You are here
News Feeds
THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 4 SEPTEMBER 2026
Archive reference: SLF-2007-047
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal scientific record: Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel, Report of the Ninth Meeting, Geneva, 3–6 December 2010
Principal government/scientific correspondence: WGWAP letter to Rinat Gizatulin, Russian Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, 19 April 2010; IUCN appeal to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, May 2010; International Whaling Commission 62nd Annual Meeting record, June 2010
Authenticated Shell record: Royal Dutch Shell plc Sustainability Report 2010
Contemporaneous reporting: The Guardian, 14 July 2010; AFP, 24 June 2010; WWF material issued 7 September 2010
Court record: Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), used here solely for the earlier Sakhalin II environmental and public-finance context
Evidence standard: Measured acoustic data are distinguished from inferred exposure levels. NGO observations concerning whale displacement are identified as preliminary allegations, not established causation. The Russian government’s regulatory position is recorded alongside the WGWAP assessment. No court ruling identified for this instalment determined that Rosneft’s 2010 survey was unlawful.
The previous Shell Leaks File examined a rare example of an environmental protection system directly constraining an industrial operation.
Sakhalin Energy’s Astokh 4-D seismic survey was conducted under an unusually elaborate monitoring programme.
The scientists helped design it.
Marine Mammal Observers could stop it.
And they did.
Four times.
Shell subsequently acknowledged in its own Sustainability Report that seismic operations had been shut down when whales were nearby. Shell identified its Sakhalin II interest at the time as 27.5 per cent. (Shell)
That was one company.
One survey.
One set of rules.
The whales, however, occupied a much larger marine environment.
And during the same summer, another seismic programme was approaching.
This one was associated with Rosneft’s Lebedenskoye licence area, north of the mouth of Piltun Lagoon, within the principal feeding habitat used by Western Gray Whales and particularly important to mothers and calves. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
WGWAP had no equivalent operational relationship with Rosneft.
That difference would expose one of the central weaknesses in the entire Sakhalin conservation structure.
WGWAP had been worried about Lebedenskoye since 2007The December 2010 WGWAP report records that the Panel first learned in April 2007 of Rosneft’s proposal to conduct seismic work in the Lebedenskoye licence area.
The survey was originally expected in 2008.
It was delayed.
By 2010 it was back.
And the Panel said its concern had never gone away.
Its reports had repeatedly warned that a nearshore seismic survey in that location could cause significant disturbance to feeding whales and potentially direct harm, with particular concern for mothers and calves using the Piltun feeding area. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
The geography mattered.
This was not simply another survey somewhere on the Sakhalin shelf.
It was planned inside an area the scientists regarded as biologically critical.
19 April 2010: the warning was put in writingOn 19 April 2010, WGWAP chairman Randall Reeves wrote formally to Rinat Gizatulin, a senior official at Russia’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.
The letter is unusually direct.
It said the Panel understood that the Lebedinskoye survey — spelling varies in the surviving English-language documents — would begin soon after Sakhalin Energy completed its Astokh survey and continue through much of the remainder of the summer.
The comparison with Sakhalin Energy was explicit.
WGWAP described Sakhalin Energy’s Astokh operation as supported by a rigorously designed, comprehensive monitoring and mitigation programme.
For Lebedinskoye, it said that no evidence then available to the Panel showed a similarly precautionary approach and that it had not been provided with information about the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
The Panel therefore recommended postponement until at least 2011.
Its stated reason was not that seismic surveying must never occur.
It wanted time for a credible protection programme to be developed.
That distinction is important.
The scientists offered Rosneft the same expertise used by Sakhalin EnergyThe April letter did not simply demand cancellation.
WGWAP offered assistance.
Its message was essentially:
wait a year, move the operation earlier in the season, and build a serious protection system first.
The Panel even offered to help develop that programme.
It highlighted features already incorporated into Sakhalin Energy’s Astokh plan — including safety buffers and real-time acoustic and visual monitoring intended to prevent dangerous sound exposure. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
This makes the later controversy harder to dismiss as a simplistic anti-industry campaign.
The Panel had already demonstrated that it was prepared to work with an oil and gas operator to make a seismic programme proceed.
It was not asking Rosneft to abandon exploration permanently.
It was asking Rosneft to adopt the same precautionary logic.
The concern reached Vladimir PutinThe Russian ministry did not end the dispute.
On 24 May 2010, IUCN escalated the matter publicly.
Its Director General, Julia Marton-Lefèvre, wrote to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin urging government intervention.
IUCN described the proposed Rosneft 3-D survey as the greatest immediate threat then facing the Western Gray Whale population because of the risk of disturbing feeding and nursing.
The timing was central.
The survey was expected to begin in late July — just as large numbers of whales were arriving in the area to feed — and continue through much of the critical feeding season. (IUCN)
IUCN again recommended postponement for at least one year and conducting any later survey as early as practicable in the open-water season.
That was precisely the strategy followed for Sakhalin Energy.
Why the season mattered so muchWestern Gray Whales do not feed continuously throughout the year.
The waters off northeastern Sakhalin function as a crucial seasonal feeding area.
The animals must accumulate energy reserves before undertaking long migrations.
Mothers and calves were of particular concern because of the reproductive importance of that small component of an already tiny population.
At the time, the International Whaling Commission described the population as numbering only about 130 animals. IUCN’s contemporary estimate was approximately 135, including roughly 30–35 reproductive females. (International Whaling Commission)
That is why the seemingly mundane question of June versus August became biologically important.
Sakhalin Energy had been pushed to operate early.
Rosneft was preparing to operate later.
The International Whaling Commission intervenedThe concern was not confined to IUCN.
At the International Whaling Commission’s annual meeting in Agadir in June 2010, its Scientific Committee formally addressed the Rosneft proposal.
The official IWC record says the Committee strongly recommended postponement until the following year because the survey was planned for an area of high whale density. (International Whaling Commission)
Contemporaneous AFP reporting on 24 June 2010 described the warning in still sharper terms.
The IWC scientists were particularly concerned that Rosneft intended to operate when the largest numbers of feeding whales — including mothers and calves — would be present.
Delegates from the United States, Mexico, Britain and other countries supported postponement.
A Russian negotiator nevertheless indicated that the work was likely to proceed. (Phys.org)
The dispute had now moved beyond scientific correspondence.
It had become an international diplomatic issue.
Britain coordinated a twelve-government approachOn 14 July 2010, The Guardian reported that British officials had coordinated a joint diplomatic letter to Russia.
Representatives of twelve countries were involved — Britain plus eleven others.
The newspaper specifically identified France, Germany and the United States among the signatories.
The governments asked Russia to consider postponement because the proposed survey coincided with the critical feeding season. (The Guardian)
This contemporary report is significant because later references to “twelve governments” are sometimes repeated without explaining their origin.
