News Feeds

'They hid the facts and continued business as usual, which meant causing sickness and deaths.'

Source

Press Release: CNX’s Expanded Radiation Monitoring and Disclosure Fall Short. FracTracker calls for comprehensive radiation testing and enforceable public reporting requirements across Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry.

The post CNX’s Expanded Radiation Monitoring and Disclosure Fall Short appeared first on FracTracker Alliance.

The wealth explosion among the ultra-rich has led to soaring demand for luxury private jets and the infrastructure to serve them, including expanded private aircraft hangers and runway capacity at local and regional airports. Meanwhile, transnational corporations wanting to shield their top managers from interactions with the public are also expanding their private jet fleets, even as more shareholders are trying to rein in private jet excess.

A vital new report from the Institute for Policy Studies, High Flyers 2026, reveals just how much this private jet-setting is costing taxpayers and the planet.

Key findings:

• Private jets and charter services account for roughly 16 percent of FAA-handled flight operations. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates noncommercial private jets account for 7 percent of the airspace activity yet contribute less than 0.6 percent of taxes that flow into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund that helps finance FAA operations.
• An estimated 256,000 people, or roughly 0.003 percent of the population, fly on private jets, including the ultrawealthy who use fractional ownership or private charter jets.
• Private jets are one of the most super-polluting forms of transportation, with direct carbon emissions 10 to 14 times greater per passenger than commercial aviation travel –along with additional contributions to global warming from effective radiative forcing, which can be two to four times greater than those from CO2 emissions.
• The National Business Aviation Association spent approximately $2 million on lobbying in 2025 in favor of legislation that gives massive tax breaks for private jet owners, like the permanent accelerated depreciation tax of 2025.
• Private jet ownership and use has accelerated as the number of ultra-high net worth individuals and billionaires has grown. There are 3,428 global billionaires as of this year. The median wealth of a private jet owner is $190 million, while the median wealth of a fractional owner of a private jet is $140 million.
• A luxury tax of 10 percent on used jets and 5 percent on new jets could have raised more than $3 billion in 2025, funds that could be invested in sustainable ground transportation.
• More than a third of all Airport Infrastructure Grants awarded through 2026 went to airport projects that may primarily benefit private jets, amounting to more than $1.13 billion in grant funds.
• Between 2019 and 2025, fractional jet ownership increased 65 percent.
• Substituting so-called “sustainable aviation fuels” (SAFs) is a greenscreen distraction. While there may be some potential for electrification of small scale short hop aviation, there is no scalable or cost-effective alternative to kerosene-based jet fuels developing at the speed of climate change.

“The rest of us should not have to pay for the luxury excess of the private jet billionaire class. Our hard-earned tax dollars shouldn’t subsidize their reckless air travel habits that further harm our warming planet,” said report co-author Chuck Collins. “At a time when most ordinary people are struggling to afford groceries, rent, and healthcare, our report exposes how the ultra-rich and greedy corporations are private jet-setting at the expense of the rest of us, while trying to dodge accountability for fueling the climate crisis.”

The Institute for Policy Studies worked with the worldwide community of 20,000+ open-source trackers to build a new tool (the Private Jet Emissions Tracker, or PJET) that analyzes the private-jet flights into and out of specific locations and times—like the Super Bowl, the Kentucky Derby, or every game of the World Cup.

One key solution: make private jet-setters pay their fair share.

For starters, Congress should strip a private jet tax avoidance provision from the pending air traffic safety legislation, the ALERT Act. “The private jet lobby is cynically and shamelessly inserting yet another tax break for private jets into legislation to respond to the Potomac river aircraft-heliocopter crash in January 2025,” said Collins.

Champions like Stephen Prince have publicly announced they have given up private jets. Meanwhile, high-profile jet-setters like Taylor Swift who have drawn scrutiny recently have yet to change their travel habits.

“Since we first released our analysis on the costs of private jet travel to taxpayers and the planet in 2023, we’ve seen a shocking and irresponsible rise in the use of private jet travel,” said report co-author Omar Ocampo. “Unfortunately, the private jet lobby has worked hard to lower the tax obligations of the ultrawealthy. Meanwhile, the aviation industry pushes false solutions on the climate crisis. It’s time to stop making taxpayers subsidize luxury private jet travel and use our resources to green other industries.”

Other key policy solutions:

• Stop another pending private jet tax break.
• Repeal one-year accelerated bonus depreciation of private jet purchases and pass the End Subsidies for Private Jets Act.

• Increase tax on private jet fuel.
• Levy a luxury tax on private jet sales.

• Roll back secrecy provisions.
• Stop funding and constructing new private jet infrastructure, just as some institutions have committed to no new fossil fuel infrastructure.

“At a time when billionaires and the ultra-wealthy get to avoid the enshittification of commercial air travel experience, taxpayers and the planet shouldn’t bear the costs of their luxury private jet-setting,” concluded Collins.

Read the full report: https://ips-dc.org/report-high-flyers-2026

The company has until November to formally appeal the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s order to directly assign some costs of transmission. Dominion Energy has an October deadline to propose compliant policy changes.

Iran has experienced multiple crises over the past few years, including economic challenges and war. So far, however, these have not appeared to affect one of the most practical initiatives developed by local conservation leaders in northern Iran: Gavbangi.

In Farsi Gavbangi refers to the call of the maral (also known as Caspian red deer, Cervus elaphus maral), who live in the green mountains in northern Iran from early September to early October. Maral habitat in Iran spans forests from the Azerbaijan-Iran borderland in the northwest to Golestan National Park in the east.

In autumn the forests in the north display beautiful, colorful leaves, and local people commonly hear a sound like a cow that they call Gav (cow) bangi (call). It is both inspiring and reassuring to hear the charismatic calls of deer echoing through the forests, a reminder of a functioning ecosystem. As a former conservation volunteer in Iran and a current Ph.D. student in natural resources at the University of Vermont, I experienced Gavbangi in northern Iran’s protected areas. During that time I witnessed firsthand the vital role of community collaboration in maral’s conservation.

I have also seen the importance of this collaboration: Poachers know this is the ideal time to find deer, specifically males.

A herd of maral in Kiasar National Park, Iran. Photograph by Hamed Tizrooyan. Used with permission.

Maral are a protected species in Iran, but according to the Iranian Department of Environment they face two main threats: habitat loss and poaching. During Gavbangi volunteer conservationists collaborate with rangers and protected area managers to address both threats in protected areas and potential habitats.

Volunteers stay in scheduled locations across the habitat, listening to deer calls and ensuring that poachers do not take advantage of this vulnerable period. Volunteers are divided into small groups assigned to remote areas that are difficult to monitor with a small number of rangers. Their visible presence alone acts as an obstacle, discouraging poachers from entering.

These days economic pressure may be driving an increase in poaching, although there is no reliable data. Human development like expanding road networks also makes these efforts more critical than ever.

A male Maral pictured by Hamed Tizrooyan at Kiasar National Park, Iran, Photo by: Hamed Tizrooyan. Used with permission.

Social media and wildlife photography have played a significant role in promoting awareness of species and habitat protection in Iran. Many young volunteers became interested in conservation activities by seeing the beauty of nature and its residents.

The most interesting social aspect of Gavbangi is how volunteers gather. In my experience social media, activists, and the role of wildlife photographers are crucial, as they showcase the beauty of nature and its diverse forms. These individuals typically work closely with rangers to manage volunteers and identify the best locations. This is an excellent example of collaboration between the public sector and volunteer conservationists, which began around 15 years ago.

A group of volunteers at Gavbbangi, Kiasar National Park, Iran, 2025, Photo by Amirhossein Gohardehi (used with permission)

Many experts say it’s necessary to see interested individuals as an opportunity to preserve biodiversity. The main advantage of these activities is that they involve more people in conservation, which could lead to more effective conservation of the red deer.

There is an ongoing debate among conservationists about whether participation in Gavbangi should remain purely voluntary or be integrated into ecotourism programs, where participants pay to join. Although hosting a tour can bring money to the area and invest it in conservation, it can attract irresponsible individuals and increase the human population, which can negatively affect the project’s goal and compromise the area’s safety.

To me another aspect of Gavbangi is that it provides amateur volunteers with the opportunity to explore the ecosystem in the wild, which could be an excellent driver for enhancing conservation.

As a former volunteer turned professional conservationist, I feel it essential that volunteer initiatives like Gavbangi be closely monitored as they grow to ensure they stay on the right path, especially in engaging younger generations in protecting the Maral during its most vulnerable period. To achieve this, it would be beneficial if local conservation groups collaborate with conservation experts to train the volunteers. And Gavbangi leaders can benefit greatly from engaging local residents on conservation efforts.

Based on my conversations with several experts involved in Gavbangi, Iran’s ongoing challenges have not had a direct impact on the event so far. However, conservationists in the country are under considerable pressure, and we may see the effects of these crises in the next Gavbangi event.

It is our collective responsibility to ensure that future generations can still hear the haunting call of the deer echoing through the northern forests of Iran.

References:

Hadi Pourmosa, S. M. G. (2024). Habitat suitability modeling of the Caspian Red Deer (Cervus elaphus maral) in the central zone of the Hyrcanian region: Identification of priority conservation areas. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.13823908

Kiabi, B. H., Ali Ghaemi, R., Jahanshahi, M., & Sassani, A. (2004). Population status, biology and ecology of the Maral, Cervus elaphus maral , in Golestan National Park, Iran. Zoology in the Middle East, 33(1), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09397140.2004.10638071

Kolahi, M., Sakai, T., Moriya, K., Yoshikawa, M., & Esmaili, R. (2014). From paper parks to real conservations: Case study of social capital in Iran’s biodiversity conservation. https://www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/108220140111.pdf

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator:

Incredible Journeys: How Hoofing It Helps Deer and Caribou

The post Gavbangi: Iran’s Long-Running Conservation Effort Relies on Volunteers — and Turns Them Into Habitat Protectors appeared first on The Revelator.

“The Hub” is a weekly round-up of transportation related news in the Philadelphia area and beyond. Check back weekly to keep up-to-date on the issues Clean Air Council’s transportation staff finds important.

Join the Clean Air Council in participating in the Pretzel Pedal Challenge! Log your bike rides from September 1-30 to automatically earn points that qualify you for discounts and prizes! Create a Share-A-Ride profile to join!

Image Source: WHYY

WHYY: SEPTA gets $80 million federal grant to make ADA upgrades at trolley stations – Federal grant money has been awarded to SEPTA, through the All Stations Accessibility Program. $80 million has been allocated for the reconstruction of the 22nd Street, 33rd Street, and 36th Street trolley stations, building elevators, and a complete overhaul of facilities. The upgrades should be completed in 2-3 years, coinciding with the implementation of new accessible trolleys, slated for arrival in 2029.

Image Source: 6ABC

6ABC: Local athletes develop lifelong passions atop bikes with Independence Youth Cycling – Independence Youth Cycling is a local nonprofit that connects kids with cycling through bike-share programs, coaches and teams, and team rides. The nonprofit supports series across Philadelphia, south Jersey, and Montgomery County. Teams include introducing kids to mountain biking as a sport through race and adventure events, and trail rides in different parks across Philadelphia.

