News Feeds

A new company YumLit is working to bring joy to family mealtimes through interactive light-up plates. As a social venture, they plan to share proceeds with nonprofit organizations committed to tackling food and nutrition insecurity in their communities and around the world.

The inspiration for the company came to Janet Lawson and her husband Seth Coan during a family dinner. After finishing his meal, their three-year-old son expressed excitement when he discovered the cartoon lion on his plate.

“It was a fun reward,” Lawson tells Food Tank. She and Coan wondered if they could inspire that same joy in other children by making plates come to life in some way.

This question led to the development of colorful, screen-free dishes that light up when a child reveals the design underneath. Lawson and Coan hope that the plates encourage children to build healthy eating habits while reducing stress at mealtimes.

“We created YumLit to make meals feel more fun and encouraging for kids,” Lawson says.

The launch of YumLit is a pivot for the couple, who recently moved to Washington State after living in Morocco. Lawson worked at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), where she focused on building more resilient food and agriculture systems. Coan, an environmental engineer, was focused on climate solutions and sustainability.

Funding cuts and the dismantling of USAID led to job losses and big transitions for the family. But even as she moves into the world of entrepreneurship, Lawson says that she is still driven by the same goals she’s always had: ending food and nutrition insecurity and advancing climate resilience.

“I was very interested in how…we could have some type of social impact,” Lawson says.

YumLit created the YumLit Luminaries Program, which allows organizations to convert the sale of a plate into a donation for their community. When anyone purchases a plate through a luminary’s unique link, 10 percent of proceeds will go to a nonprofit focusing on food access, hunger relief, or nutrition support. They are also planning to donate US$1 from every plate sold to nonprofit partners working to tackle childhood hunger.

“We know that a lot of organizations are experiencing the fallout not just from USAID grants, but other federal funding that has been reduced, and they are really struggling as well,” Lawson tells Food Tank.

The reception to the plates has been positive, says Lawson, with pediatric nutritionists and feeding specialists excited by the idea.

YumLit just launched a Kickstarter campaign to help the company scale and she expects plates will be in supporters’ hands toward the end of this year.

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

Photo courtesy of YumLit

The post YumLit Combines Playful Mealtimes With a Mission to End Food Insecurity appeared first on Food Tank.

3 June | Online | 16:00 London | 11:00 New York | 11:00 Boston | 8:00 San Francisco

Automotive companies are widely positioned as transition leaders. But new analysis suggests investors may be significantly underestimating their exposure to oil demand and carbon risk.

Join Carbon Tracker and InfluenceMap for a 45-minute investor briefing on our forthcoming Oil Companies in Disguise – 2026 Edition report.

Our research finds that:

• Across major global automakers, reported Scope 3 emissions may underestimate real-world emissions by 33% on average.
• This “Carbon Gap” is driven by optimistic assumptions on vehicle lifetime, hybrid usage, and emissions boundaries.
• When adjusted for real-world conditions, some automakers exhibit carbon intensity levels comparable to, or exceeding, oil and gas companies.
• Hybrid-heavy strategies may be prolonging oil demand and increasing long-term stranded asset risk.
• Diverging electrification strategies are creating clear winners and laggards in the transition.

For investors, this raises a critical question: Are automotive portfolios carrying hidden oil exposure that is not being priced in?

What this webinar will give you:

This session is designed to provide practical, decision-relevant insights for investors, including:

• How to identify hidden carbon liabilities in automaker disclosures.
• What the “Carbon Gap” means for risk and portfolio alignment.
• Which OEM strategies are reducing vs extending exposure to oil-linked revenues.
• How to incorporate BEV sales share and emissions realism into investment analysis.
• Key questions for engagement, stewardship, and voting decisions.
• What evolving carbon accounting debates could mean for future disclosure reliability.

This webinar is a high-impact briefing for investors assessing climate risk, transition credibility, and capital allocation in the global automotive sector.

Speakers:

• Ben Scott, Head of Energy Demand, Carbon Tracker
• Ben Youriev, Director of LobbyMap Research on Energy, Mining and Transport, InfluenceMap

The post Oil Companies in Disguise: Are Investors Mispricing Automotive Climate Risk? (Americas Session) appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

3 June | Online | 9:00 London | 16:00 Hong Kong | 17:00 Tokyo | 18:00 Sydney

Automotive companies are widely positioned as transition leaders. But new analysis suggests investors may be significantly underestimating their exposure to oil demand and carbon risk.

Join Carbon Tracker and InfluenceMap for a 45-minute investor briefing on our forthcoming Oil Companies in Disguise – 2026 Edition report.

Our research finds that:

• Across major global automakers, reported Scope 3 emissions may underestimate real-world emissions by 33% on average.
• This “Carbon Gap” is driven by optimistic assumptions on vehicle lifetime, hybrid usage, and emissions boundaries.
• When adjusted for real-world conditions, some automakers exhibit carbon intensity levels comparable to, or exceeding, oil and gas companies.
• Hybrid-heavy strategies may be prolonging oil demand and increasing long-term stranded asset risk.
• Diverging electrification strategies are creating clear winners and laggards in the transition.

For investors, this raises a critical question: Are automotive portfolios carrying hidden oil exposure that is not being priced in?

What this webinar will give you:

This session is designed to provide practical, decision-relevant insights for investors, including:

• How to identify hidden carbon liabilities in automaker disclosures.
• What the “Carbon Gap” means for risk and portfolio alignment.
• Which OEM strategies are reducing vs extending exposure to oil-linked revenues.
• How to incorporate BEV sales share and emissions realism into investment analysis.
• Key questions for engagement, stewardship, and voting decisions.
• What evolving carbon accounting debates could mean for future disclosure reliability.

This webinar is a high-impact briefing for investors assessing climate risk, transition credibility, and capital allocation in the global automotive sector.

Speakers:

• Ben Scott, Head of Energy Demand, Carbon Tracker
• Ben Youriev, Director of LobbyMap Research on Energy, Mining and Transport, InfluenceMap

The post Oil Companies in Disguise: Are Investors Mispricing Automotive Climate Risk? (Asia-Pacific/Europe Session) appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

On 30th April, The Guardian published an article ‘Germany was largest exporter of plastic waste in 2025, sending 810,000 tonnes overseas, analysis finds’ based on a deep dive by Leana Hosea, of Watershed Investigations. It spotlights work by BFFP members, Basel Action Network and Jan Dell of The Last Beach Cleanup.