There really was a multi-government intervention.
But care is still required.
The surviving material examined for this file does not provide a complete verified list of all twelve signatories.
Accordingly, only the countries expressly identified in the contemporary reporting are named here.
The Russian ministry took a different viewWGWAP’s December report records the Russian government’s response.
The Ministry of Natural Resources reviewed Rosneft’s submitted monitoring and mitigation plan.
It concluded that no further measures were necessary to protect the whales. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
That is an important part of the record and should not be omitted.
The story is not that Rosneft simply carried out an operation in total regulatory absence.
Rosneft had submitted a protection plan.
The relevant Russian ministry reviewed it.
The ministry decided that further measures were not required.
The later WGWAP analysis reached a much more troubling scientific assessment.
Those are two different institutional judgments.
Both belong in the historical record.
The survey went aheadBy December 2010, there was no longer any doubt about the outcome.
The Lebedenskoye seismic survey had been carried out during the summer and autumn.
WGWAP’s acoustic data indicated that the first seismic activity occurred around 18 August 2010, intermittently at first, then regularly through at least 27 September, which was the final date covered by the data presented to the Panel.
The Panel was told that the operation reportedly continued into November. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
That last point should be treated cautiously.
The Panel had direct acoustic evidence through late September.
Continuation into November was reported to it.
The public record examined here does not establish continuous seismic acquisition throughout the entire period.
WWF observers were already raising alarmsOn 7 September 2010, WWF issued a highly critical account of what its observers said they were seeing.
It alleged that before Rosneft’s activities began, observers had been recording roughly 10–15 whales feeding in the area.
After work started, WWF said whales were being observed passing through rather than feeding.
It argued that the animals might have been displaced. (Science Daily)
That was a serious allegation.
It was not yet a scientific conclusion.
WWF’s observers were conducting field monitoring, but the later WGWAP report explicitly noted that the sample size was small and treated reports of whale displacement as preliminary evidence requiring further investigation. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
This distinction is essential.
The historical record establishes that NGOs reported an apparent change.
It does not establish from those observations alone that Rosneft caused the whales to stop feeding.
The night-time allegation was differentWWF also alleged something more concrete.
It said seismic acquisition had occurred at night, despite restrictions in Rosneft’s own monitoring and mitigation arrangements. (Science Daily)
When WGWAP reviewed the matter in December, it recorded the NGO allegation that Rosneft had violated its own plan by acquiring seismic data at night.
But here the Panel had another source of evidence.
Acoustic recordings presented at the meeting showed that seismic pulses did in fact occur at night. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
That does not by itself establish every element of a regulatory breach.
The Panel was not a court.
But it provides independent corroboration for the factual core of the NGO allegation:
the airgun pulses were occurring during night-time periods.
Then came the acoustic evidenceThis is the most serious part of the documentary record.
Alexander Rutenko presented WGWAP with acoustic measurements from several buoys operated under the Sakhalin Energy–Exxon Neftegas joint monitoring programme.
Those sensors were not all inside the Lebedenskoye licence area.
Yet the Panel said sound recorded even outside the licence area exceeded levels previously associated with behavioural disturbance of feeding gray whales. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
From that evidence, WGWAP reasoned that sound exposure inside the feeding area must at times have been higher still.
That conclusion was partly measurement and partly inference.
The distinction matters.
WGWAP went further — but carefullyThe Panel then made a particularly grave assessment.
Based upon the assumed location of the seismic vessel somewhere within the licence area, its distance from the monitoring buoys and the acoustic levels actually recorded, WGWAP concluded that portions of the nearshore feeding area were likely to have experienced sound levels expected under the scientific criteria it cited to cause hearing damage in gray whales. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
That wording must not be converted into a claim the documents do not support.
The Panel did not report finding an injured whale.
It did not identify an individual animal with documented hearing loss.
It did not prove that a particular whale received a particular acoustic dose.
It made a scientific inference about likely exposure levels in portions of habitat.
That is serious enough without embellishment.
The Panel did not declare the displacement allegation provenWGWAP displayed similar caution over the NGO observations.
Its report said the NGO sample was small.
The NGO authors believed whales had been displaced.
The Panel described the available observations as preliminary and anecdotal.
It therefore called for statistical analysis of whale-distribution data alongside the acoustic record before reaching a firmer conclusion. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
That is exactly how this archive should treat the issue.
Noise exposure: documented.
Levels above recognised disturbance criteria at monitoring locations: documented in the WGWAP assessment.
Higher exposure inside portions of feeding habitat: scientific inference by WGWAP.
Whale displacement caused by the survey: alleged and plausible enough to warrant investigation, but not established by the material reviewed at that meeting.
WGWAP wanted Rosneft’s own acoustic dataThere was another important evidential problem.
WGWAP learned that three acoustic sensors had been deployed in the Lebedenskoye area on Rosneft’s behalf.
The Panel wanted those data.
It recommended that IUCN obtain the resulting reports either directly from Rosneft or through the Russian government’s interdepartmental working group. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
That request tells us something about the limitations of WGWAP’s assessment.
Its alarming conclusions were based substantially on acoustic sensors operated through the Sakhalin Energy–Exxon monitoring network.
Rosneft apparently possessed another dataset closer to its own operation.
At the December meeting, WGWAP did not yet have it.
A rigorous archive must state that limitation.
A third seismic survey appeared almost simultaneouslyRosneft was not the only problem.
WGWAP also discovered evidence of another offshore seismic survey conducted between approximately 15 August and 9 September 2010.
The Panel was told it was apparently undertaken on behalf of Gazprom, although it expressly said that could not be confirmed at the meeting.
An acoustic sensor known as “Orlan” recorded sound levels that WGWAP described as well above those known to disturb feeding gray whales. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
Sakhalin Energy itself apparently learned of that activity during offshore sampling and informed the Panel chairman.
Even the institute operating the acoustic equipment had reportedly not been notified beforehand. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
That revelation transformed the problem.
It was no longer about one survey.
It was about cumulative industrial noise across a feeding range.
Three surveys, three parts of the feeding rangeWGWAP’s December conclusion was stark.
Three seismic surveys had occurred in or near three different parts of the Western Gray Whale feeding range during 2010.
The Panel said that, from the material it had reviewed, only Sakhalin Energy’s Astokh 4-D survey appeared to have been conducted with a robust monitoring and mitigation programme designed to minimise prolonged intense noise exposure. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
That is an unusually strong independent comparison.
It also places Shell’s authenticated Sustainability Report in a different light.
Shell had publicly recorded the occasions on which the Sakhalin Energy survey was shut down to protect whales. (Shell)
WGWAP was now saying that the same standard apparently did not apply uniformly across neighbouring operations.
