News Feeds

Plans to build a 1,561 km gas pipeline from the NT Beetaloo Basin to south-east Queensland could cost as much as $9.74 billion, a new report has found, adding huge costs to a heavily polluting project.

The post Cost of “preposterous” fracked gas pipeline could balloon to $10 billion, locking in higher bills for decades appeared first on Renew Economy.

A fundamental challenge of the energy transition risks being overlooked: managing complexity. But this is where two decades of investment in quantum could start to pay off.

The post Why Australia’s energy transition needs quantum in the mix appeared first on Renew Economy.

The most important imperative for Australia is to get rid of diesel. It is a no brainer for the economy, for national security and the environment. But there is no policy.

The post Australia can gain more from eliminating diesel than enabling AI appeared first on Renew Economy.

Contracts awarded for the biggest new wind project in Australia for more than two years, which is expecting to begin construction soon.

The post Key contracts awarded for Australia’s biggest wind project in more than two years appeared first on Renew Economy.

State government says it has no plans to water down or pause a regulated phaseout of gas from homes and businesses, despite the bidding of one of Australia's largest gas infrastructure corporations.

The post Gas lobby bid to halt home electrification falls flat as Labor says it will stay the course appeared first on Renew Economy.

A new report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) calls a plan to spend $54 million of Utah public funds on coal export terminals in Oakland, California, and Longview, Washington, “a high-risk gamble to spend … money on out-of-state projects that could leave rural Utah with limited economic benefits — even if the coal terminals are eventually built.”

EEFA analyzed a recent report commissioned by the Rural Utah Infrastructure Coalition (RUIC) which recommended investing 80% of the funds ($43.2M) in Oakland and the remainder in Longview. IEEFA’s verdict is summed up in the title of its report, “Extensive financial risks and delays loom as Utah considers investing in coal export terminals that would divert funding from in-state needs.”

Ironically, the report commissioned by RUIC to justify investment in coal export terminals is full of red flags in IEEFA’s view:

The [Norda Stelo] report details a multitude of risks for investing in these projects, including:

• Far higher costs, hundreds of millions of dollars more than estimated by advocates
• Construction timelines at least two to three years longer than currently stated
• Lack of well-capitalized, experienced investors, including mining companies, commodity trading firms, or railroads that could see these projects through
• The very early-stage engineering status of the projects, especially Longview, greatly increasing the odds of delays and cost overruns
• Many potential bottlenecks that could sharply curtail export tonnage, including rail congestion, limited and inflexible terminal space, and loading equipment limitations
• International coal market risks
• Organized and influential state and local opposition in both California and Washington that has stopped previously proposed coal export projects

The report by the IEEFA, “which provides independent, evidence-based financial analysis of global energy markets, investment trends, and policies,” aligns closely with analysis of the Norda Stelo report published by No Coal in Oakland on September 8, 2026.

Though it matters very much to West Oakland residents and workers, the IEEFA didn’t comment on the open air stockpiles in which terminal operators plan to store as much as 300,000 tons of coal on the proposed terminal site — scrapping the empty promises and implications in conceptual drawings and legal filings with which developers marketed their dystopian project 8-11 years ago. It’s fair to assume that this looming threat flew under the IEEFA’s radar because the health and safety of Californians is not the State of Utah’s financial concern.

On the other hand, the IEEFA report details project risks that No Coal in Oakland did not raise in its ‘hot off the press’ analysis of the $488,000 RUIC-commissioned study.

For example, IEEFA cited the risk of increase in the already jaw-dropping OBOT construction cost estimate floated by Norda Stelo, reasoning that there are “significant and interrelated risk factors: additional equipment and construction cost inflation, unforeseen engineering challenges, rising interest rates, […] project delays [, and] the extremely limited size of the coal terminal site…”

IEEFA also called out “lack of well-capitalized, experienced investors” as a “financial red flag”; and the Norda Stelo admission that “rail congestion associated with BNSF and UP services to Californian west coast ports is increasing, with dwell times exceeding eight days at several ports” and “two rail bottlenecks near the Donner Pass that have ‘single-track tunnels with potential waiting and weather / rockslide / washout stoppages.’”

The independent IEEFA report then ends with a bang:

At this early stage of development, and given the absence of solid commitments from any financially strong and experienced commercial backers, these projects pose substantial risks to the RUIC’s money—risks that should not be borne by rural citizens of Utah.

The question now is whether Utah’s Community Impact Board (CIB) — the government entity that will decide whether or not to fund the risk-riddled OBOT project — will be gulled by RUIC’s smoke-and-mirror application for over $50,000,000 in public money … or whether they will act in the best interest of the people of Utah.

Stay tuned. The CIB meets next on October 1st, and it’s not yet clear whether they will evaluate the application for funding out-of-state coal terminals at that meeting, or whether RUIC will engineer a delay as the coalition of mining counties licks the wounds inflicted on its case by the IEEFA report.

 

A full PDF version of the IEEFA report is available here.

Image: State Capitol of Utah. Image credit: Strobel Adventures, via Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0.

Original Power is leading a push to protect people using prepaid meters from being disconnected when temperatures rise above 40ºC.

The post Inside the fight to stop prepaid disconnections | Solar Insiders appeared first on Renew Economy.

Swedish floating wind innovator may build a 20 MW demonstration project in Australia using its unique vertical-axis turbines.

The post Vertical-axis floating wind turbines may be tested in Australian offshore renewable zone appeared first on Renew Economy.

Origin Energy, the country's biggest retailer and already the owner of the biggest gas generation portfolio, unveils plans for one of the biggest peaking plants in Australia.

The post Origin dusts off plan for one of Australia’s biggest peaking power plants, using gas and diesel appeared first on Renew Economy.

Birds connect territories. They can also connect the people who live in them, their knowledge, and the different ways of building opportunities through conservation.With that idea in mind, members of...

Germany wants to stop using fossil fuels in its energy sector by 2045 at the latest, with plans for how to do that set out in the country’s transition roadmap published on Wednesday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. 

The blueprint focuses on electrifying transport, home heating and industry, while gradually replacing fossil fuel power generation with renewables. Renewables supplied about 55% of Germany’s electricity last year and the government wants that to reach at least 80% by 2030.

All coal-fired power stations – which generated almost a quarter of Germany’s electricity in 2025 – must close by 2038 at the latest. That deadline has been set in German law since 2020, but the roadmap says the government is exploring the possibility of bringing the end date forward to 2035.

New gas-fired plants that receive state funding must be “hydrogen-ready” and run on climate-neutral fuels by 2045. The roadmap does not specify what those fuels are but they generally include biofuels and green hydrogen. 

At the same time, Berlin wants to install 2,000 more wind turbines and reduce the need for power plants by boosting the use of batteries. 

UN SUMMIT LIVE: UN chief says world has tools to end the fossil fuel age

Speaking at the UN chief’s climate summit in New York, environment minister Carsten Schneider said the plan will allow Germany to lower its imports of fossil fuels and reduce its dependence on “supply chains vulnerable to geopolitical crisis” – and called on more countries to do the same.

“It is important to ensure that transitioning away from fossil fuels remains high up on the international agenda,” he said, adding that Germany would seek to “improve the overall framework” for mobilising more funds to help developing countries phase out fossil fuels.

“We want to enable countries to chart their own course towards energy security and prosperity,” he said.

On Tuesday, addressing the UN General Assembly, UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged all countries to submit national roadmaps to end the production and consumption of fossil fuels with “clear timelines and protection for affected workers and communities”.

A group of around 80 countries led a failed push at last year’s COP30 in Belém to create a global roadmap on transitioning away from fossil fuels. While the initiative was not adopted at the summit, some countries like France and the Netherlands opted to move forward with their own national plans.

• Sep 22, 2026 Energy UN chief urges countries to adopt fossil fuel transition plans with timelines In his last speech to the UN General Assembly, António Guterres for the first time called on every nation to deliver a plan to phase out coal, oil and gas while protecting workers Read more
• Sep 23, 2026 Justice Despite “real progress”, third of countries still lack early warning systems About 60 nations have yet to put in place a multi-hazard early warning system to protect people from disasters before they happen, the UN says Read more

Subsidies for EVs and heat pumps

To cut reliance on petrol for transport, the German government says it will make available 2.8 billion euros to subsidise the cost of buying electric vehicles for lower and middle income households.

Official projections suggest that by 2035, every new car sold in Germany will be electric, according to the document. Freight, shipping and aviation are expected to shift to a mix of electric vehicles, “sustainable” biofuels and hydrogen-based fuels. 

