News Feeds

The bizarre planning rules that make fossil gas connections a default for new homes, and add costs in a state that leads the world in rooftop PV and home batteries.

The post Bizarre planning rules that force new home owners to pay for gas connections, whether they want it or not appeared first on Renew Economy.

Tim Buckley from Climate and Energy Finance joins to discuss the good, bad and the ugly from the federal budget, how to fix the Capacity Investment Scheme, and other news.

The post Energy Insiders Podcast: Budget’s fossil fail, and how to fix the CIS appeared first on Renew Economy.

May 13, 2026 For Immediate Release:
Ute Mountain Utes, Navajos/Dine, Greenaction & Allies to Protest Energy Fuels’ uranium mines and the mill/dump next to White Mesa Ute Community – Saturday, May 16, noon

 

 

Click Here To Download the Press Advisory –> PRESS-ADVISORY_WMCC_La-Sal_Protest (1)

Click Here to Download Flyer –> May 16 No Uranium Protest at La Sal Junction

Support Green and Red Podcast and get the latest at https://www.patreon.com/greenredpodcast. In our latest, Scott talks with writer and Flotilla participant Zukiswa Wanner about the Global Salmud Flotilla. They talk…

The California Senate Rules Committee voted unanimously to advance Dorene D’Adamo’s reappointment to the State Water Resources Control Board despite vocal opposition from Tribal, environmental, and fishing groups.

Critics accused D’Adamo of favoring powerful agricultural and water interests, arguing during the hearing that those groups have had outsized influence over the Bay-Delta Plan process, while Tribal and environmental voices have been sidelined and ignored.

The reappointment hearing comes ahead of an expected September vote on the updated Bay-Delta Plan, which relies on negotiated “voluntary agreements,” also known as the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program, that would allow major water users to avoid enforceable regulatory standards intended to restore river flows and protect the Delta ecosystem.

“The State Water Board has consistently tipped the scales on behalf of agriculture and urban water interests, and as a result, we have multiple species headed towards extinction,” Max Gomberg, Senior Policy Advisor to the California Water Impact Network told the committee members. “This committee should not condone the ongoing environmental catastrophe in our Delta via regulatory capture of this board.”

Gary Bobker, Program Director for Friends of the River, stated, “I do want board members who are outraged about this crisis in the Bay Delta and the way it affects many communities, and who push timely and effective action to address the root causes.”

Read more from the Sacramento Bee here. 

###

Plans to construct a 400 megawatt, four-hour battery between two solar farms in north-east Victoria have been waved through the federal EPBC queue.

The post Developer of Australia’s most powerful battery gets green light for new four-hour project appeared first on Renew Economy.

Every year, Health Care Without Harm and the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments come together to honor a nurse who sees beyond the bedside – someone who understands that true healing requires clean air, safe water, and a stable climate. A nurse whose environmental activism and accomplishments have made a significant contribution to environmental health.

We are thrilled to announce Yasna Palmeiro-Silva, Ph.D.,  MPH,RN, as the 2026 Charlotte Brody Award recipient. A registered nurse from Chile, Palmeiro-Silva has transformed her experience in ICU bedside care into a powerful nurse-scientist voice at the intersection of climate change, population health, and global policy. 

From critical care to climate advocacy

Palmeiro-Silva didn’t start out as a climate researcher. She began her career as an ICU nurse, primarily working with cardiovascular disease and surgery patients – but something kept nagging at her.

“During my shifts, I noticed every single time that we were having younger and younger patients,” she reflected. “This is not okay. This is not sustainable. Because of their quality of life, but also because as a society, we cannot afford to have ill people.”

The realization that the hospital could not solve problems rooted in how we live, build our societies, and work drove her to take action. She left the ICU to study public health, then earned her Ph.D. in global health from University College in London. Her thesis linked climate change and public health in Chile. Today, she lives in Seattle, Washington, but her work continues to span continents.

Changing laws in Chile

One story Palmeiro-Silva shared stands out as a testament to what one nurse-scientist can achieve.

In Chile, the intersection of climate change, heat, and health was barely discussed until just three years ago. Palmeiro-Silva saw an opportunity – she took her epidemiological skills and produced evidence-based analysis for the policymaking sphere. The result? New policy.

“Right now, we have three or four laws that have been passed,” she said. One law explicitly requires that specific requirements be met to protect people’s health from climate change, now being woven into national and regional climate action plans.

This isn’t just advocacy – it’s systemic change.

Inspiring nurses – all in a days work

When asked how she inspires other nurses to share her passion, Palmeiro-Silva was humble.

“For me, inspiring other people is not something that I consciously do,” she said. “I do it through dialogue and sharing of experiences.”

She notes that nursing education in Chile is heavily focused on clinical practice. By helping nurses understand how the problems they see during their shifts – younger patients, chronic diseases, respiratory distress – are linked to upstream factors like governance, policy, and the environment, she expands their perspective.

She’s spoken to nurses in Turkey, the United Kingdom, Latin America, and the United States, and she’s seeing the movement grow. “They see me as a thought leader who started in the ICU who is now pushing for policy change on a global level.”

Lessons from a global perspective

Having worked extensively outside the United States, Palmeiro-Silva offered a powerful lesson for any health professional doing climate work here.

“What happens in one country could be totally different from another,” she cautioned. But that doesn’t mean we can’t learn. She advocates for “learning from comparison; not competition.”

