News Feeds

UNISON shows the way!

Image by John Blower on flickr.com/photos/10332960@N03/

At UNISON conference in June, Motion 83, 2026 Year of Green Activity (YoGA) – Turning Activity into Activism, the UNISON NEC puts a number of key points on the way forward for climate activism through and by trade unions.

Unlike most unions, UNISON motions are unshackled by word limits, which allows breadth and depth – veritable manifestos – to supplement the shorter, sharper motions that come from elsewhere and go to the TUC.

The core insights in this one are to recognise:

• the scale of concern among members; 93% worried, 50% very worried and 20% detailing impacts already being felt, and 67% wanting more not less action
• that immediate climate impacts in workplaces on the health of members and the ability to deliver services and the pitfalls involved in ad hoc and improvised responses and that many UNISON members’ jobs are bound up with current policies to respond to the increasing pressure of climate breakdown, with limited resources
• that the slower the response the greater the cost
• that the transition is a whole society issue, not one confined to workers in the energy sector and that UNISON’s embeddedness in communities gives it a crucial role in mobilsing for it
• that adaptation to the damage already being done has to run alongside building resilience to climate breakdown, and this requires more coordination across government departments and, in that planning, workers, and communities, must be central to the decision-making process.

This tees up the core demands to campaign for.

1. A UK wide Just Transition Commission with full union representation
2. Adaptation measures to be on a footing with mitigation
3. A National Climate Service to coordinate government departments
4. A full review of all necessary climate jobs and skills, not just in the energy sector

As well as mandatory extreme weather planning across public services and local communities; statutory facility time for Green Reps; maximum workplace temperatures; greater investment in public transport; the urgent introduction of the Business, Human Rights and Environment Act to tackle global supply chain abuses; increased financial support and environmental regulations for people to make the necessary changes recommended by the climate change committee and a full environmental impact assessment on the introduction of new AI data centres across the UK.

And to facilitate this through union structures by

• supporting the new Branch Environment Officer role as a growth area of union activism;
• actively promote the work of the Green UNISON campaign, the new branch Environment Officer position, regional networks and national newsletter.
• Work with other unions, TUC, ITUC on joint work in workplaces, national and international campaigning.

If this sort of framework were to be adopted across the movement, every year would be a year of union climate action; which is what the crisis demands as it deepens.

Paul Atkin Ed

 

Read on for the full motion

UNISON is proudly at the forefront of UK worker-led climate activism.

We were one of the first trade unions to recognise climate change as an important issue that affects every member, their families, and the communities they live in.

We recognise that Climate change impacts many core trade union, and UNISON specific, issues like: public finances and resources; job security; workplace safety and all the services our members deliver.

And we know that it is an increasingly important issue for our members. Our recent survey showed that 93 percent of our members were concerned about climate change with 50 percent saying they were very concerned and one in five reported ways in which their job was already being negatively impacted by climate change.

Even while Reform UK gains new ground by peddling serious disinformation on everything including climate change, 67 percent of their own members want more, not less, action on climate change.

Rising workplace temperatures and extreme weather are not distant threats. They are happening now. From schools and hospitals to offices and outdoor work, many working environments are becoming less safe and more uncomfortable.

Our members are reporting personal health impacts and disruption from extreme weather events and real impacts on their ability to deliver a service safely for themselves and others.

And the adaptations aimed to support a green transition to a more sustainable work environment often come with unforeseen consequences. Members are adapting to new ways of running buildings, delivering services, and using energy, frequently without adequate training or preparation.

Many of our members are in roles that are all about dealing with the climate crisis in their day-to-day job, drawing up the necessary transformation plans, cleaning up our waterways and coastlines, responding to floods, heatwaves, wildfires and other emergencies, often with limited resources in the face of increasing demand.

UNISON is uniquely positioned to campaign for a just transition across all our services and for all our communities. We must demand climate resilient infrastructure and ensure our members are not left behind in the shift to a greener economy.

The costs of doing nothing, both in human and financial terms, vastly outweigh the costs of acting now. We cannot delay action until a more convenient time. Failing to act only intensifies those costs and physical pressures on essential services and place greater demand on already stretched resources. Some of the necessary changes, if adopted in good time, will save money that is vital for investing in the other changes necessary.

It is our members in public services that are picking up the pieces and who are relied on to manage the consequences of climate change, playing a vital role in protecting communities and maintaining public wellbeing.

However, while the government is finally starting to tackle the important issue of just transition in energy production there is so much more to be done across every other aspect of industry and in the communities we live in. New, good, energy jobs are not the only good jobs we will need to face this emergency.

Adaptation and resilience is essential to combat current and increasing impacts of climate change. Yet it is not being discussed or invested in to the same degree as decarbonisation. Both are equally important and both will require increased training and jobs to meet new demands.

We need to build climate resilience into everything we do:

1) Health and Safety: Protecting vulnerable populations from extreme heat (like the 2022 heatwave) and ensuring essential services (like prisons) function;

2) Economic Stability: Reducing damages from extreme weather and ensuring food/water security, which also creates opportunities for new finance and green growth;

3) Environmental Resilience: Protecting ecosystems and biodiversity while creating nature-based solutions (e.g., wetlands) for cooling and flood control;

4) Infrastructure Protection: Building stronger infrastructure (flood barriers, cooling systems) to withstand future climate impacts, as highlighted by reports from the Climate Change Committee (CCC);

5) Buildings & Homes: Retrofitting homes and ensuring new designs can handle heat and flooding, especially for low income households;

6) Water & Food Systems: Managing drought risks and ensuring resilient food supplies;

7) Urban Planning: Creating more green spaces for cooling and flood management.

The UK’s current adaptation planning is considered insufficient by independent bodies like the Climate Change Committee (CCC).

There is a need for better government integration, funding, and policy to support widespread, effective action across all sectors and regions.

Government departments need to talk to each other about the impact of their plans on climate change. We cannot resolve climate change by only looking at energy use and production. Every area of government has a huge role to play in fighting, and preparing to mitigate and adapt to, the climate emergency. Public transport, health resources, environmental regulations, food production, skills and education, security and whichever department deals with new technology regulations (particularly AI use and impact) all need to work together.

Public services, our members, need to be recognised and invested in, as the vital social infrastructure preventing, preparing for and protecting against the impacts of climate change all of which will be an expanding area of demand even if we manage to reach the 2050 net zero carbon emissions.

Change is necessary and workers, and communities, must be central to the decision-making process.

Conference therefore calls on the National Executive Council to:

1. a) Lobby governments across the UK and in campaign in workplaces where appropriate for:
2. i) A Just Transition, overseen by a UK wide just transition commission (with devolved powers and commissions essential) ensuring our members and communities are represented throughout;
3. ii) Urgent focus and investment on adaptation measures on an equal footing to decarbonisation measures;

iii) A national Climate Service (or equivalent) responsible for ensuring all departments co-ordinate their contributions to the necessary climate emergency mitigation and adaptations;

1. iv) An urgent discussion on the new and increased skills and jobs required to meet the impacts of the climate emergency beyond the (vital) energy sector;
2. v) Mandatory extreme weather planning across public services and local communities;
3. vi) Statutory facility time in line with Union Learning Reps, Health & Safety Reps and Equalities Reps (coming in 2026);

vii) Maximum workplace temperatures;

viii) Greater investment in public transport;

1. ix) The urgent introduction of the Business, Human Rights and Environment Act to tackle global supply chain abuses;
2. x) Increased financial support and environmental regulations for people to make the necessary changes recommended by the climate change committee;
3. xi) A full environmental impact assessment on the introduction of new AI data centres across the UK;
4. b) Progress previous national delegate conference motions on supporting the new Branch Environment Officer role and this expanding area of organising and bargaining, recognising this as a growth area of union activism;
5. c) Continue to actively promote the work of the Green UNISON campaign, the new branch Environment Officer position, the regional networks and national newsletter widely throughout the union to current and prospective members;
6. d) Work with the TUC, STUC, TUC Cymru and ICTU and sister unions on joint work in workplaces, national campaigning and also internationally.

Join Us

Get in the loop! Sign up to receive future GJA Newsletters and Blogs here.

SIGN UP Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post UNISON shows the way! first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

Financial institutions are under growing pressure to assess whether companies are truly prepared for the energy transition — but today’s tools fall short. Most transition assessments rely on global 1.5°C benchmarks that measure ambition but reveal little about whether a strategy is feasible in a given region or market.

What we learned from mapping Southeast Asia’s power pathways

A critical component of a decision-useful transition assessment is a multi-pathway approach that makes use of region- and sector-specific pathways wherever possible. This enables an assessment to go beyond just evaluating ambition against a global benchmark, and evaluates ambition based on regional context and constraints, determines alignment to different policy and market conditions, and infers the associated transition risks and opportunities of different strategies in the region.

A commonly cited challenge in adopting a multi-pathway approach is the lack of relevant and credible transition pathways, particularly in regions where pathway coverage is limited or fragmented. To address this challenge, RMI is developing the Transition Pathways Repository. The goal of this tool is to make the broad array of existing transition pathways readily accessible and interpretable. The repository is currently being piloted for the Southeast Asia power sector, with expansion to new sectors and regions planned this year.

Exploring the Southeast Asia power pathway landscape has taught us useful lessons about scenario data availability, remaining gaps in the scenario landscape, and the challenges to deploying a multi-pathway approach. This article describes four of those lessons:

1. The power pathway landscape in emerging markets is richer than expected.
2. Pathway developers output consistent and granular data points for most power sector indicators.
3. Access to underlying pathway data is still limited.
4. By focusing on generation, transition pathways can miss other dependencies

These lessons are useful both to FIs adopting a broader range of transition pathways, and to the pathway developers creating them. With more alignment between these actors, adoption of transition pathways can scale to equip FIs with the information needed to support their clients through the energy transition.

1. The power pathway landscape in emerging markets is richer than expected

Backward-looking metrics based on global benchmarks can inadvertently penalize jurisdictions with high emissions. This is particularly the case for emerging markets with a strong development mandate and young fossil fuel assets. However, these regions need more access to transition capital to deliver clean energy development goals, not less. One way to address this is with region-specific benchmarks that account for local realities. However, a commonly cited challenge by FIs is the perceived lack of ambitious and credible region-specific pathways in emerging markets, including Southeast Asia.

RMI’s systematic review of the pathways available in Southeast Asia revealed a much richer landscape of options than initially expected. There are almost 60 pathways currently available on the Repository from 17 different publications and 11 different institutions. This suite of pathways provides global, regional, and country-level pathways over a range of policy and climate outcomes from business-as-usual to net-zero and 1.5°C. This diversity and granularity gives FIs the tools they need to understand the potential operating environments that companies will need to navigate, and helps them assess companies’ plans and ambition in context.

Gaps do remain in the Southeast Asia power pathway universe; not every combination of regional granularity and policy or market assumptions is available on the repository. But those that are available can be more easily identified, compared, and applied by FIs than ever.

Takeaway:
Financial institutions should continue to expand their transition assessment processes to integrate more region-specific pathways, with the knowledge that the pathway landscape is improving and tools like the Transition Pathways Repository and UNEP-FI’s Climate Pathways Navigator are making them easier to find.

