News Feeds

This article The Global Sumud Flotilla is a mission of mercy, met with cruelty was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'26gxjtQ4Sx9ZCOm3IKUksw',sig:'O252H5Kc3kpsOOyKEiBiaV-Vawnrq4efv8L5djaUJDQ=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2270979603',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

After a symbolic launch in Barcelona on April 12, the Global Sumud Flotilla set out across the Mediterranean Sea to bring aid to Gaza in what proved to be the largest civilian maritime convoy of its kind: 58 vessels, more than a thousand participants from over a hundred countries. Amnesty called on governments to guarantee safe passage. Greenpeace sent the Arctic Sunrise. And in the early hours of April 30, off the coast of Greece, Israeli naval forces moved in. 

There is something deeply affecting in the sight of everyday people rising to perform the simplest offices of mercy while states and institutions, created for hours of peril such as this, withdraw behind procedure and delay. Across the Mediterranean, men and women gathered what aid they could carry, along with the inward resolve such a voyage demands, and turned themselves toward Gaza. Great structures, swollen with authority and self-protection, were suddenly made to look small beside a few fragile boats moved by fellow feeling.

That, for me, is the true subject here. The values-led flotilla and the light of humiliation it casts upon the official power structures. When private citizens must hazard sea and reprisal in order to bring food and medicine to the trapped, the failure has entered the marrow of public life. Whole systems, immense in apparatus and loud in self regard, stand exposed by a handful of human beings willing to cross water for strangers. The Greeks gave us words for it: demos, the common people, and kratos, their strength. A flotilla is democracy at its source.

#newsletter-block_67f13e14b2716b55a97772652dd32920 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_67f13e14b2716b55a97772652dd32920 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

In a relentless news cycle of death and destruction, there is something almost scriptural in the image of small craft setting out to relieve the besieged. A boat is a modest thing, rising and falling with the sea, vulnerable to delay, interception and fear. Perhaps that is why it can bear mercy so well. Mercy is among the most beloved names by which God is remembered in Islam, and these volunteers carried aid in their hold along with a quality of heart that official life has steadily thinned out.

The word sumud deepens the meaning further. For Palestinians, it has long meant steadfastness, a staying put in the face of erasure, a fidelity to land, memory and the human shape of one’s life. Here, steadfastness took to the sea. It left the olive grove and entered the waves. One remains steadfast by moving toward the wounded. One keeps faith by refusing distance.

By getting on those boats, the volunteers insisted that strangers are still our concern. A flotilla closes distance in the oldest human way, by drawing near, by consenting to inconvenience and risk because another people’s hunger has become unbearable to the soul.

To set out under such conditions is already a kind of testimony. One imagines the small practical gestures that attend such a voyage: the checking of ropes and provisions, subdued talk, private negotiations of fear, inward glances toward loved ones who would be left behind for a time. Heroism appears in a humble guise, the simple refusal to let danger relieve one of this duty. Those who boarded these vessels consented to exposure, and that consent lent the voyage its moral splendor.

There is something else that stirs the heart in such gatherings. The people who come together for a mission of mercy bring different languages, prayers and burdens of memory. Yet, for a brief and difficult passage they agreed to become answerable to one another and to those waiting beyond the horizon. This, too, is part of the beauty. A world daily instructed in difference and division still contains people capable of forming, under pressure, a fellowship. The boats carried supplies, certainly, though they also carried a living refutation of the lie that people are finally ruled by self-interest or tribe or fear.

Perhaps that is why maritime images can carry such spiritual force. The sea strips away illusion. No one sets out upon open water and remains wholly enclosed within self-regard. One enters a domain older than empires, where frailty and dependence are undeniable. To cross such waters in order to relieve the afflicted is to recover something ancient in the story, something older than diplomacy. It recalls the old belief that mercy is a labor asking something of the body. It must travel and bear fatigue and uncertainty. It must keep watch.

The greatness of the souls on this journey lies precisely in the fact that they remain recognizably human. They will be tired and perhaps seasick, maybe even afraid. They will carry their private griefs with them, along with the larger grief that summoned them to sea. Yet hope does not wait until the heart is free of trembling. It makes use of trembling and gathers what courage it can from love and shame, from prayer and the stubborn unwillingness to let the brutal terms of politics become the final measure of what is possible between us. Amid the daily grief, this is a welcome ray of light.  Hope as an act of resistance, with wet sleeves and a steady hand on the rope. Hope that has looked at the world and, despite every inducement to resignation, continues to choose the human bond.

Those who sailed in April had already paid for this cause. In October 2025, Israeli forces arrested over 450 participants from the last flotilla attempt, among them the Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and Mandla Mandela, grandson of Nelson Mandela. Those survivors set out again, undeceived about what might await. Their willingness to return lent the voyage a grave authority. Events confirmed its cost.

The answer came in the early hours of April 30, in international waters west of Crete, 600 miles from Gaza. Israeli naval vessels surrounded the fleet, ordering activists to their knees at gunpoint. Twenty-two of the 58 boats were seized. One hundred and seventy-five people were held aboard an Israeli frigate for up to 40 hours, denied adequate food and water, the floor beneath them repeatedly and deliberately flooded. They were punched, kicked and dragged across the deck with hands bound. Shots were fired, live and rubber both. Thirty-four people were hospitalized in Crete with broken ribs, broken noses and serious neck injuries. Sixty went on hunger strike, before being released.

Two steering committee members were then taken separately to Israel: Saif Abu Keshek, a Spanish-Swedish Palestinian who had been on an observer boat that never planned to sail to Gaza, and Brazilian activist Thiago Ávila. Abu Keshek was forced to lie face-down from the moment of his seizure, kept hand-tied and blindfolded, his face and hands bruised. Ávila was dragged face-down across the floor and beaten so severely he lost consciousness twice. The Brazilian embassy, visiting under glass, observed visible marks on Ávila’s face and noted his significant pain. Both are in Shikma Prison in Ashkelon and still on a hunger strike. A court has now extended their detention until May 10.

#support-block_26a1d3c8c77edfa954dcd33281640077 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

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

Donate

Spain called the detention illegal; Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez addressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly, saying his country would always protect its citizens and defend international law. Brazil stood with Spain. Turkey’s Foreign Ministry called the interceptions an act of piracy. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani called them a brazen violation of international law. The Trump administration called the flotilla pro-Hamas and threatened consequences for any who had offered support.

Power has answered mercy with boots and bound hands. One wants to call this a surprise, but it is more precisely a revelation: something that was always there, now brought into the open. What the interception has laid bare, beyond the suffering of those detained, is the shape of the blockade itself. What kind of order must travel 600 miles from shore to intercept civilian vessels that are carrying bandages? What does a law protect when it meets unarmed people at sea with firearms and drags them face-down across wet decks?

Thirty-two boats remain anchored in Crete, where the organizers are regrouping and considering their next steps. The flotilla was seized in part. It was not silenced. And that refusal has done what no press release could: made the condition of Gaza impossible to look away from, at a cost borne by those who were willing to bear it.

The boats are small enough to be dismissed by cynics, and large enough to shame the world. They carry the old lesson that power does not hold a monopoly on reality. Power cannot produce the moral beauty that appears when human beings gather themselves for the sake of others. That beauty remains one of the last unpurchased things.

I think, in these dark years, about the difference between authority and worth. The first may be conferred by the world; the second is earned in the secret place where the heart decides whether it will remain human. Those who set out from Barcelona hold no office at all. Even so, they carry more of the world’s honor than many governments assembled beneath their flags. They carry it at sea, in the dark, with their hands bound, still keeping watch.

The lantern is still on the water. Mercy has been met with force, and answered the force with the deeper testimony of the body’s willingness to remain. Thirty-two boats sail on. The heart still knows the way.

This article The Global Sumud Flotilla is a mission of mercy, met with cruelty was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

The campaigner challenging consent for lower-volume fracking in East Yorkshire has added a new ground to his case.

Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

Peter Lomas, from Hornsea, is taking the first legal steps against the Environment Agency (EA), over its issue of a permit at the West Newton-A site in Holderness.

The site operator, Rathlin Energy, had said lower-volume fracking is required to allow commercial exploitation of a well at the site.

The new ground is based on the Finch Ruling, a successful case at the Supreme Court brought by Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group on climate emissions from onshore oil and gas.

In a legal letter in early April, solicitors Leigh Day set out four grounds for Mr Lomas’s challenge:

• Risk of induced seismicity
• Risk to groundwater pollution
• Impact on the Lambwath Meadows site of special scientific interest
• Failure to consider international guidance on climate change

But a second letter has recently added that the EA failed, when making its decision on the permit, to consider and undertake a detailed environmental impact assessment (EIA).

The planning permission for production at West Newton-A was passed without an EIA, in March 2022.

This was more than two years before the Finch Ruling, which stated that decisionmakers must consider the downstream carbon emissions from using oil or gas produced onshore.

The Finch ruling also emphasised the importance of public participation in the EIA process and public understanding of the environmental impact of developments.

Mr Lomas’s lawyers argued there had been no environmental information about the downstream emissions from oil or gas produced at West Newton-A.

They said the EA was obliged to assess the environmental impact of oil and gas production resulting from lower-volume fracking.

Information was needed, they said, on emissions from using hydrocarbons from the well to ensure the public could properly participate in the process.

The lawyers have also revised the fourth ground in the case. It now argues that the EA failed to consider the impact of lower-volume fracking on climate change, under its duties in the Environment Act 1995.

Leigh Day has asked for further information from the EA on the first three grounds.

FDA finds toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in baby formula but won’t set enforceable limits Monica Amarelo May 5, 2026

WASHINGTON – The toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS were found in baby formula sold across the U.S., according to test data recently released by the Food and Drug Administration. 

The findings underscore an urgent and long-overdue need for legal limits on PFAS in food. One year ago, the Environmental Working Group urged the FDA to develop action levels for PFAS in food. 

Monitoring without action does not protect children. A PFAS action level would let the FDA take legal action to remove products from the market if they exceed that limit.

