mwansa added, highlighting reports which found that financing loss and damage could cost developing countries up to $400 billion a year.

The fund’s board discussed its strategy for raising more money at its meeting this week while climate campaigners called, in an open letter, for it to aim to secure $50 billion a year from developed countries starting next year, rising to $100 billion a year by 2031 and $400 billion by 2035.

The World Bank-hosted fund aims to have revenue-raising rounds known as replenishments every four years, with the first in 2027.

Governments have agreed to “urge” developed countries to contribute but only to “encourage” other nations to do so and the fund’s secretariat wants to appoint a “high-level champion” to lead the replenishment team.

The fundraising strategy will be discussed further at the next board meeting in the Philipines in June.

The campaigners’ open letter calls for developed countries to contribute more and for them to introduce taxes on fossil fuel companies, financial transactions, luxury air travel and wealth to raise money for the fund.

“Rich countries must be held strictly accountable for the devastation they have caused,” said Climate Action Network International head Tasneem Essop. “Their failure to fulfil their responsibility to the Loss and Damage Fund is not just an oversight; it is a shameful betrayal of humanity.”

The post New loss and damage fund could run out of money next year appeared first on Climate Home News.

2.5% of landowners concentrate 85% of agricultural land, while more than 300,000 peasant families live without land or with insecure tenure.

The post 17 April | Paraguay: On International Peasant Struggles Day, Social Movements Spotlight Land Inequality appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Radical Democracy: recovering the roots of self-governance & autonomy - Booklet presentation from Indonesia Date and time * Date: April 15th * Time: 11am GMT * Format: Hybrid event Introduction In the face of escalating global crises—climate breakdown, deepening economic inequalities, and the enduring dominance of neoliberal systems—the need to rethink democracy has never been more urgent. alternatives

Irene Vélez Torres is Colombia’s Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development, and Mark Watts is Executive Director of C40 Cities.

The science is unequivocal. The world must transition away from fossil fuels. What remains uncertain is whether our institutions, economies and political systems are prepared to deliver the transformation required at the necessary speed and scale.

For too long, this transition has been framed as a technological substitution challenge. Replace fossil fuels with renewables and the problem is solved. But this view overlooks a deeper reality. Fossil fuels are embedded in economic systems shaped by extraction, inequality, and dependence. Moving beyond them requires structural transformation, not only of energy systems, but of the way economies are organised and governed.

This is both a global and a territorial challenge. And it is precisely at the intersection of national leadership and urban action where the transition becomes real.

Today, the energy system accounts for more than three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions, while fossil fuel expansion continues despite clear scientific warnings. This contradiction reflects entrenched financial and institutional incentives that continue to favour short-term extraction over long-term stability.

Recent global crises have exposed the consequences. Volatility in fossil fuel markets has translated into rising energy costs, fiscal pressure and growing inequality. A system that depends on geopolitical instability cannot guarantee reliable or affordable energy for people. Nor can it sustain resilient economies.

• Apr 23, 2026 News Sixty countries head to Santa Marta to cement coalition for fossil fuel transition After last year’s COP30 disappointment, governments will seek a renewed push to phase out fossil fuels at the first global summit on the theme in Colombia 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 is why Colombia has argued consistently in international spaces that the transition away from fossil fuels is not only an environmental necessity, but a matter of justice. It requires moving beyond an extractive model toward economies that protect life, redistribute opportunity and recognise the value of territories and communities.

In Colombia, the challenge is immediate. Fossil fuels represent a significant share of exports and public revenues, and entire regions depend on these industries. Addressing this reality demands deliberate strategies to overcome economic dependence, manage fiscal constraints, and enable productive re-conversion without reproducing new forms of extractivism.

But this transformation will not be delivered by national governments alone. Cities are not just implementers of policy. They are strategic actors in reshaping demand, accelerating innovation, and demonstrating that a different model is already possible.

Cities turn climate goals into real-life improvements

Urban areas account for the majority of global energy use and emissions. Yet they are also where the benefits of the transition are most immediate and visible. From expanding clean public transport to reducing air pollution, from improving energy efficiency in buildings to scaling decentralised renewable systems, cities are turning long-term climate goals into tangible improvements in people’s lives.

Across the C40 network, cities are already reducing emissions while strengthening economic resilience. These experiences show that transitioning away from fossil fuels lowers costs, improves public health and creates jobs. They also demonstrate something equally important: that climate action, when designed around people, can rebuild trust in public institutions.

Solar surge kept fossil electricity flat in 2025 as China and India made ‘historic’ shift

The Mayor of London has delivered the world’s largest clean air zone. Melbourne has enabled new wind farms that now supply 100% of municipal operations. In Curitiba, solar investments are cutting public energy bills by 30% while creating inclusive jobs.

