News Feeds

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies will need to be deployed at rates even faster than those seen for solar power, if the world is to have a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5C by 2100, says a new report.

Nearly all pathways to meeting the Paris Agreement’s highest ambition of keeping global temperatures to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels in 2100 involve CDR techniques – ranging from tree-planting to sucking CO2 from air with machines.

This is in addition to steep and immediate emissions cuts.

Scientists expect carbon emissions to push warming beyond 1.5C in the decade ahead, meaning that the target can only be achieved “from above” via large-scale CDR that brings down global temperatures.

These temperature trajectories are known as “overshoot” pathways.

The third “state of CDR” report, written by more than 50 scientists, says that countries’ current CDR plans would fall short of what is needed to limit warming to 1.5C by more than 5bn tonnes of CO2 (GtCO2) per year by 2050.

Global CDR would have to increase fourfold – from 2.2GtCO2 in 2026 to 8.75GtCO2 by 2050 – to have a chance of meeting the 1.5C target by 2100, according to the report.

It adds that deploying CDR can be a “gradual process”, making the period 2026-30 “crucial” for “establishing CDR’s role in limiting climate damages” in the future.

Below, Carbon Brief covers the key findings of the third state of CDR report. (This follows from Carbon Brief’s coverage of the first report in 2023 and second report in 2024.)

• What is CDR?
• What are current levels of CDR?
• How much CDR is needed to reach net-zero goals?
• What does the science say about the potential and costs of CDR?
• What have governments pledged on CDR?
• What is the current funding and research landscape for CDR?
• How is policy impacting CDR demand?

What is CDR?

According to the report, the definition of CDR is:

“Human activities capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it durably in geological, terrestrial or ocean reservoirs, or in products. This includes human enhancement of natural removal processes but excludes natural uptake not directly caused by anthropogenic [human-caused] activities.”

.innerArt>ol { font-family: 'PT Serif'; font-size: 18px !important; }

In addition to this, the report includes “three key principles” for CDR, which are:

1. The captured CO2 must come from the atmosphere, not from “fossil sources”.
2. The subsequent storage “must be durable”, so that the CO2 is not soon reintroduced to the atmosphere.
3. The removal must result from human intervention that is in addition to Earth’s natural processes.

In this report, a CDR method is considered durable if it is able to lock up carbon for “decades or more”.

The report classifies CDR techniques as either “conventional” or “novel”.

“Convential” CDR techniques are “well established, already deployed at scale and widely reported by countries as part of [land-use] activities”.

The methods included in this group are tree-planting, ecosystem restoration, agroforestry (trees in agriculture), improving soil carbon in croplands and natural lands, and durable wood production.

“Novel” CDR techniques have “lower level of readiness for deployment and, as a consequence, are currently deployed at smaller scales”, says the report.

Some examples of different CDR methods are listed on the graphic below.

The graphic also shows whether carbon is captured through biological or chemical processes, as well as how “ready” the method is and for how long it can store carbon, among other features.

CDR techniques and their characteristics. Credit: Edwards et al. (2026)

The report says that CDR is “needed alongside deep and rapid emissions reductions” to give Earth a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5C. It continues:

“It should play a smaller role than emissions reductions given uncertainty around the feasible levels of scaling, sustainability limits, storage availability and the risk of reversal, among other constraints. 

“In general, CDR should be seen as a limited resource that will need to be used prudently.”

It adds that CDR can “fulfil three major functions”. 

In the near term, CDR can help reduce “net emissions”, it says.

In the medium term, CDR can “counterbalance residual emissions” to achieve net-zero CO2 or net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, the report continues. 

(“Residual emissions” are those that cannot be eradicated through technologies or societal changes, such as methane emissions from rice production.)

Research suggests that global warming is likely to stop, more or less, once net-zero is achieved globally.

In the long term, CDR can “help achieve net-negative emissions”, a state where CO2 removal exceeds emissions, says the report.

In this state, humans could lower global temperatures. This may allow the world to limit global warming to 1.5C by 2100, even if the temperature target is surpassed earlier on in the century. 

Future trajectories where temperatures exceed the 1.5C limit before being brought back down again through CDR techniques are known as “overshoot” pathways.

Back to top

What are current levels of CDR?

The report says that, at present, “99.9%” of existing CDR is conventional, land-based techniques such as tree-planting and ecosystem restoration.

The world currently removes 2.2GtCO2 per year, equivalent to around 5% of gross global CO2 emissions, it continues.

The largest contributors to removing CO2 from the atmosphere are China, the US, the EU, Brazil and Russia.

The chart below shows the amount of CO2 removed each year over 2014-23 by the largest contributors, through tree-planting (afforestation) and forest restoration (reforestation).

CO2 removed via afforestation and reforestation each year by the world’s largest contributors to current CDR. Credit: Edwards et al. (2026)

“Novel” CDR, such as biochar and direct air capture, currently removes just 2m tonnes of CO2 annually at present, according to the report.

However, these methods have been growing at a rate of 40% per year – “similar to successful technologies like solar energy, but insufficient for the scale-up required to meet the Paris temperature goal”, says the report.

The graphic below illustrates how the contribution of conventional CDR currently dwarfs novel CDR, but how the latter techniques are quickly growing.

A graphic illustrating the contribution of “conventional” and “novel” to current CDR methods. Credit: Edwards et al. (2026)

The report says that investment in CDR companies recovered in 2025 following a dip – and its “share of all climate-tech funding” grew to 2.6%.

The report also notes that, at present, most CDR efforts are unevenly distributed across the world.

For example, two-thirds of conventional CDR in voluntary carbon markets is in Latin America, according to the report. (Voluntary carbon markets are where companies can buy credits for carbon-reducing or removing projects, such as tree-planting, to claim that they have “offset” some of their own emissions.)

In addition, most pilot projects that aim to demonstrate novel CDR methods are located in only a few countries, such as Sweden, Denmark and the US, says the report.

The chart below shows the location and timeline of demonstration projects that have been announced, are under construction or in operation globally.

Location and timeline of demonstration projects that have been announced, are under construction or in operation globally. Credit: Edwards et al. (2026)

The report continues:

“While first-movers play important roles, if their actions do not diffuse more widely, vulnerability emerges, as evidenced by the impact of US climate policy dismantling.”

(For more, see: How is policy impacting CDR demand?)

Back to top

How much CDR is needed to reach net-zero goals?

The report examines three scenarios where global temperature rise is limited to “well below” 2C by 2100:

• A current ambition scenario, based on national climate pledges (but omitting the US);
• A highest-possible ambition scenario;
• A delayed ambition scenario, which is consistent with current targets until 2035 and then switches to the highest ambition scenario.

The pledges considered in the report are “nationally determined contributions”, or NDCs, which countries submit periodically to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). NDCs lay out a country’s climate ambition.

Under the current ambition scenario, the report projects a total of 5.9GtCO2 of CDR by 2050 and 12GtCO2 by 2100. 

This scenario would result in end-of-century warming of 1.7-2.7C. Importantly, the report says, this scenario does not result in the world reaching net-zero CO2 levels, “meaning that global temperatures would continue to rise, albeit at a much more gradual pace, beyond 2100”.

Under the highest-possible ambition scenario, CDR scales up to 8.8GtCO2 by mid-century and 15.3GtCO2 by the end of the century.

This scenario assumes “full buy-in by all nations”, with economics, scale-up and sustainability providing the main constraints on CDR deployment, the report says. 

The highest ambition scenario results in global temperatures peaking at 1.7-1.8C around 2050 and the world achieving net-zero emissions around that time. 

Under the delayed ambition scenario, CDR would scale up to 7GtCO2 by 2050 and 23.6GtCO2 by 2100. This scenario shows global temperatures peaking between 1.7C and 2.0C. 

This scenario requires larger CDR deployment in the long term than the highest-ambition scenario does, due to the larger cumulative emissions caused by delaying deep emissions reductions.

In both the high ambition and delayed ambition scenarios, the world reaches “deeply net-negative CO2 emissions” by 2100, the report says. This continued deployment of CDR will further draw CO2 from the atmosphere, lowering global temperatures back down to 1.5C.

The chart below shows annual global greenhouse gas emissions through the end of the century under current ambition (red), highest ambition (green) and delayed ambition (blue) scenarios.

Annual emissions, in GtCO2e per year, for the three scenarios: current ambition (red), highest ambition (green) and delayed ambition (blue). Source: Edwards et al. (2026)

While global CDR capacity scales up more slowly in the first and third scenarios, the report notes that, in all three cases, “novel CDR reaches gigatonne-scale deployment by 2050”.

Back to top

What does the science say about the potential and costs of CDR?

There is a wide range of both carbon-removal potential and associated costs between different methods of CDR, according to the report.

However, it also notes that these numbers “range widely” in the scientific literature. 

The discrepancies in estimates of carbon-removal potential are due to a number of factors, the report says, including a lack of available scientific data, inconsistencies in the assumptions made in assessing technical feasibility and a lack of agreement on what, exactly, “potential” means.

