News Feeds

New updates from FracTracker’s community air monitoring initiatives, including sensor deployments, air sampling, and ongoing work with frontline communities in the Ohio River Valley.

The post Campaign Update: Progress on FracTracker’s Community Air Monitoring Projects appeared first on FracTracker Alliance.

Here is a repost of our May Day episode from 2021. In it, we talk about the history of May Day from pagan rituals to the Haymarket Affair to International…

When Doug Burgum appeared before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee as President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Interior department last year, he was extended the traditional benefit of the doubt, with senators chummily reminiscing about North Dakota, lobbing softballs, and avoiding tough questions on the way to voting to confirm Burgum as Interior secretary. If Burgum got the idea that this is how all hearings would go, he was mistaken. A year later, as the Interior secretary who has overseen a multi-pronged effort to dismantle the agency and sell off or sell out our national public lands, Burgum seemed totally unprepared to handle difficult questions from members of Congress, not to mention the decidedly different vibe of a budget hearing where elected representatives demanded accountability for how their constituents’ resources are being stewarded and tax dollars are being spent.

In appearances before three congressional committees so far, Burgum struggled to defend President Trump’s proposed Interior department budget and explain the administration’s chaotic, destructive, and unpopular agenda for America’s public lands. Below are five of the most head-scratching exchanges between Burgum and lawmakers—along with some useful information Secretary Burgum might want to bookmark for his next Hill appearance.

Burgum can’t provide details on the $10 billion request for ‘beautification’ in Washington, D.C.

President Trump’s budget proposal includes a $10 billion request for a new Presidential Capital Stewardship Program which would “carry out priority construction and rehabilitation projects in the Washington, D.C. area.” According to the Interior department’s own website, the deferred maintenance backlog for Washington, D.C. is just over $2 billion. When asked by Senator Angus King of Maine what the extra $8 billion is for, Burgum’s bumbling explanation was that “D.C. is like a state. It’s not just, like, the National Mall. It’s for the greater capital region. That’s a region.” But again, according to the Interior department, adding in the deferred maintenance backlog for the entire states of Maryland and Virginia—far beyond the D.C. area— would bring the total to $4 billion, still leaving more than half of Burgum’s $10 billion request unaccounted for. Meanwhile, last year’s budget for the entire National Park Service was just $4.6 billion.

During the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Senator Jeff Merkeley of Oregon also asked about the $10 billion request for the Presidential Capital Stewardship Program and if Burgum could provide a specific list of what the funds would be used for, as required by law. Burgum said he would “get you all the information you need according to law” but stopped short of agreeing to provide a detailed list. “As long as we don’t have the details, it’s a slush fund,” Merkeley responded. “You can call it something else if you want.”

Burgum learns about batteries and fossil fuel subsidies

Burgum struggled to hold his own against the expertise of Senator King—a former energy executive—on energy issues. In response to questions from King about the Trump administration’s actions to block renewable energy projects, Burgum fell back on a well-worn intermittency argument. “We have no ability to dispatch wind and solar,” Burgum claimed, and followed up with, “There are times in North Dakota when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.” But King pointed out, “That’s where batteries and storage come in.” Burgum argued that worldwide battery storage would only provide one hour’s worth of energy. However, in the United States where Burgum is Interior secretary, battery storage has been increasing rapidly, with a new record set in 2025 for energy storage installations, and is expected to reach at least 600 gigawatt hours of installed energy storage by 2030. This is the equivalent of 300 Hoover Dams, according to the Department of Energy, which offers other comparisons Burgum may find helpful. In California, 44 percent of evening peak energy is now being delivered via batteries.

Burgum also complained that he doesn’t understand “why we had to have massive taxpayer subsidies to produce” renewable energy. King pointed out that the U.S. currently pays $30 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry. The International Monetary Fund put this figure at $3 billion in explicit subsidies in 2022 alone, with an additional $754 billion in implicit subsidies. A 2025 analysis found that even without taxpayer subsidies, renewable energy sources are still the most cost-effective source of energy.

Burgum defends 24 percent of National Park Service staff coincidentally choosing to quit at the exact same time

Senator Patty Murray of Washington pressed Burgum about unacceptable cuts to on-the-ground staff at national parks in Washington and a budget that proposes to eliminate even more park staff. Arguing with the characterization that staff had been “forced out,” Burgum insisted, “There’s been no forcing of anything. These are all voluntary.” Murray wasn’t buying it: “However you want to put it, a quarter of them left over the last 15 months.” According to the National Parks Conservation Association, 4,000 staff, nearly 25 percent of the National Park Service workforce, left their jobs since January 2025 as a result of “pressured resignations and early retirements” along with hiring freezes that prevented vacancies from being filled. That’s an awful lot of people who somehow all voluntarily left their jobs at the same time.

Burgum, who voted to condemn the Rice’s whale to extinction, worries about the impact of wind turbine installation on whale populations

In response to questions from Representative Chellie Pingree of Maine, Burgum complained about the impacts to whales and other marine life from pounding pylons into the sea floor to install offshore wind turbines. Pingree immediately pointed out the disconnect between Burgum’s sudden whale-based arguments against offshore wind and his vote to remove Endangered Species Act protections for the endangered Rice’s whale in order to clear the way for more offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico: “If you’re going to be talking about pounding and those kinds of things, then we can’t have offshore drilling, and you want to re-permit the entire East Coast for offshore drilling. If you want to talk about danger to marine mammals and danger to fisheries, my next question is going to be about what happened with Deepwater Horizon, and you want to reduce the permitting standards there. There’s just a lot of hypocrisy in your arguments.”

Burgum denies erasure of history on national park signs

Burgum awkwardly tried to dodge a question from Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii about the removal of exhibits about slavery at the President’s House site in Philadelphia and other actions to erase history from national park sites across the country.

“Some of these examples that are floating around in the media saying some of these things have been removed, they haven’t been removed. In the case of Philadelphia, there’s a weird injunction where we can’t put the new signage up. And what is on the new signage, which is not hiding any points of our history, is available for anyone to read.”

Burgum referred Hirono to the President’s House Site website, where images of new panels—including information about slavery—are indeed available to view online. New physical panels at the site itself, however, are not yet in place, depriving visitors of the opportunity to learn from these interpretive materials in context during their time at the site.

Hirono also asked Burgum about the removal of signs referring to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Burgum responded, “I don’t believe that any of that information has been removed.” However, signage related to slavery and the internment of Japanese Americans, was removed from signs at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in New York City following an executive order signed by President Trump in March 2025 ordering the removal of materials that contain “improper partisan ideology.”

The post Highlight reel: The five most bewildering moments from Doug Burgum’s congressional hearings appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Why the Northwest’s oil dependence keeps fuel prices high Brett Morgan Thu, 04/30/2026 - 4:02 pm

In this issue:

Earth Month / Forest Defense team news / Our new team: Just Transition / Make Polluters Pay town hall / Arts Team news / Book Club / Neighborhood Teams / Some extra cheer!

Happy April – it’s Earth Month! April is a busy month of events, celebrations, opportunities to take action, and regrettably–a lot of corporate greenwashing. (A reminder to call out greenwashing when you see it! Ads from the largest local and global emitters and earth-destroyers, including NW Natural, Zenith, Amazon, and Google are certainly not genuine and deserve public shaming!)

Earth Day started as a protest in 1970 with tens of thousands in the streets demanding clean air and water. Thanks for helping to keep the roots of this holiday alive by joining us in the streets at No Kings last weekend! Read on for many ways you can take action with us this Earth Month, and keep an eye on the 350PDX Calendar. 

 Every day in April: Support 350PDX by ordering the “Third Planet” cocktail   at Radio Room on NE Alberta – a springy beet-infused rum with apple,   ginger, and lemon on the rocks. 50% of the proceeds from each cocktail go   directly to support 350PDX’s climate justice work. How cool is that? We have   more local businesses supporting us this Earth Month, stay tuned for more   announcements about those throughout the month, including chances to win cool prizes.

Portland’s official  Earth Day Celebration is on Saturday, April 25, 11:00am – 3:00pm. Join 350PDX, Making Earth Cool, Sunnyside Environmental School, and SOLVE for the 5th annual vibrant, inclusive, and impactful day to celebrate Earth Day. We will begin with a gathering on the grounds of Sunnyside Environmental School for music, speakers, tabling, action stations, face painting, a costume competition, and lunch, followed by a parade through the Sunnyside neighborhood, featuring the 350PDX giant puppets, marching bands, singing, and dancing. Fill out this form if you’d like to volunteer at the event. You won’t want to miss this!

Forest Defense Team

April 8, 350PDX is co-sponsoring Sierra Club Oregon Chapter’s Public Townhall: The Future of Our Wild Roadless Forests. RSVP here. Join Representative Salinas and several advocacy organizations to learn and celebrate how protecting our forests from new roads supports healthy watersheds, habitat, and many more benefits for generations to come.