This was the structural weakness of the whole systemWGWAP could advise Sakhalin Energy because a formal relationship existed.
It could negotiate survey plans.
It could request data.
It could require the company to explain whether recommendations were accepted or rejected.
Lenders could observe the process.
Sakhalin Energy could empower Marine Mammal Observers to stop its airguns.
But WGWAP could not issue a legally binding order to Rosneft.
It could not compel another operator to adopt the Astokh protection programme.
It could not prevent Russia’s competent authorities from approving a different approach.
And it could not coordinate an entire industrial region through a bilateral relationship with one company.
The whales experienced the acoustic environment as a whole.
The governance system remained fragmented by corporate and regulatory boundaries.
Shell was not responsible for Rosneft’s surveyThat boundary must also be respected.
Royal Dutch Shell held a minority interest in Sakhalin Energy.
Rosneft was a separate Russian oil company.
Nothing in the records examined for this instalment establishes that Shell directed, approved, controlled or participated in Rosneft’s Lebedenskoye seismic operation.
Indeed, the WGWAP evidence points in a different direction.
Sakhalin Energy’s monitoring network helped generate some of the acoustic evidence later used to assess Rosneft’s activity.
And Sakhalin Energy’s own seismic programme was cited by the Panel as the example of the more robust mitigation approach. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
This instalment belongs in The Shell Leaks Files because it exposes the limits of the conservation framework built around the Shell-linked Sakhalin II project.
It is not evidence that Shell operated the Rosneft survey.
Nor does the record justify pretending Sakhalin Energy was environmentally flawlessThe converse would also be wrong.
WGWAP’s praise for the Astokh seismic mitigation programme did not mean that it endorsed every aspect of Sakhalin Energy’s environmental record.
At the same December meeting, the Panel criticised Sakhalin Energy’s proposed reduction in whale behaviour monitoring and described the move as puzzling at a time when the company was contemplating expansion of its industrial footprint. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
The Panel had a continuing record of disagreement with Sakhalin Energy.
That is precisely why its favourable comparison of the 2010 Astokh mitigation programme carries weight.
It was not uncritical of the company.
The English High Court case remains relevant — but only as backgroundTwo years earlier, Sakhalin II’s environmental controversies had reached the English High Court through litigation over disclosure of environmental information held by Britain’s Export Credits Guarantee Department.
In Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), Mr Justice Mitting dealt with access to information generated during consideration of proposed UK financial support for Sakhalin II.
That litigation helped document how seriously Western Gray Whale concerns had entered the international public-finance process.
But the case does not establish anything about Rosneft’s 2010 survey.
The High Court did not review Lebedenskoye.
It did not rule on Rosneft’s mitigation plan.
It did not determine whether night-time seismic acquisition violated Russian law.
It did not adjudicate the WGWAP acoustic conclusions.
The court record supplies historical context.
It is not being used here as evidence of Rosneft liability.
Documentary Findings EstablishedWGWAP had raised concerns about the proposed Rosneft Lebedenskoye seismic survey since 2007 and regarded the location as especially sensitive because it overlapped Western Gray Whale feeding habitat used by mothers and calves. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
On 19 April 2010, WGWAP formally urged a Russian environmental official to postpone the survey until at least 2011, saying that it lacked evidence of a monitoring and mitigation programme comparable with the one developed for Sakhalin Energy. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
On 24 May 2010, IUCN publicly appealed to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to intervene and postpone the survey. (IUCN)
In June 2010, the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee strongly recommended postponement until the following year. (International Whaling Commission)
Contemporaneous reporting records that British officials coordinated a diplomatic approach involving twelve governments, with France, Germany and the United States among those identified. (The Guardian)
The Russian Ministry of Natural Resources reviewed Rosneft’s monitoring and mitigation plan and concluded that no additional whale-protection measures were required. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
The Lebedenskoye seismic survey nevertheless proceeded during the summer and autumn of 2010.
WGWAP acoustic records indicated survey activity beginning around 18 August and continuing through at least late September, with later continuation reported to the Panel. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
The WGWAP assessment found acoustic levels at monitoring sites outside the licence area above levels associated in the cited scientific literature with disturbance of feeding gray whales. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
Acoustic records presented to WGWAP showed seismic pulses occurring at night. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
WGWAP Scientific InferenceFrom the measured sound levels, distance to the likely survey-vessel location and established acoustic criteria, WGWAP inferred that sound levels within portions of the feeding area would at times have been substantially higher.
The Panel further considered it likely that some nearshore areas experienced levels expected under the scientific criteria it cited to be capable of causing hearing damage. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
This was a scientific inference about acoustic exposure.
It was not a clinical finding of hearing damage in an identified whale.
NGO AllegationsWWF and other NGO observers alleged that feeding whales became less numerous in the survey area after industrial activity began and suggested that whales had been displaced.
They also alleged night-time seismic acquisition contrary to Rosneft’s own mitigation arrangements. (Science Daily)
WGWAP treated the displacement evidence as preliminary because of the small sample and requested further statistical investigation.
The separate factual proposition that seismic pulses occurred at night was supported by acoustic records presented at the Panel meeting. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
Not EstablishedIt is not established from the material examined for this file that Rosneft’s survey caused permanent hearing damage to an individual Western Gray Whale.
It is not established that the observed changes reported by NGOs were caused solely by the Lebedenskoye survey.
It is not established that Shell controlled or participated in Rosneft’s seismic operation.
It is not established that a court declared the Lebedenskoye survey unlawful.
It is not established that WGWAP possessed legal authority to stop Rosneft’s work.
It is not established that the complete Rosneft acoustic-monitoring dataset was available to WGWAP when it made its December 2010 assessment.
And the apparent Gazprom-linked seismic operation discussed by the Panel was expressly described as unconfirmed as to operator at the meeting. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
CommentaryThis episode exposes the difference between corporate environmental management and ecosystem environmental management.
Sakhalin Energy had a sophisticated whale-protection system.
That mattered.
Its seismic guns were shut down four times.
Its survey was timed early.
Its scientists had years of data.
Its observers had operational authority.
Shell even recorded the shutdowns in its own Sustainability Report. (Shell)
Then the whales moved through the same sea while another seismic survey operated under a different system.
The biology did not reset at the edge of the lease.
That was the fundamental problem.
A whale protected from Sakhalin Energy’s airguns on one day could encounter Rosneft’s sound field later in the season.
It could then encounter noise from yet another survey elsewhere in the feeding range.
From the whale’s perspective, there were no corporate boundaries.
There was only cumulative exposure.
WGWAP understood this.
Its December report explicitly warned about the cumulative effects of multiple seismic surveys and complained that it often lacked even basic advance information about what other companies were doing on the Sakhalin shelf. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
That may be the most important finding in this instalment.
