News Feeds

Announcing the third annual Sacramento Anarchist Bookfair on Saturday, October 11th. For more updates, go here.

On occupied Miwok and Nisenan territory, we invite you to join us in so-called Sacramento on Saturday, October 11th, for the 3rd annual Sacramento Anarchist Bookfair. The event will feature tabling by publishers, projects, organizations, and distros along with panels, discussions, and hands on workshops. Doors will open at 10 AM and the event will go until around 7 PM.

The event will take place this year at the Flower Fist Art Market, located at 1819 E st, in Downtown Sacramento.

Panels, Workshops and Keynote Speakers

The bookfair this year will feature:

• Hands on skillshares.
• A community discussion on mutual aid organizing in the face of rising fascism and capitalist crisis.
• Workshops and presentations from a range of organizers, presenters, and authors on a variety of topics. Stay tuned for a full schedule and be sure to follow the Sacramento Anarchist Bookfair for updates.
• Panel discussions on anti-ICE organizing, sustaining autonomous projects, and more.

The bookfair will also feature several talks by published authors including:

• Former political prisoner Eric King, who will be returning to the Sacramento Anarchist Bookfair to discuss his new book, A Clean Hell: Anarchy and Abolition in America’s Most Notorious Dungeon, about his fight for survival inside the notorious ADX “super-max” prison and how this experience can inform abolitionist organizing in a period of escalating repression.

 

• Dani Burlison and Margaret Elysia Garcia, editors of the new book Red Flag Warning Mutual Aid and Survival in California’s Fire Country, will discuss mutual aid and community care from a grassroots perspective, highlighting organizing projects related to climate catastrophes primarily in rural Northern California.

• Our keynote speakers, JoNina and Lorenzo Ervin, are both long-time revolutionary organizers, former members of the Black Panther party, and co-founders of the Black Autonomy Federation. JoNina Ervin is a former editor of the Black Panther Party newspaper and is the author of the new book, Driven by the Movement: Reports from the Black Power Era. Lorenzo Kom’boa Ervin is a former political prisoner and is the author of Anarchism and the Black Revolution. JoNina and Lorenzo will speak about lessons from liberatory social movements of the past and how they can inform our struggles for freedom and autonomy today.

Looking to Table?

Looking to table at the Sacramento Anarchist Bookfair? We invite anarchist and autonomous anti-capitalist and anti-colonial projects, organizations, publishers, and distros to email us at: sacabf@proton.me. We are asking that tablers help out with a donation to help pay for the space, but no project will be turned away for lack of funds.

Space may be limited – so contact us as soon as possible!

About the Space: Accessibility, Masking & Beyond

The event will take place at the Flower Fist Art Market, located at 1819 E st, and which has just moved into a new space in Downtown Sacramento.

Like previous years, masking at the bookfair is mandatory. Upon entry, we will have free N95 masks, COVID tests, and hand sanitizer, with air purifiers and fans running throughout the venue.

We will also have a chill outdoor area to rest and hydrate, along with a space for children and parents. Both inside and outside spaces are wheelchair accessible. Food trucks will available for those looking for food. Gender neutral bathrooms are also at the space. Free parking is available around Flower Fist.

Follow Us on Instagram!

Follow us on Instagram here!

Help Us Promote the Event!

Help promote the event by sharing this image online and telling people about the bookfair!

Download Image Here

Get in Touch!

Have questions or concerns, want to get involved, help promote, or donate to help cover costs? Email us here: sacabf@proton.me

See you in October!

New Australian-developed thermal energy storage technology is competitive with traditional fossil fuel technologies at an industrial scale, according to a new study.

The post Australia’s largest thermal storage project takes important next step appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Breakthrough has just released a new discussion paper, Warming has reached 1.5°C. What does that mean for climate advocacy? This blog is part 3 of the paper, on the 1.5 degrees Celsius conundrum.

by David Spratt

1.5°C has become the policy-making target 

Until 2015, climate-policy making and advocacy was focused on the 2°C goal, which was seen as appropriate to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (Article 2 of the UNFCCC). As an aside, how was 2°C ever considered a reasonable goal? Answering that question — it wasn’t science-based, but first proposed by an economist — may provide insight into why 1.5°C isn’t either. 

At the Paris COP in 2015, the overarching goal adopted was to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”. Since the Paris Agreement, the focus of advocates has been 1.5°C.

The flawed benchmark of 1.5°C

Sir David King, the former UK Chief Scientist and advisor to three (Labour and Conservative) governments, reflected on his work with AOSIS on 1.5°C in Paris in 2015. The Independent journalist Donnachadh McCarthy reported that King “astounded me by saying he now realised this was wrong, and believes the passing of the Arctic tipping point has been reached... He said the 1.1°C rise that we already have is too dangerous — and candidly admitted he believed US climate professor James Hansen had been right after all in 1988, when he warned the US Congress that we should not pass 350 ppm CO2 (parts per million carbon dioxide). We have now breached 415 ppm and are heading fast towards 500 ppm, Sir David said” (emphasis added).  

This is widely understood. The NGO 350.org was explicitly established in 2008 on the view that what was safe was < 350 ppm and < 1°C, a position based on the work of former NASA climate chief James Hansen, sometimes referred to affectionately as the “godfather” of modern climate science. 

Likewise, in "A safe operating space for humanity", Rockstrom et al. (including Hansen and Will Steffen), proposed that “human changes to atmospheric CO2 concentrations should not exceed
350 ppm”.  

But in current mainstream climate advocacy, < 1°C and < 350 ppm seem to have been dropped to
the wayside.

1.5°C is not a safe limit

Many lines of evidence show that systems have/will have passed their tipping points at 1.5°C, and tipping points are now in play, including at both poles. Coral reef systems have been in a death spiral for more than a decade. Permafrost, boreal forests and the Amazon are becoming net carbon emitters. 

In September 2022, Stockholm University’s David Armstrong McKay and his colleagues concluded that even global warming of 1°C risks triggering some tipping points. At 1.5°C, “we're at risk of crossing irreversible thresholds on unique and threatened systems”, says Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

This year, new research has reaffirmed that 1.5°C is too high to prevent tipping points: there is a “significant” risk of large Amazon forest dieback if global warming overshoots 1.5°C. And there is a new scientific warning that “1.5°C is too high for polar ice sheets” and the Paris Agreement target won’t protect them. 

As well, Earth may have hit a point of irreversible moisture loss in its soil. And the natural sequestration of CO2 by the terrestrial biosphere peaked in 2008 and is in decline, accelerating climate change.

At a May 2008 climate conference at the Academy of Science conference in Canberra, the international guest speaker was Dr Neil Hamilton, then head of the WWF Arctic Programme. He told a somewhat stunned audience that the WWF was not trying to preserve the Arctic ecosystem because “it was no longer possible to do so”.  That is, it had already passed its tipping point, at a time when global average warming was 0.8°C!

Likewise the world’s greatest coral researcher, Australia’s Charlie Veron, told the Royal Society in London in 2009 that a safe boundary for reef systems was 0.5°C. 

The evidence grows that the 1.5°C target was never a safe target for humanity.

Figure 1: Climate models (CMIP6) and observations (ClimateBrink)

 We are already at 1.5°C.

In 2018, the IPCC mid-range projection for the world to warm to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels was 2040. But a new World Meteorological Organization report this year indicates that Earth will cross this point in just two years, with a “70% chance that the 2025-2029 five-year mean will exceed 1.5°C above the 1850-1900 average”. 

In fact, 2023 was 1.5°C and 2024 reached 1.6°C, and the running average for the last 24 months has been close to 1.6°C. A new paper (currently in pre-print) shows that for one temperature data set, the warming trend reached 1.5°C in 2024, and four other data sets show 2026. 

For all practical purposes, the warming trend has hit 1.5°C, as James Hansen has noted: “Averaged over the El Nino/La Nina cycle, the 1.5°C limit has been reached”. This is also consistent with the CMIP6 model projections (Figure 1, produced by Zeke Hausfather).

1.5°C is not  a point of system stability

Scientists say it is a big mistake to think we can “park” the Earth System at any given temperature rise – say 2°C  – and expect it to stay there. The late Prof. Will Steffen and his coauthors in their widely-read 2018 “Hothouse Earth” paper warned that “even if the Paris Accord target of a 1.5°C to 2°C rise in temperature is met, we cannot exclude the risk that a cascade of feedbacks could push the Earth System irreversibly onto a ‘Hothouse Earth’ pathway”. 

In other words, by 1.5°C, there may be so many carbon-cycle and other feedbacks under way and active system instabilities that the climate will not stabilize at 1.5°C, but rather it will move towards a new point of equilibrium at a significantly higher level.  The implication is that our choice is either to cool back to Holocene (pre-industrial) conditions, or accept that the next point of system stability may be around 3°C. 