These elements also influence the cost of different CDR methods, but additional factors – such as deployment costs in different areas, technological approaches and scope – also play a role in establishing price differences. Because of this, the report says, “cost estimates are often difficult to compare across methods, complicating design and policy decisions”.

The chart below shows the reported range of mitigation potential (left) and reported range of costs (right) for different CDR methods. The top four rows indicate conventional CDR methods, while bottom 11 rows show novel CDR methods. The chart refers to “mitigation potential”, rather than removal potential, because some estimates do not distinguish between removals and avoided emissions.

(Avoided emissions refers to the difference in emissions from carrying out a project, compared to a hypothetical alternative – such as the reduced emissions from halting deforestation.)

The darker colours indicate estimates that are more constrained, meaning that they are either based on stricter assumptions or there is more agreement between different estimates.

Annual mitigation potential (left) and cost range per tonne of CO2 (right) for conventional and novel CDR methods. Orange bars indicate the range of values reported, with darker colours indicating less uncertainty about the estimates. Source: Edwards et al. (2026)

The report notes that for most removal methods, the low end of the potential is around 1GtCO2 per year, while the upper limit of costs is more than $200/tCO2.

The least expensive CDR approaches are forestry-based methods, soil-carbon sequestration and biomass burial. For forestry-based methods, the report puts the cost of CDR at $5-$53 per tonne of CO2 removed. Soil-carbon sequestration costs reach as high as $150 per tonne of CO2 removed, but could have negative overall costs “when accounting for crop yield increases potentially resulting” from changed farm-management practices, the report says.

However, it adds that “these CDR methods are typically associated with lower levels of permanence” than other methods.

Other relatively low-cost methods include coastal wetland restoration, biochar, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and enhanced rock weathering, while ocean alkalinity enhancement is a medium-cost option. 

The most expensive methods include direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) and direct ocean carbon capture and storage (DOCCS).

The report also notes that a total estimate of CDR removals cannot be obtained by adding up the removal potential of all of the separate methods, since different methods can compete for scarce resources. For example, BECCS, biochar, biomass burial and biomass sinking all rely on the same base input – biomass – and therefore cannot all be maximised at the same time.

Back to top

What have governments pledged on CDR?

While many countries include some amount of CDR in their national climate plans, there is currently a large gap between the amount of CDR pledged in these plans and the amount that will be needed to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C by the end of the century, says the report.

This quantity is referred to as the “CDR gap” – the difference between what is pledged and what is needed. 

The size of the CDR gap is dependent not just on the pledges made by countries, but also the choice of the “benchmark” scenario against which the pledges are measured. Lower – or delayed – emissions reductions lead to larger shortfalls in the long term, meaning “CDR must subsequently be scaled to very high levels”, says the report.

Current NDCs and other country submissions to the UNFCCC total 2.5GtCO2 per year of removals in 2030, 2.7GtCO2 per year in 2035 and 3.6GtCO2 per year in 2050. 

This gives a CDR gap of 0.3GtCO2 in 2030, 1.2GtCO2 in 2035 and 5.2GtCO2 in 2050, according to the report. These figures are obtained using assumed “immediate, ambitious action at all levels to reduce emissions” and the most-ambitious estimates of CDR set out in national pledges. Together, this provides a “lower bound” for the CDR gap, says the report.

By comparison, a 10-year delay in implementing ambitious emissions reductions will result in the need to remove at least an additional 150GtCO2 from the atmosphere, compared to the most ambitious scenario. (See: How much CDR is needed to reach net-zero goals?)

The report says that the CDR gap has widened since the second state of CDR report was released in 2024, due to the US leaving the Paris Agreement. It adds that other countries have “not delivered a step change in ambition” in their latest round of climate pledges.

It also cautions that “credibility issues with national pledges may mean that the CDR gap is actually larger than what we assess here”.

The report notes that current CDR pledges by companies are “substantially higher than country pledges”, at 5GtCO2 per year in 2050. However, it adds, “credibility in these announcements is low”.

Back to top

What is the current funding and research landscape for CDR?

Funding of CDR research and development – as well as investment in CDR companies – has continued to increase in recent years.

In total, there has been around $5.6bn in grant funding distributed to CDR research since 2005, according to the report’s analysis. Roughly one-third of this has come in the past three years.

Funding for CDR research grants grew 13% each year between 2022 and 2025, the report says, and the corresponding number of research publications grew at a similar rate.

Funding was largely targeted at a handful of key areas, notably soil carbon sequestration, biochar and forest-based CDR. 

DACCS and BECCS only make up a small number of active grants, but together account for around two-fifths of all funding due to “substantially larger” project sizes.

Despite the growth of research grants and scientific publications, the report concludes that early-stage innovation in CDR is “uneven” and says there is “no strong evidence of a step-change”. 

It notes that much of the support for CDR has come from projects with a broader focus, rather than those that focus specifically on CDR.

The authors also point to a decline in “inventive activity”, as measured by patenting of CDR-related innovations. While patenting for emissions-cutting technologies in general has been on an upward trajectory, CDR patenting peaked in 2011.

Meanwhile, the report highlights the “remarkable” sustained investment in CDR companies, against a backdrop of falling investment in climate-related technologies. It notes that CDR now accounts for around 3% of overall “climate-tech funding”.

Yet, again, it says future developments remain “uncertain”. Since the previous 2024 “state of CDR” report, companies have scaled back their ambitions and policy reversals – notably in the US – “underscore that funding uncertainty remains a key barrier”. (See: How is policy impacting CDR demand?)

An upward tick in funding in 2025 was driven primarily by a “surge” in grants from predominantly public institutions, as well as $0.5bn in debt financing for a single BECCS project in Sweden. 

Reliance on such funding sources “highlight[s] the volatility of the CDR innovation ecosystem”, according to the report.

The report also has a chapter focusing on the voluntary carbon market, which it describes as “propelling most of the current demand for novel CDR”.

The scale of this market remains fairly small, with contracts for 0.04GtCO2 of removals signed last year. 

Moreover, the concentration of sales within a small number of buyers – particularly Microsoft – remains a “critical vulnerability”, the authors note. 

Back to top

How is policy impacting CDR demand?

The report analyses CDR policies in G20 nations – which together account for three-quarters of global emissions – to assess how they are acting to support CDR across their economies.

In total, 140 countries have announced net-zero targets, including virtually all of the world’s major emitters. In doing so, the report points out that the governments of these nations have “implicitly included a role for CDR in their climate plans”.

However, this does not always translate into measures specifically designed to scale up CDR. 

Only the EU has adopted a binding, quantified removals target into law – namely, the goal to reach 310m tonnes of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) of annual net removals in the land sector by 2030.

Overall, conventional CDR is the main focus of policy, with various governments focusing on tree planting to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.

Among G20 nations, only the UK and Australia have set specific goals to scale up novel CDR, such as BECCS and DACCS, over the coming decade.

The report highlights some nations, including Canada, Germany, Switzerland and the UK, as taking proactive steps to incentivise CDR. 

The authors point to national strategies, financial support for CDR and efforts to integrate it into emissions trading systems (ETS) as examples of effective policy making.

(The report also stresses that the US, which was previously a “leader” on CDR, has now “frozen or dismantled funding and support” for CDR under the Trump administration.)

Most of the successful policies highlighted in the report focus on supporting the supply of CDR, with “less attention so far on creating demand”. 

This is significant because CDR “generally lacks a natural market”, meaning there are not automatically buyers willing to spend money on emissions removals. Therefore, the authors say, policy interventions are important to create markets and boost demand.

“Compliance” carbon credits – referring to credits that can be used to meet legally mandated emissions targets – provide a way to support demand, according to the report authors. 

Only some ETSs, such as those used in New Zealand and Australia, allow the use of credits based on forest-related removals for compliance. (It is worth noting that such credits are controversial, as removals by forests are not always permanent.)

The report also highlights the need for “foundational policies to create a governance framework for CDR, including rules for quantification of removal, guidelines for community engagement and the minimisation of negative environmental impacts”.

Back to top

Overshoot: Exploring the implications of meeting 1.5C climate goal ‘from above’

Global temperature

|

08.10.25

Negative emissions: Scientists debate role of CO2 removal in tackling climate change

Negative emissions

|

26.06.24

Nine key takeaways about the ‘state of CO2 removal’ in 2024

Negative emissions

|

04.06.24

CO2 removal ‘gap’ shows countries ‘lack progress’ for 1.5C warming limit

Negative emissions

|

03.05.24

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_2bd3d79ad421b87c92a5450e024d1e6c .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Q&A: The current state of ‘carbon dioxide removal’ around the world appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University, in partnership with Kaiser Permanente, launched a new Food is Medicine Toolkit to provide clinicians and medical practitioners an evidence-based guide to improve health outcomes through nutrition interventions.

“If you care about health, nutrition has to be at the top of the list. Not top five, not top three, top of the list. Poor nutrition is the single leading cause of death and disability in the United States and around the world,” says Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian—Director of the Tufts University Food is Medicine Institute.