For homes, the roadmap relies mainly on replacing gas and oil boilers with heat pumps, backed by state subsidies. Anyone who installs a new gas or oil heating system will have to use a rising share of “climate-neutral fuels” from 2029, reaching 60% by 2040. A proposed quota would require fuel suppliers to switch entirely to climate-neutral heating fuels from 2045. 

Industry is expected to decarbonise by switching to electricity and hydrogen, becoming more energy efficient, and capturing carbon where emissions are hard to avoid.

UN backs push to upgrade grids slowing clean power uptake in Africa and SE Asia

Schneider said the roadmap is not just a climate strategy, but also an economic policy strategy. “The money we currently spend on importing oil and gas will increasingly flow into local value creation,” he added in a written statement. “Moving away from fossil fuels combines independence, affordability and climate protection”. 

In 2024, Germany spent about 76 billion euros on importing fossil fuels. Around two-thirds of that went on oil and petroleum products, and the rest on gas and coal.

Campaigners call for faster phase-out

Reactions to the roadmap from analysts and campaigners were mixed – both praising the country’s initiative for launching its plan voluntarily but also calling for an even faster fossil fuel phase-out.

Jennifer Morgan, former German climate envoy, said the roadmap is a “welcome step” but to truly deliver, the strategy should be backed by “a faster, more deliberate and just phase-out, paired with the rollout of green electrification”. 

Laurie Van Der Burg, public finance lead at campaign group Oil Change International, said Germany deserves credit for publishing the roadmap, but its efforts are “not commensurate with the reality of the crisis, or its responsibility as a wealthy, historic emitter”. She urged the country to end its financing for fossil fuels, strengthen the roadmap and redirect public money toward renewable energy. 

Germany is the third European country to publish a national fossil fuel transition roadmap following France and the Netherlands. France has set end dates for coal (2030), oil (2045) and gas (2050), though its plan mostly brings together existing policies. The Dutch government has not set a binding end date for the country’s fossil fuel production and use, indicating only that it should be “minimised” by 2050. 

Linda Kalcher, executive director at think-tank Strategic Perspectives, said the targets in the three national roadmaps still fall short of what is needed to achieve energy security, but they still send a powerful message to fossil fuel exporters. “A huge share of the European market is planning for a future in which demand for coal, oil and gas declines,” she added. 

The post Germany unveils plan to end use of fossil fuels in energy sector by 2045 appeared first on Climate Home News.

Updated on September 23 to include links and additional information. Originally published on January 16, 2026.

For advocates working at the intersection of environmental protection and climate-smart growth, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has long been a source of both pride and frustration. While it has been a critical tool to protect our natural and working lands, its procedural delays have often been used to stall projects essential to a low-carbon future: dense infill housing and transit-oriented development in our existing communities.

In July 2025, however, at the urging of Governor Newsom, the California legislature passed some of the most impactful changes to CEQA since its inception. Taken together, the two bills (AB 130 and SB 131) provide robust statutory CEQA exemptions for infill housing and housing element rezonings, require the state to map infill areas where exemptions would apply, and narrow the scope of the administrative record, helping to curtail anti-housing litigation.

Read my Op-Ed on the East Bay Times on why Prop 45 is a ruse handing shortcuts to polluters disguised as relief.

Despite these monumental changes that address the barriers to critical infill development, California’s business lobby and sprawl developers were left unsatisfied. Now, they are proposing a ballot initiative that would make far more radical changes to the law. After gathering enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot, this is now called Proposition 45.

While the rhetoric of the measure (initially called Building an Affordable California Act, or BACA) seems to be aligned with urbanist goals and those of the broader abundance and affordability movements, the actual policy details and mechanics of the initiative—and the progress we’ve already achieved in the legislature last year—suggest that the costs it brings far outweigh any potential benefits.

Below, we outline seven reasons why the measure should be rejected (click to read more):

1. Major Reforms Have Already Been Enacted

For years, a primary objective for California’s urbanists was to stop the abuse of environmental law against projects that genuinely help the environment: dense, transit-oriented housing.
In a landmark shift for the state, that goal has largely been realized. Following years of advocacy by urbanists, the legislature passed a clean statutory CEQA exemption for infill housing. AB 130, which Greenbelt Alliance was proud to support, is already being utilized across California, allowing builders to move forward with climate-friendly housing in high-opportunity areas like Palo Alto or Beverly Hills without the threat of being endlessly delayed by the environmental review process. While there is room for technical refinements, the fundamental issue at hand—the misuse of environmental laws to delay environmentally-friendly housing projects—has largely been addressed.

2. Everything is “Essential”

As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details”, and that’s certainly true for the BACA initiative. While modest on the surface, BACA creates a completely new set of rules for what it calls “essential” projects. So what, exactly, is an “essential project”?

The list is incredibly broad. Under Article 2, Section 21013, “essential projects” include housing, water, transportation, clean energy, transmission, broadband, and healthcare infrastructure. In practice, this definition encompasses a wide range of large-scale developments. For example, new freeways and existing freeway expansions would qualify as “essential transportation” projects; large greenfield sprawl developments would be treated as “essential” housing projects; and new dams and reservoirs would qualify as “essential” water projects. The definition even includes all “related and ancillary infrastructure,” meaning that highway interchanges, utility extensions, and water pipelines that enable sprawl developments also receive streamlined approval. All of these are enormous projects in terms of size and scale, with major potential environmental impacts. Yet, just like an apartment building in an urban area, under BACA, they would qualify for a significantly truncated review process.

In effect, this new CEQA process mirrors the fundamental flaw of its predecessor. While the old system failed to exempt low or no-impact projects from excessive review, the new one errs in the opposite direction, fast-tracking high-risk developments with significant potential for harm.

3. All Timelines Are Not Created Equal

The BACA initiative imposes strict timelines for this new class of projects that it deems “essential”: the environmental review process can take no more than one year. On the surface, a one-year limit on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) seems reasonable. And for certain projects, like an apartment building on a parking lot in downtown San Francisco, or a townhome development in an LA suburb, it would be.

However, the measure’s definition of “essential” includes highways, dams, large-scale subdivisions, and other major projects. The environmental review required for projects at this scale cannot be done in a single year. Surveying hundreds if not thousands (or even tens of thousands) of acres of undisturbed and undeveloped land for species nesting patterns and habitat, water pollution impacts, and other environmental concerns physically cannot be accomplished within the timeframe laid out in the initiative. By forcing these projects into such a condensed timeline, we will be creating a system that overlooks genuine environmental harm in favor of speed.

For projects with unambiguous environmental benefits, such as housing developments within already urbanized areas, such speed makes sense. Many of the project types considered by this measure do not have the same clear, unambiguous benefits.

4. Restrictive Alternatives

One of CEQA’s most critical tools for preventing environmental harm is its alternative analysis provision, which allows for the identification of better project locations and designs. Currently, CEQA requires agencies to analyze a “reasonable range of alternatives” that could reduce environmental impacts, including different sites, reduced intensity options, and designs that avoid sensitive resources. This is how agencies can say, “this housing should be built downtown on a parking lot instead of on farmland,” or “this highway expansion has an alternative transit solution.”

BACA restricts this to just three options: the proposed project, one alternative designed by the applicant themselves (which doesn’t even need to be at a different location), and “no project.” The applicant’s alternative can be a slightly modified version of their original proposal on the same site. This eliminates the core mechanism for steering projects away from environmentally sensitive locations toward more appropriate sites, exactly the tool needed to prevent sprawl, protect open space, and ensure development happens in the right places.

5. The Evidentiary Standard

Maybe the most radical change incorporated in the ballot measure is to CEQA’s standard of review. Right now, CEQA allows a lead agency (generally a city or county) to use its own discretion to explore project alternatives and negotiate environmental mitigations. BACA proposes to eliminate this by requiring that environmental impacts only be found significant if they violate objective, quantifiable standards already in existing law when the project was proposed, which doesn’t sound inherently unreasonable! 

However, the measure doesn’t actually require jurisdictions to adopt such standards; instead, it exploits their absence. If numerical thresholds don’t already exist for resources like oak woodlands, groundwater, or wildlife corridors, impacts to them essentially can’t be found significant regardless of severity. A genuine objective standards approach would mandate jurisdictions adopt protective thresholds and update them as science improves. This measure rewards weak standards, freezes them at application date, and prevents improvements based on new knowledge.