Image Source: BillyPenn

BillyPenn: The status of the Spring Garden Connector project – The Spring Garden Street corridor has been waiting for improvements and upgrades since 2009. The corridor improvements include protections for cyclists and pedestrians, increased access to green space, and better connectivity to the nationwide East Coast Greenway Project. The project did succeed in 2016 with a public art installation along I-95 underpass outside Spring Garden Station. However, the core concept, protected bike lanes, is still to come. The project is still in the design phase, with hopes to find construction contracts in 2029.

Other Stories

Mass Transit Mag: New Garden State Initiative report says NJ Transit needs performance-based review, not just more funding

The Inquirer: Burlington County’s free shuttle bus will finally hit the road next week

Transit Forward Philadelphia: The Impact of Trolley Modernization on Philly Students

Philadelphia Today: PHL Airport Buys 31.6-Acre Property for $42 Million to Fuel Future Expansion

Mass Transit Mag: NJ Transit advances bus technology upgrades to add Wi-Fi, better bus tracking

Pittsburgh Business Times: Amtrak creates board committee to guide expansion as Pittsburgh gains second daily train

Türkiye and Australia risk losing their credibility as hosts of this year’s COP31 UN climate summit if they keep betting on fossil fuels at home, climate policy experts have warned. 

As governments are expected to continue fraught talks over how to advance the global transition away from oil, coal and gas in Antalya this November, both of the co-host countries are pursuing fossil fuel expansion at home, without a national timeline to phase out their use.

Türkiye has accelerated its rollout of wind and solar energy in recent years. But that progress has yet to make a dent in the country’s dependence on fossil fuels for power, as demand growth has outpaced the renewables build-out, new analysis by Climate Action Tracker (CAT) has found.

The share of electricity generated by burning coal and fossil gas – 56% in 2025 – has barely changed since 2019, and total fossil fuel use in the power sector, and the emissions it produces, are still rising, according to the report released on Friday.

The Turkish government has also signalled that fossil fuels will remain a central component of its energy mix and has outlined plans to expand the country’s burgeoning domestic gas production in the Black Sea. 

‘Need to demonstrate seriousness’

Australia, which will chair the Antalya negotiations, relies on fossil fuels for over 60% of its electricity, with coal alone still supplying 45%. According to experts, it lacks an ambitious plan to shift away from fossil fuels at home, relying heavily on carbon offsetting to reach its climate targets. 

Australia is also the world’s third-largest fossil fuel exporter and has plans to expand its coal and gas production, which is backed by significant government subsidies. It recently upset climate groups by approving an extension of the Saraji open-cut coal mine in Queensland.  

Türkiye says it has “final decision” at COP31 despite Australia running negotiations

Jennifer Morgan, a senior fellow with the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and former climate envoy for Germany, said Türkiye and Australia need to demonstrate their seriousness about their COP presidency roles by leading by example on the energy transition.

“They have made progress in renewable energy,” she told reporters this week. “But I think their credibility – and their ability to therefore bring momentum and good outcomes to the COP – will depend on their taking further action at home.” 

Türkiye’s electrification homework

The co-hosts’ fossil fuel policies are being scrutinised in the run-up to the annual UN climate summit, with much riding on the signal climate diplomacy sends on the energy transition.

Türkiye has so far stopped short of putting any overt political capital behind the fossil fuel transition itself. It has instead been rallying support for a new global electrification target of 35% by 2035, seen as the centrepiece of this year’s non-negotiated Action Agenda put forward by Ankara.

Electrification emerges as COP31 priority

COP31 president Murat Kurum said last week the push to electrify economies – through measures like electric vehicles and heat pumps – will “automatically” lead to a reduction in the use of fossil fuels.

Türkiye’s own energy plan projects the country’s electrification rate would fall short on the global target and only hit 25% by 2035, according to the CAT report, which called for a “substantial step-change” in electrification policies and the deployment of more renewable power and grid infrastructure. 

Coal still dominant

CAT’s analysts also warned that, without a parallel phase-out of fossil fuels, rising electricity demand risks being met in part by coal and gas, failing to deliver the emissions reductions the electrification target is meant to achieve. 

Türkiye has had some success in its clean energy build-out: the share of electricity generation from wind and solar rose to 22% in 2025, up from 12% in 2020, according to the CAT report.

But coal’s role in Türkiye’s electricity mix has also grown, in both its share and absolute terms, over the past decade. And while reliance on fossil gas has declined overall, it still plays an important role in Ankara’s energy policy, which is pushing to boost domestic gas production in the Black Sea.

Pilot boats assist the Osman Gazi as it navigates the Bosphorus on its way to the Black Sea on May 29, 2025 in Istanbul, Turkey. The platform will dock at the Filyos Port in the Black Sea and will stay for a 20 year mission and will provide double the natural gas intake of Turkey to 20 million cubic meters per day. (Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images) Pilot boats assist the Osman Gazi as it navigates the Bosphorus on its way to the Black Sea on May 29, 2025 in Istanbul, Turkey. The platform will dock at the Filyos Port in the Black Sea and will stay for a 20 year mission and will provide double the natural gas intake of Turkey to 20 million cubic meters per day. (Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

Dr Niklas Höhne from the NewClimate Institute said the government could demonstrate leadership as COP31 president by building on its recent successes in increasing its renewable energy capacity and announcing targets and plans to phase out coal and gas ahead of the summit. 

According to CAT, Türkiye should phase out coal by 2040 and fossil gas by 2045 at the latest to align its power sector with global efforts to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5C above preindustrial times. 

Türkiye quiet on fossil fuel roadmap

Ümit Şahin, coordinator of climate change studies at the Istanbul Policy Center (IPM), said Türkiye’s strategy is to approach the fossil fuel debate exclusively from the “end-use point of view”. 

“I don’t expect any push from the Turkish presidency to the producer countries in terms of fossil fuel production,” he told reporters. 

Neither does Şahin believe the Turkish presidency will throw its political weight behind another big-ticket item for COP31: a new global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. 

Brazil took on the responsibility to voluntarily draft this document outside of the formal negotiations as a way to break the deadlock at last year’s UN summit in Belém when governments clashed over whether to develop one. 

The outgoing COP30 presidency will deliver the roadmap in early November – but it will be up to Türkiye and Australia to guide countries towards a decision on how the blueprint will be taken forward, either inside or outside the negotiations.

Leadership needed

Australia’s Chris Bowen, COP31’s president of negotiations, promised to lobby producing countries to deliver a “meaningful step forward” on the fossil fuel transition in an interview with The Guardian earlier this year. But he has been quiet on the role Australia sees for the fossil fuel transition roadmap. 

Natalie Jones, senior policy advisor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), said the COP31 co-presidents “must provide clear leadership” on this process. 

“This roadmap cannot be left in a dusty drawer,” she told journalists. “Rather, it must be translated into action, with all countries identifying what elements they can adopt or develop in their own national roadmap.”

• Sep 11, 2026 Clean Energy Frontier Made in Nigeria: The race to build an African solar industry from scratch A solar power revolution is gathering pace in Africa and Nigeria wants a slice of the fast-growing industry, but competing with Chinese imports won’t be easy Read more
• Sep 8, 2026 Clean Energy Frontier China’s industrial engine starts to break its fossil fuel habit Despite a rebound in coal generation this year, clean energy from wind and solar is gaining ground on the fossil fuels that have powered decades of industry growth Read more

Like Türkiye, Australia has yet to produce a national blueprint for winding down coal, gas and oil. Rather than moving toward a phase-out, state and federal governments have kept expanding fossil fuel licensing over the past year, according to a new analysis published this month by Climate Analytics. 

Under existing policy, both coal and gas are on track to remain in Australia’s power system as late as 2050 – a trajectory the report defines as incompatible with the 1.5C limit the country says it’s committed to. 

No binding end dates for the Netherlands

Analysts are watching out for national transition roadmaps as a bellwether for governments that claim to be leaders in the global shift away from fossil fuels.

The climate and environment ministers of Colombia and the Netherlands, which are co-hosting the Santa Marta conference, embrace on the podium during the high-level segment in Santa Marta, Colombia, April 28, 2026 (Photo: Colombia Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development) The climate and environment ministers of Colombia and the Netherlands, which are co-hosting the Santa Marta conference, embrace on the podium during the high-level segment in Santa Marta, Colombia, April 28, 2026 (Photo: Colombia Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development)

The Netherlands, which co-hosted the first fossil fuel transition conference in Santa Marta this year, published its own domestic roadmap earlier this week. The document followed through on a pledge that “leadership on transitioning away from fossil fuels must be backed by concrete action, not just ambitious words”, said a spokesperson for Stientje van Veldhoven, the Dutch minister for climate policy.

But experts criticised the plan for failing to set a binding end date for the country’s fossil fuel production and use. While targeting a rapid increase in renewables capacity, the Dutch government only commits to phasing out oil, gas and coal “in the energy and feedstock system to eventually zero, and to minimise fossil use” by 2050. 

Yvo de Boer, a former Dutch diplomat and executive secretary of the UN climate body, said the Dutch roadmap falls short of what’s needed to give industry the confidence to deploy capital in support of the energy transition with greater predictability. 

“Ultimately, a roadmap without deadlines is nothing more than a footpath paved with good intentions,” he added, writing on LinkedIn. 

The post Fossil fuel expansion threatens COP31 hosts’ credibility, experts warn appeared first on Climate Home News.

This is a first-hand account by Margaretha Winda, a journalist based in Pulang Pisau, Central Kalimantan, on Indonesia’s wildfires, which has produced hazardous smoke that chokes its people and wildlife, and has spread to neighbouring countries Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, and the Philippines. 

There is something ironic about forest and land fires. A blaze may start on a single plot of land. But the resulting smoke and haze do not recognize boundaries of ownership. They move past fences, roads, villages. They enter homes, schools, and the lungs of people who never lit a match. Those who never started the fire are the ones who end up paying for it — and that is as true a few kilometers from the fire as it is a few hundred.

What it’s like here

I remember one morning this season waking up to a sky already overcast, the sun reduced to a faint, sickly yellow smear behind the haze. The smell hits before anything else — burning peat, sharp and distinctive, the kind that settles into your chest until it’s hard to take a full breath. And yet life around me didn’t stop: women were still washing clothes at the riverbank with no protection at all, no masks, no thought given to a health check. Children rode their bicycles to school through thick smoke, unmasked, because no notice had come telling schools to close.

This year is worse than anything I remember from three years ago. Back then, fires happened too, but the smoke never got this thick, and it was brought under control quickly. This year’s fires spread everywhere, and the response never caught up.

Where I live, in Pulang Pisau, 1,503 hotspots and 38 fires have burned 334 hectares this season. Jabiren Raya alone accounts for 1,303 hotspots and 257 hectares — including peat near the Tumbang Nusa bridge up to 40 meters deep, among the deepest burning in the regency. It smolders underground and resists rain rather than burning out quickly.

A Forest and Land Fire Control Brigade worker tries to extinguish a fire in Pulang Pisau, Central Kalimantan province, on Aug 12, 2026. Photo: Reuters/Ajeng Dinar Ulfiana

I am not writing this from a distance. I’m a journalist, and this season my job has put me at the fire sites themselves, working right up against the smoke. The one thing that’s changed for me is that I now have to wear a mask more carefully than ever, just to avoid getting sick myself — though for most people around me, that choice doesn’t even exist. Work doesn’t stop for haze. There is no version of survival here that includes staying home.