“We need to make sure that we’re implementing the right programs… built on the most promising evidence… so that they can be most effective. Because at the end of the day, what we want is improved health outcomes and lower cost of care,” asserts Pam Schwartz, Executive Director of Community Health at Kaiser Permanente. The Toolkit is designed to help practitioners and patients alike, featuring comprehensive modules and infographics based on the most relevant dietetic evidence.

The toolkit offers templates for structuring food is medicine (FIM) programs tailored to fit the needs of specific institutions and patient populations, recognizing that “there is no single best model.” These templates aim to assist care teams with community partnerships and the successful implementation of FIM interventions.

While coverage for healthcare-administered dietary intervention programs varies across states, the Toolkit represents a positive shift in how clinicians and patients understand the relationship between food and personal health.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Eduardo Cano, Unsplash

The post Putting Food at the Forefront: Tufts Unveils New Toolkit for Clinicians appeared first on Food Tank.

By 2050, recycling could fulfill half of Europe’s demand for critical raw materials, according to a new analysis. The final report of the European Union-funded Future Availability of Secondary Raw Materials (FutuRaM) project provides the most comprehensive assessment yet of what the authors call Europe’s “urban mine”—seven different waste streams that contain materials necessary for green energy, digital technology, and modern industry.

Critical raw materials are a set of 42 elements identified by EU officials as key to the green transition but vulnerable to supply chain disruptions due to geopolitics. They include materials needed for batteries, electric vehicles, and solar and wind power infrastructure.

Today these materials are mostly sourced from outside the EU, including cobalt from China and the Democratic Republic of Congo, lithium from China and Australia, and platinum from South Africa. Such materials may be reusable in theory, but are often lost when products containing them are discarded today.

In the new study, researchers took stock of critical raw materials across all 27 countries in the EU, plus the UK, Switzerland, Iceland, and Norway. They mapped several waste streams containing these materials in greater detail than a previous iteration of the project had done, and added a few more.

The new analysis details critical raw materials in electrical and electronic waste; end-of-life vehicles; batteries; retired wind turbines; industrial slags and ashes; debris from building construction and demolition; and mining waste.

The researchers made their data available on the Urban Mine Platform, a website that helps visualize critical materials in waste streams across the bloc using a common and transparent methodology.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:Engineers create dissolving circuit boards that can be recycled over and over again

 

In 2022, 5.2 million metric tons of critical raw materials were embedded in goods that entered the market, with 2.1 million metric tons embedded in discarded wastes and 1.4 million metric tons recovered, the researchers calculated.

A greater and greater mass of critical raw materials will be in circulation as electrification, renewable energy, and digital technologies accelerate. By 2050, between 8.4 and 12.2. million metric tons of critical materials could be placed on the market annually, annual waste generation could reach 5.2 to 6.4 million metric tons, and recovery could be 4.7 to 5.7 million metric tons.

More critical raw materials in circulation means more potential for recovery even in a business-as-usual scenario. On the current trajectory, recycling could replace about one-third of new critical raw materials needed by 2050. That figure rises to 47% with better recovery systems and up to 56% if strong efforts are made to develop a circular economy.

Currently, five critical raw materials including platinum and rhodium have well developed recycling programs and with recovery rates over 80%. But as many as 17 of the elements, including cobalt, lithium, and rare earth metals such as dysprosium and neodymium, could achieve recovery rates of more than 80% by 2050, the researchers assessed.

Recycling critical raw materials would improve the security of supply chains and enhance Europe’s technological and industrial independence, the report argues.

It would also save carbon emissions. Already, the net climate benefit of recycling critical raw materials from European waste streams amounts to about 39 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. By 2050, the emissions benefit could reach just over 200 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually.

Unlike past assessments, the new report moves beyond quantifying the amount of materials present in waste streams and analyzes which ones are actually recoverable into usable secondary materials. The researchers adapted a UN approach to assess the feasibility of mining and energy projects to apply it to recycling. An online tool based on this rubric will help gauge which recycling efforts are most worth pursuing, reducing uncertainty for investors and aiding scale-up of recycling infrastructure.

Source: Iattoni G. et al. “Future Availability of Secondary Raw Materials: Project Final Report.” 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine.

Tiny particles of rubber cast off by car tires, which have long been known to harm wildlife, may also pose a risk to humans, according to a new study.

Read more on E360 →

Eventos Próximos eventos Reflexiones sobre la seguridad en una época de profunda crisis civilizatoria Este es el primero de una serie de seminarios web que dará inicio al ciclo con un debate conceptual sobre la seguridad en una época de profunda crisis civilizatoria. Se analizará cómo se ha concebido tradicionalmente la seguridad a través del orden internacional, el Estado-nación, la soberanía, la militarización y la gestión de amenazas, al tiempo que se cuestionará cómo las comunidades y l…

Democracia radical: recuperando las raíces del autogobierno y la autonomía - Presentación de un folleto desde Indonesia Día y horario * Día: 15 de abril * Hora: 11am GMT * Formato: Evento híbrido Introducción Ante la escalada de crisis globales —el colapso climático, el agravamiento de las desigualdades económicas y el dominio persistente de los sistemas neoliberales—, la necesidad de repensar la democracia nunca ha sido tan urgente.

[ Tejedores] TGA es una “red de redes”. Cada una de esas redes actúa en diferentes partes del planeta identificando y conectando Alternativas. Son los Tejedores. [ Apoyos] Diversas organizaciones progresitas, post-desarrollo y/o anti-capitalistas apoyan esta iniciativa. Tambien lo hacen académicos, activistas y referentes.GTAGTAGTA

Global of [Weavers] GTA is a “network of networks”. Each of those networks acts in different parts of the planet by identifying and connecting Alternatives. They are the Weavers. [Endorsements] Many progressive, post-developent and anticapitalist organizations around the world endorse this initiative. Also many academics, activists and referents do so.GTAGTAWeaversGTAGTAalternativesAlternatives

Coffee Watch and the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) recently launched the Coffee Agroforestry E-Library. The freely accessible database compiles more than 60 years of global scientific research on agroforestry coffee systems. 

Coffee Watch finds that research has been scattered across journals and institutions, with much of it sitting behind paywalls. This forces researchers, policymakers, and farmers to conduct time-intensive searches to locate relevant literature. 

The e-library contains over 1,300 peer-reviewed studies, manuals, and technical reports. By consolidating decades of research into a single open platform, Coffee Watch and CATIE hope to make agroforestry evidence more accessible to governments, NGOs, industry actors, and farmers.

The database has also revealed opportunities for future research. Studies can often examine individual elements rather than holistic approaches, says Arlene López-Sampson, a lead researcher involved in developing the database. “Publications are focused on the implication of one variable on crop management or conservation, not the intersection of these variables on different dimensions,” she tells Food Tank. She adds that economic and social benefits of coffee agroforestry systems remain underexplored.

Coffee is the most widely traded tropical product and an important export for many producing countries, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Many countries depend on coffee, says Coffee Watch Founder Etelle Higonnet. “Without that money, they would not be able to pay for things like law enforcement. There would be system-wide collapse,” Higonnet tells Food Tank. But Coffee Watch notes that coffee supply chains have long been linked to environmental degradation, deforestation, and human rights violations.

To increase short-term yields, sun-grown monoculture systems that remove trees and rely heavily on synthetic pesticides have been widely adopted by major producing countries, including Brazil and Vietnam. Coffee Watch reports that these practices degrade soils and contribute to water contamination, ecosystem damage, and public health risks.

Monoculture further contributes to the climate crisis through deforestation, reduced carbon storage, and intensive chemical use. A study in the journal Climatic Change warns that the climate crisis may reduce the land fit for coffee cultivation by 50 percent by 2050. 

But governments and industry are promoting full-sun monoculture and pesticides, Higonnet says. “They are pulling farmers in the wrong direction,” she tells Food Tank. 

Higonnet views agroforestry as part of the solution. According to the FAO, these systems can improve biodiversity, resilience to climate stress, farmer income, and carbon storage. But Coffee Watch reports that adoption of these practices remains uneven. Transitioning to agroforestry requires support for farmers in choosing tree species to plant, accessing markets for diversified products, and financing the change.

“You cannot roll out a good agroforestry program at scale if you do not put people at the heart of it,” Higonnet says. “The human rights and environmental reforms that need to happen in coffee are indissociable.”

Many coffee farmers live on less than US$1.25 per day. And the U.S. Department of Labor reports persistent human rights violations across coffee supply chains, including child labor and forced labor in several producing countries such as Vietnam, Brazil, and Costa Rica.

Dependence on monocropping can reinforce this vulnerability, Higonnet says. “Monocropping keeps farmers hostage to the vicissitudes of market shocks and impoverishes them catastrophically if the price of coffee falls on the world market,” she says. “Not being able to do agroforestry means no income diversity and less food security for coffee farmers.”

Coffee Watch views the e-library as one component of a broader push for the sector to support farmers absorbing the financial risks of switching to agroforestry. Complex supply chains, limited traceability, and inconsistent reporting standards continue to make it difficult to assess corporate progress on environmental and social commitments. 