March was a big month for increasing youth access to green career opportunities in underserved communities. Seasonal green job opportunities are now posted at Thrive East PDX and we’re circulating a Youth Green Jobs Guide to career counselors at East Portland high schools. Big thanks to 350PDX Forest Defense Team members Carol Pinegar and Ellen Mendoza for volunteering at the March 5 Green Jobs Open House! Over 50 youths had an opportunity to talk with nine employment organizations.

Stop by Costello’s Travel Cafe (2222 NE Broadway) after April 17 to experience the Forest Defense Team’s latest installation of forest photos and prose, creating new pathways for Portlanders to access their personal connection to state forests.

New Team Focused on Just Transition

We’re excited to announce we’re starting something new with our volunteer teams. In April, our current Fossil Fuel Resistance Team and Climate Justice Policy Team will join forces! We’ll meet twice a month, working together on issues that are actively in need of attention, and spend part of the time in small groups to track various issues related to a just and sustainable energy transition.

Our first team meeting will be on Tuesday, April 14, at 6:00pm. We’ll meet at Radio Room (which is running an Earth Month special for us!) at 1101 NE Alberta St.

When: When: 2nd and 4th Tuesdays from 6:00-7:30 pm, alternating between in person and virtual

Topics: CEI Hub, Zenith, data centers, Make Polluters Pay, transportation decarbonization, PCEF, building emissions

Whether you’ve been part of one of these teams in the past or you’re interested in joining for the first time, you are welcome! Email Cherice or Dineen with any questions or to join the team (cherice@350pdx.org, dineen@350pdx.org).

Make Polluters Pay Community Town Hall

Join advocates from the Make Polluters Pay coalition from across the state for a virtual Community Town Hall on April 7 from 6:00–7:15pm. We’ll celebrate the amazing energy of our collective advocacy, reflect on the 2026 legislative session’s failure to pass the Climate Resilience Superfund Act, and look ahead at how we’re building community power to hold big polluters accountable!

WHO: Make Polluters Pay Coalition

WHEN: Tuesday, April 7th from 6:00–7:15pm

WHERE: on Zoom

WHY: To celebrate our action-takers, build community, and continue the work!

Register here

Arts Team

Our March Artbuild, attended by an eager group of climate activists and artists, was one of the highest Artbuild turnouts in years! We screenprinted, repaired puppets, painted a banner, and worked off some of the distress we’ve felt due to recent news. And then, on March 28, a crowd of 50 Arts Team puppeteers marched across the Burnside Bridge for No Kings. At Waterfront Park, we joined our Mourning Mothers puppets’ powerful display of grief over the current state of our world. More photos and video here.

April 12, from 1:00-4:00pm, we’ll have another Artbuild to create the last puppet in our current space (3639 N. Mississippi Ave). Please join us, and please let Donna know if you’ll be there, so we can plan!

And then–help bring our puppets to life at the Earth Day Parade on April 25! The more puppeteers we have, the more puppets that get to march! It’s a fun and important way to make a stand for climate justice. Reach out to Donna Murph1949@aol.com

Donna, Lauren, Dannika, Allison

Book Club

The 350PDX Book Club meets every month on the first Wednesday of the month at 6:30pm. Every other month is in person and the others are virtual. Reach out to books@350PDX.org with any questions or to join our list, and please RSVP so we can inform you of any meeting changes!

Join us on Wednesday, June 3 at 6:30pm for our next non-fiction in-person meeting. We’ll discuss Eight Bears: Mythic Past and Imperiled Future by Gloria Dickie, a global exploration of the eight remaining species of bears―and the dangers they face.

Save the date for our other upcoming meetings:

• Wednesday, May 6 at 6:30pm (Virtual) – Book to be selected in April

• Wednesday, July 1 at 6:30pm (Virtual) – Book to be selected in June

Do you like to talk about books and climate justice? We are seeking volunteers to help facilitate! Contact books@350PDX.org to learn more.

SW Neighborhood Team

The Southwest Neighborhood Team includes neighborhoods on the south and west sides of Portland. We work together to raise awareness of the climate emergency.

Our street corner demonstrations continue weekly in February, every Friday from 3:00-4:00pm. at SW Garden Home & SW Oleson Rd. We gain attention with our climate action signs in a highly visible location. Street parking is available or reach us via bus or bike. We have extra signs to share!

Join our monthly Zoom meeting on Monday, April 20, from 6:30-7:30pm.  We’ll be discussing plans for tabling at Portland Sunday Parkways in May. To get involved, please contact Pat Kaczmarek at patk5@msn.com.

Washington County Team

Our next gathering will be our regular monthly online meetup at 6:30pm on Tuesday, April 14. We are excited to host Robin Straughn, Sustainability & Resiliency Manager for the City of Hillsboro. Robin will walk attendees through the recently approved Climate Action Plan for Hillsboro and answer questions.  We continue to converse with the City of Hillsboro regarding a second Electrification and Sustainability Fair in Hillsboro/Washington County in July.

We always welcome newcomers to our events and to our monthly online meetings (6:30pm on the second Tuesday of the month). For the link, join us here or contact us at 350washco@gmail.com.

Brooklyn Climate Action Team (BCAT)

BCAT brings Brooklyn neighbors together to take on the climate crisis — one hyper-local action at a time.

Averaging 15 neighbors per session, BCAT’s NET Training Study Group builds real momentum. Neighbors gather to work through the program’s training videos and prep for the city’s in-person NET certification. April‘s session filled up quickly, with more neighbors already lined up for the next one.

Go-Bag packing events are returning this spring, tentatively in May. Details on timing and location coming soon — start thinking about what you might need to refresh or build your emergency kit. BCAT is also exploring a volunteer partnership with a local community garden. Are you a resident of the Brooklyn Neighborhood and want to get involved? Reach out at bcat@350pdx.org.

New Milwaukie Neighborhood Team! Join Us!

Do you live in Milwaukie and want to take action for climate justice with your neighbors? There’s a group currently forming a neighborhood team and they’d love to connect with others in Milwaukie who want to help start the team, or who are interested in joining once it’s formed. To get connected, sign up here.

Some Extra Cheer! 

 A federal court struck down President Trump’s attacks against the Endangered Species Act, restoring key values of the bedrock environmental law to the status it held for decades before the first Trump administration attacked the bedrock environmental law. More here!

 350PDX’s Communications Director’s film “Roost 2020 PDX” premieres at The Portland EcoFilm Festival on April 30. What begins as a traditional natural history documentary about Portland’s crow roost becomes a chronicle of a city navigating a year of immense turmoil and unexpected beauty. More info and trailer here.

Thank you for reading our monthly newsletter. We hope to see you soon!

With gratitude,

Cherice, Dineen, Irene, Jessica, and Noelle

 

The post 2026 April Newsletter! appeared first on 350PDX: Climate Justice.

A Conversation with Sarah Goodyear and Doug Gordon, of The War on Cars Podcast

GAIA hosted Sarah Goodyear and Doug Gordon — co-authors of Life After Cars and hosts of The War on Cars podcast — for a conversation about transportation system change, the limits of EV electrification, and what genuine mobility justice could look like.

Watch the full recording. Listen to The War on Cars. Get Life After Cars. Learn about GAIA’s batteries program.

The conversation opened with the book’s central provocation: cars ruin nature, they ruin society, and they ruin childhood. And it quickly turned to the question at the heart of GAIA’s own battery waste work: if we’re serious about fixing this, is swapping the engine really enough?

The 1:1 EV replacement story

Doug was direct: “That highway is still there. The traffic is still there. The money it costs to insure the automobile you’re driving is actually going to go up with electric vehicles, because they’re more expensive to repair.”

Sarah pointed to one of the book’s more striking examples — tire particle pollution. Researchers in Washington State traced mass die-offs of Coho salmon to a molecule released by tire degradation that washes into waterways. “Tire particles are one of the two largest causes of plastic particulates in the environment — showing up in our bodies, in our brains, in our children’s bodies.” And the heavier the vehicle, the worse it gets.

Doug offered a reframe that ran throughout the conversation: “The V in EV does not have to stand for car. It stands for vehicle.” The battery power needed to move one electric pickup truck could instead power approximately 300 electric bicycles. “When we talk about limited resources and minimal footprint on the earth, electric bicycles are a really good way to think about it.”

Breaking the taboo

Asked why challenging car culture remains politically untouchable, Doug offered a memorable analogy: “If you ask Americans, do you like your health insurance company? They’ll say no. Would you like to change it to national healthcare? Oh my god, no, that’s too scary. We all hate this system, but we can’t imagine it could be better, because most Americans haven’t experienced it.”

On EV marketing, Sarah was pointed: “None of the Super Bowl ads talked about pollution or the climate. It was the same nonsense you see in traditional car ads.” Fear, she argued, is what both the car industry and the EV industry profit from.

What change actually takes

Doug pointed to Ghent, Belgium, where a mobility plan faced such fierce opposition that the deputy minister had a police detail before it launched — and where, on day one, people asked why it hadn’t always been that way. Sarah noted a generational shift: “The politicians we’re meeting are young and unapologetic. For so long, transit advocates were seen as a nuisance by elected officials. These politicians see our movement as a constituency to be served. That is a radical shift.”