The headline is stark: Germany was the world’s largest exporter of plastic waste in 2025, shipping over 810,000 tonnes abroad, with the UK close behind at more than 675,000 tonnes. Much of this waste continues to flow to countries like Türkiye, Malaysia and Indonesia, where repeated investigations, like those conducted by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), link imports to environmental harm, illegal dumping and burning and wider social impacts.

This is exactly why sustained, evidence-based advocacy matters. It is encouraging to see the foundations laid by years of campaigning beginning to translate into policy shifts, particularly with tighter controls in Europe.

But the story doesn’t end with an export ban to non-OECD countries slated for  November 2026.

As export restrictions evolve, there is a very real risk of displacement rather than reduction. The EIA is already watching this closely in Türkiye, the UK and across eastern European countries, where capacity constraints and enforcement gaps could once again concentrate harm. The reality in Türkiye, despite its claim to be a "zero waste" champion and government-led greenwashing, is that many regions are overwhelmed by huge amounts of waste that far exceed recycling capacity, with shocking imagery and harm, and citizens bearing the brunt of this pollution.

https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/WhatsApp-Video-2026-05-19-at-12.45.07-PM.mp4

At the same time, it is genuinely encouraging to see the proactive energy emerging from European enforcement authorities as they work collaboratively across borders to address illegal waste trade and strengthen oversight. That momentum will be critical in the transition away from exports.

Because ultimately, this is not just a waste management issue. It is a systemic failure in how we produce, use and externalise the costs of plastic. And it is one we can no longer afford to export.

Yet every time such a media story appears on the international plastic waste trade, a familiar pattern follows. A highly presentable, data-heavy, modelling-oriented academic voice appears and says, in essence: “Actually, this is not quite correct, because our calculations show something else.” Then comes the usual lecture: we need “accurate information”, we need to be “consistent”, we need to “look at the data properly”.

Of course, accuracy matters. Data matters. Consistency matters.

But there is a serious problem when this type of intervention systematically ignores the most important part of the story: the environmental harm, the human cost, the occupational deaths, the illegal practices, the invisible pollution, and the fact that plastic waste trade is not merely a technical trade-flow issue.

We saw this pattern again after The Guardian article. Our views were included in that article, specifically on the environmental pollution dimension. And that is exactly where we think the discussion must remain focused. Because this is not simply a matter of whether one database, model, or trade-flow estimate is more elegant than another.

The data landscape itself is already deeply problematic: Comtrade, Eurostat and WTO-related datasets do not always capture the full picture. 

In fact, in a recent presentation by officials from the Turkish Ministry of Trade, we saw figures indicating that Türkiye imported around 1.3 million tonnes of plastic waste from the EU in 2024. You cannot find these figures anywhere else, they are very unlikely to be fabricated. So when there are such major discrepancies between different datasets, it is not intellectually serious to dismiss investigative journalism by simply saying: “Your data are incomplete; our model is better.”

That is not scientific rigour. That is selective framing. And selective framing becomes especially problematic when it repeatedly comes from people who are very comfortable defending industry collaboration, while directing most of their criticism toward civil society, investigative journalists, and environmental advocates.

The plastic waste trade is not just an economic transaction. It is a pollution issue, a human rights issue and also a colonial issue.

Imported plastic waste washes up on beaches, thick as snowdrifts. Yet unlike snow, they break down into harmful microplastics and leach toxic chemicals into the water and soil. Image credits: Vedat Örüç.

Therefore, any commentary on this issue that reduces the debate to a technical dispute over datasets, while ignoring the environmental and human consequences, should be treated with caution. Science is not a decorative shield for political convenience. And “data” should not be used as a smoke screen to obscure pollution, injustice, and accountability. The real question is not only how many tonnes were traded. The real question is: who pays the environmental and human price for this trade?

These thoughts were originally shared as posts on LinkedIn.

Authors:

Amy Youngman (International Environmental Attorney, Environmental Investigation Agency)

Sedat Gündoğdu (Professor at Cukurova University | Head of Microplastic Research Group | Marine Pollution Researcher | Researcher at Istanbul Policy Center/Sabancı University)

The Stay Grounded Network has launched a new project: The Red Lines for Airports project aims to unite groups across Europe – and beyond – in their struggle against airport expansion projects. As part of this, we’re also running a European Tour, going directly to local struggles, building connections, and supporting with workshops and skillshares. Here, Charlène Fleury, explains how people came…

Source

Headline News:

• “Worst-Case Global Warming Projection Cut By 1°C” • The fall in the cost of solar and wind energy puts a high-fossil-fuel future increasingly out of reach, and climate policies are helping drive emissions down. Some top climate scientists reduced the upper limit of their worst-case global warming scenario to 3.5°C above pre-industrial levels, down from 4.5°C. [Euronews]

Nuuk Greenland (Aningaaq Rosing Carlsen, Unsplash)

• “Wind Leads Ireland Electricity Mix In April” • Wind was the largest contributor to Ireland’s electricity mix in April, making up 38% of total generation. EirGrid said renewables generated 48% of electricity during the month, including 6% from grid-scale solar, for the third consecutive month where renewables met around half of electricity demand. [reNews]
• “UPDATED: NextEra, Dominion To Form $420 Billion Power Giant” • NextEra Energy and Dominion Energy are set to merge, the two companies announced today. The move will create the world’s largest regulated electric utility, and one of the world’s largest energy infrastructure companies. The transaction creates a mammoth utility. [reNews]
• “NTPC adds 5,488 MW Renewable Energy Capacity In FY26” • NTPC Group has added 5,488 MW of renewable energy capacity in FY26, including solar, wind, and pumped storage projects, strengthening its clean energy portfolio. Beyond conventional generation, NTPC has also diversified into such emerging energy businesses as storage. [pv magazine India]
• “Electricity Generation From Solar Could Exceed Coal In ERCOT For The First Time In 2026” • In its most recent Short-Term Energy Outlook, the US EIA forecast that annual electric power generation from utility-scale solar plants will surpass that from coal plants for the first time in 2026 within the electricity grid that covers most of Texas. [CleanTechnica]

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

industri casino online berkembang sangat cepat. Salah satu faktor terbesar yang mendorong lonjakan tersebut adalah hadirnya fitur live streaming atau siaran langsung. Teknologi ini membuat pemain tidak lagi merasa bermain melawan sistem komputer semata. Mereka kini bisa melihat dealer asli, meja permainan nyata, hingga interaksi langsung secara real-time dari rumah masing-masing.