Coffee Watch plans to publish a scorecard ranking major coffee companies based on their agroforestry practices and policies. It will highlight strengths and gaps in publicly available sustainability disclosures while inviting companies to provide additional detail about their initiatives.

Higonnet notes that where coffee agroforestry research exists, it is rarely written for those implementing it. “The science is written to get tenure or grants or things like that, not to make sense to regular people or coffee companies, far less farmers,” she says. “The e-library does not make the information more digestible; it makes it more accessible.”

Over time, Higonnet hopes the e-library will be used by ministries of agriculture and farmer organizations to translate the science into more practical guidance that farmers can apply.

“The science is crystal clear: agroforestry coffee is a big win for farmer food security and income diversification, a massive win for carbon and biodiversity, and the best way to climate-proof our coffee,” Higonnet tells Food Tank. “We’re at the edge of a cliff, but we can walk back. If we care and if we act, we can make the world a better place with every cup.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Clint McKoy, Unsplash

The post New E-Library Expands Access to Global Coffee Agroforestry Research appeared first on Food Tank.

Headline News:

• “A €100 Billion Queue: Why Europeans Wait Years For Clean Energy” • Over €100 billion of renewables are stuck in Europe, as communities across the continent wait years for solar panels and heat pumps. A report found that 375 GW of clean energy projects and 455 GW of battery storage projects are trapped in distribution grid queues. [Euronews]

Wind turbine (Wolfgang Weiser, Unsplash)

• “Electricity Prices Fall Across Australia As Renewables Build Momentum” • As bulk power costs decline in Australia’s eastern states due to high renewable energy inputs, the price reductions are finally reaching the household and small business consumer. More than 400,000 small-scale storage systems have a stabilizing influence on the grid. [CleanTechnica]
• “Australia’s First 8-Hour Battery Gets Go-Ahead As 144 Tesla Megapacks Prepare To Transform The Grid” • Australia’s first eight-hour battery energy storage system has cleared a major hurdle. The project pairs 144 Tesla Megapacks with an existing solar farm in New South Wales, aiming to help keep electricity flowing long after sundown. [The Cool Down]
• “Turning Point For Power Market As Storage Is No Longer Optional” • Battery storage is becoming conventional and a critical element of the electricity system, according to a panel held at Belgrade Energy Forum. Countries in Southeastern Europe must show clarity and enable operators to participate in multiple markets. [Balkan Green Energy News]
• “Court Dismisses GE Vineyard Appeal” • A Massachusetts judge has rejected GE Vernova’s request to throw out a previous order requiring it to continue working on CIP-Iberdrola’s 806-MW Vineyard Wind 1 array off the coast of Massachusetts. Turbine supplier GE Vernova is required to continue maintaining and servicing the project. [reNews]

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

Dalam konteks tersebut, sportsbook mobile menjadi solusi yang menawarkan kemudahan sekaligus tantangan baru bagi penyedia layanan. Tidak cukup hanya menghadirkan tampilan yang responsif, platform modern juga harus mampu memenuhi ekspektasi pengguna terkait performa, keamanan, serta kenyamanan navigasi.

Karakteristik Pengguna Aktif dalam Ekosistem Sportsbook Mobile

Untuk memahami mengapa sportsbook mobile semakin diminati, penting untuk mengenali karakteristik pengguna aktif saat ini.

Sebagian besar pengguna modern mengakses informasi olahraga secara real-time. Mereka mengikuti jadwal pertandingan, statistik pemain, berita terbaru, hingga perubahan odds dalam waktu yang hampir bersamaan. Aktivitas tersebut membutuhkan platform yang dapat memproses data secara cepat dan stabil.

Pengguna aktif juga cenderung melakukan multitasking. Mereka dapat memantau pertandingan sambil bekerja, bepergian, atau menjalankan aktivitas harian lainnya. Oleh karena itu, sportsbook yang ideal harus mampu memberikan pengalaman penggunaan yang ringan, cepat, dan tidak membebani perangkat.

Selain itu, kelompok pengguna ini biasanya memiliki tingkat ekspektasi yang lebih tinggi terhadap kualitas layanan. Mereka tidak hanya mencari variasi pertandingan, tetapi juga menginginkan fitur-fitur pendukung yang membantu pengambilan keputusan secara lebih efektif.

Faktor Penting yang Menentukan Kualitas Sportsbook Mobile 1. Kecepatan dan Stabilitas Sistem

Salah satu aspek paling krusial dalam sportsbook mobile adalah performa sistem.

Dalam dunia taruhan olahraga, perubahan odds dapat terjadi dalam hitungan detik. Keterlambatan sistem berpotensi menyebabkan pengguna kehilangan peluang yang dianggap menguntungkan. Oleh karena itu, platform yang mampu memproses transaksi secara cepat memiliki nilai lebih dibandingkan kompetitornya.

Stabilitas server juga menjadi indikator penting. Pengguna aktif cenderung mengakses platform pada jam-jam sibuk ketika pertandingan besar berlangsung. Jika sistem mengalami gangguan atau lambat merespons, tingkat kepuasan pengguna akan menurun secara signifikan.

2. Desain Antarmuka yang Efisien

Tampilan visual bukan sekadar persoalan estetika. Dalam sportsbook mobile, desain antarmuka berperan besar dalam meningkatkan efektivitas penggunaan.

Platform yang baik biasanya menerapkan navigasi sederhana dengan struktur menu yang mudah dipahami. Pengguna dapat menemukan pertandingan, pasar taruhan, serta informasi pendukung tanpa harus melalui banyak langkah.

Pendekatan ini sangat penting karena sebagian besar pengguna mobile mengoperasikan aplikasi dengan layar yang relatif terbatas. Semakin cepat informasi ditemukan, semakin tinggi pula tingkat kenyamanan pengguna.

3. Konsumsi Data dan Performa Aplikasi

Banyak pengguna aktif mengakses sportsbook melalui jaringan seluler saat berada di luar rumah atau kantor. Dalam kondisi tersebut, efisiensi penggunaan data menjadi faktor yang perlu diperhatikan.

Aplikasi yang terlalu berat dapat menguras kuota internet sekaligus mempercepat konsumsi daya baterai. Sebaliknya, sportsbook mobile yang dioptimalkan dengan baik mampu memberikan pengalaman lancar tanpa membebani perangkat pengguna.

Pentingnya Fitur Real-Time bagi Pengguna Aktif

Salah satu keunggulan utama sportsbook mobile modern adalah kemampuan menghadirkan informasi secara real-time.

Fitur ini mencakup pembaruan skor langsung, statistik pertandingan, perubahan odds, hingga notifikasi penting yang relevan dengan aktivitas pengguna. Kehadiran data real-time memungkinkan pengguna membuat keputusan berdasarkan informasi terkini.

Dari sudut pandang analitis, fitur ini tidak hanya meningkatkan kenyamanan tetapi juga memperkaya kualitas pengalaman pengguna. Akses terhadap data yang cepat membantu pengguna memahami dinamika pertandingan secara lebih komprehensif sebelum mengambil keputusan.

Keamanan sebagai Faktor Penentu Kepercayaan

Keamanan merupakan elemen yang tidak dapat dipisahkan dari kualitas sebuah sportsbook mobile.

Pengguna aktif umumnya melakukan berbagai aktivitas melalui perangkat yang sama, mulai dari transaksi keuangan hingga komunikasi pribadi. Karena itu, perlindungan data menjadi prioritas utama.

Platform yang kredibel biasanya menerapkan enkripsi data, autentikasi berlapis, serta sistem perlindungan akun yang memadai. Langkah-langkah tersebut bertujuan untuk meminimalkan risiko akses tidak sah dan menjaga kerahasiaan informasi pengguna.

Dari perspektif jangka panjang, tingkat keamanan yang tinggi berkontribusi langsung terhadap loyalitas pengguna. Semakin besar rasa aman yang dirasakan, semakin tinggi pula tingkat kepercayaan terhadap platform tersebut.

Analisis Keunggulan Sportsbook Mobile Dibanding Platform Konvensional

Jika dibandingkan dengan platform desktop tradisional, sportsbook mobile menawarkan sejumlah keunggulan yang relevan dengan gaya hidup modern.

Pertama, fleksibilitas akses memungkinkan pengguna tetap terhubung dengan berbagai pertandingan tanpa bergantung pada lokasi tertentu.

Kedua, notifikasi instan memberikan informasi penting secara cepat sehingga pengguna tidak perlu terus-menerus memantau aplikasi.

Ketiga, integrasi teknologi mobile memungkinkan pengalaman yang lebih personal melalui pengaturan preferensi, rekomendasi pertandingan, dan fitur kustomisasi lainnya.

Namun demikian, sportsbook mobile juga memiliki tantangan tersendiri, seperti keterbatasan ukuran layar dan kebutuhan optimasi performa yang lebih kompleks. Oleh karena itu, kualitas pengembangan aplikasi menjadi faktor yang sangat menentukan keberhasilan platform tersebut.