The FDA tested 312 infant formula samples from 16 brands for 30 PFAS compounds as part of its Operation Stork Speed initiative. Five PFAS compounds were detected. 

PFOS was most commonly detected, found in half of all samples at concentrations ranging from 0.51 to 6.0 parts per trillion. PFOS is one of the most toxic and well-studied PFAS and the Environmental Protection Agency says it’s likely to be carcinogenic to humans.

The FDA characterizes these levels as low and concludes the infant formula supply is safe.

“No safe level of PFAS exposure has been established, and that is especially true for infants,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., EWG chief science officer. 

“PFOS bioaccumulates in the body and it damages the immune system, including reducing the effectiveness of vaccines in babies and children. Detecting it in half of all formula samples and characterizing these findings as a proof of safety is not a conclusion the science supports,” said Andrews.

“Formula is the sole nutrition source for millions of American infants and toddlers. The FDA’s safety claim is not acceptable, given these detections of a known cancer-causing chemical. The agency must set enforceable PFAS action levels for food, as other nations already have done."

“Congress gave the FDA the authority to set limits on contaminants in infant formula. The agency has chosen not to use it,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at EWG. 

“Every day the FDA delays setting enforceable PFAS limits is another day American infants are exposed to toxic PFAS with zero legal protection. That is a policy choice, and it is the wrong one,” he said.

Not just trace contamination

PFOS was phased out of U.S. manufacturing under pressure from the EPA after evidence emerged of significant health hazards. It was used in 3M’s Scotchgard and widely deployed in firefighting foam at military bases and airports, contaminating groundwater systems across the country. 

EWG’s PFAS contamination map documents PFOS in the drinking water supply of nearly half the nation’s water systems. 

The EPA regulates PFOS in drinking water at a maximum contaminant level of just 4 parts per trillion, set because of PFOS’s classification as a carcinogen. 

The FDA has established no equivalent limit for infant formula, so infants and toddlers may continue to be exposed to PFOS in food, as well as in tap water.

“Most of the formula samples the FDA tested were powdered, and most parents mix powdered formula with tap water,” said Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG. “Depending on where you live, your tap water may be contaminated with PFAS.

“That means babies could be getting a double dose – PFAS already present in the formula powder, and additional PFAS from the water used to prepare it. That compounding exposure is exactly why we need enforceable limits, not just monitoring,” she added.

The FDA findings closely mirror Consumer Reports’ 2025 investigation, which found PFAS in almost all of the 41 popular baby formula brands it tested, including Enfamil, Similac and Bobbie. 

Consumer Reports also identified PFOS as the most concerning compound detected. 

Two independent investigations, the same alarming result – and still no enforceable federal standard for PFAS in food.

Food may be the primary route of PFAS exposure

For millions of Americans, food – not drinking water – is the main route of PFAS exposure. These chemicals enter the food supply through multiple pathways federal regulators have failed to close.

“PFAS are clearly infiltrating our entire food system as a direct result of regulatory failure,” said Andrews. 

“PFAS-containing pesticides are being applied to crops. Biosolids contaminated with PFAS are being spread on farm fields. Contaminated water is being sprayed on food crops. Every one of these pathways is preventable, and every one of them remains legal,” said Andrews.

“We need to ban all nonessential uses of PFAS, starting with these agricultural applications, before the contamination gets any worse,” he added.

Stakes are highest for the most vulnerable

PFAS exposure, with its health stakes, begins before birth. 

PFAS are toxic at extremely low levels. They are known as forever chemicals because once released into the environment, they do not break down and can build up in the body. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99% of Americans, including newborn babies. 

PFAS readily cross the placenta and have been detected in umbilical cord blood, confirming that the developing fetus faces direct prenatal exposure. 

When PFAS are detected in the infant formula that millions of American babies depend on as their sole source of nutrition, the exposure does not begin at the first feeding. For many infants, it has already been accumulating for months.

A recent study also links prenatal PFAS exposure to premature birth, low birth weight and infant mortality. The full range of documented harms extends further still: thyroid disruption, harm to the male reproductive system, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, reduced fertility and shorter duration of breastfeeding. 

Very low doses of PFAS have been linked to suppression of the immune system. Studies show exposure to PFAS can also increase the risk of cancer, harm fetal development and reduce vaccine effectiveness. 

The impact on infants and toddlers is especially pronounced. “Babies are not small adults when it comes to chemical exposure – they are categorically more vulnerable,” said Stoiber. 

“Babies’ bodies are smaller, their organs are still developing, and their immune systems are not yet fully formed. When PFAS accumulate in an infant’s body, the proportional impact is far greater than it would be in an adult exposed to the same amount.

“Parents are often limited in the type of formula that is available to them and the FDA’s testing did not disclose the brand names tested. The FDA must act to protect all children,” she added.

“The administration says it wants to make America healthy again,” said Faber. “Here is a straightforward way to start: Set enforceable limits on PFAS in baby formula today. 

“The science is clear, the authority exists and the harm has been documented. American families cannot wait any longer for the federal government to do its job,” he added.

What parents can do right now

No parent should have to navigate this alone. Until the FDA establishes enforceable PFAS standards in infant formula, here are practical steps to reduce your baby’s exposure:

• Use filtered water when preparing powdered formula. A reverse osmosis system provides the most effective PFAS filtration. Countertop pitcher filters have also shown meaningful effectiveness in EWG testing. 
• Check EWG’s PFAS contamination map to see whether your local water supply has documented PFOS or other PFAS contamination.
• Make your voice heard. Contact the FDA and your elected representatives and demand enforceable PFAS limits in infant formula. The FDA’s Operation Stork Speed is an ongoing testing program. Sustained public pressure from parents is one of the most effective ways to accelerate the regulatory action.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Children’s Health PFAS Chemicals Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 5, 2026

When I moved to Richmond 25 years ago, Chevron was so entrenched in Richmond’s politics that it was rumored that they had a desk in the city manager’s office.

For ordinary folks—especially immigrant and refugee families—who lived here, the message back then was clear: Richmond isn’t really yours.

But for the past three decades APEN members — driven by courage, creativity, and a fierce love for our city— have challenged Chevron’s power, proving that Richmond belongs to us.

I spent the last 30 years working with national organizations on issues of climate justice and corporate power. Across that time, much of my own political thinking was shaped by the organizing I saw APEN leading in Richmond.

I joined APEN as Co-Director because I know that the reality of a Just Transition is possible. What’s more – I’ve seen it happen, right in my backyard. 

As a new Richmond resident, I knew I had to stand up to Chevron’s toxic policies.

I knew APEN as a neighbor first. I met APEN staff as our children ran around together while we packed the Richmond city council chambers during meetings.

One experience that sticks out is a meeting in 2020. The council was deciding on whether Richmond’s port would continue to store and handle coal and petroleum coke, a carbon-rich solid byproduct of oil refining.

The tension in the air was palpable as activists and residents packed the chambers.

When APEN members arrived in a sea of green shirts, I knew that our community had shown up: organized, informed, and ready.

But we weren’t the only ones turning people out – fossil fuel interests had brought speakers to give old and misleading arguments. 

The lack of empathy was at a fever pitch; I even overheard someone scoffing and rolling their eyes at “yet another” resident testifying about suffering from asthma. 

APEN members gave essential and powerful testimony to combat the misinformation parroted by fossil fuel representatives. The passion and dedication to Richmond was crystal clear. 

Together, we moved the city council to vote to end storage of harmful substances in our city.

Over the past three decades, APEN members have inspired me with their tenacity and bold presence.

So much has changed in Richmond in the last 25 years.

In 2024, grassroots organizers won a $550 million settlement from Chevron—a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest in a Just Transition for Richmond. 

And, Chevron is on the defensive, going so far as to fund their own newspaper to parrot their talking points, because they know that ordinary, working-class people are transforming Richmond and taking back control. 

This is the transformative power of grassroots organizing. The energy of Fire Horse year reminds us that bold, courageous action is needed to ignite lasting change. 

APEN members are exactly that – passionate and fearless – as they continue to raise their voices in Richmond, Oakland, and Los Angeles’ South Harbor.

I’m excited to draw on my experience and build grassroots power alongside Co-Director Vivian Huang.

This month, we are raising $28,000 to fund the crucial work of our bold members.

In the coming weeks we’ll share victories from youth in Richmond and LA’s South Harbor, as well as milestones in Oakland’s Chinatown—all are a testament to the transformative power of APEN’s long-term grassroots organizing.

We have received a generous matching grant of up to $25,000! This means when you give today, your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar; that’s double the impact!

I’m honored to join the team at APEN to support our members and build a Just Transition that makes sense for poor and working class communities of color in California.

In Solidarity,

Michelle Chan, Co-Director, APEN

The post My front row seat to the power of grassroots organizing appeared first on Asian Pacific Environmental Network.

As record heat waves threaten workers from report sites and warehouses to farmlands and delivery routes across the country, a new report from Groundwork Collaborative, Workshop, and Harvard Law School’s Center for Labor and a Just Economy outlines a coordinated campaign by corporations, trade groups, and their political allies to block enforceable heat protections for America’s labor force. The report’s authors, Adam Dean and Jamie McCallum, find that a nationwide heat standard could save thousands from heat-related illnesses and deaths each year.

Building on previous research published in Health Affairs, the authors find that California’s heat standard, which requires common-sense workplace protections including access to water, shade, and regular rest breaks for workers, resulted in a 51% reduction in heat-related deaths compared to neighboring states that lack similar protections. If a similar heat standard was adopted federally, the authors estimate these basic regulations could save up to 1,500 lives annually.

But, the paper’s authors find that corporate and industry interests are preventing federal action to protect their workforces from heat exposure. Attempts at regulation in Washington have stalled while worker safety and wellbeing relies entirely on geography and political will. As the Biden administration’s life-saving heat rule remains stalled, Trump has failed to extend protections, instead siding with corporate interests.