Fenomena ini muncul karena kebutuhan pemain terus berubah. Banyak pengguna modern menginginkan hiburan yang lebih personal, cepat, dan terasa hidup. Teknologi streaming menjawab kebutuhan tersebut dengan menghadirkan pengalaman bermain yang jauh lebih interaktif dibanding permainan kasino digital generasi awal.

Pengalaman Bermain Kini Terasa Lebih Nyata

Teknologi live streaming mengubah cara orang memandang casino online. Jika sebelumnya permainan terasa kaku dan monoton, kini pemain dapat merasakan sensasi layaknya berada di kasino sungguhan. Kamera berkualitas tinggi menyorot setiap detail meja permainan secara langsung, sementara dealer profesional memandu jalannya permainan dengan komunikasi yang natural.

Banyak pemain mengaku lebih nyaman karena mereka dapat melihat proses permainan berlangsung secara transparan. Rasa percaya terhadap platform juga meningkat ketika kartu dikocok secara nyata atau roda roulette diputar langsung di depan kamera. Pengalaman ini menciptakan hubungan emosional yang lebih kuat antara pemain dan permainan.

Tidak sedikit operator casino online yang mulai membangun studio khusus dengan desain mewah untuk meningkatkan kualitas siaran mereka. Beberapa bahkan menggunakan teknologi multi-camera dan efek visual modern agar pengalaman bermain terasa semakin imersif.

Persaingan Industri Semakin Ketat

Perkembangan teknologi streaming membuat persaingan di industri casino online semakin agresif. Setiap platform berlomba menghadirkan inovasi baru agar mampu mempertahankan perhatian pemain. Mereka tidak hanya menawarkan permainan klasik seperti blackjack atau baccarat, tetapi juga menghadirkan konsep game show interaktif yang dipadukan dengan hiburan visual.

Pendekatan ini membuat casino online tidak lagi sekadar tempat berjudi digital. Banyak platform kini menggabungkan unsur hiburan, komunitas, dan interaksi sosial dalam satu layanan. Pemain dapat berbincang dengan dealer maupun pengguna lain melalui fitur live chat yang tersedia selama permainan berlangsung.

Di sisi lain, perkembangan tersebut juga memunculkan tantangan baru. Operator harus memastikan koneksi streaming tetap stabil, kualitas video tetap jernih, serta keamanan data pemain tetap terjaga. Karena itu, perusahaan besar mulai berinvestasi pada server berkecepatan tinggi dan sistem keamanan digital yang lebih canggih.

Masa Depan Casino Online Diprediksi Semakin Interaktif

Banyak pengamat teknologi menilai perkembangan casino online masih berada di tahap awal. Dalam beberapa tahun mendatang, teknologi streaming kemungkinan akan dipadukan dengan virtual reality (VR) dan augmented reality (AR). Jika hal itu benar-benar terjadi, pemain bisa merasakan sensasi berjalan di dalam kasino virtual hanya dengan menggunakan headset khusus.

Bayangan tentang kasino digital futuristik kini tidak lagi terdengar mustahil. Industri terus bergerak mengikuti perkembangan teknologi dan perubahan gaya hidup masyarakat modern yang semakin mengutamakan akses cepat serta pengalaman interaktif.

Di tengah perkembangan tersebut, satu hal yang paling terlihat adalah perubahan perilaku pemain. Mereka tidak lagi hanya mencari kemenangan, tetapi juga pengalaman hiburan yang terasa nyata, nyaman, dan penuh interaksi. Teknologi streaming berhasil menjawab kebutuhan itu dan menjadi salah satu alasan utama mengapa casino online terus berkembang pesat hingga hari ini.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has won deserved praise for standing firm against the Trump administration’s threats and imposition of tariffs. But political credit is only as good as the strategy that follows, and Canada now faces a genuine opportunity to do something more ambitious than weather the storm.

Carney’s approach has sparked a broader conversation among the world’s ‘middle powers’ – countries with significant economies like Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the U.K. that share a commitment to rules-based trade but sit outside the U.S.-China superpower axis. These are countries that are actively looking for a different economic path forward, one that doesn’t simply mirror the nationalism coming out of Washington and Beijing.

Keep reading this post, co-authored by Ryan Mulholland and Ollie Sheldrick, in Policy Options.

The post A Canada-led clean trade pact would show that middle powers mean business appeared first on Clean Energy Canada.

Conceptualizing Security in a Time of Deep Civilizational Crisis Date and time * Date: June 4th, 2026 * Time: 1pm GMT * Registration Link: Here * Speakers: Manuel Rozental (Colombia), Dipa Sinha (India) and (TBC) * Moderation: Introduction This is the first of a series of webinars that will open the series with a conceptual discussion on security in a time of deep civilizational crisis. It will examine how security has traditionally been framed through the international order, the n…

Packing a lunch should be quick and fun. Simple meals keep the body strong and the mind clear. Eating well at work or school helps keep energy levels steady all day long. Small portions of fresh food make a big difference for health. Using a wooden or plastic Japanese bento box makes every meal look beautiful. In this article, we look at easy ways to pack food in a bento box.

Pick a base:

Start with a grain to stay full. White or brown rice works well because it stays soft. You can also use small noodles or a piece of flatbread. This part of the meal gives you the fuel to keep going until dinner. Keep the portion small to leave room for other colorful items.

Add clean protein:

Protein helps muscles stay healthy. Boiled eggs are a great choice because they are easy to peel and pack. Slices of grilled chicken or pieces of firm tofu also work perfectly. Try to keep the pieces small so they fit easily inside the small compartments.

Fill with color:

Vegetables make the meal look bright and happy. Steamed broccoli, sliced carrots, or snap peas add a nice crunch. Green leaves or red peppers create a beautiful look that makes you want to eat. Fresh vegetables provide vitamins that keep the immune system strong.

Include a fruit:

A little bit of natural sugar is good for a quick afternoon boost. Slices of apple, a few grapes, or orange wedges fit well in small gaps. Fruit acts as a healthy dessert that keeps you away from candy. It adds a refreshing taste after eating savory items. Choose fruits that do not get mushy easily during the day.

Keep it tight:

Pack the food closely so nothing moves around. Use small dividers or silicone cups to keep flavors separate. When there are no gaps, the meal stays looking neat until lunchtime. A tight pack also means you get a good variety of different nutrients in one sitting. It is a simple way to make a small amount of food feel like plenty.

Keep it cool:

Safety is important when carrying food. A small ice pack kept near the container keeps everything fresh and crisp. Cold air prevents food from spoiling while you work or study. This ensures every bite tastes exactly as it should. Taking care of your meal means your body gets the best quality food every single day.