Masa Depan Sportsbook Mobile untuk Pengguna Modern

Melihat perkembangan teknologi saat ini, masa depan sportsbook mobile diperkirakan akan semakin mengarah pada pengalaman yang lebih personal dan berbasis data.

Pemanfaatan kecerdasan buatan, analisis statistik yang lebih mendalam, serta teknologi notifikasi yang lebih cerdas berpotensi meningkatkan kualitas interaksi antara pengguna dan platform. Selain itu, peningkatan jaringan internet berkecepatan tinggi akan mendukung penyajian informasi real-time yang semakin akurat dan cepat.

Bagi pengguna aktif, perkembangan ini membuka peluang untuk memperoleh pengalaman yang lebih efisien, informatif, dan nyaman dibandingkan sebelumnya.

Kesimpulan

Sportsbook mobile telah menjadi bagian penting dari evolusi industri taruhan olahraga digital. Bagi pengguna aktif yang mengutamakan mobilitas, kecepatan, dan akses instan, platform mobile menawarkan berbagai keunggulan yang sulit ditandingi oleh sistem konvensional.

Namun, kualitas sebuah sportsbook mobile tidak hanya ditentukan oleh ketersediaan aplikasi semata. Faktor seperti stabilitas sistem, kemudahan navigasi, fitur real-time, efisiensi performa, serta keamanan data menjadi elemen utama yang menentukan pengalaman pengguna secara keseluruhan.

Dalam lingkungan digital yang semakin kompetitif, sportsbook mobile yang mampu menggabungkan seluruh aspek tersebut akan memiliki peluang lebih besar untuk memenuhi kebutuhan pengguna modern yang terus berkembang.

FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS’ legal obligation to consult and accommodate Indigenous nations has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada for over 20 years. The duty to consult is triggered when a government’s action may affect Indigenous Nations’ rights. An action that could severely impair Indigenous Nations’ exercise of their rights entails accommodation measures to mitigate negative effects. Additionally, British Columbia in 2019 passed legislation committing the government to align its laws with the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP affirms Indigenous Nations’ right to self-determination, including the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) to make decisions that affect Indigenous lands. Prior to 2023, British Columbia’s mineral claims regime violated both the imperative to consult Indigenous Nations and the principles of UNDRIP. In the previous system, individuals or companies with a Free Miner Certificate could pay a nominal fee to register a mineral or placer claim through B.C’s Mineral Titles Online. These claims confer a priority right to subsurface minerals and the exclusive ability to pursue further permits to conduct significant exploration work. First Nations had no role in the claims registration process and were only consulted during the later permitting stage. This “free entry” system would have likely remained in place if not for litigation that challenged its constitutionality. 

Gitxaała vs. British Columbia (2023)

The Gitxaała Nation and Ehattesaht First Nation first successfully challenged the “free entry” system in 2023, with the British Columbia Supreme Court confirming that it violated the duty to consult. The B.C. government was ordered to reform the regime to implement consultation processes, which was rolled out in March 2025. However, it took an appeal to produce an additional ruling from the B.C. Court of Appeal in 2025 that confirmed the previous mineral claims regime was also inconsistent with FPIC, as incorporated by the B.C. government’s legislation. This judicial acknowledgement that the Mineral Tenure Act is inconsistent with Indigenous nations’ rights under UNDRIP must thus be addressed in subsequent consultative forums and reforms, which could be subject to future litigation. The B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision is being appealed by the B.C. government on the grounds that it is creating “confusion” over the legal status of UNDRIP in Canada (Depner 2026). 

It is worth pausing here to further examine the B.C. government’s position. The B.C. government accepted the need for reforms aimed at incorporating Indigenous consultation to meet both their duty to consult under Canadian common law and the standards of UNDRIP as affirmed in B.C. legislation. However, the B.C. government is challenging the position that inconsistencies between the Mineral Tenure Act and other B.C. laws and UNDRIP are justiciable. The B.C. government is arguing against judicial forms of accountability over how UNDRIP is implemented.

The rejection of judicial intervention over UNDRIP implementation would mean that only the duty to consult creates a justiciable standard of honourable state conduct towards Indigenous Nations, leaving UNDRIP and legislation affirming it to be treated as an aspirational framework.

A similar challenge by the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is being made to the Federal Court of Appeal after the Federal Court in early 2025 ruled that UNDRIP serves as an interpretative lens that changes the standards of Indigenous consultation. 

Legitimacy Deficits

Excluding the judiciary as a venue to challenge the state’s implementation of UNDRIP is the latest demonstration of the state’s preference for controlling processes of decision-making, particularly over land and waters. The evolution of the duty to consult is illustrative of what happens when the judiciary permits the state to use existing decision-making processes that simply integrate additional steps to include Indigenous consultation. In Process as Power, I analyze how the duty to consult’s obligations as outlined in Canadian common law permits Canadian governments to consult Indigenous Nations without adapting to Indigenous standards of good governance. The judiciary did not compel Canadian governments to restructure the process of decision-making, only that Indigenous Nations must be formally included in pre-existing models with the final decision-making power residing with a minister.

The consequences of perfunctory consultation are enduring legitimacy deficits throughout state decision-making, contributing to continuing Indigenous-state conflict and litigation. 

Such legitimacy deficits arose when B.C.’s mineral claims regime was reformed to conform to the duty to consult standard. In a six-month review of those reforms, a majority of First Nations survey responses revealed that they perceived the decision-making process to lack transparency and produce only weak accommodation measures. Despite formally meeting the duty to consult, these consultative processes overburden Indigenous communities to review numerous applications because no additional supports are provided (Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals 2025, 16); they do not clearly demonstrate how Indigenous feedback was considered and were even perceived to ignore First Nations (Ibid, 17); and they produce unresponsive accommodation measures (Ibid, 18). These results are striking because they closely mirror issues present in other decision-making processes related to reviewing industrial activities. Process as Power includes an examination of B.C.’s Environmental Assessment process and the same state-driven unilateralism permeates that forum as well. I trace how these deficiencies are tied to the ways in which the duty to consult case law over time permitted state-led decision-making designs while narrowly defining what Indigenous Nations can raise in consultative forums. 

Implementing UNDRIP?

UNDRIP fundamentally departs from the duty to consult standard because it presents an Indigenous-driven framework through FPIC that respects Indigenous self-determination. The fact that governments like B.C., Canada, and the Northwest Territories have passed UNDRIP-affirming legislation showed promising signs that reconciliation politics was backed by some action. But UNDRIP’s implementation was always going to be the real test of these governments’ commitments. In the context of the B.C. Environmental Assessment process, I find that reforms starting in 2018 have made some progress to improve the capacity of Indigenous Nations to review applications and to consistently respect the rights-holding status of Indigenous Nations. Other developments are more concerning, like how decision-making power continues to reside with a minister who is not bound by any party, including a new dispute resolution facilitator. Crucially, in this particular policy area, ongoing nation-to-nation negotiations are being pursued to advance additional reforms to uphold UNDRIP (Environmental Assessment Office 2025). 

Combatting the state’s asymmetrical hold over decision-making in matters that affect Indigenous Nations would be completely undermined if governments could unilaterally decide how to implement UNDRIP. The Eby government’s attempted volte-face to suspend parts of their UNDRIP-affirming legislation in response to the mining litigation is not only a political betrayal to the Indigenous Nations in that province working to advance UNDRIP but also conflicts with the direction established in recent appellate decisions. Canadian appellate courts have explained that legislative commitments, like those aimed at implementing UNDRIP, engage the Crown’s honour, which compels these governments to act upon their declarations. The Crown being bound to fulfill legislative promises related to the goal of reconciliation has been affirmed in other Indigenous rights contexts like the C-92 Reference decision (2024) concerning Indigenous child welfare. As explained in Gitxaała v. British Columbia (2025), the B.C. government’s legislative “affirmation…amounts to a binding Crown promise, namely, that the Crown will act as though the existing legal rights, obligations, principles, minimum standards and goals expressed in UNDRIP in specific relation to Indigenous peoples apply to British Columbia laws, including the common law” (at para. 161). 

Thus, the appeal of the Gitxaała v. British Columbia decision shows that legal uncertainty stems more from the state’s intransigence to maintain its decision-making processes than UNDRIP’s status in Canadian law. Unfortunately, the lack of cooperation on UNDRIP’s implementation may also produce a chilling effect that prevents the passage of UNDRIP-affirming legislation in other jurisdictions.

The conflict over process rights is just beginning and will continue to entwine both legal and political developments.

Endnotes

Depner, W. (2026, February 7). B.C. seeks to challenge landmark court ruling over mineral rights and DRIPA. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/eby-dripa-gitxaala-ruling-challenge-mineral-rights-9.7078151

British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office. (2025, September). Review of the 2018 Environmental Assessment Act [Backgrounder]. Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental-assessments/act-review/eao_act_review_backgrounder.pdf

British Columbia Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals. (2025, December). Mineral Claims Consultation Framework—6 month review. Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental-assessments/act-review/mineral_claims_consultation_framework__6_month_review.pdf

Gitxaała v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430.