In the paper, the authors write:

“As extreme heat intensifies, the cost of inaction will be measured in lives lost. The question facing policymakers is no longer whether effective protections exist, but whether they have the political will to stand up to unscrupulous employers lobbying hard to block them.”

Background

Extreme heat threatens thousands of workers each year with no relief in sight.

• Extreme heat is rapidly becoming one of the most dangerous and least regulated workplace hazards in the United States. As climate change drives hotter, longer, and more frequent heat waves, millions of workers – especially in agriculture, construction, warehousing, and transportation – face increasing risks of injury, illness, and death.
• In 2024, nearly 3,000 heat-related deaths were recorded among outdoor workers, and in 2023, high temperatures contributed to an estimated 28,000 injuries on the job. These estimates likely understate the true extent of heat-related incidents in the workplace.

Common-sense heat protections are proven to improve worker safety and decrease the risk of heat-related deaths, but the lack of a federal standard leaves workers at the whims of their employers and reliant on uneven state policies.

• California’s robust heat protections were associated with a 51% reduction in worker deaths between 2015 and 2020, compared to neighboring states without protections.
• Meanwhile, governors in Texas and Florida have signed legislation to bar municipalities in their states from implementing heat protections for workers following stringent opposition from business groups.
• A long-term, coordinated pressure campaign from industry lobbyists, including Amazon, UPS, and the Associated Builders and Contractors, have blocked efforts at state and federal levels to enact worker protections, while companies tout their “commitments” to worker safety.

In the absence of a uniform standard, an ineffective patchwork of state-by-state protections has emerged, leaving the lives of thousands of vulnerable workers in the hands of policymakers captured by their corporate backers and at the mercy of changing political tides. The only way forward, the authors argue, is a strong, enforceable national standard.

The Senate Judiciary Committee released its reconciliation bill, tacking $1 billion for Donald Trump’s White House ballroom project and $70 billion for Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP).

Public Citizen Co-President Lisa Gilbert issued the following statement:

“The idea of using a simple majority process to fund billions more in ICE cruelty is abhorrent, but now the Senate has piled corrupt absurdity on top of that inhumane move, by adding in 1 billion dollars to fund the grandiose, bombastic, vanity project—the golden White House ballroom. Using taxpayer dollars to toady to a wannabe-dictator is both pandering and pathetic.”

The company behind the suspended oil site that is subject of a landmark Supreme Court ruling has reported declining assets and revenue.

UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG) revealed today in delayed annual accounts that it has interests in just one hydrocarbon site.

The value of the company’s total assets and its revenue both fell by more than 60% in the year to September 2025.

During the same period, the accounts show that UKOG gave up an onshore PEDL (production, exploration and development licence) and two exploration sites.

It also sold its stake in two more UK production sites in southern England and exited from its Turkish licence interests.

The company’s remaining oil and gas site at Horse Hill – once called the Gatwick Gusher – has been mothballed since October 2024. The Supreme Court stripped the site of its planning permission in what became known as the Finch Ruling in June 2024.

A separate statement this morning announced UKOG had submitted a retrospective planning application for the reinstatement of production consent at Horse Hill. The application announcement was not mentioned in the accounts and the details have not yet been published online.

But the accounts admitted:

“There is no certainty when consent will be reinstated or that production [at Horse Hill] will recommence.

“The Group continues to evaluate available technical data and maintain cost discipline; however, the timing, level and economic viability of any future production remain uncertain.”

Loss of oil and gas assets

The accounts confirmed that in June 2025 the company relinquished PEDL246, which included the Broadford Bridge oil exploration site in West Sussex and the planned Loxley gas site, near Dunsfold, in Surrey.

UKOG said it had plugged and abandoned the Broadford Bridge wells, BB-1/1z, in February 2026, despite discussions on their geothermal potential.

The company said:

“This milestone confirms the Company’s compliance with its regulatory obligations, demonstrating its continued commitment to responsible operations and asset stewardship during its transition into clean energy.”

But it did not mention the planning requirement to restore the site to farmland, which has not yet happened, nor the planning contravention notice issued against UKOG’s subsidiary, the site operator, and the landowner.

UKOG said it relinquished PEDL246 because representatives had failed to find a farm-in partner to drill at Loxley.

UKOG also sold its subsidiary, UK (GB) Ltd, which had stakes in the Horndean (10%) and Avington (5%) oil fields in Hampshire.

It exited its Turkish licence in October 2024 and later received a claim of $100,000 from its former partner, the accounts reveal. They said UKOG directors considered there was “no remaining formal legal or contractual basis for the claim”. To date, UKOG has received nothing further, the accounts added.

Finances

UKOG said the 2025 financial year “marked a period of strategic realignment for the Group as the Group continued its transition from legacy oil production towards hydrogen storage and clean energy infrastructure”.

But according to the accounts, the company remains largely dependent on revenue from hydrocarbon sales. The auditor noted a “material uncertainty exists that may cause significant doubt on the group’s ability to continue as a going concern”.

Revenue, entirely from Horse Hill and Horndean crude oil sales, fell to £432,000 in 2025, from £1.1m in 2024. The accounts said the decline reflected lower volumes from Horse Hill, which voluntarily suspended production in October 2024.

Total UKOG assets fell from £3.361m (restated) in 2024, to £1.136m in 2025. Cash and cash equivalents were down from £1m to £40,000.

Net liabilities rose from £2.471m in 2024 to £5.684m in 2025.

Total annual losses were reduced compared with 2024, when the balance sheet included £32.544m in impairment of oil and gas assets.

Key figures

Revenue: £432,000 (2024: £1.1m)

Cost of sales: £423,000 (2024: £912,000)

Gross loss: £20,000 (2024: £189,000)

Total comprehensive loss: £4.09m (2024: £38.490m)

Admin expenses: £2.636m (2024: £1.716m)

Decommissioning provision at 30 September 2025: £1.591m (2024: £1.253m). Of the £1.591m, £1.184m was for Horse Hill and £407,000 was for Broadford Bridge.

Non-current assets: £337,000 (2024: £1.705M)

Total assets: £1.136m (2024 restated: £3.361m)

Cash and cash equivalents: £40,000 (2024: £1m)

Total liabilities: £6.822m (2024: £5.832m)

Net liabilities: £5.684m (2024: £2.471m)

Operating loss: £3.9m (2024: £3.8m)

Loss before tax: £4.098m (2024: £38.490m)

Stephen Sanderson total earnings from UKOG: £243,000 (2024: £314,000

Total payments to directors: £504,000 (£457,000)

Loan interest payments: £152,000 (2024: £128,000)

Total finance cost: £202,000 (2024: £172,000)

Loans payable to non-controlling interests: £3.462m (2024: £3.310m)

Outstanding loan balances owed to HHDL shareholders at 30 September 2025: Alba Mineral Resources £2.8m (2024: £2.6m), Doriemus plc £0.6m (2024: £0.6m), UK Oil & Gas plc £18m (2024: £17.8m)

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum has directed national recreation areas, seashores, wildlife refuges, and other public lands to immediately lift dozens of restrictions on hunting and trapping, according to internal documents reviewed by the New York Times.

The directive, which takes effect this week, targets rules at 76 Interior sites that allowed hunting but had restrictions designed to protect habitats or public safety, such as prohibitions on firing weapons across trails or cleaning game in public restrooms. Burgum ordered the changes in an April 21 memo, asserting that any restrictions not strictly required by law must be the “minimum necessary for public safety or resource protection.”

The Interior department framed the move as a way to expand access for sportsmen and women, but critics are concerned that the administration is bypassing environmental studies and public consultation to implement major rule changes, and warned against a “one size fits all” approach to land management. “What we’re really concerned about is, that memo didn’t say, ‘do analysis,'” said Stephanie Adams of the National Parks Conservation Association. “It didn’t say ‘engage the public,’ and it didn’t say to be sure to focus on that key part of the Organic Act, which is to manage in a way that leaves the parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

Senator Ben Ray Luján: Reform the 154-year-old mining law

In a letter to the editor in the Washington Post, New Mexico Senator Ben Ray Luján calls for an overhaul of the General Mining Act of 1872, arguing the law prioritizes industry over the safety of community drinking water. In a response to claims that permitting takes decades, Luján notes that the most delayed projects were due to the current law causing opposition and distrust with local communities and Tribal nations.

Quick hits Bison have grazed these lands for centuries. Trump wants to evict them

New York Times

June lease sale will offer over 150,000 acres in Colorado

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

These rural towns are banking on outdoor recreation to boost their economies

Deseret News

Trump administration falls behind on wildfire prevention with risky fire season ahead

NPR

How the rush to mine the metal of the future echoes America’s colonial past

Inside Climate News

Editorial: New tactic to come after public lands must be stopped

Arizona Daily Star

Twin Metals paid former Trump officials $380K. Their Boundary Waters mine is now advancing against public opinion

Outdoor Life

8 victories that give hope in the fight to protect public lands

Outside

Quote of the day

At a certain point, operating these mines and establishing these settlements stopped being about pure capitalism, pure greed, and it started to be about harming Indians. The wealth accumulated from all that extraction was a self-awarded prize for harming Indians, which was at the time, and possibly still is, the most American patriotic thing.”

—Lakota Sioux member Taylor Gunhammer, Inside Climate News

Picture This @yellowstonenps

“That’s no moon.” Actually, it is. We had a beautiful moonset this morning over Terrace Mountain in Mammoth Hot Springs. May the 4th be with you!

 

Featured photo: Mesa Trail at Curecanti National Recreation Area. mlhradio, CC BY-NC 2.0

The post Trump administration orders rapid end to some hunting rules on federal lands appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

This article May Day was even more important than you think was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'Vk7zYaJHQWhViKUjU_oBVg',sig:'J-1ykjKxSlOelDfCtwyGVqfQDsdDifjKWbKzK6WjvHE=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2274083676',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

On May 1, organizers reported over 5,000 May Day Strong actions across the country — the most widespread distribution of U.S. May Day actions ever. Numbers are interesting — but they’re not nearly the whole story here. Because this May Day was even more important than you think.