It has reached my own family, too. I have two children, and both came down with acute respiratory infections during this haze season that simply wouldn’t clear — coughing, flu, and at one point diarrhea. They were not the only ones. Children and elderly people across my community have ended up in hospital, struggling to breathe.

Other impacts I’ve seen

Nationally, Indonesia’s health ministry recorded nearly 51,000 acute respiratory infection cases tied to the haze in July and August alone. Two volunteers fighting fires in Central Kalimantan died this month from breathing difficulties. An orangutan was found on a plantation in West Kalimantan and later died of suspected smoke inhalation; firefighters elsewhere have found snake and pangolin carcasses in burned areas.

I’ve seen versions of this closer to home too. In Pulang Pisau, in the early morning and evening, visibility here drops to about one meter. The wildlife I’ve seen displaced is mostly snakes, turtles, and monkeys — animals whose habitat simply burned out from under them. A duck farm near one of the fire sites was directly hit as well, its surroundings caught up in the same blaze. On schooling: some areas of Pulang Pisau have shifted to distance learning, but others are still holding regular in-person classes in the middle of all this smoke — there’s no consistent rule, just whatever each school decides on its own.

And the government’s presence has been strangely uneven. Even as fires grew large across the district, official attention stayed narrowly fixed on Desa Tumbang Nusa, while other areas burned with far less response. 

Smoke doesn’t stop at the borders

I’ve lived through enough dry seasons here to recognize the warning signs: the sky dimming to a dull yellow-grey before the smoke rolls in for good. The wind carries the smoke north toward Palangka Raya. This year, it even crossed the Java Sea and kept going — and by the first week of September, four other countries were living inside it too.

• Singapore. On September 4, residents woke up to a smoggy sky as the air quality index crossed into unhealthy territory. By late afternoon, IQAir’s global rankings placed the city with the third-worst air on the planet.
• Malaysia. In Sarawak state, the capital Kuching had already been ranked the world’s most polluted city for over a week straight, with a hazardous reading of 311. On September 4, its Air Pollutant Index in the town of Serian surged past 500 — a level that can halt nonessential work and outdoor activity — prompting Malaysia’s king to consent to a state of emergency there. A Serian resident told reporters, “Even when I turn on the air conditioner, I can still smell the smoke in my house.” Days earlier, the health ministry reported asthma cases up 259% and upper respiratory infections up 124% in a single week.
• The Philippines. Officials declared air quality “acutely unhealthy” across Manila’s metro area, the Visayas, and Mindanao — three separate island groups, hundreds of kilometers apart, choking on the same haze. The health department was telling people to mask up..
• Brunei. Hazy conditions have blanketed the sultanate since mid-August, with no clear end in sight as the fires behind it keep burning.

The city center blanketed in thick haze in Kuching, Sarawak state, Malaysia, on Sept. 4, 2026. Photo: AP Photo/Xpin Voon.

We may live in very different places, but our fears are starting to sound the same. Families in Sarawak are now doing what mine has done all season — watching their children for coughs, keeping them inside, waiting for the air to clear. Those who contributed least to causing this crisis are so often the first, and the hardest, hit by it. 

An estimated 10.67 million people are affected by this haze here in Indonesia alone.  Citizens have taken this to court before. In 2017, a group of Palangka Raya residents won a citizen lawsuit against the Indonesian government over its failure in handling forest and land fires and in preventing a haze disaster — a court found the state guilty of unlawful negligence, a ruling upheld on appeal and again by the Supreme Court in 2019, only to be dismissed again in a judicial review on 2022. But winning in court hasn’t meant winning in practice: judgments like this one have gone largely unenforced. 

So when people elsewhere start watching their children for coughs and keeping them indoors, waiting for the air to clear — I recognize that fear completely. It’s the one my family has lived inside all season, without the world watching.

Why this keeps happening

Landowners are responsible for safeguarding their land. Companies are responsible for ensuring their operations don’t create risk. Government is responsible for making sure all of this is actually enforced — not just showing up once a fire is already large.

And I want to be precise about who is actually burning, because this gets misunderstood constantly, both inside and outside Indonesia. Dayak communities here largely stopped clearing land by fire a long time ago. The fires happening now are not, in my experience, a story about traditional farming practices gone wrong. 

Part of why these fires catch and spread so easily  goes back decades, to how this land was managed. Much of Kalimantan’s peat has been drained for industrial agriculture, including oil palm, leaving it dry enough to burn like fuel instead of holding the water that once kept it from catching. Indonesian law requires companies operating on peatland to keep it wet, but those rules are widely ignored, and to make it worse the President dismantled the ad hoc government agency that tasked specifically for peat restoration last year, leaving accountability gap that no other institutions seem to prepared to fill.

Burnt peatland in Central Kalimantan province, Indonesia, in August 2026. Photo: Krismes Santo Haloho/Mongabay Indonesia.

What’s also changed is the climate in which we now live. Longer, hotter dry seasons — the kind scientists tie to the broader climate crisis – are setting the stage for fires to start faster and burn longer. Layered on top of this year’s own strong El Niño, fires can now burn underground indried-out peat for months.

The way forward

Communities here already practice gotong royong — mutual cooperation, neighbors carrying each other through hardship. I opened a volunteer relief post in the Kahayan Hilir subdistrict this season to supply logistics to Masyarakat Peduli Api — the volunteer firefighters actually on the ground putting these fires out. A lot of people have stepped up to donate food and drink for them. But those volunteers are still going out without basic equipment — hoses to fight the fire, fuel for the pumps that draw water. That gap shouldn’t be theirs to fill alone, and it shouldn’t have to substitute for a government or companies acting before the smoke crosses a border, rather than after.

This haze disaster isn’t new, and it isn’t only this year’s story — it comes back every long dry season, and every year the response arrives just as unprepared as the last. My ask, to the government and to anyone reading this far: don’t let this become an opportunity for a handful of elites remain unaccountable while residents’ rice fields burn, while elderly people, children, and pregnant women are hospitalized, while the actual cost gets absorbed by people who had no hand in causing it.  In the end, polluters are darkening our collective skies and must pay for the damage they’ve caused. From burning fossil fuels that heat up the planet to clearing forests for plantations, it’s the actions of big corporations, not small farmers, that are setting our forests on fire. 

These are the very forests and lands that have given life to our communities for generations that deserve better than to be reduced to smoke. Governments must step up and hold the polluters accountable, so that our forests, our country, and all of us who live here can finally breathe freely again.   

 

The post The Haze We All Breathe: A Letter from Kalimantan, Indonesia appeared first on 350.

A Mississippi facility will produce transformers in the 10 MVA to 160 MVA range, designed for voltages up to 230 kV. The additional capacity “is expected to help alleviate industry-wide supply constraints,” a Hitachi official told Utility Dive.

Picture a world where half the planet’s cattle ranches simply aren’t there anymore. Where does all that land go? What do farmers grow instead? And who wins or loses in the process? A major new analysis in Nature finally puts real numbers behind those questions.

The team modeled what would happen if the world actually switched to sustainable diets, rather than sticking with business as usual. The results are dramatic: cattle production could fall by half by 2050. The amount of land devoted to farming fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes could rise by 1.5 million square kilometers—more than twice the area of France—while the land area used to farm wheat, corn, rice, and other grains might fall by a similar amount.

The goal was “to recognize, a little more honestly, what would be the magnitude of these changes,” says Daniel Mason-D’Croz, an economist at Cornell University and one of three lead authors on the study. And importantly, “what kind of disruptions and dislocations it would mean for [food] producers?”

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:Relocating global croplands could produce the same food on half the land with 70% less emissions

 

The work grew out of a string of findings over the past few years. In 2018, a team that included Mason-D’Croz predicted the environmental footprint of global food production would grow 50 to 90% by 2050, driven by growing populations, rising wealth, and more meat-eating. They also found that staying within planetary boundaries would take multiple fixes at once: less food waste, better agricultural technologies, and worldwide dietary change. Around the same time, the EAT-Lancet commission reported that eating less meat and more plants would cut rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers—while also helping the planet.

So what does the reshuffled map actually look like? They found that by 2050, reduced livestock farming would free up vast stretches of grassland unsuitable for most crops—land that might go to wind or solar power, rewilding, or other uses. Production of sugar crops, such as cane, could drop by roughly a third. Some farming would shift to entirely new locations, depending on the crops and the health of local soils and water supplies. Prices of meats, dairy, and grains could fall by 15 to 30 percent, while those of fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes might rise a few percentage points.

“The challenges are really big,” says Mason-D’Croz—and if the food transition is to succeed, it will need to address them. “Livestock is a really important source of income in rural communities,” he says, citing one example. Any food transition will need to find new pathways and futures those local economies. “If you ignore these things, you probably won’t have the political will to make some of these changes.”

Gibson, et al. “Food systems transformation would reshape global agriculture.” Nature. 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

.

68 disputed documents, allegations concerning disclosure of Kent Quinlan’s identity, a reserved Supreme Court judgment—and ASIC has already been urged in Parliament to examine the case

The long-running litigation between former ERM Power executive Kent Quinlan and Shell Energy Operations Pty Ltd has reached another potentially important stage, with the Supreme Court of Queensland being asked to determine how legal professional privilege interacts with Australia’s statutory protections for corporate whistleblowers.

At the centre of the latest hearing are 68 documents that Quinlan is seeking from Shell.

According to a detailed report published on 18 September 2026 by Michael West Media, Shell maintains legal professional privilege over the disputed material, while Quinlan’s legal team argues that at least some communications may fall within the crime/fraud—or iniquity—exception to privilege. (Michael West)

Justice Soraya Ryan has reserved judgment and reportedly indicated that she hopes to deliver her decision by 7 November 2026. (Michael West)

This is an interlocutory dispute. The underlying allegations made by Quinlan remain contested and have not been determined at trial.

The 68 documents

Quinlan, formerly a senior executive at ERM Power before the company was acquired by Shell in 2019, has for years pursued litigation arising from matters he says he reported internally.

His allegations include claims concerning sham electricity transactions, insider trading, market manipulation, inflated profits, disclosure of his identity as a whistleblower and subsequent retaliation.

Those are Quinlan’s allegations. They are not findings of wrongdoing by a court.

The latest hearing concerns whether Shell can withhold the 68 documents on the basis of legal professional privilege.

Michael West Media reports that Tony Morris KC, appearing for Quinlan, invoked the exception under which privilege does not protect communications made in furtherance of crime, fraud or certain improper conduct attracting civil penalties. (Michael West)

Morris reportedly argued that if communications were created in furtherance of the misconduct alleged by Quinlan, privilege would not attach merely because lawyers were involved.

Shell’s position, according to the same report, is that Australia’s 2019 whistleblower reforms do not override legal professional privilege. (Michael West)

That leaves the court confronting an unusually important question: what happens when documents over which privilege is asserted are themselves alleged to contain evidence relevant to breaches of statutory whistleblower protections?

Shell evidence and 50 disputed documents

One reported feature of the hearing deserves particular attention.

According to Michael West Media, Shell’s own evidence identifies 50 of the 68 disputed documents as disclosing Quinlan’s identity as a whistleblower without his consent. (Michael West)

That statement should presently be treated as a report of evidence and argument before the court—not as a judicial finding that Shell unlawfully disclosed Quinlan’s identity.