Citation:

Do, Minh. “The Politics of Process: B.C.’s Mineral Claims Regime and the Threat of an FPIC Freeze,” Yellowhead Institute. June 02, 2026. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2026/the-politics-of-process-b-c-s-mineral-claims-regime-and-the-threat-of-an-fpic-freeze

The post The Politics of Process: B.C.’s Mineral Claims Regime and the Threat of an FPIC Freeze appeared first on Yellowhead Institute.

“This is serious. Bellona has no financial reserves. Every kroner we raise goes directly into environmental work. When major disbursements from donors and government agencies are delayed, we have nothing to fall back on. We have cut costs and reduced staff. It is not enough. We now need help from everyone who believes Norway still needs an independent environmental organization,” said Bellona Managing Director Sveinung Rotevatn.

Help save Bellona by contributing here (see below for help)

Nearly forty years of results for Norway and the world — but there is more work to do

Since 1986, the Bellona Foundation in Oslo has worked to advance practical environmental solutions, technological innovation, and accountability in both government and industry. The organization has been a key driving force behind Norway’s adoption of electric vehicles and the development of carbon capture and storage, and today maintains offices in Norway, Brussels, Berlin, and Vilnius.

“Bellona is my life’s work. I have spent forty years building an organization that has challenged those in power, exposed environmental crime, and helped drive forward solutions. Two weeks before our 40th anniversary, I am not willing to see that work disappear without a fight,” said Bellona founder Frederic Hauge.

Hauge argues that the Bellona Foundation in Oslo will continue to play an important watchdog role in the years ahead, particularly in holding the oil and gas industry accountable during difficult economic times and in promoting ambitious new initiatives, such as large-scale restoration of Norway’s kelp forests.

“Someone also has to demonstrate that it is possible to cut emissions and make money at the same time. Otherwise, we risk losing the business community along the way. And if that happens, we will never get back to 1.5 degrees,” Hauge said.

Employees in Vilnius could face persecution by Russian authorities

One particularly serious aspect of the crisis concerns Bellona’s office in Vilnius. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Bellona evacuated key staff members from Russia for their own safety. If the organization is unable to secure continued operations, those employees could lose their residence permits and find themselves in a highly vulnerable situation.

Bellona is currently in dialogue with donors and government authorities while pursuing both short-term financing and longer-term solutions.

“We are not asking for sympathy. We are asking for support for work that is still urgently needed. The climate crisis has not been solved. Bellona must not disappear,” said Hauge.

How to donate from outside Norway

Go to the donation page: https://www.spleis.no/project/500141

1. Click “Støtt” (for Support / Donate).
2. Enter the amount you want to donate.
   (Approximate exchange rate: 100 NOK ≈ €8–9 (rates may vary).
3. You can optionally leave a message: “Vil du legge igjen en hilsen?” (Would you like to leave a message?)
   Your message will appear under “Aktivitet” (Activity) on the fundraiser page.
   
   Optional fields:
   • Navnet ditt (Valgfritt) = Your name (Optional)
   • Hilsen (Valgfritt) = Message (Optional)
4. Choose a payment method under “Betalingsalternativer” (Payment options). Available methods include:
   • Vipps (Norwegian mobile payment app)
   • Kort (Card payment)
   • Faktura (Invoice / Pay later)
5. Complete the payment and confirm your donation. You should receive a confirmation once it is successful.

The fundraiser is hosted on the Norwegian crowdfunding platform Spleis.

The post Bellona Oslo Faces Bankruptcy, Needs NOK 8 Million to Survive appeared first on Bellona.org.

Con el objetivo de fortalecer y dar visibilidad a experiencias locales que promueven la prevención y gestión responsable de residuos, la iniciativa Rutas basura cero seleccionó una serie de recorridos presenciales ejecutados por organizaciones locales en distintos países de América Latina. 

La propuesta surge en un contexto de creciente preocupación por la crisis de los residuos y los impactos ambientales, sociales y económicos asociados al actual modelo de producción y consumo. Frente a este escenario, las estrategias de basura cero han demostrado ser una alternativa efectiva para reducir la generación de residuos mediante prácticas de reducción, reúso, reciclaje y compostaje, al tiempo que promueven la justicia ambiental y el fortalecimiento de las economías locales.

En particular, los sistemas de reúso y rellenado están cobrando cada vez más relevancia como soluciones replicables y escalables para avanzar hacia comunidades más saludables y sostenibles. Sin embargo, muchas de estas experiencias continúan siendo poco conocidas fuera de sus zonas, lo que limita su potencial de incidencia y réplica.

Para revertir esta situación, el proyecto Rutas basura cero impulsa recorridos presenciales coordinados por organizaciones locales, que permiten a tomadores de decisiones, representantes de gobiernos, académicos, líderes sociales y otros actores clave conocer de primera mano iniciativas exitosas en funcionamiento.

Las rutas incluyen visitas a proyectos con al menos un año de trayectoria y resultados comprobables, vinculados a prácticas como el rellenado de envases, el lavado y reutilización de utensilios, el compostaje descentralizado y el cooperativismo. Además, cada experiencia es documentada mediante registros audiovisuales que pasan a integrar una base regional de casos de éxito.

La iniciativa busca generar espacios de intercambio entre experiencias consolidadas y actores estratégicos, así como producir materiales que contribuyan a la difusión y sistematización de aprendizajes sobre modelos basura cero en la región.

A continuación, compartimos las organizaciones e iniciativas seleccionadas que forman parte de esta primera edición de Rutas basura cero:

Quito, Ecuador: https://youtu.be/zAfFljwO-uU

Entrejardines nos lleva a la compostera y huerta comunitaria del barrio La Floresta en Quito, luego pasamos por Pure!, una empresa de turismo que comparte cómo ha adoptado prácticas de reúso y segregación en origen dentro de su oficina, y terminamos en el restaurante Pim’s donde conocemos cómo gestionan sus residuos sólidos y orgánicos. 

Zona de los Santos, Costa Rica: https://youtu.be/VTS_io9FWok

La Asociación Defensores Monumento Zona de los Santos, nos muestra cómo están trabajando para preservar una zona de alta biodiversidad a través del manejo de residuos de subproductos de procesos de cultivo de café como el que hacen en Coope Tarrazu y Coopedota. Luego terminamos con una parada en el Centro de acopio Preserve Planet (CAPP) para saber más sobre segregación de residuos y recuperación de tapas de refrescos.

Magallanes, Chile: https://youtu.be/fOl7LHwXlEg

Fundación Lenga nos traslada a la zona más austral del Chile donde iniciamos el recorrido en Compost Coiron y su proyecto de gestión de residuos orgánicos, donde además nos cuentan cómo el turismo influye en el colapso del vertedero municipal de Puerto Natales. En Punta Arenas, conocemos el laboratorio textil Puro Viento, una iniciativa de reuso que utiliza residuos textiles y gigantografías publicitarias para hacer artículos como mochilas, estuches, entre otros. Finalmente, llegamos a Puerto Williams para saber más sobre la iniciativa municipal de gestión de residuos. 

The Potter Valley Project, which dams Northern California’s Eel River, isn’t doing very much right now. Its reservoir is clogged with sediment, and drought often empties it out. The project once supported a hydroelectric power plant that could produce about 9 megawatts of electricity, which is about 1 percent of a typical fossil-fuel-fired plant, but it has not worked in years. Plus, some of its infrastructure may be at risk of collapsing during an earthquake.

Like thousands of other small dams across the U.S., it is now more trouble than it’s worth. That’s why the utility that owns the project, Pacific Gas and Electric, moved last year to demolish it and undam the river. PG&E has wanted to abandon the project for decades, but a final removal agreement required years of careful negotiation. The dam project currently supplies water to vineyards and cities in Sonoma County, and it’s the sole water source for the rural farm community of Potter Valley. 

The final agreement was a delicate compromise: The Round Valley Indian Tribe, which has senior rights to water from the Eel, agreed to let some water flow from the river to farmers through a diversion tunnel, and the farmers agreed to accept about half the water they had received in past years when the reservoir was full. Supporters say that dam removal will restore natural water flow for vulnerable fish that have long inhabited the river. 

But now, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins appears determined to blow up the deal.

An aerial view of the Potter Valley Project. Kyle Schwartz / CalTrout

The longtime ally of President Trump has joined a small group of local residents in mounting a public campaign against the deal. She may well succeed — she’s already identified an obscure Southern California water agency that suggests it’s open to taking control of the dams.

The intervention is just the latest in a series of efforts by Rollins to turn conservation issues into culture-war fodder. Under her leadership, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA, has targeted federal funding for sustainable farming practices as well as programs that broaden farmers’ access to USDA support — terminating billions of dollars worth of grants on the grounds that such initiatives are what Rollins has called “woke” holdovers from the Biden administration.

Supporters of dam removal have reacted to Rollins’s intervention with incredulity.

“It’s not really even the federal government [opposing the agreement]. It’s a couple of MAGA extremists who happen to be government actors,” said U.S. Representative Jared Huffman, a Democrat who represents the area in Congress. “It’s sort of political theater masked as some sort of policy move that purports to be about taking over and operating this project, which is pretty preposterous.”

