News Feeds

Here is a repost of our May Day episode from 2021. In it, we talk about the history of May Day from pagan rituals to the Haymarket Affair to International…

When Doug Burgum appeared before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee as President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Interior department last year, he was extended the traditional benefit of the doubt, with senators chummily reminiscing about North Dakota, lobbing softballs, and avoiding tough questions on the way to voting to confirm Burgum as Interior secretary. If Burgum got the idea that this is how all hearings would go, he was mistaken. A year later, as the Interior secretary who has overseen a multi-pronged effort to dismantle the agency and sell off or sell out our national public lands, Burgum seemed totally unprepared to handle difficult questions from members of Congress, not to mention the decidedly different vibe of a budget hearing where elected representatives demanded accountability for how their constituents’ resources are being stewarded and tax dollars are being spent.

In appearances before three congressional committees so far, Burgum struggled to defend President Trump’s proposed Interior department budget and explain the administration’s chaotic, destructive, and unpopular agenda for America’s public lands. Below are five of the most head-scratching exchanges between Burgum and lawmakers—along with some useful information Secretary Burgum might want to bookmark for his next Hill appearance.

Burgum can’t provide details on the $10 billion request for ‘beautification’ in Washington, D.C.

President Trump’s budget proposal includes a $10 billion request for a new Presidential Capital Stewardship Program which would “carry out priority construction and rehabilitation projects in the Washington, D.C. area.” According to the Interior department’s own website, the deferred maintenance backlog for Washington, D.C. is just over $2 billion. When asked by Senator Angus King of Maine what the extra $8 billion is for, Burgum’s bumbling explanation was that “D.C. is like a state. It’s not just, like, the National Mall. It’s for the greater capital region. That’s a region.” But again, according to the Interior department, adding in the deferred maintenance backlog for the entire states of Maryland and Virginia—far beyond the D.C. area— would bring the total to $4 billion, still leaving more than half of Burgum’s $10 billion request unaccounted for. Meanwhile, last year’s budget for the entire National Park Service was just $4.6 billion.

During the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Senator Jeff Merkeley of Oregon also asked about the $10 billion request for the Presidential Capital Stewardship Program and if Burgum could provide a specific list of what the funds would be used for, as required by law. Burgum said he would “get you all the information you need according to law” but stopped short of agreeing to provide a detailed list. “As long as we don’t have the details, it’s a slush fund,” Merkeley responded. “You can call it something else if you want.”

Burgum learns about batteries and fossil fuel subsidies

Burgum struggled to hold his own against the expertise of Senator King—a former energy executive—on energy issues. In response to questions from King about the Trump administration’s actions to block renewable energy projects, Burgum fell back on a well-worn intermittency argument. “We have no ability to dispatch wind and solar,” Burgum claimed, and followed up with, “There are times in North Dakota when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.” But King pointed out, “That’s where batteries and storage come in.” Burgum argued that worldwide battery storage would only provide one hour’s worth of energy. However, in the United States where Burgum is Interior secretary, battery storage has been increasing rapidly, with a new record set in 2025 for energy storage installations, and is expected to reach at least 600 gigawatt hours of installed energy storage by 2030. This is the equivalent of 300 Hoover Dams, according to the Department of Energy, which offers other comparisons Burgum may find helpful. In California, 44 percent of evening peak energy is now being delivered via batteries.

Burgum also complained that he doesn’t understand “why we had to have massive taxpayer subsidies to produce” renewable energy. King pointed out that the U.S. currently pays $30 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry. The International Monetary Fund put this figure at $3 billion in explicit subsidies in 2022 alone, with an additional $754 billion in implicit subsidies. A 2025 analysis found that even without taxpayer subsidies, renewable energy sources are still the most cost-effective source of energy.

Burgum defends 24 percent of National Park Service staff coincidentally choosing to quit at the exact same time

Senator Patty Murray of Washington pressed Burgum about unacceptable cuts to on-the-ground staff at national parks in Washington and a budget that proposes to eliminate even more park staff. Arguing with the characterization that staff had been “forced out,” Burgum insisted, “There’s been no forcing of anything. These are all voluntary.” Murray wasn’t buying it: “However you want to put it, a quarter of them left over the last 15 months.” According to the National Parks Conservation Association, 4,000 staff, nearly 25 percent of the National Park Service workforce, left their jobs since January 2025 as a result of “pressured resignations and early retirements” along with hiring freezes that prevented vacancies from being filled. That’s an awful lot of people who somehow all voluntarily left their jobs at the same time.

Burgum, who voted to condemn the Rice’s whale to extinction, worries about the impact of wind turbine installation on whale populations

In response to questions from Representative Chellie Pingree of Maine, Burgum complained about the impacts to whales and other marine life from pounding pylons into the sea floor to install offshore wind turbines. Pingree immediately pointed out the disconnect between Burgum’s sudden whale-based arguments against offshore wind and his vote to remove Endangered Species Act protections for the endangered Rice’s whale in order to clear the way for more offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico: “If you’re going to be talking about pounding and those kinds of things, then we can’t have offshore drilling, and you want to re-permit the entire East Coast for offshore drilling. If you want to talk about danger to marine mammals and danger to fisheries, my next question is going to be about what happened with Deepwater Horizon, and you want to reduce the permitting standards there. There’s just a lot of hypocrisy in your arguments.”

Burgum denies erasure of history on national park signs

Burgum awkwardly tried to dodge a question from Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii about the removal of exhibits about slavery at the President’s House site in Philadelphia and other actions to erase history from national park sites across the country.