Whether the circumstances amounted to a breach of the Corporations Act protections, and what consequences might follow, are matters for the court.

Nevertheless, the number illustrates why the privilege dispute is potentially consequential.

This follows the June disclosure judgment

The present hearing is not an isolated development.

In Quinlan v Shell Energy Operations Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 115, the Supreme Court dealt in June with a series of interlocutory applications concerning disclosure and redactions.

The court ordered some further disclosure while refusing broader relief sought by Quinlan. Importantly, however, the challenge concerning legal professional privilege was left for later determination.

That is the issue which has now returned to court.

Our previous coverage can be found here:

Kent Quinlan v Shell: Court Fast-Tracks Evidence After Terminal Cancer Diagnosis (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

And Parliament has now entered the picture

There is another reason the latest hearing deserves attention.

Only two weeks ago, Senator Paul Scarr raised the Quinlan litigation during a hearing of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.

Addressing ASIC Chair Sarah Court, Senator Scarr referred to corporate defendants seeking suppression orders concerning evidence connected with allegations of corporate wrongdoing and asked:

“Doesn’t that raise red flags that ASIC should be looking into this matter?”

He subsequently encouraged ASIC to take a serious look at the case.

Sarah Court responded:

“Yes, Senator, we can do that.”

Our report on that intervention is here:

Senator Paul Scarr Urges ASIC to Examine Kent Quinlan’s Shell Case After Raising “Red Flags” (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

The parliamentary exchange did not establish the truth of Quinlan’s allegations and did not amount to an ASIC finding against Shell.

It did, however, put the regulator’s possible examination of the circumstances firmly on the public record.

Why the privilege ruling could matter beyond Shell

The immediate dispute concerns Quinlan and Shell, but the legal issue has potentially wider significance.

Australia strengthened its corporate whistleblower regime in 2019. Among its central protections is confidentiality surrounding the identity of qualifying whistleblowers.

Legal professional privilege is itself a longstanding and important protection, permitting clients to obtain confidential legal advice.

The difficulty presented in the Quinlan litigation is the collision between those principles where a party argues that privileged communications themselves may be relevant to alleged prohibited conduct.

Quinlan’s case therefore poses a question with implications extending beyond Shell:

Can legal professional privilege protect documents alleged to form part of the very conduct that whistleblower legislation was enacted to prevent?

Justice Ryan’s eventual reasons may provide an important answer—or at least clarify where Australian law draws the boundary.

A decision expected before Quinlan gives evidence

There is now a significant timetable.

Justice Ryan has reserved judgment and reportedly hopes to give her decision by 7 November 2026. (Michael West)

Quinlan is then scheduled to give evidence for approximately two weeks from 7 December 2026, based on an evidence-in-chief statement reported to run to almost 4,000 pages. (Michael West)

His evidence timetable has particular urgency because of his serious illness, which has previously led the proceedings to be accelerated.

That makes the coming weeks potentially important both for Quinlan personally and for the wider litigation.

What has—and has not—been established

Given the seriousness of the allegations, the distinction is essential.

Established from the public court and parliamentary record: litigation is continuing; disclosure and privilege have been contested; the latest privilege hearing has occurred; judgment has been reserved; and Senator Scarr has publicly asked ASIC to examine circumstances surrounding the case.

Reported from the latest hearing: 68 documents are disputed; Shell’s evidence reportedly identifies 50 as containing disclosure of Quinlan’s whistleblower identity without consent; Quinlan invokes the iniquity exception; Shell relies upon legal professional privilege.

Not established: that Shell or any other defendant committed insider trading, market manipulation, sham transactions, unlawful whistleblower disclosure, retaliation or other wrongdoing alleged in the proceedings.

Those allegations remain contested.

The next date to watch

The immediate date for the diary is 7 November 2026.

If Justice Ryan delivers the anticipated judgment by then, the court may provide considerably greater clarity about the disputed documents and, potentially, about the relationship between legal professional privilege and Australia’s corporate whistleblower regime.

After years of litigation, the Quinlan proceedings have now attracted judicial, parliamentary and potentially regulatory attention simultaneously.

That makes the next judgment considerably more than another procedural waypoint.

Sources: Michael West Media — 18 September 2026 | Previous RoyalDutchShellPlc.com Quinlan coverage | 4 September ASIC/Parliament report

Shell Whistleblower Case: Queensland Court Weighs Legal Privilege Against Whistleblower Protection was first posted on September 18, 2026 at 12:51 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Despite millions of dollars in grants and technical help for African businesses to power farming and other food production activities with renewable energy, most efforts remain stuck at the early stages because they struggle to find the investors, markets and expertise they need to grow.

This was the message from a coalition of global institutions working on energy, water and agriculture at this month’s Africa Food Systems Forum in Kigali, Rwanda.

“Energy, agriculture, water and nutrition actors rarely design solutions together,” the Agri-Energy Coalition said in a Call to Action on powering food systems with clean energy.

Using more renewables – especially solar power – to drive food systems would reduce food losses, ensure year-round availability and affordability of healthy foods, and improve productivity, income and resilience among farmers, food processors and other small enterprises, the coalition added. 

In an interview with Climate Home News at the forum, Olamide Niyi-Afuye, CEO of the Africa Minigrid Developers Association (AMDA) – a body representing private-sector developers of small-scale, off-grid electricity systems across the continent – said its members are starting to recognise this interdependence and are increasingly considering businesses that combine energy with agricultural activities.

• Sep 3, 2026 Energy More support needed to power Africa’s food systems with renewables, experts say Renewable energy could help African food businesses boost productivity and competitiveness, but the upfront cost, fragmented markets and limited financing stand in the way Read more
• Sep 8, 2025 News Second Africa Climate Summit seeks to jump hurdles to green industrialisation A report on progress since the first summit in 2023 says financial, infrastructure and trade obstacles are hampering “climate-positive growth” on the continent Read more

This, Niyi-Afuye added, could lead to greater supply and use of clean power for key processes like irrigation, food processing and storage, creating new sources of revenue for both sectors. 

CHN: Conversations at the Africa Food Systems Forum highlighted how organisations working in energy and agriculture often operate in silos. What has hampered their collaboration, and how has that affected Africa’s economic development?

A: Most mini-grid companies in Africa were primarily incentivised to achieve connections. If you look at some ongoing projects, you see a cost-per-connection model [of revenue]. When a subsidy is tied to achieving a connection, regardless of whether it is a productive connection, you might not notice the problem until five years down the line, when you realise the cash flows are not what you projected.

Despite African walkout, fractious land COP ends without drought deal

So now we’re in a “come-to-Jesus moment” as an industry, where we’re righting the wrongs and adjusting our business models to make sure companies do not go bust and there is some level of sustainability over the long term.

The saying is not wrong that we’ve been working in our own silos because we’ve focused on the smaller things instead of the helicopter view. There needs to be cross-pollination [between the energy and agriculture sectors] because, if we are thinking about industrialisation, energy is a key driver of industrialisation. We will not achieve that if we’re not in the room and part of those conversations.

CHN: Productive use of energy is intended to ensure electricity access goes beyond lighting homes to improving livelihoods, creating jobs and powering equipment. But what happens when farmers cannot afford the equipment they need to do that? How can energy, agriculture and equipment players work together to make the transition more accessible?

A: That’s why we’re having conversations with companies set up to de-risk the agriculture sector. By leveraging that connection, we’re able to aggregate potential energy needs and develop instruments that make equipment more affordable through bulk procurement.

We can have arrangements that make it easier for farmers and food producers to lease equipment and eventually own it over a period. There’s no real pressure to recover the capital very quickly because you’re looking at scale.

Rice farmer Danjuma Okuwa adjusts his newly installed electric rice milling machine at his compound in Rukubi, Nasarawa, Nigeria, September 27, 2022. (Thomson Reuters Foundation/Afolabi Sotunde) Rice farmer Danjuma Okuwa adjusts his newly installed electric rice milling machine at his compound in Rukubi, Nasarawa, Nigeria, September 27, 2022. (Thomson Reuters Foundation/Afolabi Sotunde)

There is a whole lot across the agricultural value chain that needs energy, from farming and harvesting to food processing and value-addition. We need to understand the energy needs across the value chain and bring our members in to provide solutions.

Developers do not necessarily need to provide every productive-use solution themselves. They can partner with equipment suppliers, financiers, agribusinesses and other service providers to enable customers to use electricity productively. The objective is simple: do not just electrify communities; enable economic activity that uses that electricity.

CHN: When Africa’s industrialisation is discussed, you hear things like renewables cannot provide enough baseload, while some food processors are sceptical about switching to renewable energy because of these concerns about reliability. What is your response?

A: It’s not a controversial statement to say that a typical baseload is usually from the grid, and it’s usually from multiple sources including renewable energy. For large-scale operations, we can look at blending multiple sources of energy. But how do we solve the problem of a mid-sized farmer? We can solve it with a mini-grid using renewable energy.

Comment: Every country needs a model to help optimise its energy transition

If you go to a small farmer in a rural area, they don’t care about what source of energy they’re getting. They just want something that can help them get from A to B. If you look at the direct energy needs of farmers and food processors, I’m sure 90 percent of their consumption can be solved by renewable energy. Let’s start with that problem first. Then, as they scale, they might need to ramp up, and we can start talking about a bigger baseload.

CHN: How much agricultural value is lost because farmers and food businesses lack reliable, affordable electricity?

A: If you look at, for example, the fact that we need to maybe plant tomatoes or strawberries in Jos before it gets to Lagos [Nigeria], which most likely is by road, I can assure you that a good chunk, if not stored properly, would be bad by then. So the fact that we do not have energy is in itself a lost opportunity to maximise the potential of the agriculture sector. So until we’ve solved the energy problem, we will not salvage waste – and for me that is a lost opportunity. 

CHN: AGRA, an institution focused on scaling agricultural innovations to help smallholder farmers, estimates a massive shortfall between current investments in the continent’s food systems and what is actually needed to build a resilient, profitable agricultural economy – to the tune of $180 billion per year. Can integrating energy into food systems help bridge that gap?

A: Yes – if energy can help unlock the potential to earn more money, investors will follow the money. Investments go where there is certainty, and until there is certainty around cash flow and revenue, investment will be limited.

My vision is to see more Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) being signed between energy players and the agriculture sector. We can start by getting people into the room, understanding their pain points, crafting a framework and documentation that works for both parties, and then seeing deals happen.

This interview was shortened and edited for clarity.

The post How clean energy can boost business for Africa’s food producers appeared first on Climate Home News.

The drought hits hardest peasant farmers practicing subsistence agriculture who were forced onto marginal lands after being stripped of their ancestral territories.

The post Guatemala: Drought, Hunger, Dispossession, and an Unfulfilled Agrarian Agreement appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Without a dedicated Special Procedure, implementation of UNDROP risks becoming fragmented and inconsistent.

The post Geneva: Peasant Voices at the United Nations Continue Defending the Right to Seeds appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Cristina Rumbaitis del Rio is a senior advisor on adaptation and resilience with the United Nations Foundation and Mattias Söderberg is global climate lead at Danish NGO DanChurchAid.

Recent extreme events – from wildfires and heatwaves in Europe to flash flooding following a glacier collapse in Nepal – have shocked and devastated communities, bringing years of warnings about such climate impacts to the doorstep of communities around the world.