Waste, transportation, and common cause

Responding to GAIA’s question about connecting zero waste work to transportation advocacy, Doug drew a direct line: “It’s not just the lithium and cobalt — it’s the steel, the iron, the plastic, the glass. That new car smell is horrible chemicals leaching into your body and your lungs.” Sarah framed it more broadly: “The work that faces our generation is repair. It is so wasteful to be constantly building new roads and new infrastructure. How can we repair the fabric of our communities and build a healthier consumption cycle — not just chewing up brand new land and stuff to then throw it away?”

A closing note

Doug ended with a statement of intent that felt like the book’s thesis in miniature: “We are never wagging our fingers at the individual. We want to punch up and not down. The goal is to make cycling, transit, and walking feel like the default choice — because it has the least friction. You just hop on your bike or walk down to the corner and get on a bus. That’s what we’re going for.”

The post Greening Transport Beyond EVs: From Swapping Engines to Swapping Systems first appeared on GAIA.

Going full glam with EWG Verified® JR Culpepper April 30, 2026

.has--background.block-content--type-curated-block-list { padding-top: 3rem; padding-bottom: 3rem; }

Crafting the perfect look for any occasion takes laser-like focus, patience and the right products. The last thing on your mind should be whether a product is safe to use.

When you're getting ready for an important occasion, whether a wedding, prom or graduation, you don't want any stress over what’s in your cosmetics.

This spring, EWG is making sure those worries won’t interrupt your makeup flow state. We’ve put together a list of products to help reach your full glam look. This list includes lipsticks, mascaras, eyeliners, eyeshadows and foundations. 

The best part? Every product below is EWG Verified®. That means it has been reviewed by our scientists and meets our strictest standards for safety and ingredient transparency.

If you’re looking for other ideas or products, check out our Skin Deep database.

Lips CRUNCHI Everluxe® Lip Crayon View details Counter Lined and Primed Lip Defining Pencil View details Maia’s Mineral Galaxy Liquid Lipstick View details Mascara Well People Expressionist Curling Mascara View details Counter Think Big Mascara View details Rejuva Minerals Pur Lash Volumizing Mascara View details Eyeliner Well People Fresh Lines Eye Pencil View details Maia's Mineral Galaxy Mineral Eye Liner View details CRUNCHI Highliner® Pencil View details Eyeshadow CRUNCHI Shadow Bar® Enchanted Neutrals View details Rejuva Minerals Eyeshadow Multi Purpose Powder View details ATTITUDE Oceanly Eyeshadow View details Brows DIME Boost Duo View details Well People Expressionist Brow Pencil View details Foundation Well People Supernatural Complexion Stick Foundation + Concealer, Light Medium Warm View details ATTITUDE Oceanly Foundation, Cream View details Counter Skin Twin Featherweight Foundation View details Highlighter/bronzer ATTITUDE Oceanly Highlighter View details Well People Supernatural Stick Highlighter View details Counter Velvet Cream Bronzer View details Authors EWG Communications Team April 30, 2026

GUALALA ROADS ASSESSMENT ORDER Recent Public Meetings

North Coast Water Board staff and the Sonoma Resource Conservation District (Sonoma RCD) recently hosted two community meetings to provide information on the developing Gualala Roads Assessment Order. Presentations addressed components of a typical road assessment, paths to completing assessments required by the order, and updates on the technical work conducted by the Sonoma RCD.

A selection of questions raised by meeting attendees (in bold) and North Coast Water Board responses (in italics) are included below. This summary does not capture all community discussions; it is intended only to give high‑level responses to a selection of key concerns. For answers to additional questions, please see the Frequently Asked Questions on the Gualala Roads Program web page or contact project staff identified in the Contact Information section below.

The responses below outline order concepts and do not represent final decisions.  Concepts may change as staff continue internal deliberations and further input is received from the public. The North Coast Water Board will make final decisions only at adoption. Before then, draft order language will be available to the public once the draft order is released for review.

Q: Who will the order apply to?

A: The Gualala Roads Assessment Order will apply to landowners in the Gualala River Watershed who own 1,000 acres or greater.

The North Coast Water Board retains the authority to issue separate, individual Water Code section 13267 informational orders to other landowners if the North Coast Water Board’s Executive Officer determines that roads on their properties pose a risk to water quality.

Q: When will landowners be required to complete road assessments and implement treatments?

A: Assessment requirements for landowners in the Gualala River Watershed will be included in the Gualala Roads Assessment Order. Treatment requirements will be included in a later regionwide roads order.

A compliance schedule for completing road assessments and road management and treatment plans will be included in the Gualala Roads Assessment Order. Staff are considering a timeframe of approximately three years for assessments and road treatment plan submission, with flexibility for landowners to request an alternative timeline for Executive Officer approval. Landowners in the Gualala who accept North Coast Water Board-funded contract support will be subject to the same compliance schedule as those who conduct assessments independently.

Compliance schedules for the future regionwide roads order will be included in that order. Development of the regionwide roads order will occur through a separate public process, which is expected to begin this summer.

Q: What criteria will be used to determine who may serve as a “qualified professional” when conducting assessments for landowners?

A: North Coast Water Board staff are considering what criteria will be used to determine who may serve as a” qualified professional” when conducting assessments for order compliance.  A balance is being sought between flexible requirements and demonstrable experience in sediment and erosion control. These details will be made available this summer when the draft order is circulated for public review.

Similar orders issued by the North Coast Water Board require plans designed to prevent and minimize sediment delivery to be developed by professionals who possess qualifications such as licensure as a Registered Professional Forester, Professional Geologist, or Professional Civil Engineer.

Q: How much contract funding is available to support road assessments for landowners?

A: The North Coast Water Board has secured $5 million in contract funding to support Gualala landowners. These funds are being used to (1) develop technical reports that will recommend assessment methodologies, (2) conduct community outreach, (3) provide technical trainings to landowners on road improvement techniques, and (4) conduct road assessments. To date, approximately $3 million Based on a preliminary analysis, staff expect the currently contracted funds noted above will be able to cover most of the assessments and report development for landowners subject to the order.

Q: How will the $5 million of contract funding be used to educate landowners?

A: The Sonoma RCD is contracted to conduct a series of technical trainings to guide and support landowners in erosion and sediment control concepts and implementing road maintenance techniques to reduce erosion and sediment delivery to streams. The Sonoma RCD and North Coast Water Board are currently identifying a timeline for providing these technical trainings. Details will be provided when available.

Q: Will landowners be provided a template for completing assessments on their own?

A: The Sonoma RCD is contracted to develop an Evaluation Methodology report for the North Coast Water Board. This report will recommend a road assessment protocol and will be available for landowner use. Similarly, the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual, Part X provides example data forms and direction on conducting effective road assessments. In addition to these protocols, staff expect the order to allow landowners to propose an alternative assessment protocol for Executive Officer approval.

Timeline

A draft Gualala Roads Assessment Order will be made available for public review in summer 2026 in advance of a December 2026 adoption hearing of the North Coast Water Board. Specific dates for the review period and adoption hearing will be shared when available.

Upcoming Public Engagement Opportunities

North Coast Water Board staff continue to hold recurring staff office hours that serve as unstructured meetings during which members of the community are encouraged to share any questions or comments they may have about Gualala Roads Assessment Order. Details for upcoming office hours will be provided when available.

A third community meeting will be held at the Lake Sonoma Visitor Center on Thursday, June 18th, 2026, from 10:00 am – 12:00 pm. Additional details will be provided to email list subscribers when available.

GUALALA RIVER SEDIMENT TMDL ACTION PLAN ADOPTION

The North Coast Water Board adopted the Gualala Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Action Plan in February 2026. The Action Plan will be considered for approval by the State Water Resources Control Board in early 2027.

FUTURE QUARTERLY UPDATES

North Coast Water Board staff will continue to provide quarterly updates throughout the development of the projects. Please direct interested individuals or groups to subscribe at the following link for timely project information: public.govdelivery.com/accounts/CAWRCB/subscriber/new?topic_id=r1_tmdl_gualala_river_watershed

CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions, concerns, or would like to know how to get further involved, please feel free to contact the following staff:

General Inquiries:
RB1-Gualala@waterboards.ca.gov

Gualala Roads Assessment Order:
Matt Graves (707) 576-2831 matt.graves@waterboards.ca.gov

Gualala TMDL Action Plan:
Joel Bisson (707) 576-2703 joel.bisson@waterboards.ca.gov

Across the United States, rising energy prices, an ongoing affordability crisis, and compounding reliability and resiliency issues are driving demand for energy solutions that lower monthly bills and keep the lights on for households and small businesses.

Clean energy technologies can meet these needs by lowering energy use and costs. As a result, significant momentum has grown across the clean energy and community development financing ecosystem, mobilizing a range of financial institutions, including:

• Community lenders seeking technical assistance, capitalization funding, and capacity building opportunities to grow clean lending portfolios.
• Green banks seeking new partnerships, product deployments, and opportunities for scale
• Regional banks mapping opportunities to enhance Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) lending while integrating portfolio level investment opportunities for new asset classes.
• Philanthropic organizations seeking catalytic investment opportunities to drive community development objectives.

