You are here
News Feeds
September 27 Green Energy News
Headline News:
- “Brazil’s Energy Mix Goes Green Even As Oil Production Climbs” • Brazil is continuing to expand its renewable energy capacity thanks to favorable national policies and support from foreign investors. The South American giant has developed an impressive green energy industry in recent years, even as its oil and gas production expands. [OilPrice.com]
Solar farm (Kleber Reudo, CC BY-SA 4.0, cropped)
- “A Month After Floods In Nepal, Thousands Are Still Missing And Families Face A Long Recovery” • A month after devastating floods swept through parts of Nepal, thousands are displaced. Also, rescuers continue searching for thousands others are still missing, including many believed trapped in six hydropower project tunnels. [ABC News]
- “Germany Makes First Explicit Fossil-Fuel Exit Pledge, Targets 80% Renewable Power By 2030” • Germany has committed to ending its use of fossil fuels by 2045. As part of that effort, it wants renewables to supply 80% of its power by 2030, up from 55%, while also adding 12 GW of new onshore wind and reaching 215 GW of solar capacity. [The Cool Down]
- “Al Gore On The Global Climate Crisis: ‘We’re Going To Win This’” • Two decades after the release of his groundbreaking documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore has admitted he was surprised by the ferocious, ongoing backlash from the fossil fuel industry and its political allies. But the former US vice-president insists he still has optimism. [Mother Jones]
- “Scientists Launch Workaround After Trump Administration Dismantles National Climate Assessment” • After the Trump administration dismantled key parts of the federal process behind the next National Climate Assessment, major scientific groups hastened to keep the work alive. Their work is to keep up a crucial stream of climate information. [Yahoo]
For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.
assembly:2026:indonesia:bangung_report_eng.pdf - created
THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 26 SEPTEMBER 2026
Archive reference: SLF-2007-069
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal institutional record: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Sakhalin II records and Independent Recourse Mechanism file
Authenticated corporate record: The Shell Sustainability Report 2006
Contemporaneous reporting: AFP, Oil & Gas Journal, RIA Novosti, The Guardian, El País
Campaign submissions: WWF, Friends of the Earth, The Corner House and Friends of the Earth Japan
Later judicial context: Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Evidence standard: EBRD determinations are distinguished from campaign-group interpretations of them. Sakhalin Energy statements are attributed to the company. Russian environmental allegations are distinguished from contemporaneous claims that regulatory action was being used to influence Gazprom’s entry into the project. No court identified in this file determined that the 2006 Russian enforcement campaign was either fabricated or politically motivated.
The previous file ended with an audit.
This one begins with a public examination.
By December 2005, prospective lenders had been examining Sakhalin II for years. The project had already accumulated controversy over western gray whales, salmon rivers, pipeline construction, oil-spill preparedness and contractor performance.
Yet construction continued.
The project cost had doubled to approximately $20 billion.
And Shell remained the 55 per cent shareholder in Sakhalin Energy. Shell News
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development now faced a question.
Was the project ready to move from technical assessment into the final stage of public scrutiny before a financing decision?
Its answer was:
Yes — but only for consultation. 1. “Fit for the purpose of consultation” did not mean approvedOn 14 December 2005, EBRD decided that Sakhalin II’s environmental and social documentation was:
“fit for the purpose of consultation.”
Its Independent Recourse Mechanism record preserves that date and decision. EBRD
Contemporaneous Oil & Gas Journal reporting explained the practical consequence: the determination opened a 120-day period of public disclosure and consultation concerning environmental, social, health and safety issues and proposed mitigation measures. Shell News
That phrase has to be handled carefully.
It did not mean the project had passed every environmental test.
It did not mean EBRD had approved financing.
And it did not mean all earlier deficiencies had disappeared.
It meant the documentation had reached the point at which the Bank considered public consultation capable of proceeding.
2. EBRD itself had already identified procedural shortcomingsThe environmental organisations later relied heavily upon wording from EBRD’s own December 2005 press release.
Their April 2006 submission to the UK Export Credits Guarantee Department reproduced EBRD’s acknowledgment that procedures prescribed in its Environmental Policy:
“were not fully followed in the planning phases”
in relation to important aspects of Sakhalin II.
The same submission quoted EBRD as saying that the decision-making process for the siting of an oil-production platform had not been in conformity with the Bank’s policy. WWF Europe
That evidence requires a qualification.
The wording is preserved in a contemporaneous campaigning submission citing the EBRD press release; the original release is no longer readily retrievable through the Bank’s current website.
But it materially changes the historical picture.
The consultation did not begin because EBRD had concluded that nothing was wrong.
It began despite the Bank having identified planning-stage shortcomings which it believed subsequent documentation had addressed sufficiently to permit consultation. WWF Europe
3. London heard the first argumentsBy March 2006, consultation had already taken place in London.
A later submission by WWF, Friends of the Earth and The Corner House records that critics supplied the London meeting with a list of approximately 100 press articles concerning Sakhalin II and its environmental and governance controversies. WWF Europe
The significance was not the number itself.
The consultation was becoming a forum in which prospective lenders were being asked to assess not simply an engineering project, but the credibility of Shell and Sakhalin Energy’s environmental management.
That was precisely what the 120-day procedure was designed to expose to challenge.
4. Moscow produced six hours of oppositionIn March, the consultation moved to Moscow.
AFP reported that lawyers, environmentalists, geologists and community representatives spent approximately six hoursarguing that Sakhalin II should not receive EBRD financing.
Their objections included western gray whale risks, salmon spawning rivers, seismic instability and alleged breaches of Russian law. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
Those were allegations made by project opponents.
Sakhalin Energy did not accept them.
A company representative responded that while opponents were entitled to pursue legal challenges, the company was confident that it would be found to be complying with the law. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
That exchange captures the 120-day process in miniature.
The critics were not merely demanding mitigation.
Some were saying the project should not qualify for EBRD support at all.
Sakhalin Energy was saying the project remained lawful and manageable.
5. The consultation extended beyond RussiaThe Moscow report said consultation had already occurred in London and would continue on Sakhalin and in Hokkaido, Japan. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
Hokkaido was especially significant because Sakhalin lies only tens of kilometres from northern Japan and a major marine spill could have transboundary consequences.
Friends of the Earth Japan records an EBRD consultation meeting in Hokkaido on 10 April 2006. 国際環境NGO FoE Japan
The organisation strongly criticised how that meeting had been conducted and argued that local concerns had not been given sufficient weight.
That was FoE Japan’s assessment of the consultation process, not an EBRD finding.
But the fact that Hokkaido was included at all demonstrates that Sakhalin II’s environmental risk was no longer treated as exclusively Russian.
6. Oil-spill planning remained one of the hardest questionsWWF’s February 2006 submission argued that Sakhalin Energy still lacked an adequate comprehensive response plan for a major spill under winter sea-ice conditions.
It maintained that conventional response techniques such as booms could be severely constrained by ice and that dispersant use raised separate ecological concerns. Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com
Those were WWF’s assertions.
They should not be converted into a finding that no spill plan existed.
As earlier files have documented, lender records show that Sakhalin Energy had produced contingency plans and that EBRD experts had reviewed oil-spill arrangements during Phase I. EBRD
The dispute was therefore more precise:
not whether Sakhalin Energy had any oil-spill planning,
but whether the planning was adequate for the scale, remoteness and winter conditions of Sakhalin II.
7. The whale issue had not gone away eitherWWF continued to argue during the consultation that the protections for the western gray whale were insufficient.
The organisation said independent whale specialists remained unconvinced that the project could proceed without significant risk to a population then estimated at roughly one hundred animals. Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com
Shell’s later 2006 Sustainability Report presents the company side.
It says Sakhalin Energy had rerouted the offshore pipeline approximately 20 kilometres farther from the whales’ feeding grounds, imposed vessel controls and acoustic monitoring, and helped establish a long-term scientific advisory panel convened by the World Conservation Union, now IUCN. Shell
Both facts belong in the archive.
Scientific criticism continued.
Mitigation measures also changed.
8. The salmon rivers provided Shell with an uncomfortable admissionThe pipeline crossed approximately 180 sensitive salmon rivers.
Shell’s own 2006 Sustainability Report records that some contractors had failed to follow required low-impact crossing techniques during the winter of 2004–05.
Sakhalin Energy stopped work, strengthened controls, sought outside expertise and brought in independent observers and environmental-agency representatives to monitor subsequent crossings. Shell
Shell also acknowledged that some rivers experienced more sedimentation than planned, while maintaining that the likely effects on spawning habitat were limited and temporary. Shell
This was therefore not an argument in which Shell simply denied every environmental problem.
Its own reporting acknowledged failures and remedial measures.
The dispute was over their seriousness and whether remediation was sufficient.
9. The project was already being built while the public was being consultedThis was one of the fundamental tensions.
Environmental organisations argued that meaningful consultation was difficult when construction was already far advanced.
By April 2006, WWF and its partners described the project as already roughly two-thirds constructed. WWF Europe
That matters because consultation normally implies the possibility of changing what is proposed.
But substantial infrastructure, pipelines and offshore facilities were already committed.
The consultation therefore operated partly as an examination of mitigation for decisions already taken.
That was one reason opponents questioned whether the process could genuinely influence the project.
10. 21 April 2006: the consultation period closesWWF recorded 21 April 2006 as the closing date of EBRD’s consultation.
Its final submission again urged the Bank not to finance Sakhalin II without stronger environmental safeguards, particularly concerning the western gray whales. Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com
At this point the next expected step was relatively straightforward.
EBRD would digest the submissions.
Its technical and environmental teams would continue their work.
And eventually the Bank’s board would decide whether to lend.
But Sakhalin II was about to stop behaving like an ordinary project-finance case.
11. There was already another negotiation in the backgroundWhile EBRD was conducting its environmental consultation, Shell was separately negotiating with Gazprom.