6. Ballot Box Permanence

Finally, one of the greatest flaws of the measure is its rigidity. Should it pass, BACA would require a 2/3rds vote of the legislature to amend.

California has a long, storied history with ballot box governance, where initiatives become impossible to adjust as new problems arise. The 2/3rds requirement virtually guarantees the law could never be changed, regardless of what issues may arise. An unchangeable measure, with foreseeable negative impacts for the state, may have lasting consequences for generations.

Some of the project types included in this measure, such as clean energy or transmission infrastructure, may benefit from the types of streamlining being considered if careful, targeted changes were made. Rather than a broad, clunky initiative that will be extremely difficult to change, we should advocate for those reforms through the legislative cleanup process already underway.

7. The Costs Are Just Too High

California faces converging affordability crises: insurers fleeing the state, utility rates climbing, and municipal budgets straining under unsustainable costs. All of these issues stem from the same source: decades of sprawling outward, often into fire-prone areas, leaving us with infrastructure we cannot afford to maintain and risks we cannot afford to insure.

BACA will accelerate these failures by trading short-term speed for permanent costs. By gutting CEQA’s alternatives analysis—the primary tool for steering projects away from costly, high-risk locations—this limits agencies to the developer’s preferred site, one alternative the developer designs themselves, and “no project.” It freezes environmental standards at the date of application, rewarding jurisdictions with weak protections. And it requires agencies to approve permits within strict timelines regardless of fiscal consequences, because most cities lack the quantitative standards BACA requires to find fiscal impacts “significant.”

The result: even if we build some things faster today, we’ll be paying the tab forever. Even more homes in fire zones will continue to destabilize our insurance markets. More infrastructure extensions will push up our utility rates. More sprawling subdivisions that generate less revenue than they cost to maintain will ensure even higher taxes. BACA promises affordability through speed but delivers the opposite: cheaper to build, but financially ruinous to sustain.

At a time when people are struggling to make ends meet, and when the federal government is doing all it can to roll back our environmental protections, the last thing we need is to double down on the failed policies we have tried for decades and know do not work.

Proposition 45 will hurt the environment and your wallet.

Greenbelt Alliance strongly opposes Proposition 45 and urges voters to vote NO on 45 this November.

The post Vote No on Prop 45: Rolling Back CEQA Is A Proposition Californians Can’t Afford appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

In recent years, conservation photographer Gerrit Vyn has ventured repeatedly to a place most people have never heard of, much less visited: Teshekpuk Lake. Flat, buggy, and remote, this wetland...

Vermont’s forests are the crown jewel of our landscape: they define the state and support healthy communities, robust and diverse ecosystems, and the economic vitality of the state. Healthy forests...

UN chief António Guterres urged countries to break their dependency on fossil fuels at a climate summit on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, where host nations Türkiye and Australia set the tone for COP31 and vulnerable countries called for more and faster finance to boost resilience in a warming world.

As the world faces extreme climate impacts turbocharged by a “super El Niño” event and fossil fuel prices soar amid conflict in the Middle East, Guterres said reliance on fossil fuels “wreaks havoc”, and urged governments to boost their renewable energy capacity as a way out.

“Doubling down on oil and gas will only lock in vulnerability for decades. Fortunately, we have a way out. Because the crisis is accelerating – but so are the solutions,” he said.

Reiterating a point made in his farewell speech to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Guterres urged all countries to submit “credible” national roadmaps to end their production and consumption of coal, oil and gas – “with clear timelines”.

“The G20, responsible for 80 percent of global emissions, must lead. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities must apply. But all countries must raise their ambition,” he added.

Germany plans to end use of fossil fuels in energy sector by 2045

At last year’s COP30 climate summit in Belém, a group of some 80 governments led a failed push to develop a global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. Brazil instead will draft a voluntary report to be presented this year ahead of COP31, incorporating views from a range of countries and organisations.

Governments first agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems at COP28 in Dubai in 2023, but have since been unable to agree at UN climate talks on how to move forward with that commitment, as efforts to do so have been effectively blocked by large fossil fuel-producing countries.

The UN chief urged the world to match the accelerating climate crisis “with accelerating action”, by matching the revolution in clean energy with a revolution in finance and rising impacts with rising protection.

“I ask you all to deliver – then over-deliver,” he said. “We are the first generation with the tools to end the fossil fuel age – and the last who can avert climate catastrophe.”

Nepal flood a warning of global impacts to come, says minister

After being hit by devastating flash floods last month in its Himalayan region that left around 1,500 people dead and 6,000 missing, Nepal’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Shisir Khanal warned the catastrophe is “not merely a local tragedy but a warning to the world of what might be coming next”.

“The crisis has dragged vulnerable communities back into poverty,” Khanal said, adding that the crisis has “shattered the dream of many who saw hope in our steady development path”. 

Preliminary assessments estimate that losses could reach up to $5 billion – equivalent to 15% of the country’s GDP or a third of its annual budget. “This is not merely a humanitarian emergency, it’s a development emergency dismantling years of progress,” said Khanal.

He called on the international community to “act not only differently but decisively” by delivering on an existing commitment to double adaptation finance and capitalising the new Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage Fund, which currently has only several hundred million dollars to disburse to countries hit hard by climate impacts. 

Vulnerable countries, he said, need “scaled-up, front-loaded and accessible climate finance that reaches communities before disaster strikes, not after devastation has already occurred”. For countries like Nepal, “adaptation is not optional; it is a lifeline,” he added.

Comment: The response to Nepal’s disaster is a test for global climate institutions

Khanal also urged countries to double down on efforts to keep the 1.5C global warming goal within reach. “This is a matter of survival for mountain and coastal communities,” he said, calling for universal access to early warning systems, affordable technologies tailored to mountain ecosystems, climate information services and resilient infrastructure.

Sharing a stage with Khanal, the prime minister of Pacific island state Tuvalu, Feleti Teo, said the Nepal flash flood is a testament that the “devastating and indiscriminate” impacts from climate change are no longer a matter for forecasts. “They are happening now and no one country will be spared,” he said.

“The process and modality of access to climate financing must be simple and easily accessible. – particularly for small administrations like Tuvalu. We do not have the luxury of capacity and time to navigate through complex and convoluted procedures,” he added.

Türkiye’s president says countries can’t all move at the same pace

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan urged countries to deliver an “implementation COP” in Antalya, noting that the “devastating floods in Nepal already demonstrate we no longer have time to lose”.

However, he stressed that developing countries cannot be rushed into taking measures outside of their capacity, adding that “in Antalya, we must bring ambition closer to capacity and targets closer to implementation”.

It is “not realistic to expect all countries to move forward all at the same pace”, he added, emphasising that “any proposal that fails to reconcile climate objectives with social and economic realities will be doomed to fail”.

The Turkish COP31 co-presidency has prioritised a voluntary target to increase electricity’s share of final energy consumption to 35% by 2035, up from the current level of 23%. Erdoğan also flagged a proposed target to reduce global waste, which is being championed by his wife.

IEA head: Strait of Hormuz pushing countries towards clean energy

As governments prepare for COP31 – where one of the flagship targets will be to boost electricity’s share of global energy consumption to 35% by 2035 – International Energy Agency (IEA) chief Fatih Birol said the Middle East conflict presents an opportunity not seen in years.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, due to tensions between the US and Iran, has led countries to reassess their energy sources and partners, Birol said. Their response, he added, has been in “a big chunk if not all” cases to pick clean energy as the most secure, affordable and green option.

“In the energy world, we have three choices in front of us: shall I choose the most secure option, the most economic energy option or the cleanest? We have to make choices and tradeoffs. When I look at the world today, for the first time in years, all three objectives hit very close to each other,” he said.

An aerial view shows the largest solar plant in Bangladesh, built on a 350-acre site. The plant began to supply electricity from 25 December 2021. The photo was taken from Borodurgapur village of Mongla upazila in Bagerhat October 26, 2023. (Photo: Mushfiqul Alam/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect) An aerial view shows the largest solar plant in Bangladesh, built on a 350-acre site. The plant began to supply electricity from 25 December 2021. The photo was taken from Borodurgapur village of Mongla upazila in Bagerhat October 26, 2023. (Photo: Mushfiqul Alam/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect)

The IEA chief said an electrification target at COP31, proposed by Turkiye, would send “a very strong and unmistakable signal to investors, financiers, utilities, governments and beyond”. 