“Some of these examples that are floating around in the media saying some of these things have been removed, they haven’t been removed. In the case of Philadelphia, there’s a weird injunction where we can’t put the new signage up. And what is on the new signage, which is not hiding any points of our history, is available for anyone to read.”

Burgum referred Hirono to the President’s House Site website, where images of new panels—including information about slavery—are indeed available to view online. New physical panels at the site itself, however, are not yet in place, depriving visitors of the opportunity to learn from these interpretive materials in context during their time at the site.

Hirono also asked Burgum about the removal of signs referring to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Burgum responded, “I don’t believe that any of that information has been removed.” However, signage related to slavery and the internment of Japanese Americans, was removed from signs at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in New York City following an executive order signed by President Trump in March 2025 ordering the removal of materials that contain “improper partisan ideology.”

The post Highlight reel: The five most bewildering moments from Doug Burgum’s congressional hearings appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Maine Medical Center registered nurses will hold a press conference on Friday, May 1 in Portland to demand Maine Health cancel its contract with Palantir Technologies. Joined by their allies in the Purge Palantir campaign, nurses will detail why leaders of Maine’s public institutions and health care organizations should refuse collaborations with the surveillance software giant.

In the second part of our series on the borderlands, Aaron and Lilly are joined by Bob Krumenaker, former superintendent of Big Bend National Park and current chair of Keep Big Bend Wild. They discuss the proposal for a border wall through one of America’s national treasures, the bipartisan coalition rallying to stop it, and what’s at stake for the park, communities, and local economy. Plus, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum struggles to defend a 38% cut to the National Park Service maintenance budget while making a $10 billion request for D.C.-based projects.

News

• Fact Check: Burgum claims $10 billion Trump slush fund request is for NPS deferred maintenance only — Center for Western Priorities
• Senate ENR committee tussles with Burgum over permitting  — E&E News
• Trump used Park Service to funnel millions to ballroom construction firm — New York Times
• President’s Budget Proposal Slashes National Park Service Funding Amid Ongoing Attacks on National Parks — National Parks Conservation Association
• Border wall map disappears from government website — Big Bend Sentinel
• Land acquisition expands popular Jeffco park adjacent to Red Rocks — Denver Post

Resources

• Borderlands part 1: The threats to public lands at the border
• Keep Big Bend Wild
• Mission Creep: How Trump is using the border to militarize our public lands — Westwise blog
• Watch this episode on YouTube 

Produced by Aaron Weiss, Lauren Bogard, and Lilly Bock-Brownstein
Feedback: podcast@westernpriorities.org
Music: Purple Planet
Featured image: U.S.-Mexico border within Big Bend National Park, NPS photo

The post Borderlands part 2: The fight against a border wall at Big Bend appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

April 30, 2026—LAist reporter Mariana Dale spoke with Senior Staff Attorney Alicia Virani about Miliani Rodriguez v. California, Public Advocates’ lawsuit challenging California’s inequitable distribution of Prop 2 school modernization funds. Virani explains why the firm filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in March—and why low-wealth districts facing asbestos, leaks, and toxic mold can’t afford to wait for the next bond measure. A hearing is scheduled for May 20.

Read the Story

The post LAIST: California voters greenlit billions of dollars to fix schools. How much has it helped? As schools age, the requests for modernization funding exceed the funding available.As schools age, the requests for modernization funding exceed the funding available. appeared first on Public Advocates.

Kursk II is one of Rosatom’s most important nuclear construction projects within Russia. Four of the most advanced and powerful units in Rosatom’s history—VVER-TOI reactors with capacities of up to 1,250 MW each—are being built there.

But this site is also the Russian nuclear power plant closest to the border with Ukraine. Likely for this reason, Rosatom is carrying out construction under conditions of limited transparency—either not publicly disclosing key construction milestones or doing so with significant delays and inconsistencies. This has led to confusion even at the level of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

To read the rest of this article, click here.

The post The curious, secretive case of the Kursk II nuclear power plant’s weird data appeared first on Bellona.org.

Fear and division have become defining forces in the lives of many immigrant communities — but they are not the whole story. Cristina Jiménez Moreta has spent her life working to transform that reality, drawing on her own experience growing up undocumented and her years of organizing to build collective power.

A co-founder of United We Dream, the largest immigrant youth-led organization in the country, she has helped lead some of the most influential campaigns for immigrant justice in recent history. In this keynote, she reflects on the role of community, courage, and organizing in shaping a more inclusive future.

This is an edited transcript from Bioneers 2026.

Cristina Jiménez Moreta:

I am proud to be here as someone who was formerly undocumented. My parents, Fausto and Ligia, immigrated from Ecuador, fleeing poverty and political turmoil — like so many others in our country’s history — in search of a better life for our family. We settled in Queens, New York, in 1998. 

I’m a community organizer, and right now I lead Shared Future, a new initiative building a movement in support of immigrants and a shared vision of what unites us as Americans.

Before this, and before becoming a mom, I was a young organizer working alongside high school and college students to build the immigrant youth movement. Together, we helped grow United We Dream into a catalyst for one of the most powerful and inspiring movements of the past 20 years.

But even before I could build a movement, lead an organization, or call myself a community organizer, I’ll tell you the truth: I was a young undocumented person growing up in Queens, in a small studio apartment, living with the constant fear that one day my parents, my brother, or I could be taken by deportation agents and disappear.

Today, that same fear, uncertainty, and division are gripping millions of people across this country. What once felt normal has been turned upside down. And all around us, it can feel overwhelming — like it’s too much, and like there’s not much we can do about it.