2. Pathway developers output consistent and granular data points for most power sector indicators

Transition assessment methodologies show a high degree of convergence around a core set of power-sector indicators, including absolute emissions, installed capacity mix, generation mix, and emissions intensity. Among the pathways included in the Transition Pathways Repository, 54 out of 56 provide capacity projections by technology, and 55 out of 56 include generation by technology. This consistency enables technology trends to be compared and benchmarked in a consistent way across different regions and assumption sets, ensuring transition assessments are repeatable and scalable.

This set of indicators further enables an understanding of not only how emissions might evolve, but also the underlying technology shifts that will drive changes in emissions. This means transition assessments can move beyond benchmarking emissions intensity and assess which technologies companies would need to deploy at what rate in order to align with different scenarios. Identifying these key transition technologies and their deployment timeframes informs richer engagement with clients.

Finally, the available technology granularity enables analysis of the dependencies of the transition. If a pathway shows that emissions reductions are driven by carbon capture and storage (CCS), CCS infrastructure needs to be deployed alongside power generation infrastructure. Likewise, if emissions reductions are driven by increasing renewables, grid storage and stability infrastructure will be needed alongside renewables deployment. Additionally, pathway users can then make their own judgements about the viability of these dependencies achieving the necessary scale to facilitate the rate of transition modeled in a pathway.

Takeaway:
Financial institutions should expand their transition assessment processes beyond a focus on emissions. Metrics focused on technology deployment can provide a more tangible indicator of how clients are aligning with the energy transition and what kinds of investments are in the pipeline.

3. Access to underlying pathway data is still limited

Despite the core metrics above being modeled in most of the available transition pathways, the underlying data for these results is often confined to high-level reports and not readily available publicly. These reports provide the core drivers of change underlying the pathway narrative, describing the modeling approach and charting the key output results described in lesson 2. However, they often do not provide the actual pathway dataset that financial institutions need to put these pathways to use in transition plan quantitative assessments.

In developing the Transition Pathways Repository pilot, we reviewed 17 publications and engaged with 9 pathway providers to obtain the underlying data. In 2 cases, this data was made available to us so that it could be accessible for download in the Repository.

In many cases, the data is neither confidential nor behind a paywall; it is simply not being made available in a usable format. This adds an additional layer of effort and friction for FIs, preventing the use of additional pathways in transition assessments. For pathway developers, it likewise reduces the uptake of their analysis. Greater standardization and transparency in pathway outputs would benefit both pathway developers by increasing uptake, and FIs by lowering barriers to their use.

Takeaway:
Pathway developers should make their underlying pathway data available in an easy-to-use format so that FIs can plug into their existing systems with minimal friction. 4. By focusing on generation, transition pathways can miss other dependencies

Almost all the available transition pathways in the pilot focus solely on power capacity and generation. Assumptions or modeling related to grid infrastructure, demand flexibility, interconnection, and investment needs are frequently simplified, lack granularity, or are absent. Accounting for and including all these factors into power system models would add significant complexity. However, those additional parameters are important as they help illustrate how the electricity sector, as a whole, needs to evolve in order to achieve its most ambitious goals. For FIs, this can reveal whether new power investments depend on network upgrades that may not yet be planned or financed.

For example, different technology choices will change the requirements for transmission and distribution improvements based on location of power generation relative to demand centers. Likewise, different technology mixes will require different levels of investment in demand flexibility and energy storage to account for intermittent renewables.

Takeaway:
Pathway developers should expand their analyses to consider the broader impacts and dependencies of a given capacity and generation mix. This will increase the value of pathways by giving users greater insight on their feasibility and showing the investments needed to make a pathway a reality. Next steps for the Transition Pathway Repository

These lessons reinforced some of the barriers identified by FIs to implement multi-pathway analyses in their transition assessments. However, we also found that there is a rich and diverse landscape of pathways already available, and the Transition Pathways Repository can help remove the barriers to their use by centralizing pathway data in a standardized and easy-to-use format. Looking ahead, the repository will continue to evolve and expand. Planned developments in 2026 include:

• Expanding to the steel and aviation sectors with global coverage.
• Expanding power sector coverage to new regions outside Southeast Asia.
• Improving usability and navigation to make it easier to identify the right pathway for a given use case.

The repository will remain a living resource that can improve through collaboration. We welcome the opportunity to work with financial institutions to gather feedback on usability and ensure the tool effectively supports real-world decision-making. We also invite pathway developers to help strengthen the repository by flagging pathways we may have missed, and by providing more transparent, standardized outputs that enable broader and more consistent uptake.

To learn more, contact Tom White at tomwhite@rmi.org.

The authors would like to thank Jacob Kastl, Nicky Halterman, and Hannah Barton who performed the analysis on these pathways to inform the insights here. 

The post Improving Energy Transition Assessments with Regional Pathways appeared first on RMI.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 12, 2026

MEDIA CONTACTS
Jill Hindenach, 202-494-6309, jhindenach@leadershipcounsel.org
Stephanie Ambriz, 442-400-2534, sambriz@leadershipcounsel.org

TOMBSTONE TERRITORY, CA — After nearly a decade of advocacy, residents of Tombstone Territory, an unincorporated community in Fresno County, are finally connected to a safe, reliable drinking water source. About 40 households in this rural community are connected to the City of Sanger’s water system. This hard-fought victory is thanks to the tireless efforts of residents, partners, the City of Sanger, and State Water Resources Control Board’s Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience drinking water program, known as SAFER.

“Tombstone is where the SAFER program began, because it was here that Governor Newsom signed SB 200, creating the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund,” said E. Joaquin Esquivel, Chair of the State Water Board. “Since then, a million more people, many in disadvantaged communities like Tombstone, have gained access to safe drinking water at home and at school. Thanks to everyone’s perseverance, and many lessons learned along the way, Tombstone residents now join the 98% of Californians with safe drinking water. Congratulations to the community and our program partners on this progress toward fulfilling California’s Human Right to Water.”

For too long, families in Tombstone Territory have endured years of unsafe and unreliable water supply. They have dealt with private wells going dry, harmful contaminants appearing in test results, and forced to rely on bottled water and emergency water tanks. As of this week, they are celebrating a significant milestone. It shows that when communities take the lead and the state invests, change can happen. 

“It took ten years of perseverance to make this happen with our entire community joining together, but we now have water from Sanger, and I am so happy,” said Jovita Torres, Tombstone Territory community resident. “I no longer have to worry if we’re going to spend another summer without water, but that’s not true for many communities throughout the state. If my words reach the governor, I urge him to protect this program, to continue to support it, because there are so many people who still need help.”

This milestone in Tombstone reflects SAFER’s purpose: moving communities from crisis, to lasting, affordable water solutions. Since the program, the number of Californians receiving unsafe water from public water systems has dropped from about 1.6 million to around 600,000. 

“Thanks to community advocacy and the SAFER program, residents of Tombstone Territory now have access to a reliable supply of safe water from their taps for the first time in a decade,” said Michael Claiborne, Directing Attorney at Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability. “This community-driven success demonstrates the critical role that the SAFER program plays in delivering safe water to all Californians, and the program must be fully funded and protected.”

When SAFER is fully funded, we move forward the human right to water. In just six years, there has been a 63% reduction in the number of Californians drinking unsafe water. Underfunding SAFER risks the significant progress in water justice achieved under Governor Newsom and the Legislature. The state cannot afford to take a step backwards. 

At the same time, state leaders have an opportunity to support families struggling with rising water costs by passing SB 1125, which would establish California’s first statewide Water Rate Assistance Program. If passed, this bill  would establish a first in the nation program that would auto-enroll low-income customers for a direct bill credit, ensure transparency through annual reporting, and cap administrative costs. 

SB 1125 would protect vulnerable families from losing access to water as a result of water utility debt, and provide some relief ensuring low-income families can afford this basic and vital necessity. Over 40 organizations, including water utilities, across California stand together in support of SB 1125. This bill puts policy into action to move forward access to safe and affordable water for all. 

The celebration in Tombstone Territory is a testament to community leadership and the SAFER program, but the effort must continue until every community in California can turn on their tap water without fear and harm to their health. 

###

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability works alongside the most impacted communities in the San Joaquin Valley and Eastern Coachella Valley to advocate for sound policy and eradicate injustice to secure equal access to opportunity regardless of wealth, race, income, and place. Leadership Counsel focuses on issues like housing, land use, transportation, safe and affordable drinking water and climate change impacts on communities.

The post Tombstone Community Celebrates Long-Awaited Connection to Safe Drinking Water After Years of Contamination and Dry Wells appeared first on Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability.

Regenerative California is working to build a regenerative economy that uplifts communities, advances sustainability, and strengthens the state of California’s food and agriculture system. Through their demonstration farm, the nonprofit is hoping to highlight the potential of regenerative organic farming practices.

California “has always been this incredible leader in terms of social, economic, and ecological progress,” Kristin Coates, Co-Founder and CEO of Regenerative California, tells Food Tank. “And yet, as the fourth largest economy in the world, it’s still quite extractive.” But she wondered what the future could look like if the state prioritized regenerative systems.

To pilot this vision, Coates and her team looked to Monterey County. “At the time, it was considered California’s most wealthy and also poorest county in the state,” she explains. It’s also home to the Salinas Valley, nicknamed the salad bowl of the world.

The Regenerative California team began by interviewing community members to understand the challenges and opportunities they face in creating a more regenerative economy in the region. From these conversations, Coates says that two main themes emerged: the transition to regenerative organic agriculture and the revitalization of the blue economy.

As their priority issues came into focus, they developed a 70-acre demonstration farm, called Regenerate 68! Farm. “Obviously, 70 acres is not going to change the entire system of agriculture in California,” Coates tells Food Tank, “but we’re really using it as sort of a Petri dish.”

Located just off Highway 68 in Monterey County, the farm is a demonstration site for regenerative organic agriculture training, where they can grow nutrient-rich crops. The land is also part of a much larger ranch to be stewarded by the Big Sur Land Trust. Coates says this is an opportunity to prove that their approach to farming can be integrated into broader conservation efforts.

2026 marks the first year that Regenerative California will begin monitoring the farm’s environmental progress. They’re also considering the social and economic benefits that they can offer to farmers and institutional buyers in the area.

Coates recognizes that what’s successful on one farm may not yield the same results on another, but there are ways to translate the lessons they’re learning to scale impact. “We can create a flywheel,” she says. “And we really, genuinely believe that California can lead that work.”

And Regenerative California is capturing the attention of others interested in this transformation. “A dozen other regions want to join in this movement. They want to be the next area where we apply this process of listening, engaging, creating community momentum,” Coates tells Food Tank. “That really excites us.”

This article was written with the support of Katherine Albertson

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 Regenerative California

The post From Soil Health to Economic Growth: Regenerative California’s Vision for Transformation appeared first on Food Tank.

Cuarenta años después de la catástrofe nuclear de Chernóbil, Bulgaria sigue profundamente marcada por el suceso. Al ser el único país del bloque socialista que no tomó ninguna medida de protección, lo pagó muy caro. La lluvia radiactiva sacó a la luz el cinismo del régimen comunista y marcó profundamente el despertar ecológico y democrático del país.