The celebrated Sakhalin Energy mitigation programme was real.
So was its limitation.
It could control Sakhalin Energy.
It could not control Sakhalin.
The diplomatic history sharpens the point.
An international conservation organisation appealed directly to Vladimir Putin.
The International Whaling Commission’s scientists recommended postponement.
Twelve governments intervened.
The Russian ministry considered Rosneft’s submitted plan and concluded that nothing more was required.
The survey happened.
Months later, WGWAP examined acoustic evidence and reached a much more disturbing view of the likely sound exposure.
None of that proves deliberate environmental wrongdoing.
It proves something more structurally significant.
The institutions looking at the same risk were applying very different standards.
And while they disagreed, the airguns were firing.
There is a final irony.
WGWAP had just spent years showing that oil exploration and independent whale science did not have to be mutually exclusive.
The Panel had helped Sakhalin Energy redesign and eventually conduct a seismic survey.
It was willing to do the same for Rosneft.
The request was essentially procedural and precautionary:
wait;
move the timing;
develop proper monitoring;
and then proceed.
Rosneft’s survey went ahead without that WGWAP process.
That does not establish that every WGWAP recommendation was necessarily correct.
It does demonstrate why voluntary environmental governance tied to one operator cannot by itself manage a shared ecosystem.
And the cumulative problem was about to become even larger.
Because even as WGWAP was documenting the uncontrolled surveys of 2010, Sakhalin Energy was preparing to expand again.
This time it was not another temporary seismic campaign.
It was considering a third offshore platform.
Source RecordThe principal primary source is the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel, Report of the Ninth Meeting, 3–6 December 2010. It records the history of concern over Lebedenskoye, the Russian ministry’s response, the acoustic evidence from the Rosneft survey, the night-time seismic pulses, preliminary NGO observations, the additional offshore survey and WGWAP’s warning about cumulative impacts. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
WGWAP Report of the Ninth Meeting — December 2010
The 19 April 2010 letter from WGWAP chairman Randall Reeves to Rinat Gizatulin of the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment documents the Panel’s pre-survey concern, its comparison with the Sakhalin Energy protection programme and its recommendation that Lebedenskoye be postponed until at least 2011. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
WGWAP letter to the Russian Ministry — 19 April 2010
The IUCN press release of 24 May 2010 records Director General Julia Marton-Lefèvre’s appeal to Vladimir Putin, the biological reasoning behind the request and the recommendation to postpone Rosneft’s survey for at least a year. (IUCN)
IUCN — Seismic threat to Critically Endangered whales, 24 May 2010
The official International Whaling Commission record of its 62nd Annual Meeting confirms that the Scientific Committee strongly recommended postponement of the Rosneft survey until the following year. (International Whaling Commission)
Contemporaneous AFP reporting dated 24 June 2010 records the IWC scientists’ concern that the survey would occur when the highest numbers of feeding whales, including mothers and calves, were present and records international support for postponement. (Phys.org)
Contemporaneous Guardian reporting dated 14 July 2010 records that British officials coordinated a joint letter involving representatives of eleven other governments, including France, Germany and the United States. (The Guardian)
The Guardian — Russia urged to halt oil survey during rare whale feeding season, 14 July 2010
The authenticated Shell record is the Royal Dutch Shell plc Sustainability Report 2010. It records Shell’s 27.5 per cent Sakhalin II interest and states that Sakhalin Energy seismic operations were shut down several times when whales were nearby following advice from WGWAP scientists. (Shell)
WWF’s 7 September 2010 material supplies the contemporaneous NGO account of alleged changes in feeding observations and alleged night-time seismic acquisition. Those claims are treated here as NGO evidence and are not converted into judicial or scientific findings. (Science Daily)
The earlier English judicial record remains Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin). It is included solely as background to the broader Sakhalin II environmental scrutiny. It did not adjudicate Rosneft’s 2010 seismic activity.
Archive disclaimer: Acoustic measurements, WGWAP scientific inference, NGO field observations, Russian regulatory conclusions and Shell corporate statements are distinguished according to source. No finding is made here that an individual whale suffered proven hearing damage as a result of the Rosneft survey. No allegation concerning night-time operations is characterised as a court-proven regulatory offence. Shell is not attributed responsibility for Rosneft’s survey.
Site wide disclaimer also applies.
Next Archive File SLF-2007-048 — The Sakhalin Papers XXXVIII: The Third Platform — When Sakhalin Energy Planned PA-C Before the Scientists Had Finished Assessing the Last Round of DisturbanceAt the same December 2010 meeting where WGWAP was trying to understand three different seismic surveys across the whale feeding range, Sakhalin Energy introduced another proposal.
South Piltun.
A new offshore platform.
Its working designation:
PA-C.
The proposed structure would sit roughly halfway between the existing PA-A and PA-B platforms, filling a gap in hydrocarbon recovery that Sakhalin Energy said could not be reached efficiently from the existing installations. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
The scientists were immediately uneasy.
They had expected industrial activity to diminish after completion of PA-B construction and the 2010 Astokh seismic survey.
Instead, the footprint was about to expand again.
And WGWAP pointed out something uncomfortable:
the full effects of earlier construction activity had not yet been definitively resolved.
Its recommendation was explicit.
Construction of the third platform should not begin until there was a better understanding of noise effects on the whales and appropriate mitigation measures were in place. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
The Panel also warned against assessing each new project in isolation.
Oil spills.
Vessel traffic.
Continuous noise.
Seismic surveys.
Benthos disturbance.
Construction.
Permanent infrastructure.
All of it had to be considered together.
The phrase WGWAP would invoke for the growing problem was striking:
“urban whale syndrome.” (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)
SLF-2007-048 will examine Sakhalin Energy’s third-platform proposal, the scientists’ demand that construction wait, the unresolved evidence from PA-B, and the moment the debate shifted from protecting whales from individual projects to asking whether the entire Sakhalin shelf was becoming too industrialised for the population to recover.
THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 4 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 4, 2026 at 9:00 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
Ventura County RNs to protest elimination of emergency and acute care services at Santa Paula Hospital
The Tongass: America’s Climate Forest Is Again at Risk
Trump Administration Takes Another Swing at Dismantling Clean Water Protections
The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers today proposed a rule that would strip Clean Water Act protections from the vast majority of the country’s wetlands and streams. The proposal would generally protect only waters that flow every day of the year and wetlands that are permanently flooded.
NRDC performed GIS analysis of a variety of scenarios the Trump administration has considered. Our research reveals that this proposal would put at least 94 percent of wetlands in the continental United States at risk of pollution or destruction. The proposal also targets millions of miles of streams that do not flow year-round, which make up about 79 percent of the streams in the continental United States. These rollbacks go significantly farther in weakening the Clean Water Act than the Supreme Court’s infamous Sackett v EPA decision three years ago.