One thing is certain: the new climate reality is here – and the adaptation strategies designed for yesterday’s world are no longer sufficient.

Attribution science has since shown that the hotter and more frequent heatwaves we’re experiencing around the world would have been virtually impossible without today’s high concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Climate shocks are now so severe that they reverberate through supply chains, food and water systems, financial markets and the movement of people.

• Sep 9, 2026 Finance Foreign minister: Nepal needs “meaningful” international support to face climate threats Following its recent Himalayan flooding disaster, the South Asian nation is seeking urgent help from a new UN climate fund, appealing for “stronger global solidarity” Read more
• Sep 4, 2026 Justice Palestine: Israel’s bombing has left Gaza vulnerable to climate change With homes, hospitals and water storage destroyed, Palestine’s government says that Gazans have little protection from climate impacts and sets conditional emissions targets Read more

They must be a catalyst for a new way of thinking about adaptation and resilience, and how we finance solutions that work. A failure to invest in adaptation in one region can create costs far beyond it, which is why the concept of shared resilience is critical for leaders to grasp.

Investment not charity

At the UN General Assembly (UNGA 81) this month, leaders have an opportunity to translate today’s urgency into concrete commitments on adaptation and loss and damage finance ahead of COP31.

Those commitments are needed to underpin global stability, shared prosperity and human security. Governments should use this moment to show what a new response looks like: finance that reaches communities faster, supports locally grounded solutions, strengthens national systems, and helps countries prepare before the next shock arrives.

If we want sustained economic growth, food and water security, and resilient and prosperous societies across every region, adaptation must be at the heart of today’s development and security agenda. It cannot be just a future planning consideration or a narrow issue for climate ministries. Adaptation is now everyone’s business – and it must be financed fast and fair.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has repeatedly framed climate finance as an investment rather than charity, warning that “a world in climate chaos cannot be a world at peace” and describing human security as freedom from the chronic and sudden disruptions that climate change multiplies.

What’s more, adaptation delivers a real return-on-investment, with researchers estimating that every dollar invested produces $10 in benefits, saving lives, protecting livelihoods, and reducing the costs of future disasters.

Hitting adaptation limits

The urgency to scale adaptation systematically is growing. The newly released “Limiting Overshoot” report from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) confirms what scientists have long warned: exceeding global warming of 1.5C is now unavoidable under current policies. Yet, how high temperatures rise – and how long the world remains above the 1.5C threshold – will determine whether communities, economies and entire ecosystems can keep pace.

There are limits to adaptation. When we breach those limits, lives and livelihoods are lost, and people and ecosystems suffer greatly. We cannot simply build yesterday’s infrastructure a little stronger and assume it will be enough.

Nepal flood destruction shows “limits to adaptation”, scientists say

We need to fundamentally change the systems that determine how societies anticipate, absorb and recover from both immediate and evolving non-linear climate shocks. This includes transforming physical systems, such as infrastructure, and the governance systems that affect where and how we live to how we maintain our health and wellbeing.

Finance today is nowhere near the scale of the challenge.

The UNEP “Adaptation Gap Report 2025” estimates the shortfall in adaptation finance in developing countries at $284 billion–$339 billion a year – roughly 12 to 14 times current international public flows of around $26 billion. That gap is a development, economic and human security problem, especially for the most vulnerable populations who have contributed the least to causing the climate crisis.

Building resilience into financial systems

There are already signs of what a more systemic adaptation response could look like. Communities around the world are delivering practical solutions at local level, even as adaptation finance remains notoriously, and appallingly, difficult to access. Cyclone-resistant homes, local forecasting capacities, drought-resistant crops, heat insurance for pregnant informal workers and mangrove restoration are rooted in local knowledge and lived experience, while delivering benefits far beyond the communities where they originate from.

But local innovation alone is not enough; the systems around it need to be resilient too.

Jamaica offers one example. The country has built a multi-layered disaster-risk financing framework, including a catastrophe bond and contingency funds, through sustained fiscal discipline and proactive investment. Its debt-to-GDP ratio fell from around 147% in 2012 to around 62% in 202-25. That groundwork matters when disaster strikes.

Hurricane Melissa’s destruction shows need for climate resilience push

Following Hurricane Melissa, Jamaica was able to secure billions of dollars in reconstruction financing from multilateral banks – finance that might otherwise have been much harder to access. The lesson is clear: resilience can be built into the financial architecture of a country before a crisis arrives. That is the shift we now need to make at scale.

The foundations already exist – in Kingston’s fiscal reforms, in early-warning systems from the Sahel to the Pacific, and in every community that adapted before disaster struck. What is still missing is the political will, and the finance, to take what works and put it to work everywhere, at the speed our world’s new climate reality demands.

To hear more on this issue from high-level officials and experts, sign up for this event during Climate Week NYC, at 8am EDT on September 24 (in person or online), moderated by Climate Home News Editor Megan Rowling: Adapting to the New Climate Reality: Why Accelerating Impacts Demand New Responses.

The post Human security relies on adapting to the world’s new climate reality appeared first on Climate Home News.

Headline News:

• “Why Beer At Oktoberfest Could Soon Be In Short Supply” • Heat, parched soil, and noticeably smaller hop cones: for many hop farmers in Austria this year’s harvest is sobering. One of the country’s most important hop-growing regions, the Mühlviertel, is especially hard hit. Even the plants that survived the dry spell have not developed as they should. [Euronews]

Growing hops vines (NRCS Oregon, public domain)

• “BYD Planning Four Factories in Europe” • To help achieve its sales goals, now that the EU has high tariffs on EVs produced in China, BYD has to set up production facilities in Europe. The news this week is that BYD is planning on having three vehicle assembly plants and one battery factory in Europe. That’s the plan for now, at least. [CleanTechnica]
• “Greenland And Antarctica Have Lost 12 Trillion Tonnes Of Ice Since 1979” • Greenland and Antarctica have lost 12.5 trillion tonnes of ice since 1979, raising global sea levels by around 3.2 cm, according to a major scientific study. The researchers found that ice loss has accelerated in recent decades, particularly since the 1990s. [Euronews]
• “Greenpeace Satellite Analysis Exposes Disinformation By Moscow On Ukrainian Attacks” • An investigation by Greenpeace Ukraine and McKenzie Intelligence Services, exposes the Russian disinformation campaign claiming that Ukrainian artillery and drone strikes have badly damaged critical electric infrastructure supplying the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. [Greenpeace]
• “Ørsted Installs Second Hornsea 3 Topside” • Orsted has installed the second and final offshore converter station at the 2.9-GW Hornsea 3 wind farm off east England. The OCS was built by Aibel in Thailand, before sailing 13,000 nautical miles to Haugesund, Norway, for the installation and commissioning of high voltage equipment by Hitachi. [reNews]

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

Microplastics act like a “Trojan horse,” delivering pollutants, pesticides, and bacteria through the soil, a five-year multinational research project has found.

Read more on E360 →

Australia’s offshore regulator says a Prelude FLNG technician suffered hand fractures after turning gear moved unexpectedly during a manual engagement task. NOPSEMA found that Shell had not implemented effective engineering controls to prevent automatic operation and was relying too heavily on procedures, communication and worker actions to control hazardous energy.

Shell Australia has been issued with a new occupational health and safety improvement notice at Prelude FLNG after a worker suffered fracture injuries to the hand during the startup of a steam turbine generator.

The underlying NOPSEMA notice is more significant than the bare fact that an injury occurred.

According to Australia’s National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, the incident exposed a weakness in the way hazardous energy was being controlled during a manual task.

NOPSEMA concluded that Shell had contravened offshore health and safety law — and that it was likely to contravene the same provision again unless the underlying control system was changed.

That is the real story.

What happened on 2 August 2026

NOPSEMA says that on 2 August 2026, a production technician was manually engaging the turning gear during startup of a steam turbine generator at Prelude FLNG.

The normal pneumatic engagement system had failed.

Manual engagement was therefore being used instead.

During that activity, an automated start sequence energised the turning-gear motor.

The barring equipment moved.

The technician suffered fracture injuries to the hand.

The incident immediately raises the most basic machinery-safety question:

Why was equipment capable of automatic movement while a worker was manually engaging it?

NOPSEMA’s inspection went directly to that issue.

The regulator’s answer: the engineering controls were not enough

NOPSEMA identified four principal problems.

First, it said effective engineering controls had not been implemented to prevent automatic operation of the turning gear during manual engagement.

Second, manual engagement remained necessary whenever the pneumatic engagement system was unavailable.

Third, the task relied predominantly on procedural controls, worker actions and communication to prevent exposure to hazardous energy.

And fourth, NOPSEMA said critical controls — including electrical-isolation requirements and supervision of procedural compliance — had not been effectively implemented or verified.

That distinction between engineering controls and procedural controls is crucial.

A procedure tells a worker what should happen.

An engineering control is intended to make the dangerous event physically impossible, or at least substantially less likely.

In hazardous-energy work, the latter is generally the stronger protection.

A worker should not have to rely on everybody remembering every step

The regulator’s reasoning is unusually clear.

NOPSEMA said the activity depended predominantly upon administrative controls, procedures and individual actions to prevent exposure to hazardous energy.

The inspector was not satisfied that reasonably practicable measures had been implemented to prevent the equipment becoming energised or moving while manual engagement was taking place.

NOPSEMA therefore concluded that Shell had contravened Clause 9(1) of Schedule 3 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006.

This is not simply criticism that someone failed to follow a procedure.

It is criticism of the control architecture itself.

The safety system depended too heavily on humans ensuring that the automated system did not operate at the wrong moment.

The regulator’s requirement is that Shell now redesign or strengthen the system so that the hazard is better controlled at source.

NOPSEMA said the same incident could happen again

The notice does not treat the August injury as a completed event with no continuing significance.

NOPSEMA said Shell was likely to contravene the law again because manual engagement remained part of operational practice whenever the pneumatic system was unavailable.

In other words, the underlying task had not disappeared.

Nor had the mechanism that produced the injury.

The regulator said existing controls still relied predominantly on procedural compliance, communication and worker actions.

That finding explains why an improvement notice was issued.

The issue was not merely what happened to one technician on one day.

It was whether the same combination of conditions could expose another worker to the same hazard.

The potential consequences go beyond a broken hand

NOPSEMA’s notice describes the continuing risk in stark terms.

Workers undertaking manual engagement of the steam turbine generator turning gear could be exposed to unexpected or uncontrolled movement.

That could result in a person being:

struck;

trapped;

or:

crushed

by moving equipment or between moving and fixed components.

NOPSEMA identified potential consequences including:

fractures;

crush injuries;

and:

permanent impairment.

That puts the August injury into context.

The technician suffered fractures.

The regulator is warning that the same mechanism could potentially produce something considerably worse.

What Shell has now been ordered to do

NOPSEMA has required action on two levels.

Before any further manual engagement of the turning gear is undertaken, Shell must implement and verify controls preventing the turning-gear motor, automated start sequence or any other relevant energy source from causing movement while a person could be exposed.

Then Shell must review the design and operation of the turning-gear engagement system itself.