“This, in turn, will not only make the world much more secure, and offer a more affordable option to consumers, but at the same time it will bring emissions down, which would be a major outcome and major good news,” he said.

UN backs push to upgrade grids slowing clean power uptake in Africa and SE Asia

His words were borne out by Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, who said the closure of the Strait of Hormuz had made the bloc bitterly aware of the effects and the additional costs of its dependence on imported fossil fuels. 

She added that Europe has assets in the form of electricity produced from home-grown renewables and nuclear. “This clean electricity gives us independence, energy security, and it is affordable,” she said. Europe already gets 70% of its electricity from clean energies, “but more has to be done”, she added, including better integrating clean power into the energy system. 

Europe needs to boost clean energy storage and flexibility, and accelerate grid connections, in order to reach its goal of doubling the share of electricity by 2040, Von der Leyen said. 

“With this, Europe could cut its fossil fuel import bill by 260 billion euros a year and invest it in the clean transition,” she added.

Ursula von Der Leyen, President of the European Commission, addresses the High-level Meeting on Climate Action and the Just Transition at the United Nations in New York, September 23, 2026 (UN Photo/Laura Jarriel) Ursula von Der Leyen, President of the European Commission, addresses the High-level Meeting on Climate Action and the Just Transition at the United Nations in New York, September 23, 2026 (UN Photo/Laura Jarriel) Australian PM promotes Pacific climate resilience

Anthony Albanese, Australia’s Prime Minister, whose country is co-hosting the COP31 climate summit in Türkiye, offered firm support to the Pacific region which will host pre-COP discussions next month in Fiji. He called on countries to contribute to the new Pacific Resilience Facility (PRF), a regional climate financing mechanism intended to provide money for community climate action.

Australia has contributed $100 million towards the fund’s goal of reaching a capitalisation of $1.5 billion. So far the PRF has raised $180 million against an interim goal of $500 million by COP31.

“It is a fact that those countries which are least responsible for the rise in emissions and the change in temperatures, such as our Pacific Island family, are those who are most affected by climate change,” he said. 

He noted that for island nations such as Tuvalu and Kiribati, “it is literally an existential threat”. “So we must act, and we must act as a matter of urgency,” he added. 

Palau’s President Surangel Whipps Jr. told the summit that the PRF will allow finance “to go directly to the communities that need it the most”, adding that “speed and agility are essential” for Pacific islands to adapt to extreme climate impacts. The low-lying Marshall Islands, for example, said it had taken 10 years to plan, fund and build a sea wall to protect its people from rising waters – time it does not have.

At regional summit, Pacific islands ask for COP31 support for clean energy and finance

Albanese added that Australia is seeking a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2029-30, and if elected, aims to “elevate the importance of climate security, particularly in the Pacific, but more broadly as well”.

He stressed that while the cost of not acting would be “too high”, there are also economic – as well as environmental – benefits from tackling global warming.

“The truth is that it makes good macroeconomic policy to shift to a renewable-led clean energy revolution,” he said, adding that it also helps families. Some 540,000 Australian households have taken up subsidies to install solar panels with battery storage in the past year, he noted, slashing the cost of their power.

UN launches country platforms to support mineral-rich nations 

More than two years after a UN panel of experts called for justice and equity to underpin the development of the mineral supply chains needed for the energy transition, the UN is starting to follow up with concrete action.

On Wednesday, UN chief António Guterres announced that six countries – Guinea, Indonesia, Madagascar, Nigeria, Zambia and Zimbabwe – will be the first to receive dedicated support to turn their mineral wealth into engines for sustainable industrialisation, job creation and revenue generation so that it “drives local development, with added value remaining there”.

The country support mechanism, launched at the UN Climate Summit, will identify what individual recipient countries need to improve mineral governance, boost value addition and protect environmental and human rights and respond with coordinated technical assistance and capacity building from across the UN system. 

Zambia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Mulambo Haimbe said the initiative will support the country’s ambition “not simply to produce more, but to create greater value at home through investment, value addition, industrialisation and jobs”. 

Booming demand for minerals such as copper, lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare earths that are needed to build the equipment the world needs to move away from fossil fuels offer real development opportunities for the countries that hold them. But communities living near extraction sites often shoulder most of the costs while seeing few of the benefits.

The UN panel’s recommendations set out a vision for more just and sustainable mineral value chains. But implementation has been slow to follow. 

China keeps Indonesia’s battery dream afloat but future less certain

China’s deputy UN representative Sun Lei told the climate summit on Wednesday that critical minerals governance is a key issue for the country, which holds a firm grip on the mining and processing of most critical minerals. Last year at COP30 in Belém, China was one of the countries that blocked a mention of the social and environmental risk linked to energy transition minerals.

“All states must strengthen cooperation to build a governance system on critical minerals that is fair, reasonable, open, inclusive, clean and openly beneficial with win-win results,” he said.

Suneeta Kaimal, president and CEO of the Natural Resource Governance Institute, welcomed the announcement of the country platforms, adding that to succeed must be driven by local concerns. 

The new support mechanism “could enable countries to lead on the design of strategies, safeguards and policies that will allow them to shift from rule-takers to rule-shapers and unlock prosperity for all their people”, she said. 

UK minister defends climate multilateralism

After hosting a meeting of foreign ministers on Wednesday to discuss climate change as an issue of national security, Britain’s foreign minister Ed Miliband put up a spirited defence of global efforts to tackle climate change and slammed what he called “the defeatists”.

Those, he said, are people who maintain that climate negotiations have been going on for 30-40 years, and nothing has changed, so there’s no point in continuing. “The defeatists, I think, actually are now a bigger problem than the deniers and the delayers” and they should be told they are “wrong”, Miliband said. 

He noted that at the time of the failed Copenhagen COP in 2009 the world was headed for warming of 4C or more, while now the prediction has been reduced to around 2.5C. This, while still “very bad”, is proof that multilateralism has worked, he said.

“At a time when it is more under question than it has been for generations, I actually think that the climate efforts that we are making together and the will that I see from countries across the world to tackle this problem should give us confidence and optimism about the future,” he argued.

The post UN Climate Summit: UN chief says world has tools to end fossil fuel age appeared first on Climate Home News.

This isn’t your typical girls’ weekend.  Not that you can tell from the accommodations—a charming farmhouse in Montana’s picturesque Bitterroot Valley—or the wine bottles on the kitchen...

Manifestantes pedem justiça climática na Nasdaq

Read in English

Em uma decisão descaradamente fora de contexto, a Sigma Lithium foi convidada a tocar o sino de encerramento da Nasdaq pela segunda vez, por ocasião da Semana do Clima de Nova York, em “reconhecimento à sua liderança ambiental e social na industrialização e mineração de minerais críticos”. A cerimônia de toque do sino ocorreu enquanto comunidades indígenas, quilombolas, e afrodescendentes afirmam que a empresa está transformando suas terras em uma zona de sacrifício para a transição energética. As licenças da mina foram suspensas no último ano devido a preocupações com segurança, poluição e violações de direitos.

Nesta semana, diplomatas, funcionários das Nações Unidas, ONGs e comunidades afetadas pelas mudanças climáticas se reúnem na cidade de Nova York com o objetivo de conectar ideias, decisões e parcerias para enfrentar a crise climática e buscar soluções.

As empresas de mineração, cujas operações contribuem com 11% das emissões globais de gases de efeito estufa e poluem o ar, a água e o solo, estão competindo para se posicionar como parte da solução.

O contraste entre os comunicados à imprensa da Sigma Lithium, repletos de autoelogios sobre a Semana do Clima de Nova York, e as vozes dos líderes das comunidades indígenas e tradicionais traz à tona questões urgentes sobre qual liderança leva a soluções duradouras, à medida que enfrentamos a crise urgente das mudanças climáticas. Ativistas planejam protestar contra a participação da Sigma Lithium na cerimônia de toque do sino na tarde desta sexta-feira, nos escritórios da Nasdaq, para exigir que a justiça climática comece pelos direitos dos povos indígenas e pelos direitos humanos.

Comunidades se manifestam contra os impactos da Sigma

Desde 2023, a Sigma Lithium opera uma mina de lítio chamada Grota do Cirilo, no Vale do Jequitinhonha, no estado de Minas Gerais, Brasil.

As comunidades indígenas, quilombolas e afrodescendentes têm sofrido os impactos das operações de mineração. Entre os povos indígenas afetados pela mina estão os Aranã, os Pankararu e os Pataxó. O Vale do Jequitinhonha também possui uma das maiores densidades de comunidades afrodescendentes do Brasil, segundo o governo brasileiro.