Since coming to power in 2019, Kyriakos Mitsotakis’s conservative government has overseen an illiberal turn, largely unchallenged by a divided opposition and a compliant mainstream media. Civil society organisations have stepped up to fill that gap – but at considerable cost. Whether they can sustain that role will depend on stronger public participation and structural support. 

For many Europeans, democratic backsliding is no longer something that happens elsewhere. In V-Dem’s Democracy Report 2026, five European countries – Croatia, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the UK – have been added to the list of autocratisers. Greece, on the other hand, has been on this list for several years: its episode of democratic decline, ranking seventh globally in terms of the magnitude of democratic deterioration, began in 2020. The country remains an electoral democracy, but it has lost its status as a liberal democracy, and its trajectory has been consistently downward. 

While Greece’s democratic decline is clearly part of a larger wave, what makes it distinctive is the speed and the method with which it’s unfolding. The fact that it’s happening inside the European Union, in a country that had, within living memory, emerged from a military dictatorship, makes it particularly concerning. 

Democratically unravelling a democracy  

In July 2019, Kyriakos Mitsotakis and his centre-right party Nea Dimokratia (“New Democracy”) won a strong parliamentary majority and unseated left-wing Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, who had been in power since 2015. Among the first pieces of legislation the new government passed was the so-called Executive State (“Εpiteliko Κratos”), which placed the National Intelligence Service, the EYP, under the direct control of the Prime Minister’s Office. Political oversight of the EYP was handed to the PM’s Secretary General and nephew, Grigoris Dimitriadis. At the same time, the government quietly amended the qualification requirements for the head of the EYP, removing the prerequisite of holding a university degree – a change widely seen as tailor-made to allow the appointment of Panagiotis Kontoleon.  

Meanwhile, the public broadcaster ERT, along with the national press agency AMNA, was also brought under tighter government control, while independent auditing bodies, such as the General Inspector of Public Administration, were disbanded.  

None of this was hidden. It was done through legislation, in plain sight, with an outright parliamentary majority that made institutional opposition powerless. The mainstream media, owned by a handful of oligarchs with conspicuous ties to the ruling party, looked the other way. 

The Covid-19 pandemic handed the government another opportunity to centralise power. The distribution of public health state advertising funds to media outlets through a scheme that became known as the “Petsas list” made visible a system of government influence over the media that had until then been less openly discussed. Public money was flowing to outlets that were sympathetic to the government; outlets that were critical received disproportionately smaller amounts and in some cases nothing at all. No law was broken, but the effect on a media landscape, already strained by the economic crisis, was significant. 

Then came a spying scandal. In 2022, it emerged that a powerful spyware called Predator had been used to monitor opposition politicians, journalists, senior military figures, and even government ministers. The Hellenic Data Protection Authority (DPA) eventually confirmed that at least 87 individuals had been illegally targeted with this spyware, and 27 of them had also been simultaneously monitored by the EYP through legal channels. Dimitriadis resigned, and so did the head of the EYP, but Mitsotakis denied knowledge. Two prosecutors who had been tasked with investigating the case were removed from it after submitting a second formal request for information to the DPA. In February 2026, four executives involved in supplying Predator were convicted in connection with the scandal. No government official has been charged to this day. 

The Predator affair was not simply a surveillance scandal, but a stress test that revealed the full architecture of a system in construction since 2019: an intelligence service with no meaningful independence from the executive, a media landscape too compromised to perform serious scrutiny, a parliamentary majority capable of rewriting inconvenient rules on short notice, and a justice system whose handling of these and other landmark cases left open questions that remain, to date, publicly unanswered.  

In February 2024, the European Parliament adopted its first-ever resolution on Greece, citing grave concerns about threats to democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights. That it took EU institutions five years and a major spying scandal to react tells its own story about the limits of European oversight. 

By then, the question was no longer whether Greek democracy was under pressure – that much was settled – but who, if anyone, was actually doing the work of accountability that formal institutions had either abandoned or been stripped of the capacity to perform. 

The state pushes back 

History has taught that governments that capture institutions rarely stop there. Once the formal mechanisms of oversight have been hollowed out, the next target is whoever has taken up the slack. Greece has been no exception: as a small ecosystem of civil society organisations (CSOs) and independent journalists grew more visible and more effective at holding power to account, the state responded by exerting pressure to make their work as difficult as possible. 

Some of that pressure has worn the face of bureaucratic procedure. The NGO registry created in 2020 by the Ministry of Migration and Asylum, presented as a transparency measure, became in practice an instrument of selective exclusion. Refugee Support Aegean, one of the most established legal aid organisations working with refugees and asylum seekers in the country, was denied registration despite meeting all legal requirements, on the stated grounds that providing support to persons facing deportation orders contradicted Greek law. Even though the right to legal representation for persons facing deportation is enshrined in Greek, EU, and international law, the rejection stood. It was overturned before the Council of State. Whether intended or not, the message to other organisations operating in the same space was clear. 

In early 2026, the Migration Ministry pushed further still, passing amendments to the Migration Code that elevated routine humanitarian work – such as providing food, shelter, or assistance to migrants – to a serious criminal offence. Membership of a registered NGO is now considered an aggravating circumstance. The proposals were introduced days after 24 humanitarian workers in Mytilene, on the island of Lesbos, had been acquitted of charges they had spent eight years fighting. Five years of formal recommendations from the EU, the Council of Europe, and the UN, all calling on Greece to lift arbitrary restrictions on civil society in the migration field, had apparently registered as a reason to accelerate, not reverse, the squeeze. 

Legal intimidation has reached well beyond the migration sector. When journalists at Reporters United and Efimerida ton Syntakton published their investigations into the Predator scandal, and specifically the role played by Grigoris Dimitriadis as the one who held political oversight of the EYP, the response came on the same day as Dimitriadis’s resignation: a lawsuit demanding close to one million euros in damages from the journalists and their outlets. International press freedom bodies were unambiguous in their characterisation of the action as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), aimed not at winning in court but at putting economic strain, stress, and uncertainty on independent media. In 2025, after years of proceedings, an Athens court dismissed the case entirely, ruling the reporting accurate and finding nothing defamatory in any of the articles. 

Once the formal mechanisms of oversight have been hollowed out, the next target is whoever has taken up the slack.