Contemporaneous reporting records that Shell had signed a memorandum of understanding under which Gazprom was expected to obtain 25 per cent of Sakhalin Energy in exchange for Shell receiving an interest in a major Siberian gas field. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
The prospective transaction was commercial.
But it placed the Russian state-controlled gas champion directly beside the environmental financing process.
And another problem was developing.
Sakhalin II’s cost estimate had doubled.
12. The $10 billion project became a $20 billion projectThe cost escalation was enormous.
Contemporaneous reporting records Sakhalin II’s projected cost increasing from roughly $10 billion to $20 billion. Shell News
That increase affected more than Shell’s shareholders.
Under the production-sharing agreement, development costs were recoverable from project revenues before Russia received some of the profits it expected.
The cost revision therefore had implications for the Russian state.
It also disrupted the commercial logic of the contemplated Gazprom asset swap.
Contemporaneous reporting described Gazprom as dissatisfied that the economic basis of the earlier arrangement had changed. El País
Environmental controversy and commercial negotiation were now moving toward each other.
13. September 2006: the regulatory confrontation eruptsIn September, Russia’s Ministry of Natural Resources moved against a crucial environmental approval for Sakhalin II.
RIA Novosti reported that the Ministry annulled the project’s Sakhalin Environmental Expert Review, originally approved in 2003, citing environmental concerns including landslide risks around pipeline construction. Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com
The action threatened substantial delays.
A Sakhalin Energy executive warned publicly that withdrawal of the approval could delay the project by 17 months and put thousands of jobs at risk. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
This was no longer a lender asking questions.
It was the Russian state exercising regulatory power over a project already deep into construction.
14. Were the environmental objections genuine — or leverage?This is where the documentary record must resist a tempting simplification.
Environmental concerns surrounding Sakhalin II were real and long pre-dated the 2006 ownership dispute.
EBRD, independent scientists, environmental groups and even Shell’s own reports had documented problems concerning river crossings, whales, spills and contractor compliance.
It would therefore be inaccurate to dismiss every Russian environmental complaint as invented.
But contemporaneous observers also interpreted the sudden escalation of regulatory action as pressure on Shell to improve the terms on which Gazprom could enter Sakhalin II.
El País reported explicitly that Russia was pressuring Shell while Gazprom sought a stake and noted that the original asset-swap understanding had been destabilised by the project’s cost doubling. El País
The Guardian later described months of pressure from Russia’s natural-resources and environmental authorities preceding the ownership negotiations. The Guardian
Those were contemporary interpretations.
They were not judicial findings.
15. The Russian government denied that interpretationRussian officials publicly rejected accusations that foreign investors were being driven from the energy sector.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the environmental inspections did not necessarily mean termination of the production-sharing agreement and described claims that Russia intended to squeeze out foreign investors as groundless.
Natural Resources Minister Yuri Trutnev likewise said the authorities hoped to avoid shutting the project but insisted that environmental violations had to be corrected. Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com
That position must be recorded alongside the allegations of political pressure.
The Russian government said the issue was regulatory compliance.
Critics and market observers suspected strategic leverage.
The surviving record establishes the simultaneity of environmental enforcement and ownership negotiations.
It does not, by itself, prove the motive behind every regulatory decision.
16. The EBRD process is overtaken by eventsBy 26 September 2006, the financing process had stalled.
AFP reported that EBRD had expected to reach a decision on potential financing during the summer or by September.
Instead, the Bank said that uncertainty surrounding the project’s legal position:
“does not allow the EBRD to progress.” Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
This is an important turning point.
The 120-day public consultation had been completed.
The environmental submissions had been gathered.
But the lender could not proceed toward a decision because the legal and regulatory status of the underlying project had become uncertain.
The environmental financing process had collided with Russian state action.
17. That did not amount to an EBRD environmental rejectionThis distinction is crucial because the later history is often compressed.
EBRD did not announce in September 2006:
Shell has failed our environmental test and we refuse to lend.
It said the Russian legal uncertainty prevented the financing process from progressing. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
Environmental issues remained central to the Bank’s assessment.
But the immediate obstacle had changed.
The project itself was now being challenged by the state whose resources it was developing.
18. By the end of 2006, control was movingThe eventual outcome is documented in an SEC filing.
On 21 December 2006, Gazprom, Shell, Mitsui and Mitsubishi signed a protocol under which Gazprom would acquire 50 per cent plus one share of Sakhalin Energy for $7.45 billion.
Shell’s interest would fall from 55 per cent to 27.5 per cent. SEC
The filing records that Phase II was then more than 80 per cent complete and that approximately $12 billion had already been invested by the end of the third quarter of 2006. SEC
Shell’s own 2006 Sustainability Report later called the year:
“tumultuous.”
It welcomed Gazprom’s entry and presented the new ownership arrangement as helping the project move toward completion. Shell
The corporate language was conciliatory.
The change in control was undeniable.
19. The later court record supplies an independent institutional frameTwo years later, the English High Court considered a dispute over access to British government environmental information relating to proposed ECGD support.
In Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), Mr Justice Mitting recorded that Shell had held the majority stake when British support was originally sought, while Gazprom subsequently acquired a 50 per cent interest.
He also recorded that approximately US$650 million of UK-backed project finance had been under consideration and described the project as potentially having major effects on western gray whale habitat. vLex
The case did not decide whether the Russian regulatory pressure of 2006 had been politically motivated.
It did not decide whether EBRD should have financed Sakhalin II.
And it did not adjudicate whether individual environmental allegations were correct.
Its value here is narrower.
It confirms that the financing and environmental controversy surrounding Sakhalin II became serious enough to generate formal litigation over what the British government knew.
Documentary Findings EstablishedEBRD decided on 14 December 2005 that Sakhalin II’s documentation was fit for public consultation, thereby opening the final 120-day disclosure and consultation process. That was not a loan approval. EBRD
Consultation occurred internationally, including meetings in London and Moscow, with further consultation in Sakhalin and Hokkaido. The Moscow meeting included extensive opposition from environmentalists, lawyers, scientists and community representatives. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
EBRD’s December 2005 position, as reproduced in contemporary submissions, acknowledged that some procedures required by its Environmental Policy had not been fully followed during project planning. WWF Europe
WWF and other organisations opposed financing and raised concerns over whales, oil-spill preparedness, salmon rivers, indigenous communities, seismic risk and the effectiveness of consultation. Those were campaigning assessments, not judicial findings. Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com
Shell’s own reporting acknowledged contractor failures at some sensitive river crossings and described subsequent remedial controls, independent monitoring and mitigation measures. Shell
The 120-day consultation closed in April 2006. Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com
Russia’s environmental authorities moved against a key Sakhalin II environmental approval in September 2006 while Gazprom was simultaneously pursuing entry into the project. Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com
EBRD then delayed its financing decision because the project’s legal position had become uncertain. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
On 21 December 2006, a protocol was signed under which Gazprom would obtain 50 per cent plus one share for $7.45 billion and Shell’s stake would fall from 55 per cent to 27.5 per cent. SEC
Shell and Sakhalin Energy’s stated positionSakhalin Energy maintained during the consultation that it was complying with Russian law and that environmental issues were being addressed. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
Shell’s authenticated reporting records strengthened river-crossing controls, outside expert involvement, independent monitoring and measures to protect western gray whales. Shell
After the 2006 ownership agreement, Shell publicly welcomed Gazprom’s participation and portrayed the restructuring as a step toward completing the project and meeting environmental and community commitments. Shell
The critics’ stated positionEnvironmental organisations argued that Sakhalin II still failed to meet EBRD standards and that major risks remained unresolved despite years of review.
Some also argued that meaningful consultation was compromised because much of the project was already under construction before the final 120-day process began. WWF Europe
Those assessments remain attributed to the organisations making them.
The Russian government’s stated positionRussian officials said the 2006 inspections and environmental enforcement concerned compliance with the project’s obligations.
They rejected claims that the purpose was to force foreign companies from Russian energy projects or to terminate the production-sharing agreement. Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com
Those were the Russian government’s stated explanations.
Not establishedIt is not established that EBRD approved Sakhalin II environmentally in December 2005.
It is not established that EBRD rejected Sakhalin II on environmental grounds after the 120-day consultation.
It is not established that every environmental criticism made by NGOs during consultation was correct.
It is not established that Sakhalin Energy was free of environmental non-compliance; Shell’s own reporting acknowledged some contractor failures.
It is not established that Russia’s September 2006 regulatory action was fabricated solely to obtain control of Sakhalin II.
It is not established that the Russian enforcement campaign was entirely divorced from the commercial negotiations with Gazprom.
It is not established by any court record identified here that Shell was unlawfully coerced into selling control.
And the 2008 English High Court case did not adjudicate the motives of the Russian government, EBRD’s financing merits or Shell’s environmental liability.
CommentaryThe 120-day consultation is important because it marks the last moment when Sakhalin II still looked primarily like an environmental-finance problem.
The questions were difficult but recognisable.
Were the whales adequately protected?
Could oil be contained under sea ice?
Were salmon rivers being crossed properly?
Were contractors obeying the rules?
Could local communities influence decisions?
Did the project satisfy the standards required for public-backed finance?
Those were questions a development bank was equipped to examine.
Then the ground moved.
The same environmental issues that international lenders had been scrutinising became instruments within a confrontation involving the Russian state, a strategic gas asset, a production-sharing agreement, a doubled project budget and Gazprom’s demand for entry.
At that point, environmental governance and energy politics became almost impossible to separate.
The most important distinctionThe documentary record does not permit either of the two easiest stories.
The first easy story is:
Russia invented environmental complaints and stole Shell’s project.
That ignores years of documented environmental concern preceding the ownership battle.
The second is:
Russia simply enforced environmental law and Gazprom’s acquisition was unrelated.
That ignores the extraordinary timing, the contemporaneous reporting, the simultaneous ownership negotiations and the eventual transfer of control.
The evidence supports a more disciplined conclusion.
Environmental problems existed.
Regulatory pressure escalated dramatically.
Gazprom wanted into the project.