Há forte oposição à mina por parte das comunidades indígenas e quilombolas, que não deram seu Consentimento Livre, Prévio e Informado (CLPI) para o projeto, apesar da legislação brasileira exigir o CLPI para ambos os grupos. As comunidades locais afirmam “que a promessa de energia limpa trouxe poeira, barulho incessante e doenças”.

Novas reportagens no Brasil documentaram que famílias nas proximidades da mina têm poeira entrando em suas casas, proveniente do local da mina e de suas pilhas de resíduos, e que as explosões realizadas pela empresa causam danos e rachaduras em suas residências. Esses impactos são sentidos de forma aguda nas comunidades vizinhas, que estão extremamente próximas da mina. Em um caso, os resíduos da mina pairam sobre a escola local.

Uma reportagem publicada nesta semana revelou que as internações de crianças por doenças respiratórias aumentaram 628% e 350% nas cidades mais próximas à mina (Araçuaí e Itinga), valores particularmente superiores aos aumentos regionais (221%), estaduais (157%) e nacionais (102%) registrados no mesmo período.

O “greenwashing” da Sigma não faz sentido

A SIGMA tem feito diversas alegações sobre a sustentabilidade das práticas da empresa e tenta se posicionar como uma solução “verde” para as mudanças climáticas. A empresa afirma que suas operações têm “zero barragens de rejeitos” e adotam uma “estratégia de zero rejeitos,”. Isso não é verdade.

Os rejeitos são os resíduos da mina que sobram após o processamento do lítio. A Earthworks documentou pessoalmente suas instalações de armazenamento de rejeitos em várias ocasiões. A empresa continua a empilhar resíduos de mineração próximo a comunidades e rios, embora afirme que esses resíduos acabam sendo removidos do local. As comunidades continuam arcando com os impactos.

Além disso, nenhuma empresa no mundo realiza atividades de mineração sem produzir resíduos. Um relatório divulgado pela Earthworks este ano afirma categoricamente que não há operações conhecidas em nenhum lugar do mundo que tenham eliminado os rejeitos.

Desafios jurídicos crescentes

Em várias ocasiões, as autoridades brasileiras instauraram processos contra a empresa, o que resultou em multas ou na suspensão das operações.

• Em janeiro de 2026, o Ministério do Trabalho do Brasil fechou as pilhas de rejeitos e resíduos da mina, alegando um risco “grave e iminente” para os trabalhadores e a comunidade local, de acordo com documentos analisados pela Reuters. Um inspetor do trabalho relatou uma “ruptura parcial” de uma das pilhas próxima à escola na pequena cidade de Poço Dantas. A Sigma supostamente continuou a utilizar as pilhas de resíduos e foi multada pelo governo brasileiro. A empresa recebeu permissão para retomar o uso das instalações em fevereiro.

• Em maio, um juiz decidiu a favor de uma ação civil pública movida pelo Ministério Público de Minas Gerais contra a SIGMA, com base em anos de investigações e pesquisas. A ação alegava que as comunidades vizinhas enfrentavam poluição por poeira e ruído, que elas estavam extremamente próximas da infraestrutura de mineração e que as explosões das operações de mineração estavam causando danos às residências. Inicialmente, a Sigma foi condenada a pagar quase US$ 10 milhões em indenização. No entanto, a empresa recorreu da decisão e obteve vitória em instância superior.
• Em julho, a Fundação Estadual do Meio Ambiente (FEAM), órgão regulador ambiental do Brasil, ordenou a suspensão das operações em duas cavas e revogou três licenças ambientais da SIGMA. O órgão emitiu 16 autuações. Uma visita de campo realizada pela agência constatou que uma das pilhas de estéril havia se rompido. A FEAM ordenou que a SIGMA suspendesse as operações. A SIGMA negou algumas das constatações da FEAM, mas não todas, concordou em pagar US$ 540.000 em multas e em assinar um termo de ação corretiva. As operações foram retomadas em agosto.
• Em setembro, um juiz ordenou a suspensão da licença ambiental da Sigma, alegando que uma comunidade quilombola na área de impacto da mina não foi levada em consideração no processo de licenciamento e não deu seu consentimento livre, prévio e informado para o projeto. A SIGMA não suspendeu as operações e continua suas atividades de mineração, alegando que não recebeu uma ordem judicial. No entanto, baseado na decisão do juiz, a FEAM voltou suspender as licenças da empresa e publicou a notificação no diário oficial do estado no dia 24 de setembro.

As acusações contra a Sigma não se limitam aos tribunais. Em outubro de 2025, o Observatório de Mineração publicou uma reportagem exclusiva em que o cofundador da Sigma, Calvyn Gardner, ex-marido da atual CEO Ana Cabral, afirmou que trabalhadores da empresa de mineração relataram para ele “preocupações urgentes” sobre a segurança das operações em Minas Gerais. Ele alegou que a empresa não estava seguindo seu plano de lavra e destacou os riscos associados ao possível desabamento das paredes das cavas da mina.

Uma exigência urgente de justiça climática

Os verdadeiros líderes climáticos defendem os direitos dos povos indígenas, os direitos humanos e os direitos dos trabalhadores. Eles protegem o meio ambiente e garantem um futuro saudável para as comunidades locais. Isso não é possível com a mineração poluente. A Sigma Lithium é um exemplo de como uma empresa pode usar a retórica da sustentabilidade para tentar ocultar os danos que causa. Os líderes indígenas e tradicionais que se manifestam para defender suas comunidades contra os danos são exemplos para todos no movimento climático.

Na sexta-feira, os manifestantes exigirão que a Sigma corrija sua conduta, respeite os direitos dos povos indígenas e das comunidades tradicionais e pare de usar o “greenwashing” para disfarçar suas operações.

The post A mineração suja da Sigma não vai salvar nosso clima appeared first on Earthworks.

Leia em português

Protesters to Call for Justice at the Nasdaq

In a brazenly out-of-touch move, Sigma Lithium rung the closing Nasdaq bell yesterday during NY Climate week in “recognition of their environmental and social leadership in critical minerals industrialization and mining.” The ceremonial bell-ringing took place as Indigenous and Afro-Descendant communities say the company is turning their lands into a sacrifice zone for the energy transition. The mine has had licenses suspended in the last year due to concerns about safety, pollution, and rights violations.

This week diplomats, United Nations staff, NGOs, and climate-impacted communities descend on New York City with the goal of connecting ideas, decisions and partnerships to address the climate crisis and look for solutions. 

Mining companies, whose operations contribute 11% to global greenhouse gas emissions and pollute the air, water and soil, are vying to position themselves as part of the solution.

The contrast between Sigma Lithium’s self-congratulatory NYC Climate Week press release and the voices of Indigenous and traditional community leaders bring to light urgent questions about whose leadership leads to lasting solutions as we face the urgent crisis of climate change.

Activists plan to protest Sigma Lithium’s participation in the bell ringing ceremony on Friday afternoon at the Nasdaq offices to demand that climate justice start with Indigenous Peoples’ rights and human rights.

READ OUR PRESS RELEASE

Communities Speak Out Against Sigma’s Impacts

Sigma Lithium has operated a lithium mine, called the Grota do Cirilo, in the Jequitinhonha Valley in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil since 2023. 

Indigenous and Afro-Descendent communities have felt the impacts of the mining operations. The Indigenous people impacted by the mine include the Aranã, Pankararu, and Pataxó  People. The Jequitinhonha Valley also has one of the largest densities of Afro-descendent communities in Brazil, according to the Brazilian government. 

There is strong opposition to the mine from Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities who have not given their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for the project, despite Brazilian regulation requiring FPIC for both groups of people. Local communities say “that the promise of clean energy has brought dust, incessant noise, and illness.” 

New reporting in Brazil has documented households around the mine where dust blows into their homes from the mine site and its waste piles, and where the blasting from the company damages and cracks to their in houses. These impacts are felt acutely in neighboring communities, which are extremely close to the mine. In one case, the mine waste looms over the local school.

Reporting published this week found that infant hospitalizations for respiratory illness increased 628% and 350% in the towns closest to the mine (Araçuaí and Itinga), which were notably higher than the regional (221%), state (157%) and national (102%) increases for the same time period. 

Sigma’s Greenwashing Doesn’t Add Up

SIGMA has made many claims about the sustainability of the company’s practices and tries to position itself as a “green” solution to climate change. They say their operations have “Zero tailing dams” and use a “Zero Tailings strategy,” This is not true. 