These organizations and others are building local strategies and piloting a range of clean community financing initiatives. Still, many community clean energy projects face common challenges in achieving scale as they often do not satisfy mainstream capital’s credit box.

Absent the federal funding that aimed to address these challenges, an opportunity has emerged to strengthen regional financing ecosystems that leverage individual organizations’ strengths and improve coordination across regional priorities, barriers, and opportunities. These ecosystems play a significant role in building a more resilient capital base and developing the place-based infrastructure to scale clean energy investment that delivers solutions with outsized economic and community impact.

RMI is exploring what a strong regional financing ecosystem needs in practice and how local circumstances and market realities may shape priorities, opportunities and partnerships. This article outlines eight lessons for strengthening regional clean community financing ecosystems, using Michigan as a case study.

Lessons from Michigan’s Clean Community Financing Ecosystem

RMI, in partnership with the Michigan Climate Investment Hub (the Hub), hosted a roundtable discussion in early 2026 to build a shared understanding of the current realities across Michigan’s clean community financing ecosystem. Discussions focused on priority market opportunities, partnerships, and identifying strategic next steps.

Across four market segments — single-family residential, multi-family residential, small business lending, and MUSH (Municipalities, Universities, Schools and Hospitals) — insights from Michigan demonstrate how other regions can accelerate clean energy opportunities in their communities.

Lesson 1 Institutional density attracts national capital, because capital flows where there is clarity, coordination, and credible partners.

Recommendations to other ecosystems:

• Make your ecosystem legible to external actors, providing clarity on who does what, where capital gaps exist, and how partners can plug in with clear entry points.
• Package opportunities for national intermediaries and investors.

The Michigan clean community financing ecosystem has strong institutional density and alignment, represented by diverse capital sources, actors, products, and offerings targeting emerging opportunities across the state. The ecosystem includes:

• Michigan Saves, the nation’s oldest green bank, which has facilitated over $790 million in energy improvements with a 30:1 private capital leverage ratio. It also hosts a vetted contractor network of over 1,500 partners.
• Two Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) coalitions — the Michigan CDFI Coalition and the Detroit CDFI Coalition — represent a significant share of Michigan’s more than 44 certified CDFIs. Together, they chair a joint climate committee that drives ambition and provides technical assistance. They use a four pillar strategy to fill local gaps: advocacy, collaboration, sharing and learning, and growth.
• A dedicated Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) marketplace, administered through Lean and Green Michigan, that includes 62 local governments representing 85% of Michiganders. Since 2015, it has facilitated 89 projects and mobilized $315 million in private investment.
• Local impact capital providers, like The Kresge Foundation, play a key role in keeping clean energy projects moving forward. They provide catalytic capital, technical assistance, capacity building, market building and strong partnerships across Michigan’s CDFI network.
• Regional banks, such as Fifth Third, are expanding beyond CRA activity and increasing their role in clean community lending in Michigan. They leverage partnerships, intermediaries, and green banks, as well as innovative financing models such as equity equivalent investments and tax equity programs.

Strong coordination across state actors in Michigan has attracted national interest from organizations such as Inclusiv, Justice Climate Fund, and Local Initiatives Support Corporation, which have developed dedicated strategies and state-specific commitments to complement existing coordination efforts. When transparent market signals show how, where, and when national organizations can play a catalytic role in delivering value and creating opportunities, they respond.

Lesson 2 A financing ecosystem works best when coordination is treated as core infrastructure, not as a side activity. Recommendations to other ecosystems:

• Establish a formal coordination body or “hub.”
• Create shared priorities across market segments.
• Move beyond convening to build ongoing working groups that can put ideas into action.

One of Michigan’s strengths is that organizations are organically coordinating through bilateral engagement, as well as organized forums for strengthening collaboration. These forums have recently taken shape in partnership with the Michigan Climate Investment Hub (the Hub), established in 2025 as an anchor institution designed to attract and accelerate climate investments across the state.

“Michigan’s rich ecosystem of climate actors has indicated a clear appetite for increased collaboration and coordination in pursuit of speeding adoption and increasing access to clean energy and climate mitigation/adaptation resources. The Hub is channeling that demand and acting as a trusted convener and connector – working with in-state and national stakeholders to build lending capacity, attract and mobilize capital, and accelerate deployment to meet the goals laid forth in the MI Healthy Climate Plan.”

— Ben Dueweke
Director of the Michigan Climate Investment Hub

Organizations like the Michigan Environmental Council, Michigan Energy Innovative Business Council, and Michigan Energy Michigan Jobs Coalition are also bringing together businesses, utilities, policymakers, and financial institutions to develop policies, rate designs, and collaborative approaches to capitalize on clean energy economic growth and community development opportunities. Stakeholders across the state recognize a need to continue to align around shared priorities across market segments (more in Lesson 4) to put ideas into practice.

Lesson 3 Durable ecosystems are not dependent on any single funding source or administration, but state leadership can accelerate momentum.

Recommendations to other ecosystems:

• Use state or local support where available to build early momentum.
• Build self-sustaining capital flows and market-driven partnerships.
• Design for resilience to policy shifts.

Early state adoption of efficiency and energy waste reduction policies helped build momentum for clean energy in Michigan. That momentum is reinforced by strong state level initiatives, such as the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) Office of Climate and Energy’s MI Healthy Climate Plan, which provides technical assistance programs, multi-stakeholder coordination efforts, grant and funding challenges, and communications and promotional strategies.

While state-level programmatic support can be subject to administrative uncertainty, the level of interest across Michigan is suggestive of a long-term, systemic transition that is currently underway. This is displayed by EGLE’s Growing Green Lending Challenge, a dedicated blended-capital program designed to accelerate capacity building, foster partnerships, and drive innovation in Michigan’s clean energy lending ecosystem – which received over a dozen partnership proposals and ultimately announced four winners of the challenge.

Additionally, local jurisdictions have been charting a path forward in defining city leadership by integrating climate into long-term strategy planning for affordability, reliability, resilience and economic growth.

The city of Ann Arbor has developed the A2 Zero Carbon Neutrality Plan, a comprehensive climate partnership plan underpinned by commitments to 100% clean and renewable energy by 2030, a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, residential electrification, energy efficiency and resiliency.

Other communities like the city of Holland and Marquette County have partnered with their local utilities and EGLE to pilot the MiHER Program for residential and multifamily home energy efficiency and electrification upgrades in 2024, which has subsequently been rolled out statewide.

These kinds of initiatives provide early momentum for ecosystem actors to coordinate around and build self-sufficiency.

Lesson 4 Segment-specific strategies outperform one-size-fits-all approaches.

• Map gaps by market segment.
• Create segment-specific working groups.
• Design tailored products.

Different markets require distinct financing tools and coordination strategies.

Institutional density is important, but equally so are the products, tools, and solutions at work across the ecosystem. In Michigan, stakeholders are showing up across market segments with products and solutions designed to address specific barriers to accelerating the local clean community lending and investment opportunity. This suite of solutions includes:

• Origination partners focused on addressing affordability and financial access gaps.
• Risk mitigation tools such as loan loss reserves (LLRs), guarantees, and interest rate buy-downs facilitated by concessional capital.
• Bridge financing products offered through local financial institutions and green banks.
• Aggregation and warehousing to free up balance sheet capital for originators, encourage participation, and attract institutional investors.
• Capitalization funding providing a diverse pool of funding sources for local institutions to scale lending activity and capacity.
• Liquidity pathway support to address capital market access barriers through standardization support, balance sheet commitments, and secondary market development.

While there is strong shared commitment and optimism across the ecosystem in Michigan, organizations naturally focus on different market segments, barriers, and community-specific solutions aligned with their missions. This diversity can make broad discussions on clean community financing less effective for aligning around clear, market-specific priorities. While large forums are valuable for building momentum and awareness, more targeted, segment-specific working groups are often needed to drive practical collaboration and scalable solutions.

For example, the roundtable facilitated by RMI and the Hub surfaced small businesses as a market segment of shared interest across actors, representing a sizable investment opportunity and impact potential for clean energy lending. However, there remains a need for affordable financing products that can align timelines and project sizes with lender expectations and tenures, paired with technical assistance to help build clean technologies into capital expenditure plans. And even within the small business market, not all solutions look the same.

Lesson 5 Technical assistance is as important as capital to avoid under-deployment.

Recommendations to other ecosystems:

• Embed technical assistance into every program and fund as core infrastructure.
  • For lenders: provide underwriting and product design support.
  • For borrowers: offer project planning resources and pre-development resources.
  • For contractors: support technology adoption incentives and capacity.

Without technical support, capital alone will not deploy effectively.

In addition to financial products and services, a number of organizations are actively working to enhance technical assistance programs and coordination efforts across the ecosystem to help build capacity, coordinate priorities, and deploy fit-for-purpose solutions.

Lesson 6 Financing models must be designed around local economics and constraints.

Recommendations to other ecosystems:

• Start with market diagnostics on how energy markets, policy, workforce, and cultural aspects are impacting clean lending opportunity in the state.