I don’t need to remind you what’s happening. We’ve seen it on our phones, on TV, in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Chicago, and communities across the country. We’re seeing aggressive immigration enforcement, families living in fear, and people afraid to go to work or send their kids to school. At the same time, everyday Americans are making courageous choices to stand up for their neighbors.

This is a new level of fear spreading around us. But I invite you to be clear-eyed about it, because without facing the truth of what’s happening, we won’t be able to find a way forward together.

And I want to remind you of this: despite all the pain and all the harm we’ve witnessed, history — and my own experience organizing in communities across the country — shows that the way through is by building community and collective power. 

I’ll share why I believe this, because I grew up knowing what home felt like. Home was in Ecuador, with my abuela, making noodle soup in Quito on chilly evenings in the Andes.

But when I was 13, my family had to flee political turmoil. I left behind not just a place, but a sense of belonging. My parents didn’t have much, but they had love and courage. Guided by that, they did something incredibly hard: They left everything behind and came to this country in 1998.

Growing up in New York City, in a place where I didn’t know the language or the culture, I quickly learned to feel ashamed — ashamed of not speaking English, ashamed of being an immigrant, ashamed of my skin, my Indigenous features, ashamed of who I was.

I was undocumented, living in fear, and still trying to fulfill my parents’ dream that I would be the first in our family to go to college. I did everything I was told to do: worked hard in school, did community service, checked all the boxes.

Then 9/11 happened. And in that painful moment for our country, everything changed for families like mine, and for Muslim and immigrant communities across the country. Policies shifted. Immigrants were treated as threats to national security. In many places, including New York, undocumented students lost the ability to access higher education. People like my dad, who worked in construction, lost the right to drive.

One day, my dad was traveling between New York and New Jersey for work, crossing the George Washington Bridge. He was given the wrong change at the toll booth and tried to go back to fix it — an ordinary, honest mistake. But when you’re an immigrant, even something small can make you a target. As he turned back, a police car pulled him over. The officer asked for his license. My dad told him it was expired. That was enough. He was asked to step out of the car and taken to a local police station.

I got a call from him. He said, “I’m allowed one phone call. Mija, ayúdame.” Help me.

I told him to stay calm, to remember his rights — to remain silent, to not sign anything. Then I asked to speak to the officer and told him we knew my dad’s rights and that a lawyer was on the way. Right after that, I texted a network of organizers: “My dad needs help. This is where he is.” Within minutes, people responded. A lawyer was already on the way.

I share this story because I don’t know what happened to that police officer. What I do know is that he released my dad with a $150 ticket for driving without a license. And the only reason that happened is because we had a community behind us — people who had my back, who taught me my rights, and who gave me the courage to speak up in that moment.

That’s the kind of courage I want to share with you today. Because courage is a choice.

Undocumented people like me take real risks when we speak out and share our stories. So imagine what’s possible for those who aren’t in that same vulnerable position. Across the country, young people found courage in each other — fighting deportations, supporting one another through school, and committing to build something bigger than ourselves.

That’s how we built United We Dream. And that’s how I learned that in isolation, we lose. Alone, any one of us can be targeted, silenced, or pushed aside. But in community, we show up for each other. In community, no one has to face it alone.

I want to share this: The way we won DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) was by building community. We reminded each other we weren’t alone. We helped each other find our voices. And we took action together to fight for what was right.

I never imagined we would build a movement. I never imagined that years later we would be sitting across from policymakers and people in the White House, winning protections for more than 600,000 people. But we kept organizing.

I know that right now can feel uncertain. It can feel like we don’t know what comes next, or whether change is even possible. But I’m here to tell you that it is.

We’ve seen what’s possible in places like Minneapolis, where people believed in solidarity and built power together. We’re seeing it in Los Angeles and in communities across the country responding to increased immigration enforcement.

And there is a role for everyone here. This is not just about undocumented people or immigrants. All of us have a role, especially those of us with protections that others don’t have.

What’s inspiring is that people are already showing what that looks like. In some places, people are putting their bodies on the line. In others, they’re supporting neighbors in quieter but just as meaningful ways — buying groceries for families who are afraid to leave their homes, driving children to and from school, stepping in wherever help is needed.

In cities like New York and Chicago, people are building community defense networks through group chats, text chains, and rapid response systems. There are so many ways to show up.

There is a role for all of us.

I want you to see that our organizing isn’t just building hope, it’s also shifting public opinion. It’s making ICE and deportation deeply unpopular. Together, we built a mass movement that says no to ICE.

And I want to be clear: This administration wants us to believe they’re targeting people who pose a threat to our communities. But they are the ones creating fear in our communities. And people know that.

Look at what people are actually worried about: the cost of living, paying their bills, taking care of their families. Not these manufactured fears about immigrants. More and more, people are recognizing that the chaos we’re seeing is part of a strategy.

It’s a strategy to divide us. To use immigration as a scapegoat so we don’t pay attention to the real sources of harm: corporations exploiting workers and the planet, and an administration using immigrants to advance a more authoritarian vision of this country.

But people are waking up. They’re seeing through the lies. We know that lack of healthcare, underfunded schools, and economic struggle are not caused by immigrants. And even some who once supported this administration are starting to question what they’ve been told.

I’ll share one brief story. I’ve spoken with evangelical communities across the country who have told me, “We were raised conservative. We even supported this administration. But now we see what’s happening.” In fact, this week, many of them are launching a fast for immigrants and justice.