A la 01:23 del 26 de abril de 1986, el reactor n.º 4 de la central nuclear de Chernóbil, entonces en la URSS, sufrió una avería catastrófica antes de explotar y hacer volar por los aires parte de las instalaciones, dejando el emplazamiento destrozado. El núcleo del reactor quedó al descubierto y liberó grandes cantidades de sustancias radiactivas a la atmósfera. En los meses siguientes, más de 200 000 personas fueron evacuadas de las zonas circundantes.

Impulsada por los vientos, la nube radiactiva contaminó vastas regiones de Europa, con lluvias radiactivas especialmente importantes en Ucrania, Bielorrusia y Rusia. Las emisiones, formadas por nubes de cesio-137 y otros isótopos, continuaron hasta el 5 de mayo. Si bien es cierto que su concentración iba disminuyendo con la distancia, afectaron a territorios muy extensos. La nube llegó a los Balcanes el 1 de mayo.

En aquella época, Dimitar Vatsov era un estudiante de secundaria de 15 años en Sofía. “Justo después de las lluvias radiactivas, el Komsomol [las juventudes del Partido Comunista Soviético] envió a mi clase a trabajar al campo”, recuerda. “Cada mañana, un autobús venía a recogernos para recolectar espinacas y cebollino”. 

Las autoridades búlgaras no informaron públicamente sobre la catástrofe hasta el 7 de mayo. Las declaraciones oficiales posteriores afirmaban que la contaminación ambiental era mínima y no requería ninguna medida especial. Cuatro compañeros de clase de Vatsov murieron de cáncer en los años siguientes.

Esta experiencia lo marcó profundamente. El ahora filósofo y profesor de la Nueva Universidad Búlgara de Sofía puso en marcha el pasado otoño un seminario dedicado exclusivamente a las consecuencias de la catástrofe de Chernóbil en Bulgaria, que reunió a historiadores, periodistas y físicos nucleares.

El ahora filósofo y profesor de la Nueva Universidad Búlgara de Sofía organizó el pasado otoño un seminario que reunió a historiadores, periodistas y físicos nucleares dedicado exclusivamente a las consecuencias de la catástrofe de Chernóbil en Bulgaria.

“Bulgaria fue el único país del bloque socialista que no tomó ninguna medida tras la catástrofe”, explica. Aunque el país solo ocupa el octavo puesto entre los más expuestos a la radiación según un informe de la ONU, registró la tasa más alta de cáncer de tiroides infantil fuera de la antigua URSS. “Como filósofo, esta singularidad me llevó a reflexionar sobre la verdad, la ética del discurso político y, en un sentido más amplio, el cinismo del régimen comunista de la época”.

El bloqueo informativo búlgaro

Tras el accidente de Chernóbil, en los países del bloque del Este se filtró la información con rigurosidad con el fin de minimizar los riesgos de contaminación y preservar al mismo tiempo el prestigio de la URSS. Por ejemplo, en Checoslovaquia, la palabra katastrofa se evitó cuidadosamente en las primeras fases, mientras que el término havárie (”accidente”) se utilizaba sin calificativos.

Los informes oficiales destacaban la pericia y el heroísmo soviéticos, el rápido control del incidente y la supuesta exageración de los hechos por parte de los “medios imperialistas occidentales”. Sin embargo, Bulgaria fue el país donde se produjo la censura más estricta y donde no se emprendió ninguna acción significativa.

“Ceaușescu (uno de los dictadores más autoritarios de la época) advirtió a los rumanos del riesgo de contaminación el 2 de mayo. En Yugoslavia, se pidió a las mujeres embarazadas y a los niños que permanecieran en interiores y se recomendaron precauciones básicas, como lavar los alimentos frescos. En Bulgaria, el bloqueo informativo fue total”, cuenta Vatsov.

“No nos decían nada, simplemente teníamos que obedecer. No fue hasta años más tarde cuando comprendí la verdadera magnitud de la catástrofe” – Petko Kovachev

El físico nuclear Georgi Kaschiev, que entonces trabajaba en la central de Kozloduy, en el noroeste de Bulgaria, recuerda muy bien aquellos días: “La única información que recibimos fue que se había producido un incendio en Chernóbil y que había sido extinguido”. Sin embargo, gracias a una gran antena instalada en su edificio, Kaschiev captaba la televisión yugoslava.

“Las noticias procedentes de Suecia y Finlandia permitieron comprender rápidamente que el incidente era mucho más grave de lo que se reconocía oficialmente. Los medios occidentales difundían imágenes de satélites estadounidenses que mostraban el reactor destruido, mapas que trazaban la nube radiactiva y reportajes que indicaban que Yugoslavia había enviado aviones para evacuar a los nacionales que estudiaban en Kiev”.

A finales de abril, Kaschiev y sus colegas comprendieron que la nube se dirigía hacia Bulgaria. Entre el 1 y el 2 de mayo, los niveles de radiación alcanzaron hasta diez veces los niveles naturales, especialmente tras las lluvias. Ante el mutismo de las autoridades, la información se difundió en privado: los ingenieros pidieron a sus familiares que tomaran precauciones básicas, unas advertencias que a menudo fueron recibidas con incredulidad. Varios análisis de muestras de alimentos posteriores, en particular de leche procedente de granjas búlgaras, confirmaron una contaminación extrema.

Los documentos de archivo a los que se pueden acceder actualmente muestran que el Gobierno búlgaro seguía de cerca la evolución de la catástrofe y el alcance de la contaminación en Europa y en Bulgaria. Para ello, analizaron la prensa extranjera, los informes de inteligencia y las mediciones diarias de radiación en todo el territorio. Según Vatsov, el Politburó del Partido Comunista Búlgaro temía que revelar la verdadera magnitud de la contaminación sembrara el pánico y provocara disturbios políticos, como había ocurrido en Polonia: “Aparte de eso, tan solo puedo calificar esta actitud como una forma de flaqueza moral por parte de las élites gobernantes, que demostraron un profundo desprecio hacia el resto de la población.”

Petko Kovachev, activista medioambiental que entonces cumplía el servicio militar obligatorio, recuerda que el ejército reaccionó rápidamente: “De la noche a la mañana, dejamos de consumir productos frescos y solo comíamos conservas en el comedor. Se cancelaron las actividades al aire libre y se nos ordenó medir los niveles de radiación alrededor de la base con contadores Geiger”.

Sin embargo, las medidas no vinieron acompañadas de ninguna explicación. “No nos decían nada, simplemente teníamos que obedecer. No fue hasta años más tarde cuando comprendí la verdadera magnitud de la catástrofe”.

El cinismo de la nomenklatura

La gestión de las repercusiones de Chernóbil en Bulgaria puso de manifiesto flagrantes desigualdades en el acceso a la información y a la protección sanitaria. En la cúspide se encontraba la nomenklatura: altos cargos del partido, policía política, directivos administrativos y oficiales militares. Durante la crisis, disfrutaron de un acceso privilegiado a comidas y provisiones distribuidas a través del hotel estatal Rila, situado en el centro de Sofía. El Politburó recibía agua mineral procedente de manantiales profundos y alimentos importados (cordero australiano, verduras de Egipto e Israel) para evitar cualquier contaminación.

Según Vatsov, la élite de esta nomenklatura —unas 300 personas— nunca estuvo en peligro, ya que se tomaron medidas especiales para garantizar su seguridad y bienestar: “El ejército adoptó medidas menos estrictas, pero suficientes para reducir la exposición. Al resto de la población, en cambio, permaneció en la ignorancia absoluta”.

Un símbolo de este cinismo fue la decisión de mantener el desfile del 1 de mayo de 1986, en el que numerosos niños desfilaron por Sofía a pesar del riesgo de lluvia radiactiva. Por suerte, la manifestación comenzó a las 11:00, mientras que la nube radiactiva no llegó al territorio búlgaro hasta la tarde, como muy pronto hacia las 14:00.

También se organizaron numerosos eventos deportivos de propaganda en todo el país, así como trabajos forzados supervisados por brigadas juveniles, compuestas principalmente por jóvenes de entre 15 y 25 años. Estos “voluntarios” estaban obligados a realizar tareas físicamente exigentes, como trabajos agrícolas o de construcción al menos dos veces al año. Se estima que unos 365 000 jóvenes se vieron expuestos de esta manera.

El 10 de mayo, tras una reunión en el Ministerio de Energía en Sofía, Kaschiev visitó a su cuñada. Los niños jugaban fuera, delante del edificio, mientras los adultos charlaban tranquilamente. Cuando les instó a que no les dejasen salir ni jugar en el arenero, desoyeron su advertencia. “Me acusaron de querer sembrar el pánico”, cuenta. “Alguien incluso insinuó que seguramente era un agente occidental y amenazó con denunciarme a las autoridades.”

A pesar de unas medidas a menudo insuficientes, se mantuvieron los desfiles del 1 de mayo en todos los países del bloque del Este. Incluso en Polonia, las celebraciones tuvieron lugar según lo previsto, mientras el Gobierno negaba públicamente cualquier riesgo sanitario. Mientras tanto, las autoridades polacas distribuían yodo y limitaban la venta de leche.

La rápida distribución de yodo, que comenzó la tarde del 29 de abril, se cita a menudo como una respuesta ejemplar ante una emergencia radiactiva: en tres días, 18,5 millones de personas (adultos y niños) recibieron una pastilla de yodo.

Científicos y activismo medioambiental

Justo después de la caída del régimen, Kovachev conoció más a fondo la catástrofe de Chernóbil y sus consecuencias gracias a una exposición organizada por físicos de la Universidad de Sofía. Ya en la época del comunismo, algunos de ellos formaban parte de redes ecologistas informales que más tarde se convertirían en Ecoglasnost, organización a la que Kovachev se unió cuando era estudiante.

Fundada en la primavera de 1989, unos meses antes de la caída del comunismo, Ecoglasnost era un movimiento cívico centrado en la protección del medioambiente, nacido del clima de liberalización política inspirado por la glasnost soviética. En otoño, Ecoglasnost organizó peticiones y manifestaciones públicas, entre ellas la concentración del 3 de noviembre en Sofía, considerada una de las primeras movilizaciones cívicas abiertamente contra el régimen comunista.

El movimiento amplió rápidamente sus reivindicaciones a las libertades civiles y las reformas democráticas. En diciembre de 1989, Ecoglasnost se convirtió en la primera organización política no comunista reconocida oficialmente en Bulgaria y desempeñó posteriormente un papel esencial en la estructuración de la oposición democrática al unirse a la Unión de Fuerzas Democráticas (un partido político que unía varias organizaciones opuestas al Gobierno comunista). También inició las primeras inspecciones de la central de Kozloduy.

El compromiso de la comunidad científica con las luchas medioambientales contribuyó al debilitamiento del régimen en sus últimos años. Ya se había manifestado en Ruse, en el norte del país, donde la contaminación atmosférica procedente de una fábrica química situada al otro lado de la frontera rumana desencadenó amplias protestas en 1987. De este movimiento surgió el Consejo Público para la Protección del Medioambiente de Ruse, la primera organización informal tolerada bajo el comunismo, que desempeñó un papel decisivo en las primeras movilizaciones nacionales y en la transición democrática.