The earlier asset-swap economics had been disrupted by the doubling of costs.
And within months, Shell surrendered majority control.
Those facts can be established.
The precise mixture of environmental enforcement, commercial bargaining and state strategy behind them remains a matter requiring evidence, not assumption.
What the 120-day test actually achievedEBRD never reached the simple yes-or-no conclusion many participants expected during the consultation.
But the process was not meaningless.
It forced disclosure.
It created records.
It exposed project assumptions to outside challenge.
It required Shell and Sakhalin Energy to respond publicly to issues involving whales, rivers, spills and local communities.
And it preserved an evidential trail later available to parliaments, courts, journalists and this archive.
The loan decision was overtaken by politics.
The documents survived.
Source RecordThe European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Independent Recourse Mechanism record preserves the 14 December 2005 determination that Sakhalin II documentation was fit for consultation and records the wider accountability process. EBRD
EBRD — Sakhalin II Independent Recourse Mechanism record
Contemporaneous Oil & Gas Journal reporting explains that the EBRD determination triggered the 120-day disclosure and consultation period and notes the project’s rising cost and continuing environmental controversy. Shell News
Oil & Gas Journal — Sakhalin II Phase 2 clears EBRD consultation hurdle, December 2005
AFP’s March 2006 account records the six-hour Moscow consultation, the objections raised by lawyers, environmentalists, scientists and community representatives, Sakhalin Energy’s response, the preceding London consultation and planned meetings in Sakhalin and Hokkaido. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
AFP/TODAY — EBRD urged to refuse Sakhalin II finance, March 2006
The WWF, Friends of the Earth and The Corner House submission of 28 April 2006 reproduces relevant wording from EBRD’s December 2005 press release and sets out the organisations’ criticism of the project. It is advocacy evidence and is treated as such. WWF Europe
WWF/Friends of the Earth/The Corner House — Sakhalin II submission
Friends of the Earth Japan’s contemporaneous submission records the 10 April 2006 Hokkaido consultation and the organisation’s criticisms concerning transboundary effects and consultation procedures. 国際環境NGO FoE Japan
Friends of the Earth Japan — Sakhalin II consultation submission, April 2006
WWF’s statements during and at the close of the consultation document its objections concerning western gray whales, spill response, pipeline construction and EBRD financing. These remain WWF’s assessments. Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com
WWF — EBRD should not fund Sakhalin II, 28 February 2006
WWF — Consultation closing statement, 21 April 2006
The authenticated Shell Sustainability Report 2006 records Shell’s account of the year, its remedial measures on sensitive river crossings, western gray whale mitigation and the December 2006 Gazprom agreement. Shell
Shell — Sustainability Report 2006
RIA Novosti’s September 2006 reporting records the Russian environmental action, the government’s stated rationale and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s rejection of claims that Russia intended to drive foreign investors out. Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com
RIA Novosti — Sakhalin II inspections and environmental approval, 27 September 2006
Contemporaneous El País reporting records the parallel Gazprom negotiations, the earlier asset-swap arrangement, the doubling of project costs and international concern over Russian regulatory pressure. El País
El País — Russia pressures Shell over Sakhalin II, 20 September 2006
AFP reported on 26 September 2006 that EBRD had delayed its financing decision because the project’s legal position had become too uncertain to permit progress. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
AFP — EBRD delays Sakhalin II financing decision, 26 September 2006
The SEC filing of December 2006 provides the authenticated corporate terms of the Gazprom protocol: $7.45 billion for 50 per cent plus one share, reducing Shell’s interest from 55 per cent to 27.5 per cent. SEC
US SEC — Gazprom, Shell, Mitsui and Mitsubishi Sakhalin II protocol, December 2006
The later judicial context is Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin). Mr Justice Mitting recorded the proposed approximately $650 million of UK-backed finance and the potentially significant environmental implications of Sakhalin II. The judgment concerned disclosure of environmental information and did not adjudicate Russian motives or Shell’s environmental liability. vLex
High Court — Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Archive disclaimer: This instalment distinguishes EBRD determinations, Shell statements, NGO submissions, Russian government statements, contemporaneous journalistic interpretation and later judicial context. The coincidence of environmental enforcement and negotiations over Gazprom’s entry is documented; motive is not treated as judicially established. “Fit for consultation” is not represented as environmental approval or financing approval.
Site-wide disclaimer applies.
Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers LX: The Permit War — When Russia Turned Environmental Enforcement Against Shell’s Flagship ProjectBy September 2006, the 120-day EBRD consultation was over.
But Russia’s own environmental authorities were only beginning.
Inspectors moved across pipeline routes, forests, rivers and Aniva Bay.
A crucial environmental approval was challenged.
Natural Resources Minister Yuri Trutnev warned that violations had to be corrected.
Sakhalin Energy warned of delays and thousands of lost jobs.
Foreign governments demanded legal certainty.
And behind the environmental confrontation stood an unresolved commercial question:
On what terms would Gazprom enter Sakhalin II?Within three months the answer would be extraordinary.
Gazprom would not receive the 25 per cent stake originally contemplated.
It would obtain:
50 per cent plus one share.The next file will reconstruct the September–December 2006 regulatory offensive, separate documented environmental violations from allegations of political coercion, and follow the pressure campaign to the meeting at which Shell finally surrendered control of the project.
THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 26 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 26, 2026 at 11:22 pm.©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net
The Future Of Food Education Is In Classrooms, On Farms, And Everywhere In Between
The intersection of food and education goes well beyond just school lunches; food systems can be a tool for instruction on a variety of subjects and values, educators, farmers, chefs, and other experts said during the “Future of Food Education” Summit during Climate Week NYC.
The event, presented in partnership with Pilot Light and with support from Nielsen Massey, focused on ensuring that children from a young age are thinking critically about where food comes from, developing tools to fuel their bodies and minds, and reflecting on how they can be change agents for climate action.
“You can teach any subject through food,” says Alexandra DeSorbo-Quinn, Executive Director of Pilot Light. “Food makes learning relevant.”
Watch the livestream recording on Food Tank’s YouTube channel.
“The food system is flawed; it’s no secret. It’s important to remind ourselves—and our kids—that they are a part of a change. It’s important that we plant those seeds,” says Shanon Morris, Chief Program Officer at Harlem Grown.
In schools, food can give teachers permission to be creative, says Caitlin Arens, Food Education Fellowships Director at Pilot Light. Teaching is a form of food system action, she says.
To facilitate this, Pilot Light has created the United States’ first-ever Food Education Standards, benchmarks for teaching food systems and using food as a pathway for broader learning.
“We think of those standards as a common language that we can all speak,” says Taylor Meredith, Education Policy Advisor at Pilot Light. “When everybody is speaking the same language in the classroom, that’s when we have impact in the broader community.”
Food education can also take place outside of traditional classroom settings, including on farms and in gardens.
“The power of bringing people together for shared experiences is transformational,” and school gardens bring that to kids, says Lyndsey Waugh, Executive Director of the Sprouts Healthy Communities Foundation. “Human connections spark around food.”
“If we can eat better, we can teach the next generations to love the garden and the harvest and the things that we can pull from the ground,” says Rev. Linda Carmen Bryant, Co-Founder of San Antonio Million Gardens Project and Pastor of Grant Community AME Church in San Antonio, Texas. “If we get the kids excited (about growing food), they will lead us.”
But teaching kids to grow food is not enough alone. Preparing young people for careers in agriculture also means teaching them business skills and guiding them in navigating financial resources.
“There’s power in the fact that your kids are the next generation. I am not too scared about the next generation of producers; what I am scared about is their ability to access (resources),” says Gerardo Martinez, Founder of Wild Kid Acres and a Marine Corps Veteran.
It’s true that land is becoming more commoditized and more difficult for younger farmers to obtain, says Karen Washington, a Food Justice Advocate, Farmer, and Author—but the solution cannot simply be to give them land without also making sure they can afford access to water, electricity, equipment, and agricultural inputs. Collective ownership makes this more feasible, she says.
“Now is the time to organize. People are forming ecosystems, cooperatives, collaborative organizations; they are doing the work,” Washington says. “Make sure that you’re connecting with your community, connecting with your growers. … The remedy is, know your local farmer.”
And this connection between eaters and food can start in schools, including at lunchtime. In New York City’s public schools, nutrition educators collaborate with students to get feedback on menu items and model healthy eating patterns, says Jeremy Walter, Executive Director of Food & Nutrition Education for New York City Public Schools.
“We’re more and more trying to optimize the cafeteria as a classroom,” says Nancy Easton, Executive Director and Founder of Wellness in the Schools.
In her classroom at P.S. 072 Dr. William Dorney, educator Amanda Torres uses food to teach multiplication and division—but she also wants school to be a place where kids feel empowered to be curious, find their voice, and create change.
“People talk about the past and talk about the future, but what we’re doing now matters,” she says. “We all have the power to change. Don’t wait on anyone to change for you.”
Explore the entire Food Tank event schedule during Climate Week NYC 2026, and live-stream every Summit on FoodTank.com and Food Tank’s YouTube channel.
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 by Ryan Rose for Food Tank.
The post The Future Of Food Education Is In Classrooms, On Farms, And Everywhere In Between appeared first on Food Tank.
Dutch Government Looks to Industry to Shoulder Gas-Storage Costs as LNG Dependence Grows
The Netherlands wants private energy companies to shoulder more of the cost of keeping enough gas in storage for winter — as the country confronts the expensive consequences of becoming increasingly dependent on imported natural gas and LNG.
According to DutchNews, the Dutch government is considering making commercial energy suppliers responsible for building up their own strategic gas reserves rather than continuing to rely so heavily on the government-backed company Energie Beheer Nederland (EBN).
The immediate problem is money.
EBN is reportedly facing losses approaching €1 billion from filling Dutch gas-storage facilities when market conditions provide private traders with little commercial incentive to do the same.
And behind that financial problem sits a much larger question:
Who should pay to guarantee energy security when the market itself does not provide enough incentive to do it?