Following is a statement from Jon Devine, director of freshwater ecosystems at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council):
“What the Supreme Court did in its Sackett decision was an inexcusable assault on clean water. Communities and wildlife will pay the price until Congress fixes it. The Trump administration's answer has been to make a bad situation worse.
“This proposal declares open season on the nation’s waterways. It denies federal protection to virtually all wetlands and more than three quarters of our streams, endangering drinking water supplies and flood-prone communities – and the agencies admit it themselves. The proposal would virtually eliminate protection for freshwater wetlands. Their own analysis says most streams would lose protection, with the West hit hardest.”
Background:
This is the Trump administration’s second attempt at weakening the Clean Water Act. In November 2025, EPA and the Corps proposed to narrow the definition of which wetlands and streams are protected under the Clean Water Act, and their proposal drew broad opposition. NRDC experts believe the new supplemental proposal is even worse. It would protect only "perennial" waters that flow every day of the year under ordinary conditions, allowing a single interruption of no more than 30 consecutive days annually. Wetlands would be protected only where perennial surface water continuously connects them to a protected water body, and only the portion of the wetland “indistinguishable” from that water would remain covered.
The public will have only 30 days to comment once the rule is published in the Federal Register.
Trump’s New “Waters Of The U.S.” Proposal Takes Sledgehammer To Clean Water Act
Today, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers announced a revised proposal that would gut bedrock Clean Water Act protections for nearly all wetlands and streams by drastically narrowing what waterways will be considered “Waters of the United States.” The proposal goes much farther than the initial proposed rule issued in November, by essentially reducing federal protections to waterways with permanent water.
The proposed rule would compound the damage of the 2023 Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court decision, which eliminated protections for tens of millions of acres of sensitive wetlands and small streams. By gutting upstream protections, this rule ignores even the Court’s meager protections and will bring downstream water pollution. The proposal will be open for public comment for just 30 days.
In response, Food & Water Watch Legal Director Tarah Heinzen issued the following statement:
“Trump is taking yet another sledgehammer to our bedrock Clean Water Act, shamelessly doubling down on his initial terrible proposal to strip protections from countless streams and wetlands. Make no mistake: This unlawful proposal gives bad actors the green light to fill, drain, and poison sensitive waterways from coast to coast. The result will be dirtier water for everyone. The administration must reverse course on this dangerous proposal.”
Organizaciones de América Latina y el Caribe denuncian exclusión de lasociedad civil en las negociaciones del Tratado global de plásticos
Reuniones cerradas entre gobiernos dejan fuera a organizaciones observadoras de las discusiones sustantivas sobre el futuro tratado, advierten 26 organizaciones de la región.
Agosto de 2026— Organizaciones de la sociedad civil de América Latina y el Caribe denuncian la falta de espacios de participación efectiva en las negociaciones del Tratado global de plásticos y alertaron sobre el impacto que esta situación tiene en la transparencia y legitimidad del proceso.
Las organizaciones, que siguen las negociaciones desde 2022, señalan que durante 2026 los jefes de las delegaciones gubernamentales han participado en reuniones denominadas “informales” para discutir aspectos sustantivos del tratado, mientras que las organizaciones observadoras no han tenido acceso a estos espacios.
En su lugar, han sido convocadas a reuniones virtuales con la Presidencia del Comité Intergubernamental de Negociación (INC, por sus siglas en inglés), encabezada por el embajador Julio Cordano, en las que el principal mecanismo de interacción disponible es un chat.
“El Tratado Global de Plásticos no puede, bajo ningún concepto, crear nuevas zonas de sacrificio, ni consolidar las ya existentes, zonas que están marcadas por la opacidad y por decisiones que han sido tomadas al margen de la ciudadanía y los observadores velan para que esto no ocurra. Mantenerlos al margen de las reuniones de delegados y delegadas no es una simple decisión procedimental: es un acto político que profundiza la brecha entre quienes deciden y quienes padecen las consecuencias. Si el tratado aspira a ser justo, debe ser participativo desde su raíz”, explica Cecilia Bianco de la organización Taller Ecologista de Argentina.
Según las organizaciones, esta modalidad les impide aportar oportunamente evidencia científica independiente, conocimientos técnicos y experiencias de comunidades y territorios afectados por la contaminación por plásticos, así como conocer y contribuir al debate sobre las posiciones que los gobiernos llevan a la mesa de negociación.
También expresaron preocupación ante la solicitud de la Presidencia del INC de que las organizaciones observadoras designen representantes únicos. Consideran que esta medida podría limitar la diversidad de voces y reducir la variedad de aportes científicos, técnicos y territoriales disponibles para las delegaciones.
Las organizaciones sostienen que la falta de participación sustantiva representa una regresión respecto de los estándares alcanzados anteriormente en el propio proceso de negociación y resulta contraria a los principios de democracia ambiental, particularmente aquellos relacionados con transparencia, acceso a la información y participación pública establecidos en el Acuerdo de Escazú.
“Hemos insistido en que el Acuerdo de Escazú representa un referente de progresividad para nuestra región. Por ello, resulta preocupante que, mientras América Latina y el Caribe han avanzado en reconocer estándares más altos de transparencia, acceso a la información y participación pública, las negociaciones del tratado global sobre plásticos estén adoptando modalidades que restringen los espacios de participación que la sociedad civil había tenido en etapas anteriores del proceso. Este cambio representa una regresión en términos de participación y transparencia, particularmente cuando se trata de una negociación que definirá respuestas frente a una crisis ambiental y de salud pública de alcance global.
Esta situación resulta aún más paradójica en una región profundamente afectada por el Colonialismo de la Basura, que históricamente ha recibido y soportado una parte desproporcionada de los impactos de la contaminación por plásticos y de los desechos generados por otros países”, afirma Larisa de Orbe de la organización Acción Ecológica de México.
Ante esta situación, las organizaciones hacen un llamado al presidente del INC, embajador Julio Cordano, y a la Mesa directiva para que restablezcan mecanismos que garanticen una participación directa, efectiva y significativa de las organizaciones observadoras en todas las etapas de la negociación.
Las organizaciones sostienen que un tratado global sobre los plásticos sólo podrá ser legítimo, sólido y ambicioso si se construye mediante un proceso transparente, inclusivo y respetuoso de los principios de la democracia ambiental.