The objective is to:

eliminate or minimise the need for manual engagement;

prevent workers being exposed to unexpected energisation or movement;

and demonstrate that critical controls — including isolation, verification, supervision and procedural controls — are implemented, maintained and verified effectively.

NOPSEMA has given Shell 180 days from the date of the notice to complete the required actions.

This is an improvement notice — not a shutdown order

The distinction matters.

NOPSEMA did not issue a prohibition notice stopping Prelude FLNG from operating.

It issued an OHS Improvement Notice.

Under NOPSEMA’s enforcement framework, an improvement notice can be issued when an inspector believes a duty holder has contravened offshore OHS law and that the contravention creates, or could create, a health and safety risk.

The notice remains in effect until the required actions have been completed.

Failure to comply is an offence. (NOPSEMA)

So this should not be reported as:

“NOPSEMA shut down Prelude.”

It did not.

The correct statement is:

NOPSEMA has formally required Shell to improve the safety controls governing this activity.

The notice remains open

NOPSEMA’s current published-notices register lists Improvement Notice 2130, dated 10 September 2026, against Shell Australia and Prelude FLNG.

Its status is shown as:

Open. (NOPSEMA)

That means the regulatory process is still active.

The notice will cease to have effect once Shell completes the required actions and the relevant compliance process is satisfied.

Prelude already has a regulatory history

The latest notice should not be treated as though Prelude has never before attracted regulatory concern.

That would be inaccurate.

In December 2021, Prelude suffered a major loss of power following smoke in an uninterrupted power supply room.

The event led to loss of normal power, repeated power interruptions and degradation of some critical systems.

Seven workers were treated for heat-related conditions during the incident, including four who required intravenous fluids. (NOPSEMA)

NOPSEMA subsequently issued a general direction requiring Shell to investigate and demonstrate that Prelude could operate safely during a power-loss event before production resumed. (NOPSEMA)

That episode was considerably more serious operationally than the current hand injury.

But it established an important background:

Prelude is a technically complex facility in which failures of energy, automation and critical systems can have consequences extending well beyond a single piece of machinery.

Hazardous gases produced another notice in 2025

NOPSEMA issued Shell another improvement notice at Prelude in February 2025.

That notice concerned exposure to hazardous gases including benzene and hydrogen sulphide.

The regulator said Shell had received reports of odour problems over an extended period and that workers had presented with health effects.

NOPSEMA was not satisfied that Shell had comprehensively assessed the sources and circumstances of potential exposure or effectively controlled the gases at source. (NOPSEMA)

The notice required Shell to implement improved detection, monitoring and control systems.

NOPSEMA’s current register shows that notice as complied with. (NOPSEMA)

That point should also be recorded.

The existence of a past notice does not mean the violation remains outstanding indefinitely.

Another Prelude notice in 2023

In July 2023, NOPSEMA issued a separate improvement notice over controls associated with work to remove a pressure-relief and vacuum-relief valve on an off-specification condensate tank.

NOPSEMA’s register now records that notice as complied with. (NOPSEMA)

Taken together, the record does not support the simplistic proposition:

“Prelude is permanently unsafe.”

But neither does it support treating the latest incident as an isolated regulatory curiosity.

Over several years, Australia’s offshore regulator has repeatedly intervened on different occupational and process-safety issues at the facility.

The important safety principle is hierarchy of controls

There is a broader reason the latest notice deserves attention.

Industrial safety normally distinguishes between stronger and weaker types of controls.

At the stronger end are measures that eliminate the hazard or physically prevent exposure.

Further down the hierarchy are administrative controls:

procedures;

training;

communications;

supervision;

permits;

and instructions.

Those controls matter.

But they can fail because human beings make mistakes.

People become distracted.

Shift handovers are imperfect.

Instructions are misunderstood.

Assumptions differ.

The regulator’s criticism at Prelude effectively reflects that principle.

Shell’s task depended too heavily on people and procedure when an engineering solution should have better prevented automatic energisation.

Automation becomes dangerous when its boundaries are unclear

There is another feature of the incident that deserves attention.

Automation usually improves industrial safety.

Machines perform repeatable sequences.

Interlocks prevent unsafe states.

Computer systems remove some opportunities for human error.

But automation introduces another risk when operators cannot be certain exactly when equipment may start or move.

That becomes particularly dangerous when a worker has physically entered the operating envelope of machinery to perform a manual intervention.

In such circumstances, the fundamental protection is isolation.

The worker should not have to trust that an automated start sequence will not run.

The system should prevent it from running.

That is effectively what NOPSEMA is now requiring Shell to demonstrate.

Prelude’s scale makes small failures important

Prelude FLNG is one of the largest floating industrial facilities ever constructed.

Its purpose is remarkable:

produce natural gas offshore;

process it;

liquefy it;

store LNG;

and load it directly onto LNG carriers,

all without sending the gas to a conventional onshore liquefaction plant.

That concentration of equipment makes Prelude technologically impressive.

It also creates formidable complexity.

Power generation.

Cryogenic systems.

Compressors.

Gas processing.

Storage.

Marine systems.

Automated controls.

Rotating equipment.

Emergency systems.

Thousands upon thousands of components have to interact safely on a floating installation far from shore.

Against that background, an injury involving a turning gear can sound minor.

It is not minor to the person whose hand was fractured.

And from a process-safety perspective, unexpected movement caused by uncontrolled hazardous energy is exactly the kind of mechanism that must be taken seriously before it produces a worse outcome.

The correct question is not whether Prelude has accidents

Every large industrial system experiences faults.

No credible safety regime assumes otherwise.

The meaningful question is:

What happens after the fault?

Does another layer of protection prevent a worker being exposed?

Does the machinery fail safely?

Does isolation prevent automatic energisation?

Can a single equipment fault combine with a procedural weakness to create an injury?

The latest NOPSEMA notice says that in this instance the protection was not good enough.

That finding deserves attention precisely because it comes from the offshore safety regulator rather than from speculation outside the facility.

Commentary

There is a tendency in corporate safety communications to describe injuries as unfortunate individual events.

A hand fracture.

A trip.

A dropped object.

A maintenance incident.

That framing can obscure the more important engineering question:

What system allowed the injury to happen?

NOPSEMA’s notice is useful because it does not stop at the injured technician.

It traces the event backwards.

The pneumatic system failed.

Manual intervention became necessary.

An automatic sequence remained capable of energising the motor.

The task relied predominantly upon procedures and human actions.

Critical isolation and supervision controls were not effectively implemented or verified.

Then the machinery moved.

That chain is the story.

And the regulator’s answer is equally important.

Do not merely improve the wording of the procedure.

Change the controls.

Reduce or eliminate the need for manual engagement.

Prevent unexpected energisation.

Verify isolation.

That is a much more meaningful response than simply reminding workers to “take care.”

Prelude’s history makes the notice harder to dismiss

No single incident proves a systemic safety culture failure.

That claim would go beyond the evidence.

The current notice concerns one particular activity.

The 2025 gas-exposure notice concerned a different hazard.

The 2023 notice involved another maintenance activity.

The 2021 power-loss investigation concerned facility-wide resilience.

They should not simply be added together as though they were one event.

But neither should they be considered in complete isolation.

Together they show that NOPSEMA has had reason, on multiple occasions, to intervene formally at Prelude.

That is a matter of public regulatory record.

For a facility as complex and strategically important as Prelude FLNG, those records deserve scrutiny.

What is established

On 2 August 2026, a Prelude production technician suffered fracture injuries to the hand during manual engagement of steam turbine generator turning gear.

The normal pneumatic engagement system had failed.

During the manual task, an automated start sequence energised the turning-gear motor, causing movement of the barring equipment.

NOPSEMA found that Shell had not implemented effective engineering controls to prevent automatic operation during manual engagement.

The regulator also found that the activity relied predominantly on procedures, communication and worker actions and that critical controls including isolation and supervision had not been effectively implemented or verified.

NOPSEMA concluded that Shell had contravened Clause 9(1) of Schedule 3 to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act and was likely to contravene the provision again unless the risk was addressed.

Shell has been given 180 days to complete the required actions.

NOPSEMA currently lists the notice as open. (NOPSEMA)

What is not established

The notice does not establish that Prelude FLNG as a whole is unsafe.

It does not establish that Shell deliberately exposed the worker to injury.

It does not allege that the incident was concealed.

And it does not amount to a prohibition on Prelude production.

The regulator’s finding is specific:

the controls governing manual engagement of the turning gear were inadequate and must be improved.

Sources

NOPSEMA — OHS Improvement Notice 2130, Prelude FLNG, 10 September 2026.

This is the primary regulatory document setting out the injury, the circumstances, the legal contravention, the continuing risk and the corrective actions required of Shell.

NOPSEMA — OHS Improvement Notice 2130, Prelude FLNG

NOPSEMA — Published directions and notices.

The regulator currently lists Improvement Notice 2130 against Shell Australia Pty Ltd and Prelude FLNG with status Open. (NOPSEMA)

NOPSEMA — Published directions and notices

NOPSEMA — Investigation of the December 2021 Prelude FLNG power-loss incident.

The investigation records facility-wide power disruption and seven workers treated for heat-related conditions. (NOPSEMA)

NOPSEMA — Prelude FLNG power-loss investigation report

NOPSEMA — OHS Improvement Notice 1967, February 2025.

The notice addressed workforce exposure risks involving benzene and hydrogen sulphide at Prelude. NOPSEMA’s register now lists it as complied with. (NOPSEMA)

NOPSEMA — Improvement Notice 1967

Energy News Bulletin: reporting on the new Prelude improvement notice and worker injury.

Energy News Bulletin — Shell hit with NOPSEMA notice after injury onboard Prelude

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Prelude Worker Injured After Machinery Energised During Manual Task — NOPSEMA Orders Shell to Fix Safety Controls was first posted on September 18, 2026 at 10:08 am.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Shell-led LNG Canada could make a final investment decision on Phase 2 as early as October, according to Reuters. If approved, the expansion would roughly double the Kitimat facility’s capacity from 14 million tonnes a year to about 28 million tonnes. More importantly, it would connect Shell’s enlarged Western Canadian gas position directly to Asian LNG markets at a time when buyers are increasingly concerned about supply security.

Shell may be approaching one of the most consequential investment decisions in its global LNG portfolio.

Reuters reported on 17 September that the partners in LNG Canada could reach a final investment decision on the proposed Phase 2 expansion as early as next month, citing three people familiar with the matter.

The project would add roughly another 14 million tonnes per annum of LNG capacity, taking the Kitimat facility from its current 14 mtpa to approximately 28 mtpa.

That would effectively double the scale of Canada’s first major LNG export terminal.

But the number alone does not explain why Phase 2 matters so much to Shell.

The real significance lies in what sits behind the liquefaction trains:

Shell’s expanding Montney gas production.

Its 40% stake in LNG Canada.

Its global LNG trading organisation.

Its shorter Pacific shipping route to Asia.

And now:

a geopolitical environment in which Asian customers are placing increasing value on diversified supply that does not depend upon Middle Eastern shipping routes.

That combination makes Phase 2 potentially much more than an expansion project.

It could become one of the clearest expressions yet of Shell’s integrated gas strategy.

First, the important caveat

Phase 2 has not yet been approved.

Reuters reports that a decision could come as early as early October.

But Shell told Reuters that it continues to work with its venture partners to explore pathways towards a possible expansion, and that any decision would depend upon factors including competitiveness, affordability, government support and stakeholder needs.