Johannesburg’s US$140-million green bond, oversubscribed by 150%, has mobilised strong investment into clean energy and efficiency projects. And in Colombia, Bogotá established a low-emission zone (ZUMA) in a vulnerable neighborhood, improving air quality and public health for nearly 40,000 people.

A solar farm near the Brazilian city of Curitiba (Photo: C40 Cities) A solar farm near the Brazilian city of Curitiba (Photo: C40 Cities)

These actions are part of a shared global effort to halve fossil fuel use in C40 cities by 2030, a goal that is not only achievable but already in motion. Crucially, it also contributes to the global target of tripling renewable energy capacity by the end of the decade, set by nearly 195 countries at COP28.

This is what makes cities indispensable to a just transition. They operate closest to citizens, where energy systems intersect with daily life. They are uniquely positioned to ensure that the transition is not only fast, but fair.

Structural barriers to national and urban action

At the same time, cities cannot act in isolation. Their ability to lead depends on national frameworks that align policy, regulation and investment, as well as on an international system that enables rather than constrains transformation.

And this is where the global dimension becomes critical. Many countries in the Global South face structural barriers, including high borrowing costs, debt burdens and legal frameworks that limit policy space. Reforming the international financial architecture, expanding access to affordable finance, and addressing constraints are essential to unlocking both national and urban climate action.

Recognising this, Colombia and the Netherlands are convening the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta. This is not a space for abstract commitments. It is a platform for implementation, designed to bring together those ready to move from ambition to action.

To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”

Crucially, the conference places cities and subnational governments at the heart of this effort. Alongside national governments, civil society, workers, Indigenous peoples and the private sector, cities will help identify concrete enabling pathways to advance a just, orderly and equitable transition.

These pathways are not theoretical. They focus on three interconnected priorities: transforming energy supply and demand, overcoming economic dependence, and strengthening international cooperation. What cities bring to this agenda is the capacity to operationalise these priorities, translating them into policies that reshape infrastructure, mobility, housing and local economies.

Energy transition means redefining development

The objective is clear. To build a coalition of countries and cities willing to move forward, not by negotiating new principles, but by implementing them. A coalition that reflects a shared understanding that the transition must be grounded in equity, democratic participation and real delivery.

What is at stake goes beyond energy. It is about redefining development in a way that is compatible with climate stability and social justice.

The costs of delay are already evident. Continued investment in fossil fuel expansion deepens climate risk, economic vulnerability and inequality. By contrast, accelerating the transition opens pathways for more resilient, inclusive and sustainable economies.

Cities are already showing what this future looks like. National governments can scale it. International cooperation can enable it.

From Santa Marta, the message is clear. The end of the fossil fuel era is not only necessary. It is already underway. The task now is to ensure that it is just, that it is coordinated, and that it is irreversible.

The post Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action appeared first on Climate Home News.

Since Philadelphia banned single-use plastic bags in 2021, more than 200 million of them have been kept out of the city’s waste stream, streets, and tree branches.

This is huge progress and a clear example of the power of public policy. But the harm of plastics is not limited to our natural environment. We urge Philadelphians to consider how plastics affect our health, too.

When the Clean Air Council was founded in 1967, Americans were fighting smog and rivers so polluted that they caught fire. Those problems have not disappeared, but today we also face less visible dangers. Chemicals used in plastics, including bisphenols and phthalates, have been linked to reproductive harm, metabolic disorders, diabetes, and some cancers.

That growing concern is reflected in the new Netflix documentary The Plastic Detox, which follows couples trying to reduce their exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals while navigating infertility.

The film raises a question that should concern all of us: How can we protect ourselves from harmful plastic-related chemicals when plastic is woven into so much of daily life?

There are steps individuals can take. People can avoid thermal paper receipts, choose natural fibers over synthetic ones, and replace plastic food and drink containers with glass, stainless steel, wood, or ceramic when possible. But individual choices can only go so far.

The burden should not fall on people to “detox” from a system they did not create. Public policy should make healthier choices easier and safer materials more available and affordable.

And we should be honest about how little of our plastic waste is actually recycled: only about 6%. Millions of tons are still sent to landfills, and millions more are burned.

That matters here in Philadelphia, where city officials are negotiating new waste disposal contracts.

Chester residents, along with Clean Air Council and other advocates, are urging the city to stop sending trash to the Reworld incinerator – the nation’s largest. The Stop Trashing Our Air Act, introduced by Councilmember Jamie Gauthier, would prohibit Philadelphia from contracting with companies that burn municipal waste.

If we are serious about reducing the harm of plastics, we cannot act as though disposal is someone else’s problem.

Philadelphia’s plastic bag ban showed that local action works. Now the city and the state should build on that progress by reducing unnecessary plastic use, expanding policies that limit exposure, and making safer alternatives more common once again. Pennsylvania should also stop lagging behind other states on actions to reduce single-use plastics.

Plastic policy is public health policy, we need to treat it that way.