En esa misma época, el descubrimiento de materiales radiactivos en forma de “partículas calientes” en Bulgaria (una prueba de la magnitud de la catástrofe de Chernóbil) incitó a varios físicos a seguir de cerca la crisis y a estudiar sus consecuencias. La exposición de la Universidad de Sofía que visitó Kovachev en diciembre de 1989 fue fruto de ese trabajo.

En otros países del bloque socialista, como Hungría o Checoslovaquia, surgieron algunos movimientos similares que combinaban el compromiso científico con la toma de conciencia ecológica y democrática.

Las preocupaciones medioambientales se convirtieron en el motor que expresaba las reivindicaciones de responsabilidad y transparencia. Este fenómeno alimentó las redes reformistas que posteriormente contribuyeron a configurar la transición de Hungría hacia la democracia

Mientras los niveles de radiación aumentaban a finales de abril y principios de mayo de 1986, los científicos y profesionales sanitarios húngaros documentaron la contaminación e intercambiaron información de manera informal, mientras que la comunicación oficial seguía siendo limitada y con ánimos tranquilizadores.

La creciente brecha entre el conocimiento de los expertos y el discurso público creó una disonancia moral en estos profesionales, divididos entre su integridad científica y su lealtad al Estado. En este contexto, las preocupaciones medioambientales se convirtieron en el motor que expresaba las reivindicaciones de responsabilidad y transparencia. Este fenómeno alimentó las redes reformistas que posteriormente contribuyeron a configurar la transición de Hungría hacia la democracia.

En la antigua Checoslovaquia, la catástrofe de Chernóbil también contribuyó a galvanizar los movimientos ecologistas, que posteriormente se convirtieron en actores clave de la Revolución de Terciopelo de 1989. Aunque el régimen era uno de los más represivos del bloque del Este, toleraba más el activismo medioambiental que la disidencia política abierta, pues consideraba que las preocupaciones relacionadas con la contaminación atmosférica e hídrica o la degradación del paisaje eran relativamente inofensivas y difíciles de censurar.

Los disidentes de Chernóbil

Según Vatsov, en Bulgaria no había disidentes antes del accidente de Chernóbil. “Saber que habían sido engañados por las autoridades y expuestos a graves riesgos para la salud marcó el compromiso político de toda una generación, especialmente dentro de la comunidad científica.”

Kaschiev es un ejemplo emblemático. La catástrofe de Chernóbil determinó tanto su compromiso político como su trayectoria profesional. Su indignación ante las deficiencias morales y políticas del régimen le llevó a especializarse en seguridad nuclear. A finales de la década de 1980, pasó de la física de reactores a la evaluación de riesgos, primero como empleado dentro de la central, y luego como profesor universitario e inspector nuclear. En 1997, fue nombrado director del laboratorio nacional de regulación nuclear de Bulgaria.

En otros países socialistas, la catástrofe de Chernóbil también se convirtió en un catalizador de la oposición al régimen. En Polonia, dio lugar a un poderoso movimiento antinuclear. Los temores relacionados con la catástrofe se transformaron rápidamente en oposición al proyecto de la central nuclear de Żarnowiec, y desencadenaron protestas a nivel nacional en las que participaron grupos ecologistas, activistas locales y disidentes como Lech Wałęsa, futuro primer presidente del país elegido democráticamente.

En un referéndum organizado en 1990, coincidiendo con las elecciones locales, más del 86 % de los votantes rechazó el proyecto de Żarnowiec, lo que provocó su abandono definitivo. Como señala el politólogo Kacper Szulecki, estas movilizaciones reflejaron y aceleraron profundas transformaciones sociales y generacionales, al tiempo que socavaron aún más la legitimidad de Moscú en Polonia.

Si bien dejó una huella duradera en la sociedad búlgara, la catástrofe no dio lugar a un movimiento antinuclear amplio. La central de Kozloduy, modernizada y aún en funcionamiento, es considerada en gran medida una fuente de orgullo nacional y una garantía de independencia energética. La catastrófica gestión de Chernóbil puso sobre todo de manifiesto la indecencia y el cinismo del régimen comunista, así como la irracionalidad de su ideología.

La catastrófica gestión de Chernóbil puso sobre todo de manifiesto la indecencia y el cinismo del régimen comunista, así como la irracionalidad de su ideología

En diciembre de 1991, tras la caída del régimen, el Tribunal Supremo de Sofía condenó al exministro de Sanidad Lyubomir Shindarov y al ex viceprimer ministro Grigor Stoichkov por negligencia criminal, por haber engañado deliberadamente a la población. Tras un largo proceso de apelación, sus penas se redujeron a dos y tres años de prisión, respectivamente. Siguen siendo los únicos altos cargos del régimen búlgaro que realmente fueron procesados y condenados por la gestión de la catástrofe de Chernóbil.

El físico nuclear Atanas Krastanov, joven investigador en la década de 1980 y testigo de la mala gestión de la catástrofe por parte de las autoridades, considera que la energía nuclear en sí misma no es el problema.

Subraya que “el accidente de Chernóbil fue ante todo el resultado de un error humano” y precisa “que en un principio no se trató de una explosión nuclear, sino de una explosión térmica debida a una acumulación de presión”. En la actualidad, Krastanov trabaja como experto en el Centro de Prevención de Catástrofes, Accidentes y Crisis del Ayuntamiento de Sofía. Recientemente participó en la realización de un documental sobre el tema, cuyo estreno está previsto para otoño. 

Este artículo se ha realizado dentro de una Thematic Network de PULSE, una iniciativa europea que apoya las colaboraciones periodísticas transnacionales. En su elaboración han colaborado Andrea Braschayko, Martin Vrba y Daniel Harper.

Translated by Raquel Alonso | Voxeurop

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has published a final rule rescinding the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, also known as the Public Lands Rule. The Public Lands Rule was finalized in May 2024 and clarified that conservation is a use of national public lands under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which governs how the BLM lands are to be managed. After the rescission of the rule was proposed by the Trump administration in September 2025, an analysis by the Center for Western Priorities of the public comments on the proposal found that 98 percent of commenters opposed rescinding the rule.

“By rolling back the Public Lands Rule, the administration is admitting loudly and clearly that they think public lands are just there for corporations and for their donors to profit from,” said Tracy Stone-Manning, former director of the BLM during the Biden administration and now president of The Wilderness Society.

The BLM also announced proposed changes to its grazing regulations. If finalized, the changes would loosen requirements for ranchers and reduce public input. “These regulations are designed to further cut the public and scientists out of our public lands,” Center for Western Priorities Executive Director Aaron Weiss told E&E News. “Public lands belong to all of us, even when they’re being used for grazing.”

Quick hits BLM rescinds Public Lands Rule, proposes changes to grazing regs

New York Times | Associated Press | The Guardian | National Parks Traveler | Source NM | WyoFile | E&E News

Top Interior official ensnared in second major scandal

Public Domain | E&E News

Steve Pearce closer to confirmation as new head of Bureau of Land Management

CPR News | Source NM

National Park Service rife with conflicts in Trump era

Sierra Nevada Ally

Forest Service scrambles to justify research station closures, budget cuts

E&E News

Trump’s EPA seeks looser construction rules for gas plants, data centers, factories

Inside Climate News | E&E News

Lake Powell forecast to receive 13% of its usual flows, new report shows

Colorado Sun

Opinion: Misusing the Congressional Review Act as a tool for land management policy

The Regulatory Review

Quote of the day

By now, the administration’s playbook is clear – disregard the will of the American people, refuse to protect our public lands, hand control over to corporate polluters, then dispose of these landscapes entirely.”

—Athan Manuel, Sierra Club, WyoFile

Picture This @u.s.forestservice

An early spring sunset illuminates the Ruby Mountains on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada. Plan your visit today.

(Forest Service photo by Michael Balen.)

 

Featured image: Eagle Pass, BLM Wyoming

The post Trump admin rescinds Public Lands Rule, loosens grazing regulations appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Oltre a provocare gravi problemi sanitari, la catastrofe di Černobyl’ contribuì alla nascita di movimenti ambientalisti e alla delegittimazione dei regimi nei paesi socialisti. Quarant’anni dopo l’incidente, la Bulgaria resta il paese più segnato dal disastro, l’unico del blocco socialista a non adottare alcuna misura di protezione, Sofia pagò un prezzo altissimo che mise a nudo il cinismo del regime comunista.

All’1:23 del 26 aprile 1986, il nocciolo del reattore numero quattro della centrale nucleare di Černobyl’ – nei pressi del confine tra le repubbliche sovietiche di Ucraina e Bielorussia – si fuse ed esplose, distruggendo parte dell’impianto. Enormi quantità di sostanze radioattive furono liberate nell’atmosfera, e oltre 200mila persone dovettero essere evacuate dalle aree circostanti. Trasportata dal vento, la nube radioattiva contaminò vaste zone d’Europa, con le ricadute più pesanti in Ucraina, Bielorussia e Russia. Nelle popolazioni esposte si registrarono aumenti di malattie tiroidee e tumori; altri effetti sanitari a lungo termine restano difficili da quantificare.

Il silenzio delle autorità bulgare

“Mi sono interessato alle conseguenze dell’incidente di Černobyl’ in Bulgaria per una questione personale. All’inizio di maggio 1986 avevo quindici anni ed ero studente di liceo a Sofia. Subito dopo le piogge radioattive, la mia classe venne mandata a lavorare nei campi. Ogni mattina un autobus ci portava a raccogliere spinaci ed erba cipollina. Quattro miei compagni sono poi morti di cancro”, racconta Dimitar Vatsov. 

Vatsov insegna alla New Bulgarian University di Sofia, e sostiene che “la Bulgaria fu l’unico paese del blocco socialista a non adottare misure dopo il disastro. Per questo, sebbene un rapporto Onu la classifichi all’ottavo posto tra gli stati più colpiti dalle radiazioni, la Bulgaria registra il più alto tasso di tumori alla tiroide tra i bambini al di fuori dell’ex Urss”.

La nube radioattiva raggiunse i Balcani già il 1° maggio, ma fino al 7 maggio le autorità bulgare non fecero alcun annuncio. Nelle successive comunicazioni ufficiali si sostenne che la contaminazione ambientale era minima e non richiedeva misure speciali.

“Per fare un confronto, Ceaușescu avvertì i romeni del rischio di contaminazione già il 2 maggio. Lo stesso accadde in Jugoslavia, dove alle donne incinte e ai bambini fu chiesto di restare in casa e furono raccomandate precauzioni di base, come lavare il cibo fresco. In Bulgaria, invece, si verificò un blackout informativo totale”, commenta Vatsov.