LNG Canada itself was equally careful.

It said that any final investment decision remained subject to each joint-venture participant independently satisfying its commercial, fiscal, regulatory and governance requirements.

The company said only that it hoped to make a decision before the end of 2026.

So the correct position today is:

Phase 2 appears to be moving closer to FID.

Not:

Phase 2 has been sanctioned.

That distinction should remain explicit until the partners make a formal announcement.

Shell is the largest shareholder

The LNG Canada ownership structure is:

Shell — 40%

PETRONAS — 25%

PetroChina — 15%

Mitsubishi — 15%

KOGAS — 5%

Shell therefore holds the largest individual interest and operates the project through LNG Canada Development Inc.

The existing facility consists of two LNG trains with combined capacity of approximately 14 mtpa.

The proposed expansion would add two further trains and roughly double the plant’s output.

That alone would make Phase 2 significant.

But recent developments have made it strategically more interesting.

LNG Canada only started shipping last year

Phase 1 reached a historic milestone on 30 June 2025, when its first LNG cargo departed Kitimat.

Shell described the project at the time as a new supply source primarily serving Asian markets and said LNG Canada would strengthen its integrated gas portfolio.

The existing plant was one of Canada’s largest private-sector investments, with Reuters putting Phase 1’s cost at approximately C$40 billion.

So Shell and its partners are potentially considering doubling the facility barely more than a year after LNG Canada entered commercial operation.

That is an unusually rapid transition from:

“Can this vast project actually be built and started?”

to:

“Should we build another two trains?”

The answer is not yet known.

But even serious consideration of Phase 2 at this stage says something important about how the partners view the asset.

The location is one of LNG Canada’s greatest advantages

Kitimat is not simply another liquefaction terminal.

Its geography gives Shell a significant structural advantage in supplying Asia.

Shell’s own investor material says LNG Canada can reach Asian markets in around 10 days.

The same presentation shows indicative shipping times of roughly:

24 days from the US Gulf Coast;

16 days from the Middle East;

and:

8 days from Australia.

That matters because LNG is not just natural gas.

It is natural gas plus liquefaction plus shipping plus regasification.

Every extra day at sea costs money.

A shorter route can mean:

lower freight costs;

less fuel consumption;

less exposure to vessel availability;

faster cargo cycling;

and fewer maritime chokepoints.

Shell describes LNG Canada as having lower supply and shipping costs versus the US Gulf Coast, giving it what the company calls a structural margin advantage.

That is precisely the sort of advantage Wael Sawan’s Shell now prioritises.

And there is no Panama Canal problem

US Gulf Coast LNG bound for Asia can face a choice.

Transit the Panama Canal when capacity and vessel dimensions permit.

Or take a much longer route.

Canadian Pacific LNG avoids that problem.

A cargo leaving Kitimat is already on the Pacific side of North America.

That means LNG Canada is geographically aligned with the markets Shell expects to drive a substantial share of future gas demand.

Shell has said LNG Canada offers an advantageous route to Asia with shipping times substantially shorter than those from the US Gulf Coast.

That was commercially attractive before the latest Middle East disruption.

It becomes more interesting when customers begin attaching an explicit premium to supply-route diversity.

Reuters says Asian buyers are increasingly focused on security

This is where the timing becomes particularly important.

Reuters reports that LNG customers — especially in Asia — are placing greater emphasis on supply security because of:

the Middle East conflict;

Red Sea disruption;

and uncertainty surrounding future flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

That does not mean LNG Canada replaces Middle Eastern LNG.

Qatar alone is too important for that.

Nor does it mean Canadian LNG is insulated from every geopolitical or operational risk.

But it does offer a geographically distinct source of supply.

For a utility or national energy buyer trying to diversify procurement, that matters.

The attraction is therefore not merely that Canada can supply LNG.

It is that Canadian LNG reaches Asia through an entirely different geopolitical corridor.

Shell has just spent $13.9 billion buying more Canadian energy

Then comes the ARC Resources acquisition.

On 2 September 2026, Shell completed its acquisition of ARC Resources for an updated equity value of approximately US$13.9 billion, assuming roughly US$2.5 billion of net debt and leases for an enterprise value of approximately US$16.5 billion.

ARC adds approximately 370,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day across gas and liquids and dramatically expands Shell’s position in the Montney basin of British Columbia and Alberta.

Shell explicitly said when announcing the acquisition that ARC’s gas reserves have the potential to support its LNG growth in Canada.

That makes the timing of a possible LNG Canada Phase 2 decision especially significant.

Only weeks after completing one of Shell’s largest recent acquisitions, the company could move towards creating a much larger export outlet for Western Canadian gas.

That starts to look less like coincidence and more like an integrated strategy.

Groundbirch already feeds LNG Canada

Shell was already vertically integrated before buying ARC.

Its Groundbirch gas asset in British Columbia supplies LNG Canada as well as the domestic gas market.

ARC adds much more gas-producing acreage and resources in the same broad basin.

Shell’s April acquisition presentation went further.

It identified LNG Canada Phase 2 explicitly as part of the strategic upside from the combination.

On one slide, Shell described LNG Canada Phase 2 as providing:

“optionality to further accelerate shift towards non-US international pricing.”

That sentence deserves attention.

Because it explains in financial terms why Shell might want another 14 million tonnes of LNG capacity.

From AECO gas to international LNG pricing

Western Canadian natural gas is frequently priced against AECO, a benchmark that can trade at substantial discounts when local gas supply exceeds takeaway capacity.

A gas producer selling exclusively into that market is exposed to those regional conditions.

Liquefaction changes the equation.

Convert Canadian gas into LNG and move it to Asia, and the molecule can gain exposure to international pricing rather than remaining trapped inside the Western Canadian gas market.

Shell’s own analysis shows the potential effect.

Its April 2026 presentation estimated that the combined portfolio had roughly:

40% AECO exposure

and:

60% international exposure

before Phase 2.

With LNG Canada Phase 2, Shell’s indicative analysis showed that changing to approximately:

20% AECO exposure

and:

80% international exposure.

That is arguably the single most revealing chart in the entire Phase 2 story.

The expansion is not simply about producing more LNG.

It is about changing where Shell’s Canadian gas is priced.

Shell calls that a structural margin advantage

The same Shell presentation makes the economic logic explicit.

Lower supply and shipping costs to Asia compared with US Gulf Coast exports can generate what Shell calls a:

“structural margin advantage.”

That phrase goes directly to Wael Sawan’s corporate strategy.

Shell is not pursuing growth simply because growth looks impressive.

The company repeatedly says projects must compete for capital and generate attractive returns.

That is why Phase 2 remains conditional.

The partners still have to decide that the economics justify another enormous investment.

But if it does pass that test, Shell’s own analysis suggests that the opportunity is unusually integrated:

produce low-cost Canadian gas;

liquefy it at a plant Shell already knows;

ship it across a comparatively short route;

sell it into higher-value international markets;

and optimise the entire chain through Shell’s global trading organisation.

Trading sits in the middle again

This follows a pattern we have already seen in Shell’s US power transactions.

Physical assets become more valuable when they support Shell’s trading capability.

LNG Canada is the same principle on a much larger scale.

Shell does not merely receive its share of LNG and sell it to one fixed customer.

Its Integrated Gas organisation manages a global portfolio.

Cargoes can be sold under long-term arrangements.

Others can be optimised.

Market exposure can be managed geographically.

Shipping can be redirected.

Gas can be sourced from Shell-owned production or purchased from the market.

That optionality becomes more valuable during periods of volatility.

Phase 2 could therefore connect the whole Canadian chain

Put the pieces together.

Shell now has:

a vastly enlarged Montney resource position;

existing gas production at Groundbirch;

ARC’s producing and development assets;

a 40% interest in LNG Canada;

a functioning Pacific Coast export terminal;

one of the world’s largest LNG trading portfolios;

and a direct route into Asia.

Phase 2 could enlarge the pipe connecting all of those pieces.

That is why this story matters far more than the simple headline:

“LNG plant may double in size.”

It potentially converts Shell’s Canadian upstream acquisition into a more valuable international gas business.

The Indigenous ownership proposal is also significant

There is another important element that should not be treated as a footnote.

In July 2026, LNG Canada announced an equity option agreement with MNT Investments LP, representing the economic-development organisations of five neighbouring First Nations:

the Gitga’at First Nation;

Gitxaała Nation;

Haisla Nation;

Kitselas First Nation;

and Kitsumkalum.

The agreement gives MNT Investments the opportunity to invest up to C$1 billion for a majority ownership interest in a special-purpose entity that would purchase the additional LNG storage tank planned for Phase 2.

The tank would then be leased back to LNG Canada.

LNG Canada says the arrangement could become one of the largest Indigenous ownership positions in Canadian energy infrastructure.

Importantly, the agreement is conditional on Phase 2 being approved.

That makes the forthcoming investment decision important not only to Shell and its international partners, but also to communities around the project.

More than 100 cargoes already shipped

By July 2026, LNG Canada said the first phase had shipped more than 100 LNG cargoes since operations began on 30 June 2025.

That operational history matters.

Phase 2 would not be a greenfield proposal built around a theoretical future facility.

The marine terminal exists.

The first two liquefaction trains exist.

The pipeline connection exists.

Cargoes are moving.

The workforce, operating systems and supporting infrastructure are already substantially in place.

That does not remove construction risk.

Two new LNG trains would still involve enormous expenditure and execution complexity.

But it means Phase 2 begins from a very different position from Phase 1.

The first phase was difficult enough

That deserves emphasis.

Phase 1 took years of planning, construction and capital.

The C$40 billion price tag cited by Reuters gives some indication of the scale.

A decision to expand cannot therefore be interpreted simply as Shell deciding that “LNG prices are high, so build more.”

The partners have to assess:

construction cost;

labour availability;

gas supply;

contracting;

future carbon costs;

fiscal terms;

project returns;

shipping economics;

regulation;

stakeholder requirements;

and long-term LNG demand.

LNG Canada itself has repeatedly said Phase 2 must satisfy tests concerning competitiveness, affordability, pace, future greenhouse-gas emissions and stakeholder needs.

That is why an early-October decision remains plausible rather than certain.

Shell also has a carbon argument

Shell presents LNG Canada as comparatively advantaged on emissions intensity.

The project uses efficient gas turbines and hydroelectric power for supporting energy needs, and Shell says the facility is designed to rank among the lower-carbon-intensity LNG plants globally.

LNG Canada says any Phase 2 pathway would need to maintain its greenhouse-gas-intensity ambition.

That does not make LNG carbon-free.

Liquefaction consumes energy.

Methane leakage matters.

Shipping produces emissions.

And ultimately the natural gas is burned by customers.

But within the LNG industry, production and liquefaction carbon intensity increasingly affect project competitiveness.

That gives LNG Canada another characteristic Shell can attempt to monetise.

Then there is the coal argument

Shell continues to argue that LNG can support emissions reduction where gas replaces coal in power generation.

When the first LNG Canada cargo departed, Shell said Asian markets moving away from coal represented an important use case for the project.

That argument is contested because the actual climate outcome depends upon methane leakage, plant efficiency, what fuel is genuinely displaced and how long the gas infrastructure operates.