Rollins’s attempt to derail the Potter Valley deal has thrown the region’s future into question. Without an agreement, the Eel River and its surrounding environment will likely continue to deteriorate. The Round Valley tribe could sue to claim its senior rights over the river’s water, leading to prolonged litigation that could jeopardize water availability for nearby farms and cities. And water deliveries from the degraded reservoir will likely continue to be meager. More broadly, the development threatens a recent trend of negotiation and compromise in vulnerable watersheds across the country. The Potter Valley project is the latest in a series of dam removal agreements, from the Juniata River in Pennsylvania to the massive Klamath River dam removal on the California-Oregon border. These bipartisan agreements are fragile even in the best of times, but by politicizing the issue, Rollins may have made a permanent truce impossible.

Even though many farmers who receive water from the Potter Valley Project support the dam removal agreement, there are many local landowners and conservative residents who oppose it. One of the most vocal is a ranch-animal veterinarian named Rich Brazil, who lives in the small town of Potter Valley, just south of the main project dam. Brazil’s daughter, Keely Brazil Covello, is a filmmaker who writes a blog called America Unwon that advocates for farmers and ranchers. Her blog, which is ranked 44th on Substack’s “Climate & Environment” leaderboard, has publicized the perceived downsides of the deal and framed it as an existential threat to Potter Valley. 

“This will change the face of that area,” said Covello, who now lives in Southern California. “People need to know what’s happening.”

After PG&E secured the dam removal deal, Covello began writing frequently about the deal. In early September, Rollins retweeted one of Covello’s posts about Potter Valley with the caption, “I’m on it.” That month, Covello and her father helped organize a letter addressed to Rollins and seven other leaders in the Trump administration that urged the officials to reject the agreement as “inadequate, noncompliant with federal law, and dismissive of community and environmental consequences.” Rollins and Covello later engaged in what appeared to be a coordinated messaging campaign about the dam removal effort.

In the following months, Rollins held a series of meetings with Covello, Rich Brazil, and other local dam removal opponents, and posted to social media about how the state legislature and Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom are putting “fish over people” — a standard attack line used on environmental activists in California. In December, Rollins published a letter to the editor in a local newspaper, The Mendocino Voice, condemning the dam removal effort for its threat to farmers and ranchers in the region. 

Later that month, the agriculture secretary also filed a notice to intervene in the project proceedings as well as comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, the nation’s independent dam regulator, requesting that the commission suspend PG&E’s formal request to surrender its license for the dams. “If this plan goes through as proposed, it will devastate hundreds of family farms and wipe out more than a century of agricultural tradition in Potter Valley,” said Rollins in a statement. “This plan would put countless USDA investments at risk and leave families even more vulnerable to drought and wildfire.”

Multiple current and former USDA staffers and officials told Grist that the USDA’s arguments in its request to FERC appear to omit the conservation and environmental priorities of the agency’s mission areas. In it, the agency argued that the dam decommissioning would cause adverse impacts to many of USDA’s mission areas, claiming impacts across five of the USDA’s subagencies, including the U.S. Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins delivers remarks to farmers from the Truman balcony of the White House as President Donald Trump looks on in Washington, D.C. Oliver Contreras / AFP via Getty Images

Erin Foster West, a former NRCS staffer who is now executive programs director at the National Young Farmers Coalition, said that while the NRCS and Forest Service have historically managed and worked to support very small dams, the Potter Valley Project appears to have no obvious connection to USDA’s operations. 

Gloria Montaño Greene, who served as deputy undersecretary of the USDA’s Farm Production and Conservation mission area during the Biden administration and was involved with the Klamath Dam removal, said these processes typically unfold very differently than the administration’s current approach — slowly, across multiple administrations, with a wide range of stakeholders at the table. The USDA’s public intervention here, she suggested, looks nothing like that. 

“What’s the NRCS saying? What’s the state of California saying? What are the tribal leads for the area saying? There are many voices in the conversation,” she said.

Answers to these questions have remained elusive, and the story has only gotten stranger. Covello, Brazil, and the other dam removal opponents met with USDA officials in January at the Farm Bureau convention in Anaheim and in Washington, D.C., a month later. Then, in late April, Rollins announced that an entity had emerged to buy the dams from PG&E: the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, a water service provider some 500 miles away in Riverside County. A member of the Elsinore Valley board appeared on Covello’s podcast and declared her ambition to take over the dams, framing it as an altruistic gesture that will protect water supply for all Californians.

“All of California benefits when there’s water and all of California is harmed when there’s not,” said Darcy Burke, the Elsinore Valley board member, when asked why she wanted to acquire the project. She admitted that “there might be no benefit” to her district and said that “we are just interested and doing our due diligence.” Burke added that she first learned about the dam removal deal when she read an X post from Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff who is running for governor as a Republican.

Policymakers and environmentalists have blasted Elsinore Valley’s involvement as at best a political stunt and at worst a plan to siphon water from Northern California and deliver it farther south. There is no infrastructure that could convey water from Potter Valley down to Elsinore Valley, making a direct water transfer physically impossible, but that has not quelled suspicions. Huffman’s office has begun a formal investigation into Elsinore’s involvement. 

For Rollins, the political frenzy around the dam removal may be part of the point, according to Alicia Hamann, executive director of the environmental advocacy organization Friends of the Eel River.

“The involvement of this water district, nearly 600 miles away from the project, with no tangible connection to the power or the water associated with the project, is really bizarre,” said Hamann. She suspects that the administration could be using the case to appeal to farmers ahead of November’s midterm elections. Farmers, despite voting overwhelmingly for the GOP, have been increasingly dissatisfied with the administration’s trade policies and geopolitical conflicts roiling America’s farm economy. 

In response to inquiries from Grist, a USDA spokesperson reiterated Rollins’s position, saying that dam removal “is expected to create severe, lasting consequences for the region’s agricultural producers and surrounding communities.” The spokesperson added that removing the dams would harm water quality and compromise drinking water supplies, reduce firefighting capacity, and put groundwater wells at risk “while jeopardizing substantial USDA investments tied to loans, insurance programs, conservation work, and rural development.” The spokesperson also pointed to other “unresolved issues” but did not clarify them.

Rollins’s intervention has fractured the delicate consensus around the dam removal agreement, but no one involved seems to have any clue what will happen next. PG&E’s proposal to decommission the dams is still pending before FERC, and neither USDA nor Elsinore Valley has submitted a formal proposal to take them over.

In the meantime, the two sides of the debate have begun to exchange legal barbs. Friends of the Eel River and other environmental organizations submitted a public records request to the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District on May 5. The request, a copy of which was shared with Grist, cites concerns that the water district’s decision to explore purchasing the dams from PG&E violates the Brown Act, a California law that requires local legislative bodies to conduct their business in public.

Elsinore Valley appears to be pushing back. That same week, the water district and the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank cofounded by Rollins herself in 2021, began to file a torrent of their own public records requests to organizations that were involved in dam removal talks. While some of these were governmental agencies that are legally required to respond to such requests, others were private sector actors that are typically not subject to the law, like the conservation nonprofit CalTrout. The request to CalTrout, a copy of which was shared with Grist, sought all electronic communications concerning the Potter Valley Project; all records, internal documents, and funding applications; and all communications shared with a variety of related entities and agencies. 

“We are not a public agency. So we were really confused we got it,” said Charlie Schneider, a project lead at the nonprofit. “What are they even after is hard to understand, right?” 

Just days later, however, the America First Policy Institute rescinded its request. (The Institute declined to respond to a request for comment, instead directing Grist to the nonprofit’s public comment submitted to FERC opposing the dam removal.) 

The most important local player in the Potter Valley conflict is the Round Valley Indian Tribe, which has senior rights to the water from the Eel River, meaning it could, in theory, assert a claim to the water that farmers and cities who rely on the Potter Valley Project are now using. The tribe has been pushing dam removal for generations, and the PG&E agreement was only possible thanks to their cooperation. They will allow farmers who got water from the dams to receive some of their Eel River water through a new diversion tunnel, and in exchange, the farmers will give the tribe money for ecosystem restoration. 

Read Next How the Klamath Dams Came Down Anita Hofschneider & Jake Bittle

In an interview with Grist, tribal president Joseph Parker vowed to claim his tribe’s water rights if USDA continued to block the removal deal. This would mean a lengthy adjudication of the Eel River’s water rights, which could block Elsinore or any farmers downstream from taking water from the dams even if they did stay in place.

“We talked to USDA, we told them our story, and they listened, but you could tell they didn’t want to listen,” said Parker. “[The farmers] have been getting free water this whole hundred-plus years. Hopefully they know that we aren’t backing down and that we’re here for the long fight.” The tribe has addressed letters to both Rollins and Elsinore warning them about “the potential liabilities that any successor owner of these dams will likely face, and the resolve of our people to oppose their retention.”