Across the country, communities — including U.S. citizens — are recognizing that this is not the future we want. And they’ve shared this message:

We are people connected by family, community, and faith. We refuse to turn away from injustice. We show up for one another. We organize with courage and compassion. And we turn our pain into power to build a future where dignity is the norm.

We won’t be divided. We have an opportunity to build a shared future — a multiracial democracy that includes all of us.

Sí se puede. Yes, we can.

The post From Fear to Power: Building a Movement for Immigrant Justice appeared first on Bioneers.

Europe’s climate movement is often portrayed as the domain of younger generations. Yet from landmark legal victories to everyday practices of sustainability, a different picture is emerging: older Europeans are proving to be among the most committed and effective climate actors. As the continent continues to age, could this overlooked demographic reshape how climate action is understood and mobilised across Europe?

In April 2024, a group of Swiss women, most of them in their 70s and 80s, stood on the steps of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, surrounded by a wall of microphones and cameras from around the world. They had just heard the verdict in one of the most significant climate cases in European legal history. The KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz had won.

The ruling found Switzerland in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights for failing to adequately protect its citizens from the effects of climate change. The judgment, formally known as Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland, now sets binding legal precedent across all 46 Council of Europe member states. Switzerland has since pushed hard for the case to be closed, but the Committee of Ministers, which monitors its implementation, has refused the request twice.

The story of how about 3,000 Swiss women forced their country to one of the highest courts in Europe is striking in its own right. Yet it also points to something broader: a growing, largely invisible force within the climate movement that Europe’s ageing democracies might not be able to overlook for much longer.

Beyond the generational divide

The climate movement’s most visible faces – such as activists Greta Thunberg in Sweden or Féris Barkat in France – tend to be on the younger (if not much younger) side, and it has become common to identify Gen Z as its most fervent defender. But researchers who study the intersection of ageing and environmental engagement argue that the mainstream perception of generations within the climate movement may be flawed.

“There is a slight tendency for younger generations to have opinions that are more favourable towards climate policy,” said Jan Rosset, a sociologist at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland who has studied climate engagement across age groups in Switzerland alongside political scientist Jasmine Lorenzini. “But all generations are very favourable to climate policies. There is no real generational divide.”

That finding echoes the conclusions of a 2025 study published by Parlons Climat, a French research organisation, which found that older adults take climate change and environmental degradation just as seriously as the rest of the population. The myth of a disengaged older generation does not seem to hold up to scrutiny.

What differs across generations, Rosset and Lorenzini found, is not the level of concern but the form that engagement takes. Older adults are significantly more likely to buy local and seasonal produce for environmental reasons, to renounce air travel on ecological grounds, and to practice unglamorous household sustainability: buying second-hand, reducing electricity use, cooking from scratch. Younger people, on the other hand, might be more likely to adopt plant-based diets and participate in public protests. It should, however, be noted that the data is mixed.

Researchers who study the intersection of ageing and environmental engagement argue that the mainstream perception of generations within the climate movement may be flawed.

“On almost every indicator, it is people in mid-life, those between roughly 35 and 60, who engage the least,” Rosset says. “But that is not an ideological position. It’s a question of time and capacity; they have demanding jobs and family responsibilities. It is a life-cycle issue, not a generational one.”

Rosset and Lorenzini also found a consistent gender gap: across all age groups, but especially among older adults, women showed significantly more favourable attitudes toward climate action and higher levels of engagement than men.

“This gap was almost stronger than other socioeconomic factors, like income or education level,” Rosset said.

The case that set a precedent

When Greenpeace Switzerland began exploring the possibility of legal climate action in the mid-2010s, it ran into an obstacle: Swiss law does not allow class actions. Any case would need to be brought by individuals who could demonstrate they were personally and particularly affected. The research pointed to one group. Studies following the 2003 European heatwave – which killed an estimated 70,000 people across the continent, with the elderly among the hardest hit – had shown that older women died in disproportionate numbers. More recent research has confirmed this vulnerability: a 2024 study by Penn State researchers found that older women reach dangerous heat thresholds at lower temperature and humidity levels than older men and that middle-aged women are as heat-vulnerable as men over 65.

Heatwaves increase illnesses, causing heat stroke, heart and lung problems, diabetes complications, mental health issues, and trouble with daily activities. The vulnerability of older generations is not just physical: many live alone, have limited mobility, or cannot easily access emergency services. People in cities face “heat island” effects, where concrete and asphalt trap heat, while rural residents often have fewer cooling centres or medical resources. Climate change also worsens air quality, raising levels of ozone, fine particulate matter, and other pollutants, which worsen respiratory and heart conditions. These combined factors make ageing populations especially vulnerable to the health impacts of climate change.

One senior activist who committed herself to the Swiss climate fight is Elisabeth Stern, a cultural anthropologist and board member of KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz. “It was clear that when I got retired, I would use my time in a climate group,” she said. “I tried a few that were not the right fit for me until I found the KlimaSeniorinnen, who I sort of met on the same eye level.”

Stern’s fellow activist, Anne Mahrer, KlimaSeniorinnen’s co-president, had spent years watching climate policy stall in parliament as a member of the Swiss National Council. When a colleague reminded her of the Urgenda case in the Netherlands, where a court had ordered the Dutch government in 2015 to cut emissions, the question became: could something similar be done in Switzerland? In August 2016, KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz was formally established to achieve that goal.