Energy prices, workforce, and policy shape what financing models will succeed.

Michigan has some of the nation’s lowest gas prices, and highest electricity rates, presenting a challenge for incremental clean energy lending and associated electrification projects. These dynamics reduce the affordability of many residential clean energy technologies, as shown in RMI’s Green Upgrade Calculator and Market Readiness Map. These challenges are compounded by a limited supply of specialized workers, such as high-efficiency HVAC installers, compared to surrounding states.

While bundling certain technologies presents an economically viable pathway for lifetime savings, it also introduces higher upfront capital demand, financing costs, and misaligned loan tenures and payback periods. This creates additional barriers for many communities with limited access to affordable financing.

Lesson 7 Treat well-coordinated, strategically deployed concessionary capital as strategic infrastructure, and target risk absorption to create markets.

Recommendations to other ecosystems:

• Focus limited resources on portfolio-level de-risking.
• Create a state or regional strategy to deploy concessionary capital.
• Use concessionary capital to develop proof points, strengthen local capacity, and unlock private capital participation.

Targeted risk absorption can unlock private capital and build markets.

Local institutions directly addressing affordability (i.e. community lenders and green banks) need sufficient balance sheet capacity and flexibility. Loan loss reserves and guarantees can help create capacity and build a track record of performance that lowers risk, while simultaneously building portfolios of attractive assets. Still, the availability of concessionary capital is a limiting factor in scalability. Many places face a difficult reality in competing with peers for limited concessionary capital sources.

Our roundtable surfaced interest from participants in aligning around shared priorities and opportunities to coordinate the best use of this capital to create opportunity for all stakeholders and move beyond bespoke use cases to regional strategies and portfolio level approaches.

Lesson 8 Financing alone won’t drive adoption of clean energy — project pipelines are shaped upstream.

Recommendations to other ecosystems:

• Invest in architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) training and incentives, developer engagement, and contractor education programs to ensure clean energy benefits are designed into solutions.
• Reduce point-of-entry friction by creating more resources and capacity for project pre-development.

Project pipelines are shaped before financing enters the picture.

Understanding true sources of demand is critical in channeling efforts, building strategy, and engaging stakeholders where most effective. While much of the emphasis over the past few decades has been on the need for consumers to drive demand and capital allocators to provide workable financing solutions, in many sectors the real drivers of demand are more nuanced.

Stakeholders of the Michigan clean community financing ecosystem recognized that for a sector like multi-family residential, there is a clear lack of programmatic development across the AEC industry to integrate clean energy solutions into designs, specifications, and manufacturer relations. Absent investor requests, many designers, developers, and contractors are likely to default to business-as-usual where they have existing manufacturing and supply chain relationships. Roundtable participants pointed towards a role for subnational financing ecosystems to help catalyze coordination with AEC industry leaders, noting Passive House Pennsylvania as one model leading the way that could benefit Michigan.

Conclusion

There is more work to be done in Michigan, but the state is one of the leaders in building a collaborative and innovative ecosystem to support clean energy deployment and community development. As such, there is a lot to learn from their experience. Stakeholders across the policy and finance landscape in other states should take these lessons and apply them in their own contexts with the goal of developing resilient financing ecosystems that empower their communities to deploy clean and cost-saving technologies.

 

 

 

The post What Michigan’s Clean Community Financing Ecosystem can teach other US regions appeared first on RMI.

FDA abandons stricter tanning bed standards, leaving teens at risk Anthony Lacey April 30, 2026

Tanning beds can increase the risk of skin cancer, and the Food and Drug Administration has long warned that children and teens should never use them. Yet the agency has quietly killed a rule that would have banned anyone under 18 from using these devices.

The FDA first proposed the rule over a decade ago, along with other restrictions on the use of tanning beds and requiring that they carry warning labels. If finalized, the rule would have brought the federal government in line with dozens of states that have already restricted teens’ access to the beds.

Instead, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s FDA recently issued a notice scrapping the proposal. The agency justified the move by claiming industry groups and others raised “scientific and technical concerns” about the plan. It also asserted that withdrawing the proposal doesn’t prevent it from crafting new tanning bed rules in the future.

That leaves minors without any federal protection from an industry that has long targeted teenage girls. It’s hardly going to “Make America Healthy Again.”

At least 23 states, along with most of Canada, the European Union and Australia have already banned minors from tanning beds due to their serious health risks. The FDA’s decision is a clear case of burying its head in the sand while leaving teens in harm’s way.

What the science says

The science on tanning bed risks isn’t emerging or uncertain.

A large scientific body of evidence links tanning bed use to serious health harms, with cancer often occurring decades after first exposure. The FDA’s withdrawn rule was based on these findings, proposing a plan to protect minors across the country from these harms.  

In 1999, the National Toxicology Program classified tanning beds as known carcinogens. It cited the link between the ultraviolet, or UV, radiation the beds produce and the risk of developing both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers.

Nearly a decade later, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, placed tanning beds in its highest risk category: a known human carcinogen. This classification is the same given to tobacco and asbestos, based on a 75% increased risk of melanoma for women who start using tanning beds before the age of 30.  

A large body of epidemiological evidence also links use of sunbeds to higher melanoma risk, especially when first use occurs before age 30. 

The IARC review also found that tanning bed usage  increased the risk for other skin cancers including, squamous cell carcinoma, as well as caused serious, lasting eye damage.

Agency avoids action

Despite the evidence, the FDA spent decades avoiding any real action. 

When initially faced with evidence showing rising melanoma rates in young women, the agency proposed in 2013 a warning label. That label advised that tanning beds should not be used by people under the age of 18. But there was no way to enforce it to guarantee the labels were used, and no restriction on minors using the beds.

It was a gesture, not a safeguard.

The ultraviolet A, or UVA, radiation inside a tanning bed is very different from the natural sunlight your body encounters outdoors. 

Tanning beds are deliberately engineered to maximize  UVA radiation, the wavelength responsible for tanning the skin, while minimizing ultraviolet B, or UVB, rays responsible for sunburn. It’s a design choice to keep customers coming back by removing the most immediate, visible consequences of overexposure.

But suppressing the burn doesn’t suppress the damage. UVA radiation penetrates deeper into the skin than UVB and is linked to skin aging, skin immune harm and plays an important role in the development of skin cancer. 

Some proponents of tanning beds point to modest, short-lived increases in the body’s vitamin D levels as a justification for use. But researchers are clear. No brief vitamin D boost is worth the added cancer risk, especially when there are safer alternatives, such as dietary changes. 

Ineffective sunscreen carries its own risks

The tanning bed problem doesn’t stop at the salon door. 

Consumers might think wearing sunscreen while sunbathing protects them from harmful UVA exposure. But many sunscreens primarily block the rays that cause sunburn, UVB, while providing far weaker protection against  UVA. The result is UV exposure that closely resembles a tanning bed.

Researchers calculated that a two-week vacation spent using a sunscreen with poor UVA protection, even with frequent reapplication and no visible sunburn, delivers the same solar exposure as 10 trips to a tanning salon. 

That’s why EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens® places heavy weight on strong UVA protection in the product rankings. And it’s why we’ve worked for decades to urge the FDA to require stronger UVA standards and set a limit on sun protection factor, or SPF,  values for U.S. sunscreen.

The gap between what sunscreens promise with their often high SPF labels and what they actually deliver on UVA is well documented. 

When EWG tested sunscreens in 2021, we found that, on average, UVA protection was just one-quarter of the SPF level advertised on the label. 

FDA researchers reached the same conclusion in their own sunscreen testing, finding that many U.S. sunscreens lack adequate UVA protection. The agency flagged a particular concern that high SPF numbers often mask weak UVA coverage.

EWG Verified® sunscreens go one step further. These products must undergo additional testing to confirm that their UVA protection exceeds the requirements in both the U.S. and in Europe – not just meet them. They’re also free from EWG’s chemicals of concern, so you know you’re buying a safer and more effective sunscreen for you and your family.

The sun is both a major cause of skin cancer and the body’s primary source of vitamin D, an essential nutrient that forms when skin is exposed to intense sunlight. 

But generating vitamin D needs only a few minutes of sun exposure per week during summer for people with less melanated skin. Major medical associations advise against deliberate, prolonged sun exposure as a strategy for boosting vitamin D levels. The health risks outweigh the returns. 

What you can do

The science on tanning beds, sunscreens and UV risks is clear, even if federal policy is not. 

EWG provides actionable consumer advice to minimize the potential for long-term harm:

• Avoid tanning beds entirely. There is no safe level of use, especially for minors. The risk increases the younger that someone starts using them. 
• Use sunscreen. High SPF numbers don’t always guarantee UVA protection. It’s important to find a sunscreen that works for you.
• Check out EWG’s tools. Search EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens™ and EWG's Healthy Living App to find top-rated products that provide balanced UVA/UVB protection without ingredients of concern.
• Cover up. Wear protective clothing, hats and UV-blocking sunglasses.
• Seek shade. Find or create your shade with an umbrella or canopy.
• Time your outdoor activities. UV radiation is strongest between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Plan your outdoor time around the sun's peak hours when you can. 