Tailings are the mine’s waste that is left over after processing for lithium.  Earthworks has documented their tailings storage facilities in person on multiple occasions. The company continues to pile mine waste next to communities and rivers, even though it claims that waste will eventually be sent off site. Communities are still left with the impacts. 

Beyond that, no company in the world mines without producing waste. A report released by Earthworks this year categorically states that there are no known operations anywhere in the world that have eliminated tailings. 

Mounting Legal Challenges

On multiple occasions, the Brazilian authorities have brought charges against the company that have resulted in fines or the suspension of operations.

• In January 2026, Brazil’s Labor Ministry shut down the mine’s tailings and waste piles, citing a “grave and imminent” risk to workers and the local community, according to documents seen by Reuters. A labor inspector reported a “partial rupture” of one of the piles near the school in the small town of Poço Dantas. Sigma allegedly continued to use the waste piles and was fined by the Brazilian government. The company was given permission to resume use of the facilities again in February. 

• In May a judge found in favor of a public civil lawsuit brought by the Public Prosecutor’s office in Minas Gerais against SIGMA based on years of investigations and research. The suit alleged surrounding communities faced dust and noise pollution, that communities were extremely close to mining infrastructure and that blasting from mining operations were damaging homes. Sigma was initially ordered to pay almost $10M USD in compensation. However they appealed the judgement and won in a higher court. 

• In July, the Fundação Estadual do Meio Ambiente [State Environmental Foundation] (FEAM), Brazil’s environmental regulatory agency, ordered the suspension of operations in two mine pits and revoked three of SIGMA’s environmental licenses. The agency issued 16 citations. A field visit by the agency found that one of the waste rock piles had failed. The FEAM ordered Sigma stop operations. Sigma denied some of FEAM’s findings, but not all, agreed to pay US$540,000 in fines and to sign a corrective action agreement. Operations resumed in August. 

• In September, a judge ordered the suspension of Sigma’s environmental license stating an Afro-Descendant community in the area of impact of the mine was not considered in the permitting and did not give its Free, Prior and Informed consent for the project. SIGMA has not suspended operations and continues its mining activities, stating they haven’t received a court order. However, based on the judge’s ruling, the FEAM again suspended the company’s licenses and published the notification state register on September 24th. 

The allegations against Sigma don’t stop at the courts. In October of 2025, the Observatorio de Mineracao published an exclusive exposé where Sigma co-founder Calvyn Gardner, the ex-husband of the current CEO Ana Cabral, said employees of the mining company approached him and reported “urgent concerns” about the safety of operations in Minas Gerais. He claimed the company was not following its mining plan and highlighted risks associated with the possible collapse of pit walls. 

An Urgent Need for Climate Justice

Real climate leaders stand up for Indigenous Peoples’ rights, human rights and workers’ rights. They safeguard the environment and ensure a healthy future for local communities. This cannot happen with dirty mining. Sigma Lithium is an example of how a corporation can use the language of sustainability to attempt to hide the damage it does. Indigenous and traditional leaders who are speaking up to defend their communities from harm are examples for everyone in the climate movement. 

On Friday, protesters will call on Sigma to clean up its act, respect the rights of Indigenous peoples and traditional communities, and stop greenwashing their operations. 

The post Sigma’s Dirty Mining Won’t Save Our Climate appeared first on Earthworks.

SUWA Files Lawsuit, Mining Claims Begin as Backlash Grows Over Attack on National Monuments

SUWA and Partners Sue Over Monument Reductions
On September 2, SUWA and longtime partners Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) jointly filed litigation in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC against Trump’s illegal reductions of Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments (Earthjustice is representing several other conservation groups in the case). We have asked the court to reopen our previous lawsuit against President Trump’s 2017 monument rollbacks (which was put on hold following President Biden’s restorations) and have updated the case to challenge both sets of illegal proclamations. Two additional coalitions also filed to reopen their litigation defending the monuments, and we expect Tribal Nations to file their own litigation soon.

First Mining Claims Filed on Lands Cut from Bears Ears
Lands cut from both national monuments became subject to mining claims on September 11 (60 days after Trump slashed them by 90%). By noon of that day, 16 new claims were filed on lands previously protected as part of Bears Ears National Monument, and another seven have been filed since. The 23 new claims are in three general areas: Lockhart Basin; Cheese and Raisins Hills near the old, reburied Easy Peasy Mine; and near Natural Bridges National Monument (see our press release). As of today, there have been no claims filed in Grand Staircase-Escalante.

SUWA is committed to defending both landscapes against new mining activity within the monuments’ original boundaries. Stay tuned for future updates.

Members of Congress Sign Letters Opposing Trump’s Actions
Earlier this month, 71 members of the U.S. House of Representatives signed onto Rep. Jared Huffman’s (D-CA-02) letter opposing the illegal reductions of Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears. A similar letter was signed by 37 senators in August, led by Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), and Dick Durbin (D-IL).

The letters argue that the Trump administration’s removal of national monument protections from nearly three million acres of public land threatens irreplaceable cultural, historical, ecological, and recreational resources and undermines the Antiquities Act. They also raise serious concerns about the lack of consultation with Tribal Nations and the termination of the Bears Ears Commission (composed of five Tribal Nations), which works collaboratively with federal agencies to manage and steward Bears Ears. 

New Poll Shows Two-Thirds of Utah Voters Support Restoration of Monuments
According to a recent poll conducted by public opinion research firm New Bridge Strategy, two-thirds of Utah voters say greater protections should be restored to all of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. Additionally, 73% support the ability of presidents to protect public lands as national monuments, and 82% believe it’s important for Native American Tribes to have a strong role in managing public lands containing sacred or culturally significant sites. 

The survey is consistent with results from the firm’s 2024 poll, which revealed overwhelming support for both monuments. Yet Utah’s elected officials remain so completely out of touch with their constituents that they stood behind President Trump and applauded as he slashed the monuments’ boundaries by 90%.

Grand Staircase-Escalante Turns 30!
Amid the turmoil and uncertainty caused by Trump’s actions, it’s important that we pause to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Its original designation by President Bill Clinton on September 18, 1996 was the culmination of decades of grassroots action to protect this magnificent landscape from drilling, coal mining, and other threats. The first national monument to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management, it soon became world-renowned for its remarkable paleontological discoveries, stunning scenery, and diverse natural ecosystems. Though the entrance signs have been dismantled by the Trump administration, love for “the science monument” remains strong, and so does our resolve to see its protections fully restored.

Photo © Mark Teague

Deadline Alert: Submit Your Comments in Support of Quiet, Roadless Forests!

As part of its systematic dismantling of America’s public lands, the Trump administration is proposing to rescind or revise two separate rules that affect the health and safety of national forest lands nationwide. In Utah, this includes the important watersheds of the Manti-La Sal, Dixie, Fishlake, Ashley, and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forests.

The U.S. Forest Service’s Travel Management Rule determines where off-road vehicles (ORVs) can travel across national forests and grasslands. The administration’s proposed revision places a heavy thumb on the scale to prioritize ORV use at the expense of all other uses and values, including the protection of wildlife, cultural sites, healthy streams, and the solitude of wild places. The deadline for submitting public comments is TODAY, Wednesday, September 23. Please tell the Forest Service to keep the Travel Management Rule intact!

A separate proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule puts nearly 45 million acres of roadless public land nationwide (including roughly 4 million acres of Forest Service land in Utah) at greater risk of logging, roadbuilding, mining, and other industrial development. The comment deadline for this one is Tuesday, October 6. Please tell the Forest Service to preserve the Roadless Rule!

Photo © Tim Peterson

Support Continues to Grow for America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act

The latest cosponsors of America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act (HR 2467/S 1193) are Rep. Gabe Amo (D-RI-1), Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT-At Large), Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL-2), and Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA-2). If any of these legislators represent you, please thank them for their support! The full list of cosponsors in the 119th Congress can be found here.

America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act aims to permanently protect over 8 million acres of Bureau of Land Management land in Utah as federally designated wilderness. Congressional support for this visionary legislation provides a powerful counterweight to the political forces seeking to develop and privatize public lands in Utah. If your representative and/or senators have not signed onto the bill, please ask them to cosponsor today!

Photo © Ray Bloxham/SUWA

What We’ve Been Reading

We wanted to share with you some interesting perspectives on politics and public lands the SUWA staff has been reading (and listening to) lately.