A billion-euro storage problemThe Netherlands has four major seasonal gas-storage sites at Norg, Grijpskerk, Bergermeer and Alkmaar.
At present, EBN has played a central role in ensuring those facilities are filled sufficiently ahead of winter.
But DutchNews reports that unusually unfavourable market conditions mean the operation could cost EBN around €1 billion.
Normally, gas traders have an incentive to buy gas cheaply during the summer, store it and sell it when winter prices rise.
The economics currently look different.
Prices are expected to decline after autumn, meaning a trader buying expensive gas now could potentially lose money by storing it for later sale.
From a commercial perspective, therefore, leaving storage capacity unused may make sense.
From the perspective of national energy security, it may not.
That is the conflict the Dutch government is now trying to resolve.
Government: Why should taxpayers carry the bill?The cabinet is considering shifting more responsibility to private energy suppliers.
DutchNews says companies including Essent, Eneco and Vattenfall could be required to maintain their own reserves, broadly following a model already operating in Austria.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs has questioned whether Dutch taxpayers should continue paying for storage needed partly to ensure suppliers can meet customer demand during winter.
The underlying policy question is straightforward.
Gas storage is effectively an insurance policy.
Nobody particularly wants to pay the premium when supply is plentiful.
But when temperatures plunge, pipelines fail or geopolitical events disrupt supplies, the value of that insurance suddenly becomes obvious.
The government is now asking whether private companies that sell gas should bear more of the cost of maintaining that security.
The storage target has already been loweredThe debate comes at an awkward moment.
The Netherlands recently reduced its winter gas-storage target.
Gasunie confirmed on 11 September 2026 that the government had lowered the national filling objective from 115 terawatt hours to 93 TWh.
The original 115 TWh target was based on Gasunie Transport Services calculations of the gas required to keep customers supplied during the coldest winter experienced in the previous 30 years.
Gasunie was careful not to suggest that the lower target automatically meant shortages were coming.
But it made the consequence clear:
the Netherlands would be less well prepared for an exceptionally cold winter.
DutchNews subsequently reported that the percentage target had effectively fallen from around 74% to 64%, while storage was then approximately 57.5% full.
That does not amount to an immediate supply crisis.
It does show how delicately economics, weather and security of supply are now intertwined.
Groningen changed everythingThere is considerable historical irony here.
For decades, the Netherlands was one of Europe’s great natural-gas producers.
The enormous Groningen gas field made the country a major exporter and helped underpin European energy supplies.
But extraction caused increasingly serious earthquakes and associated damage in the province of Groningen.
Production was progressively curtailed and ultimately ended.
The underground infrastructure created during the era of abundant domestic gas did not disappear.
The Netherlands still has substantial storage capacity.
What changed was the source of the gas being put into it.
As DutchNews notes, storage caverns that once sat within a country exporting Groningen gas must increasingly be filled with imported gas.
That is a profound reversal.
Enter LNGThe Netherlands has responded to the loss of Groningen production and the collapse of much of Europe’s former dependence on Russian pipeline gas by greatly expanding its ability to import liquefied natural gas.
LNG can arrive by tanker from suppliers around the world, be converted back into gaseous form at European terminals and fed into the pipeline network.
It has become a crucial part of European energy security.
But flexibility has a price.
DutchNews identifies imports of LNG from the United States as an important contributor to current Dutch gas costs.
That illustrates one of the fundamental changes in Europe’s post-Groningen, post-Russian-pipeline gas system.
Gas security increasingly depends not simply on wells and pipelines close to home, but on:
global LNG production;
ocean-going tankers;
international commodity prices;
regasification terminals;
storage facilities;
and competition with buyers elsewhere in the world.
The Netherlands is therefore exposed far more directly than before to the international gas market.
Where Shell fits into the pictureThere is an obvious Shell dimension — but it needs to be described carefully.
The reported Dutch government proposal is not specifically a measure directed at Shell.
DutchNews identifies major commercial suppliers such as Essent, Eneco and Vattenfall when discussing companies that could face mandatory storage obligations.
Shell nevertheless remains highly relevant to the wider story.
Natural gas and LNG have become central to Shell’s global strategy.
Shell buys, produces, transports and trades gas internationally and has repeatedly identified LNG as one of the businesses in which it intends to grow.
Indeed, as we have just reported separately, Shell is currently considering another enormous expansion of its LNG position through Phase 2 of LNG Canada, while its recently completed acquisition of ARC Resources has substantially increased its access to Canadian gas reserves.
So while the Dutch storage proposal should not be portrayed as a Shell-specific measure, it is part of the same global gas system in which Shell is one of the largest commercial participants.
Energy security has a priceThe Dutch dilemma also exposes something that is sometimes obscured by discussions of energy markets.
Security of supply is not free.
Maintaining reserve capacity costs money.
Holding gas underground that might never be needed in a particular winter costs money.
Building LNG terminals costs money.
Keeping pipelines available costs money.
Maintaining backup infrastructure costs money.
And somebody ultimately pays — whether through taxes, energy bills or obligations placed on energy suppliers.
The Netherlands has so far used EBN and therefore public money to shoulder much of the risk involved in filling strategic storage.
The government is now questioning whether that balance should change.
The taxpayer or the supplier?There are arguments on both sides.
Requiring private suppliers to hold strategic gas could place the cost more directly on companies benefiting from the security those reserves provide.
But commercial companies will not simply absorb substantial additional costs indefinitely.
Some portion could ultimately be reflected in energy prices paid by consumers.
Government-funded storage, on the other hand, spreads the cost through the public finances.
Either way, maintaining resilience has a price.
The real debate is therefore not whether someone will pay.
It is who pays, how much, and through which mechanism.
Europe learned the value of stored gas the hard wayThat question has acquired much greater importance since Europe’s energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Gas storage went from being an obscure part of energy infrastructure to a strategic national concern almost overnight.
European governments discovered that apparently mundane percentages showing how full underground caverns were could influence:
wholesale prices;
industrial production;
household energy bills;
government spending;
and geopolitical leverage.
The Netherlands’ latest dispute over storage costs is another consequence of that transformation.
A new Dutch energy realityThe old Dutch gas model was relatively simple.
Produce enormous quantities at Groningen.
Supply the domestic market.
Export the surplus.
Maintain infrastructure around an abundant indigenous resource.
That world has gone.
Today’s Netherlands increasingly relies upon gas originating elsewhere, including expensive LNG transported across oceans.
It must then decide how much of that imported gas to hold in reserve against a difficult winter.
Gasunie says the reduced storage target does not automatically put supply at risk.
But it also says plainly that the Netherlands will be less prepared for a very cold winter than it would have been under the previous target.
And when filling those stores could leave the state-backed operator facing losses approaching €1 billion, the political question becomes unavoidable.
The Dutch government increasingly appears to have an answer:
energy companies that depend upon secure winter supplies should shoulder more of the cost of providing them.
Whether the industry agrees — and how much of that cost eventually reaches consumers — could become the next significant chapter in the Netherlands’ rapidly changing gas story.
Sources: DutchNews, 25 September 2026; Gasunie, 11 September and 26 August 2026.
Dutch Government Looks to Industry to Shoulder Gas-Storage Costs as LNG Dependence Grows was first posted on September 26, 2026 at 6:48 pm.©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net
Shell Monaca Gets New Air Quality Approval — Weeks After $15 Million Pollution Settlement
Shell’s giant plastics complex in Pennsylvania has received another significant environmental approval — just weeks after the company agreed to a $15 million settlement over air-quality violations at the same facility.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has issued Air Quality Plan Approval PA-04-00740D for Shell Polymers Monaca, the huge ethane-cracker and polyethylene complex in Beaver County.
On its face, this is a permit story.
Placed alongside the plant’s recent history, however, it becomes rather more interesting.
Only on 4 September 2026, Pennsylvania DEP announced that Shell Chemical Appalachia had formally acknowledged violations involving emissions and other environmental requirements occurring between 2023 and August 2026.
Shell agreed to pay a $7.5 million civil penalty and contribute a further $7.5 million to a new Beaver County Environment and Community Fund.
Now the same regulator has approved modifications to air-pollution control systems and associated equipment at the plant.
That does not mean DEP has excused or overlooked the earlier violations.
Quite the opposite: the approval forms part of an increasingly detailed regulatory framework surrounding a facility that has experienced repeated environmental compliance problems since beginning production.
What has DEP approved?The approval — PA-04-00740D — was originally put forward for public review earlier this year.
DEP said the proposal would authorise several changes and improvements at Shell Polymers Monaca.
Among them were:
- updates to flare systems intended to meet newer federal air-quality standards;
- permanent upgrades to the wastewater-treatment plant designed to improve removal of oils, grease and air pollutants; and
- administrative changes reflecting the plant’s final construction and operating configuration.
DEP said during the proposal stage that it had reviewed expected emissions, pollution controls and potential impacts on air quality and public health, and concluded that the proposed changes met applicable state and federal standards.
The department held a public information meeting on 19 March 2026 and a formal public hearing on 7 April.
The permit was therefore not issued quietly or without scrutiny.
But the timing is strikingThe new approval arrives against an extraordinary compliance background.
On 4 September, DEP announced a consent order and agreement covering violations extending from 2023 through August 2026.
According to the department, Shell formally acknowledged exceeding total emission limitations for air contaminants and violating other environmental requirements.
The settlement requires Shell not only to make payments but also to undertake further operational improvements.
DEP specifically required Shell to submit plans to improve the plant’s elevated flare system and complete upgrades to the wastewater-treatment plant.
Those two areas are particularly noteworthy because they overlap directly with subjects covered by the newly approved Air Quality Plan.
In other words, the permit and the enforcement action should not be viewed as entirely separate stories.
Together, they show DEP simultaneously allowing improvements to the facility while requiring Shell to address the consequences of earlier compliance failures.
$15 million — and not the first settlementThe September agreement requires Shell to pay a $7.5 million civil penalty.