With No Kings, millions were activated into the streets. May Day had another goal in mind — to stretch our mass mobilization skills to include more, to quote Martin Luther King Jr., “creative tension.” 

The need for escalation became all the more urgent in light of the MAGA Supreme Court’s ruling eviscerating the Voting Rights Act, the legal crown jewel of the civil rights movement. This heavy blow is aimed at the most reliable voting bloc for a just democracy in America — Black voters. So, in response, we have to return to risky tactics that wage struggle for our democracy.

So in New York, protesters with the Sunrise Movement shut down entrances to the New York Stock Exchange — a daring tactical escalation. In Raleigh, North Carolina, 20 school districts closed for the largest statewide teacher rally since 2019. In each of the thousands of May Day protests, people spoke to specific local conditions — North Carolina ranks 43rd in average teacher pay — but tied to the overall frame of workers over billionaires.

#newsletter-block_fab340f3bfe7333aae6a6df83b20d037 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_fab340f3bfe7333aae6a6df83b20d037 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

At Kent State University in Ohio, students honored previous generations who braved bullets, standing in the rain and wind to protest the closing of DEI offices and scholarships. They were part of the fast-moving and underreported growth of students organizing against this regime: Sunrise estimates 100,000 students participated in this weekend’s May Day strikes.

It’s important to note what we saw. Escalated tactics were trialed — this wasn’t just sign-waving. The May Day Strong coalition was also consciously moving in a unique formation with National Nurses United, AAUP, NDWA and dozens of local unions, including SEIU, AFSCME and UNITE HERE locals, joining with the likes of Indivisible and 50501. 

But perhaps most importantly and consequentially, it was a structure test for future economic disruptions. In a structure test you’re testing to see who is with you — who is ready to move and who just says they’re ready to move. So in real time we get to assess which groups are ready for further boycotts, strikes and other kinds of economic disruption. These tactics are important to build up for because they are not symbolic, but have a material impact on the authoritarian regime.

As a wise group, this coalition was testing what capacity we have for this kind of collective power. And that capacity was significant (with room to grow!). All consciously organized by a group that has a vision for building to rolling, wildcat and general strikes.

Finding the right yardstick

One of the hazards of living under an authoritarian attempting to consolidate power is that most of our victories will not come from government interventions. As civil resistance scholar Hardy Merriman has observed, we are facing a leader who can wake up each morning and do something terrible — kidnap Nicolás Maduro, fire competent federal workers, bomb Iran, cancel contracts, tear down part of the White House — and in the immediate term, we are not able to stop it.

Therefore “Did we stop him today?” cannot be our yardstick for growth — though obviously, it is an ultimate aim.

So May Day did not stop the Iran war, despite May Day Strong’s strong antiwar demand. It did not fulfill its goal of taxing the rich or guarantee that Trump will honor the “hands off our vote” demand. That’s not the right yardstick.

Previous Coverage

What’s next after the historic No Kings protest?

A different yardstick could be numbers. But of course No Kings blows that out of the water with an impressive 8 million people taking action this March.

But No Work, No School, No Shopping is not sign-waving — it’s economic pressure. In preliminary data from the event, 89 percent of participants refused to shop that day, 14 percent didn’t go to school and 32 percent participated in “No work.” We’re now expanding our ability to materially disrupt the regime.

Yes, we need to go further. Yes, we need more than one-day actions. Yes, we need many more groups to participate, but critics don’t make movements — doers do. And the doers were off doing a lot of things.

They were turning out for public demonstration in small towns where showing up at all takes courage. Towns like Idaho Falls, Idaho, Lewisburg, West Virginia and the ranching town of Dillon, Montana.  

In San Francisco, as elsewhere, protesters were arrested doing direct action, among them  elected officials (and several vying for office). In their case, they blocked the airport — the site of a recent high-profile confrontation with ICE forcibly detaining a woman and her child. While being arrested, Sanjay Garla, first vice president at SEIU United Service Workers West, said, “It’s a good day for the movement. ICE out of SFO!”

Memphis showed up boldly. They now face the triple threat of an ongoing National Guard deployment, new redistricting due to the Supreme Court ruling and an enormous Elon Musk xAI data center. Protesters blocked the entrance to Musk’s Colossus I supercomputer, with its massive turbines polluting air and water. 

“We want xAI to turn the turbines off,” protester Jasmine Bernard told Channel 3 news in Memphis. “We know the consequences of xAI being here far outweigh any benefits that somebody may be able to conjure up.” In city after city, protesters were making visible the story of how billionaires are wrecking our lives — and making clear that we’re not going to put up with it.

In Washington, D.C., people blocked numerous intersections, demanding core values of democracy: no more attacks on workers, peace and the long-delayed D.C. home rule. Keya Chatterjee of Free DC explained where the escalation is headed in an AFSCME press release: “Millions of people across the country rose in solidarity today and that’s what it’s going to take to end this regime and their attacks for good. The next step is to flex our economic muscle.”

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'uR4jmIyMTuRyYSus8H6NVA',sig:'kVDFOgXx8MMv6ecKN_HS9wj6AkyxZJ0Oq0R-VH1AuqM=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2274057397',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

And if you hadn’t heard much about May Day in your community, obviously that means there’s more to do. But also it’s a good sign, as it means people outside your immediate circle were organizing and moving things. If you’re reading this and realize you’re not yet in the boat, join May Day Strong’s list so they can reach you as they plan what comes next.

May Day Strong proved the organizing phenomenon that getting people in motion is difficult, but once people stay in motion, getting them into greater motion becomes easier. And that is a different kind of victory, measured by different instruments.

The research on what actually determines success in civil resistance makes a stark point: 83 percent of successful anti-authoritarian campaigns win when they have strong participation of labor — without labor, the percentage that wins plummets to 29 percent. 

May Day Strong put together one of the widest coalitions yet: a mix of national and locals of National Nurses United, AAUP, NDWA, NEA, AFT, SEIU, Chicago Teachers Union, Starbucks Workers United, the United Electrical Workers, and APWU, alongside Indivisible, 50501, DSA chapters, immigrant rights organizations, and hundreds of local groups. All under a broad set of sensible demands: 

• Tax the Rich: Our families, not their fortunes, come first.
• No ICE. No war. No private army serving authoritarian power.
• Expand democracy, not corporate power. Hands off our vote.

Movement research is also very clear on another point: Movements that wage economic disruption succeed at dramatically higher rates than those that stay in the realm of courts, elections, rallies and petitions alone.

That’s why testing out the operational capability of days of “No Work, No School, No Shopping” is critical. It may be needed in the future if there are attempts to steal elections or other inflection moments — so it’s important for us to get in shape now. 

It’s worth recalling this particular tactic’s history and what happened in Minneapolis.

Minneapolis gave us the blueprint

Operation Metro Surge placed 3,000 armed, masked federal agents throughout Minnesota, leading to ICE agents killing Renée Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. Families hid. Children were afraid to go to school. ICE agents unleashed chemical sprays on students and staff.

Out of that terror, something else was born. Unions, faith leaders and community organizations made a call: Jan. 23 would be a day of “No Work, No School, No Shopping.” We, as workers and students and consumers, would use our power to stop business as usual. 

The day started at a negative 40 degree wind chill. Despite that, over 100,000 people showed up in the streets. Notably, the action was backed by the executive board of the Minnesota AFL-CIO. Subsequent polling found that nearly one in four Minnesota voters either participated or had a loved one who did.

At the AT&T call center in the Twin Cities, “they only have about 20-30 people, out of over 100, who are still working,” Lori Wolf, a CWA Local 7250 member, told Labor Notes. Across many sectors — SEIU 26, UNITE HERE Local 17, ATU bus drivers, IATSE stagehands, AFSCME municipal workers and OPEIU office workers — people made the choice to stay home.

I have written extensively about the “pillars of support” as a way to understand authoritarian power — the institutions whose cooperation an authoritarian needs to govern, and whose withdrawal of cooperation can crack that power open. On Jan. 23 in Minneapolis, we saw pillars from media to small businesses crack — not break, but crack — across almost every dimension at once. 

Over 1,000 businesses closed. The faith pillar moved, activating new national networks, with over 700 faith leaders participating and roughly 100 arrested in an action at Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, blockading the departure lanes used for deportation flights. Across the country, police — long a backbone of state enforcement — began to break ranks, with chiefs publicly condemning ICE tactics and others moving beyond words to support legal distance from rogue, unaccountable and untrained agents. 

Minneapolis Federation of Educators showed up in force with their sea of blue hats — while the following week, University of Minnesota students called for a nationwide walkout. Tens of thousands of students were activated, and they helped spark thousands of largely unreported protests by students nationwide.

#support-block_3eb01ecaf94582e8aff90f3b5519a723 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

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

Donate

This was not a spontaneous eruption. It drew on networks built after the murder of George Floyd, labor councils shaped by years of relationship, and immigrant rights organizations that had been organizing long before most people noticed. What Minneapolis gave us was not just inspiration. It was a blueprint — and a question. Could it spread?

A structure test

Much of the country does not have the resources, history of organizing and relatively healthy movement ecosystem that Minnesota has. We need more practice moving in more unity with each other. 

In that sense, this May Day was what unions call a structure test. A structure test is not an action you take because you’re ready. It is an action you take to find out whether you’re ready — and where you’re not.

In labor organizing, a structure test is any ask you make of people that is deliberately lower-stakes than the final big ask. It’s designed to reveal the real shape of your organization: who will put their name on a petition, who will wear a sticker to work, or who will attend a public meeting, before you ever ask anyone to walk a picket line. “In the lead up to today’s most successful strikes,” wrote the great Jane McAlevey, referring to historic 2018 teachers’ walkouts, “countless structure tests are conducted in advance of knowing a workplace or workplaces are actually ready to strike to win.” 