Her advice? Keep the big picture in mind. Climate change and health is a large, complicated problem, but it can be solved by various levels and individuals taking action inside their locus of control. “From the country level to the hospital to the nurse in the halls. Every action, no matter how little, matters.”

What’s next?

Palmeiro-Silva shows no signs of slowing down. She’s currently tracking heat measures and their impact on workers’ health, and she’s about to start a new project in Latin America examining the connection between temperature and cognitive performance in children, funded by Wellcome Trust.

Soon, she will begin a new role as a scientific advisor with Lancet Countdown Latin America, advising on how to track the intersection of climate change and population health, from heat mortality to heat action plans and public engagement.

“There is a need to be super active in this sphere and exit our comfort zone to go for the change that needs to happen,” she said.

Join us in celebrating Palmeiro-Silva

When asked what or who gives her inspiration, Palmeiro-Silva simply said, “Every single person that I talk to. I am super open to learning from everybody – EVERYBODY.”

That openness, combined with rigorous science and a nurse’s heart, is exactly why Palmeiro-Silva is the 2026 Charlotte Brody Award winner.

Please join us in congratulating Palmeiro-Silva. And let her story remind us: whether you work in an ICU, policy office, or community clinic, you have a role to play in protecting environmental health.

###

The Charlotte Brody Award is presented annually by Health Care Without Harm and the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments to honor nurses who demonstrate outstanding leadership in environmental health.

The post 2026 Charlotte Brody Award Winner: Yasna Palmeiro-Silva appeared first on ANHE.

Flying forwards while looking back Teresa Myers Wed, 05/13/2026 - 2:23 pm

This is a re-post from The Climate Brink

Back in December I provided some initial projections of where both 2026 and 2027 global mean surface temperatures might end up.

A lot has happened since then. We’ve gotten the first three months of data in for 20261 (and have a good sense of where April 2026 will end up in reanalysis data – see our Climate Dashboard for daily updates).

More importantly, models are converging on a doozy of an El Niño event developing in the latter part of 2026, with the latest multi-model median projection of a peak anomaly of 2.7C in the ENSO3.4 region of the tropical Pacific. While the prediction remains uncertain (we remain within the “spring predictability barrier” when its historically hard to predict ENSO2 development), this would put the 2026/2027 roughly on par with the “super” El Niño the world experienced in 2015/2016.

I’ve updated the models I use for both my 2026 and 2027 projections. I’ll go into the gory methodological details shortly, but the headline numbers are in the figure below: the estimate for 2026 has risen from 1.41C (with a range of 1.27C to 1.55C) to 1.46C (1.36C to 1.59C). The 2027 estimate has similarly increased from 1.57C (1.3C to 1.76C) to 1.61C (1.4C to 1.93C).

 

So what changed? Before the start of the year I was using a pretty simple regression model. It estimate what the annual temperature anomaly would be based on the prior year’s anomaly, the last month of the prior year, the predicted ENSO state over the next three months, as well as a year count (and year count squared) to reflect linear and non-linear aspects of the trend since 1970.

I’ve updated this to use the equation below, which includes the year count, prior year’s temperature anomaly, the anomaly over the year to date for 2026 (currently Jan-Mar), the latest month, the observed ENSO state over the year to date, and the forecasted ENSO state over the remainder of the year.3 The uncertainty in the 2026 prediction also accounts for the uncertainty in the ENSO forecast using a Monte Carlo sampling approach.4

Similarly, the original 2027 calculation was pretty ad hoc; I just took the 2026 estimate and added the current warming trend (0.026C per year) that we calculated in our Forster et al 2025 paper. I then added a range of possible boosts from El Niño ranging from 0C (no El Niño develops) to 0.2C (very strong El Niño), roughly encompassing the range we’ve seen across past events.

Now I’ve converted it into a proper regression model. It calculates the expected year-over-year change in temperatures based on the year count (reflecting the trend) and the ENSO forecast for the latter part of the year (September-December, reflecting the period over which the currently developing El Niño will likely peak).5 This is then added to the 2026 estimates, with their uncertainty (and the uncertainty in future ENSO forecast) propagated through using the same Monte Carlo approach. This actually slightly increases the error bars from the original 2027 estimate, reflecting the uncertainty in both the 2026 estimate and the El Niño forecast.

One way to test how well this approach works is to see how well it predicts year-over-year temperature changes during past strong El Nino events (e.g. with a peak >2C and a Sept-Dec average of >1.5C), as shown in the figure below:

In general the model does pretty well; it slightly underestimates the year-over-year increase in 1973, 1983, and 1998, gets 2016 pretty spot on, and slightly overestimates the increase between 2023 and 2024. This is, of course, contingent on where 2026 annual temperatures end up, so a warmer 2026 in this model would result in a warmer 2027.

We can also look at how well the model “hindcasts” past years by applying the 2026 prediction model to past years using the same year-to-date and temperature and ENSO values:

Overall the development of a strong El Niño event in 2026 (and its effects on 2027 temperatures) have bumped my predictions up a bit from where they were at the start of the year.

But 2026 remains more likely than not to end up as the second warmest year on record (~56% chance), but has a non-trial chance of being the warmest year (~26%) with a somewhat larger change (34%) of being above 1.5C.

2027, by contrast, is likely (~85% chance) to be the warmest year on record and has a 88% chance to be above 1.5C. My updated estimate central estimate (1.61C) remains a bit lower than Hansen’s (1.7C),6 but its consistent with the size of the year-over-year bumps we’ve seen in past strong El Niño events.