The Swiss courts, however, were not moved. At every level, the association was told it lacked standing. One court noted that the women were concerned not only about Swiss emissions but wanted to reduce them worldwide. Another placed winter tourism in the same category of climate-affected interests as the health of women threatened by heatwaves. The most striking argument, Stern recounts, was that the women might not still be alive by the time global warming reached 1.5 degrees and therefore could not complain. “If you follow their reasoning, climate action in court would only be possible when it’s already too late,” Mahrer said.

The European Court of Human Rights took a different view. It declared the application a priority case, engaged seriously with reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and referred the case to its Grand Chamber of 17 judges. “Unlike politicians, who do not listen to scientists, the judges listened to the scientists, and they took into account the third-party interventions in support of the case,” Mahrer explained.

The court delivered its verdict on 9 April, 2024. It found Switzerland in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to respect for private and family life – which the court ruled encompasses a right to effective state protection against the severe effects of climate change on life, health, wellbeing, and quality of life. Switzerland was also found to have violated Article 6 – the right to a fair trial – for its domestic courts’ refusal to hear the case on its merits.

The ripple effects spread quickly and travelled farther than anyone had anticipated. The ruling is now cited in climate litigation across Europe. In South Korea, groups of young activists successfully pursued a similar case. In the Netherlands, residents of the island of Bonaire have taken legal action against the Dutch state, drawing on the KlimaSeniorinnen precedent. The International Court of Justice, prompted by the small island nation of Vanuatu, issued an advisory opinion in July 2025 stating that governments which fail to protect their populations from climate harm are acting unlawfully, reinforcing the Strasbourg ruling and opening new avenues for litigation worldwide.

Across Europe, a generation of older activists has been following a similar model. European Grandparents for Climate, active in Belgium and Norway, and Omas for Future in Germany and Austria, are building on the same instinct: that people who have watched the world change across six or seven decades have both a particular stake in the future and a special capacity to act.

European Grandparents for Climate participates in demonstrations, writes letters to ministers, and monitors parliamentary votes on climate at both the Belgian and European levels. In Germany, Omas for Future joins Fridays for Future strikes, runs climate workshops in schools, and has organised nationwide campaigns such as the “Klimabänder” initiative, in which thousands of handwritten climate messages were bicycled to Berlin ahead of the 2021 federal election.

Sustainability by habit

Beyond courts and campaigns, there is a quieter dimension to older adults’ climate engagement, rooted not in ideology but in force of habit and the practical knowledge of generations who lived before the age of mass consumption.

Serge Guérin, a French sociologist and author of Et si les vieux aussi sauvaient la planète? (“And what if the Elderly Also Saved the Planet?”), points to a kind of practical sustainability that older generations carry without naming it as such. They grew up returning glass bottles for a deposit, cooking whatever was in season, and mending rather than replacing. A startup working on bottle recycling, he recalls, found it far easier to explain the concept to older people because “When they were young, they used to return the milk bottle, the wine bottle, and get a few cents back. For them, it was totally normal,” he says.

Helene Blasquiet-Revol, a geographer whose research examines civic engagement among seniors in rural France, describes what she calls “ordinary” forms of climate engagement: practices so ingrained they are not even labelled as activism. For instance, she found that community gardens established by older residents in the Allier region gradually opened up to schools and youth workshops, transmitting practical knowledge in ways that were rarely planned or publicised.

There is a quieter dimension to older adults’ climate engagement, rooted not in ideology but in force of habit and the practical knowledge of generations who lived before the age of mass consumption.

Researchers are increasingly identifying the potential for a form of intergenerational knowledge transfer that is already happening informally, and which could be deliberately cultivated. Rosset, for instance, found that among older climate activists, there was no statistically significant relationship between having children or grandchildren and the propensity to get involved, meaning people were not fighting for their own descendants. “It is really universal,” Rosset said. “It is a solidarity expressed towards future generations, towards all of humanity. We did not expect that result at all.”

Renewal needs the old

Europe is ageing fast. According to projections from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, the share of older adults across EU member states is growing steadily and will continue to do so for decades, driven by declining fertility rates and rising life expectancy. This demographic shift also increases the need for climate-adapted healthcare, adequate urban planning, and social support systems for vulnerable seniors.

“There is a widespread idea that with generational renewal, the problem will be solved, that new generations will be more environmentally conscious,” Rosset said. “Our research shows this is not the case. And in addition, there will be more and more older people.”

Guérin also notes that designing urban environments, housing, and transport for ageing populations often produces outcomes that are better for both people and the planet. Accessible public transport means more people leave their cars behind. Shared housing models reduce per-capita energy consumption. Local services cut down the need for long-distance travel. And when older people are less isolated, they are in better health.

“When you reduce isolation, people use fewer resources, they are less at risk and share more,” Guérin said, adding that these shifts can lower both land use and carbon footprints. “When you take vulnerability into account, you very often improve things for everyone. And it’s really when people feel their capacity to act, especially at the local level, that things begin to move.”

Stern sees the perception gap playing out in real time in media coverage. “There are certain media and certain politicians who want us to believe that interest in the climate has vanished,” she says. “It is in their interest to tell people: ‘It has vanished anyway, so you don’t have to get involved, just enjoy life.’ But the truth is, when you ask people what concerns them a lot, the climate crisis comes up either first or second.”

The KlimaSeniorinnen continue to monitor Switzerland’s compliance with the Strasbourg judgment, sending observations to the Committee of Ministers, lobbying ambassadors, and speaking at universities across the country. For Stern, meaningful compliance means confronting Switzerland’s financial sector, which through continued investment in fossil fuels generates emissions many times greater than those in the country itself. A documentary about the association’s decade-long legal journey recently toured cinemas.