A further $7.5 million will establish the Beaver County Environment and Community Fund.
DEP says that, once the legally required portion of the civil penalty directed to Potter Township is included, the latest agreement will provide $9.375 million in direct community benefit.
This is also not Shell Monaca’s first major air-quality enforcement settlement.
In May 2023, DEP reached another agreement with Shell after the company exceeded air-emission limitations during commissioning.
That earlier agreement included a civil penalty of approximately $4.9 million and a further $5 million commitment for environmental mitigation projects benefiting communities around the plant.
The regulatory history is therefore becoming substantial.
Shell Polymers Monaca only began polyethylene production processes in fall 2022.
Within four years, the site had already generated multiple major enforcement agreements, extensive public scrutiny and continuing permit modifications.
The Monaca plantShell Polymers Monaca is one of the largest petrochemical investments in Pennsylvania.
The complex uses ethane derived from natural gas to manufacture polyethylene, one of the world’s most widely used plastics.
The site contains ethane cracking furnaces, polyethylene production units and three gas-fired electricity-generating turbines.
Its scale was one reason the original project attracted enormous attention.
Supporters emphasised jobs, industrial investment and the development of a petrochemical industry based on Appalachian shale gas.
Environmental organisations and neighbouring residents raised concerns about air pollution, greenhouse-gas emissions, plastics production and potential health impacts.
Those competing arguments did not disappear when construction ended.
If anything, the plant’s operating history has intensified scrutiny.
Flare problems remain centralFlaring has repeatedly featured in Shell Monaca’s regulatory story.
Industrial flares are safety devices designed to burn off gases that cannot safely remain within a process system.
But excessive or poorly controlled flaring can also produce substantial emissions.
DEP’s latest settlement requires further improvement of Shell’s elevated flare system.
The newly approved Air Quality Plan likewise incorporates updates intended to bring flare systems into compliance with newer federal standards.
That convergence is important.
It suggests that flaring is not simply a historic commissioning problem but remains part of the plant’s continuing environmental-control programme.
Wastewater tooThe wastewater-treatment system is another recurring issue.
DEP’s March description of the proposed air permit specifically included permanent upgrades intended to improve removal of oils, grease and air pollutants from wastewater treatment.
The September enforcement settlement separately requires Shell to complete wastewater-treatment upgrades.
And DEP is also considering renewal of the plant’s wastewater discharge permit.
That permit covers regulated discharges affecting waters including the Ohio River, Rag Run, Poorhouse Run and Raccoon Creek.
So while this latest development concerns an air-quality approval, the wider regulatory picture extends well beyond air emissions.
Safety scrutiny as wellEnvironmental regulation is not the only area in which Shell Polymers Monaca has recently been under examination.
The US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board recently issued its final report concerning the November 2025 explosion and fire at the complex — a report we covered separately.
That investigation dealt with process safety rather than environmental permitting.
The distinction matters.
But together the various proceedings reveal a facility being examined simultaneously from several directions:
air emissions;
wastewater;
process safety;
flare performance;
pollution-control equipment;
and operating permits.
Each involves a different regulatory mechanism.
Collectively, however, they form the operating history of the same enormous industrial complex.
Approval does not erase the compliance recordThere is an important point of interpretation here.
The issuance of Air Quality Plan Approval PA-04-00740D should not be portrayed as Pennsylvania DEP declaring the Shell plant environmentally trouble-free.
That is not what a plan approval means.
The department’s task is to determine whether the proposed modifications satisfy applicable regulatory requirements.
DEP concluded that they did.
At the same time, the department has separately documented and penalised past violations.
Those two facts are perfectly capable of existing together.
Indeed, that is precisely what environmental regulation is supposed to do: punish violations where appropriate while requiring facilities to install, modify and operate pollution controls that meet current standards.
The more revealing question is why a relatively young facility has already required such sustained regulatory intervention.
A plant still finding its feetShell Polymers Monaca was promoted as a technologically sophisticated, world-scale petrochemical facility.
Yet its first years of operation have involved repeated emissions problems, multimillion-dollar settlements, process-safety scrutiny and continuing modifications to pollution-control infrastructure.
That does not mean every regulatory approval represents another violation.
It does mean each new approval deserves to be read against the plant’s documented history.
PA-04-00740D may therefore be best understood not as the closing of a chapter but as another stage in the long process of bringing Shell’s Pennsylvania plastics complex into stable regulatory compliance.
The permit has been issued.
The monitoring, enforcement and public scrutiny are plainly not over.
Sources: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; PA Environment Digest; Pennsylvania DEP Shell Polymers Monaca facility records.
The headline is deliberately restrained. “Gets New Air Quality Approval — Weeks After $15 Million Pollution Settlement” states the contrast without implying that DEP’s approval itself represents misconduct. Pennsylvania Government
Shell Monaca Gets New Air Quality Approval — Weeks After $15 Million Pollution Settlement was first posted on September 26, 2026 at 2:41 pm.©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net
A rural Idaho county banned renewables. It’s having second thoughts.
Jeff Hough did not pull any punches. What his fellow Republican county commissioners were about to do, he said to the packed courthouse, would violate America’s founding ideals. He quoted the Declaration of Independence to make his case.
The three-person commission was about to vote on an ordinance that would ban utility-scale solar and wind development in Bannock County, Idaho.
“We cannot deny the entire county the opportunity to exercise their property rights,” Hough said. “That goes against the principles this country was founded on.”
A few minutes after Hough’s emphatic speech, the ordinance passed by a 2–1 vote. Hough was the lone dissenter.
Since that consequential vote in March 2024, Hough has become the chair of the county commission and has dedicated himself to overturning that ordinance. He will soon have a chance to make that happen. This fall, Hough and the other two commissioners are set to vote on an ordinance with new language that would allow the development of solar and wind, along with nuclear energy, in the county.
The Bannock County vote is a test case of whether — and how — a community can revisit its assumptions about the costs and benefits of clean energy and decide to welcome development it once swore off.
In 2025, nearly 1 in 4 U.S. counties had some kind of ban, moratorium, or impediment to clean energy development, up from 15 percent of counties in 2023. More than 60 percent of counties with bans are rural, according to a Daily Yonder and Canary Media analysis of data from USA Today and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. (The Daily Yonder defines “rural” using criteria from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.)
Bucking this national trend and reversing the ban would put Bannock County back in play at a moment when Idaho needs all the energy it can get. Idaho Power, the state’s largest utility, expects electricity demand to grow by 1 gigawatt by 2030, a roughly 26 percent leap from current levels.
“The need to build stuff now is critical to Idaho’s economic future,” said Aaron Menenberg, the Idaho policy manager for Renewable Northwest, a nonprofit working to decarbonize the region’s grid. “We can’t afford to say no to anything.”
Bannock County, nestled in a valley a few hours north of Salt Lake City and 100 miles west of Wyoming’s Teton Range, is a prime location for new power plants. It’s home to the Populus substation, a critical juncture for getting electrons onto the grid and into Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and the Pacific Northwest. Building new power plants near a substation is cheaper, and those savings can help bring down costs for utility customers.
But the biggest opportunity for county residents, as Hough sees it, is not utility-bill savings: It’s economic development. In recent years, Bannock County’s population has grown far more slowly than Idaho’s. The county’s rural communities, meanwhile, are watching essential services disappear, and drought worsened by climate change is making it difficult for family farms to stay afloat.
County Commissioner Jeff Hough poses for a photograph in Pocatello, Idaho. Otto KitsingerHough believes renewables would bring money into the community. Bannock County’s neighbors offer local proof: In 2024, projects in nearby Power and Bingham counties generated $909,000 and $639,000 in tax revenue, respectively. Hough wants to send a message — to the renewables industry and others — that Bannock County is “open for business,” too.
“Rural America is in a transition state,” Hough said from his office in Pocatello, the county seat, in July. “How do we make or help rural America … transition to this new way of life, so that they can thrive and prosper?”
Read Next As family farms decline and the climate heats up, farmers weigh what to do with their land Vivian LaNot everyone shares Hough’s vision of prosperity. In south Bannock County, Hough’s campaign has met with fierce opposition. Two camps exist: On one side are residents who are willing to lease their own land to solar energy developers or stand by their neighbors’ right to do so. On the other are those who are skeptical of renewables and believe that leasing land to developers is equivalent to selling out — many of them do, however, support nuclear.
Steve Criddle, a third-generation farmer and lifelong resident of south Bannock County, voiced his support for solar in 2024 before the ban passed. He described the situation today simply: “It’s confrontational.”
Bannock County’s moratorium on solar and wind stemmed from an unlikely source: Hough himself.
It was the fall of 2023, and he had just attended a conference of the Idaho Association of Counties in Boise.
Rebecca Falcon and her cat, Baby, in her living room in Downey, Idaho. Otto KitsingerAt the conference, the Lava Ridge Wind Project, a 1-GW development slated for more than 57,000 acres of federal land in southern Idaho, dominated the conversation. County leaders from around the state were concerned about clean energy developers running roughshod over their communities. (President Donald Trump’s Interior Department canceled Lava Ridge in August 2025.)
The discussion got Hough thinking. Months before the conference, he had learned that several developers, including Chicago-based Hecate Energy and Moab, Utah–based Balanced Rock Power, were approaching landowners about solar projects in Bannock County.
When Hough returned from Boise, the cautionary tale of Lava Ridge fresh in his mind, he took action.
“I realized that we didn’t have any kind of ordinance,” Hough said. “So I knew they’d come in and do whatever they wanted.”
On October 12, 2023, spearheaded by Hough, the county commissioners voted unanimously to enact a six-month moratorium on large-scale energy projects. The idea was not to ban solar and wind, but simply to give the county time to regulate the developments and ensure they balanced economic opportunity with responsible land stewardship. A public hearing on the topic was set for the following February, and the commissioners would vote on the future of the moratorium in March.
A building on the outskirts of Downey, Idaho, a rural community in south Bannock County. Otto KitsingerBut Hough’s moratorium took on a life of its own. In the months that followed, a group of concerned residents organized to make it permanent.