Nel 1986 il fisico nucleare Georgi Kascev lavorava alla centrale di Kozloduj, nel nord-ovest della Bulgaria, tuttora l’unico impianto nucleare del paese. Ricorda bene quel giorno: “L’unico comunicato che ricevemmo diceva che c’era stato un incendio a Černobyl’, ma era stato spento”. Grazie a un’antenna installata al nono piano del suo palazzo, però, Kascev riceveva la televisione jugoslava: “Le notizie suggerivano che l’incidente era molto più grave. Si vedevano immagini del reattore distrutto e mappe della nube radioattiva, e si diceva che la Jugoslavia aveva inviato aerei per evacuare i propri studenti da Kiev”. Mentre il silenzio ufficiale continuava, in privato gli ingegneri invitavano i parenti a prendere precauzioni di base, spesso senza essere creduti.

I documenti d’archivio oggi accessibili mostrano che il governo bulgaro monitorava in realtà con attenzione l’evoluzione del disastro e la contaminazione in corso in Europa e nel paese. “L’unica spiegazione plausibile [del silenzio] è che le autorità bulgare temevano che rivelare la reale portata della contaminazione avrebbe causato panico e possibili disordini politici. Oltre a questo, posso solo parlare di una forma di debolezza morale delle élite al potere, che mostrarono disprezzo per il resto della popolazione”, spiega Vatsov.

Nel 1986 l’attivista ambientale Petko Kascev stava svolgendo il servizio militare obbligatorio. Ricorda che l’esercito reagì con rapidità: “All’improvviso smettemmo di mangiare cibo fresco, in mensa ci servivano solo scatolette. Le attività all’aperto furono cancellate e ci ordinarono di misurare i livelli di radiazione attorno alla base, ma non ci spiegarono mai cosa stesse succedendo”.

Liliana Prodanova era invece una scienziata che lavorava presso l’Istituto di fisica dello stato solido: “Mio marito era prorettore dell’Università tecnica di Sofia. Anch’io ero fisica, quindi capivamo molto bene le implicazioni della contaminazione. Prendemmo precauzioni in silenzio, come lavare il cibo. Rimuovemmo anche il terreno contaminato attorno alla nostra casa di campagna. Quell’anno non piantammo nulla”.

Gli scienziati e l’attivismo ambientale

Secondo Dimitar Vatsov, “prima dell’incidente di Černobyl’ non c’erano veri dissidenti in Bulgaria. Ma la consapevolezza di essere stati ingannati dalle autorità e di essere stati esposti a gravi rischi sanitari ha plasmato l’impegno politico di un’intera generazione, soprattutto all’interno della comunità scientifica”.

In particolare, nel 1989 nacque Ecoglasnost, un movimento civico per la tutela dell’ambiente in Bulgaria. Organizzò petizioni e manifestazioni, tra cui un raduno a Sofia che è considerato una delle prime mobilitazioni civiche aperte contro il regime comunista. Il movimento ampliò presto le proprie richieste alle libertà civili e alle riforme democratiche e giocò poi un ruolo nella transizione.

Il coinvolgimento della comunità scientifica nelle lotte ambientali fu uno dei tratti distintivi degli ultimi anni del regime bulgaro. Si era già manifestato nella città di Ruse, dove l’inquinamento provocato da un impianto chimico aveva scatenato proteste diffuse e aveva portato alla nascita di un comitato per la protezione dell’ambiente, la prima organizzazione informale tollerata sotto il comunismo. Anche in altri Paesi del blocco sovietico, come l’Ungheria, l’impegno degli scienziati contro l’inquinamento e le devastazioni della natura contribuì a rendere la critica ambientale una forma legittima – seppur attentamente delimitata – di partecipazione pubblica nel tardo socialismo.

Reazioni in Polonia, Ungheria e Cecoslovacchia

In Polonia la catastrofe di Černobyl’ fece da catalizzatore per la mobilitazione politica e contribuì alla nascita di un movimento antinucleare di massa, in particolare contro il progetto della centrale di Żarnowiec, che avrebbe dovuto diventare nel 1990 il primo impianto nucleare del paese. A partire dal 1986 gruppi ecologisti locali e nazionali organizzarono manifestazioni, campagne di informazione, blocchi stradali e persino scioperi della fame, coinvolgendo ampi settori della società e figure pubbliche di primo piano come Lech Wałęsa, leader di Solidarność. Le autorità si trovarono costrette a indire un referendum, in cui oltre l’86 per cento dei votanti si espresse contro il progetto della nuova centrale, che nel 1990 fu effettivamente interrotto.

Come rileva lo studioso Kacper Szulecki nel libro The Chernobyl Effect (“L’effetto Černobyl’”), le lotte ambientaliste degli anni Ottanta riflettevano trasformazioni generazionali e culturali più profonde. La gestione sovietica dell’incidente di Černobyl’ delegittimò in modo definitivo il già fragile controllo di Mosca sulla Polonia, galvanizzando l’opposizione.

In Ungheria Černobyl’ invece non diede origine a un movimento antinucleare di massa, né mise in discussione il programma nucleare del paese. Mentre la comunicazione ufficiale riguardo all’incidente nucleare restava limitata e rassicurante, scienziati e professionisti della sanità iniziarono a registrare gli effetti della contaminazione e a scambiarsi informazioni in modo informale.

Questo scarto tra la consapevolezza degli esperti e le comunicazioni delle autorità accelerò l’erosione della legittimità del regime. Le tematiche ambientali divennero un canale per sollevare temi più ampi di responsabilità e trasparenza, e così entro la fine degli anni Ottanta emersero reti e iniziative ambientaliste che avrebbero poi intersecato la transizione alla democrazia.

Anche in Cecoslovacchia la catastrofe di Černobyl’ influenzò i movimenti ecologisti locali, che sarebbero diventati attori importanti nella rivoluzione del 1989. Poiché quei movimenti erano in larga parte concentrati su temi come l’impatto sanitario dell’inquinamento industriale, la contaminazione dell’acqua o i danni al paesaggio causati dall’attività mineraria, il regime li considerava relativamente innocui rispetto ad altri dissidenti. Dopo Černobyl’, però, quelle che prima erano preoccupazioni ecologiche locali si trasformarono in sfiducia sistemica.

Il cinismo della nomenklatura

La gestione delle conseguenze di Černobyl’ in Bulgaria mise in luce disuguaglianze profonde nell’accesso alle informazioni e alla protezione sanitaria. Secondo Dimitar Vatsov, “la fascia più alta della nomenklatura non fu mai in pericolo, perché furono adottate misure speciali. Il cibo veniva importato dall’estero e testato, e i suoi membri venivano riforniti con acqua minerale da falde profonde. L’esercito applicò misure meno rigorose, ma comunque tali da ridurre l’esposizione. Il resto della popolazione fu tenuto nella totale ignoranza”.

Un simbolo di questo cinismo fu la decisione di mantenere le tradizionali parate del 1° maggio anche nel 1986. A Sofia molti bambini marciarono sotto una pioggia radioattiva e in tutto il paese si svolsero numerosi eventi sportivi di propaganda, tra cui le cosiddette “maratone della salute”. Le brigate giovanili, composte da ragazzi tra i 15 e i 25 anni, erano obbligate a svolgere lavori fisici in campagna o nei cantieri almeno due volte l’anno: si stima che circa 365mila giovani siano stati esposti alle radiazioni in questo modo.

Anche in Polonia le autorità decisero di mantenere le celebrazioni del 1° maggio. Giornali e media di Stato invitarono i cittadini a partecipare, insistendo sull’assenza di pericoli per la salute pubblica. D’altronde, il primo riferimento ufficiale all’incidente di Černobyl’ era comparso solo tra il 29 e il 30 aprile, limitandosi ad affermare: “C’è stato un incidente nella centrale nucleare in Ucraina. Le vittime sono state assistite. Tutto è sotto controllo”. Allo stesso tempo, però, il governo polacco distribuì in silenzio milioni di dosi di iodio protettivo e limitò la vendita del latte, segno che i rischi di contaminazione erano ben noti.

Dieci anni dopo, un’indagine medica rivelò che circa il 22 per cento dei giovani polacchi soffriva di disturbi alla tiroide, con una percentuale vicina al 40 per cento nelle regioni nord-orientali.

Anche in Ungheria le autorità si mossero con cautela, privilegiando la tutela della calma pubblica e l’osservanza delle celebrazioni del 1° maggio. Non furono emessi comunicati pubblici, i media ufficiali ridimensionarono la portata dell’incidente, e le celebrazioni si svolsero come previsto. Dietro le quinte gli scienziati registravano valori di radioattività elevati e rilevavano l’arrivo di piogge radioattive, ma le misure protettive rimasero limitate e disomogenee. La Cecoslovacchia seguì inizialmente lo stesso schema.

Il nucleare in Bulgaria dopo il 1989

La gestione catastrofica di Černobyl’ mise a nudo l’indecenza del regime comunista. Nel dicembre 1991, dopo che il regime era caduto, la Corte suprema di Sofia condannò l’ex ministro della Sanità Ljubomir Scindarov e l’ex vice primo ministro Grigor Stoičkov per negligenza criminale, per aver ingannato l’opinione pubblica. Furono gli unici alti funzionari del regime a essere processati e condannati a pene detentive.

Benché l’incidente di Černobyl’ abbia avuto un serio impatto sulla società bulgara, non produsse un movimento anti nucleare su larga scala. La centrale di Kozloduj, ristrutturata e ancora operativa, è oggi percepita come una fonte di orgoglio nazionale. L’attivista ambientale Petko Kovačev, vicino all’Ong Za Zemiata e alle reti antinucleari, sostiene che il sostegno popolare al nucleare in Bulgaria è trainato dalle preoccupazioni per l’indipendenza energetica e per il basso costo dell’elettricità, più che da valutazioni scientifiche o etiche.

In questo contesto, sta procedendo il progetto per costruire una nuova centrale nucleare a Belene, approvato anche da un referendum nazionale. In aggiunta, sono previsti due nuovi reattori a Kozloduj. Entrata in funzione nel 1970, la centrale oggi opera solo con i due reattori più recenti; i più vecchi sono stati abbandonati sotto la pressione dell’Unione europea, che ne fece una condizione per l’adesione della Bulgaria. 

Un tempo descritta come la centrale più pericolosa del mondo, Kozloduj oggi rispetta tutti i requisiti di sicurezza fissati dall’Aiea, anche se gli attivisti denunciano una mancanza di trasparenza sulla governance e sugli incidenti che coinvolgono l’impianto.

Questo articolo fa parte del progetto collaborativo PULSE ed è stato pubblicato nell’ambito dei Thematic Networks. Hanno contribuito al progetto Andrea Braschayko, Martin Vrba e Daniel Harper.

Watch this CELDF live-streamed conversation from May 7th 2026, on colonization and nationalist U.S. propaganda with Anne Keala Kelly and Dina Gilio-Whitaker.

The post “What Revolution? Systemic Racism, Sexism, and Genocide from America’s Beginning” appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

The post Petition: Migrants are the solution first appeared on Migrant Workers Alliance for Change.

The post Petition: Migrants are the solution appeared first on Migrant Workers Alliance for Change.

Dollar for dollar, investing in renewable energy provides greater benefits to society than technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, according to a new analysis.