But from Shell’s commercial perspective, the important point is clear:

Asia remains central to its long-term LNG demand thesis.

And LNG Canada is designed geographically around supplying that market.

The timing could hardly be more favourable — commercially

There is a temptation to describe the present geopolitical crisis as “good for LNG Canada.”

That would be too crude.

Wars and supply disruptions impose severe human and economic costs and should not be reduced to convenient investment narratives.

But commercially, the current environment undeniably strengthens one part of LNG Canada’s investment case:

supply diversification.

Only yesterday Shell’s own chief economist warned that global energy-market “shock absorbers” are weakening after tens of millions of tonnes of expected LNG supply were lost.

Now Reuters reports that Shell’s flagship Canadian LNG project may be approaching a decision to double capacity.

Those stories are related.

Not because the Middle East conflict created LNG Canada Phase 2 — the expansion has been contemplated for years.

But because present conditions make the strategic value of geographically diversified LNG supply easier to see.

For Shell shareholders, this could be an unusually coherent growth project

A frequent problem with large energy-company portfolios is that acquisitions and capital projects can seem disconnected.

Here the pieces fit remarkably well.

Shell bought ARC.

ARC adds gas.

Shell already owns Groundbirch.

Groundbirch feeds LNG Canada.

Shell owns 40% of LNG Canada.

Phase 2 would double liquefaction capacity.

Canada’s west coast gives direct access to Asia.

Shell trades LNG globally.

And its own modelling suggests Phase 2 could materially increase international pricing exposure while reducing dependence on AECO.

That is strategic integration in a very literal sense.

But the capital test still matters

All of this does not mean the partners should automatically approve Phase 2.

The scale of LNG investment now proposed around the world is enormous.

North American LNG export capacity is expanding rapidly.

Projects are being developed in the United States, Canada, Qatar and elsewhere.

An asset that looks extremely attractive in a tight market can face very different economics when a wave of new supply arrives.

Shell has to consider the market expected when Phase 2 actually begins producing — not merely the market of September 2026.

That is why cost discipline remains critical.

If project costs rise enough, even an excellent location can lose its advantage.

Shell’s own numbers show why management is interested

The strongest evidence that Phase 2 has moved beyond a vague future possibility comes from Shell itself.

In April, while explaining the ARC acquisition to investors, Shell placed LNG Canada Phase 2 directly inside the value-creation logic of the transaction.

It showed the proposed project on its Canadian asset map.

It identified Phase 2 pricing as a source of additional upside.

And it modelled the expansion as potentially shifting the enlarged gas portfolio towards substantially greater international price exposure.

Those are not promises that FID will happen.

But they tell investors exactly why Shell cares about it.

Commentary

LNG Canada Phase 2 may eventually prove to be one of the simplest ways to understand Wael Sawan’s Shell.

The company wants upstream resources.

But preferably advantaged ones.

It wants LNG growth.

But preferably where transport economics are attractive.

It wants trading optionality.

It wants international pricing.

It wants investments capable of generating strong returns.

And it increasingly prefers businesses in which multiple parts of Shell’s portfolio reinforce one another.

Canada now offers all of those things in one chain.

Montney gas at one end.

Asian LNG buyers at the other.

Shell sitting in between as producer, liquefaction shareholder, shipper, marketer and trader.

The acquisition of ARC Resources made that chain substantially larger.

Phase 2 could make it substantially more valuable.

That does not make approval inevitable.

The partners still have to decide whether the economics justify committing many billions of dollars more.

But if Reuters is correct that an FID could come within weeks, the decision would be much more than another LNG project sanction.

It would amount to a major statement about where Shell believes the future of its gas business lies.

Not merely underground in Canada.

But across the Pacific.

What is established

LNG Canada Phase 1 has two trains with combined capacity of about 14 mtpa, and its first cargo departed on 30 June 2025.

Shell owns 40% of the venture.

The proposed Phase 2 expansion would add two further trains and approximately double capacity to around 28 mtpa.

Reuters reports that a final investment decision could come as early as early October 2026, citing three people familiar with the matter.

Shell and LNG Canada have not announced a final investment decision.

Shell’s own ARC Resources investor presentation identifies Phase 2 as potential upside and says it could increase the portfolio’s international pricing exposure while reducing AECO exposure.

Shell completed its acquisition of ARC Resources on 2 September 2026, adding approximately 370 kboe/d and substantial Montney gas and liquids resources.

Five neighbouring First Nations, through MNT Investments LP, have an option to invest up to C$1 billion in infrastructure associated with Phase 2 if the expansion proceeds.

What remains uncertain

The timing of FID remains uncertain.

The final capital cost has not been publicly established in the material reviewed here.

The exact design and ultimate capacity of Phase 2 may still evolve.

Future LNG prices, construction costs and long-term demand remain uncertain.

And no current market condition guarantees that an investment sanctioned today will generate the returns expected when it begins operating years later.

Sources

Reuters, 17 September 2026: Shell-led LNG Canada could approve Phase 2 expansion by early October, sources say.

Reuters report

Shell, 30 June 2025: announcement of LNG Canada’s first cargo; Shell’s 40% interest and existing 14 mtpa capacity.

Shell — First cargo leaves LNG Canada

Shell, 27 April 2026: ARC Resources acquisition announcement and strategic rationale.

Shell — Agreement to acquire ARC Resources

Shell ARC Resources investor presentation, April 2026: Shell’s analysis of Phase 2, international pricing exposure, AECO exposure and shipping advantage.

Shell — ARC Resources acquisition presentation

Shell, 2 September 2026: completion of the ARC Resources acquisition.

Shell — Completion of ARC Resources acquisition

LNG Canada, 14 July 2026: Indigenous equity option involving MNT Investments LP and five neighbouring First Nations; investment option of up to C$1 billion conditional on Phase 2 proceeding.

LNG Canada — Indigenous equity option

LNG Canada: current Phase 2 information and confirmation that the expansion remains under consideration by the joint-venture participants.

LNG Canada — Phase 2 information

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

From Canadian Gas to Asian Buyers: Why LNG Canada Phase 2 Could Become the Centrepiece of Shell’s LNG Strategy was first posted on September 18, 2026 at 9:53 am.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

As the executive director of the Living Independent Network Corp, Jeremy Maxand does what he can to help people who don’t drive get around in southern Idaho. As in most of rural America, public transit options are limited.

The nonprofit organization, which serves those with disabilities, receives $100,000 annually from the state through a federal appropriation. The money finances cards riders use to pay for transportation, but Maxand described the region’s transit as a “bare-minimum lifeline service” and “piecemeal.” 

And yet, even that could soon worsen. 

The surface transportation programs authorized by the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed by President Joe Biden in 2021, expire by the end of the year. Lawmakers are hammering out the details of the bipartisan BUILD America 250 Act, which would reauthorize those programs. Transportation advocates say the Biden-era legislation failed to broaden Americans’ mobility options beyond cars, but they see the proposed BUILD Act as a significant step backward.

That’s because the bill would authorize $16.5 billion less for public transit than its predecessor, with $103.3 billion over five years compared with the baseline of $119.9 billion in the Jobs Act, according to the American Public Transportation Association. When adjusted for inflation, the BUILD Act would need an additional $24 billion to match that level, according to the Urban Institute. Every state would receive at least $10 million less in formula funding over the five years the law would be in effect.

“There would be a large decline in funding for public transit, and that would especially be true for projects that require what’s called capital investment funding — projects that require major investments for new lines,” said Yonah Freemark, a researcher with the organization.

Freemark said the effects would extend well beyond major cities. “Public transit is often portrayed as something that is subways in New York City,” he said. “The reality is that millions of people rely on public transit in a lot of smaller communities, including a lot of rural communities and tribal communities around the country. … Those rural transit systems are much more reliant on federal support to provide the service that they offer than are the urban transit agencies.”

Many public transit agencies have been struggling financially since ridership plummeted during the pandemic, exacerbating years of underinvestment. Further cuts could have severe effects, particularly in rural areas, transit advocates and experts said.

The cuts could be particularly painful in Idaho, which the Urban Institute estimates would see the nation’s biggest percentage drop in federal formula transit funding, at 18 percent. Maxand noted that local governments have limited ability to raise money for public transportation. 

“When the federal funding goes away, everything goes away,” he said. That could leave those with disabilities socially isolated, only able to leave their homes for medical needs. 

Maine faces a similar problem. The Urban Institute estimates its federal formula funding would fall 16 percent. Josh Caldwell, a co-facilitator of Transportation for Maine who also works for the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said the state’s transit system already needs improvement.

“Nowhere in the state do we have service that is at the standard that we’d like to see, which is a regularity of every 15 minutes,” he said. 

The state receives about 38 percent of its funding from the federal government. The Maine Department of Transportation already faces a $400 million transportation funding shortfall because gas tax revenues have decreased thanks, in part, to the state’s decision to freeze the tax relative to inflation in 2011.

Though less rural than Maine, Indiana would see a comparable decline in federal formula transit funding under the BUILD Act. Austin Gibble, a transit planner in Indianapolis, said the cuts could lead the region’s transit agency IndyGo to delay bus purchases, forcing it to rely on older, less reliable vehicles.

Read Next Electric buses are passing a brutal cold-weather test in Wisconsin Benton Graham

Gibble is more concerned about what the cuts might mean for less populated areas. “Rural agencies in Indiana are already horrifically oversubscribed,” he said. In Hamilton County, the largest county in Indiana without fixed route transit service, Gibble said the waitlist for rides on Hamilton County Express, which requires a reservation, can be weeks long. 

The impacts aren’t limited to rural America. The Urban Institute estimates that New York City would lose $2.3 billion over five years. Representative Jerry Nadler, who represents parts of the city, was the lone Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to oppose the bill. 

“It continues a familiar pattern: Highways are treated as the default national priority, while rail and transit are left fighting for insufficient resources, despite carrying millions of people, supporting regional economies, and reducing congestion,” Nadler said in a statement. 

Danny Pearlstein, the policy and communications director at Riders Alliance, said Democrats should think bigger when it comes to transportation legislation. 

“The Biden infrastructure bill was not the high water mark,” he said. “We could do much better than that in a variety of different ways, and we shouldn’t hold up bipartisanship as a core value of how we fund transportation when we have such sharply diverted views of the role of government to invest in people and communities.”

LeeAnn Hall, the campaign manager of the Alliance for a Just Society’s National Campaign for Transit Justice, said the debate is also about affordability. Transportation is the second-highest cost in Americans’ household budgets.

Reduced transit service could push some households toward another car, Hall said. “They have to pay more for gasoline. They’re going to be paying more for insurance. They have to think about parking. They have to think about maintenance and repair,” she said. “It’s expanding their household budget.”

Hall argued that investing in transit benefits people whether they use it or not. “Every dollar that we invest in public transit reduces congestion numbers, makes driving safer, and creates opportunities for families to have options,” she said. 

As for residents of southern Idaho, Maxand hopes to provide them with as many transit options as possible, but they’re all getting more expensive to run, especially as fuel prices continue rising. He expects federal cuts to hit seniors and people with disabilities the hardest. 

“It’s like saying you’re not going to pay for electricity to power the ventilator, but you’re going to leave the ventilator,” he said. “What are we doing here? This is not sustainable.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Federal transit cuts could hit rural America hardest on Sep 18, 2026.