Update:A new set of ENSO runs came in this afternoon from CanSIPS, which previously set the lower bound on the ENSO forecast for 2026. The new update has notably higher estimates; these don’t change the central estimate (as the median across all ENSO model remains unchanged), but it reduces the lower end of the uncertainties in the error bars. I’ve updated the figures and text accordingly. 1 Here I’m using the average of NASA’s GISTEMP, NOAA’s GlobalTemp, Berkeley Earth, Hadley/UAE’s HadCRUT5, and Copernicus/ECMWF’s ERA5 as they are updated monthly and reasonably reflect the diversity across GMST datasets. 2 ENSO refers to El Niño Southern Oscillation, a term that encompasses both El Niño and La Niña conditions in the ENSO3.4 region of the tropical Pacific. 3 I also tested it with year count squared but the difference was minor – the prior year and year-to-date already captures a lot of the information about acceleration. 4 This involves calculating a probability distribution of future ENSO development across all the ensemble members of all the models with runs through the end of the year, and randomly sampling 1000 times from that distribution to see how it affects the results. 5 I also tried a variant using the peak El Niño forecast, but that was slightly less predictive. 6 And his team’s new estimate, just published today, that 2026 is on track to be the warmest year on record.

DENVER—Interior Secretary Doug Burgum appeared in front of the House Natural Resources Committee today to defend President Donald Trump’s 2027 Interior department budget request. Today’s hearing follows Burgum’s appearances in front of a House Appropriations subcommittee, a Senate appropriations subcommittee, and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last month.

At today’s hearing:

• Burgum refused to acknowledge that the American people are facing high energy prices due to Trump’s actions in the Middle East and his vendetta against renewable energy. When asked by Representatives Dave Min and Seth Magaziner why the Interior department is slow-walking and cancelling renewable energy projects on public lands and waters while the country is facing an alleged “energy emergency,” Burgum fell back on his tired talking point that “the sun doesn’t shine” at night.

• Burgum struggled to defend Interior department spending on Trump’s vanity projects in Washington, D.C., like painting the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool blue and constructing a White House ballroom, in response to questioning from Representatives Joe Neguse, Maxine Dexter, and Ranking Member Jared Huffman.

• When asked about no-bid contracts issued by the National Park Service for Trump’s vanity projects, Burgum pleaded ignorance, saying he wasn’t even familiar with the contractor hired to paint the reflecting pool blue. Burgum also pleaded ignorance when asked about the creation of Trump’s Freedom 250 group and corruption at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

• Burgum also struggled to answer questions from Representatives Melanie Stansbury and Adelita Grijalva about massive proposed cuts to Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs.

The Center for Western Priorities released the following statement from Executive Director Aaron Weiss: 

“You know something has gone off the rails when members of Congress have to hold up a battery to explain energy technology to the Interior secretary who also heads up the National Energy Dominance Council. In today’s hearing, Doug Burgum doubled down on his defense of President Trump’s failing energy policies and his ongoing spending spree on vanity projects in D.C. By refusing to take responsibility for his part in rising energy prices, Burgum is forsaking the American people in favor of fossil fuel executives. And in defending Trump’s vanity projects, Burgum is selling out national parks across the country to stroke President Trump’s ego.

“Doug Burgum also claimed ignorance when asked about corruption allegations at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. If Burgum doesn’t know what’s going on under his own nose, he’s not doing his job. But we already knew that. He seems to spend more time on Fox News than he does in the office.”

Here is a full transcript of the hearing, as well as a folder with screenshots from the online hearing for media use.

Learn More:

• Trump’s bagman: Doug Burgum is helping Trump gut national parks while giving D.C. a taxpayer-funded makeover – Westwise

• Highlight reel: The five most bewildering moments from Doug Burgum’s congressional hearings – Westwise

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

The post Burgum struggles to defend Trump’s DC vanity projects and ‘Energy Dominance’ agenda in House hearing  appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Vermont passes first-in-the-nation bill to ban toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease Anthony Lacey May 13, 2026

In a historic show of bipartisan leadership, Vermont lawmakers today approved a bill to ban the highly toxic herbicide paraquat. It’s the first time a state legislature has passed legislation to phaseout paraquat, a chemical linked to Parkinson’s disease.

House Bill 739 would, if enacted, end Vermonters’ exposure to one of the most dangerous pesticides still in use. 

The Environmental Working Group is urging Gov. Phil Scott to sign the legislation and set a first-in-the-nation precedent for banning paraquat. The vote also comes as 12 other states have introduced bills to ban or restrict the chemical and California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation is re-reviewing paraquat.

Paraquat has been linked not only to Parkinson’s disease but also to other serious health harms, including cancer. More than 70 countries have banned paraquat due to these health concerns, yet it remains used in the U.S.

“With today’s vote, Vermont is making history and putting the health of its residents first,” said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at EWG. “This is the first time any legislative body in the country has passed a bill to fully ban paraquat, sending a powerful signal that the days of tolerating this dangerous chemical are numbered. 

“Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike have made clear that safeguarding farmers, rural communities and children must take precedence over continued use of one of the most hazardous pesticides still on the market.” he added. “Now that the House has passed this landmark bill, we urge Gov. Scott to sign it.”

State Rep. Esme Cole (D-Windsor) and state Sen. Martine Gulick (D-Chittenden-Central District) championed their chambers’ versions of the bills. 

In addition to EWG, groups supporting the paraquat ban bill include the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, The Michael J. Fox Foundation, Parkinson’s Foundation, the American Parkinson Disease Association, the Vermont Natural Resources Council and others.