Most previous studies of direct air capture (DAC) have looked at whether it removes more carbon dioxide than it produces, or whether it costs society less to remove a ton of carbon from the atmosphere than it does to leave it there—in effect comparing carbon capture with doing nothing.

“Many analyses ask ‘is direct air capture net-negative?’ and leave it there, without acknowledging that there is an opportunity cost to investing in direct air capture,” says study team member Yannai Kashtan, a researcher at PSE Healthy Energy, an Oakland, CA-based independent research institute.

Instead, Kashtan and his colleagues set a higher bar for DAC, comparing its return on investment to that of other climate-friendly technologies, namely renewable energy development.

“I was surprised how much the answer [to] ‘is DAC worth it?’ changes when you change your metric,” Kashtan says.

The researchers modeled the health and climate benefits of investing $100 million in direct air capture versus investing the same amount in utility-scale solar or onshore wind in 22 regions across the United States through 2050.

The public health impact of DAC is often overlooked in studies of the technology. But if the electricity to power DAC comes even partially from a fossil-based grid, it results in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and small particulate matter pollution—while renewables do not.

The researchers modeled four scenarios for the development of DAC technology and performance, analyzing each of these in the context of eight different hypothetical future grid scenarios developed by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

 

.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:New study compares growing corn for energy to solar production. It’s no contest.

 

The results were stark. “Solar and wind beat direct air capture now and all the way through 2050, even if direct air capture gets substantially cheaper and more energy-efficient,” says Kashtan.

If today’s performance of DAC holds—the technology currently requires about 5,500 kilowatt hours of electricity and costs $1,000 to remove one ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere—it would have a net negative impact on society through 2050 due to greenhouse gas emissions and harmful air pollution, the researchers found.

Even if DAC energy use falls by more than two-thirds to 1,500 kilowatt hours and its cost by half to $500 per ton of carbon dioxide removed, the benefits of renewables are several-fold greater than those of DAC.

Only in the most optimistic scenario for DAC development—in which these figures fall to 800 kilowatt hours and $100 per ton of carbon dioxide removed—does the technology edge out renewables nationwide. Even then, solar and wind remain the better investment in some regions, such as across the Midwest.

“To be clear, direct air capture can do something solar and wind cannot: reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations, undoing past damage,” Kashtan says. But until carbon emissions are virtually zeroed out, DAC is highly unlikely to be cost-effective compared to investing in renewables. Kashtan compares the situation to a common-sense principle: “fix your broken faucet before you start mopping the floor.”

A future analysis could try to find the “tipping point” where the grid is sufficiently clean that DAC offers greater bang for the buck, says Kashtan.

Source: Kashtan Y. et al. “Direct air capture has substantial health and climate opportunity costs.” Communications Sustainability 2026.

Image: © Anthropocene Magazine.

By: OUREYA RAISSA

From April 18 to 26, 2026, I participated in the Zero Waste Academy: Community Zero Waste Program Implementation Course, hosted by GAIA Asia-Pacific and the Mother Earth Foundation in Manila, the vibrant capital of the Philippines. The event brought together people committed to building a world beyond throwaway culture. 

For nine intensive days, activists, experts, practitioners, and young leaders from around the world came together to learn, exchange ideas, and develop practical approaches for a fair and sustainable transition to zero waste. I felt deeply honoured to be part of this experience. 

Exploring the global challenges to achieve  zero waste 

The Zero Waste Academy was far more than a typical conference. It was a safe learning space rooted in the realities of local communities that are too often left out of mainstream discussions. Conversations were open and honest, critical thinking was encouraged, and the mix of participants from Asia and Africa created a powerful exchange of perspectives. It was a rare environment where ideas were tested, assumptions challenged, and learning happened both in the sessions and in conversations with fellow participants. For me, it was a transformative experience. 

Over the course of the week, several key issues were explored: 

False solutions under scrutiny: the case of waste-to-energy 

One of the sessions focused on false solutions, especially Waste-to-Energy (WtE), which burns waste to produce energy. Although some industry and institutional actors present it as a climate solution, the session clearly showed its limits. 

Using evidence and data, speakers explained that waste incineration releases greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants, destroys recyclable materials, and diverts investment away from truly circular systems. Rather than solving the waste crisis, Waste-to-Energy reinforces the same cycle of overproduction and disposal that zero-waste principles seek to end. This is a lesson I will carry into my future advocacy. 

A just transition: leaving no one behind 

Another major theme was the idea of a just transition. I was especially moved by the recognition given to waste pickers and by the acknowledgement of their strength and resilience. These workers, mostly women, collect, sort, and sell materials every day, making an essential contribution to the recycling system. 

Organic waste: an overlooked opportunity 

Organic waste accounts for more than half of household waste in much of the Global South, yet it is still often dumped or burned, producing significant methane emissions. The Academy dedicated several sessions to this issue, especially community composting solutions.  

For African stakeholders, these approaches are particularly relevant: they are low-cost, adapted to local realities, create jobs, reduce emissions, and improve both soil fertility and food security. 

Reuse and its benefits: reclaiming control of our resources 

Reuse was also a major topic of discussion. In response to the growing volume of single-use products, many local initiatives are already adopting deposit-return systems and reusable packaging as practical alternatives. What struck me most was that these solutions do not depend on advanced technology. They depend primarily on cultural change and community mobilisation—qualities that Africa already has in abundance. 

MRFs: seeing zero waste in practice 

One of the week’s highlights was the visit to Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in several barangays in Manila. These community-based sorting and recycling centres, often modest in scale, show what zero waste can look like in practice. They recover materials, return them to the local economy, and create decent jobs within neighbourhoods. 

Seeing these facilities in operation convinced me even more that zero waste is not just a theory for wealthy countries. Communities with limited resources in the Global South are already making it work. It may not be perfect, but it is real, practical, and effective. 

What I am bringing back to Lomé 

I am returning to Lomé with more than memories—I am returning with a plan. 

What I saw in Manila strengthened my determination to help advance a Zero Waste Plan for Lomé. The plan would be practical, community-driven, and rooted in the realities of our neighbourhoods. It would focus on creating local MRF centres, recovering organic waste, supporting informal recycling workers, and involving young people as agents of change. 

This effort cannot be built alone. It will require young people, community actors, municipal authorities, and everyone who believes, as I do, that Lomé can become a leading zero-waste city in Francophone Africa. Zero waste is possible. It does not need to be perfect. It simply needs to begin. 

The government cannot address waste alone. As civil society organisations, we also have a responsibility to help build a zero-waste future. – Raïssa Oureya 

BY: OUREYA RAISSA, NGO Jeunes Verts, Togo,  GAIA Africa Member 

The post From Lomé to Manila: My Journey at the Zero Waste Academy Philippines  first appeared on GAIA.

A study of hundreds of armed conflicts around the world finds that severe drought raises the risk of violent clashes. The study is the latest addition to a growing body of evidence showing that climate shocks spark conflict. 

Read more on E360 →

Register for direct action training and catch up with Max Wilbert's work to educate and organize people to protect the remaining old-growth forests in Lane County, Oregon in CELDF’s monthly newsletter, Common Sense, Collective Action for Right-Relationship!

The post “Common Sense” Newsletter – May 2026: Physical Mobilization, Register Today! appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

Tema Mesir selalu berhasil mencuri perhatian karena memiliki identitas visual yang sangat kuat. Elemen seperti piramida, Sphinx, Firaun, hingga hieroglif menciptakan atmosfer misterius yang mudah dikenali.

Pengembang game memanfaatkan kekayaan visual ini untuk membangun pengalaman bermain yang imersif. Mereka menghadirkan animasi yang detail, latar musik bernuansa eksotis, serta simbol-simbol khas yang membuat pemain merasa seolah memasuki dunia sejarah kuno.

Unsur Misteri yang Meningkatkan Rasa Penasaran

Salah satu kekuatan utama tema Mesir adalah unsur misteri yang melekat pada sejarahnya. Banyak cerita tentang harta karun tersembunyi, makam kuno, dan legenda Firaun yang belum sepenuhnya terungkap.

Dalam industri hiburan digital, elemen misteri ini dimanfaatkan untuk menciptakan pengalaman bermain yang penuh kejutan. Pemain cenderung lebih tertarik pada game yang menawarkan sensasi eksplorasi dan penemuan, bukan sekadar mekanisme permainan biasa.

Kombinasi Budaya dan Mitologi yang Kaya

Peradaban Mesir Kuno memiliki mitologi yang sangat kaya, seperti kisah Dewa Ra, Anubis, dan Osiris. Pengembang game sering mengadaptasi cerita-cerita ini menjadi fitur dalam permainan, seperti simbol khusus atau bonus interaktif.

Kombinasi antara budaya dan mitologi ini menciptakan kedalaman narasi yang membuat permainan terasa lebih hidup. Hal ini meningkatkan keterlibatan pemain karena mereka tidak hanya bermain, tetapi juga “menjelajahi cerita”.

Desain Gameplay yang Variatif dan Adaptif

Selain aspek visual dan cerita, pengembang juga terus meningkatkan kualitas gameplay. Game bertema Mesir biasanya memiliki fitur-fitur seperti free spin, multiplier, hingga mini-game berbasis petualangan.

Inovasi ini membuat permainan tidak terasa monoton. Pemain mendapatkan pengalaman yang dinamis karena setiap putaran dapat memberikan hasil dan kejutan yang berbeda.

Faktor Psikologis dalam Daya Tarik Tema

Dari sudut pandang psikologi pengguna, tema Mesir memicu rasa penasaran dan ekspektasi akan “keberuntungan besar” yang tersembunyi. Simbol harta karun dan artefak kuno secara tidak langsung menciptakan persepsi peluang besar di benak pemain.

Selain itu, warna emas dan desain visual megah sering diasosiasikan dengan kemewahan dan kemenangan, sehingga memperkuat daya tarik emosional.

Perspektif dalam Industri Game Digital

game bertema Mesir menunjukkan bagaimana industri hiburan digital menggabungkan:

• menghadirkan gameplay imersif yang kaya visual
• pengembangan desain game berbasis riset budaya dan psikologi pemain
• ema Mesir sudah menjadi standar populer di industri slot global
• penyedia game besar terus menjaga kualitas dan konsistensi produk

Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa popularitas tema Mesir bukan hanya tren sementara, melainkan hasil dari strategi industri yang matang.

Kesimpulan

Game slot bertema Mesir tetap menarik bagi pemain karena mampu menggabungkan visual yang kuat, cerita mitologi yang kaya, serta pengalaman bermain yang imersif. Industri hiburan digital terus memanfaatkan tema ini karena terbukti efektif dalam meningkatkan keterlibatan pengguna.

Dengan inovasi yang terus berkembang, tema Mesir diprediksi akan tetap menjadi salah satu ikon utama dalam dunia permainan online di masa mendatang.

At least fifty countries have yet to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) climate plan to the United Nations, even though the latest set of plans was due in 2025 – and among them, around half have failed to provide information on why they have not met the deadline.

More than a year past an initial deadline of February 2025, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) met this March and said 55 countries had yet to communicate an NDC to the UN climate body. According to the UN’s registry, two have since submitted their plans.