The more insidious form of pressure has been reputational. In early 2026, Vouliwatch (a democracy watchdog organisation I co-founded) and the investigative outlet Solomon published the “Consultocracy Report”, a systematic study of the Greek public administration’s use of private consultancy services, built entirely from official public procurement data. The findings were concerning: a dramatic rise in contracts, the majority of which were awarded without competitive tendering, and documented cases of private consultancy firms involved in drafting legislation. The government chose not to engage with the report. Instead, at an official press briefing, government spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis made false claims about the report’s methodology and insinuated, also falsely, that Vouliwatch was politically motivated and funded by the European Left.  

Publicly discrediting CSOs and journalists who challenge the dominant narrative, question policies, and shed light on political scandals has been a recurrent tactic of the Mitsotakis government over the past years. The prime minister himself has publicly attacked journalists during speeches in parliament and press briefings, while ministers have repeatedly questioned the integrity of well-established international organisations such as Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International. 

Taken individually, each of these tactics – registry exclusions, criminal law amendments, SLAPP litigation, public smear campaigns – might be dismissed as isolated incidents of overreach. Taken together, they point to something more deliberate: an environment in which accountability work is made increasingly costly, legally fraught, professionally risky, and personally draining. The goal of all this is not necessarily to destroy the organisations in question, but to ensure that the cost of scrutiny is high enough to deter the next investigation, the next campaign, the next report that asks uncomfortable questions. 

Civil society on the front line 

Against this backdrop of chronic underfunding, legal harassment, and coordinated public delegitimisation, something unexpected has happened: the civil society ecosystem has held and, in some respects, even grown. 

This is not a given. Greek civil society as we know it today is young. Much of it emerged directly from the wreckage of the financial crisis, built by people who watched the formal political system fail catastrophically and decided, for various reasons, to try a different approach. These organisations were never well-resourced. They have always been viewed with suspicion rather than respect: in Greece, the concept of an independent, non-partisan civic sector sits uncomfortably against a political culture in which virtually every collective endeavour has traditionally been understood through a partisan lens.  

State funding is either unavailable or comes with obvious strings attached. Domestic philanthropy remains thin, while international foundations rarely take notice of Greece. The EU project funding that sustains much of the sector is a lifeline but comes at a heavy cost: it requires staff to spend significant proportions of their time on compliance bureaucracy and deliverables that, more often than not, have little to do with the purpose that brought them into the sector in the first place. 

What Greek CSOs have achieved despite these constraints is worth taking seriously. In the years since democratic backsliding accelerated, together with independent journalism outlets, CSOs have fulfilled a role that formal democratic institutions have been either unwilling or unable to perform. They have monitored government practices, pursued freedom of information requests that ministries ignored, and taken legal action when they were ignored. They produced investigative work on the Predator scandal, on the Petsas list, on the concentration of media ownership, on procurement irregularities, on pushbacks at sea – work that was subsequently picked up by European institutions, informing  resolutions, rule of law reports, and parliamentary inquiries.  

They have reported Greece’s situation to EU bodies not because they expected immediate countermeasures, but because building a documented, evidenced record of what is happening counts as accountability work in a context where domestic channels are blocked. The personal cost of this work has been real and is not discussed enough. Staff in these organisations are, with very few exceptions, overworked and underpaid. They have been targets of coordinated social media harassment. Some have faced SLAPP litigation that drags on for years, even when it ultimately fails. Many have been named in government press briefings, dismissed by ministers, characterised as foreign agents or partisan operatives in oligarch-owned media. Operating under these conditions requires a particular kind of stubbornness that should not be romanticised. Burnout is endemic, and the sector is bound to lose good people and repel new entrants as these adverse conditions persist.  

Authoritarian tendencies do not consolidate only by weakening organisations; they consolidate when societies become convinced that collective action is futile.

Unfinished business 

What has changed – and this may be the most significant development of recent years – is that these organisations have started to work together. In the Greek context, such collaboration is harder than it sounds: fragmentation and competitive individualism are deeply rooted cultural tendencies that civil society has reproduced faithfully. The reflex to guard organisational territory, to duplicate rather than collaborate, to approach partnership with wariness: while these barriers are not unique to Greece, they have been particularly pronounced here.  

But something has shifted. Joint investigations, shared advocacy campaigns, coordinated submissions to European institutions, and co-signed public statements have become the norm. Through this cooperation, a closely knit community has formed, held together not by formal structure but by a shared understanding of what is at stake and, frankly, by the practical recognition that no single organisation is large enough to do this work alone. 

Importantly, this collaboration has not remained entirely confined to the civic sector. The work of CSOs has resonated with broader segments of society, particularly younger people who have grown up amid overlapping crises and whose trust in political institutions is often fragile or absent altogether. For many, these initiatives increasingly function less as traditional civil society and more as visible demonstrations that public participation, democratic accountability, and the defence of rights are not abstract ideals delegated to institutions, but collective responsibilities that citizens themselves can exercise. 

That may ultimately prove to be the decisive terrain. Authoritarian tendencies do not consolidate only by weakening organisations; they consolidate when societies become convinced that collective action is futile. In that sense, it could be argued that the state’s various harassment strategies are aimed not only at exhausting individual organisations, but at fracturing the fragile sense of civic possibility that has begun to emerge around them. So far, they have not succeeded. 

Greece’s civic sector has demonstrated, under pressure, that it is capable of doing things that matter. What is still lacking is the structural backing that would allow it to do those things sustainably, without relying indefinitely on individuals’ willingness to absorb costs that institutions should not be asking them to bear.  

That is the unfinished business. And it’s a European question as much as a Greek one. 

For decades, the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, worked across many of the world’s most food-insecure and climate-besieged regions, funding thousands of humanitarian, healthcare, food, and disaster relief programs. That all changed last year when, days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, his administration issued a stop-work order that suspended nearly all of USAID’s overseas programs. Then, last July, the administration informally dissolved the agency — leading to the largest withdrawal of American international development aid in more than 60 years. 

A new study published May 14 in the journal Science suggests the sudden USAID shutdown could have been linked to an uptick in violent conflict across much of Africa, with some of the most politically fragile regions seeing the largest spikes. Outside experts, however, caution that the findings are preliminary and may not capture the bigger picture. 

Farming and agricultural markets are easily disrupted by conflict, and when conflict occurs food security worsens because it can limit communities’ access to food. At the same time, deepening food insecurity in fragile political states contributes to social unrest. Climate impacts then layer onto this fragility. Extreme weather is second only to conflict in having the greatest effect on global hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition, according to a U.N. report. That’s in part because it increasingly causes people to migrate as they flee places destroyed by rising seas and cataclysmic storms, which, in turn, can fuel conflict. 