This is a point that paleoclimatologists make repeatedly, that the climate’s history over the last 800,000 years shows temperature and CO2 oscillating between two levels, interrupted by abrupt instability, offering critical insights into today's rapidly changing climate. The climate see-sawed between glacials around 180 ppm  which were 3-5°C cooler than recent centuries, and the warmer interglacials around 280 ppm (see figure 2). We are now approaching 430 ppm.

Figure 2: Earth system stability 

Hansen says we have now left a state of system stability — the Holocene — and are headed into a period of rapid, unstable (non-linear) change driven by record-fast increases in CO2 and amplifying and cascading feedbacks. The current 1.5°C climate is not a point of system stability, which lies at a significantly higher warming when the current system feedbacks have played themselves out to equilibrium. The last time CO2 was around the current level — 3 to 3.3 million years ago — temperatures were around 3°C hotter than pre-industrial and sea levels 25 metres higher.

In other words, 1.5°C is not a destination, but a signpost on a dusty road to somewhere hotter. So it cannot be an advocacy endpoint either, from a “science-based” perspective.  

• Download the report

A flight corridor for testing drones and electric aircraft will link the University of Michigan’s one-of-a-kind autonomy research and proving ground facilities in Ann Arbor to Michigan Central’s real-world, urban testbed and innovation district in Detroit.

A technology called Dynamic Targeting could enable spacecraft to decide, autonomously and within seconds, where to best make science observations from orbit.

By centering family farmers and food access in its hunger policies, Brazil has lifted 40 million people out of food insecurity in two years, representing one of the fastest recorded improvements in the world, the new State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) report reveals. IPES-Food panel experts say the achievement offers a blueprint for the bold government action needed to end global hunger and proof that a future free from hunger is within reach.

The SOFI report, released annually by five United Nations agencies, shows that Brazil’s undernourishment rate fell below 2.5 percent between 2022 and 2024. This prompted the country’s removal from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Hunger Map, an interactive tool presenting the latest global estimates on the prevalence of undernourishment, and moderate or severe food insecurity.

The 2025 SOFI report notes that the world is far from eradicating hunger and food insecurity, and not on track to end malnutrition, by 2030, citing persistent food price inflation as a major barrier. But Brazil is making rapid progress in reducing hunger.

After national food insecurity spiked between 2020 and 2022, the Brazilian government launched an initiative to eradicate hunger in 2023 called Brazil Sem Fome (BSF), which translates to Brazil without hunger. BSF’s approach emphasizes coordinated public action and civil society engagement, and centers access to nutritious foods over agricultural productivity.

Policies include school meals sourced from local and agroecological producers, higher minimum wages, support for smallholder and Indigenous farmers, expanded food banks, and legal recognition of the right to food.

The number of people in Brazil experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity fell from 70.3 million in 2022 to 28.5 million in 2024, SOFI data indicate. The number of people unable to afford a healthy diet dropped 20 percent, while the portion of the Brazilian population facing severe food insecurity has been reduced by two-thirds—from 21.1 million to 7.1 million.

The latest SOFI report also confirms that Brazil has achieved BSF’s first goal of getting the country off the FAO Hunger Map.

Elisabetta Recine, head of Brazil’s National Food and Nutrition Security Council and IPES-Food expert, credits the country’s success to concerted political action and policies that put “people, family farmers, Indigenous and traditional communities, and access to good local food at the centre—and by including those most affected.”

Brazil’s progress shows that effective solutions to hunger are neither new nor out of reach. What’s missing, according to Jennifer Clapp, a Professor, IPES-Food expert, and Canada Research Chair in Global Food Security and Sustainability, is the political will to confront its root causes.

Policies that work—like supporting family farmers rather than agribusiness and investing in public programs like school meals—are effective, proven, and widely available, says Raj Patel, an IPES-Food member and research professor at the University of Texas. The only question that remains, according to Patel, is whether other governments will act with the same courage as the Brazilians and make the choice to implement those proven tools.

Despite gains, the SOFI report and public health experts caution that rising food prices, new tariffs, and further looming tariff threats continue to threaten food access, including in Brazil. “We must stay the course,” Recine says, “because the cost of inaction is measured in lives.”

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 Carlos Felipe Ramirez Mesa, Unsplash

The post Hunger Is a Choice—Brazil Just Proved It appeared first on Food Tank.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
Date: 7/28/25 
Contact: Andy Moderow | 907-360-3622 | andy@alaskawild.org 

Today, in response to the announcement that Interior Withdraws Restrictive Special Area Policies in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve to Advance Energy Development, Alaska Wilderness League released the following statement: 

“Today’s action is a direct attack on science and Traditional Knowledge, putting iconic Western Arctic landscapes more at risk of oil and gas industrialization, when in fact the law requires strong protections,” said Andy Moderow, Senior Director of Policy at Alaska Wilderness League. “The previous administration took a thoughtful, legally grounded approach to safeguard subsistence harvests of fish, caribou, and other resources. Today’s decision does not mark the end of that progress made; we will fight to restore these protections in the months and years to come.” 

What Are Today’s Rescinded Documents? 

The three documents just rescinded by the BLM were part of the Biden administration’s efforts to strengthen how Special Areas are protected, to better uphold the intent of the Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. This law requires the federal government to provide maximum protection for certain identified resources in Special Areas, and to address the harmful impacts of oil and gas on recreation, subsistence, and other sustainable human uses in the Western Arctic.   

 Specifically, the Trump administration took action today by rescinding: 

1. The July 2024 Request for Information (RFI): This launched a robust public process to gather input on how to maximize protections for Special Areas in the NPR-A, reflecting the law and the Biden administration’s conservation goals. 

2. The January 2025 Report: Titled “Maximizing Protection in the NPR-A” this laid out recommendations for limiting oil and gas development in sensitive areas, based on robust public input received during the July 2024 RFI.  

3. The January 2025 Interim Management Memo: This memo gave the BLM field offices guidance on how to manage Special Areas while formal Special Area action was being considered. 

These three documents were launched in response to a stronger Western Arctic Special Area regulation that President Biden finalized in April 2024. The Trump administration is taking aim at that underlying Special Area direction, by soliciting comments through August 4 on rescinding that Biden era rule. To date, nearly 100,000 comments have been submitted through that process, with many more members of the public likely to weigh in during the final week.   

By rescinding documents that help implement that final rule while public comment is open, the Trump administration shows a lack of interest in meaningfully reviewing any input before taking action to allow unfettered industrialization across this landscape. 

What Does Rescinding the Western Arctic RFI, Report, and Memo Signal? 

By scrapping these important documents – the result of substantial public engagement – before the Western Arctic Special Area comment period concludes:  

• The Trump administration is undermining the very basis of the ongoing public process. 

• It signals that they are not approaching the comment period in good faith and that they’ve already made their ideological position clear: Energy dominance over conservation. 

• It removes any temporary protections that might have limited oil and gas activity while the review process is underway. 

The Trump administration is laying the groundwork to rush forward with oil and gas industrialization, regardless of what the public thinks about this change in direction. What happens in the next weeks – in both public engagement and legal strategy – could determine the future of millions of acres of our public lands in America’s Arctic. 

Photo Credit: Patrick Endres

The post Interior Withdraws Special Area Safeguards in NPR-A, Advancing Oil and Gas Agenda  appeared first on Alaska Wilderness League.

NEW YORK – The National Audubon Society welcomed Mark Collins to its Board of Directors. Mr. Collins is an environmentalist with decades of significant engagement in conservation that will help...

Our Children’s Trust, Western Environmental Law Center, Gregory Law Group, and McGarvey Law are proud to announce that they have been awarded Public Justice’s 2025 Trial Lawyer of the Year Award for their landmark victory in Held v. State of Montana—the first constitutional climate case brought by youth to go to trial in the United States.

In March 2020, 16 young Montanans courageously filed a lawsuit against their state, challenging laws and policies that promote fossil fuel development, accelerate the climate crisis, and inflict direct harm on their health and futures. These laws, they argued, violate their constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment, life, dignity, and freedom. The youth plaintiffs brought their claims to court to demand protection of their fundamental rights.

In a historic, groundbreaking 2024 decision, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that struck down state laws prohibiting consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in fossil fuel permitting and laws barring constitutional remedies. The court ruled such statutes are unconstitutional, affirming that Montana must consider climate and public health impacts in its permitting decisions, explicitly recognizing the harm to children, and recognizing a fundamental right to a stable climate system.

The court wrote: “Montana’s right to a clean and healthful environment and environmental life support system includes a stable climate system, which is clearly within the object and true principles of the Framers inclusion of the right to a clean and healthful environment.”

Barbara Chillcott, Senior Attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center, said: “We are incredibly grateful to receive this recognition from Public Justice for our work to support these remarkable young plaintiffs in Held v. State of Montana. Our gratitude goes first to the courageous young Montanans who stepped into the spotlight and persevered through the challenges of litigation to fight for their generation’s future. We also thank the dedicated Montana and global experts whose contributions were instrumental in building the strongest possible case. This victory is just the beginning—we’re now focused on ensuring Montana fulfills its constitutional obligations so that we can all share in a livable future.”