Rebecca Falcon led the charge. A decades-long resident of Downey, a town in south Bannock County, Falcon had been approached by Balanced Rock in September 2023 about leasing a portion of her 80 acres for solar. Appalled, she turned the company away. But Balanced Rock’s proposed Harmon Solar Project (aka Harmon I), a 300-megawatt solar facility with a 1,200-megawatt-hour on-site battery energy storage system, included her neighbors’ land. Stopping it would take more than just Falcon saying no.
Falcon and another neighbor, Dez Hauser, who had also turned away Balanced Rock, encouraged other concerned community members to show up to the February 2024 public hearing about the future of the moratorium.
By the time the hearing rolled around, residents had sorted themselves into two groups: for solar and against it. The meeting attracted such interest that it was moved from the county courthouse to a local high school auditorium in south Bannock County. The venue was still packed.
More than two dozen speakers, nearly all of them from south Bannock County, showed up to say their piece. The vast majority testified in opposition to solar.
Steve Criddle, a lifelong resident and farmer who considered leasing land to Hecate Energy for solar development. Otto KitsingerThe commissioners convened the next month to decide what to do with the moratorium. Hough voted to repeal it. The other two commissioners voted to extend it. The commissioners framed it as an additional pause to study the potential effects of large-scale renewable energy development in the county. Yet as the controversy mounted through the spring and summer of 2024, the county declined to take further action.
The ban stayed in place. Falcon, Hauser, and the other opponents had won.
Dale Lish, a grain farmer based in Downey, was frustrated with the decision. Recently retired from a career at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Lish became familiar with solar while working on projects in Idaho and Washington through the Rural Energy for America Program. He spoke in favor of the energy source at the same hearing where Falcon and Hauser expressed their concerns.
“The approach was just no to everything, which bothered me,” Lish said of the county’s decision, in a June interview on his property. “A straight-out ban — I don’t think that’s American. I think we, as private-property owners, ought to have a chance to do what we want within reason.”
The Old Downey Theatre, located on Main Street in the south Bannock County community. Downey has seen many services and small businesses close in recent years and currently lacks a grocery store or hospital. Otto KitsingerIn 2023, Lish signed a one-year contract with Hecate to option about 400 acres of his land for solar development. Hecate declined to renew the contract in 2024 because of the county’s ordinance.
The company has since pulled out of the county altogether. Representatives from Hecate did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
For the two and a half years since that March vote, Hough has been beating the drum of private-property rights while also trying to educate the community on Idaho’s power needs and how they might be met in Bannock County.
While the commission won’t vote until later this fall on the new ordinance, which is still undergoing public review, at least one of Hough’s colleagues may have changed his tune. Ernie Moser, an incumbent who supported the ban in 2024, said in an interview in June that his fears about solar and wind are “not as big” as they were two years ago. Still, Moser, who’s retiring from the commission at the end of this year, stressed that he wants “to do it right” when it comes to revisiting the county’s energy policy. The other commissioner, Ken Bullock, declined to comment.
Lytton Bastian signed a contract in 2021 to lease Balanced Rock Power his “least productive piece of ground.” Otto KitsingerMay’s primary elections offered another indication of the county’s divided views. In the Republican primary, Hough faced a challenger from south Bannock County with an anti-solar platform, and though he won his race by 14 percentage points overall, his opponent captured 70 percent of the vote in Downey. No Democrat is running in the race, so Hough won’t face competition in the November general election.
This year’s results mirror those of 2024, when former county commissioner John Crowder, who voted for the ban in March of that year, won big in Downey but lost to Ken Bullock, an ally of Hough’s.
“In south Bannock County, it’s a supermajority of residents that do not want this,” Crowder said about solar development.
Steve Criddle can trace his family’s roots in Downey back to 1876, when his ancestors first filed paperwork for water rights. His grandfather farmed grain, including wheat. Criddle’s father did the same. He’s kept the agricultural heritage alive himself, but because of a changing climate, grain farming is no longer enough to sustain him.
Lytton Bastian and one of his children in front of the land that he has agreed to lease to Balanced Rock Power for the Harmon Solar Project. Otto Kitsinger“We don’t get enough moisture anymore,” Criddle said. The fields where he grows crops without irrigation now hardly produce enough to make ends meet. He’s turned some of his land over to cattle grazing and has worked odd jobs over the years to hold on to the farm.
On a sunny day in late June, Criddle drove me down a dirt road in his wife’s pickup truck. We were headed to one of his alfalfa fields. Three years ago, he said, the field produced some 800 bales of hay. This year, it produced only a dozen.
“The drought’s been tough,” Criddle told me. Before last year, he’d never had to buy hay for his cows. This year, he’ll likely have to buy hay again, as more than 87 percent of the county is now experiencing extreme drought conditions after a winter with record-low snowfall.
Lish, who also grows crops without irrigation, said that wells in the valley are limited.
Transmission lines running across the valley in Downey, near Rebecca Falcon’s property. Otto Kitsinger“That’s the Achilles’ heel of this area. There’s just a lack of groundwater, and then, of course, sparse rainfall,” he said. To accumulate enough moisture to grow wheat, Lish leaves his fields fallow every other year, allowing the soil to stock up on water.
While Criddle and Lish have fought to hang on to their land over the past six decades, climate change and the loss of small-scale farming have reshaped their community.
“You don’t have family farms anymore,” said Criddle’s wife, Keedrin. “The families can’t survive on a farm.”
As neighbors sold their land to corporations or moved out of Downey altogether, the town’s services have struggled to stay open. Over the years, the rural hospital closed, along with the town’s bank, pharmacy, movie theater, grocery store, and farm-equipment shop. Gone too are the dairies and granary.
Rebecca Falcon points out the location of the Harmon Solar Project in Downey on a printed map. Otto KitsingerSo when representatives from Hecate knocked on the Criddles’ door in 2023 proposing a lease for solar development, Steve and Keedrin heard them out. And while the couple didn’t sign a contract, they realized how such a lease could bring them a stable source of income, which they could use to hire help and reinvest in the long-term sustainability of the farm.
The Criddles now have 11 grandchildren, with another one on the way. Steve thinks often about what he’ll leave for the next generations.
“I don’t want my kids to have to work this hard,” he said.
Lish, who did sign a contract with Hecate, said the decision didn’t come easily. But, he added, it would have been “kind of irresponsible” to not consider the opportunity. With solar, the per-acre income projections were four to five times higher than with wheat alone, Lish said.
Solar panels in Power County, Idaho, which has seen substantial tax revenue from clean energy developments. Otto Kitsinger“Lots of people have lots of opinions on what you’re going to do to your ground. I get that, and I can appreciate it. But we love this land too, and we’re not going to do something that’s going to be harmful,” Lish said. “We’re just looking at something that’s going to help us continue on to multiple generations.”
A few years earlier, Lytton Bastian, another farmer in Downey, had found himself contemplating the same questions.
Bastian, who was born and raised in Bannock County, is a multigenerational farmer and father of six. He owns over 2,000 acres in the valley. Balanced Rock was interested in 840 of those acres adjacent to the Populus substation, a parcel Bastian currently uses as a gravel pit and as cattle pasture for a month each fall and spring. In 2021, he signed a five-year contract with Balanced Rock that includes modest quarterly payments. If the ban lifts and Balanced Rock installs solar, the payments would increase.
Bastian’s neighbor is Falcon. She criticized his decision to lease to Balanced Rock, saying that he sold out to make more money than he could with agriculture.
Read Next More than 70% of new solar is being built in states that voted for Trump Austin Corona“My biggest issue is that it’s all ag land,” Falcon said. “They’ll take the grain; they’ll take the hay; they’ll take the cattle; they’ll take it all.”
Bastian said he only went through with the contract because Balanced Rock wanted his “least productive piece of ground.” An irrigated parcel would have been out of the question, he said. “Any normal farmer will not sell out good prime ground, because that’s hard to come by.”
At the February 2024 hearing at the high school, Bastian was among the few local farmers who spoke in favor of solar.
For Bastian, the stakes are getting higher. His contract with Balanced Rock is up at the end of this year. He thinks the renewal hinges on the county overturning the ban. Otherwise, he fears that the company could go the way of Hecate and look elsewhere.
“If the ban is lifted, the short answer is yes, we will move forward with our project,” said Katarina Bagri, a senior manager of development at Balanced Rock who’s leading the Harmon Solar Project, which includes Bastian’s land. “If there’s still a ban, there’s not many options, so we’ll just have to see what are the options left.”
Linda Engle of the Portneuf Resource Council, an environmental nonprofit advocating to lift Bannock County’s ban on renewables. Otto KitsingerIt’s not just individual landowners who stand to miss out if the ban continues. Property tax payments from solar development would also deliver revenue to help the town bring back much-needed local services, like a grocery store. Balanced Rock, anticipating that the ban would be lifted, offered the city of Downey $100,000 in direct payments last fall via a community benefit program.
If Balanced Rock is unable to build, the city will not receive this money. Hough addressed this directly in an op-ed published in the local paper in February. Counties with bans in place, he wrote, “will watch the projects — and the money — go elsewhere.”
Just outside Downey, the northbound portion of Interstate 15 stretches over a pass and opens onto a sprawling valley. Golden fields give way to towering peaks. It’s part of why Falcon, who grew up in Utah, moved to Idaho: The landscape is all mountains and rolling hills. The idea that solar panels could become part of the view is unthinkable.
“I think, my goodness, why do you have to build it where we live?” Falcon said.
Falcon and her husband, Rudy, bought their 80-acre parcel of land in Downey more than three decades ago. That was before the Populus substation was built within view of their house. Now, transmission lines crisscross their land and that of their neighbors.
“It is the ugliest thing on this planet,” Falcon said about the substation. “I wish it wasn’t there.”