Meanwhile, locals who have come to support the agreement argue that there’s no alternative to dam removal now that PG&E has decided to offload the project.

“If anybody had asked me ten years ago what would happen if [the Project] was gone I would have said it would be disastrous,” said Janet Pauli, a grape and hay farmer who is one of Potter Valley’s largest landowners and the head of the irrigation district representing most of the area’s farmers. “But that was then, and this is now.” Pauli helped secure the 2025 agreement in exchange for water diversion that would supply farms and cities downstream from Potter Valley during the winter.

Livestock graze on a patch of field not flooded by a swollen Eel River in Ferndale, California, in 2024. Stephen Lam / San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images

Pauli also argues that it’s possible to mitigate the negative effects of dam removal for local farmers in Potter Valley by expanding a nearby dam on the Russian River and building other water storage projects in the valley. She said that opponents of dam removal haven’t been advocating for those projects, which would make the area more self-reliant.

Covello and the other opponents of dam removal don’t believe that those replacement projects for Potter Valley will ever be built, or that the winter water diversions from the Eel River will come to fruition. She also said she’s heard from both tribal members in the area and employees at PG&E that dam removal will offer far fewer benefits than proponents claim.

“It’s not gonna happen, and it’s not gonna work,” she said. “What we have works right now, and California can’t build anything to save its life.”

A spokesperson for PG&E said the utility had tried multiple times to find a buyer for the dam and is moving forward with decommissioning. The spokesperson said that there has been “misinformation” about the utility’s role and the availability of alternatives to dam removal. “There is a significant difference between an entity inquiring about the Potter Valley Project and actually submitting a proposal to acquire the project,” the spokesperson said in an apparent reference to Elsinore Valley’s overtures. 

Keeping the dams up would be an enormous challenge, even if Elsinore Valley succeeds in acquiring them. By all accounts, the Potter Valley Project is in terrible condition. The hydroelectric power house broke down in 2021, and the diversion tunnel from the dams sits on a seismic fault zone capable of triggering a major earthquake. Furthermore, the dams are out of compliance with federal environmental laws around fish passage and water quality. Upgrading them to meet all these conditions would take hundreds of millions of dollars.

FERC, for its part, appears to be moving forward with the Potter Valley dam license surrender and decommissioning in lieu of any viable alternative. On May 22, the agency kicked off its environmental assessment of the Potter Valley removal project by releasing its first National Environmental Policy Act scoping document. That document calls dam retention “infeasible” because of seismic stability concerns, fruitless past efforts to find an operator for the project, and PG&E’s preferred alternative to remove the structure. 

“FERC is saying, ‘There’s nothing else in front of us to assess,’” said CalTrout’s Schenider. “It’s certainly helpful [in] understanding where things are actually at.” 

Even though they’re on opposite sides of California’s traditional conservation debate, which pits environmentalists who want to keep water in rivers against farmers who want to use it, Schneider agrees with Pauli, the local grape and hay farmer who thinks dam removal is the best path forward for the community.

“For USDA, some funding support for those farmers … strikes me as a much better use of their time and energy than trying to save 100-year-old dams that are eventually going to fill with sediment,” he said.

Kyle Farmer, a farmer and rancher who lives in Potter Valley, said the truth is far more nuanced than the fish-versus-people framing that Rollins has adopted. He once fought to preserve the dam, but now he views the big challenge in Potter Valley as finding a way to make farmers and residents whole once the dams inevitably go down. 

“It would be great if this was a fish-versus-farmer problem, because there is a lot of precedent on how to handle those,” he said. “What we haven’t made much progress on is how to replace aging infrastructure. This is more like a town whose bridge is failing.”

This story has been updated to include Darcy Burke’s full name and affiliation.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why is this Trump official dead set on saving a failing California dam? on Jun 2, 2026.

Electric vehicles offer many opportunities to save money: on gas, on oil changes, on engine maintenance. But, it turns out, insurance isn’t one of them. In fact, the latest data shows that EVs typically cost $3,159 per year to insure — nearly $1,000 more than gas-powered cars. It’s an added burden that could make the payback period on EVs significantly longer. 

On average, the insurance gap between electric and internal combustion engine, or ICE, vehicles was 42 percent, according to a report released today by the insurance-comparison marketplace Insurify. But it varies drastically by state and model. The most expensive locale was Washington, D.C., where coverage cost $6,394 versus $4,124 for ICE cars. Maine was the cheapest at $1,476, just $184 more than a conventional car. The difference was most pronounced in Rhode Island, which has a 73 percent spread.

Generally speaking, luxury brands like Tesla, Mercedes-Benz, and Audi are particularly expensive to insure, with premiums on many models topping $4,000. Volvo, Chevrolet, Ford, and Hyundai offer cars at the lower end of the spectrum. Insurify wouldn’t disclose which insurers had the most expensive rates, but did say Lemonade, Root, and GEICO offered the most affordable EV coverage. 

“Insurers were charging those higher premiums to balance their risks,” said Julia Taliesin, an economic analyst and insurance agent at Insurify, who wrote the report. It is based on more than 235 million quotes in Insurify’s proprietary database. Seven states — Alaska, Hawai‘i, North Dakota, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming — are excluded due to lower quoting volume. But high insurance expenses means it can take more driving before an EV pays for itself through lower fuel and operating costs. Even if electricity were free and gas stays at $4 per gallon it translates to at least 5,800 more miles a year compared to a car that gets 25 mpg. 

A primary reason for the disparity is that EVs cost more to fix. 

“We do see that there is a delta in the cost of repair for electric vehicles compared to ICE,” said Ryan Mandell, a vice president of strategy and market intelligence at Mitchell, a company which provides data and software related to car repairs. He pegs the difference at about 15 percent, noting that batteries are relatively expensive to fix and for mechanics to work around and that EVs have complicated electronics. But there are more fundamental factors as well, like the lack of an engine. 

Mandell gave the Ford F-150 as an example. From 2022 to 2025 an electric version of the pickup truck, called the Lightning, was available alongside gas-only and hybrid versions. When Mitchell subjected the gasoline and EV models to a front-end crash test the engine in the traditional model actually absorbed quite a bit of the impact. Because it doesn’t have that additional structure, Ford designed the Lightning with additional reinforcement that cost around 30 percent more to fix.

Read Next Why $4 gasoline is the tipping point for EVs Tik Root

“The Lightning had more crash parts on the front of the vehicle,” said Mandell. He also noted that Ford requires removing the battery before doing any work, which increases labor costs. “It adds up.”

Repair costs, however, are not the only factor insurers consider. Insurify’s data showed insurance rates for the two trucks are roughly the same, which Taliesin said suggests driver demographics and behavior play a role, too. “One of the most significant is personal driving history and credit history,” she said. Given the Lightning’s much higher cost, the credit scores of owners could potentially be higher. And Insurify’s data shows that the ticket and accident rates for Lightning drivers are about half that of traditional F-150s.

“Factors like climate risk, vehicle theft rates, population density, insurance regulation, repair infrastructure, and EV adoption levels contribute to regional cost differences,” the Insurify report stated. In several states it cited climate-driven extreme weather, such as hurricanes and flooding, as drivers of high costs. 

This EV insurance story isn’t unique to the United States. In 2024, BloombergNEF found about the same spread in the United Kingdom and Germany. France saw double the disparity. Overall, though, American EV owners still paid 87 percent more for insurance than Europeans. 

“Several model-specific factors have driven the wider cost gaps in the large and SUV segments,” said Aleksandra O’Donovan, head of electrified transport at BloombergNEF, pointing to the Tesla Model Y as a particularly extreme example. “[The U.S. price] is nearly triple the insurance rate for the same vehicle in Germany.”

From 2023 to 2025, the EV insurance gap in the U.S. grew from 29 percent to 49 percent. But this year, it came down slightly, which Taliesin said is among a few good signs for EV drivers. Another is that the disparity among cars made in the last two years was only 18 percent — compared 42 percent across all years. 

That drop is partly because auto insurance prices fell across the board in the last year. But Taliesin also said that ICE cars are catching up to EVs in terms of how complicated and expensive they are to fix. The cost of EV batteries is also trending downward, too. As EV sales have grown, there is more data for companies to base their prices on and more incentive for them to court EV owners.

”We’ve been seeing a ton of insurance-shopping behavior as insurers have been dropping their rates to compete for business,” said Taliesin, who is bullish for consumers. “That’s definitely a welcome reprieve.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The hidden cost of owning an EV: Expensive insurance on Jun 2, 2026.

The world’s most comprehensive disaster database – relied on by thousands of climate scientists and policymakers – is at risk of closing as a result of cuts to US foreign aid by the Trump administration.

The effort to open parts of the Superior National Forest to copper-nickel mining has become a test case for how far governments are willing to go in trading long-term ecological protection for short-term resource extraction.

How movements working for a life-affirming future can learn from history — and from each other.

For the construction of the technical and political foundations, a team of agroecology experts from the movements, representing all regions of Brazil, has been established.

The post Brazil: The MST and Allies are Building a Social Movement-led AI Tool (IARAA) for Agroecology appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.