Julia Olson, Chief Legal Counsel and Executive Director of Our Children’s Trust, said: “We are deeply honored and humbled to receive this award, which belongs first and foremost to the sixteen brave youth plaintiffs in Held v. Montana. Their courage in taking the stand and speaking truth to power helped secure a ruling that protects the rights of young people to a safe and stable climate. Young people have always led civil rights and social justice movements, and we’re proud to stand alongside them as they use the courts to protect their fundamental rights against governments who wield their power to harm children. They don’t win money, but they win back their rights to health, a safe environment, and their basic human dignity. This September, some of those same youth will be back in federal court in Montana as plaintiffs in Lighthiser v. Trump, challenging executive orders that expand fossil fuel development, suppress climate science, and endanger their right to life. We are carrying forward the momentum from Held at a time when the stakes could not be higher—to make sure no president or government can sacrifice children’s lives for fossil fuel power.”

The legal team includes:

• Barbara Chillcott and Melissa Hornbein of Western Environmental Law Center
• Julia Olson, Nate Bellinger, and Mat dos Santos of Our Children’s Trust
• Phil Gregory of Gregory Law Group
• Roger Sullivan of McGarvey Law

Together, this team and its brave youth plaintiffs secured a precedent-setting victory that affirms climate accountability under constitutional law and strengthens the rights of young people to demand protection from government-caused climate harm.

Some of the same young people have been joined by others to continue this work in Lighthiser v. Trump, a federal constitutional case in Montana that challenges the executive actions undermining climate science and expanding fossil fuel production. As in Held, the plaintiffs are youth demanding their government protect—not endanger—their fundamental rights.

Contacts:   

Melissa Hornbein, Western Environmental Law Center, hornbein@westernlaw.org

Barbara Chillcott, Western Environmental Law Center, chillcott@westernlaw.org

Julia Olson, Chief Legal Counsel, Our Children’s Trust, 415.786.4825, julia@ourchildrenstrust.org

Helen Britto, Communications Associate Director, Our Children’s Trust 925.588.1171, helen@ourchildrenstrust.org 

The post Trailblazing legal team honored for landmark Montana climate victory   appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

As global inaction over the climate crisis has mounted and Pacific islands nations have watched in frustration as their calls for decisive action have gone unheeded, a growing number of them, led by Vanuatu, have turned to the courts. If policymakers won’t act, they hoped, perhaps the courts would. 

And so island nations in the South Pacific region of Melanesia, where Indigenous communities have had to flee their traditional lands due to landslides and rising seas, filed a case that was ultimately joined by more than 130 countries. Together, they urged the International Court of Justice to decide whether nation-states have a legal obligation to address climate change, and whether those harmed by a warming world have a right to reparations. 

Justices considered testimony in Indigenous Pacific languages, heard arguments from Indigenous attorneys, and learned how Indigenous traditions are being harmed by the typhoons, rising seas, and other extreme weather events worsened by the burning of fossil fuels.

Last week, the court issued a landmark ruling that climate harm violates international law. The seismic decision, although advisory, opens the door for countries like Vanuatu to seek reparations from some of the world’s biggest polluters, and it is widely expected to shape current — and future — climate lawsuits as early as this week.

“What the court has done has come in and made it crystal clear that affected frontline nations and communities that have been devastated by climate harm — harm that can be traced to the conduct of specific countries and corporations — those communities, those nations, they absolutely have the right to redress and reparations,” said Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. 

The court’s decision, handed down Wednesday, said that all nations have a legal obligation to limit greenhouse gas emissions and failing to do so, through the support of fossil fuel production, could violate international law. The justices didn’t disclose how much major polluters might owe, and said the level of reparations would be determined on a case-by-case basis. But Chowdhury said she expects the ruling to immediately influence ongoing climate litigation worldwide, and prompt new lawsuits. “There are litigators all over the world that are looking to this case and will absolutely bring it into the courtroom,” she said.

Kelly Matheson, deputy director of global strategy for Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit law firm representing youth in climate litigation, said the organization is already incorporating the language of the advisory opinion into an amicus brief that it plans to file in a case in Latin America this fall. She also expects the ruling to feature heavily in La Rose v. His Majesty the King, a Canadian climate case youth plaintiffs brought against the Canadian government scheduled for trial next year, as well as a climate case pending before the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights. 

Government attorneys also are studying the decision to determine whether their countries can sue. Malik Amin Aslam Khan, former minister of the environment in Pakistan, said the ruling “opens up a legally grounded pathway for claiming climate damages and demanding reparations for countries like Pakistan, which has continuously been one of the world’s worst climate sufferers and has credibly recorded climate damage costs crossing $40 billion in the past decade alone.”

Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s minister of climate change, said Vanuatu plans to immediately push for a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly to implement the advisory opinion. The government also plans to use the ruling to advocate for better climate financing for the Pacific and better regional and domestic policies to address the climate crisis.

“For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity, which is climate change,” Regenvanu said during a press conference at The Hague last week. ”It’s very important now, as the world goes forward, that we make sure our actions align with what was decided or what came out today from the court.”

The ruling builds upon a growing consensus in international law that states have a legal obligation to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ruled that the 169 countries that have signed the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea — a list that includes China and India, but not the U.S. — must reduce emissions. It was another victory led by Pacific island nations as well as island nations in the Caribbean and West Indies.

“For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity,” Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s climate change minister, said of the ruling. He is seen here in court before the decision was handed down. John Thys / AFP via Getty Images

Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, a regional court for Latin and South America, ruled that a healthy climate is a human right and governments should limit emissions. The court also said they should prevent harm to marginalized communities such as Indigenous peoples and emphasized their role in combating climate change.

“Indigenous peoples play an essential role in the preservation and sustainable management of these ecosystems because their ancestral knowledge and their close relationship with nature proved essential for the conservation of biodiversity and the mitigation of climate change,” the court wrote. “Therefore, states should listen to them and facilitate their continuing participation in decision-making.”  

Matheson said that when Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an Indigenous Inuk woman who then chaired the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, brought a climate case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights wo decades ago, it dismissed her claims within two pages. Several years later, Palau brought a similar case before the ICJ to no avail. 

“For the law to be moving at this speed —  to go from dismissals and no consideration of the impact that climate change has on human rights 20 years ago, when the first case was filed, to now you have opinions from all but one of the highest courts in the world — is amazing,” she said, noting that an African court is expected to weigh in soon. 

While the ICJ ruling did not expound on the rights of Indigenous peoples and focused on the responsibilities of nation-states, it did clarify a question that has long troubled leaders of countries like Tuvalu and Kiribati that are losing land to rising seas: What happens to their borders if their islands disappear? On that note, the ICJ said any recognized borders should remain unchanged, which is important to ensure they continue to have a political voice on the international stage and control over their waters. “That presumption of statehood and sovereignty is a critical bit,” said Johanna Gusman, a senior attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law. 

The case was initiated six years ago by a group of law students in Vanuatu and led by the government of Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group, which represents several nations in that region of the Pacific and the Indigenous people of New Caledonia.

“By affirming the science, the ICJ has mandated countries to urgently phase out fossil fuels because they are no longer tenable for small island state communities in the Pacific, and for young people and for future generations,” Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands, Students Fighting Climate Change, said during a press conference at The Hague. “This opinion is a lifeline and an opportunity to protect all that we hold dear, and all that we love.”

The United Nations established the International Court of Justice in the wake of World War II to help the global community address conflicts and concerns peacefully and judicially. It has heard cases on issues ranging from nuclear testing to fishing rights to the status of entire territories, such as Western Sahara. While not binding, its decisions are significant because they interpret international law and clarify states’ legal responsibilities. In this case, the court reviewed several treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement climate accord, and concluded that under those treaties and under customary international law, all nations have a legal obligation to limit emissions and may owe compensation to countries that are harmed. 

Read Next Inside the Marshall Islands’ life-or-death plan to survive climate change Jake Bittle

There are limits to who can bring cases before the ICJ, which only hears cases brought by nation-states and not, for example, Indigenous political entities such as First Nations in Canada. Gusman said that Indigenous peoples may instead use the language of the cases in domestic disputes or through other U.N. venues. For example, “Indigenous nations and First Nations within Canada now have stronger legal backbones to take cases against Canada,” she said.

The court’s ruling will also be dulled somewhat in the United States, which has long rejected the ICJ’s authority and under President Donald J. Trump has been retreating even further from climate action. The U.S. and China are two major polluters whose rejection of the ICJ’s jurisdiction could prevent a country like Vanuatu from suing them directly over their emissions. 