Her model of building to win requires doing small tests to both exert power and to identify organizing weaknesses. Each May Day locale hopefully is doing a debrief to assess what networks were activated. Nationally we can see groups who came on board and did turn out, and others who did not.

“We are asking people to take a step into further exerting their power in all aspects of their lives — as workers, as students, as members of local organizing hubs,” Leah Greenberg of Indivisible told The Guardian. “It’s important as it builds muscles towards greater non-cooperation.”

A structure test is very different than wishful thinking (“why can’t everyone just do a general strike?”) — it is testing the capability of institutions and their resolve. It is the practice of honesty about where you are. It is the act of asking, in public and under conditions of real pressure: Who is actually with us?

That question, asked in thousands of cities on May 1, is the most important thing that happened that day. Not because we have the final answer. But because now we know more about the shape of the answer than we did on April 30.

Power, unity, leadership: an honest accounting

Researchers often converge on some key measures to assess movements resisting authoritarianism: unity, planning and nonviolent discipline.

The scale of coordination — thousands of events, major national unions, official city holidays in Chicago, teacher actions statewide in North Carolina, airport actions in the Bay Area, nurses on strike in New Orleans — represented unity and planning, in a real and measurable expansion of what this movement can do. 

“The way we build power is by flexing power,” said Martha Grant, one of the May Day Strong organizers.

In Chicago, the birthplace of May Day, the Chicago Teachers Union recently won the concession that all public school children learn about May Day, creating what CTU president Stacy Davis Gates called “academic freedom for all of us to understand where our empowerment comes from.” Thousands rallied at Union Park alongside a day of economic blackout with SEIU Healthcare Illinois and Indiana, Indivisible Chicago and the Chicago Federation of Labor. 

Previous Coverage

What’s it going to take to get to mass strikes?

There are real tensions in any broad front. There are more groups that need to be brought in. And because institutions like unions have been so gutted, there are many more individuals that need to be connected, too — hence one reason organizers created “Strike Ready” to capture individuals wanting to participate who weren’t connected to some of the big organizations.

In Minneapolis this January, what was most striking was not the headline number but the distributed leadership underneath it: union shop stewards who had built trust over years, faith leaders who had organized their congregations, neighborhood organizers who knew every door on their block. 

May Day 2026 built some of that model into its design, encouraging people to register their own events and lead their own actions. But we also know that thousands of communities had nothing on the map: places where the networks are thin, where people are activated and angry but not organized. That gap is the next frontier. The work of the next months is not another rally. It is building into those communities — finding the people who will knock on the next door.

We are training for something larger

May Day 2026 was, in the language of Freedom Trainer’s Community Strike Readiness workshops, not just a day of action. It was one structure test — because we have some big inflection moments coming up. Perhaps the biggest test of this year may be preparing for enforcement of election results — something that the tactic of the strike is well suited for.

A general strike is not a valve we can just turn on and off. It requires groups ready to move in formation with each other — and May Day Strong is positioning itself to be the entity that tells us it’s time to strike if the election is stolen. This is critical.

Cliff Smith, a Roofers Local 36 official and May Day Strong organizer in Los Angeles, said plainly what many are saying privately: “We should not depend on the November midterm elections to provide us with any solutions to this problem. We should have contingency plans in the event that there are not free and fair elections.”

Of course, between now and the election we need a lot more public action and pressure. And the civil disobedience that May Day Strong incorporated is crucial. 

This is just a beginning. The May Day Strong campaign is hosting dozens of planning and debrief sessions and turning its attention towards defending the right to protest, right to vote and the right to have a free and fair election.

May Day 2026 wasn’t perfect — but it was a real exercise of power. We learned where we stand, not in theory but in motion. The muscles are there — maybe stiff, maybe uneven — but real, alive and ready to grow for more escalation, more economic disruption, more clarification of the billionaire opponents who are threatening the existence of all of us. That matters. Now we just have to keep building on it.

This article May Day was even more important than you think was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Workers Over Billionaires & Stop The War, Support Workers They Gave Us Weekends, Lady Liberty with Distressed US, Gay Pride, & Palestinian Flags, Morons Are Governing America.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court rolled back section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The 6-3 ruling, along partisan lines, ends 61 years of voter protections for African-Americans and…

Tiny particles of plastic amassing in the atmosphere may be intensifying warming, according to new study. 

Read more on E360 →

Walk into a grocery store today and you’re likely to see the word regenerative on cereal boxes, coffee bags, snack foods, even meat and dairy. The word promises a better kind of agriculture—a future beyond the extractive, chemical-intensive system that has dominated American farming for decades.

Many consumers reasonably assume that regenerative food is grown without toxic pesticides. After all, how can a system claim to regenerate soil, biodiversity, and human health while relying on chemicals designed to kill living organisms? 

Yet Friends of the Earth’s new label guide finds that some regenerative labeling programs still allow the use of synthetic pesticides, including substances linked to cancer, hormone disruption, infertility, and neurological harm.

That disconnect matters. For families trying to reduce pesticide exposure—especially those with young children or who are pregnant—labels are not just values statements. They are health decisions.

It also matters for the land itself. Decades of scientific research make it clear that reducing reliance on fossil-fuel-based pesticides and fertilizers is foundational to any credible regenerative system. These chemicals degrade soil biology, decimate pollinators, contribute significantly to climate emissions, and pollute our air and water. A label that ignores this reality risks reinforcing the very system it claims to transform.

The report finds that certifications using the term regenerative vary dramatically in what they require—not just for harmful inputs but also for soil health practices. It also finds that some of the most rigorous standards meeting regenerative principles don’t use the term at all. 

Overall, the analysis shows that the USDA Organic seal, and labels that build on it—Regenerative Organic Certified and Real Organic Project—lead in prohibiting toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers as well as in requiring ecological soil health practices like cover cropping, crop rotations, appropriate tillage, and feeding the soil with biological sources of fertility.

A label is only as strong as the verification system behind it. The report also highlights another source of inconsistency: some labels are backed by rigorous, enforceable criteria while others rely on vague requirements and weak verification systems.

For a labeling program to be credible, it needs to do more than make claims—it needs to define clear standards and verify that farmers meet those standards through independent audits. 

Equally important is traceability—the system a labeling program puts in place to track a product through the supply chain. 

This matters in a very practical way for consumers trying to avoid pesticide residues. With no reliable way to trace a product from the field where it’s grown to the labeled product, it’s impossible to know whether it was mixed with conventional supply at some point along the way.

Again, organic stands out: it requires third-party certification, annual inspections, and binding standards with a full audit trail from farm to shelf. And it’s the only food labeling system in the U.S. backed by federal law.

Studies show that just one week on an organic diet can reduce pesticide levels in people’s bodies up to 95 percent. And decades of data show that organic farming systems result in regenerative outcomes for the land. 

More concerning still is how thoroughly the term regenerative can be co-opted when it’s not attached to any standards at all. Pesticide companies now market themselves as leaders in regenerative agriculture, even as they continue to profit from the very products that decimate soil life, biodiversity, and our health. When a single word can be used to describe both pesticide-free farming and farming systems drenched in toxic chemicals, it ceases to function as a meaningful word. 

This kind of greenwashing doesn’t just create confusion—it diverts public energy and attention away from true solutions. For those seeking a genuinely healthier food system, labels grounded in rigorous standards—like organic—offer a clear path.

Labels matter because public policy is failing. The explosion of regenerative labels points to a deeper issue: the failure of U.S. food and farm policy. Farmers operate within a system that heavily subsidizes chemical-intensive monocultures while making it riskier to adopt ecological practices like crop diversification or cover cropping. 

Meanwhile, regulators in the United States continue to allow over 80 pesticides banned in other countries because science shows they threaten our health or the environment.

Meaningful labels are doing important work to bridge the chasm between what farmers, consumers, and the planet need and the toxic food system our public policies are delivering.

But labels alone cannot fix a broken system. Ultimately, the goal should not be a marketplace crowded with competing labels, each asking consumers to decode its meaning. It should be a food system where the highest standards—healthy soil, clean water, thriving biodiversity, safe food, and fair conditions for farmers and workers—are the baseline, not the exception.

Until then, the clarity, transparency, and integrity of food labels matter. 

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 Jan Kopriva, Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | Consumers Think Regenerative Means No Pesticides. They’re Often Wrong. appeared first on Food Tank.

The post What PJM States Can Do to Ensure Affordable, Reliable Electricity During the Data Center Boom appeared first on RMI.

UK Oil & Gas plc announced this morning it has submitted a revised planning application for its Horse Hill site , near Redhill, in Surrey.

The company said the retrospective application seeks to reinstate consent for oil production.

Horse Hill, Surrey, England. January 2026. Photo: Goldman Environmental Prize

Planning permission for the Horse Hill site, now UKOG’s only hydrocarbon asset, was quashed by a landmark climate judgement, known as the Finch Ruling, at the Supreme Court in June 2024.

The court ruled that the planning permission granted by Surrey County Council in 2019 was unlawful. The judgement said the permission failed to take into account the climate impact of burning oil from the site.

Sarah Finch, who brought the challenge on behalf of the Weald Action Group, was last month awarded the leading international award, the Goldman Environmental Prize.

The Weald Action Group said this morning:

“This is an appalling but predictable move by UKOG. After repeatedly claiming they were transitioning away from fossil fuels, they have now submitted plans to Surrey County Council to restart oil production at Horse Hill, showing that they are still relying on this site as a financial lifeline.

“There is simply no room left in the rapidly dwindling global carbon budget for any more fossil fuel developments.  Instead, the site should be urgently decommissioned and fully restored. Given their disastrous financial position, with cash reserves reported at just £32,000, this application appears to be a way by which UKOG can further delay meeting these costly obligations.

“Enough is enough, this cannot be allowed to drag on any longer, and this application must be rejected.”

Immediately after the Supreme Court judgement, UKOG said it was working to reinstate planning permission.

This required a revised application with information on the carbon emissions from combustion, known as downstream or scope 3 emissions.

Surrey County Council reported in November 2024 it was waiting for this information.