“No one, including farmers, farmworkers, families or children, should be exposed to a chemical with such well-documented risks,” added Horsfield.

Once Scott signs the legislation, it would mark a major milestone in the fight to eliminate paraquat use in the U.S. and could accelerate efforts in other states. 

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and education, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Paraquat Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 13, 2026

Editor’s Note: Covering the on-going arguments regarding the reuse of oil and gas wastewater hasn’t been in La Jicarita’s purview, but the latest decision by the Water Quality Control Commission is so egregious that I’m posting the New Energy Economy’s press release. The WQCC, lobbied heavily by the Water Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance — or WATR Alliance — a trade group with members from the oil and gas industry, voted for the second time to advance a petition to expand and regulate the reuse of oil and gas wastewater. The Lujan Grisham administration also lobbied WQCC to overturn a year-old decision prohibiting the reuse of the wastewater, making sure that her appointed WQCC commissioners were making the right decision. WQCC will hold a public hearing to advance the rule making, a hearing that will be protested by the many environmental and public advocacy groups that oppose this decision.

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Mariel Nanasi, Executive Director, New Energy Economy
(505) 469-4060 | mnanasi@newenergyeconomy.org

May 12, 2026

Despite The Fact that Science is Missing to Prove Oil and Gas Industry Waste Water Is Safe for Reuse or Discharge WQCC Votes to Move Oil & Gas Industry Petition Forward

Santa Fe, NM — Environmental and public interest organizations lost today; oil and gas industry’s latest attempt to weaken New Mexico’s produced water protections was greenlighted today despite the fact that the science remains fundamentally incomplete, uncertain, and incapable of demonstrating safety for human health or the environment.

While the Petition cites scientific studies, the studies themselves do not establish the central claim the industry needs to prove: that produced water can actually be treated and reused safely in the real world. Critically, the industry repeatedly claims that produced water can be treated and reused “to a non-toxic level in a real-world setting,” yet that statement does not appear in the cited studies or in the scientific literature itself.

The scientific record instead demonstrates the opposite: the science surrounding produced water reuse remains in an early and highly uncertain stage. Major unresolved problems remain, including incomplete characterization of contaminants, the presence of unknown and unmeasured compounds, lack of comprehensive toxicological datasets, and the complete absence of established regulatory frameworks capable of ensuring safe discharge or reuse.

The Water Quality Control Commission’s Vice Chair said “the Petition is not ready for us to hear it.” The Chair of the Commission said the Petition has “serious legal flaws” and has pages, 20 page or more of blank empty spaces” and stated that he could “not support it in its current form.” He specifically pointed out that produced water contains complex mixtures that the industry has not “fessed up” to. Produced water is full of known and unknown contaminants, that treatment technologies remain experimental, and that the state lacks sufficient standards and data to regulate reuse safely.

“The oil and gas industry is asking regulators to leap far ahead of the science,” said Mariel Nanasi, Executive Director, New Energy Economy. “While there is new science – that science does not state what it must: that produced water can be treated and discharged and is safe. New Mexicans should not become guinea pigs for an experiment involving toxic radioactive wastewater that has not been proven safe.”

Under New Mexico law, the Commission’s role is to prevent and abate water pollution — not to create new industrial water supplies for oil and gas operators or speculative development projects. Many Commissioners raised questions about bias, concerned with who is paying for the NM Produced Water Consortium and the studies that result therefrom; they were also concerned with the accuracy of statements in the Petition.

At its core, the situation is simple: the science is not settled. It is evolving, incomplete, and deeply uncertain. That is exactly why the Commission previously prohibited discharge and reuse of produced water outside tightly controlled pilot projects in 2025. Until comprehensive science, toxicology, and enforceable regulatory safeguards exist, allowing widespread reuse or discharge would place New Mexico’s groundwater, rivers, communities, and future generations at unacceptable risk.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 13, 2026

Bold Statement Re: Summit Carbon Solutions’ Alternate Plan to Route Risky CO2 Pipeline Through Nebraska

Landowners with the Nebraska Easement Action Team will oppose Summit’s efforts to acquire land; any attempts to use eminent domain will face court challenges

Hastings, NE – Bold issued the following statement after Summit Carbon Solutions issued an announcement that it now intends to attempt to seek a route through the state of Nebraska for its proposed risky carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline:  

“Transporting a dangerous waste product across the entire state of Nebraska so that a private company can capture billions of dollars of our tax dollars is not a public use, and surely is not in the public interest of Nebraskans. Bold and the Nebraska Easement Action Team will oppose Summit’s latest scheme to appease its investors,” said Shelli Meyer, Director of Bold’s Nebraska Easement Action Team (NEAT) landowners’ legal co-op. “Nebraskans are not willing to expose our families and farms to the risks of a CO2 pipeline rupture, like what happened in Satartia, Mississippi in 2020, where vehicles attempting to flee stalled and dozens were hospitalized due to lack of oxygen, with some experiencing negative health impacts to this day.”

After the citizens of South Dakota voted overwhelmingly to ban the use of eminent domain to seize landowners’ private property for CO2 pipelines, Summit was confronted with a “pipeline to nowhere,” as the company initially intended to pipe the CO2 through South Dakota into North Dakota, where it would be injected into underground sequestration well waste dumps.