Korey Silverman-Roati, a senior fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said the ruling is a seminal moment for climate litigation but that the effects in the U.S. will be muted because U.S. courts don’t traditionally recognize the ICJ’s authority. “I don’t think we can expect that the direct language of the ruling will impact cases in the U.S.,” he said. He thinks the advisory opinion will likely instead influence other countries whose judicial systems give more weight to the ICJ, and influence the U.S. through the ruling’s use in international negotiations. 

Already, the ruling is expected to figure heavily at this year’s Conference of the Parties, or COP, in November in Brazil. Last year, negotiations fell apart in the waning minute to the disappointment of Pacific island nations and many climate advocates who criticized the amount of money pledged by U.N. member states as woefully insufficient. 

“The advisory opinion will be an essential tool that we in the Global South will use at the next meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, the U.N.’s climate change and biodiversity conferences, and everywhere to advocate for climate justice,” said Ilan Kiloe, acting director general of the Melanesian Spearhead Group. He said Pacific peoples have already suffered forced relocations due to climate change. “We have already lost much of what defines us as Pacific Islanders.”

Tik Root contributed reporting to this story. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How the world’s highest court bolstered the fight for climate reparations on Jul 28, 2025.

Dr. David Nabarro, a physician and lifelong advocate for public health, has passed away at the age of 75.

Called “a giant in the world of food security, nutrition advocacy, and global health,” by Tjada D’Oyen McKenna, CEO of Mercy Corps, Nabarro was deeply passionate about ending hunger and malnutrition. 

In 2009, Nabarro was appointed as Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Food Security and Nutrition. The following year, he became the first Coordinator of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement, where he worked to reduce childhood undernutrition and stunting in the first 1,000 days of life. Four years later, more than 50 countries had joined the Movement and endorsed nutrition-related laws and policies.

“David inspired generations to act and put nutrition at the center of development,” writes  Luz Maria De Regil, Director of Nutrition and Food Safety at the World Health Organization. 

In 2018, Nabarro was named the World Food Prize laureate for his global leadership on maternal and child undernutrition.

He also helped lead the response to some of the greatest public health crises. Throughout his career in the United Nations system he tackled diseases including malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, and bird flu. In 2014, Nabarro provided strategic guidance to contain the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. And at the start of 2020, Nabarro was named one of six Special Envoys on COVID-19, providing advice and disseminating information on the coronavirus pandemic. For this service, King Charles III knighted him in 2023.

Nabarro’s commitment to service began at an early age. At 17, he spent nine months running Youth Action York, a volunteer movement that aims to improve the lives of local poor, elderly, and disabled people. And shortly after receiving his medical degree, he joined Save the Children in northern Iraq, where he provided health services to children affected by war. 

Most recently, Nabarro served as the Strategic Director of the 4SD Foundation, a social enterprise that he co-founded to help emerging leaders push for equity, justice, and regenerative futures. In 2018, 4SD was invited to curate Food Systems Dialogues, designed for diverse stakeholders to explore priorities for the future of food and agriculture systems. 

Nabarro saw these dialogues as a way to foster collaboration among different groups: “Even if people have radical disagreements, if they come together in a space where they are respected…they will form a coherent whole,” he told Food Tank. 

Since Nabarro’s passing, friends and colleagues are remembering not only his wisdom, but the generosity, warmth and conviction that he displayed throughout his life. “His strong voice, leadership and genuine passion in these strange times will be sorely missed,” says Gunhild Stordalen, Co-Founder of EAT. “No one can fill his shoes, but we can keep walking the path he cleared with such courage and conviction.”

Nabarro is survived by his wife Florence; his children, Tom, Ollie, Polly, Josie, Lucas; and seven grandchildren.

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 DFID – UK Department for International Development

The post Remembering David Nabarro: A Champion for Global Health and Nutrition appeared first on Food Tank.

Native Americans are increasingly responsible for emergency management systems when a natural disaster hits a tribal community.

Tribes can issue emergency declarations requests to open up help from regional and federal partners, typically 24 hours after the event. When help is authorized to arrive, emergency management systems tend to move slowly and may be staffed with volunteers juggling multiple roles in a new command to get aid directly to people. To help you prepare and stay safe, Grist has put together a toolkit to outline what Native people and their tribal governments should do to receive aid when natural disasters hit.

Jump to:

↓ How to find accurate information
↓ Preparing for a disaster
↓ How disaster response works for tribes
↓ Finding shelter and staying safe

How to find accurate information

Many people find out about disasters in their area via social media. But it’s important to make sure the information you’re receiving is correct. Below is a list of reliable sources to check for emergency alerts, updates, and more.

Your local emergency manager: This year, New Mexico and Arizona joined three other states (California, Colorado, and Washington) to create laws that establish “Feather Alerts” — public safety operations that many consider Native versions of AMBER alerts. This requires multiple jurisdictions to work together with preparedness in mind for when large-scale emergencies need to alert every cell phone in a region. Call a local nonemergency line and ask if your tribe has an emergency management department that operates police, fire, or hospital services. A simple call or visit to any tribal administration office can also help confirm if this is the case. Many tribal nations apply for federal or state grants in collaboration with other local governments.

From there, ask if you can sign up for any text alerts, emails, or an automated phone call service. For example, Navajo Nation has a text service: Text “NavajoNation” to 888-777. (These alerts can also be useful to learn about road closures, ceremonial events, and weather outside of a disaster.) 

Some alerts go to specific ZIP codes, or to people who receive tribal benefits like housing or senior services. Schools opt-in parents for campus alerts at both tribally run schools and campuses run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (which can be another resource to get alerts).  Emergency managers are responsible for communicating with the public about disasters, managing rescue and response efforts, and coordinating among different agencies. They usually have an SMS-based emergency alert system, so sign up for those texts now. Many emergency management agencies are active on Facebook, so check there for updates, like livestreamed press conferences that give operational status updates and share resources for shelter and other aid.

If you’re having trouble finding your local department, you can search for your state or territory. We also suggest typing your city or county name followed by “emergency management” into Google. In larger cities, it’s often a separate agency; in smaller communities, fire chiefs or sheriff’s offices may manage emergency response and alerts.

National Weather Service: This agency, also called NWS, is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, and offers information and updates on everything from wildfires to hurricanes to air quality. You can enter your ZIP code on weather.gov and customize your homepage to get the most updated weather information and receive alerts for a variety of weather conditions. The NWS also has regional and local branches where you can sign up for SMS alerts. Local alerts in multiple languages are available in some areas.

If you’re in a rural area or somewhere that isn’t highlighted on the agency’s maps, keep an eye out for local alerts and evacuation orders. NWS may not have as much information ahead of time in these areas because there often aren’t as many weather-monitoring stations.

Read more: How to get reliable information before and during a disaster

Local news: The local television news and social media accounts from verified news sources will have live updates during and after a disaster. Meteorologists on your local news station use NWS weather data. Follow your local newspaper and television station on Facebook or other social media, or check their websites regularly. If you don’t have cable, these stations often livestream online for free during severe weather. 

Weather stations and apps: The Weather Channel, Accuweather, Apple Weather, and Google, which all rely on NWS weather data, will have information on major storms and other extreme weather events. That may not be the case for smaller-scale weather events, and you shouldn’t rely on these apps to tell you if you need to evacuate or move to higher ground. Instead, check your local news broadcast on television or radio.

Read more: What disasters are and how they’re officially declared

Tribes with police or fire agencies must have emergency management plans in place and are another resource for information on a tribe’s response plan. Disasters often bring first responders from elsewhere; checking in with the ones who serve the community are going to be the most useful on-the-ground resource for families with limited access to transportation or technology like the internet or cell phones.

Preparing for a disaster

As you prepare for a disaster, it’s important to have an emergency kit ready in case you lose power or need to leave your home. These can often be expensive to create, so contact your local disaster aid organizations, houses of worship, tribal leaders, or charities to see if there are free or affordable kits available — or buy one or two items every time you’re at the grocery store. 

Here are some of the most important things to have in your kit. You can read more details about how to prepare safely here. 

• Water (1 gallon per person per day for several days)
• Food (at least a several-day supply of nonperishable food) and a can opener
• Medicines and documentation of your medical needs
• Identification and proof of residency documents (see a more detailed list here)
• A flashlight 
• A battery-powered or hand-crank radio
• Backup batteries
• Blanket and sleeping bag
• Change of clothes and closed-toed shoes
• First-aid kit (the Red Cross has a list of what to include)
• N95 masks, hand sanitizer, and trash bags 
• If you have babies or children: diapers, wipes, and food or formula
• If you have pets: food, collar, leash, and any medicines needed

Read more: How to stay safe if you’re feeling exhausted or ill

How disaster response works for tribes

When a major disaster hits, your tribal government will communicate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to apply for immediate aid as well as support for services that seek to mitigate future disasters. Here’s how that works:

There is a specific process cities, states, and tribal governments must navigate in order for residents to receive FEMA aid. FEMA has 10 regions that support tribes during disaster response. If your tribal nation’s lands cross multiple FEMA regions, identify which FEMA region the headquarters is located to determine whom to contact. Here is a map with a list of contacts.