Read Next A clean energy source is buried under the desert, but it takes water to use it Austin CoronaIn the coming years, two new high-voltage transmission lines will join the existing lines running through Populus. They’re part of the yearslong Energy Gateway project being built by PacifiCorp, one of the largest utilities in the West. The goal is to improve the region’s power transportation and reliability as energy demand grows, said Jonathan Whitesides, a spokesperson for Rocky Mountain Power, a division of PacifiCorp that operates in Idaho.
As much as Falcon doesn’t like looking at the substation, she understands the need for transporting power. Rudy works for the Bonneville Power Administration and is often on the road in Washington and Oregon building substations himself. But solar, to Falcon, is a different story. She said that she struggles with the amount of land it requires to produce power, a talking point that’s been popularized by the fossil fuel industry.
She and Hauser, her Downey neighbor, have continued to speak out against solar since the 2024 ban. Hauser is active on community Facebook pages, and Falcon runs an email chain to share information with friends and neighbors. “I wasn’t willing to be quiet about it,” Hauser said.
For years, the women have regularly filed public records requests with Bannock County and the federal government. That’s how they discovered that a month after Bannock County voted to maintain its ban, Balanced Rock applied for federal authorization for a second solar project, called Harmon II. The project, like Harmon I, was slated for 300 MW, and its application outlined solar and battery energy storage development on approximately 1,300 acres of public land administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Bannock County. Harmon II was proposed on land adjacent to Harmon I, which had stalled because of the county’s ban.
In July, Bagri from Balanced Rock acknowledged that the company had been sitting on the application. “All of our focus is on the private land, [the] initial 300 megawatts. So once we make progress with that, we’ll figure out whether we want to pursue an expansion,” she said. In August, Balanced Rock officially withdrew its application for Harmon II.
In Pocatello, the county seat, residents are more favorable toward clean energy than those in Bannock County’s rural communities. Otto KitsingerFalcon and Hauser saw the second project as evidence of a lack of transparency from the developer.
“The public has a right to know this will change this valley for 50 years,” Falcon said. “We will have left that mess to our children and grandchildren, because who’s going to guarantee who owns it in 50 years to decommission it and clean it up? You can’t make those kinds of guarantees.”
Bagri said the guardrails the county was considering in early 2024 — which are now baked into the ordinance the commissioners will vote on this fall — include provisions on decommissioning. The draft ordinance stipulates that in order to get projects permitted, developers must pay into a bond and submit a plan for the removal of all energy infrastructure at the end of the project’s lifetime. Bagri said these plans involve restoring project sites “back to as close to preconstruction condition as possible.” Today, project lifetimes range from 35 to 40 years, she said.
Still, for Hauser and Falcon, the feeling of disempowerment persists. Falcon pointed to other counties across the state, including Ada County, home to Boise, that have taken matters into their own hands to “put a limit” on development. In Ada County, solar is now prohibited on prime farmland, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In southeast Idaho, some of Bannock County’s neighbors, like Caribou County, have also banned utility-scale solar, though others, such as Power and Bingham counties, have embraced it.
“If you don’t build in the brakes, they will run you over,” Falcon said.
E.J. Zita on her property in Robin, Idaho, where she keeps horses and has installed solar to power ranch operations. Otto KitsingerFor all their ire toward solar, Falcon and Hauser see promise in nuclear energy. That puts them in the majority: In January, Bannock County surveyed residents to gauge public opinion on nuclear energy. Over 700 people responded, with 90 percent indicating favorable views toward the industry.
Hough was surprised by the results. “I didn’t think our community could agree on anything,” he said.
Southeast Idaho is home to Idaho National Laboratory, or INL, which leads the nation’s advanced nuclear research. As part of the Trump administration’s embrace of nuclear energy, the lab was given priority in May 2025 to expedite construction of on-site microreactor test beds. The U.S. Department of Energy announced in July that INL will receive $60 million as part of a public-private partnership to use AI in nuclear energy development and operation. Buzzy nuclear startup Oklo aims to build its first fission reactor there.
Plus, next door in western Wyoming, the Bill Gates–backed TerraPower is building what it hopes will be the country’s first utility-scale advanced nuclear power plant. The project, now under construction in rural Kemmerer, is expected to be completed in 2030 and will supply PacifiCorp with up to 500 MW of power.
The excitement around INL and the TerraPower project leave many in Bannock County wondering when their big opportunity might come along. In July, the Bannock County commissioners hosted a public educational forum with INL to discuss how the county could get involved with small modular reactors (SMRs), microreactors, and nuclear manufacturing.
Falcon and Hauser were both in attendance. They said they’d much rather see the development of nuclear energy in Bannock County than renewables. “If you can have 30 acres with a semitruck-size nuclear plant on it, why wouldn’t you do that? Why would you give up thousands of acres to solar?” Falcon said.
E.J. Zita with her horses in Robin, Idaho. Otto KitsingerBut the construction of SMRs and the broader nuclear revival touted by Trump remain highly uncertain prospects.
Only two next-generation nuclear projects in the U.S. have received construction permits: TerraPower’s Kemmerer 1 and Kairos Power’s Hermes 2 reactor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Neither has an operating license, however.
Even if more projects obtain licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission amid Trump’s push to streamline permitting, the SMR industry is far from a sure thing. Most companies are proposing first-of-a-kind projects rife with engineering and economic unknowns. There’s little to no supply chain for the type of fuel many SMRs are designed to use. The United States’ first fully licensed SMR project was canceled in 2023 over cost concerns. Only two commercial SMRs operate in the world today — one in Russia and one in China.
Dustin Manwaring, a Republican state representative for Pocatello and a land-use and development attorney for Balanced Rock, is an ally of Hough’s. He said the commissioner wants to usher in a future where Bannock County leads Idaho’s burgeoning nuclear industry.
“[It’s] a worthy, noble thing to do,” Manwaring said. “If you take a step away, I don’t know how realistic that is. I love that he’s trying.”
In the near term, Hough recognizes that bringing nuclear power to Bannock County could take years. That’s why he doesn’t want to turn down other types of economic development — like solar and wind — in the meantime. “Everybody’s claiming nuclear is the future, which it is, but nuclear is 10 years away, maybe, so you’ve got to have something to help get you there,” Hough said.
Wade Egan, former chair of the county’s volunteer planning and development council, at his home near Pocatello. Otto KitsingerSome clean energy advocates, like Linda Engle with the Portneuf Resource Council, the region’s environmental nonprofit, are optimistic that the support for nuclear energy could help overturn the ban. “With the nuclear piece in there, hopefully it gets passed,” Engle said.
For all the community debate, the future of clean energy in Bannock County ultimately rests on the decision of the three commissioners. To Commissioner Moser, who in 2024 voted in favor of the ban, the choice isn’t black-and-white.
Hanging on the walls in Moser’s office are two landscape paintings depicting Idaho’s wilderness. In one, a crisp blue stream is flanked by forest and purple mountain cliffs; in another, two people perch on a log, fishing rods in hand, waiting patiently for a catch. Moser has arranged the paintings, which were created by his now-grown son, so he can see them while sitting at his desk. On another wall, a second pair of paintings depicts the American Revolution. In a snowy forest scene, George Washington kneels beside a horse, praying.
Five days before the Fourth of July, Moser sat in his office, considering the paintings. “I love our country, the freedoms that we enjoy — 250 years is amazing,” he said. “God created this for us. I’m a steward now. I’ve been called to take care of it.”
It is this ethos that guides Moser, a south Bannock County native, as he contemplates the county’s new energy ordinance.
Moser’s fears have to do with solar site cleanup and the risks of battery fires. Moser is not alone in these concerns; they are often cited by solar opposition groups, which point to rare but devastating instances of battery fires in California. Such anxieties are also spreading nationwide. In December 2025, the volunteer fire departments in Downey and Lava Hot Springs, another rural community in south Bannock County, sent letters to the county commissioners warning that they were unprepared to fight battery fires and would need special equipment and training to do so.
Rebecca Falcon on her land in Downey, with transmission lines behind her. Otto KitsingerBagri said Balanced Rock has tried to ease concerns about decommissioning and fire risk. During the numerous public hearings in 2024, representatives from both Hecate and Balanced Rock responded to the community’s concerns. “They addressed every one of those fears head-on, concisely with facts, and I thought they communicated very well,” said E.J. Zita, a rancher in Robin, Idaho, who’s had residential solar on her property for over a decade. But she said the anti-solar camp had dug in. “People didn’t listen; they just didn’t hear it.”
Despite his fears, Moser said he understands the weight of his responsibility.
That’s why he’s tried to educate himself about Idaho’s energy needs over the past two years. In 2025, Moser visited a 40-MW solar project in neighboring Power County, a 20-minute drive west from Pocatello. The visit was organized for the Bannock County commissioners by Balanced Rock. The same year, Moser and Hough attended the energy academy hosted by Idaho Power in Boise and had conversations with Rocky Mountain Power. Language in Bannock County’s new draft ordinance requires energy developers to help local fire departments with training and equipment for dealing with battery fires.
In June, Moser said he recognized that there’s a need for growth in Bannock County. He’s not the only one whose opinion has shifted. Wade Egan, the former chair of the county’s volunteer planning and development council, was “neutral” about the ban passing in 2024. Egan grew up next door to Dale Lish in Downey and now farms around 5,000 acres in the area. He has friends on both sides of the issue.
This time around, though, Egan is pro-solar. Echoing Hough, Egan said he sees it as a matter of property rights. “I really do believe the right to control and own personal property is as fundamental as speech,” he said.
Moser, meanwhile, is focused on getting things right for future generations. Pointing to the landscape paintings in his office, he spoke about the Idaho wilderness that he wants his son, and grandchildren, to enjoy.
“It’s not a personal choice. It’s hard choices,” Moser said. “We wake up at two o’clock in the morning thinking about them, and it isn’t a simple deal.”
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A rural Idaho county banned renewables. It’s having second thoughts. on Sep 26, 2026.