Now, Summit says its new plan is to instead attempt to obtain a pipeline route directly across the entire state of Nebraska, to an alternate underground CO2 waste dump site in Wyoming. The company will also switch focus from offering ethanol plants a way to improve their “carbon scores,” to “enhanced oil recovery” as a potential use for the captured CO2 – erasing whatever climate benefits the company and its ethanol plant partners are claiming from the project, if the CO2 will instead be utilized to extract and burn more oil. 

Just like an alliance of landowners stood together to defeat the proposed Keystone XL pipeline through Nebraska, landowners with the Nebraska Easement Action Team landowners’ legal co-op are organizing landowner and community opposition within impacted counties threatened by Summit’s potentially deadly carbon pipeline. NEAT landowners and their attorneys stand ready to file litigation should Summit attempt to seize Nebraskans’ farmland via eminent domain. 

Bold’s Easement Teams in Iowa, South Dakota and North Dakota have also been organizing landowner opposition to the Summit CO2 pipeline for years. Bold’s Easement Teams are helping fund attorneys who have represented landowners at agency hearings that resulted in pipeline permit rejections in North Dakota and South Dakota, and the most-contested project in the history at the Iowa Utilities Commission, where landowners with the Iowa Easement Team also continue to challenge Summit’s pipeline route approval in the courts.  

About Bold’s Easement Action Teams: 

The Easement Action Teams are a project of the Bold Education Fund. The EATs work with local communities to provide immediate legal representation to landowners facing pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure. Our first priority is to protect landowners’ property rights and water. We believe landowners should have the ultimate right of what does and does not happen on their land. We stand against the use of eminent domain for private gain. (https://easementteams.org) The first landowners legal co-op formed was the Nebraska Easement Action Team, which successfully organized landowners to fight the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, and currently works with landowners fighting carbon pipelines in the state. (https://neeasement.org) 

About Bold Pipeline Fighters Hub: 

The Bold Pipeline Fighters Hub, a project of the Bold Education Fund, provides technical, legal, story telling and organizing assistance to any community fighting pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure, with the goal of protecting the land and water. (https://pipelinefighters.org)

About Bold:

The Bold Alliance and Bold Education Fund are coordinating state-based groups with our Pipeline Fighters Hub and landowner legal groups called the Easement Action Teams to stop pipelines from using eminent domain for private gain. (https://boldalliance.org)

# # #

BALTIMORE – The National Audubon Society has received a $13 million grant that will support large-scale marsh restoration projects across Maryland, addressing the rapid loss of salt marsh habitat...

The Wednesday, May 13, 2026, Climate Justice Forum radio program, produced by regional, climate activists collective Wild Idaho Rising Tide (WIRT), features an Earth Day panel discussion facilitated by Bill Moyer of Solutionary Rail, with environmental justice and labor organizers Ryan Calbreath of the UE Union Green Locomotive program, Jess Conard of Rail Watch, mark! Lopez of East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Tabitha Tripp of Public Rail Now, and Andrea Vidaurre of People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, talking about shifting harmful, private, Wall Street-extractive, Class 1 railroads into beneficial, public, electrified, rail and transmission infrastructure systems that could provide better accountability and community safety and services. We also share news, videos, and reflections on the proposed, unpermitted, bedrock blasting under rivers for construction of the Enbridge Line 5 tar sands pipeline, rerouted around a Wisconsin indigenous reservation near the Great Lakes, and Idaho citizen objections to Snake River Oil and Gas plans to drill the Miller 1-15 methane well and extract their privately-owned resources via forced leasing, close to hundreds of Fruitland residences, businesses, and water wells. Broadcast for fourteen years on progressive, volunteer, community station KRFP Radio Free Moscow, every Wednesday between 1:30 and 3 pm Pacific time, on-air at 90.3 FM and online at KRFP and the Pacifica Network AudioPort, the show describes continent-wide, grassroots, frontline resistance to fossil fuels projects, the root causes of climate change, thanks to generous, anonymous listeners who adopted program host Helen Yost as their KRFP DJ.

New: Enbridge’s Line 5 Reroute Blasts through Bedrock Without Permits, Threatening the Great Lakes, May 7, 2026 Unicorn Riot

WIRT Comments and CAIA Objection with Attachments Opposing Snake River Oil and Gas Miller 1-15 Methane Well Drilling Application, April 20, 2026 Wild Idaho Rising Tide

Panel Discussion: Solutionary Earth Day Special — From Problem to Solution, May 2, 2026 Solutionary Rail

Any animal that triggers a cyanide bomb can asphyxiate and die in just minutes.

By Denise Robbins, CCAN Communications Team

In London, nations at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) advanced a proposal for a net-zero framework on maritime shipping, functionally creating the world’s first-ever price on carbon. 

In Santa Marta, Colombia, more than 50 countries gathered for the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, a historic attempt to move the world from vague climate promises toward concrete plans to phase out oil, gas and coal.

And in the rest of the world, many countries are moving away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible due to the Middle Eastern conflict causing oil prices to skyrocket. 

The movement to make polluters pay for a just transition is growing to the point of inevitability, no matter what President Donald Trump does to try and stop it. But what exactly is happening, and what does it mean for the United States? 

Jack Hall/PA Media Assignments

A Groundbreaking Carbon Price on Maritime Shipping

International shipping has long been treated as one of the hardest sectors to regulate. The sector produces roughly 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and because ships operate across borders, national climate rules alone cannot easily cover it. So the IMO is one of the few venues capable of setting global standards for shipping emissions.

The IMO’s framework that advanced through last week’s talks would create a global fuel standard for ships and an economic mechanism for emissions, with funds intended to support cleaner fuels and help developing countries navigate the transition. 