FEMA updated its tribal policy in 2020, with the following guidance for its employees and contractors: Maintain tribal government relationships, consider unique community circumstances, and build tribal capacity through educational and technical assistance programs. It was updated again in December 2024 after FEMA held nine listening and consultation sessions with 118 tribal nations in all 10 regions the agency oversees. 

In 2025, FEMA changed that policy to empower “tribal nations’ sovereignty and access to federal assistance, thereby enhancing their response and recovery efforts and improving community and tribal community members’ outcomes.”

Here are other recent changes to the FEMA Tribal Policy:

• The policy gives power to tribes to define “tribal community member” when offering individual assistance to ensure “their full community is served.” This could reduce barriers for help to people not enrolled in the tribe to receive federal emergency funds for food, shelter, and reimbursements.
• Rebuilding tribal homes after a disaster also changed: When public assistance is approved, the federal government will automatically recommend that it takes on 98 percent of the cost when the total reaches $200,000. This means tribes could pay less for approved recovery and, as FEMA summarized from its tribal listening sessions, “provide more certainty for non-federal cost shares to tribal nations.”

Read more: How to navigate the FEMA aid process

State-recognized tribes

Tribes that are not federally recognized may encounter more red tape when trying to access government aid because they don’t have a direct relationship with FEMA. For example, the Grand Caillou/Dulac Band of Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw struggled to get aid after Hurricane Ida in 2021.

According to a June 2020 FEMA policy, state-recognized tribes should be treated as local governments, rather than tribal governments with a nation-to-nation relationship with the federal government. This way, they can access both individual assistance if there is a major disaster declaration in their state, as well as public assistance for infrastructure repair.

Tribal and state collaboration

Partnerships between local tribes and states or cities they border are essential for how Native nations and people move disaster aid and recovery. For example, a deadly Oklahoma wildfire in March gave some insight into how FEMA’s local partnerships work in a state with prominent tribal jurisdictional maps and people who live both in and outside the communities.

Last year, Oklahoma created rules for its State Assistance Dedicated for Disaster-Impacted Local Economies Revolving Fund, which takes federal disaster money, approves requests for aid, and pays Oklahomans directly with loans for long-term recovery projects.

There is a growing number of coalitions focused on relationships among tribes to promote a more collaborative approach. For example, Oklahoma has had the Inter-Tribal Emergency Management Coalition since 2004 and meets regularly to discuss emergency preparedness.

Read more: How to find housing and rebuild your home after a disaster

Finding shelter and staying safe

Emergency shelters can be set up in established tribal spaces, like school gymnasiums, powwow grounds, and hospitals. Tribal senior services and schools have the most up-to-date records of people and organizations in the community and are tapped by emergency management teams for welfare checks and transportation needs. Hospital services can also be key to prescriptions and other medical needs.

In the same way that cousins and relatives are expected to offer a home to rest, tribal citizens now have the expectation for their tribal government to give full immediate aid and help in recovery.

FEMA recovery centers

FEMA disaster recovery centers provide information about the agency’s programs as well as other state and local resources, and are opened in impacted areas in the days and weeks following a federally declared disaster. FEMA representatives can help navigate the aid application process or direct you to nonprofits, shelters, or state and local resources. Go to this website to locate one in your area, or text DRC and a ZIP code to 43362.

Community organizations and nonprofits

Here are some organizations focused on emergency management for Indigenous communities:

• Partnership with Native Americans has a disaster relief service and fund that helps displaced people, sets up supplies for shelters, and more. They coordinate with local groups as well as the Red Cross. 
• Northern Plains Reservation Aid, Southwest Reservation Aid, Native American Aid, Navajo Relief Fund, Sioux Nation Relief Fund, and Southwest Indian Relief Council are groups that offer direct aid to the regions they can serve. They can also be a direct resource for state-recognized tribes.

Read more: How to access food before, during, and after a disaster

More resources

Here are a few organizations that have newsletters, workshops, and other resources for tribal communities across the country.

• The Tribal Emergency Management Association, or iTEMA, is a “national association created for Indian Country, by Indian Country” that promotes a collaborative approach to disasters that impact tribal communities. They offer workshops and resources for tribal leaders, emergency managers, and other interested people. 
• Hazard Mitigation Planning through FEMA is essential. How to keep up with federal grant deadlines and policy directives can be navigated by the Pacific Northwest Tribal Climate Change Project: The online resource hosted by the University of Oregon is an example of tribal regional planning, with foundational support from the Nespelem Tribe in northern Washington. 
• The Regional Tribal Emergency Management Summit in May brought direct sources to South Dakota on what to expect in the next year. Access to presentations, other resources, and a list of other events is available on their site.
• The Red Guide to Recovery is another example of tribes networking with outside community groups in California. The National Tribal Emergency Management Council is listed as a partner.

 

Download a PDF of this article | Return to Disaster 101

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How tribes navigate emergency response aid to citizens and what you can do to prepare on Jul 28, 2025.

First the good news: As reported in the National Observer, the Government of Canada is stepping up to support renewable energy "national-interest projects" in Labrador and Nova Scotia, as well as new transmission projects to boost renewable electricity trade between British Columbia and the Yukon, Manitoba and Nunavut, and Quebec and the Maritimes. Now the

The post Will Mark Carney support a renewable electricity future for Ontario? appeared first on Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

The Trump administration’s alleged bid to get rid of greenhouse gas emissions standards might see more impact on pollution than platinum after its price has jumped almost 50% this year, industry analysts say.

The EPA plans to drop all greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for light, medium and heavy-duty vehicles and engines in the near future, according to a draft proposal, Reuters reported on Thursday. Platinum’s use in auto’s pollution-filtering catalytic converters represents about 30% of global demand, and palladium represents about 80%.

But it could be premature to conclude the EPA’s changes will remove the need for platinum group metals (PGM)-based devices in vehicles, says Ed Sterk, director of research with the World Platinum Investment Council.

“The intention is to scrap some of those controls, but it’s not necessarily to get rid of catalytic converters,” Sterk told The Northern Miner in an interview on Friday. “If you consider living in Los Angeles, which historically has had terrible problems with smog, is Los Angeles a better place with or without catalytic converters and exhaust treatment systems on the vehicles? Most people would argue it’s probably a better place now.”

Emissions standards scrutiny

The EPA is anticipated to conclude that the Clean Air Act doesn’t authorize the agency to impose emission standards and is to lift the finding that GHG vehicle emissions put public health at risk, Reuters said. It follows the passage earlier this month of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, part of which removed fines for failures to meet fuel efficiency rules since 2022.

But even with the converters themselves, Sterk noted they’re part of a complete design package of vehicles’ exhaust driven systems, and can’t just be immediately removed. Cars are going to have them for now regardless of emissions rules.

Platinum prices have gained 49% to $1,410 an oz. as of Monday, according to Trading Economics.

Analysts from Saxo Bank, Bank of America, Heraeus and others cite a rare confluence of tight supply, weak gold price psychology, strong Chinese physical demand, and diverse industrial uses as the foundation for platinum’s strong year-to-date rally. Despite skepticism over sustainability, most expect structural deficits to persist into 2025, supporting continued tightness.

Platinum demand deficit

While Sterk noted that he can’t comment on PGM price changes, demand for platinum is likely to continue exceeding supply, council data show.

Global platinum supply has declined 12% from 8.3 million oz. in 2021 to 7.3 million oz. in 2024, while demand grew 19% in that period, from 6.9 million oz. to 8.3 million ounces. Supply this year is forecast to total 7 million oz. and demand about 8 million ounces.

Catalysts comprise the largest segment of demand for platinum and this year it’s forecast to decline by 5% to 460,000 ounces for North America.

“Even if you remove North America completely, we’d still have a supply and demand shortfall for this year,” Sterk said.

He further noted that if the EPA changes go ahead, legal challenges to the new legislation could slow the pace of its effects on the market.

Palladium surplus

Unlike platinum, palladium has a narrower range of applications and about 80% of its use is for catalytic converters, Sterk said. But with converters and greater electrification of vehicles, the trend is moving towards substituting palladium for platinum.

“Palladium is expected to go into surplus due to recycling,” he said. “We’ve got ongoing deficits in platinum for the foreseeable future, and surplus for palladium.”

Though, palladium prices have gained about 46% to $1,274 per oz. this year to date, the metal’s low prices spurred Impala Platinum (JSE: IMP), widely known as Implats, to decide to close its mine in northern Ontario next May.

Walking into your kitchen and taking a deep breath should mean peace of mind, knowing the air is safe for you and your family. But the reality is that gas stoves — even when switched off — can slowly leak methane, a powerful greenhouse gas linked to increased risks of asthma and lung irritation. If you’re considering an upgrade, here’s some good news: switching to an electric or induction stove is simpler — and more rewarding — than you might think.

You May Qualify for Free Upgrades!