Since then, UKOG has promised the details but repeatedly delayed submission.

At the time of writing, the new application was not listed on the county council planning register.

When the application has been validated, a public consultation is expected on the new information.

In a statement today, UKOG said:

“The Company has worked closely with its planning advisors and SCC to prepare the revised planning submission, which includes updated ecology, environmental and technical baseline studies and an assessment of downstream emissions in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment.

“A successful planning outcome would permit stable production at Horse Hill to resume, generating valuable revenues which would help support the Company’s ongoing transition to its announced clean energy projects in Dorset and Yorkshire.”

UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson, said:

“This retrospective planning submission seeks to address the Supreme Court’s ruling on SCC’s 2019 Horse Hill planning consent in a thorough and transparent manner. Horse Hill remains a valuable UK onshore asset and, subject to planning consent, has the potential to generate revenues that can be responsibly reinvested to support the Company’s strategic transition towards hydrogen storage and other clean energy initiatives.

“The Company continues to pursue a balanced approach, managing its legacy oil and gas assets while actively investing in the UK’s energy transition and clean power future.”

UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) previously announced production had voluntarily ceased in October 2024.

More reaction

The local MP, Chris Coghlan (Lib Dem)

said:

“Last year I urged the government and Surrey County Council to ensure Horse Hill is restored to woodland. It’s no surprise that UKOG has now submitted a retrospective planning application, but with the company’s financial track record, I am worried they will not be able to deliver proper site restoration. Any decision by Surrey County Council must recognise residents’ concerns and guarantee that the site is fully returned to woodland.”

Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council said in a statement:

“In 2024, Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council supported local resident Sarah Finch in her ground-breaking legal challenge against Surrey County Council’s decision to extend planning permission for the oil drilling site at Horse Hill which is in our parish. Councillors recognised Sarah’s argument that the Environmental Impact Assessment failed to include the effects of emissions released from burning the extracted oil, assessing only emissions from the development itself.

“What began as a local campaign evolved into a five-year legal battle that climbed through the courts, culminating in a historic ruling by the UK Supreme Court in June 2024 and, crucially, the planning permission being overturned. The Parish Council was delighted to see Sarah Finch and her colleagues at the Weald Action Group recently being awarded the 2026 Goldman Environmental Prize for Europe. Sarah’s landmark legal victory is already reshaping climate accountability across the UK and beyond.

“In August 2025, we also wrote to Tim Oliver, leader of Surrey County Council, expressing concern as to who will be responsible for restoration of the Horse Hill oil site in the event the UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) entered formal insolvency.

“The Parish Council has been advised on 5 May 2026 that UKOG will be submitting a retrospective planning application for reinstatement of production consent at the Horse Hill site. Once formally notified, Councillors will review all the new planning documents and make representation on the application on their merits including consideration of protection to our Green Belt and the local environment.”

• UKOG also announced today the month-long suspension of its shares had been lifted. Trading was suspended after the company missed the stock market deadline for publishing its accounts. The accounts, due to be published at the end of March 2026, were released this morning (5 May 2026). DrillOrDrop has reported on the contents of the accounts.

Nations are “back on track” to adopt a framework for curbing global shipping emissions, following the latest International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) meeting in London, UK.

The proposed “net-zero framework” had been expected to be approved by countries at the IMO towards the end of 2025.

Instead, the Trump administration was accused of “bully-boy” tactics as the US led a concerted effort to reject the framework, leading to its approval being delayed.

Since then, the US, other fossil-fuel producers and some industry groups have called for the framework to be stripped of its carbon-pricing mechanism, or abandoned entirely.

At the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC84) meeting in London, UK, last week, nations tried once again to reach an agreement on the framework.

Opponents said they were trying to seek consensus, but supporters, such as Brazil, the EU and Pacific islands, pointed out the framework was already a “careful balance of interests”.

Liberia and Panama – “flag states” for a third of the world’s commercial shipping – led a counter-proposal, alongside Argentina, which effectively cut carbon pricing from the framework.

Ultimately, however, the meeting ended with a reconfirmation that delegations are committed to rebuilding consensus on global shipping emissions. 

The framework survived the negotiations and the committee will now try to adopt it at its December 2026 meeting.

Below, Carbon Brief explains why the framework has proved so contentious, who the major players have been and what the final outcome was at the latest IMO meeting.

• Why was the net-zero framework delayed last year?
• Why do some countries oppose the net-zero framework?
• What ‘alternative frameworks’ were discussed?
• What do supporters of the net-zero framework want?
• What was the final outcome from the IMO meeting?

Why was the net-zero framework delayed last year?

In April 2025, nations at the IMO had agreed on a “net-zero framework” at their MEPC83 meeting in London, despite the US withdrawing halfway through.

Later that year, in October 2025, they failed to formally adopt the framework after a fraught “extraordinary session” that saw US negotiators accused of “bully-boy tactics”.

(The MEPC usually meets once a year, but additional meetings or intersessionals can be added to deal with an “extraordinary event or critical maritime environmental crisis”. The October session was organised specifically to consider the adoption of the framework and other draft amendments.)

The framework was meant to be a practical set of measures to achieve the global net-zero target for shipping, agreed at the IMO in 2023. The target is significant, as international shipping is responsible for more than 2% of emissions and is not covered by the Paris Agreement.

Following a week of negotiations at the April 2025 meeting, the remaining nations had voted on approving a compromise proposal for an emissions levy – effectively a carbon tax on global shipping – and a credit-trading system. 

A majority of nations had agreed to this framework that would have set a lower emissions-intensity reduction target of 4% in 2028, rising to 30% in 2035. It had also included an upper target that would have increased from 17% in 2028 to 43% in 2035.

Ships that failed to lower their emissions intensity in line with these limits would have needed to purchase “remedial units” for $380 per “tier two” unit. This would have fed into a new IMO “net-zero fund”. 

Those who met the lower target, but fell short of the more difficult upper target, would have had to pay into the IMO fund, but at the lower rate of $100 per “tier one” unit.

The number of compliant ships had been expected to grow under this framework, reducing the number of vessels reliant on buying units and helping to reduce emissions intensity by over 40%, as the chart below shows. 

Reduction in emissions intensity of shipping fuel compared to 2008 reference year, showing percentage made up of tier two (red), tier one (pale red) and compliant emissions (grey). Source: IMO.

The purchase of units to comply with the rules had been expected to raise $10-15bn annually in the initial years of the fund, as well as help with the development of zero and near-zero (ZNZ) greenhouse gas fuels and energy sources, according to thinktank IDDRI. 

In turn, the fund would have been used to support developing countries to decarbonise shipping.

A clear majority of 80% of the eligible voters – not including those who abstained or the US – approved the framework at the April 2025 meeting.  

The 63 countries that voted in favour included the EU, China, India and Brazil, while those that voted against included major fossil-fuel producers, such as Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). 

Following this “landmark” agreement, countries had then been expected to formally adopt the framework at the next MEPC session in October 2025. 

However, the meeting proved challenging. The US “unequivocally rejected” the proposal and lobbied extensively against adoption, including by threatening governments, individual diplomats and shipping companies with sanctions, visa restrictions, tariffs and port fees.

During the October meeting, the US and its allies pushed for a shift from a “tacit” approval system for the net-zero framework to one that would require explicit acceptance by governments. This would mean it would only come into force if, six months later, two-thirds of nations actively accepted the deal, Climate Home News explained at the time. 

Negotiations continued throughout the week before Saudi Arabia called to adjourn the meeting, a move that was passed after it was backed by 57 countries. 

As such, the decision on the adoption of the net-zero framework was pushed back by a year.

Among the 63 countries that supported the IMO net-zero framework at MEPC83 in April 2025, 15 supported the adjournment and 10 abstained – showing that some nations that had previously supported the framework had softened on the deal, following lobbying by the US, Saudi Arabia and their allies.

Going into the April 2026 MEPC84 meeting, it was clear that agreement on the framework would not be straightforward. A report ahead of the meeting from University College London (UCL) noted: 

“The level of support is noticeably weaker than in April [2025] and likely reflects the effectiveness and efforts made by sides supporting or opposing the net-zero framework over the intervening period.”

In the week ahead of the MEPC84, US IMO delegation lead Wayne Arguin told a meeting that there was a “clear, strong and sizable bloc of countries opposed to the [net-zero framework]” and “no prospect of achieving consensus”, according to Politico. 

As the meeting kicked off on 27 April 2026, IMO secretary-general Arsenio Dominguez called on parties to engage in “engage in constructive and pragmatic exchanges”. 

Why do some countries oppose the net-zero framework?

A coalition of countries, including the US, Saudi Arabia and various fossil-fuel producers, strongly oppose the IMO net-zero framework that was agreed last year.

They were supported by a wider group of industry bodies and major flag states – countries where many ships are registered – which were instrumental in advancing “alternative frameworks” at the latest meeting. (See: What ‘alternative frameworks’ were discussed?)

Documents submitted ahead of the April 2026 meeting laid out the basis for this opposition, with the US criticising the net-zero framework’s “significant shortcomings”, concluding:

“The most appropriate path forward is to end consideration of the IMO net-zero framework entirely.”

More nuance came in a statement from a group of primarily large fossil-fuel producers, including Saudi Arabia, Russia and Algeria, which was also backed by the US.

It stressed the need for “alternative” frameworks, with an emphasis on achieving consensus, as well as “practicability, equity and trust”. In practice, this meant a system without any carbon pricing, “top-down restrictions” or “international penalties”.

.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }

Opposing countries said any outcome should be “technology-neutral”, meaning it should not disadvantage specific fuels, potentially including liquified natural gas (LNG) and other fossil fuels.

These nations also stressed what they claimed were the potential impact of additional net-zero costs on “food and energy security”.

Much of their criticism was based on supposed economic harm that the net-zero framework would cause, particularly in developing countries.

These arguments purported to be about fairness for these countries. Yet some opponents of the framework were also calling for the IMO fund to be abandoned.