This happened despite Trump’s best efforts. For the past year, United States representatives have been bullying and pressuring other countries to pull away from the net-zero framework. As a result, Greece pushed back, even as the European Union continued to have a public unified statement of support. Liberia and Panama led a counter-proposal that would have removed carbon pricing from the framework. The United States continued its aggressive approach during the talks this spring, pulling out all the stops to derail the framework. They lobbied delegates, backed delay tactics and aligned with Saudi Arabia and other opponents of the emissions fee. Yet the nations were not dismayed. The draft text, which would combine a global fuel standard with a pricing mechanism charging ships for emissions above set limits and channeling revenue into cleaner fuels and support for developing countries, moved forward, and it will be officially voted on in December. 

If passed, a global framework that prices pollution would mark a major shift from voluntary climate promises toward enforceable rules — and toward making polluters contribute to the cost of the transition.

Marco Perdomo / Oxfam Colombia y Trineo Comunicaciones

Meanwhile, in Colombia….

More than 50 countries met for the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, a historic attempt to move the world from vague climate promises toward concrete plans to phase out oil, gas and coal.

The conference focused heavily on financing. For many countries, especially in the Global South, the barrier to getting off fossil fuels is not a lack of will or clean energy potential. It is debt, high borrowing costs, limited fiscal space and a global financial system that still makes it easier to fund fossil fuel projects than renewable energy.

That is why “make polluters pay” is becoming central to the next phase of climate politics. The transition away from fossil fuels will take money and this money shouldn’t come from the communities already paying for debilitating climate disasters. Instead, the companies that made billions from extracting and selling fossil fuels must be required to contribute to the cost of moving beyond them.

Outside the formal negotiation halls, civil society in Santa Marta demanded a fair transition. The People’s Summit for a Fossil-Free Future brought together frontline communities, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant leaders, trade unions, youth, farmers, fisherfolk, feminists and social movements.

Nearly 1,000 organizations united behind a declaration calling for a fossil fuel phaseout that is fast, fair, fully funded and grounded in justice. Their demands included no new fossil fuel expansion, time-bound national phaseout plans, grant-based public finance, debt cancellation, an end to fossil fuel subsidies and binding safeguards against fossil fuel lobbying.

And U.S. States Are Taking Action

Make Polluter Pay Campaign in D.C.

Even as the federal government retreats, state campaigns are advancing their own versions of “make polluters pay.”

Vermont and New York have already passed climate superfund laws that seek to recover climate-related costs from major fossil fuel companies. These laws build on the same principle as traditional Superfund-style accountability: companies that created the harm should help pay to clean it up and protect communities.

Maryland has taken a first step as well. In 2025, lawmakers passed a climate superfund cost assessment bill requiring the state to study the financial impact of climate change and explore how fossil fuel companies could be made to pay for the damage they helped cause.

Virginia advocates have also pushed legislation to make the biggest polluters contribute to disaster relief and resilient clean energy infrastructure. The proposed Extreme Weather Taxpayer Relief Act would establish a cost recovery program aimed at ensuring fossil fuel companies help fund responses to the extreme weather made worse by climate change.

Fossil Fuels Profiting from War

The timing matters. As governments met in Colombia to discuss how to pay for a just transition, fossil fuel majors were preparing to announce another round of huge profits driven by instability and energy price spikes.

Oil majors banked more than $30 million every hour in unearned profit in the first month of the conflict and could make around $234 billion in excess profits by the end of 2026 if oil prices remain high. 

Those profits strengthen the case made in London, Santa Marta, and across the U.S. If shipping companies can be asked to pay for their emissions, oil and gas companies can be asked to pay for the climate damage and economic instability their products create. If countries struggling with debt are being told to finance their own transition, then fossil fuel companies posting crisis-driven windfalls should be first in line to contribute.

Marco Perdomo / Oxfam Colombia y Trineo Comunicaciones

The Movement Is Bigger Than Trump

Trump’s strategy is not stopping the broader movement. Trump may be trying to protect fossil fuel executives, weaken climate rules and isolate the United States from global climate progress. But the make polluters pay movement is still growing — internationally, nationally and locally.

London showed that governments are still pursuing global rules to price pollution, even in hard-to-regulate sectors like shipping. Santa Marta showed that countries are beginning to plan the end of the fossil fuel era and name the financing challenge directly. U.S. states are showing that climate accountability legislation can move forward even when the federal government refuses to act.

New polling commissioned by Oxfam in seven countries found that approximately two thirds of people supported increasing taxes on the profits of large oil and gas corporations to help fund the transition to renewables. This movement is growing in popularity and political momentum. 

So when you’re fighting for “make polluters pay” legislation in Richmond, you’re not alone. When you’re helping figure out next steps for the “make polluters pay” movement in Maryland, you’re not alone. When you’re writing to your D.C. Councilmembers, you’re not alone. You’re part of an era-defining shift that will keep growing and becoming more powerful. 

The movement to make polluters pay is moving unstoppably forward. The world has stopped waiting for Trump. 

Want to help make polluters pay? Join CCAN’s efforts in Maryland, D.C., Virginia, and beyond.

Become an Action Team Member Today!

The post Who’s Waiting for Trump? The World is Taking Steps to Make Polluters Pay  appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

A Brazil-led initiative that is pulling together a global roadmap to end deforestation will invite countries to produce their own voluntary pathways to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030, experts managing the process said this week.