Are you a D.C. resident? The D.C. Sustainable Energy Utility (DCSEU) offers FREE electrical upgrades for eligible households. If you are eligible, you can get not only a free electric stove, but also a new, clean, and energy-efficient heat pump for heating and cooling, a water heater, a clothes dryer, and more.

Check to see if you qualify for FREE home upgrades from DCSEU!

If you’re not eligible for free upgrades, you can still make the switch and even apply for rebates from DCSEU.

Wondering How to Make the Switch?  Step 1: Learn about different electric stoves

Electric stoves come in many forms. For the most efficient heating technology, induction stoves are the way to go, but any electric stove is healthier than burning methane gas inside your home. To make your kitchen healthier without spending a bundle, you can also use an induction hot plate, a countertop oven, or an air fryer to cook without removing your gas stove. 

Step 2: Assess your electrical wiring

If you currently have an electric stove, you probably don’t need to upgrade your wiring. To switch from a gas stove to an electric one, you may need to upgrade your electrical panel. After the panel is upgraded, a plumber or electrician will help you cap the gas line. When you pick out your stove, talk to your electrician to make sure the stove plug will match your newly installed 240V plug. 

Step 3: Check your current pots and pans

If you decide to upgrade to an induction stove or cooktop, which uses magnetism to create heat, you may need to check your cookware. You can test your pots and pans using a magnet: if a magnet sticks to the bottom of your pots and pans, you’re good to go! Iron and steel cookware are great options for induction cooking!

Step 4: Select your new stove! 

In the District, the DC Sustainable Energy Utility offers up to $800 in rebates to help you pay for your new electric stove. If you want a DCSEU rebate, make sure to buy from a DCSEU-approved supplier. After it’s installed, enjoy your efficient, healthy, and easy-to-clean new stove!

Access electric stove rebates in DC here! See CCAN’s guide to going fully electric in DC. Want to Make a Larger Impact? Volunteer with Us! 

Chesapeake Climate Action Network is a regional grassroots climate action group. We are building a people-powered movement for bold and just solutions to climate change – from enhancing access to clean energy to stopping dirty pipe investments.  And we want you to join us! 

Sound good to you? Click here to meet with an organizer to learn about how you can become involved with our volunteer team fighting for climate action in DC and beyond. 

About the author: Ayla Frost (she/her) joined CCAN in January 2024 as DC Intern, and has worked as a full-time DC Organizer since September 2024. Ayla grew up in Oakland, California, but her childhood was marked by frequent trips to family in Baltimore, Maryland.

Over time, she developed a deep fondness for both of the bays in her life – the San Francisco Bay and the Chesapeake Bay – and became determined to do what she could to protect the natural world. As she learned more about the climate sphere, her real passion in the climate world was listening, connecting with, and uplifting the voices of people. 

The post Make Your Kitchen Safer by Saying Goodbye to Gas Stoves! appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Canadian miner McEwen (TSX, NYSE: MUX) agreed to buy smaller rival Canadian Gold (TSXV: CGC) to add the mothballed Tartan mine in Manitoba and exploration properties in Ontario and Quebec.

The preliminary deal would see Canadian Gold shareholders receive 0.0225 of a McEwen common share, for an offer price of C$0.35 per Canadian Gold share, according to a statement issued Monday. This represents a 26% premium to the 30-day volume weighted average price of the Canadian Gold shares as of Friday’s market close, McEwen said.

Based on about 209.1 million shares outstanding, the deal values Toronto-based Canadian Gold at about C$73 million ($53 million). No specific timeline for the acquisition’s completion was disclosed.

The proposed deal comes as McEwen – which recently changed its name from McEwen Mining to mark a shift toward a broader resource play – ramps up gold and copper production and pursues new assets. The company, which has three producing gold and silver mines in Nevada, Ontario and Argentina, also holds a 46% stake in Argentina’s Los Azules, one of the world’s ten biggest undeveloped copper deposits.

Shares of Canadian Gold rose 3.3% to C$0.315 in Toronto Monday afternoon – below McEwen’s offer price. That gave the company a market capitalization of about C$66 million. McEwen fell 5.3% to C$14.74 for a market value of about C$784 million.

Tartan mine

Canadian Gold’s main asset is the Tartan mine, a past-producing, high-grade property near the city of Flin Flon that benefits from existing infrastructure and high exploration potential. The company also owns greenfield exploration properties in the Hammond Reef and Malartic South projects, which sit next to some of Canada’s largest gold mines and development projects in Ontario and Quebec.

Production at Tartan could restart within 24 to 36 months, McEwen said. Tartan already has access to a skilled mining workforce and doesn’t require the construction of a mining camp. Its “substantial” exploration potential got a boost from Canadian Gold’s recent decision to option the adjoining Tartan West property, McEwen added.

Tartan is “a high-grade gold deposit with strong exploration potential in Canada,” chairman Rob McEwen said in the statement. “The existing infrastructure, including the mine ramp, roads, and power, provides an opportunity to restart operations within a relatively short timeframe.”

Rob McEwen already owns 33% of Canadian Gold’s outstanding shares, while McEwen Inc. holds about 5.6%, according to the Canadian Gold website. Canadian Gold executives hold a 7.9% stake.

Stockholders’ OK

The proposed transaction must be approved by two thirds of the votes cast by Canadian Gold shareholders, as well as a simple majority of the votes cast by minority Canadian Gold shareholders. Canadian Gold shares held by McEwen Inc. and Rob McEwen won’t be included in the minority shareholder vote.

A special meeting of Canadian Gold shareholders is expected to take place by Dec. 31.

Tartan produced 47,000 oz. gold between 1987 and 1989. Two recent deals allowed Canadian Gold to expand the property’s strike length from 8 km to 29.5 km along a key regional shear zone.

The mine’s proposed development offers many similarities to McEwen’s Fox complex in northern Ontario, according to the companies. These include ramp access, mining method and the design of the proposed process plant.

The letter of intent announced Monday paves the way for McEwen and Canadian Gold to sign a definitive arrangement agreement setting out the final terms and conditions of the proposed deal. Additional details will be disclosed once a definitive deal has been reached.

Existing Canadian Gold shareholders would own about 8.2% of the combined company if the transaction goes ahead.

Copper prices fell to the lowest in a week on Monday after opening the market higher, as investors continue to monitor the final details on imminent US tariffs.

The most active copper futures on the COMEX fell by nearly 3% to $5.613/lb., a sharp pullback following a record-setting rise last week that saw prices approach the $6/lb. level.

Click on chart for live prices

In London, the benchmark three-month copper contract was down more than 1% at $9769.50/t, having risen by 0.6% earlier to $$9,824.50/t.

The decline comes just days before the official implementation of a 50% US tariff on the industrial metal, the details of which remain unclear ahead of the planned start on August 1.

The Trump’s administration so far has yet to confirm the important aspects of the duties, including which products will be covered, whether supplies from all nations will be hit equally, or how metal already on its way to US shores will be treated.

In anticipation of the tariff deadline, global traders have been shipping massive amounts of copper to the US, triggering a last-minute scramble and a spike in prices earlier this month. While copper prices in the US are now much higher than those in London, they still do not fully reflect the 50% universal tariff rate.

Further important developments lie ahead this week, as the Federal Reserve is expect to keep rates unchanged at the conclusion of its policy meeting on Wednesday, but its commentary will be scrutinized for clues on what comes next.

(With files from Bloomberg)

Gold prices retreated to a near three-week low on Monday as the freshly struck US-EU trade accord lifted risk sentiment and diminished the appeal of safe havens.

Spot gold fell 0.7% to $3,313.57 per ounce as of 11:30 a.m. ET, having touched as low as $3,302.50 earlier in the session. US gold futures were down 0.8% to $3,307.60 per ounce in New York.

Click on chart for Live Prices

The pullback follows a pivotal trade deal reached between the US and EU that fueled market optimism ahead a jam-packed week of earnings from Big Tech, economic data and a Federal Reserve meeting.

That pact came on the heels of last week’s US-Japan agreement, while American and Chinese officials will resume talks in Stockholm on Monday with the aim of extending their trade truce by another 90 days.

The US dollar index rose to a one-week high with the latest developments, making bullion more expensive for overseas buyers.

“I think the more trade announcements we get, the more the dollar increases. These tariff deals are dollar friendly, lowering the allure of gold and driving the sell-off amid a risk-on sentiment,” Marex analyst Edward Meir said in a note.

However, US trade representative Jamieson Greer warned on Monday that no major breakthrough was expected with China, noting discussions would focus on monitoring and implementing existing commitments.

“You’re not seeing a huge move on the downside in gold because the deals could still prove to be either difficult to implement or unrealistic,” Meir said.

Meanwhile, the US Federal Reserve is expected to keep its benchmark rate in the 4.25%–4.50% range when its two-day meeting concludes on Wednesday.