• What Are We Doing to Our World of Wonder? – A New York Times Op-Ed on the Trump administration’s defanging of the Endangered Species Act by author and SUWA Board Member Emerita Terry Tempest Williams.
  
  
• What’s the Matter with Utah? How a state trapped by its own history became Congress’ most aggressive threat to public lands—and suddenly out of step with a changing conservative West – A Re:Public piece by freelance journalist Christopher Solomon.
  
  
• The quiet process that protects Utah’s heritage is under threat – A Salt Lake Tribune Op-Ed by Brandy Strand and Tina Hart, leaders of Preservation Utah and the Utah Professional Archaeological Council.
  
  
• On Common Ground: An American Inheritance – A podcast episode on the Trump administration’s public land giveaways, hosted by Bill Hedden (former executive director of the Grand Canyon Trust) and John Leshy (former Interior Department Solicitor).

The post September 2026 Redrock Report appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

This article What the climate movement can learn from organized labor was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Climate activists engaged in nonviolent direct action are used to the rinse and repeat of arrest: handcuffs, short trip to jail, a misdemeanor charge and then release to friends for a post-action pizza dinner. Show up at court a few weeks later for a brief arraignment and wait for the case to be dismissed. Low drama.

That’s changed under Trump. From the Declare Emergency activists charged with felonies (for applying washable paint to the protective case around a Degas sculpture) to the Extinction Rebellion activists under investigation by an FBI terrorism task force (for undisclosed reasons), activists can no longer depend on walking away unscathed from direct actions. Multiple states have passed anti-protest laws since Trump was elected, increasing penalties imposed on activists. Grassroots action has a higher cost now. 

Simultaneously, with the gutting of the Inflation Reduction Act and its attendant tax credits for clean energy investment, the federal path to climate action is blocked. And local wins, while important, cannot surmount the incredible rollbacks happening at the federal level, as Sunrise Movement Executive Director Aru Shiney-Ajay recently pointed out. 

Indeed, the U.S. climate movement is in deep trouble. If all that weren’t enough, the climate crisis is no longer top of mind for many on the left, especially with the rising authoritarian threat and the focus on affordability. With civil disobedience demanding greater risk, traditional policy advocacy for climate action at the federal level closed off and public attention turned elsewhere, what tactics do we in the climate movement have left?

What’s left is deep engagement with the labor movement — its members and its tactics. 

#newsletter-block_1f9fb5d10fbd8e8cdfe976d159a2e4ed { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_1f9fb5d10fbd8e8cdfe976d159a2e4ed #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Organized labor has a broad base, a track record of major wins and the power to shut down the economy. And make no mistake: Economic leverage is a necessary ingredient in the struggle to bring down companies as profitable as those in the fossil fuel industry. 

Climate activists have relied heavily on tactics of protest and persuasion (see Gene Sharp’s categories), underinvesting in tactics of economic noncooperation. While the environmental movement has a history of consumer boycotts, there have been fewer instances of work stoppages or rent strikes. The climate groups that do engage in symbolic work and school stoppages (most famously, Fridays for the Future), have mostly been confined to students and are largely to make a political statement rather than a strategic attempt to gain concrete concessions from a specific target. 

Strategically aligning workers with a rapid energy transition not only broadens the coalition needed to win durable policy victories, but builds power with a movement versed in strikes, walkouts, slowdowns and other forms of economic disruption. (Not to mention a bevy of tools like community benefit agreements and co-enforcement to promote follow-through on corporate environmental promises.)

Labor-climate alliances go back decades (see Blue Green Alliance, Climate Jobs National Resource Center and Labor Network for Sustainability), and unions have long advocated for a just transition that supports workers employed in polluting industries. But in the current political environment, we need these relationships to be stronger than ever.  

One major opportunity for the climate movement is the May Day Strong coalition, which brings labor and community groups together to organize mass strikes and make big demands for systemic change. The coalition’s demands don’t yet include climate, but the climate movement can still organize with them to learn nonparticipation tactics and build solidarity toward a broad base that sees climate, anti-authoritarianism and affordability as one united fight. 

Lessons from labor 

Think about the situation at your job. Workplaces are pretty authoritarian: the leader doesn’t care much for the input of the people on the shop floor, and what the leader says goes. If someone gets hurt, let the government step in to help them. As unions teach us, for a group of workers to extract real concessions from a profit-maximizing boss requires building enough power among workers to shut the workplace down (or at least threaten to do so). 

The same dynamic is true of the fossil fuel regime and the general public. The fact is that fossil fuel companies operate with little accountability to the public they endanger through their greed, harming the many for the enrichment of the few. By thinking of them as essentially authoritarian, we can focus on how to weaken their pillars of support so as to bring about their collapse (per Gene Sharp). In the face of fossil fuel oligarchs who operate without checks and balances, a worker-inclusive climate movement capable of strategic noncooperation offers the most viable path to transformative change in the current political landscape. 

Pillars to target might include shareholders, frontline workers, the regulatory landscape, physical infrastructure and institutional investors. Some of this can be done in direct partnership with unions and workers (which I’ll explore more in another piece). Concentrating on a specific choke point like port logistics or oil refining can paralyze supply chains, amplifying our impact. Sectoral strikes within these industries are also powerful, making building common cause with their workers paramount. Strikes by public-sector workers like teachers also carry a heavy punch (though they are only legal in about a dozen states and typically only when a contract has expired). 

Identifying the demand, as well as the target, is key to such acts of noncooperation. Strikes targeting companies can include demands for corporate investment in public infrastructure, on-the-job retraining, environmental audits or electrification of the supply chain. Strikes by municipal workers can include demands to divest pensions from fossil fuel companies, electrify public transit, retrofit publicly owned properties, pass heat safety mandates or clarify protocols for workers responding to climate disasters. Some of this is already happening through existing climate-labor alliances. Winning more campaigns like these would weaken the fossil fuel regime’s pillars of support by targeting the physical infrastructure, financial systems and legal regulations that enable it to continue wrecking the planet.

In addition to weakening the pillars of support, other indicators of a campaign’s success include increasing popular engagement and enhancing the capacity of the movement to escalate further (by bringing in more organizers, developing replicable tactics, etc.). The tactic of economic noncooperation can deliver all three.

But if we are serious about making a real dent in emissions, we need to target the federal government. The fossil fuel industry is so profitable and so powerful that it will likely require a major policy intervention to curb its rapacious behavior. The Inflation Reduction Act was a step in the right direction, but our movement was unprepared to exert the leverage needed to protect it from an unfriendly administration. That kind of leverage comes from bringing the economy to a standstill. 

Almost all of us are workers (and customers, renters, borrowers, etc.), and all of us rely on a functioning planet to live. So what would happen if we simultaneously stopped? Didn’t show up at work for a few days, and didn’t buy anything? This would take massive preparation and coordination of course, but the impact would grind the economy to a halt. No bus drivers, no teachers, no bank tellers, nothing being built or sold. This is what is known as a social strike –— a mass action by an entire population.

Carbon emissions might briefly drop, but the impact of a strike reaches beyond a single day. The United Auto Workers’ use of the “rolling strike” to win big concessions from the nation’s three largest automakers shows the power a movement wields when it can credibly threaten to strike anywhere, at any time, in enormous numbers. Just as runaway capitalism caused the climate crisis, it has also constructed an economy that would be hobbled by mass work stoppages and consumer boycotts. 

This is a tall order, to be sure. Even the labor movement’s use of work stoppages has declined over the past 40 to 50 years due to national policy change, employer opposition campaigns, the collapse of union membership and deindustrialization. But recent years have seen an upsurge of interest in unions, increased organizing and heightened class consciousness — suggesting a renewed opening for organizing workers and showcasing their power. 

Previous Coverage

The People’s Climate March was a convergence of stories

And the climate movement has turned out en masse in the past; by some estimates, the 2014 People’s Climate March turned out 400,000 people. Imagine the number that will turn out after a historic El Niño cycle and four years of federal incompetence. Now imagine if that number of people — rather than flying to New York City and marching — all stayed home for a week. No shopping, no selling, no driving, no working. 

Social strikes are rare and tough to pull off, but we saw a stirring example of their power in Minnesota this year. Roughly 25 percent of voters in the state either participated in the day-long strike or had a loved one who did. 

For community members and workers across industries to participate in a nationwide social strike would take years of organizing. That’s why we need to start planning now. 