At last year’s COP30 climate summit in the Brazilian Amazon city of Belém, a group of around 80 countries led a failed push to start developing two new global roadmaps – one to stop deforestation by 2030 and another to transition away from fossil fuels. All countries signed up to these commitments in a landmark deal at COP28 in Dubai, but little progress has been made to implement them since then.

As a bridging alternative, Brazil’s COP30 presidency agreed to draft two voluntary versions of these roadmaps. COP30 officials said a final version of the deforestation roadmap will be published by September this year, after receiving more than 130 written submissions from countries.

This Monday, Juliano Assunção, executive director of Climate Policy Initiative/PUC-Rio in Brazil and an advisor to the COP30 presidency on deforestation, presented a first outline of the roadmap to countries at the United Nations Forum on Forests in New York (UNFF21).

Assunção said the roadmap “will not prescribe a single model”, but would rather invite countries to translate commitments they have already made to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030 – which is a longstanding global goal – “into forest roadmaps grounded on regional and national diagnosis”.

In 2025, the world lost 4.3 million hectares of tropical primary rainforest, an area roughly the size of Denmark, according to annual data published by Global Forest Watch. While that was 36% lower than in 2024 when climate-fuelled fires pushed forest loss to a record high, deforestation was still 70% higher than it should to be to meet the 2030 international pledge to end it, the report said.

• May 12, 2026 Politics Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans Many governments have still not submitted a nationally determined contribution to the UN, breaching a key requirement of the Paris Agreement Read more
• May 12, 2026 News Scientists warn El Niño could intensify climate extremes in 2026 Climatologists say a particularly powerful weather pattern could amplify wildfire risk, heatwaves and flooding worldwide as global temperatures continue to rise Read more

What will be in the roadmap?

Assunção said the COP30 team “were positively surprised by the level of depth and how comprehensive” the contributions from countries and experts were in the consultation phase for the global roadmap, noting that these served to inform the current outline.

The plan is for the global roadmap report to be structured in two parts: one on the social, economic and environmental risk of continued forest loss; and a second presenting a menu of options to tackle deforestation by 2030.

“The roadmap will be practical, based on countries’ experiences. It will help identify the key challenges, and understand their drivers, which vary quite differently among different countries. It’s going to be drawing on existing policy tools,” Assunção told countries at the UN forests meeting this week.

The COP30 advisor said that, while countries can draft national plans, there’s also “a lot of room for international co-operation”, which governments themselves requested as part of the consultation.

The roadmap will include a sub-section on international co-operation, which will include how countries can share tools such as satellite platforms to improve monitoring systems, how to improve the finance architecture to channel more resources for forests, and how to align international regulations on trade, crime and due diligence to protect forests.

Indigenous groups warn Amazon oil expansion tests fossil fuel phase-out coalition

Marco Tulio Cabral, a diplomat at Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs who leads the deforestation roadmap process, told governments that, while the document is not a negotiated outcome, the COP30 presidency is “investing a lot of time and effort” in talking with countries to “make as good a text as we can” that represents a range of views.

He noted that, while the COP30 initiative for a fossil-fuel phase-out roadmap led to a coalition of countries that gathered for a first landmark conference in Santa Marta last month, a similar dedicated push is not necessarily expected for a deforestation roadmap.

“The supportive actors and those who oppose it are very different, so there are limits to what we can do together or associate one thing with the other,” Cabral said.

Cattle graze on deforested areas of the Ituxi ranch near Kaxarari Indigenous land, in Porto Velho, Rondonia State, Brazil August 12, 2024. (Photo: REUTERS/Adriano Machado) Cattle graze on deforested areas of the Ituxi ranch near Kaxarari Indigenous land, in Porto Velho, Rondonia State, Brazil August 12, 2024. (Photo: REUTERS/Adriano Machado) Forest nations seek focus on local realities

Countries at the UN event were supportive of the roadmap, but also expressed the need to offer real alternatives to rural communities.

Joseph Malassi, climate advisor at the Ministry of Environment of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), said that in the Congo basin – the planet’s second-largest rainforest – deforestation “is not caused by vast industrial or infrastructure projects, but rather by extreme poverty” as local people cut down trees for firewood, minerals or crops.

“The roadmap will be confronted with these realities,” Malassi said, adding that it should avoid competing with other UN forest initiatives already working at the intersection of conservation and development.

Nicholas Suryobasuindro of Indonesia’s Ministry of Forests, which manages another mega-diverse rainforest basin, welcomed the Brazilian roadmap, adding it will need to address the “complex interaction between land use chains, economic pressure, spatial planning challenges and development needs”.

Finance will be key to dealing with these realities, according to Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, Guyana’s permanent ambassador to the UN. She said the roadmap should take into account an existing six-point plan to scale up forest finance launched last year by 34 countries.

Two options in that plan in particular have potential to drive up funding for forest protection and “must immediately receive strong international support”, she added. They are a new rainforest fund called the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) – launched last year by Brazil and supported by several donor governments – and “high-integrity jurisdictional” carbon markets, which refers to government-led sales of carbon credits from large forested areas.

“Both approaches can support countries with different forest and deforestation profiles, including countries with historically low deforestation rates achieved with sustainable forest management,” Rodrigues-Birkett said.

The post COP30 roadmap to end deforestation will invite countries to draft domestic plans appeared first on Climate Home News.

You did it! You’re staying on the list. Thank you!

The post Keep me on RAFI’s Email List appeared first on RAFI.