“It is undeniable that USAID programming around food aid, including emergency food kitchens, therapeutic foods, and health and water programming on which basic food and nutritional security is built, provided a critical lifeline to millions of women, children, and families in severe nutritional deficits,” said Zia Mehrabi, a food security and climate change researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder. “Who in their right mind would retract healthcare and food so abruptly, in so many places, when the direct result is people suffering and dying?”

In analyzing the impact of funding cuts on conflict across 870 subnational African regions that had been receiving different levels of USAID services, the Science paper’s authors found that in the roughly 10 months that followed the administration’s immediate withdrawal of aid, areas that had previously received more USAID support may have experienced more or different types of conflict. Using two global datasets that track funding disbursements and violent conflict, the study suggests that, in areas with high historical USAID funding, there was a 12.3 percent increase in conflict overall and a 7.3 percent surge in armed battles; protests and riots in these areas rose by 6.8 percent and battle-related fatalities by 9.3 percent after the shutdown. 

According to Austin Wright, a University of Chicago researcher who studies the political economy of conflict, and a co-author of the paper, the effects have been swift and destabilizing. “There is nothing that we’re aware of in recorded human history of the magnitude of that shutdown, in terms of ending a country’s commitment at a global scale,” said Wright. 

Read Next The world is getting too hot to feed itself Ayurella Horn-Muller

Established in 1961, USAID was created to encourage economic and social development in emerging nations while countering the Cold War influence of the Soviet Union. Building resilience in foreign political systems has, in recent decades, been “one of the main goals of the work of USAID,” said Chelsea Marcho, a senior director for research and policy at the Food Security Leadership Council and former USAID official under former President Joe Biden, who was not involved in the Science paper. The study showing that violence may have been less severe in places where USAID had helped build stronger institutions, she said, only underscores the value of those aid investments. One example is the largely discontinued work to develop more resilient food systems across sub-Saharan African nations facing higher rates of poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. 

But what many tend to forget, said Marcho, is that USAID also funded the bulk of pivotal data collection efforts across much of the world’s most food-insecure and climate-vulnerable regions. The dissolution of the agency has prompted widespread disruptions in everything from localized weather monitoring to one of the primary global famine early-warning systems. Although some of these systems have since been restored, the gaps in monitoring coupled with the decreased capacity across aid organizations means it is all the more difficult to understand what is happening on the ground. 

Indeed, the end of USAID has buckled our ability to measure the very outcomes of the end of USAID. “The visibility that we have around food security is potentially in decline at the same time that the risks to the system are increasing,” said Marcho. “How do we actually get the data we need?”

Mehrabi finds the new paper creates “more questions than answers.” He argues the mechanisms of measurement are unclear, the analysis period is too short, and the authors don’t adequately disentangle USAID’s specific effects from Trump’s simultaneous cuts to other U.S. international funding sources, such as the State Department. “The results are clearly early and tentative,” he said. “I think it is a leap to say this is all attributable to USAID.” 

Wright, for his part, acknowledged the study has limitations, including a short post-shock observation window of just 10 months, a disbursement baseline drawn from the first Trump administration rather than the period immediately before the cuts, and a geographic scope confined to Africa — leaving much open to future research. He says the team ran extensive robustness checks addressing these concerns, detailed in the paper’s appendix. 

After running his own reanalysis of their data, Mehrabi, however, remains unconvinced. What’s more, he warns against the possible takeaway that the presence of American developmental intervention equates to stability. The U.S., he argues, could more effectively help deter widespread conflict and hunger in nations like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, through more equitable benefit-sharing of natural resource extraction from critical mineral supply chains. This would “far outweigh any benefits from foreign aid,” proposed Mehrabi. 

Nevertheless, with an annual budget of tens of billions and an institutional history spanning 64 years, USAID’s developmental footprint throughout the African continent was no small thing. “One cannot simply create USAID all over again, or give it a mandate and give it funding and assume that we have waved a wand and we can reverse the damage done,” said Wright.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump gutted USAID. Hunger and violence followed. on May 19, 2026.

In this installment of an ongoing series, Tom and Dave Murphy explore what “sustainable” truly means and whether any disruption to natural ecosystems or energy flows by humanity is inherently unsustainable.

History offers a grim account of how structural change occurs. But concealed within that bleakness is a window of possibility that opens just when things fall apart.

Extreme heat is already a defining climate and health threat in southern Africa, yet public debate still treats it as ordinary bad weather. A new study shows that, as climate change drives more extreme events, governments and institutions can adopt practical steps to make communities more climate‑resilient.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, record-breaking storms and flooding are impacting Māori land, health, and culture. And, according to a new national climate report, colonization has intensified those risks. 

The 2026 National Climate Change Risk Assessment is composed of four reports, including a companion document focused on Māori communities. That report argues that climate change is likely to deepen existing inequities shaped by colonization, exclusion from decision-making, and chronic underinvestment. 

To mitigate the impacts of climate change, the assessment points to Māori-led adaptation as uniquely effective. It calls for policy grounded in Māori customs and knowledge, Indigenous data sovereignty, and stronger Māori authority in climate decision-making.

“For more than 150 years Māori have been pushed to the margins, literally, by an aggressive colonization process,” said Paora Tapsell, who is Ngāti Whakaue and Ngāti Raukawa, and the director of the Kāika Institute of Climate Resilience at Lincoln University. 

The assessment, released earlier this month, adds to a growing body of national reports that highlight the harmful impacts of colonial policies on Indigenous peoples and the environment. In 2023, the United States’ Fifth National Climate Assessment found that land theft and colonization had exacerbated climate change’s impact. The year before, Australia’s State of the Environment report was prepared with an Indigenous lead author for the first time; it found that Indigenous peoples were more likely to be impacted by extreme weather events like fires. It too called for incorporating Indigenous knowledge into climate policies. Despite these findings, Indigenous leaders around the world say national governments are still not listening to them.

Aotearoa New Zealand recently experienced one of its most active severe weather seasons on record, with multiple declared states of emergency across the nation’s two islands. It also found that the country’s Indigenous peoples are essential in responding to such disasters. “The report accurately acknowledges that many kāinga [Māori settlements], despite their relative impoverishment, are still willing first responders on the front line of increasingly severe climate events,” Shaun Awatere, who is Ngāti Porou and lead author of the companion report, said.

The assessment’s seven interconnected risk areas span environmental, cultural, and economic domains. It says the loss of protected endemic species is not only a biodiversity issue but also affects food gathering places, the Māori lunar calendar, traditional customs, and intergenerational knowledge systems. According to the report, some species could face near-irreversible decline in parts of the country under high-emissions scenarios by 2090.