Whatever the future of the climate movement and its coverage, it is clear that the generational conflict narrative is not accurate. The evidence from researchers points to something more complicated and more hopeful: a Europe where different generations, engaged in different ways, with different tools and different knowledge, are already working on the same problem.

Registered nurses, community members, labor advocates, and local supporters will hold a press conference on Friday, May 1 outside Bakersfield Memorial Hospital to demand hospital leadership reverse plans to close the hospital’s burn unit.

Two months ago, everyone was still wondering whether the First Conference for Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels would carry the relevance it promised in Brazil. Would governments around the world care enough to show up after the excitement of COP30 had faded? In a world that seemed to be sinking into new wars with global consequences?

Paradoxically, the escalating aggressions by the United States and Israel in Southwest Asia (Middle East) have shown the world exactly why we need to leave behind our dependence on fossil fuels. Entire communities have been destroyed, families buried under rubble, children killed, livelihoods erased, all in a region whose political fate has been shaped for over a century by the control of oil and gas. People in Palestine, Lebanon, and across the region are paying with their own lives for the world’s thirst for fossil fuels.

These are not abstract arguments. They are the bombs that fall, the blockades that starve, the occupations that endure, all because fossil fuel wealth concentrates power in the hands of those willing to use violence to protect it. Not only do fossil fuels poison our planet, they fuel instability, deepen inequality, and tie our futures to volatile and unjust energy systems. Moving beyond fossil fuels is no longer a distant goal. It is a shared necessity.

The response? Fifty-seven countries representing roughly a third of the global economy came together, signaling that the transition is not only possible but already underway.

But what truly defined this conference was not just who showed up at the governmental level. It was who was finally let in.

Indigenous peoples from around the world, trade unions, youth groups, academics, Afro-descendant communities, peasant associations, women and diverse identities, activists and NGOs, among others, engaged for the first time in a participation mechanism that actually listens to their voices and puts their demands on the table.

And beyond the high-level spaces, communities were building, not just speaking. During both days of the Peoples Summit, 350.org with 32 organizations across Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and the Caribbean Islands a Fair of Alternatives, showing that futures beyond fossil fuels are already here. Community leaders hosted a panel within the Peoples Summit space, and their voices fed into the final declaration.

Frontline communities from all around the world had a voice on the Santa Marta conference

 

It was no small thing to see Indigenous women leaders from Putumayo and Bolivia connecting over their shared concern about an energy transition being carried out without consultation in their territories, one that threatens to bring extractive models for copper and lithium that would gravely affect their environments and communities. But ready, too, to share models of community energy generation through biodigesters they have built themselves. Because communities around the world have not sat around waiting for their governments to act. They have thought of solutions and carried them out.

That same spirit drove the Popular Assemblies we co-organized in three territories in Colombia and Ecuador, where affected communities named the crisis in their own terms. Two of the communities that led these Assemblies — Cesar sin Fracking and Alianza Libre de Fracking — attended the high-level Conference, including Yuvelis Morales Blanco, now a winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize. 350.org also held an organizing space toward a common Latin American campaign against fracking and LNG with leaders from Colombia, Argentina and Mexico.

These connections between communities were perhaps the most powerful thread running through the conference. Activists from across the world linked militarization and the climate crisis in a country with more than 60 years of armed conflict, where multinationals like Glencore and Drummond have used armed groups to displace and kill local communities, seize their lands and waters, and leave surrounding populations in misery and fear. The Climate Justice Flotilla traveled across Caribbean islands still under Dutch colonial rule to bring their voices to this space — possibly the first time Aruba and Curacao had representation at a conference like this, even as the Netherlands, their colonial power, co-hosted while opposing a fossil fuel transition treaty.

During the Santa Marta conference, activists and local communities blocked the entrance of one of the main coal ports in Latin America.

 

It was also no small thing to see these same activists blockade one of the largest coal ports in Latin America with solar panels — Drummond’s port in Ciénaga. The action put the demands of affected communities front and centre: making polluters pay for the loss of land, biodiversity and life, and the need for a just transition. For local communities, doing something like this would mean enormous security risks — just weeks earlier, armed groups had kidnapped 25 fishermen from the community most affected by Drummond. But these young people from around the world used their foreign origins as a kind of shield, standing in solidarity with the communities of Ciénaga, Santa Marta, and all of Colombia affected by this multinational. Those same solar panels used in this action will now go to the communities most harmed by that coal port.

So what did governments actually deliver?

Let’s be clear: they could have been far more ambitious. The world is on fire, sometimes literally, and the political outcomes of this conference reflect cautious, small steps that do not match the urgency communities are living every day.

Governments from 57 countries meet at the First Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels Conference, in Colombia

 

That said, the fact that this conference happened at all, that it finally named fossil fuels as the root cause of climate chaos and created a dedicated space to address them outside of the pressures of formal COP negotiations, is itself a significant victory. Five concrete outcomes came out of the high-level segment:

1. Continuity. A second conference has been announced for 2027, co-hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland, with the main event taking place in Tuvalu. And who better than our brothers and sisters from the Pacific nations, on the frontlines of climate chaos, to carry forward what started in Santa Marta and remind the world of the urgency?
2. A coordination group has been established to ensure continuity between conferences, bringing together countries leading different alliances and initiatives on the fossil fuel transition, including the co-hosts of the first and second conferences.
3. The outcomes will be handed over to the COP30 Presidency, shared ahead of the intersessional meetings in Bonn this June and formally presented at London Climate Action Week, with plans to bring them to the UN Secretary-General during New York Climate Week. The intention is to feed these results into the second Global Stocktake, making sure this process does not live in isolation from the UNFCCC.
4. Three workstreams have been launched to identify concrete opportunities for cooperation: one focused on national roadmaps guided by the Science Panel, another on economic dependencies and financial architecture, and a third on aligning fossil fuel producers and consumers toward trade systems free of fossil fuels. These workstreams will remain open for countries to join or lead.
5. A Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition will anchor the entire process in evidence rather than politics. Academics and scientists from around the world joined forces to ensure that science guides the process of leaving fossil fuels behind, and to help countries develop roadmaps aligned with the 1.5°C trajectory and to dismantle the legal, financial, and political barriers standing in the way.