A key requirement of the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement is that governments publish a more ambitious NDC every five years, setting targets to reduce their planet-heating emissions and outlining their policies to adapt to climate change, in order to meet the accord’s goals on limiting global warming and protecting people from its effects.

The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in 2025.

After India’s recent submission, the countries yet to publish their new NDCs are mostly poorer and smaller nations, with few emissions. The biggest emitters in the group are Egypt, Vietnam, Argentina and the Philippines. The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement, although the US submitted a 2035 NDC under the Biden administration before Donald Trump pulled the US out of the UN climate accords.

Some nations have argued that they cannot put together an NDC – which requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy – because of exceptional circumstances. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC committee, seen by Climate Home News, says that the country’s civil war has led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.

No information from some nations

But others have failed to communicate with the PAICC, which is tasked with encouraging governments to respect their commitments under the Paris Agreement.

In a report on its March 27 meeting, the PAICC board said it “noted with concern” that 28 countries had not provided information about either their NDCs or their biennial transparency reports on the climate action they are taking, or both. This was “despite several reminders”, it said.

Despite a push from some board members, the committee did not agree at this meeting to name these 28 countries. But it may do so at a meeting in September.

• May 7, 2026 Aviation’s Green Dream Oil crisis could boost struggling sustainable aviation fuel industry As the price of oil-based jet fuel shoots up, biofuel or hydrogen-based alternatives look more appealing Read more
• May 7, 2026 Comment ICJ follow-up resolution is a test of climate leadership at the UN If states back the resolution by consensus, it would send a powerful message of commitment to climate action and the rule of law, despite pushback by some big emitters Read more

One source who has seen the list of countries told Climate Home News it was a “mixed crowd” of developing nations, including least developed countries, small island developing states, emerging economies and at least one government with a representative on the PAICC board.

The PAICC decided to send individual letters to these governments requesting that they engage with the committee and “reminding them that it shall take appropriate measures with a view to facilitating implementation and promoting compliance” with the Paris Agreement.

Non-punitive system

The PAICC’s rules of procedure state that it should be “non-adversarial and non-punitive” and the strongest measure it can take is to issue a formal public finding naming a government that has breached the Paris Agreement rules – something it has yet to do. In 2023, it opted for a softer response in a report, noting that the Vatican had not filed an NDC and that Iceland had not told the UN how much climate finance it planned to provide.

Joanna Depledge, a historian of the UN climate process and research fellow at the University of Cambridge, said that “any measures stronger than naming and shaming would have been unacceptable” to some governments when they were negotiating the Paris Agreement.

She added that “naming and shaming in the international arena is not trivial” because governments do not like to be exposed as non-compliant. “But if the PAICC cannot even name, then that is a serious problem,” she warned.

Avoiding Kyoto’s mistakes?

Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge, said the architects of the Paris Agreement made it less enforceable so as to try and prevent countries leaving or staying out of the agreement as happened with its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol.

While the Paris Agreement asks all governments to set their own emissions-reduction targets, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol set specific targets for developed countries.

When in 2011 it became clear that Canada was not going to meet those targets, it quit the agreement rather than face formal non-compliance proceedings and a multibillion-dollar obligation to buy carbon credits to cover the shortfall, Rao said.

Japan and Russia also declined to endorse some of their emissions reduction targets and the US never ratified the Kyoto agreement. “Enforcement proceedings became politically toxic,” exposing “the limits of punitive compliance regimes”, Rao said.

The idea of the Paris Agreement’s less stringent compliance system is to engage with governments and keep them within the system rather than threaten them with sanctions and potentially push them out, he added.

Rao said this was “the right trade-off” because governments comply when they feel they have chosen to sign up to the rules rather than having them imposed. He noted that back in April 2025, 171 governments had yet to submit their NDCs and this figure is now down to just over 50.

“We’ve got countries that are at least reporting NDCs,” he said, adding that PAICC is “working as it was designed to”. “It is issuing findings of fact and non-compliance, it’s initiating discussions with parties and, as a result of those discussions, the non-compliance figures are coming down every time.”

This article was amended after publication, on May 13, to clarify that the PAICC has yet to issue a formal public finding naming countries that do not comply with the Paris Agreement.

The post Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans appeared first on Climate Home News.

Introduction and context setting

We welcome this call for submission by the COP30 Presidency for its roadmap on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels in a Just, Orderly and Equitable Manner. The Global South’s historical contributions to causing climate change is minimal while its capacity to deal with the impacts of climate change is constrained by several structural factors. Any transition away from fossil fuels must be firmly rooted in climate justice and guided by the core principles of UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement – equity and common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities. It should also occur within the framework of a fair sharing of the global effort to limit warming to 1.5 equitably, wherein we immediately end expansion of fossil fuels (per IEA’s “no new” fossil fuels needed), as historical emitters phase out first and fastest while providing adequate finance and technology. Developing countries’ policy and fiscal space for carrying out effective climate action and transition away from fossil fuels is acutely constrained by structural barriers and pressures stemming from the international monetary and financial system – built on colonial governance and financial subordination in which Global South countries are structurally disadvantaged and politically marginalised – that make extraction necessary to maintain financial stability.

The institutions, rules, norms and decision-making processes of this system are overwhelmingly controlled by developed countries. International cooperation will be key in addressing these barriers to enable countries to implement any kind of transition policies in a just, orderly, and equitable manner. 

Further, DCJ encourages opening this process to more direct participation from civil society rather than just as observer organisations, including substantial discussion and consultation beyond Bonn’s SB64 up to the roadmap’s ultimate destination. The roadmap should result in an agreed outcome that aligns with and protects climate justice principles.

(a)What are the most critical barriers — whether physical, economic, financial, institutional, technological or social— preventing a transition away from fossil fuels?

The barriers that prevent a transition away from fossil fuels in a just manner are political in nature. Without acknowledging this and the need for addressing those barriers politically, efforts to implement any kind of transition will remain futile. Listed below are some of the most critical barriers:

Lack of climate reparations and public climate finance: Global North countries responsible for the majority of historical emissions have consistently failed to provide new, adequate, predictable, grant-based public climate finance in line with needs and science, without which many developing countries remain constrained in their ability to implement climate actions, including reducing their dependency on fossil fuels. Implementing a just energy transition would require countries to have in place adequate non-fossil fuel energy sources (as well as functional public services and social protection, education systems to re-skill workers, and state capacity for green industrial policy) which require major upfront investment. Together with other barriers such as high cost of capital, debt, and unfair tax and trade rules, the lack of adequate climate finance provision plays a major part in keeping Global South countries in a “climate investment trap”.

Sovereign debt and fiscal constraints: Developing countries paid out USD 741 billion more in principal and interest on their external debt than they received in new financing between 2022-2024, the largest gap in at least 50 years. Current International financial architecture and institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have a long history of imposing austerity policies driven by creditor interests and today’s extractive financial system, which increases the debt burden of developing countries and raises the cost of capital for them, leaving little fiscal space to invest in public energy transitions or economic diversification away from fossil fuel dependency. Debt also locks in extractive models and prevents fossil producer countries from transitioning, as (fossil) commodity exports are their main source of generating the foreign currency required to repay their debt – which, again due to financial subordination, is usually denominated in USD.

International trade and investment regimes: Trade and investment agreements, including investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) embedded in multiple bilateral investment treaties, allow fossil fuel corporations to challenge countries’ climate policies, including for loss of hypothetical “future profits”, essentially making the public purse liable for their stranded assets.. Any measures to shut down or even cancel planned fossil fuel projects can set off prohibitively expensive arbitration claims, while the reverse (countries suing companies for harmful actions) is not possible. The spectre of a costly arbitration award, negotiated at opaque tribunals with no public transparency, imposes a well-documented regulatory chill on governments and prevents them from pursuing fossil fuel transition policies. 

Technology inequality and Intellectual Property barriers: Global South countries often face barriers to accessing renewable energy technologies due to WTO intellectual property rules enforcing monopolies, limiting technology transfer from the Global North to the Global South. Most climate related technology patents are concentrated in the Global North. This has serious implications for both technology transfer and development of technologies that are responsive to the needs of developing countries. Bilateral and regional trade agreements are also used by developed countries to constrain developing countries’ access to climate related technologies, hampering their ability to deliver meaningful climate actions. 

Unilateral climate related trade measures: Developed countries are increasingly integrating their climate actions into their economic competitiveness agendas. Unilateral climate related trade measures like the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) are being imposed by several developed countries – externalising their own carbon reduction responsibility onto their trade partners. And constrain developing countries’ fiscal and policy space, besides forcing them to comply with “green standards” developed as per the requirements of the Global North. 

Global North demand driving fossil fuel extraction: There is a lack of structured, equity-based cooperation on addressing fossil fuel supply globally. Much of the fossil fuel extraction occurring in the Global South is driven by Global North economies’ demand. Yet the Global North is failing to rapidly reduce consumption, while shifting mitigation burdens onto developing countries and locking them into fossil fuel dependent infrastructure and development pathways. Further, developed countries continue to provide harmful subsidies to their fossil fuel companies for expanding even more fossil fuel projects at home and abroad. 

Financialisation of nature via Carbon Markets and technological distractions perpetuate climate colonialism: Carbon markets and nature-based financial instruments allow continued fossil fuel based extraction processes while shifting mitigation burdens onto land, forests, and communities in the Global South. Reliance on carbon offsets allows the Global North and big corporations to evade their responsibility of actually reducing their emissions and causing more harm to communities and the environment of the Global South. Similarly, the use and promotion of speculative, unproven, expensive geoengineering technologies in the name of large scale “carbon dioxide removal” or “reducing global temperatures”, using lands of Global South countries to test those technologies, are not only harmful to the environment and communities, they divert resources away from tackling the main cause of climate change: fossil fuels..  DCJ rejects false solutions including hydrogen, nuclear, hydropower and other techno-fixes that impact land rights and ocean rights.

Militarism and geopolitical conflict: Military spending, fossil-fuel-driven wars, and geopolitical competition divert resources from climate action and lock economies into fossil fuel dependency. Mining for transition minerals replicates patterns of resource grabbing, environmental damage and establishes neocolonial practices. 

Energy poverty and access: Hundreds of millions of people in the Global South lack reliable and affordable energy. Transitions cannot deepen inequality and must prioritise universal energy access and developmental needs in a people centric manner. Meanwhile the United States, the biggest historical polluter which has exited the Paris Agreement the second time and UNFCCC, is forcing developing countries to buy fossil fuels through trade agreements at terms that are favourable to the US,  making it harder for developing countries to implement any kind of transition.

Corporate capture of climate and energy policy and Weak legal accountability frameworks: Fossil fuel corporations and financial institutions continue to shape energy policy, delaying phase-outs and promoting false solutions that prolong fossil fuel dependence. There are insufficient legal mechanisms to hold corporations and countries accountable for fossil fuel expansion, environmental damage, and climate harms.

(b) What potential levers, whether economic, financial, institutional, social or technological, exist for accelerating the implementation of the transitioning away commitment?