(With files from Reuters)

An initial economic study for Vital Metals’ (ASX: VML) Tardiff project in the Northwest Territories outlines output that would make it one of the largest rare earth concentrate producers outside China.

Tardiff, part of Vital’s larger Nechalacho project about 110 km northeast of Yellowknife, would produce 56,000 tonnes of concentrate annually, grading 26.4% total rare earth oxides (TREO) and 3.3% niobium pentoxide, the company said Monday.

Vital shares gained 5% to A$0.11 apiece on Monday in Sydney, for a market capitalization of A$12.38 million.

The proposed open pit mine with an initial capital cost of $291 million would have a post-tax net present value of $445 million, an internal rate of return of nearly 26% and an 11-year life.

“[The study] is a first step towards Vital playing a key role in building a critical minerals supply chain in Canada,” Vital’s managing director Lisa Riley said in a release. “Recommended next steps will aim to capture further economic upside by optimizing rare earth element and niobium recoveries, lifting concentrate grades and delivering higher payability for the economic commodities.”

Comparison

Tardiff’s output would yield about 14,800 tonnes of contained TREO annually, representing approximately 3% to 4% of global rare earth oxide production based on 2024 estimates. By comparison, MP Materials’ (NYSE: MP) Mountain Pass mine in the United States produced about 43,000 tonnes of concentrate containing an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 tonnes of TREO, or roughly 11% of the global total.

If developed, Tardiff would rank among the largest rare earth concentrate producers outside China, with the added value of niobium by-product potential.

Nechalacho was briefly Canada’s first-ever producing rare earths mine on a demonstration-scale basis during 2021-2023. But mining was halted due to cost overruns, market difficulties and the bankruptcy of Vital’s processing subsidiary in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

The global production of rare earths, essential components in permanent magnets and other green energy technologies, is mostly controlled by China, and Mountain Pass is the only commercially producing rare earths mine in North America.

56% resource bump

The study’s release comes about seven months after an update lifted measured and indicated resources at Tardiff’s Upper Zone by 56% to 48.6 million tonnes, according to Australia’s Joint Ore Reserves Committee mining code. That resource grades at 0.26% neodymium oxide, 0.07% praseodymium oxide and 0.25% niobium pentoxide, or 1.32% total rare earth oxide (TREO), for 640,000 tonnes of contained TREO.

Inferred resources total 144.1 million tonnes grading 0.26% neodymium, 0.07% praseodymium and 0.32% niobium, or 1.31% TREO, for 1.88 million tonnes of TREO.

Mining would extract only 15% of Tardiff’s total resource, the study says. The open pit design could produce 14,000 tonnes per day at a low strip ratio of 0.3:1.

Supply chain group

A key component of the project is the formation of a Canadian Rare Earth Supply Chain Consortium, in which Vital plays a founding role, to enhance collaboration between industry and government to accelerate the scale-up of commercial production. Last month, Appia Rare Earths & Uranium (CSE: API), Commerce Resources (TSXV: CCE), Defense Metals (TSXV: DEFN) and Vital announced the launch of the strategic research consortium.

The scoping study also envisions a logistics plan for the transportation of concentrate by barge across Great Slave Lake to Hay River, and then by rail to a processing facility further south.

A similar supply chain was functioning when Vital was mining at Nechalacho during 2021-2023. Rare earths were shipped to Vitals’ separation plant in Saskatoon.

Avalon Advanced Materials (TSX: AVL) holds the rights to mineralization below 150 metres at Nechalacho.

Hunger has, on average, fallen worldwide after hitting 15-year highs in 2021 and 2022.

This is one of the key findings from the latest “State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World” (SOFI) report, an annual assessment produced jointly by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development, UN Children’s Fund, World Food Programme and World Health Organization.

The SOFI report also examines the cost of a “healthy” diet around the world, the surge in food price inflation and the contribution of energy and fertiliser prices to overall food inflation.

In a statement, FAO director-general Dr Qu Dongyu said that it is “encouraging” to see the world making progress on hunger, but added: “We must recognise that progress is uneven.” 

Below, Carbon Brief highlights five charts from the report which explain the state of food insecurity around the world.

• Hunger decreased in recent years in most parts of the world, following sharp increases in 2020-21
• The cost of a healthy diet increased around the world
• Food price inflation outstripped general inflation over 2019-25
• Gas price shocks contributed to high commodity prices
• Fertiliser prices have remained high following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

.headline-container{ margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 20px; } .verdict, .number-drop{ display: flex; align-items: center; line-height: 0.125em; } .number-drop{ margin:0 25px } hr{ border-top: 1px solid #333333; } .grid{ display: grid; grid-template-columns: repeat(3, 1fr); grid-template-rows: 1fr; grid-column-gap: 0px; grid-row-gap: 0px; } @media (min-width:1040px) and (max-width:1200px){ .grid{ display:flex; flex-direction: column; } } @media (max-width:720px){ .grid{ display:flex; flex-direction: column; } } .text{ grid-area: 1 / 1 / 1 / 4; } h2.headline{ font-size: 3.5em; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-weight: 700; margin: 0; line-height: 1em; color: #333333; margin-bottom: 0.25em; } @media (max-width:400px){ h2.headline{ font-size:2.4em } } h3.headliner{ font-size: 2.4em; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-weight: 700; margin: 0; line-height: 1.2em; color: #333333; margin-bottom: 0.25em; } .globe-food{ grid-area: 1 / 4 / 1 / 4 ; } .globe-food img{ max-width: 300px; } hr{ border-top: 1px solid #333333; } @media (max-width: 750px){ .headline-container{ margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; } p.description-header{ margin: 0.75em 0px 0.5em 0px; } } p.headline-droplink{ font-size:26px; margin: 5px; } p.headline-droplink strong{ font-size:26px } p.headline-droplink a{ color: #333333; text-decoration: none; } p.headline-droplink a:hover{ color: #2f8fce; text-decoration: underline; } #down-chev{ color: #2f8fce } @media (max-width:550px){ h3.headliner{ font-size: 1.5em; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-weight: 700; margin: 0; line-height: 1.2em; color: #333333; margin-bottom: 0.25em; } } @media (max-width:450px){ .number-drop{ margin:0; } p.headline-droplink{ font-size:20px } } 1. Hunger decreased in recent years in most parts of the world, following sharp increases in 2020-21 Number of undernourished people, globally, from 2005-24 (left) and the prevalence of undernourishment (right) for the world (red), Africa (dark blue), Asia (blue), Latin America and the Caribbean (light blue) and Oceania (cyan) over the same time period. Credit: Carbon Brief, based on the UN State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report (2025)

Since 1975, the FAO has tracked the prevalence of undernourishment – the proportion of the population in each country who does not regularly consume sufficient amounts of food for sustaining a healthy life.

These estimates are used to assess progress on achieving global goals, such as the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), launched in 2015.

The left-hand chart above shows the number of people facing hunger each year from 2005-24. The right-hand chart shows the percentage of the population facing hunger over this time period for the world as a whole (red), Africa (dark blue), Asia (blue), Latin America and the Caribbean (light blue) and Oceania (cyan).

Over the past 20 years, undernourishment broadly decreased until 2016 and then began to rise sharply in 2020 and 2021. This increase coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic.

The report estimates that the population facing hunger in 2024 was between 638 million and 720 million people, or between 7.8% and 8.8% of the global population.

The report sets its “best estimate” of the population facing hunger at 673 million people, which represents a decrease of 15 million people compared to the previous year.

However, the report notes that the progress made in reducing hunger worldwide has been uneven, as seen in the chart above.

There were improvements in south-west and southern Asia, as well as Latin America, but a continuing rise in hunger in much of Africa and western Asia.

The report also finds that around 2.3 billion people were “moderate or severely food insecure” in 2024, noting that this represents an increase of 683 million more people than when the SDGs was launched a decade ago.

The report projects that by 2030 around 512 million people could face chronic hunger, with 60% of the world’s undernourished people located in Africa. 

It highlights that achieving the goal of eliminating hunger by 2030 will be an “elusive target”.

The report warns that the “deteriorating food insecurity” in territories and countries currently affected by humanitarian crises – such as the Gaza Strip, South Sudan, Sudan, Yemen and Haiti – may not be fully reflected in its current estimates.

2. The cost of a healthy diet increased around the world The number of people around the world who were unable to afford a healthy diet (left) from 2017-24. The cost of a healthy diet per person, per day in purchasing power parity dollars (right) for the world (red), Africa (cyan), Asia (blue), Europe (light blue), Latin America and the Caribbean (dark blue), North America (dark grey) and Oceania (light grey). Credit: Carbon Brief, based on the UN State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report (2025)

The report finds that the cost of a “healthy” diet rose during 2023 and 2024. 

It defines a “healthy” diet as one that comprises a “variety of locally available foods that meet energy and most nutrient requirements”. A healthy diet should be diverse, adequate and balanced, while maintaining moderation in consumption of food related to poor health outcomes, the report says.