Read Next Indigenous peoples bear the brunt of climate change — and get almost none of the money to fight it Anita Hofschneider

Across Māori lands, climate-driven extreme weather events have had a destructive impact on infrastructure. But the report outlines how flooding, erosion, storms, and wildfires also present cultural risks by threatening tribal meeting places, burial sites, and communal homes. It warns that repeated damage and displacement could lead to long-term cultural fragmentation and disconnection from ancestral land.

Climate impacts may also be felt economically. Māori-owned forestry, farming, aquaculture, and horticulture enterprises face rising pressure from climate hazards, costs, and underinvestment in adaptation. Without structural reform and targeted support, the assessment says that economic vulnerability will increase. 

Awatere said the findings confirm what tribes have been saying for years. “Climate events do not arrive one at a time,” he said. “A storm floods a road, damages a marae [tribal meeting place], erodes whenua [land], disrupts access to mahinga kai [food gathering places], and overwhelms health and welfare systems that were already stretched, all at once. Each of those harms compounds the next.”

The assessment also said climate-driven displacement and ecological degradation could disrupt the transmission of language, customary practices, lineage relationships, and Indigenous knowledge systems between generations.

Awatere highlighted ongoing structural exclusion of Māori from climate planning and adaptation systems, despite the government’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, which is the country’s founding document. The report describes legal exclusion and governance failure as a major risk multiplier, compounding climate impacts across all domains.

Awatere said the central question is whether adaptation plans will reflect that evidence, or whether Māori communities will continue to carry a disproportionate risk of harm.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Māori climate risk worsened by colonization, report finds on May 19, 2026.

While addiction in the UK remains stigmatised as an individual failing, recognising its structural underpinnings opens up routes towards a liberatory and collective framing of sobriety, writes William Rayfet Hunter

The post On the radical politics of sobriety appeared first on Red Pepper.

May 14, 2026:

See CBS TV coverage of

Greenaction Blasting Navy’s latest radioactive scandal at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Superfund Site

Click here to watch

EV sales accelerate, petrol cars stall Channel News brendan 19th May 2026 Teaser Media

How to root a begonia leaf indoors: a complete guide from one leaf to a thriving plant

Last spring I bumped a shelf while vacuuming — classic move — and watched a gorgeous, spiral-patterned Rex begonia leaf snap clean off the stem. I stood there holding the leaf like it was evidence at a crime scene. Then a thought hit me: what if I could root a begonia leaf indoors and grow a whole new plant from this accident? Spoiler: I could. And I did. That single broken leaf became four baby begonias now sitting in tiny terra-cotta pots on my kitchen windowsill.

You can do exactly the same thing this weekend. By the time you finish reading, you’ll know three tested methods to propagate a begonia from a leaf, which begonia types cooperate best, what supplies to grab, and how to troubleshoot every common failure — rot, mold, mystery die-off, all of it.

Which begonias root from leaves (and which don’t)

Begonia leaf propagation works beautifully — but only with the right species. Not every begonia plays along, and knowing the difference saves you weeks of staring at a rotting leaf.

Rex and rhizomatous types: the gold standard

Rex begonia is a rhizomatous houseplant famous for bold, swirled foliage. Rex begonia propagates easily from a single leaf because the thick veins carry abundant meristematic tissue — basically, built-in starter cells. Other rhizomatous varieties like Begonia masoniana (Iron Cross) and B. bowerae (Eyelash begonia) respond just as well. These are your best candidates.

Cane-stemmed begonias (angel wings): skip the leaf

You’re probably wondering: does this really work with an angel wing? Honestly, not great. Cane-stemmed begonias store their growth energy in thick stems, not leaves. A leaf-only cutting from an angel wing rarely produces roots strong enough to build a plant. Stem cuttings with a node work far better for cane types.

Fibrous-rooted and tuberous types: limited success

Fibrous begonias (like wax begonias) propagate more reliably from stem cuttings or seed. Tuberous begonias prefer division of their tubers. Neither type is a good pick for the leaf methods below.

Supplies you actually need

Begonia leaf cuttings demand surprisingly little gear. Here’s the short list:

• A sharp razor blade or X-Acto knife — scissors crush the vein tissue instead of slicing cleanly, and crushed tissue invites rot.
• Rooting medium — pure perlite, moist sphagnum moss, or a 50/50 peat-perlite mix all work. I prefer sphagnum moss for vein-slitting because the leaf pins down flat against the soft surface.
• A shallow tray or clear plastic container with a lid — a repurposed bakery clamshell container is perfect. A gallon zip-lock bag works too.
• Rooting hormone (optional) — in my experience, rooting hormone shaves maybe a week off the timeline for wedge cuts. Worth using, not mandatory.
• A spray bottle, bright indirect light, and (optionally) a seedling heat mat.

Three ways to root a begonia leaf indoors

Begonia leaf propagation indoors comes down to three core techniques. Each method suits different goals and comfort levels. Here’s a side-by-side comparison before we dig in:

Method Best for Difficulty Plants per leaf Rooting time Vein-slitting (whole leaf) Rex, rhizomatous Easy 5–10+ 4–8 weeks Wedge cuts Rex, large-leaved Moderate 3–6 4–6 weeks Water rooting (petiole) Petiole cuttings Easiest 1 3–6 weeks Grab your razor blade: the vein-slitting technique

Begonia leaf vein-slitting is the method the American Begonia Society has championed since at least the 1930s, and it’s still the most satisfying way to get a crowd of babies from one leaf.

1. Select a healthy, mature Rex begonia leaf with firm texture — not a young pale leaf or an old droopy one.
2. Flip the leaf vein-side up on a clean surface.
3. Use a razor blade to make a clean cut across each major vein where the vein branches, about ½ inch long. Aim for 6–10 cuts total.
4. Lay the leaf vein-side down on a tray of pre-moistened sphagnum moss or perlite.
5. Pin the leaf flat against the medium using hairpins, toothpicks, or small pebbles — every slit needs to touch the damp surface.
6. Cover the tray with a clear lid or slip the whole tray into a plastic bag to hold humidity.
7. Place the tray in bright, indirect light. Avoid direct sun — the sealed container traps heat and can cook the leaf.

Each cut vein becomes a potential root site. Over four to eight weeks, tiny white root nubs emerge at the slits, and miniature plantlets push up shortly after. Roots. Tiny, white, beautiful roots. That moment never gets old.