If this IMO fund were lost, then developing countries could lose out on a potential source of support for their own maritime decarbonisation, as well as potentially their broader energy transitions.

As well as supporting the fossil-fuel producers’ call for “alternative frameworks”, the UAE filed its own submission questioning the legitimacy of the IMO in establishing a new fund. 

The US submission to the IMO stated that the fund would provide “pennies on the dollar compared to the economic hardship” brought about by the framework overall. 

US delegates distributed flyers at the IMO meeting, emphasising the financial burden they claimed the framework would place on developing countries. While low-carbon shipping will come with substantial costs, analysts said the US figures were “not credible”.

.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }

Campaigners accused the US of “pretending to care about other countries’ economies”, pointing out that the energy crisis – triggered by the US-led war on Iran – is costing the shipping industry billions. 

Moreover, they stated that the Trump administration’s new port entry fees would be a far greater financial burden for the global shipping industry than the mooted net-zero rules. 

Analysis by UCL shipping researchers ahead of MEPC84 concluded that the Trump administration would potentially be less able to exert “soft power and influence” at the talks than last year. Additionally, it pointed to a Supreme Court ruling that limited the US’s capacity to impose punitive tariffs. 

In practice, the US was less vocal at the talks, choosing to support alternative framework ideas proposed by other IMO members.

What ‘alternative frameworks’ were discussed?

There were two main alternatives to the net-zero framework considered at MEPC84. 

Japan suggested some ideas as a “possible basis for discussion”, which included removing the need for ships to pay into an IMO fund when they fail to meet emissions targets. 

It also suggested simply relaxing the emissions targets, in order to make them easier for shipping companies to meet.

.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }

The second – and more significant – counter-proposal to the net-zero framework was not submitted by the US or its fossil-fuel producer allies. 

Instead, it came from Liberia, Panama and Argentina, three countries that have strong political and historical ties with the US.

This was particularly notable given Liberia and Panama’s status as the top two “flags of convenience”, as shown in the chart below. A third of the world’s commercial shipping is registered in these small states, giving them disproportionate significance within the talks.

Deadweight tonnage of the ten largest merchant fleets in 2025 by flag of registration, million tonnes. Source: UNCTAD.

Their proposal, offered in the spirit of “consensus‑building”, said that only fuels already considered “commercially viable” should be included in the IMO’s carbon-intensity targets. 

The Argentina-Liberia-Panama proposal was dismissed by observers as “business-as-usual”, as it removes incentives to develop clean fuels, any substantial means of enforcement and opportunities to raise funds to help developing countries.

Delaine McCullough, director of the shipping programme at the Ocean Conservancy, tells Carbon Brief:

“By removing the mandatory greenhouse gas price, you take away the ability to provide any kind of rewards or other incentives, and you also take away the regulatory incentive, so you just end up where we are today.”

This was the proposal that the net-zero framework’s most prominent opponents, including the US and the Gulf states, rallied around at MEPC84. 

Among those also backing the idea during the talks were some developing countries, such as Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone, that also said they wanted the IMO outcome to provide them with financial support. 

This came in spite of the proposal stating there should be “no establishment of an IMO fund”. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a small-island state delegate tells Carbon Brief: 

“Many countries that support the Liberia-Panama-Argentina submission also seek support for transition, capacity-building and mitigation of negative impacts. This support will not be available if [that] approach is taken.”

Some delegates questioned the decision by Liberia and Panama to lead this pushback against the net-zero framework. Both nations had previously supported an emissions levy on shipping, which would have been far more ambitious than the framework they now oppose. 

Observers noted ties between nations that opposed the framework and parts of the shipping sector – including US-based interests and LNG assets.

Among the industry voices arguing strongly against the net-zero framework have been the American Bureau of Shipping and a group of international shipping companies and registries – including the national registries of Liberia and Panama.

The latter group voiced “significant concerns” and called for “alternative proposals”. Rather than a domestic entity, the Liberian registry that issued this statement is a privately owned US company.

Reflecting on these issues, Prof Tristan Smith, an energy and transport expert at UCL, wrote on LinkedIn:

“Privately owned registries have leverage over their host governments because one angry shipowner’s personal wealth is more than the flag state’s GDP and governments of low-income countries can’t easily take risks with even small volume revenues.”

Major Greek shipowners, including some with US-linked LNG interests, also opposed the net-zero framework, citing the “absence of support from major and influential states representing a significant share of global tonnage”.

Greece itself had reportedly pushed back against the framework behind the scenes, despite the EU’s public, unified position of support.

What do supporters of the net-zero framework want?

There were many vocal supporters of the net-zero framework at MEPC84, including a broad range of developed and developing countries. 

Among them were the EU, Brazil, Mexico, Kenya, Pacific island states, Australia and the UK.

Having supported the net-zero framework last April, but voted to postpone its adoption in October, China expressed support for a carbon-pricing system and an IMO fund in a technical submission issued ahead of MEPC84.

The major shipping nation had remained quiet during the US-Saudi disruption in October last year, so its submission was viewed as a positive for backers of the framework.

Colombia, which was simultaneously hosting a global conference on “transitioning away” from fossil fuels, also emerged as a supporter of the net-zero framework.

There has also been support from some sections of the shipping industry, including a large coalition of ports, logistics companies and clean-fuel providers. 

Supportive nations pointed out that the net-zero framework was the result of years of talks and already represented what Pacific island states called a “fragile compromise”. They framed it as the “only politically viable option” for hitting the IMO’s net-zero goal.

Pacific islands and around 50 other nations had originally called for a universal carbon levy on shipping. Ultimately, they were forced to accept the net-zero framework as a compromise, but Pacific islands said they would revert to their call for a levy if they felt the framework was being “watered down”.  

The demand for a levy was strongly opposed by numerous countries, including some of the current framework’s supporters, such as Brazil and Australia.

In a bid to revive the net-zero framework, a submission by Brazil sought to “dispel any possible potential misunderstandings”, stressing that the approach is “flexible” and “should not be mistaken for a ‘global tax’”.

For example, Brazil notes that the framework “does not exclude any fuels” and that even existing “bunker” fuels and LNG could be used, as long as carbon intensity targets are met. (Ships could, for example, use carbon capture and storage to meet the goals.)

Michael Mbaru, a low-carbon shipping expert for the Kenya climate special envoy, told a briefing ahead of the conference that the net-zero framework was in developing countries’ interests: 

“If the global package unravels, pressure grows for more regional and unilateral measures instead, and this is particularly difficult for African and other developing countries, because fragmented regulation raises compliance, complexity [and] transaction costs.”

In response to the Argentina-Liberia-Panama proposal that opponents of the framework had coalesced around, the Solomon Islands pointed out that, in seeking “consensus”, this group was ignoring the numerous parties that wanted more ambition, rather than less. It stated in a submission:

“There is no reason to expect that a new proposal, that differs from the IMO net-zero framework, would find a majority, much less a consensus.”

Nevertheless, supporters of the net-zero framework also acknowledged that there were some areas where greater clarity might help countries to finalise the details.

These areas include clarifying technical considerations such as: how fuel intensity is calculated; addressing the potential impacts of net-zero rules on food security; the governance of the IMO fund; and regulation of sustainable fuel certification schemes.

Given this, there was broad support for more discussions at an extra “intersessional” meeting later this year, in order to hash out these final details before attempting to approve the net-zero framework once more.

What was the final outcome from the IMO meeting?

Ultimately, the IMO’s net-zero framework remains on the table and will now be negotiated further in the autumn, ahead of the next MEPC session in December 2026. 

The decision, as well as the general willingness to move forward noted by numerous observers, was broadly welcomed. IMO secretary-general Arsenio Dominguez said:

“We are back on track, but we have to rebuild trust. I encourage you to maintain this momentum through your intersessional work and to prepare submissions that can bring the membership together.”

MO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez speaking at the Marine Environment Protection Committee on 27 April 2026 at IMO Headquarters in London. Credit: IMO / Flickr

Over the week of negotiations, nearly 100 delegations took to the floor to voice their opinions on the adoption of the net-zero framework. 

As well as discussion of the previously proposed net-zero framework, Argentina and Japan put forward alternative proposals, although neither gathered significant support. 

The Argentinian proposal was substantially different from the net-zero framework and did not include either a greenhouse gas price or a fund. It saw support from just 24 member states and, even when combined with the Japanese proposal to form a “technical-only” compromise, it was unable to gain a majority. 

According to the UCL Shipping and Oceans Research group, despite numerous efforts to put forward options that would be more acceptable to the US and Saudi positions – such as technical-only proposals – these failed to find “viable ways forward”. 

This is important, as normally within the IMO, when two proposals have similar levels of support such as this, they can be merged or a compromise found. 

On the final day of negotiations, countries agreed to take forward the original net-zero framework, which was agreed in principle back in April 2025.  

More than half of the nations at the IMO meeting were in favour of it, including members such the EU, Brazil, Colombia, Kenya, Tuvalu and others. They accepted the framework, as originally agreed, as the basis for further work.

The countries that supported it remain largely unchanged from previous meetings, but there was additional support. 

Most of the supporters had opposed the adjournment at the IMO session in October, which pushed the adoption of the net-zero framework back. But five additional countries that had supported adjournment switched sides, along with 10 countries that had not taken a side, now clearly supporting the framework, according to UCL. 

Others pushed back against the net-zero framework and called for reopening it for substantial changes. This included the US, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Liberia and others, predominantly oil and gas exporters. 

According to UCL, two countries flipped from opposing adjournment to opposing the framework. UCL notes that “this indicates the fluidity of a portion of the positions and the sustained uncertainty around adoption later this year”.

The figure below shows supporters of the net-zero framework or other options at the latest meeting, colour-coded according to their position on the adjournment vote in October 2025.