Climate finance delivery by the Global North: Compensation for the costs from climate change are due to Global South countries burdened by Global North nations who got rich first by burning fossil fuels. The ICJ and UNFCCC recognise “common but differentiated responsibilities” but fail to find ways to compensate countries. A “just transition from fossil fuels” must see historical polluters pay the costs of repairing harm, adapting economies and transitioning to fossil free societies. Developed countries must deliver on their legal obligation to provide public climate finance to developing countries in the form of new and additional grants. The trillions of dollars due can come from six major sources of financial flows, including redirected Global North military budgets and fossil fuel subsidies, as well as new arrangements for international tax, trade and debt justice, including waivers on intellectual property rights for climate technologies. Together, these measures will expand fiscal space for Global South finances to secure reliable and affordable energy. These efforts can be discussed under the new climate finance work programme on Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. Efforts exist in all these areas yet lack any conscious, coherent and consistent work program by a group of governments committed to just transitions from fossil fuels. 

Debt resolution: The UN has a long history of pursuing an intergovernmental process on sovereign debt architecture reform, particularly to create a multilateral debt resolution mechanism which is essential to effectively addressing the debt crisis trap in developing countries, along with debt cancellation calls to contribute to their fiscal space. The multilateral debt resolution mechanism could provide a fair, timely and comprehensive debt treatment from all lenders: bilateral, multilateral and private, and for all countries according to their needs. The Sevilla Commitment of last year’s FFD4 conference paves the way for an intergovernmental process towards such a mechanism, which countries should pursue with urgency.

Removing ISDS clauses from investment treaties: International cooperation is required for governments to remove ISDS clauses completely from all investment treaties and terminate/withdraw from existing investment agreements which have ISDS clauses to strengthen governments’ ability to regulate transnational fossil fuel corporations and ensure they adhere to social and environmental regulations designed by countries to deliver on their climate actions. 

Promoting the use of flexibilities in the World Trade Organization’s  Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime: Fairer trade rules free of IPRs is effective international cooperation for addressing urgent environmental goals like dealing with climate change and fossil phase-out. Countries must explore waiver of patent royalties and relaxation of the rules under the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) of the WTO for climate related technologies to facilitate greater use of environmentally sound technologies. Developing countries could explore the use of flexibilities under the TRIPS Agreement of the WTO to promote and support climate-relevant technology transfers. Discussions should also ensue in a coordinated manner not to patent technology crucial for a just transition, so that its transfer and public use can be facilitated. Member states at the WTO and the UNFCCC should be supportive of such efforts and reforms. 

Any push for increasing trade tariff liberalisation for environmental technologies in the WTO without addressing the need for eliminating Non-Tariff Barriers only works in favour of developed countries by increasing their market access and limiting developing countries’ revenues from tariffs, and deepens the gap in technological capabilities of the North and South. Such measures must be rejected as they would not result in any substantial gains in the diffusion of environmentally sound technologies.   

Credit Rating Agencies: It is essential to build on existing UN stipulations of responsible lending and borrowing, and innovative creations like a borrower’s platform and reforms to Credit Rating Agency (CRA) methodology. Establishment of Multilateral credit rating agencies would help curb the monopolistic stronghold of existing CRAs. There should be strict measures to prevent conflict of interest embedded in the current ‘issuer pays model’ that CRAs operate, to ensure that interests of the financial clients who are paying CRAs for those assessments are not driving sovereign ratings. Reforms to CRA methodology: The current methodology is GDP centric and short term oriented, both of which tilt the balance against developing countries which have a high growth potential, though may have a low per capita GDP as compared to developed countries. Incorporating economic and social development variables along with adopting a medium to long term perspective can help in addressing these biases. Reforms to climate vulnerability index: Currently, this index downgrades ratings of countries when they experience a climate disaster increasing their cost of capital precisely when they require low cost financing. This index needs to be reformed by incorporating climate financing in risk assessments to build resilience and adaptation as core criteria to reduce risk. 

Ensuring Price Stability for Just Transitions:  Predictable and stable energy prices are essential for planning and implementing transitions at all levels, with affordable energy for consumers and reliable revenue for producers being a crucial benefit. Inflation hits hardest the poorest consumers, communities and countries, with traders and speculators being the biggest beneficiaries of wild swings in price volatility. International cooperation for price stability is needed by: 1) establishing adjustable price ranges within which energy can be exchanged to provide predictability; 2) enlisting producers to provide additional supplies, and consumers to release strategic reserves, in case of rising above upper range to return prices to within agreed range; and 3) enlisting consumers to purchase supplies for strategic reserves, and producers to restrain supplies, in case of dipping below lower range.

Coordinating supply and demand decreases: Any treaty on fossil fuels in future should ensure proactive producer-consumer coordination, both demand and supplies can be predictably decreased to facilitate a fast and fair phase out of fossil fuels. Among the internationally coordinated actions to take include: 1) collecting real time data on consuming countries’ policies and measures aimed at reducing demand for fossil fuels, as well as updating figures on actual and forecast consumption trends; 2) communicating data to decisionmakers who oversee current production planning to prepare for proper reductions in output and revenues; and 3) coordinating placement of production with consumption destinations to minimize disruption.

Replacing revenue from fossil fuels exports by improved terms of trade: Countries can cooperate to enable fossil fuel exporters to enhance alternative sources of export revenue by balancing world trade rules: 1) governing agriculture and natural resources to end dumping and export subsidies; 2) eliminating tariff escalation practices punishing Global South exporters of processed goods; 3) aligning unilateral measures/carbon tariffs with pro-active efforts to transfer climate technologies.

Phasing out Fossil Fuel Subsidies without WTO: Reducing state support and all forms of subsidies for fossil fuels production by forging an international instrument — not under WTO — to identify production subsidies for scheduled reduction and removal with agreed targets and timetables by 2030.

(d) How can a just, orderly and equitable transition best reflect the diverse realities of countries at different stages of development and with different degrees of dependence on fossil fuels?

Climate justice, equity, CBDR-RC, and fair sharing of the global effort to limit warming to 1.5C equitably are the cornerstones for implementing a just, orderly and equitable transition that best reflects the diverse realities of countries, including their different development stages and varying degrees of dependence on fossil fuels. A fair sharing of the global effort is crucial for this transition to be just and equitable. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the amount of carbon budget remaining for limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C is 500 gigatonnes (Gt). Developed countries are responsible for 68% of the historical cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from 1850–2019 although they represented only 19% of the world’s population in 2019. Developing countries’ historical cumulative CO2 emissions on the other hand totalled 32% for the same period, while they represented 81% of the global population in 2019. Developed countries owe a massive carbon debt to developing countries which they must repay by providing means of implementation to them. 

Developed countries must take the lead in implementing the transition away from fossil fuels for it to be just. According to a 2020 study, an equitable sharing of the global effort requires wealthier countries with diversified economies like the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and Norway to implement the transition away from fossil fuels the fastest. This study shows that the difficulties these countries would face in phasing out fossil fuels are much lower compared with those faced by developing countries. Its findings show that a country like Germany has sixteen times more resources compared to what is required in China for implementing the transition, and China would need twenty times longer than Germany to make the transition. 

Another key aspect for ensuring the shift away from fossil fuels occurs in a just manner is that it does not replicate the current patterns of global inequalities based on extractive relations between the countries of the Global North and South. While renewable energy may be the most viable non fossil fuel energy sources, a rapid and scaled up expansion of such sources would require huge amounts of critical minerals, land and upfront investment. Most such minerals are concentrated in developing countries. We are already seeing an uncontrolled rush towards mining such minerals which is reducing developing countries as suppliers of raw materials and inflicting damages to the livelihoods of their communities and environment, including violation of the free, prior and informed consent of the Indigenous Peoples.

We are also witnessing the continuation of green colonialism in the supply of renewable energy where lands of developing countries, especially in the African region, are being used to set up huge solar plants and “clean hydrogen” facilities to meet the energy needs of Europe. What is worse is that these projects are adding to the public debt of developing countries – not only are people’s lands being taken away from them by Global North driven interests, they are also being made to pay for that. Energy sovereignty and energy democracy informed by the needs and priorities of the people must be at the core of multiple just transitions. Any global phase out from fossil fuels needs to be within a just and equitable framework built on the principles of the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities as outlined in the 2023 Civil Society Equity Review Report.

The post DCJ submission for COP30 Presidency roadmap on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels in a Just, Orderly and Equitable Manner appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

Headline News:

• “Introducing Ford Energy” • Ford Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company, will provide US-assembled battery systems for utilities, data centers, and large customers in the US. With a century of manufacturing expertise, Ford Energy plans to deploy at least 20 GWh annually, with first deliveries planned for late 2027. [CleanTechnica]

Ford Energy (Ford image)

• “The Race To Unlock ‘Superhot’ Geothermal Energy Is Heating Up” • The IEA highlighted superhot geothermal in its “State of Energy Innovation” report, calling it “clean, firm power” capable of helping support the transition away from fossil fuels. While a geothermal project is breaking ground in Oregon, it is already the source of 30% of Iceland’s electricity. [Euronews]
• “Asia Braces For A Second Wave Of Energy Shocks From The Iran War” • When the war started, governments scrambled to adapt to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. They made difficult trade-offs: saving power at the risk of slowing businesses, saving gas at the risk of fertilizer production. But such measures were based on the war ending quickly. [ABC News]
• “SMRs Aren’t Losing On Technology. They’re Losing On Economics” • Small Modular Reactors are still unlikely to drive the energy transition because renewables, batteries, and grid flexibility attract far more investment, scale faster, and generate quicker returns. Wind, solar, storage, and transmission upgrades are already delivering on investments. [OilPrice.com]
• “Trump Is Floating A Gas Tax Holiday Amid Rising Fuel Costs. What Does That Mean?” • As the nationwide price of gasoline soars, President Trump told reporters he’d like to suspend the national gas tax temporarily. Though it would help keep costs down, estimates are that that suspending the tax would cost the fund billions over a period of months. [ABC News]

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

On April 28, 2026, Prime Minister Mark Carney presented the Federal government’s spring economic update. The announcement that garnered the most attention was the “Canada...

The post The Canada Strong Fund is a farce first appeared on Spring.

24 June | London

In partnership with MSCI, this roundtable will bring together experts from insurance, pension funds, and investment management firms for a discussion focusing on how to better integrate climate science into investment practices, prompted by the launch of Carbon Tracker’s latest report, Recalibrating Climate Risk. 

Following an introduction by expert speakers, we’ll be discussing the methods asset owners are using to assess their exposure to climate risks and identify opportunities in the transition. Most importantly, we want to explore the barriers that are hindering the re-allocation of capital towards low-carbon sectors. 

Meet the speakers

Active participation is encouraged; we’ll be circulating discussion points in advance of the event. Join us to share your insights and hear from other asset owners about how what role climate scenario analysis is playing in informing investment strategies, what policy solutions are needed to drive investment in low-carbon sectors, and other key issues facing progressive asset owners. 

The post LCAW 2026: Integrating Climate Risk into Investment Decisions and Risk Management: Roundtable for Investors appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

What if the stories we live by could change? In India, Raviraj Shetty explores how narrative, care, and imagination can help communities heal, reclaim dignity, and find new ways forward.