Food industry claims state chemical laws will spike grocery bills, but that doesn’t add up Ketura Persellin May 13, 2026

In a page straight out of the industry playbook, a powerful group of U.S. food companies has funded a “study” claiming consumers will pay more if harmful chemicals are labeled or banned.

The industry front group, which represents food giants Nestlé and General Mills, among many others, is also backing other efforts to quash states’ ability to enact stricter food chemical laws.

The Policy Navigation Group, a lobbying and consulting firm whose clients include Dow Chemical and Snack International, published the so-called study. It says food chemical laws in Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia would increase household grocery spending by 12%, or $860, per year. 

Louisiana and Texas enacted laws requiring a simple label or QR code be added to a food products packaging if it includes select ingredients of concern, such as certain artificial dyes and preservatives. West Virginia’s law bans food products containing potentially harmful ingredients like propylparaben, Red Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 40 and Yellow Dye No. 5 from being sold in the state.

Federal regulatory failures have driven dozens of states to introduce similar laws targeting dyes, additives and other ingredients of concern.

But the study has serious flaws. From faulty data to bad math and poor logic, scrutinizing the claims makes clear they don’t add up.

Flawed grocery price analysis

The study uses highly selective examples, false assumptions and outdated models to drive up the cost estimates.

The study’s central assumption is that consumers who see a warning label on food will waste valuable time searching for an alternative that is more expensive. That’s because the study’s authors looked at only a handful of selected retailers who possibly charge more for products with fewer ingredients of concern. 

But that’s not how most Americans actually shop.

Many major grocery chains, including Kroger, Publix, ShopRite and Wegmans, already offer affordable store-brand products that are free of many of the chemicals states are targeting with new food safety laws. 

ShopRite, for instance, designed its Wholesome Pantry store brand to be free of artificial additives at competitive prices.

The study largely fails to account for these affordable, available alternatives – a limitation the researchers themselves acknowledge, noting that their focus on particular retailers likely led them to overlook some products and introduce bias in their results.

Texas, where H-E-B dominates the grocery business, is a heavy focus of the study. Under market pressure, H-E-B has already removed more than 175 synthetic ingredients from its store-brand line. That’s most of the ingredients targeted by Texas’ food chemical labeling law. 

The study didn’t disclose the products and brands it analyzed. But its retailer of choice, Amazon, also owns Whole Foods, so it’s possible many of the pricier alternatives the study identified were Whole Foods products, not the kind of everyday substitutes most shoppers reach for.  

According to a separate food industry report from February, two-thirds of all grocery retailers are reformulating brands to meet consumers’ desire for cleaner products. This includes removing artificial dyes and additives while maintaining affordability.

Faulty math skews study's outcomes

The study’s flaws don’t stop there. 

Most significantly, it claims to be a cost-benefit analysis yet it fails to include the benefits of food chemical labels. This is not a minor methodological oversight but a fundamental failure.

Lower consumer exposure to chemicals of concern would benefit public health, yielding significant healthcare savings. Increased consumption of ultra-processed food, or UPF, is linked to higher rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes, dementia and reproductive harm. 

And the study’s calculations included the 14% of consumers who said they would ignore warning labels. This inflates estimates in consumer spending by assuming cost increases among consumers whose behavior would not actually change. 

It also relied on consumer behavior data that is more than 16 years old, a limitation the researchers themselves flagged as a source of unknown bias. 

Rather than use the lowest available prices for label-free alternatives, as a budget-conscious shopper would likely do, the study used average prices, further overstating the real cost to consumers.

Further, industry representatives and lawmakers sympathetic to them have misused the results to claim that labeling laws would increase by 12% the prices we see on store shelves. The study doesn’t predict that individual grocery items will get more expensive. It actually – and inaccurately – predicts some people will choose to buy more expensive groceries to avoid ingredients of concern. Those are not the same thing.

Helping shoppers make more informed choices is a public health benefit, not a burden. But the study frames labeling requirements as financial harm only.  

Real-world effects of changing food labels

Faulty studies and overinflated price claims are tired industry responses to requests for greater food ingredient transparency. 

In 2022, a federal rule took effect requiring labels on products made with genetically modified ingredients. Industry-funded studies predicted major price increases when products made with GMO ingredients were required to bear labels. 

But the new labels didn’t drive prices up. Many brands simply chose to include the new symbol on their existing labels while other household staples like Cheerios and Grape Nuts were reformulated at no extra cost to consumers.

Consumer Reports found similar industry-funded studies overstated the costs of GMO labeling by nearly a factor of 10. The most realistic industry estimate was around $66 per family of four per year, compared to the original estimate of nearly $500, and even that lower figure was likely inflated. 

Food companies update their labels regularly for seasonal promotions and rebranding, without consumers switching to pricier products. Ingredient disclosure labels would be no different.

A label change would cost a company as little as $205, an amount too small to show up on store shelves, according to the Agriculture Department in 2024.

Clearer labels mean more confident consumers

The study’s authors are correct about one thing: Shoppers’ time is valuable.

Right now, consumers who want to make better food purchases have to read fine-print ingredient lists on every product. Clear labels designed to identify chemicals of concern make it easier and faster for them.

While states push for better public health protections, EWG has tools to help you shop with confidence. 

At home, consumers can check EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Chemicals, which highlights top food chemicals to avoid due to health and safety concerns. 

For more guidance, search  EWG’s Food Scores, which provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives. 

Or if you’re on the go, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information at your fingertips while you shop.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Authors Jared Hayes Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN May 13, 2026