Organizaciones firmantes
Acción Ecológica México; Alianza Resíduo Zero Brasil; Alianza Basura Cero Chile; Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador; AMAR Asociación de Defensa del Medio Ambiente; Libérate del Plástico; Centro de Tecnologías Aplicadas de Argentina; CESTA, Amigos de la Tierra (El Salvador); Coalición Ciudadana Antiincineración (Argentina); Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco (México); Colectivo Tz’unun Ya’ (Guatemala); El Poder del Consumidor (México); FAS (Panamá); FUNAM (Argentina); Fundación Agua Clara (Venezuela); Fundación PlastiCo. Proyecto (Ecuador); Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración (GAIA); Manos Abiertas La Bandada (Argentina); Mingas por el Mar (Ecuador); Organización Ecologista Piuke (Argentina); RADA (Chile); RAPAL (Uruguay); Red Dominicana de Estudios y Empoderamiento Afrodescendiente (República Dominicana); Taller de Comunicación Ambiental (Argentina); Taller Ecologista (Argentina); Toxisphera Asociación de Salud Ambiental (Brasil).
Contactos de prensa:
Camila Aguilera, GAIA, camila@no-burn.org | +56 9 8913 6198
María Fernanda Pérez R., BFFP, mafe@breakfreefromplastic.org | +58 424 210 8017
The post Organizaciones de América Latina y el Caribe denuncian exclusión de lasociedad civil en las negociaciones del Tratado global de plásticos first appeared on GAIA.
Canada has an energy conundrum in the north: geothermal energy is the answer
The version of record of this op-ed was published in The Hill Times on September 2, 2026.
By Peter Massie (Director, Geothermal Energy Office, Cascade Institute) and Jax Jacobsen (Communication Lead, Geothermal Energy Office, Cascade Institute)
Whitehorse sits atop a promising geothermal resource—maybe one of Canada’s best, and developing geothermal energy would strengthen this country’s national security by strengthening relations with Arctic allies.Northern territories and cities desperately need affordable energy. At the same time, Canada’s armed forces require a steady and inexpensive source of power to patrol and protect the North.
The post Canada has an energy conundrum in the north: geothermal energy is the answer appeared first on Cascade Institute.Noisy Jobs Report Offers Little Comfort for Jobseekers Across Stumbling Economy
Today’s jobs report shows the economy added 162,000 jobs in August, while the unemployment rate held steady at 4.1%. Job gains averaged just 31,000 per month over the past year and labor force participation remains near recent lows at 61.6%.
Today’s noisy report offers little guidance for policymakers navigating the difficult waters of persistent inflation and a sluggish labor market that continues to look fragile under the hood. Those looking for a clear indication of a labor rebound will be left disappointed. Restaurants and bars drove more than one-third of job growth over the past month, and back-to-school season hiring drove roughly one-fourth. Wage growth slowed further in August, falling to 3.1% over the past year for private sector workers, the weakest in four years and below last month’s inflation rate. As Trump continues to impose new tariffs and wage his war on Iran, fueling inflation, working families are stretching paychecks to the brink. The average duration of jobless spells is 26.3 weeks – up more than a week from July – and nearly 2 million Americans have been unemployed for more than six months.
Groundwork Collaborative’s Vice President of Policy, Advocacy, and Research, Elizabeth Pancotti, released the following statement:
“Policymakers should look past the noise of today’s jobs report. Hiring remains concentrated in limited sectors of the economy. Worse, gains in the health care industry, which has propped up the job market for the past two years, have stagnated as we stare down the economic effects of the Republican budget law’s Medicaid cuts. Minimal wage gains continue to be drowned out by rising prices stemming from Trump’s war in Iran and ever-changing tariff regime. While this month’s report may look like the labor market has turned the corner, make no mistake – Trump’s economy is on life support.”Utilities eye small modular nuclear reactors for reliability as hyperscalers drive demand
Deep-pocketed tech companies and mission‑critical defense customers are emerging as the earliest adopters of advanced reactors, but utilities see potential if siting and cost recovery issues can be resolved.
Palestine: Israel’s bombing has left Gaza vulnerable to climate change
Israel’s bombardment of Gaza during the conflict that broke out in October 2023 has wrecked progress towards adapting the enclave to climate change and left two million Gazans vulnerable to heatwaves, drought and disease, the Palestinian Authority (PA) said in a new climate plan submitted to the United Nations.
Palestine’s third nationally determined contribution (NDC), uploaded to the UN climate body’s website this week, says that while “the aggression on the Gaza Strip did not make the climate worse”, “it removed the housing, water and sanitation systems, health facilities, energy networks, roads and livelihoods through which people absorb a climate they were already struggling with.”
The 91-page document lists the types of infrastructure it says Israel has destroyed and notes how the destruction will worsen the impacts of climate change. It says the bombing of hospitals and rising hunger have make it harder for Gazans to cope with the health impacts of climate-driven heatwaves and waterborne diseases.
On beaches of Gaza and Tel Aviv, two tales of one heatwave
The destruction of water tanks, boreholes and desalination plants, meanwhile, have left Gazans struggling with the effects of water shortages and drought, while mass unemployment reduces people’s ability to afford climate-driven price rises. The erasure of most of the Strip’s homes makes it more difficult for people to avoid the sun’s increasing heat, the NDC said.
Many Gazans are now living in the ruins of collapsed buildings or in makeshift shelters and tents that offer little or no protection from high temperatures.
A displaced Palestinian child fills water containers on July 2, 2026 in Gaza City, Gaza. (Photo by Ahmad Hasaballah/Getty Images)Palestine’s previous goals to cut emissions and adapt to climate change in Gaza, expressed in its last NDC five years ago, were based on a pre-war baseline that “no longer describes anything that exists”, the NDC says. Progress made since 2021 has now been destroyed, it adds.
Green reconstruction of GazaInstead of continuing to aim for these adaptation and emissions-reduction goals, the PA is now calling for the green reconstruction of Gaza. It says buildings should be constructed again in an energy-efficient manner with solar panels and served with modern water, waste and transport systems.
While the PA, controlled by the Fatah political party, continues to claim legitimate control of Gaza, the strip was effectively governed by Fatah’s rival Hamas between 2007 and the recent war. Control is now split between Israel and the political wing of Islamist militant group Hamas, after a US-backed ceasefire took effect in October 2025, although a UN-backed committee plans to take over.
The United Nations, European Union and World Bank have jointly estimated that Gaza needs $71.4 billion of investment in the next two years to recover and build back. This process should be Palestinian-led, they said in April.
But US President Donald Trump has said the US should “take over” and “own” Gaza and redevelop it as the “Riviera of the Middle East”. Israel’s right-wing prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel should control the territory with civil administration managed by Palestinians favourable to Israel.
With occupation, targets conditionalIn the other part of Palestine, the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority carries out some government functions, but ultimate control rests with Israel, which has occupied the West Bank since 1967.