In 2019, a healthy diet cost, on average, 3.30 purchasing power parity (PPP) dollars per person, per day. (Purchasing power parity is a type of currency conversion, based on the cost of goods in different locations, that allows one to compare the purchasing power of different currencies.) 

By 2024, increasing food prices had driven this cost up to 4.46 PPP dollars, the report says.

At the same time, the report finds that the proportion of the population unable to afford a healthy diet has decreased every year since 2017, with the exception of 2020. For example, in 2020, the number of people worldwide who could not afford healthy food was 2.9 billion, which fell to 2.6 billion in 2024.

This is due to the economic recovery following the Covid-19 pandemic, which led to an increase in incomes that outstripped the rise in food prices, the report says.

The chart above shows how the global population was unable to afford a healthy diet each year from 2017-24 (left) and the average cost of a healthy diet, in PPP dollars per person, per day (right, red). The right-hand chart also shows the cost in each of six regions: Latin America and the Caribbean (dark blue), Asia (blue), Africa (cyan), Europe (light blue), Oceania (light grey) and North America (dark grey).

However, not all regions experienced the same economic recovery, it adds.

Asia, as a whole, saw the largest decrease in the unaffordability of healthy food – with the proportion of people unable to afford a healthy diet falling from 35% in 2019 to 28% in 2024. In contrast, the unaffordability of healthy diets increased “substantially” in Africa, with two-thirds of the population unable to afford healthy diets in 2024.

The rest of the world’s regions – with the exception of Oceania – saw a “marginal” decrease in the unaffordability of healthy food in recent years, the report says.

There are significant differences in affordability according to national incomes.

In low-income countries, the number of people unable to afford a healthy diet “has been steadily increasing since 2017”, says the report. This is attributed to a recent halt in economic growth and a sharp rise in food prices.

In lower-middle-income countries, that number decreased from 2020 to 2024, mainly due to improvements in affordability in India.

Conversely, in upper-middle- and high-income countries, the number of people unable to afford healthy food has been declining since 2020.

The report concludes that “people who are unable to afford even a least-cost healthy diet are likely experiencing some level of food insecurity”.

3. Food price inflation outstripped general inflation over 2019-25 Consumer price index (blue) and food consumer price index (red) from 2015-25, using 2015 as a reference year. Credit: Carbon Brief, based on the UN State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report (2025)

The report finds that food price inflation has “significantly” outstripped general inflation over the past five years. Median global food price inflation rose from 2.3% in December 2020 to 13.6% in January 2023. 

The chart above shows consumer price index (blue) – which includes price changes to all of the items a household typically consumes – and the consumer food price index (red) over 2015-25, with 2015 taken as the reference year. 

The highest rates of inflation occurred in low-income countries, with several countries experiencing “hyperinflation”, including inflation levels above 350%. The report explains that most households in low-income countries source much of their food from local markets, which are more vulnerable to price shocks.

The authors attribute the heightened inflation to a combination of factors that includes the Covid-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and shifting monetary policy – from lowering interest rates and launching fiscal support at the beginning of the pandemic to raising interest rates to combat surging prices. 

According to the report, previous food-price shocks – such as the one that occurred during the 2008 global financial crisis – were “predominantly” driven by supply, while the current surging inflation was driven initially by demand.

Supply-side shocks occur when production or distribution of food are disrupted by external factors, resulting in a “steep and prolonged rise in food prices”. Supply-side shocks create “persistent inflationary pressures”, the report says.

Demand-side shocks – a “sudden and unexpected increase in consumer demand for food products” – are often due to economic growth and changes in consumption patterns. (The report cites as an example the Covid-19 pandemic, which led to a “surge” in demand for food at home.) Demand-side shocks are characterised by rapid increases in price, but do not typically have a long-term impact.

In addition to the global factors driving food inflation, localised shocks – such as extreme weather events – impacted inflation on sub-national and national scales, by destroying crops, disrupting supply chains and suppressing household incomes. 

Since 2020, the report says, 139 out of 203 countries have faced cumulative food price inflation above 25%, with 49 countries experiencing cumulative food inflation higher than 50%. It warns:

“Such prolonged food price pressures risk undermining household coping capacities and worsening food insecurity.”

According to the report, food price rises of 10% are associated with a 3.5% rise in “moderate or severe” food insecurity, with women “disproportionately affected”. 

It also notes that food price inflation has previously been found to have “detrimental effects on child nutrition”, particularly among vulnerable populations. 

4. Gas price shocks contributed to high commodity prices Contribution of food price shocks (left) and food and energy price shocks (right) to global commodity food prices, from 2019-25. Overall fluctuations in food commodity prices are shown in dark blue on both charts. Credit: Carbon Brief, based on the UN State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report (2025)

Rising food prices were amplified by rising energy costs over the past several years, the report says.

It points out that oil and gas are “key input[s] in agriculture production – from fertiliser manufacturing through to transportation”. 

(Nitrogen-based fertilisers are typically produced using fossil gas as an input. The process of manufacturing them is an energy-intensive one – accounting for about 1% of all global energy usage.)

The report cites two “waves” of shocks that “largely shaped” the changes in agricultural commodity prices over 2020-22. 

The first wave, it says, occurred early in the Covid-19 pandemic as food supplies contracted due to supply-chain disruptions, as well as “precautionary trade restrictions and increased stockpiling”. 

Global energy markets were further “destabilised” by the second shockwave – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Prior to the outbreak of the war, Russia was the third-largest producer of oil and the second-largest producer of fossil gas in the world. 

The war resulted in “significant price increases and heightened volatility”, which translated into higher production costs economy-wide, the report says.

The initial surge at the beginning of the pandemic contributed about 15 percentage points to global food inflation, while the war in Ukraine added 18 percentage points, the report says.

The charts above show global food price inflation (black lines) over 2019-25. The blue line in the left panel shows the contribution of “food price shocks”, such as the disruption of the Black Sea trade corridor and the decline in fertiliser exports from Russia. In the right panel, the red line shows the contribution of both food price and energy price shocks to food inflation.

According to the report, the rise in agricultural and energy commodity prices account for nearly half of food price inflation in the US and more than one-third of food price inflation in the Euro area during peak inflation over the past few years.

It adds that the remaining inflation is explained by several other factors, “including rising labour costs, exchange rate fluctuations and pricing behaviour along the supply chain”.

5. Fertiliser prices have remained high following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine Monthly price of phosphate rock (blue), diammonium phosphate fertiliser (dark red) and triple superphosphate fertiliser (light red) from 1970-2025. Credit: Carbon Brief, based on the UN State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report (2025)

The report notes that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 upended global fertiliser markets due to economic sanctions against Russia and Belarus – two of the world’s largest fertiliser exporters.

In 2020, Russia exported 14% of globally traded urea, the most commonly used nitrogen fertiliser. Belarus and Russia combined account for more than 40% of traded potash, a key potassium fertiliser.

While many of the sanctions against Russia following the outbreak of the war specifically omitted fertilisers and agricultural commodities, the report notes that restrictions on banking and trade increased the “cost of doing business” and restricted the ability of countries to purchase food and fertilisers from Russia.

However, the report points out, global potassium fertiliser prices were already on the rise prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, due to export restrictions on fertilisers from China. 

Similar trade measures on fertilisers – both export restrictions and import tariffs – have “played a role” in price spikes during previous episodes of global food price crises, including in 2007-08 and 2011-12, the report says.

The report looks specifically at phosphate fertilisers, noting that those prices have “historically been shaped by both long-term structural trends and short-term shocks”. These factors include trade restrictions, energy costs, geopolitical tensions and imbalances in supply and demand.

The chart above shows the monthly price of phosphate rock (blue), diammonium phosphate (dark red) and triple superphosphate (light red) from 1970 to 2025.

(Phosphate rock is the raw material used to manufacture most phosphate-based fertilisers, while diammonium phosphate and triple superphosphate are two commonly used phosphate fertilisers.)

Export restrictions were “critical factors” in driving the three major historical phosphate price spikes highlighted in the chart – in 1974, 2008 and 2021-22. 

Given the small number of countries that produce phosphate fertilisers – their production is highly concentrated in China, the US, India, Russia and Morocco – these actions “exacerbat[e] global shortages”, the report says.

The report also points out that the concentration of agricultural markets – including the fertiliser market – is a “systemic issue that undermines efficiency and affordability” in both low- and high-income countries. 

Mapped: 16 times extreme weather drove higher food prices since 2022

Food and farming

|

21.07.25

Staple crops yields face ‘substantial losses’ in warming world – even with adaptation

Food and farming

|

18.06.25

Global wheat yields would be ‘10%’ higher without climate change

Food and farming

|

21.05.25

Rising emissions from farm equipment could ‘hinder’ China’s net-zero goals

Food and farming

|

14.05.25

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_551292234da02091654f9c3431d71321 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post UN report: Five charts explaining the rise of global food insecurity appeared first on Carbon Brief.