September 26 Green Energy News
Headline News:
- “Donut Battery Vindicated: Element Analysis Proves Battery Not Lithium Or Sodium” • One by one, critic theories about Donut Lab are chopped down, and now another is done. The Donut Lab battery is definitely not based on lithium or sodium. While Donut Lab has more to prove, it becomes increasingly clear that critics are grasping at straws. [CleanTechnica]
Donut Lab (MKFI, public domain)
- “Vattenfall Unveils 425-MW English Onshore Duo” • Vattenfall unveiled proposals for two onshore wind farms in east England totaling around 425 MW. The 126-MW Chatteris and 303-MW Redmere are both to be built in East Anglia and have 47 turbines between them. Each will be developed under its own planning application, Vattenfall said. [reNews]
- “El Niño To Be The Strongest In Living Memory” • Sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean are already the highest recorded during any El Niño, and the phenomenon is still strengthening. Experts estimate the extreme heat associated with it could contribute to 451,000 additional deaths between June 2026 and February 2027. [Euronews]
- “Low Carbon Plans 500-MW Oxfordshire Energy Park” • Low Carbon is developing proposals, combining solar PV capacity with battery energy storage, for the 500-MW West Oxfordshire Energy Park. Low Carbon said the project could generate enough clean electricity each year to power the equivalent of about 145,000 UK homes. [reNews]
- “New Battery Storage Facilities Support Renewable Energy, Grid Reliability” • A new battery storage facility in White Rock, Nova Scotia will help maximize renewable energy resources while increasing grid capacity and reliability. Three 50-MW, 200-MWh battery storage facilities that have been built in Nova Scotia are now operational. [PNI Atlantic News]
For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.
Haiti: Haitian Peasant Movement “Tèt Kole Ti Peyizan Ayisyen” Celebrates 40 Years of Struggle
It was during the dictatorship of François and Jean-Claude Duvalier, from 1956 to 1986, that Tèt Kole took shape, long before its official birth.
The post Haiti: Haitian Peasant Movement “Tèt Kole Ti Peyizan Ayisyen” Celebrates 40 Years of Struggle appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.
Raising A Toast To Food Politics Expert Marion Nestle On Her 90th Birthday
Happy birthday, Marion Nestle!
At Climate Week NYC, Food Tank held a 90th birthday celebration to honor the legendary food policy expert, writer, thinker, and Professor Emerita of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University.
During the evening, Marion received the Rodale Institute Organic Stewardship Award for Lifetime Achievement in Education.
“Marion really is a total badass who, for decades, has told some of the most powerful industries in the world exactly what they didn’t want her to say, and she said it loudly—with footnotes,” says Renée Baran, Dean of Education at the Rodale Institute.
Watch the entire livestream of the event, hosted in partnership with New York University and the Rodale Institute, on Food Tank’s YouTube channel.
Throughout the celebration, Marion’s food system friends and colleagues joined the stage to offer toasts:
“Marion is a changemaker. Marion is a force of nature…She has taught us how to think about food, argue about food, question and challenge food, and how to eat.”
—Jennifer Berg, Clinical Professor and Department Chair of Nutrition and Food Studies at New York University
“(Food) is sociology, agriculture, history, and community, but above all, it’s politics. Today it’s obvious, but 30 years ago, it certainly was not…It’s because of Marion that we have a new generation of food people.”
—Ruth Reichl, Author and Former Editor-in-Chief of Gourmet
“Marion can walk into a supermarket and see an entire political economy. Marion’s voice is needed now more than ever.”
—Frances Moore Lappé, Author and Co-Founder of the Small Planet Institute
“Marion, as we say in the business, gives a good quote…but she also tells the truth.”
—Kim Severson, National Food Culture Reporter at The New York Times
“Marion occupies a place no one else does in our understanding of the world. Years ago I called her matchlessly lucid, and she hasn’t changed a bit.”
—Corby Kummer, Executive Director of Food & Society at the Aspen Institute, Senior Editor at The Atlantic, and Senior Lecturer at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science
“Marion has never been interested in telling people what they want to hear. She asks the uncomfortable questions. She follows the money. She looks at who has power, who doesn’t, and why. And she has spent decades helping all of us understand that food is never just about what is on our plates.”
—Danielle Nierenberg, President of Food Tank
Explore the entire Food Tank event schedule during Climate Week NYC 2026, and live-stream every Summit on FoodTank.com and Food Tank’s YouTube channel.
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 by Ryan Rose for Food Tank.
The post Raising A Toast To Food Politics Expert Marion Nestle On Her 90th Birthday appeared first on Food Tank.
Data And AI Tech Can Speed Up Our Responses To Climate Change, Not Replace Them
The climate crisis moves quickly. That means our solutions need to move even faster, panelists said during Climate Week NYC.
The Summit “Acting at the Speed of Crisis: Challenges & Opportunities for Food Security and Rapid Response,” held in partnership with RAAPID and Arrell Food Institute, brought global leaders together to explore how we can use fast-moving tech to build resilience.
“There are a lot of evolving crises where, if we work together, bringing in both the tech side and the local expertise…we can move faster to get not only early warnings but action when we need it,” says Inbal Becker-Reshef, Managing Director of Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Founder & Co-Director of NASA Harvest, and Founder of RAAPID.
Watch the livestream recording on Food Tank’s YouTube channel.
“It’s easy to get numb to these issues…and the underlying assumptions of the global food trading system are getting eroded,” says Evan Fraser, Executive Director of the Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph. “We need the data to anticipate where the problems are going to lead.”
Indeed, says Simon Winter, Vice President for Reimagining Humanitarian Nutrition Security at RF Catalytic Capital, “the prevalence and availability and access to very advanced data is increasing.” But to be able to analyze this data and actually turn information into action, panelists said, we need to work with technological tools like artificial intelligence (AI)—not against them.
“A big part of the challenge is the fact that (we have) vastly more information than human beings can look at, so we need AI,” says Andrew Zolli, Chief Impact Officer at Planet. “Human attention is the scarcest resource we have right now.”
As an example, Planet Remained and the Hewlett Foundation presented a case study of Grapevine, a way to create and replicate city-level policy using AI tools. Broadly speaking, if we don’t adopt AI, we’ll be entering at a disadvantage compared to oil and plastic industries that already do use the tools, says Adam Met, Musician of Multi-Platinum band AJR, Founder and Executive Director of Planet Reimagined, and Adjunct Professor at Columbia University.
“When you gather enough of this data…it makes it easier and easier for a city to say, OK, my city looks like this other city, to be able to implement it,” Met says. “This tool allows them to do it from home,” metaphorically speaking.
Dave Turk, Program Director of Environment at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, echoes the value of AI for making the right choice be the easy choice.
“Especially when you get to the local level, it just gets down to pragmatism and problem solving,” Turk says. “The power of AI done right is to make it super efficient.”
Better information-gathering can also help us respond to geopolitical conflicts and wars on a global scale, other panelists explained.
“We are in a very tight situation right now globally,” says Máximo Torero Cullen, Chief Economist of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). “In the case of agriculture, AI is an opportunity.”
For example, because a significant portion of agricultural lands in Ukraine are occupied or impacted by the Russian war, “satellite data is of crucial importance,” H.E. Taras Vysotskyi, Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine, told us via video remarks.
“Globally, we are seeing an increase in the weaponization of food,” says Michael Werz, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Food security is one of the few areas where AI doesn’t totally freak me out.”
But technological tools like AI are only valuable if they’re used well and paired with other solutions, says David Beasley, Trustee of The Rockefeller Foundation and the Former Governor of South Carolina and Former Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme.
“You’ve got to make sure you have good data; bad data can create a lot of harm,” he says. “You get data, and if you don’t use it strategically, what good is it?”
Better data might help us know where to target our philanthropic dollars and policy resources—but, of course, we can only accomplish these goals if funding and legislation already exist. Just as we need action on strengthening our data collection, we need action on these other social factors, too.
“We have more data, and that data allows us to predict crises better, but unfortunately it doesn’t give us the capacity to act,” says Ambassador Ertharin Cousin, Founder and CEO, Food Systems for the Future. “What does (enable action) are the permissions from government and finance, and that speed has not changed with data.”
We have to be both optimistic and realistic, panelists said: Data can guide us in changing behavior, but data alone does not change behavior. Data can highlight the climate protections that local and renewable energy provide; data can highlight how critical plant-rich diets are toward tackling the climate crisis—but we’re still responsible for building momentum, says Helen Clarkson, CEO of Climate Group.
“It doesn’t just magically happen,” she says.
Explore the entire Food Tank event schedule during Climate Week NYC 2026, and live-stream every Summit on FoodTank.com and Food Tank’s YouTube channel.
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 by Ryan Rose for Food Tank.
The post Data And AI Tech Can Speed Up Our Responses To Climate Change, Not Replace Them appeared first on Food Tank.
Alaska’s Orange Rivers More Metallic Than Acid Mine Drainage
The bright orange plumes of water scientists first noticed billowing across a river in Alaska’s Brooks Range in 2018 were even more acidic and metallic than water leached from metal mines, despite their pristine surroundings.
Plant This, Not That
Sheep Grazing May Pose Greater Threat to Scotland’s Wild Pollinators Than Honey Bees
The research, published in the British Ecological Society’s Journal of Applied Ecology, has found that grazing in spring can remove much of the nectar emerging bumblebees need, while commercial honey bee hives introduced during the summer heather flowering period have a much smaller impact.
Silicon Solar Cells Could Cut Satellite Power Costs by Up to 90 Per Cent
The switch to silicon cells could also halve the weight of the solar cells needed on the spacecraft, freeing mass for fuel or instruments, or cutting launch costs.
Sharks Can Hear Sounds Nearly 250 Feet Away and Find the Source
Sound travels through the ocean carrying clues about potential prey, predators and other animals, giving sharks an important way to detect what they cannot yet see.
Portada
Main page
assembly:2026:indonesia:difusion_cover_bangungreport.jpg - created
es:assembly:2026:indonesia:difusion_cover_bandung_esp.jpg - creado
Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.