The power of relationships

To engage broader swaths of the population, we need to build a bigger tent. Here the labor movement provides valuable wisdom. A helpful distinction that organizers often make is between our base and our allies. Our base shares our values but not necessarily every demand, while our allies share a specific demand but not necessarily all our values. 

The climate movement’s base is made up of environmental activists, while our allies come from a wide variety of backgrounds including faith communities, student groups, human rights activists, lawyers, Indigenous groups, politicians, scientists, renewable energy companies and more. Anyone may have kids in public schools that are struggling with rising utility costs; they may rent an apartment in a complex with crumbling infrastructure; they may be part of a religious community that emphasizes responsibility for creation; they may be active with a political party that values outdoor recreation and fiscal responsibility. 

These identities and memberships are valuable when we recognize that we do not need to agree on every issue in order to share some common self-interest and cooperate on a specific campaign. What enables us to continue to take coordinated action with our allies is a commitment to continued relationship building rather than shutting each other down for divergencies in viewpoints. Here climate can take a page from Saul Alinsky, who advocated for sidestepping ideological landmines and focusing on concrete issues that make a difference to real peoples’ lives. 

In the current political climate, organizing based on shared self-interest is the only way forward. Families are struggling to pay the bills, and calls to deprioritize climate messaging in favor of an affordability frame are mounting. (Even Democrats are engaged in “climate hushing.”) We need a coalition broad enough to fight for both a living wage and a livable planet. Relational organizing based in self-interest is the way to build that. In his book “People, Power, Change: Organizing for Democratic Renewal,” Marshall Ganz explains that “relationships grow out of the realization of mutual benefit, the creation of shared value, and the commitment to a shared future.” Organizing to save our planet checks all three boxes. 

In a labor campaign, relational organizing relies on the identification of organic leaders, training the leaders to recruit other workers, the workers agreeing on issues and then engaging in increasingly challenging structure tests — smaller actions that build organization and faith in each other. The bonds built between the workers through these tests are the basis for future organizing. In her book “No Shortcuts: Organizing for Power in the New Gilded Age,” Jane McAlevey spoke to the interaction between risky actions and building strong relationships. “[F]or workers to win substantial gains, the strike weapon is essential. … Transformational experiences come through high-risk collective action,” she wrote. Those transformational experiences tighten the bonds holding the group together and facilitate political education.

Previous Coverage

The data center fight is going global

Relationship building is also important for climate groups. Organizations like the Sunrise Movement or Fridays for the Future rely heavily on peer-to-peer organizing and one-on-one conversations. Incoming activists are given real responsibilities and opportunities to guide campaigns. And campaigns against specific pipelines or other pieces of fossil fuel infrastructure tap into preexisting community networks (like neighborhood groups, Indigenous communities and faith congregations), growing stronger by building alignment around a common demand. 

What the climate movement needs now is to expand those networks to include communities that we may not see as natural partners. These diverse coalitions are prominent in local struggles against data centers that engage disparate groups such as farmers, parents, IT professionals, local businesses, sports clubs and more. We need to make sure they include workers across sectors, too. 

The fulcrum

The ramp-up to May Day 2028 offers a prime opportunity for the climate movement to build powerful relationships with labor groups, while at the same time engaging in structure tests toward a social strike making climate demands upon the federal government.

After the United Auto Workers, or UAW, won their successful September 2023 sit-down strike (winning wage increases, job security and the inclusion of electric vehicle plants into existing contracts), they began building for more. The union called for locals across different sectors and unions to strategically align their contracts to expire on April 30, 2028, so workers can strike on May Day, the international worker’s day (rather than run the risk of an unauthorized “wildcat” strike). When different unions align their contracts in this way, they have more leverage than if one union acted alone. The May Day 2028 demands are not yet set, and the UAW’s goal is broad: “to create a crisis for the billionaire class to win more for all of us.”

Given low union density, even 2028 contract alignments by the UAW (and possibly the American Federation of Teachers and other unions) would have limited impact without community support. Even if some workers couldn’t walk off the job in a general strike (such as those covered by a current contract, precariously employed or unable to afford taking time off), they could still participate by not buying anything, calling in sick, engaging in a slowdown, working to rule, showing up to picket lines or rallies while off work, supporting striking workers with donations or sharing strike demands on social media. 

That’s the idea behind May Day Strong — a labor-community coalition that deploys economic noncooperation to demand taxing the rich, protecting the vote, reining in ICE and expanding democracy. May Day Strong explicitly organizes community members who do not belong to unions, thereby building a broader community-labor coalition. On May Day 2026, they coordinated one of the most widespread May 1 actions in U.S. history. Right now, they’re focused on solidarity schools and local actions, like support for an Indiana community that lost power during a series of storms due to the local utility company’s alleged malfeasance. Ultimately, they are ramping up to a nationwide action on May Day 2028. 

Demonstrators with May Day Strong march into downtown Chicago under the banner “Workers Over Billionaires” on May 1, 2026. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The coalition includes many climate groups, like Climate Defenders, Extinction Rebellion, the Climate Museum, the Sunrise Movement, and more. But the coalition’s affordability agenda contains not a single mention of climate change. Given the presence of climate organizations in the coalition, that could change, depending on the power that climate-focused coalition members bring to the table. 

Regardless, May Day Strong represents an opportunity for the climate movement to engage in deep relationship building, both with union and nonunion workers, and to build strike-ready capacity. It offers a chance for the climate movement to stand in solidarity with unions and with working people, in a show of good faith. If the climate movement shows up for organized labor in 2028 — and the year and a half of organizing that precedes it — strong relationships will be built.

That means participating in structure tests so the strike muscle is strong and practiced when the time comes to use it. Climate activists should commit to deeper engagement with May Day Strong, attending trainings, turning out for May Day and Labor Day actions and advocating for the inclusion of climate demands in the platform. Climate activists should also show up for workers anywhere they are on the picket line, finding common cause against the billionaire elite who threaten us all. 

None of this is to suggest that the climate movement should stop organizing for local climate policies. Local decarbonization and climate resiliency remain key battlegrounds. But in the face of overt hostility to national climate policies that encourage job growth while protecting our planet, we must also expand our tactics.  

Noncooperation has been underleveraged in the climate movement, and we now have a chance to learn the tactic from organized labor while expanding our base. The time is ripe for these efforts. Broad coalitions are being built to oppose the authoritarian takeover, but the climate movement has found itself on the periphery. Despite the urgency of threats to our democracy, we cannot overlook the escalating threat to our planet. Engaging more deeply with May Day Strong allows the climate movement to drive home how the pillaging of our planet goes hand in hand with efforts to squash dissent and dismantle democracy. The climate movement cannot afford to wait until other threats are resolved. When the next “natural” disaster inevitably comes, the climate movement needs to be strike ready. 

Where we go from here

By using May Day 2028 as a structure test, the climate movement can build capacity for a later date of climate noncooperation. Possible demands might include asking the president to declare a climate emergency or pass an executive order reinstating certain Inflation Reduction Act provisions. The important thing is to make a clear demand that can feasibly be granted by the specific target; in Minnesota, it was simple: “ICE out.” 

Significantly, this tactic could be effective regardless of the party in power. The concepts of the pillars of support and Erica Chenoweth’s rule of 3.5 percent (the principle that movements have historically succeeded when they engage 3.5 percent of the population in sustained nonviolent action), both come from the literature on civil resistance to authoritarianism, so they do not depend on a functioning democracy. Furthermore, both parties rely on the economy functioning normally and would face significant public pressure if essential workers like teachers and janitors stayed home. Economic noncooperation — including, but not limited to strikes — has the benefit of being legal (for workers not covered by a contract with a no-strike clause). And if the climate movement keeps showing up for our allies in labor, we signal to all presidential candidates in 2028 that we will not be hushed. 

#support-block_f4f7ba37fc8a10dc7965345ec11d7b7a { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

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

Donate

Even in this time of movement winter, climate activists don’t have the luxury of despair. With heightened danger from climate chaos and increased political hostility towards climate activists, the stakes have never been higher for our movement and our planet. 

But there is opportunity here, too. 

With the upsurge of interest in unions, increased organizing, the narrative focus on affordability, historic polarization and heightened class consciousness, the public is ready to be organized as never before. By organizing workers across sectors and engaging in economic noncooperation, we weaken the political and financial pillars of support for the fossil fuel regime, thereby hastening its eventual collapse. That moment can’t come soon enough.

This article What the climate movement can learn from organized labor was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.