Go outside. Have fun. Don’t get burned. A tanning bed isn’t worth the risk. 

Areas of Focus Sunscreen Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Agency withdraws decade-old plan for protecting minors from skin cancer Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. May 1, 2026

Today, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest federal employee union, celebrated the end of the Department of Homeland Security shutdown, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

AFGE National President Everett Kelley issued the following statement:

“For the past 76 days, tens of thousands of AFGE members at the Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Border Patrol, Coast Guard, and many other DHS agencies have continued to show up each and every day without the guarantee of a paycheck.

“While AFGE is pleased that Congress finally stepped up to do their jobs and fund DHS, it is unacceptable that it took them this long to do so.

“Too many times we have seen lawmakers use patriotic federal employees’ livelihoods as leverage for political gains. Federal employees are not political pawns. They are not leverage. They are Americans – and they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

“Today, I am calling on Congress to pass the Shutdown Fairness Act, which would pay federal employees during government shutdowns and ensure they’ll never be used in this way again.”

On Thursday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) proposed a short-term extension of FISA in exchange for declassifying a major opinion from the top government surveillance court, which revealed continuing violations of the controversial authority. Wyden’s proposal follows the passage of House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) bad faith FISA bill that likely will not be taken up by the Senate. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) then objected to Wyden’s proposal, likely catalyzing an unprecedented, if illusory, statutory sunset of Section 702. Cotton is perhaps the most vociferous surveillance hawk making the misleading claim that any statutory sunset of Section 702 would amount to “going dark.”

Demand Progress is part of a bipartisan coalition urging Congress to close loopholes in the law that allow the government to bypass the courts to surveil Americans.

The following is a statement from Demand Progress Executive Director Sean Vitka:

“Tom Cotton and the Senate should accept Sen. Wyden’s deal if they don’t want Section 702 to expire. As we’ve seen over and over again in the House, any path forward that lacks meaningful privacy reforms is doomed to fail. Further, the American people deserve, and policymakers need to see, what violations the FISA court found. It is alarming that those who are fearmongering most over the statutory expiration of Section702 are now embracing it to hide the truth.

Sen.Cotton is trying to keep his colleagues and Americans in the dark about how the government is violating the law to surveil us—the very same law some claim is never abused. Senators opposing this deal risk plunging us into uncharted waters, including a sunset of FISA and cancellation of the upcoming recess to sort this all out. Unlike Speaker Johnson and Tom Cotton, Sen. Wyden is offering a viable path forward, instead of incompetent, bad faith machinations to thwart any votes on real reforms.”

Maine Medical Center registered nurses will hold a press conference on Friday, May 1 in Portland to demand Maine Health cancel its contract with Palantir Technologies. Joined by their allies in the Purge Palantir campaign, nurses will detail why leaders of Maine’s public institutions and health care organizations should refuse collaborations with the surveillance software giant.

Washington, DC – The U.S. House of Representatives' passage of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (Farm Bill) earlier today includes critical support for voluntary, science-based...

En una señal  de impulso positivo, las naciones acuerdan celebrar otra conferencia en Tuvalu, organizada conjuntamente con Irlanda

PARA SU PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA: 29 de abril de 2026

Santa Marta, Colombia– Hoy concluyó en la ciudad de Santa Marta, la Primera Conferencia sobre la Transición para Abandonar los Combustibles Fósiles, con motivos para el optimismo: por primera vez, 57 gobiernos nacionales se unieron para comenzar a eliminar gradualmente los combustibles fósiles. En una victoria para las comunidades afectadas de todo el mundo, varios grupos de la conferencia, como el mundo académico, los pueblos indígenas, los afrodescendientes y los gobiernos nacionales y subnacionales, incluyeron llamados a reducir los productos petroquímicos, un factor clave del cambio climático. Los parlamentarios y el sector privado también pidieron medidas específicas para abordar la crisis del plástico.

Ana Rocha, directora de Política Global de Plásticos de GAIA, afirma: «Santa Marta reunió a un grupo de países que reconocen la urgencia de reducir gradualmente los combustibles fósiles. Si bien siempre se anulan resultados más tangibles, el progreso es importante, y Colombia, los Países Bajos y todos los involucrados merecen reconocimiento por sacar el debate del estancamiento. Ahora los países deben aprovechar este impulso para traducir la intención en acciones decisivas».

En el Diálogo sobre ciencia y política celebrado los días 24 y 25 de abril, GAIA y el Centro para el Derecho Ambiental Internacional (CIEL) convocaron conjuntamente a un grupo de expertos para ofrecer orientación sobre cómo abordar los productos petroquímicos como parte fundamental de la reducción gradual de los combustibles fósiles. Las recomendaciones incluyen congelar la expansión petroquímica, establecer límites decrecientes a la producción petroquímica, garantizar la transparencia y la trazabilidad en toda la cadena de suministro petroquímica, eliminar los subsidios, prevenir las soluciones falsas y desarrollar mecanismos financieros para apoyar transiciones justas.

Los productos petroquímicos se producen a partir de combustibles fósiles, y la Agencia Internacional de la Energía proyecta que, sin intervención, los productos petroquímicos representarán un tercio del crecimiento de la demanda de petróleo para 2030, y casi la mitad para 2050.

57 naciones participaron en la conferencia. Muchas naciones expresaron la necesidad de una Transición Justa en la que países con realidades y condiciones similares desarrollen soluciones conjuntamente, abordando la complejidad de la crisis con soluciones viables.

En una señal del impulso positivo hacia la reducción gradual de los combustibles fósiles, los países han decidido reunirse de nuevo el próximo año, en una segunda conferencia que se celebrará en Tuvalu gracias a una colaboración entre Tuvalu e Irlanda. La elección de la sede, uno de los países más vulnerables al clima del mundo, pone de relieve tanto la crisis climática como el espíritu de solidaridad Sur-Norte. La fecha exacta de la próxima conferencia está por confirmar.

De aquí a la próxima conferencia, los países trabajarán en tres líneas de acción para desarrollar sus estrategias de descarbonización, entre ellas: abordar las barreras económicas y financieras estructurales, promover el comercio verde frente al comercio de combustibles fósiles, y abordar la dependencia y el suministro de combustibles fósiles.

Este avance histórico en la cooperación internacional para combatir la crisis climática refuerza la viabilidad de un proceso que excluye a los malos actores que han saboteado las negociaciones climáticas durante los últimos treinta años, ofreciendo una alternativa al disfuncional sistema de veto de un solo país de las Naciones Unidas.

Citas de miembros de GAIA:

«Esta primera conferencia marca el inicio de una transición para dejar atrás la dependencia de los combustibles fósiles. Es esencial invitar a más países a sumarse a estos esfuerzos. Los países deben priorizar la reducción de la producción petroquímica al tiempo que abordan toda la cadena de valor de los plásticos —desde la extracción hasta la eliminación—, incluyendo a los recolectores de residuos y a las comunidades afectadas por la contaminación. Esta transición debe estar centrada en las personas y solo será efectiva si es justa, inclusiva y se basa en un enfoque de derechos humanos». -Laura Suárez, directora nacional de la Fundación PlastiCo y coordinadora científica y de políticas del Proyecto MarLi en la Universidad San Francisco de Quito

«Una transición integral para dejar atrás los combustibles fósiles requiere repensar y transformar todo el sistema que depende de ellos, lo que incluye acabar con nuestra dependencia de los plásticos de un solo uso y los agroquímicos. Los países deben elegir la continuidad de la vida en la Tierra por encima de la codicia corporativa». -Ana Belén Ortega, miembro de Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador

«Toda historia tiene un comienzo. Este es el nuestro. Por primera vez, personas de todo el mundo están diciendo que así es como iniciamos el plan para acabar con el uso de los combustibles fósiles. Seguiremos luchando por la remediación y la recuperación de los sitios de combustibles fósiles y petroquímicos porque ahí es donde esta historia debe terminar para las comunidades de primera línea. No será justo si no lo limpiamos.” -Ean Tafoya, vicepresidente de GreenLatinos

“Esta reunión fue un paso necesario para ir más allá de una economía basada en los combustibles fósiles que ha causado un profundo daño al clima, la biodiversidad, la salud humana y los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades de primera línea. Salimos de esta conferencia con agradecimiento, pero también con un llamado claro: la transición para dejar atrás los combustibles fósiles no debe repetir los daños de la extracción. Debe brindar justicia, reparaciones y participación real a los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades de primera línea.” -Frankie Orona, cofundador y director ejecutivo de Society of Native Nations

Contacto de prensa:

Claire Arkin, directora de comunicaciones globales

claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869

The post Más de 50 países piden la eliminación gradual de los combustibles fósiles, incluidos los productos petroquímicos, en la Conferencia de Santa Marta first appeared on GAIA.

In the second part of our series on the borderlands, Aaron and Lilly are joined by Bob Krumenaker, former superintendent of Big Bend National Park and current chair of Keep Big Bend Wild. They discuss the proposal for a border wall through one of America’s national treasures, the bipartisan coalition rallying to stop it, and what’s at stake for the park, communities, and local economy. Plus, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum struggles to defend a 38% cut to the National Park Service maintenance budget while making a $10 billion request for D.C.-based projects.