Position on the next steps for the net-zero framework at the IMO’s latest meeting in April 2026. Credit: UCL

The net-zero framework was, ultimately, the only option in the final outcome text. While it has “survived”, “survival is not a victory and we cannot end up in a cycle of open-ended negotiations”, Em Fenton, senior director of climate diplomacy at Opportunity Green, tells Carbon Brief. They add: 

“We must now look forward to moving towards adoption of the framework later this year in a way that maintains urgency and ambition, and delivers justice and equity for countries on the frontlines of climate impacts.”

The IMO committee agreed to establish an intersessional working group to resolve a number of outstanding concerns and “drive broader convergence on a global measure” ahead of the next MEPC meeting. 

Member states will be able to submit new amendments and adjustments to the draft net-zero framework, to complement those already approved.

The two intersessional meetings will take place in September and November, ahead of MEPC85 in December. 

Christiaan De Beukelaer, senior lecturer in culture and climate at the University of Melbourne, tells Carbon Brief: 

“The ship is mostly built, though it’s obvious that more work needs doing on its interior. Right now, some are trying to finish the build while others are trying to scuttle it.”

Santa Marta: Key outcomes from first summit on ‘transitioning away’ from fossil fuels

International policy

|

30.04.26

Revealed: Scientists tell Colombia fossil-fuel transition summit to ‘halt new expansion’

International policy

|

20.04.26

Q&A: What Magyar’s defeat of Orbán in Hungary means for climate and energy

International policy

|

17.04.26

Iran war analysis: How 60 nations have responded to the global energy crisis

International policy

|

08.04.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_b8d3e756460548f84951311d79016a99 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Q&A: How countries got the global ‘net-zero’ shipping deal ‘back on track’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Joe Redmayne reflects on the role of trades councils during the 1926 general strike

The post Their hour of glory: Trades councils and the 1926 general strike appeared first on Red Pepper.

Hoo boy. The stupid and evil, somehow accelerating, burn. America's so-called leader, the "Worst That Has Ever Drawn Breath," manifests ever more cognitive dissonance on steroids. Absurd, addled, vindictive, looming above "a circus of death and chaos," he commits war crimes, guts voting rights, plots devastation, abases decency, murders mercy, yet whines about mean jokes. But as America reels, Banksy, Bruce, Platner and others increasingly declare, "We are not fucking doing this anymore."

Amidst what the head of Amnesty International calls "the year of the predators," humanity itself is under attack, most notably by our ludicrous narcissist and his "casual, bewildering cruelty." Despite his foolishness, Nesrine Malik writes, "This is what evil looks like": See history's portrayals of Hitler - "the startling insignificance of this man who has set the world agog" - and Mussolini, "that funny man, that consummate buffoon." Trump's "farcical puniness," Malik notes, is "a projection onto the world, not of large intent, but of smallness and fear...The consequences of his violence are secondary to the validation that comes from inflicting it (to) erase his terror of humiliation (and) feed his sociopathic appetite for escalation." Thus can deeply silly still equal dangerous.

Daily, the large and small atrocities are both, albeit without the resonance of the label "fascist" only because he lacks the wit, intent and coherence it requires. The war in Iran veers on: "Another day, another pivot. Trump flails." It's won, not, won but not by enough, it's not a war, we made a deal, we don't want a deal, talks are going well, we don't wanna talk, Iran struck a school full of young girls, or if we did it's Obama's fault. Give me ballroom or give me death: The solution to gun violence that kills 12 children a day, wounds 32 more and has affected over 390,000 kids since Columbine - is to build one rich white guy who's never expressed any grief over any of them a gilded bunker of his own. The way to keep more people safe is to kill as many as possible, including by firing squad.

Also, Bill Maher, Hakeem Jeffries, Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel are low IQ losers, James Comey tried to kill and "inflict bodily harm on" him with "aggravated beachy seashell pictures," he's so "young, vital, vibrant" he could've joined the Artemis II astronauts easy like he aced his three screening tests for dementia - "A lion, a giraffe, a bear, and a shark. Which one is the bear?" - which the Villages audience def couldn't do, ditto sketchy Harvard Law graduate Hussein Obama. America's response to his musing what we'd do if a con man moron turned up - "How do you get to be president and you're stupid?": "That would suck - we'd probably have unprovoked wars, high gas prices and all our allies would hate us," "He's so close to getting it," "The Irony Meter is dead after spontaneously combusting," and "You're a fucking moron." Also, so grotesquely weird.

Latest bonkers Jesus/doctor post with an umbilical-cord-eating eagle. Nothing to see here.Image from Truth Social

Meanwhile, the Orwellian rules for what you can/can’t see/say keep spooling out, lies sold as half-truths to justify a brazen, racist, whitewashing of both present and past under the shameless moniker of content “inappropriately disparaging Americans past or living,” but always white. Among dozens of changes at our National Parks, gone are signs about the contributions of Native Americans and women, warnings about climate change "not grounded in real science," evidence of Founding Fathers owning slaves and explorers' atrocities against Native tribes. But you do get Trump's loathsome mug plastered on park passes, like on our money, buildings, passports ad nauseum. Happily, fighting back for years have been patriots like the Resistance Rangers, the Alt National Park Service and whatever genius slapped these "Sex Offender" flyers across D.C.'s parks.

Hence incrementally, far too slowly but feeding vital hope and our frayed spirits, the flip side of our grim absurdist timeline begins to emerge as Trump and his monstrous clowns flail, fail, dig their own dank holes. So many horrors should have sparked it -Gaza, ICE, USAID, the boundless greed, cruelty, stupidity. Instead, prices did it, a non-stop, staggering incompetence that saw people being screwed once too often and lied to about one too many senseless wars. Last week, Banksy registered his own anti-imperialist protest in a middle-of-the-night dropping into the heart of ceremonial London a large statue mocking such Blind Patriotism. Mirroring the classical style of surrounding monuments celebrating the British Empire's inglorious colonial past, he presents a suited man, his flag flying into his face, one foot poised to step off into his own demise. Much like, you know.

Banksy's new Blind Nationalism art work amidst London's colonial monumentsImage from Banksy Instagram page

Kicking off his Land of Hope and Dreams American tour several weeks ago, Bruce Springsteen offered his own fiery rebuttal to "a corrupt, incompetent, racist, reckless and treasonous administration," which drew roars from a huge first night crowd in Minneapolis. Equal parts celebration and call to action, The Boss insisted, "This is still America, and - shades of the Big Lebowski, "this will not stand." Summoning "the righteous power of art, music and rock and roll in dangerous times," he asked the crowd to "join with us in choosing hope over fear, democracy over authoritarianism, the rule of law over lawlessness, ethics over unbridled corruption, resistance over complacency, unity over division, and peace over....(lights come up to segue into) "WAR! What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'!" complete with Rage Against the Machine's Tom Morello shredding a solo. A righteous, dynamic pair.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

In contrast, standing grotesque and slumped-shouldered in a dingy, empty corner, is the small, mad man-child who spent Monday bellowing to a weary world that Iran will be "blown off the face of the Earth" if it targets U.S. ships in the Strait of Hormuz, which his inane recklessness closed in the first place. Online, in "the most desperate shit" to ever make its demonic way from the White House, a juvenile lackey posted him saying, "Winning it" on a loop for over 60 minutes, which still didn't make it so. The text read, "Can't stop, won't stop." Please fucking do. A horrified America: "This is a real tweet from a real account about a real man who leads a real country." Kyle Kulinski, on "the war criminal of all war criminals" who makes genocidal threats and bleats about insults: “We are not fucking doing this anymore. You don't get to say shit."

Still, one Tom Wellborn says it best in, “A Eulogy for the Worst That Has Ever Drawn Breath,” subtitled “Being a Complete and Unflinching Account of the Most Loathsome Specimen Ever to Consume Resources, Occupy Space, and Insult the Patience of a Universe That Deserved So Much Better." "There are villains, and then there are monsters, and then there are creatures so cosmically, transcendently... terrible that language itself recoils," he begins. "Grammar buckles. Syntax weeps...He is this thing. He is the thing past the thing past the thing. He is the sub-basement of the human condition, the moldy crawlspace beneath that sub-basement, and the writhing centipede beneath that."

"He has no morals. Not a single one. Not even the bad morals that at least imply a moral framework: the corrupt cop who loves his dog, the mob boss who goes to church. No. He exists in a morality vacuum so total that ethicists have proposed naming it after him...A being entirely without moral content. Not evil, because evil requires intention. Simply absent of the entire apparatus...A moral negative space shaped vaguely like a man...He has no empathy....like a raisin...He is incapable of the most basic social theater that even sociopaths manage....He takes without asking. He takes everything without asking. He takes things that aren’t takeable...The principle being: I can....He is stupid in a way that is almost majestic...His stupidity (is) total. Unified....He has been wrong about everything, always, without exception..."

"He is callous the way concrete is callous: not through malice, not through choice, but through an utter material inability to register (another) person’s pain...You could show him the face of grief, and he would wonder aloud if there was parking nearby...He is vicious the way a blunt instrument is vicious: through sheer, undirected force, through the momentum of his own awfulness...He is smelted fury with no purpose, unforged, unbent, uselessly molten....(He is) a statistical outlier so extreme that evolution seems to be embarrassed by him, a glitch in the long project of civilization...And the most horrifying part...He will never know any of this. He will never know what he is." Name it, damn it, take it down. Maine's Graham Platner hopes to help do that. We wish him well.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Boletínes periódicos de TGA Suscribirse Puedes sucribirse en la página página de RiseUp. Última entrega * TEJIENDO ALTERNATIVAS #19: Educación y aprendizaje II (Abril de 2026) Anteriores (en español) * [TEJIENDO ALTERNATIVAS #05] Poder y Democracia * [TEJIENDO ALTERNATIVAS #06] Cambio Climático y Alternativas * TEJIENDO ALTERNATIVAS #07 Para Gustavo Esteva (1936-2022), in memoriam

FIXME Esta página no está completamente traducida, aún. Por favor, contribuye a su traducción. (Elimina este párrafo una vez la traducción esté completa) Cuando los ríos hablan: un tejido narrativo de las vías fluviales de una región Por Talking Wings