Because Israel controls planning in most of the West Bank, the NDC argues that the PA cannot pursue all the climate projects it wants. In addition, Israel restricts the movement of PA officials, making data collection difficult, and controls the West Bank’s electricity supply meaning that the PA cannot control whether it comes from dirty or clean sources of energy.
Given this situation, the NDC says that all of Palestine’s new climate targets are conditional but it will aim to reduce emissions 12.8% below a business-as-usual baseline by 2035 and 17.1% by 2040. If the Israeli occupation ends and Palestine regains full sovereignty over its land and resources, it will aim for reductions of 15.1% and 19.1% by 2035 and 2040 respectively under an “independence pathway”.
That could allow, for example, for greater electrification and reducing emissions per unit of growth, the document said.
To achieve the 2035 emissions-reduction target and adapt to the impacts of climate change, the PA says it needs $8.6 billion in total. This funding would be spent on measures like encouraging solar farms and rooftop solar and scaling up solar water heating to cover four-fifths of households. To complement the planned increase in solar power, the authority wants to modernise the electricity grid and install battery storage.
In the transport sector, it aims to promote the uptake of electric vehicles, develop bus rapid transit corridors and scrap old polluting trucks and buses. In Gaza in particular, it wants to deploy 66 electric buses when the conflict ends.
A bus rapid transit system in Sao Paulo (Flickr/EMBARQ BRASIL)To adapt to climate-driven drought, the NDC includes initiatives to reuse wastewater through treatment plants, build desalination plants in Gaza to remove salt from seawater, and promote irrigation for farmers.
The new climate plan was prepared by Palestine’s Environment Quality Authority, with support from the United Nations Development Programme and the governments of Britain and Spain.
The United Nations recognised Palestine’s statehood in 2012 and it joined the UN’s climate convention and signed the Paris climate agreement – which requires countries to submit more ambitious NDCs every five years – in 2016.
The Israeli foreign ministry did not respond to a request for comment. But in late 2024, then Israeli climate envoy Gideon Behar told Climate Home News that the war and the resulting environmental destruction in Gaza was the fault of Hamas.
The post Palestine: Israel’s bombing has left Gaza vulnerable to climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.
The Hub 9/4/2026: Clean Air Council’s Weekly Round-up of Transportation News
“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.
As exciting events continue in Philadelphia, learn how you can get around to major summer 2026 events without a car, or being stuck in traffic with GoPhillyGo: Car-Free Routes Map!
Image Source: The InquirerThe Inquirer: SEPTA gets $13.3 million from D.C. for new Silverliner Regional Rail train cars – A $13.3 million federal grant is going to SEPTA to help replace the 223 Silverliner IV train cars that were pulled from service last year. After being in service for half a century and several fires, the train cars were pulled for safety inspections and repairs. The grant is part of the Rail Vehicle Replacement Program, and work will begin in the Fall. 234 new cars will be built, at an estimated cost of $2 billion.
Image Source: The InquirerABC 6: More than 330K drivers ticketed along Broad Street since speed camera enforcement began: PPA report – Speed cameras have been capturing driver data along Broad Street since November 2025 at 15 locations. Drivers exceeding 11 miles over the speed limit are fined starting at $100, and the Philadelphia Parking Authority released a report on violations through March 2026. In total, more than 330,000 drivers were ticketed along the Broad Street corridor.
Image Source: WPXICBS Pittsburgh: $82M in federal grant money will help Pittsburgh Regional Transit purchase new light-rail vehicles – Pittsburgh Regional Transit is receiving over $82 million in grant funding. The funding will be used to purchase new vehicles for the light-rail system, the “T.”. 45 new vehicles will be replacing old cars on the T, and will feature a more modern interior and on-vehicle wheelchair lifts.
Other StoriesPennsylvania Capital-Star: Lawmakers wrestle with the proliferation of e-scooters on Pa. roadways
WHYY: Philadelphia Cycling Classic returns, reconnecting fans and cyclists with longtime traditions
The Inquirer: New speed cameras in West and North Philadelphia will start warning drivers on Monday
WPXI: Bicyclists flock Pittsburgh’s streets for 33rd annual Pedal PGH fundraiser
Pittsburgh City Paper: Lawrenceville’s guerrilla crosswalks are a white-striped call for change
Philadelphia Today: IBX Partners with Philly Bike Ride for One of the City’s Signature Fall Traditions
Forest Service to close 23 research stations nationwide
The U.S. Forest Service announced Wednesday it will close 23 research stations across more than a dozen states, as part of a restructuring that has already cost the agency roughly 6,000 employees. Forty-one other facilities originally slated for closure will stay open after pushback from Congress and local communities, and the agency says 95 employees at the shuttered sites will be relocated rather than laid off.
Associate Chief Chris French said the move will save USFS about $16 million and that the cuts wouldn’t affect ongoing science. But forest researchers see it differently. “It’s just madness to me that we would decide that we’ve learned everything and shut these places down,” Elizabeth Leger, a biologist at the University of Nevada, Reno, told the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists when the closures were first proposed in April. One anonymous Forest Service biologist said: “You can’t manage wildfire, invasive species, if you don’t know what changes are occurring in those dynamics.”
An office in Albuquerque that will be closed currently employs six scientists and conducts research on Southwestern grasslands and riparian ecosystems and restoration and sustainability in the Middle Rio Grande Basin ecosystem, according to the USFS. The station closures are happening as the agency moves its headquarters from Washington, D.C. to Salt Lake City and shutters regional offices in Atlanta, Milwaukee, and Portland.
Schultz’s timber ties shape Roadless repealCompanies and clients U.S. Forest Service chief Tom Schultz once worked for as a lobbyist and executive stand to benefit directly from the Roadless Rule rollback, according to Mother Jones and Public Citizen. Schultz spent years leading Idaho’s Department of Lands before becoming vice president at Idaho Forest Group, one of the country’s largest lumber producers. Schultz went on to lead the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, a trade group representing timber purchasers in 37 states, where he told Congress in 2022 the Forest Service should let states manage more federal timber sales and bypass detailed environmental reviews.
Quick hits Trump administration says agencies may stop working with the SmithsonianCNN | Washington Post | The Atlantic | NBC
We need to work together to save our public lands, says Backcountry Hunters & Anglers president Judge halts data center construction on public land US Forest Service chief with industry ties pushed for more logging on public lands Postcards for public lands: Greater Yellowstone Coalition launches campaign to protect 45 million acres Local advocates discuss border wall construction impact on public lands, wildlife Pyrograzing turns ordinary livestock into fire prevention heroes, so why isn’t it used on public lands more often? Opinion: Trump’s destruction of public lands will be a damning part of his legacy Quote of the dayEroding the Forest Service follows the same logic driving rollbacks across federal agencies: prioritizing extraction over stewardship.”