News

• Fact Check: Burgum claims $10 billion Trump slush fund request is for NPS deferred maintenance only — Center for Western Priorities
• Senate ENR committee tussles with Burgum over permitting  — E&E News
• Trump used Park Service to funnel millions to ballroom construction firm — New York Times
• President’s Budget Proposal Slashes National Park Service Funding Amid Ongoing Attacks on National Parks — National Parks Conservation Association
• Border wall map disappears from government website — Big Bend Sentinel
• Land acquisition expands popular Jeffco park adjacent to Red Rocks — Denver Post

Resources

• Borderlands part 1: The threats to public lands at the border
• Keep Big Bend Wild
• Mission Creep: How Trump is using the border to militarize our public lands — Westwise blog
• Watch this episode on YouTube 

Produced by Aaron Weiss, Lauren Bogard, and Lilly Bock-Brownstein
Feedback: podcast@westernpriorities.org
Music: Purple Planet
Featured image: U.S.-Mexico border within Big Bend National Park, NPS photo

The post Borderlands part 2: The fight against a border wall at Big Bend appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Your favorite brands might be in the fight against stricter food safety laws JR Culpepper April 30, 2026

More than a dozen states have enacted laws to protect consumers from harmful food chemicals and ultra-processed foods. Your favorite food brands may be tied up in efforts to erase them.

A draft bill known as the “FRESH” and Affordable Foods Act, introduced last week by Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), would take an unprecedented step in food policy by undoing many state laws aimed at strengthening food safety. States would also lose authority to regulate food chemicals in the future.

If enacted, the bill would make it dramatically easier for the food industry to add new chemicals to the food supply without meaningful review by the Food and Drug Administration – and would make it harder for the public to get information about these substances.

The bill closely mirrors previous proposals advanced by Americans for Ingredient Transparency, or AFIT. This is a front group lobbying for the interests of the largest food manufacturers and trade associations in the country. 

Names you might recognize on AFIT’s website include the Coca Cola Company, General Mills, Hormel Foods, Ken’s, Keurig Dr Pepper, Kraft Heinz, McCormick & Company, Nestlé, Ocean Spray, PepsiCo, Sargento and Tyson Foods. 

While AFIT isn’t officially backing the bill, the clear parallels between its wishlist and the legislation make its involvement appear likely. 

Brand favorites are tied up in the food fight

The companies belonging to AFIT own thousands of popular U.S. food and drink brands, whose products could be sitting on your shelves or in your fridge right now.

Below are just a few brands – many of which are known for promoting healthy or kid-friendly foods – owned by companies who are members of the front group AFIT.

General Mills is known for classic cereal brands like Cheerios. It also owns Cascadian Farm, EPIC protein bars, Larabar, Nature Valley and Yoplait.

Nestlé is the parent company of a range of brands, from Gerber baby and toddler foods to San Pellegrino waters to Orgain protein powders and nutritional supplements.

Keurig Dr Pepper owns the Mott’s brand, which caters to kids and families with its applesauce, juice and other snack lines. It also owns multiple flavored water brands, including Bai and Core Hydration.

PepsiCo is the parent company of multiple brands marketing nutrition supplements and healthier beverage options like Bubly, Poppi and Lifewater. Its products also include Sabra hummus, PopCorners chips, and Quaker oats, bars and cereals.

The complete list of foods owned by member companies of AFIT spans products found in virtually every grocery aisle. It includes a wide range of popular meat and poultry items, cookies and crackers, chips and snacks, energy and sports drinks, canned food, condiments, spices and seasonings, and prepared and frozen meals.

The FRESH Act makes food less safe

The retroactive reach of the FRESH Act – undoing existing state food safety laws – is its most radical feature and the one that has received the least attention. 

California’s Food Safety Act, which bans Red Dye No. 3, brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate and propyl paraben from food sold in the state, would be nullified. 

Similar laws in Arkansas, Texas and Utah banning the same chemicals would be void. Taken together, these state laws represent years of effort, public advocacy and the democratic process, which would all be eliminated overnight by one single federal bill.  

The FRESH Act would also make it easier for companies to add chemicals to food without FDA approval. Food chemicals already approved, including those considered “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, would not receive additional FDA review. 

But GRAS chemicals aren’t necessarily safe chemicals. That’s because nearly 99% percent of the chemicals approved as GRAS since the year 2000 have been greenlighted by industry, not the FDA. 

The FRESH Act would undermine an already weak system for approving new chemicals. It would allow food chemical companies to submit even less information to the FDA on the chemicals they use. 

The bill would also let companies enlist industry-funded expert panels to decide food chemicals are safe, as long as they are added to an FDA database. Experts could also continue to have conflicts of interest as long as they are “managed.” If the FDA doesn’t respond to a request to add a new chemical to the GRAS list in 90 days, it would be added by default.

Under the FRESH Act, even if the FDA does ban a food chemical due to health and safety risks, the chemical of concern would still be allowed in food for two years. Companies may also ask the FDA to hide safety information from the public or delay chemical restrictions indefinitely by requesting hearings.

Everything the bill aims to achieve is a striking contrast to the agenda of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Under his signature “Make America Healthy Again,” Kennedy has called out food dyes, ultra-processed foods and the GRAS loophole as targets for reform. 

What consumers can do now

In the absence of federal action, states have stepped up to protect our health by removing toxic chemicals from our food. The FRESH Act would strip states of that power and place food safety in the hands of chemical companies instead.

Contact your representative and urge them to preserve critical public health protections by rejecting the FRESH Act. This is a direct attack on states rights and food safety. Your call carries weight.

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

For some extra help, take a look at 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 in your pocket while you shop.

The food industry, including some of your favorite brands, is hoping consumers aren’t paying attention to this fight. Let’s prove them wrong.

Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN April 30, 2026

This article Why power analysis is key to fighting ICE was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'N5YdDyLKS0J5qFYhDZlyOw',sig:'JEr8kp-qsdyHH7veEfpV3mFipuFukC3iE4Hc03O2tYA=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2258577189',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

The ICE campaign to round up millions of immigrants is grounded in tactics designed to inspire public fear and passivity. Dressed in tactical gear and wielding deadly weapons, masked agents strive to project an image of invincible power as they rampage through communities, smashing into cars, breaking down doors and wrestling people into unmarked vehicles.

Nevertheless, many activists have refused to be intimidated, successfully confronting agents on the street to prevent harassment and arrests. Such ad hoc resistance has its limitations, however, since ICE activities often occur out of public view.

In response, activists are using a more systemic approach by targeting businesses that underpin the agency’s ability to function. Because ICE cannot carry out its operations alone, it relies on a network of companies to provide equipment, intelligence, communications, travel, accommodations and everything else huge bureaucracies require.

For example, Palantir has been the target of a campaign because, among other things, it provides surveillance software and database management services to ICE. The Coalition to Stop Avelo targeted Avelo Airlines, forcing it to end its deportation contract with ICE. And boycotts have been launched against Home Depot for allowing immigration raids on its property and Hilton Hotels for accommodating ICE agents.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'IKevCvA4T6FGlO9Pah89HA',sig:'aaDRIb0NxSNN5IXFsEYWGulX0xXKFIYz_KvRV9r7BZk=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2264645203',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

While a simple internet search can turn up dozens of companies that have been awarded ICE contracts, sometimes finding your opponent’s most vulnerable pillars of support requires doing extensive research. 

Identify targets that are vulnerable to pressure 

In the early 2000s the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, or CIW, did a detailed evaluation of their industry and discovered new targets that drastically changed the direction and effectiveness of their campaign for farmworkers’ rights.

Tomato pickers in the small South Florida town had been struggling since the group was founded in 1993 to increase wages and improve working conditions in the fields. Using short work stoppages, marches and hunger strikes aimed at influencing the growers, they had been able to raise their wages marginally, but the growers remained intransigent. By every measure, the workers were still impoverished.

Discouraged by slow progress, the workers undertook a deep analysis of the food industry. As described by Susan Marquis in her book “I Am Not a Tractor!,” their research revealed a couple of key insights. First, the tomato growers they had been targeting with their protests could not afford to raise the farmworkers’ wages even if they wanted to, because tomato prices were set by the buyers.

The second revelation was that the buyers, unlike the growers, had public-facing brands. The fast food restaurants and grocery stores that were buying tomatoes from the Immokalee growers had brands to protect, and the last thing they wanted was to have their public images tarnished.

Consequently, after targeting the growers for seven years, CIW pivoted, launching a national boycott of Taco Bell. The demand was that the company simply pay an extra penny per pound for their tomatoes, with the extra revenue passed on to the workers. What made Taco Bell especially vulnerable was its ubiquity on college campuses, where student activists could apply additional pressure. 