The wedge method gives you more plants per leaf

Begonia leaf wedge cutting is my go-to when I want multiple plants and don’t mind a slightly more hands-on process.

1. Cut a healthy Rex begonia leaf into triangular wedges — each wedge must include a piece of a main vein running to the pointed end.
2. Let the wedges air-dry for about 15 minutes so the cut edges form a thin callus.
3. Insert each wedge pointed-end-down into moist perlite or peat-perlite mix, burying about ⅓ of the wedge.
4. Cover the container and set the container in bright indirect light.

A single large Rex leaf yields three to six wedges. Each wedge typically produces one plantlet, though some generous wedges sprout two. Rex begonia leaf wedges usually root in four to six weeks.

Rooting a begonia leaf in water — does it actually work?

Begonia leaf cuttings can root in water, especially whole-petiole cuttings. Here’s the honest truth, though: water-rooted begonias often develop weaker, more brittle roots than soil-rooted ones. The transition to potting mix can stress a water-grown cutting.

That said, water rooting is dead simple and satisfying to watch:

1. Trim the petiole (leaf stem) to about 1–2 inches.
2. Place the petiole in a small jar of room-temperature water — just deep enough to submerge the stem, not the leaf blade.
3. Change the water every five to seven days to keep bacteria at bay.
4. Move the cutting to soil once roots reach about an inch long.

A begonia petiole cutting in water produces roots in roughly three to six weeks. What surprised me was how fast my B. bowerae rooted in a shot glass on the kitchen counter — barely three weeks.

The waiting game — aftercare that makes or breaks it

A begonia leaf cutting needs consistent conditions during the rooting phase. Neglect here is the number-one reason propagation fails.

Humidity: Keep the tray covered. Vent the lid every two to three days for about ten minutes to let fresh air circulate and discourage mold.

Light: Bright, indirect light drives photosynthesis in the mother leaf, which fuels root growth. Direct sun on a covered tray raises the temperature inside and scorches the leaf tissue fast.

Temperature: The sweet spot sits between 65 °F and 75 °F (18–24 °C). A seedling heat mat beneath the tray can shave a week or two off rooting time — especially helpful in cooler rooms.

Moisture — the “squeeze test”: Grab a small pinch of the rooting medium and squeeze. A few drops of water should barely appear. Soaking wet medium suffocates new roots. Bone-dry medium kills them.

When to transplant: Wait until each baby plantlet shows at least two to three tiny leaves and a visible root cluster. Depending on the method, the full timeline from cutting to transplant-ready plantlet runs about eight to twelve weeks.

Why begonia leaf cuttings fail (and how to fix each problem)

Begonia leaf cuttings sometimes go sideways. Here are the four failures I see most often — and the fixes that actually work.

Why did my begonia leaf cutting turn to mush?

Rot happens when the medium stays too wet and airflow is too low. The leaf tissue breaks down into translucent slime. Fix: use a chunkier medium like pure perlite, vent the lid more frequently, and trim away any mushy sections with a clean blade before they spread.

The leaf dried up and turned brown

Low humidity is the usual culprit. Sometimes the leaf was already old or damaged before cutting. Fix: choose a leaf that feels thick and waxy — you want that satisfying, almost rubbery texture under your fingers. Increase humidity by misting the inside of the lid before closing.

No roots after eight weeks

Cold temperatures and dim light slow rooting dramatically. A begonia cutting sitting in a 60 °F room with north-facing light may simply stall. Add a heat mat. Move the tray closer to an east- or west-facing window. And double-check that you’re using a variety that actually roots from leaves — a cane-stemmed begonia leaf almost never cooperates.

Fuzzy mold on the soil surface

Mold loves warm, humid, still environments — exactly what your propagation tray provides. A light dusting of ground cinnamon on the medium surface acts as a gentle natural antifungal. Better airflow during venting sessions helps too. A small amount of surface mold rarely kills the cutting, so don’t panic.

From leaf to showpiece — potting up your new begonias

Baby begonia plantlets need a gentle transition. Once each plantlet has two to three leaves and a root cluster about an inch long, carefully separate the plantlet from the mother leaf. Use a well-draining, peat-based potting mix — I like two parts peat, one part perlite, one part vermiculite.

Pot each plantlet into a 2-inch container. Keep the soil lightly moist for the first two weeks and maintain higher humidity (a loose plastic bag over the pot works). After two weeks, remove the cover and let the young begonia acclimate to normal room humidity. Start feeding with a diluted balanced fertilizer (half-strength, every two weeks) once the plantlet shows active new growth.

I think this potting-up stage is the most nerve-wracking part of the whole process. The babies look so fragile. They’re tougher than they seem.

Your next move

A few months from now, you could have a whole shelf of begonias — every single one traced back to a leaf you sliced on your kitchen counter. There’s something genuinely magical about starting new begonia plants from a leaf and watching an entire collection grow from almost nothing. The Victorian plant collectors who popularized begonias in parlor windows understood this thrill, and honestly, indoor begonia propagation hasn’t changed much since their era. Good light, a damp medium, patience, a sharp blade.

So — which leaf are you starting with?

FAQ — begonia leaf propagation questions answered Can I root a begonia leaf in just water without soil?

Yes. A begonia petiole cutting roots in water within three to six weeks. Water-rooted cuttings tend to develop more fragile roots, so transplant to soil early — once the roots reach about an inch — for the strongest long-term growth. See the water rooting section above for the full technique.

How long does a begonia leaf take to root indoors?

A begonia leaf cutting takes three to eight weeks to produce visible roots, depending on the method, the room temperature, and the variety. Wedge cuttings and water-rooted petioles tend to root fastest. Vein-slit whole leaves take longer because each slit point roots independently.

Do I need rooting hormone for begonia leaf cuttings?

Rooting hormone is optional. A light dusting of powdered rooting hormone on wedge-cut edges can speed rooting by roughly a week. Vein-slit leaves and water-rooted petioles generally root fine without the hormone. I use rooting hormone on wedge cuts and skip the hormone for everything else.

Can I propagate an angel wing begonia from a leaf?

Angel wing begonia belongs to the cane-stemmed group. A leaf-only cutting from an angel wing rarely produces strong roots. Gardeners get far better results taking a stem cutting with at least one node and rooting the stem cutting in water or moist perlite.

What time of year is best to propagate begonia leaves indoors?

Spring and early summer offer the longest daylight and warmest ambient temperatures, so begonia leaf cuttings root fastest during those months. Indoor propagation works year-round, though. A grow light and a heat mat compensate for shorter winter days and cooler rooms.