Are these outcomes enough? No. Are they the kind of bold, binding commitments that the scale of the crisis demands? Not even close. But in a world where the largest historical emitter has abandoned climate action entirely, where wars rage over the very resources we need to leave behind, the fact that 57 countries sat down, opened the doors to movements and communities, and committed to a sustained process is not nothing. It is the floor, not the ceiling, and it is up to all of us to push it higher.

Communities everywhere will keep building the solutions their governments have been too slow to deliver. And the rest of us? We stay loud, stay connected, and keep showing up, because the transition has already begun, and it was never going to be led from the top.

Because if this conference showed anything, it is that the transition is not only about energy systems. It is about power. The power of who gets to decide. Who benefits. Who is heard. And for perhaps the first time at this scale, the answer is beginning to shift.

The Great Power Shift has started. Join us!

The post Santa Marta was just the beginning appeared first on 350.

DENVER—Interior Secretary Doug Burgum claimed in a Senate Energy and Natural Resources hearing this morning that President Donald Trump’s $10 billion “slush fund” request in his 2027 proposed Interior department budget is solely for deferred maintenance at National Park Service sites in and around Washington, D.C., and will not go toward any new construction. See their exchange HERE.

Trump’s proposed NPS budget requests the establishment of a “new $10.0 billion Presidential Capital Stewardship Program in order to carry out priority construction and rehabilitation projects in the Washington, D.C. area.”

But the Interior department estimates the NPS deferred maintenance backlog in D.C. to be just over $2 billion. Adding in the maintenance backlog for all of Virginia and Maryland brings the total to only $4 billion, leaving $6 billion or more unaccounted for in Burgum’s request for Trump’s slush fund.

Trump’s NPS budget also calls for a 55 percent reduction in the annual National Park Service construction and major maintenance budget, leaving NPS less than $50 million to address repairs at historic sites and national parks across the country, and a 53 percent, or $213 million, reduction in resource stewardship funds.

The Center for Western Priorities released the following statement from Communications Manager Kate Groetzinger:

“Doug Burgum finally gave Congress insight into the shady $10 billion request for ‘beautification’ projects in Washington D.C. But his answer doesn’t square with his own department’s deferred maintenance numbers. He’s already spent $17 million in taxpayer money on a fountain across from the White House. President Trump has made it clear he wants more vanity projects, from giant arches to sculpture gardens, in his own backyard.

“It’s time for Secretary Burgum to tell President Trump that all of America’s parks need attention, not just the ones outside the president’s window.”

Learn more:

• Burgum blunders through budget hearings, taking heat for NPS cuts and Trump ‘slush fund’ – Westwise

• DOI Deferred Maintenance backlog – Interior Department

• President’s Budget Proposal Slashes National Park Service Funding Amid Ongoing Attacks on National Parks – NPCA

• Firm Building Trump’s Ballroom Got a Secret No-Bid Contract for a Nearby Job – New York Times

The post Fact Check: Burgum claims $10 billion Trump slush fund request is for NPS deferred maintenance only appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

PHILADELPHIA (April 29, 2026) — After the Shapiro Administration announced Tuesday a $267 million investment in industrial projects through the Reducing Industrial Sector Emissions in Pennsylvania (RISE PA) program, Clean Air Council and labor leaders are pointing to both the promise of the initiative and the need to ensure funds are directed toward truly clean solutions. 

At a press conference in Johnstown, Bernie Hall, District 10 Director for the United Steelworkers, underscored the opportunity to align economic growth with health and environmental progress.

“Too often people try to frame this as a choice between growing our economy and doing the right thing for our environment,” Hall said. “But good jobs and doing right aren’t mutually exclusive.”

Clean Air Council welcomed many of the awarded projects, including investments in solar, battery storage, electrification, energy efficiency, and industrial upgrades that can reduce pollution, cut energy costs, create jobs, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. 

“The funded projects show the tremendous potential to grow jobs, combat climate change, improve public health, and strengthen Pennsylvania’s industrial future,” said Alex Bomstein, Executive Director of Clean Air Council. “We applaud the RISE PA team for directing funds to the solutions to clean up and modernize our economy. But some of these grants miss the mark.”

The announcement included more than $31 million for projects to capture coal-mine methane, an approach that extends the reliance on fossil fuels rather than transitioning to cleaner technologies.

“Investments in fossil fuel infrastructure like mines and gas distribution, even in the name of efficiency, push our clean energy future farther out of reach,” Bomstein said. “The projects that truly modernize industry, like electrification and zero-emission technologies, are the ones that will deliver long-term economic, health, and environmental benefits.”

Yesterday’s RISE PA grants, funded through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants, are expected to reduce more than 1.3 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions in their first year. Another round of funding, totaling $52 million, will open on May 15.