Previous Coverage

Lessons from the Coalition of Immokalee Workers for low-wage workers

After about four years of organizing and agitating, the fast food giant’s parent company, Yum! Brands signed an agreement with CIW. Next, the workers targeted McDonald’s, a campaign that succeeded after only two years. After that, the dominoes tumbled quickly as Burger King, Whole Foods, Subway and many more companies were forced to the negotiating table. Using extensive research to expose the industry’s power relationships and find the right targets was the key to their success.

As the CIW’s campaign illustrates, when designing a campaign strategy, your immediate opponent and your best target may not always be the same. Even when your opponent has the capacity to acquiesce to your demand, they may be relatively immune from any pressure you can bring to bear. Fortunately, power is more like a web than a monolith, and while your opponent may seem powerful, their power is not intrinsic, but rather derives from other people and institutions they cannot fully control. Targeting one or more of these pillars of support may prove more fruitful than attacking your opponent head on. 

Don’t stop at the obvious

Finding those pillars requires doing a power analysis. Power analysis is all about uncovering connections and asking how various entities interact to create a web of dependencies that can reveal your opponent’s vulnerabilities and sources of power.

Most professional campaigning organizations understand the importance of doing in-depth research on their opponent, but if you’re a member of an ad-hoc group of volunteers fighting, for example, a data center or a detention center in your community, the idea might not occur. You may try to coerce local politicians or regulatory boards to take your side because they seem to have the power to stop the project. But targeting the most obvious entity may not give you the best chance at success.

“Sometimes we’ll just get stuck at the city council or the mayor … because the immediate decisions stop there,” said Lauren Jacobs, executive director of PowerSwitch Action. “But what I think is critical is that we are completely mapping the whole terrain.”

“I think that there is utility that can come from going after your immediate opponent, but … your most obvious opponent might not always be who actually has the power to give you what you want,” said Molly Gott, a senior research analyst at LittleSis, a nonprofit research organization focused on corporate and government accountability. “And there can oftentimes be utility to mapping out a little bit more the other powerful players that are involved and the ways that you can pressure them.”

In 2021 the Defend Black Voters Coalition launched a campaign against Michigan state lawmakers who were pushing to overturn the 2020 election results and suppress Black voting. Although the campaign was eventually suspended after Michiganders passed a ballot initiative that essentially accomplished the campaign’s objectives, the coalition’s process was a great illustration of how a thorough power analysis can uncover layers of indirect connections between people and corporations that may not be obvious at first.

#newsletter-block_06d5ffc30749b91d8d5e3b8d96b4f39d { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_06d5ffc30749b91d8d5e3b8d96b4f39d #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

As described by Andrew Willis Garcés in a Training for Change podcast, the coalition realized it would be futile to target the entrenched Republican legislators who were attempting to interfere with Michigan elections. But research revealed several big donors who supported the Republican legislators, and one of those companies — insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield — had contracts worth billions of dollars with Michigan cities and counties.

So the campaign targeted Democrat-controlled municipalities across the state, urging them to pass resolutions threatening those business ties if the insurance company didn’t end its support for election-denying legislators. The campaign began to gain momentum as five cities and counties, including Detroit and Wayne County, approved contractor accountability measures before the voter ballot initiative was approved and the campaign ended.

But targeting tertiary targets — Michigan municipalities — to indirectly influence legislators shows how deep research on an opponent can reveal potentially vulnerable connections up and down the power chain.

The nuts and bolts of power analysis

“I know this can be a challenge for groups that don’t have people on staff who are researchers,” Jacobs said. “There’s a lot that we can do via simple Google searches and not stopping on the first page of results. We can dig and find out a lot of stuff that’s in the public domain.”

In addition to deep internet searches, another way to gather information about your opponent is doing what James Mumm calls a “research action.”

“You could be talking to workers, you could be talking to ex-employees of a company,” said Mumm, who is chief of institutional advancement at the People’s Action Institute, a national federation of local groups dedicated to building the power of poor and working people. “If you get a meeting, you could sit down with the target of your campaign and ask them questions.”

Specialized databases can also be useful, Mumm said. For example, Pitchbook provides detailed financial data on corporations, and LexisNexis contains news articles and court cases. But these databases are expensive and may be beyond the reach of all-volunteer groups unless they can find a professional advocacy group that has a subscription and is willing to share.

The questions to explore when doing a power analysis vary based on the type of campaign, but Gott, the LittleSis research analyst, offers some examples: “If we’re thinking about doing a power analysis of a corporation, we look at who are the executives, who’s on the board, how do they get financing, what banks do they work with, who are their investors, who are their customers, who are their shareholders, do they get subsidies, all that kind of stuff.”

When researching powerful people, Gott says the investigation should be similarly wide ranging: “For example, research might include questions such as what boards are they on, what kinds of business and social networks are they a part of, do they have investments, do they belong to a particular country club, what are their political relationships, do they give money to particular elected officials,” she explained.

Mumm suggests a slightly different approach to power research by trying to answer four basic questions about your opponent: what do they want, who do they fear, who has power over them and who do they have power over. The first two questions can help form the campaign’s strategy and test its effectiveness.

“So we’re trying to take what they want away from them and bring what they fear closer,” Mumm said. “And the only way we know if we’re doing either one of those correctly throughout the course of a campaign is we get a reaction from the target. If we get no reaction from a target, then we have made bad guesses and have to do more research.” 

Tracing connections helps answer Mumm’s third research question — who has power over your opponent? You might discover your opponent has financial ties, supply chain dependencies, political affiliations, personal relationships and more — any of which could present promising campaign targets. This is how you can generate secondary and tertiary targets.

Researching the fourth question — who does your main target have power over — can be a great source of intel, according to Mumm, especially in corporate campaigns. That’s because not everyone likes their boss. Employees who are disgruntled or sympathetic to the campaign’s objectives may provide inside information that can shed light on corporate decision making and internal power dynamics. All this information can be compiled to inform a campaign’s targeting strategy.

The information gathering process shouldn’t end after the initial strategy is settled on. Continuing research during a campaign is crucial because power relationships are constantly shifting, especially during long campaigns. Also, as more information about the opponent surfaces, a change in target might be necessary, especially when a campaign gets bogged down.

When a strategy isn’t working, Gott said, “then you go back to the drawing board, maybe do more research, maybe revisit research that you already had.”

Reevaluate your target as needed

A good example of a campaign finding success by shifting to a secondary target occurred during the Riders Against Gender Exclusion, or RAGE, campaign in Philadelphia. In 2010, bus drivers were harassing trans people whose appearance did not match the gender on their passes, and accusing them of using someone else’s pass. RAGE formed to fight the policy.

After some research, the group determined that SEPTA, the Philadelphia transit authority, was the entity that had the power to eliminate the gender markers, so that agency became their target.

“Ultimately we were pretty clear that SEPTA were the ones that could say yes or no to our demands,” said Nico Amador, who was one of the RAGE organizers. “Sometimes as campaigners, we are dealing with a target that really has no direct accountability to us. Voters don’t choose the head of the public transportation system.”

Consequently, after two years of unsuccessfully pressuring SEPTA, the campaign was losing steam. The group took stock and decided to pivot to a less confrontational objective. A new “Ride with Respect” campaign engaged allies to sign cards pledging to intervene if they saw someone being harassed by bus drivers because of a perceived gender mismatch on their bus pass.

Meanwhile, a woman who had attended RAGE meetings decided on her own to initiate conversations with a few Philadelphia City Council members to discuss the gender marker issue. The lobbying resulted in the City Council unanimously passing a non-binding resolution in support of changing the bus pass gender policy. Shortly afterwards, SEPTA discontinued the use of the gender markers on commuter passes.

While it’s likely the RAGE campaign against SEPTA had softened their resistance and set the stage for the policy reversal, it was the City Council that ultimately proved to be the decisive target.

“I think there was maybe an oversight on our part once we had actually built that power and that influence to not notice that the City Council as a secondary target would have been a smart move,” Amador said.

But Amador doesn’t think it was a mistake to initially target SEPTA.

“I think in our case it would have been hard to build legitimacy around the campaign if we had not put pressure on SEPTA directly first,” he said.

#support-block_14bf8a0f8450703d8c247b896b84c226 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

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

Donate

Nevertheless, this example demonstrates the importance of constantly reevaluating targeting decisions as power relationships fluctuate during the course of a campaign.

While doing extensive opposition research may seem like a daunting task, especially for poorly resourced groups, there is help. LittleSis provides research assistance and free training programs for activists. It was LittleSis research that aided the successful StopAvelo campaign by identifying some of the airline’s pillars of support, like airports that leased them gates, local governments that provided them subsidies and universities that signed promotional deals with them.

Besides providing toolkits, research guides and their own database of powerful people and institutions, the nonprofit offers an annual four-part webinar called Research Tools for Organizers that covers the basics of power analysis. 

“We talk about intro to power research … understanding the history of it in social movements in the U.S., and then how to research a corporation, how to research nonprofits and how to research billionaires,” Gott explained.

No matter how formidable an opponent appears on the surface, chances are they have social, political or economic connections that render them vulnerable. Power research can help campaigns identify pillars of support, and finding the right target can be the difference between success and failure.

This article Why power analysis is key to fighting ICE was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.