The next round will be critical.

“As the next round of funding moves forward, Pennsylvania has a clear opportunity to invest in solutions that lower energy costs, reduce pollution, and create family-supporting jobs,” Bomstein said. “That means prioritizing projects that move us toward a zero-emissions future, not ones that keep us tied to outdated fossil fuel infrastructure.”

This profile is part of an ongoing series that introduces members of CalCAN’s newly formed Stewardship Council. The Stewardship Council serves...

The post CalCAN Stewardship Council Profile: Thomas Nelson appeared first on CalCAN - California Climate & Agriculture Network.

Nurses at Ascension Via Christi St Francis and St Joseph in Wichita, Kan., will hold an informational picket on May 1 to protest the administration’s refusal to address RNs’ deep concerns about patient care and safe staffing.

Western states are running out of money to fight wildfires, according to reporting in High Country News. As climate change fuels hotter fires that occur year-round, states routinely spend well over their forecasted wildfire budgets. For example, Oregon spent more than $350 million fighting wildfires in 2024, far exceeding the $10 million it had allocated for wildfire that year.

A 2022 analysis by Pew Charitable Trusts found that most states use their general fund, or revenue from state taxes and other fees, to cover wildland fire costs, pitting firefighting and fire prevention efforts against top state priorities. Skyrocketing suppression costs have also led to a reduction in fire mitigation treatments, like prescribed burns and mechanical thinning, increasing wildfire risk on state forest land and pouring metaphorical fuel on the wildfire cycle.

Some states are tackling this issue with new taxes or wildfire-specific accounts. Oregon passed a new nicotine tax to fund wildfire prevention last year, and Utah put $150 million into a new wildfire fund. Still, costs continue to rise, and drought is driving above-average wildfire predictions for the West this summer.

Burgum struggles to defend public lands budget

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum struggled to defend the Trump administration’s disastrous public lands agenda in congressional appropriations subcommittee hearings p;last week in both the House and the Senate. Members grilled him on cuts to the National Park Service, a billion-dollar payout to kill offshore wind energy, and a $10 billion request for a NPS “beautification” program in D.C. Read more in a new Westwise blog post by CWP Communications Manager Kate Groetzinger.

Burgum appears before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this morning.

Quick hits The ramifications of record-shattering heat on the West’s ecosystems

High Country News

How the Lolo National Forest planners are bracing for a roadless rule repeal

The Missoulian

Trump signs bill ending protections for Boundary Waters watershed

Associated Press | GearJunkie

University of Utah creates critical minerals institute

Utah News Dispatch

Energy execs push WY lawmakers to carry out Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda

WyoFile

Colorado farmers tighten their belts ahead of summer drought

Colorado Sun

NM breaks ground on Reforestation Center, with plans to plant 5 million seedlings a year

Albuquerque Journal

Rep. Davids introduces Truth in National Parks Act to protect Native American history

Native News Online

Quote of the day

What we’re seeing right now is a deliberate attempt to erase the experiences of Native communities and other marginalized groups from places that are supposed to educate and inform the public. That’s unacceptable.”

—U.S. Representative Sharice Davids, Native News Online

Picture This

@CAgovernor

California’s ocean is not a sacrifice zone for Big Oil.

With Donald Trump plotting to sell off our beaches to his fossil fuel industry donors, we’re celebrating California Ocean Day by reaffirming our commitment to protect every inch of it.

Feature image: A prescribed burn in Oregon on Bureau of Land Management land in 2016; Source: Justin Robinson for the BLM via Flickr

The post States can’t keep up with rising wildfire costs appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

In our latest, Scott discusses the roots of populist politics in American history, from the anti-robber baron movements of the Gilded Age to the New Deal era to the current…

In the first installment of a two-part series on the borderlands, Aaron and Lilly are joined by Laiken Jordahl, National Public Lands Advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, to discuss his work protecting public lands along the U.S.-Mexico border. Laiken shares a boots-on-the-ground perspective on what makes these places special and how border wall construction is actively impacting our public lands. Plus, Kate returns to the pod! She and Aaron cover updates for BLM and National Park Service nominees, the withdrawal of the public lands rule, and more. News

• Pearce on a list of candidates Senate hopes to confirm soon — E&E News
• Trump Just Withdrew Scott Socha to Lead the National Park Service — SFGate
• White House completes review of BLM public lands rule — E&E News
• Trump used Park Service to funnel millions to ballroom construction firm — New York Times
• President’s Budget Proposal Slashes National Park Service Funding Amid Ongoing Attacks on National Parks — National Parks Conservation Association
• Border wall map disappears from government website — Big Bend Sentinel

Resources

• Find Laiken Jordahl on X, Bluesky, Threads, TikTok, and Instagram
• Center for Biological Diversity
• No Big Bend Wall
• Mission Creep: How Trump is using the border to militarize our public lands — Westwise blog
• Watch this episode on YouTube 

Produced by Aaron Weiss, Kate Groetzinger, Lauren Bogard, and Lilly Bock-Brownstein
Feedback: podcast@westernpriorities.org
Music: Purple Planet
Featured image: San Rafael Valley border wall construction. Russ McSpadden, Center for Biological Diversity

The post Borderlands part 1: The threats to public lands at the border appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Registered nurses at UCSF Mission Bay in San Francisco, Calif., will hold a rally on Friday, May 1, to highlight patient safety concerns in the UCSF Birth Center. Nurses say they are deeply concerned about patient safety due to a revolving door of management, coupled with chronic and severe understaffing.