—Lois Parshley, Public Citizen
Picture ThisLet us know how you feel about Doug Burgum directing your park fees to Trump’s gold horses, Reflecting Pool, and other DC vanity projects as other desperately needed park fixes and maintenance get shelved. https://bit.ly/4ch7aLr
Feature image: The Caldor Fire burned over 200,000 acres in the Eldorado National Forest and other areas of the Sierra Nevada; USDA Forest Service photo by Preston Keres
The post Forest Service to close 23 research stations nationwide appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
Thematic and Working Groups Report - [Radical Democracy Thematic Group]
Intensive farming may yield a bumper crop of drug-resistant pathogens
When people imagine the front line of antibiotic resistance, they may see a hospital where antibiotics are overprescribed, or a feed lot where cattle are pumped full of these drugs. They probably won’t picture a cornfield. But a new study suggests that crop fields may be an important battleground for fighting antibiotic resistance. And the way we farm will decide who wins.
The new study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that high-intensity farming, typical of the U.S. Corn Belt, produced soil microbiomes that were more likely to transmit antibiotic-resistant pathogens to humans, compared to lower-intensity farming methods. In other words, modern farming may contribute to drug-resistant infections, which kill up to 4.7 million people per year, worldwide.
To find out how farming methods affect this risk, researchers compared the soil microbiomes from four widely used farming schemes: high-intensity corn cropping with heavy tilling, synthetic fertilizers, and non-antibiotic biocides to combat pathogenic fungi; two medium-intensity cropping schemes, with reduced biocides and tilling, and use of cow manure to reduce or eliminate synthetic fertilizers; and low-intensity grazing rotated with no-till cover crops, with only intermittent biocides, manure, or synthetic fertilizers.
The team analyzed the microbiomes of soils from these farming schemes, as well as the manure used in the medium-intensity fields. Using metagenomics, they quantified the abundance and diversity of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), mobile genetic elements (MGEs) capable of transferring these resistance genes from one species of bacteria to another, and known human pathogens capable of receiving those resistance genes.
.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:The global appetite for meat is setting the world up for a drug resistance crisis
It was hardly surprising that the manures used to fertilize crops contained plentiful ARGs and MGEs. But once those manures were spread on fields, most of the bacteria harboring them failed to take hold—out-competed by the diverse microbiomes present in the medium-intensity fields. As a result, ARGs and MGEs were actually less abundant in these medium-intensity soils, compared to soils from high-intensity fields that received no manure at all.
The team estimated the relative risk that a pathogen could acquire an ARG and infect humans. They found the risk of transmission significantly higher for high-intensity compared to medium-intensity fields.
They attribute these results to two factors in the high-intensity fields: lower bacterial diversity, less likely to out-compete bacteria with ARGs, and environmental stress due to synthetic fertilizers, biocides frequently containing copper or other heavy metals, and tilling—potentially favoring bacteria with ARGs and MGEs.
Intensive farming is already known to have plenty of costs—such as high greenhouse emissions from synthetic fertilizers and runoff that pollutes rivers, coastal waters, and lakes. But these new findings suggest that it also has another, unrecognized cost: facilitating the spread of drug-resistant pathogens that could harm humans.
Conversely, the authors write, “soil and crop management practices could be strategically leveraged to limit the onward spread of drug-resistant pathogens.”
Nickodem, et al. “Soil management practices shape the abundance, diversity, and spread of antimicrobial resistance.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2026.
Image: Based on TopMicrobialStock/iStock.com. ©Anthropocene Magazine
Joker Gaming Ubah Sentuhan Visual dari Slot Maxwin Hasilnya Jadi Berbeda
Pasar game digital punya logika mirip industri kreatif: produk dengan fungsi serupa tetap harus memiliki identitas agar tidak tenggelam di antara kompetitor. Joker Gaming membaca situasi tersebut lewat pendekatan visual pada Slot Maxwin. Alih-alih membuat layar sekadar penuh efek, identitas permainan dibangun lewat karakter, simbol, transisi, warna, serta respons animasi. Hasilnya terasa berbeda meski konsep gulungan masih familier.
Dari kacamata ekonomi digital, visual memiliki nilai lebih besar daripada urusan estetika. Tampilan berfungsi sebagai alat diferensiasi produk. Ketika puluhan game muncul dalam satu katalog, desain membantu pengguna mengenali sebuah judul dalam hitungan detik. Bisa dibilang, perhatian menjadi “mata uang” pertama sebelum pemain memahami fitur lebih jauh.
Joker Gaming Membawa Diferensiasi ke Pasar Slot MaxwinPersaingan provider membuat desain generik makin sulit menonjol. Setiap pengembang perlu menawarkan karakter khas supaya produknya memiliki posisi jelas di tengah katalog besar. Joker Gaming mengambil jalur tersebut melalui perpaduan gaya klasik dan presentasi digital lebih modern.
Slot Maxwin versi visual semacam ini tidak hanya mengandalkan ikon buah, angka, atau simbol keberuntungan. Karakter tematik, ilustrasi detail, latar interaktif, sampai efek perpindahan layar ikut membentuk identitas.
Secara ekonomi, strategi tersebut mirip diferensiasi produk. Dua barang dapat memiliki fungsi dasar hampir sama, tetapi konsumen tetap melihat nilai berbeda karena desain, pengalaman, serta cara produk tersebut dipresentasikan.
Visual Menjadi Modal untuk Merebut PerhatianPengguna mobile punya waktu terbatas untuk melihat satu kartu game. Judul, thumbnail, karakter utama, serta warna dominan harus bekerja cepat. Jika tampilannya terlalu generik, sebuah permainan mudah kelewat. Sadis memang, tetapi begitulah ekonomi perhatian bekerja.
Karena itu, sentuhan visual Joker Gaming dapat dipahami sebagai bagian dari strategi pengenalan produk. Tujuannya bukan membuktikan peluang hasil tertentu, melainkan membuat setiap game memiliki ciri mudah diingat.
Slot Maxwin Tidak Lagi Bertumpu pada Tampilan KlasikPerubahan desain juga terlihat dari cara informasi disusun. Antarmuka modern mulai memberi ruang lebih besar bagi indikator fitur, nilai multiplier, simbol khusus, hingga status bonus. Elemen tersebut dibuat menyatu dengan tema supaya layar tidak terasa seperti tabel angka berjalan.
Bagi audiens Gen Z, pendekatan ini cukup relevan. Mereka terbiasa dengan aplikasi berisi transisi cepat, visual padat, serta informasi singkat. Tampilan game akhirnya bersaing bukan cuma dengan sesama permainan, tetapi juga dengan seluruh ekosistem hiburan mobile.
Long-tail keyword seperti “perubahan visual Slot Maxwin Joker Gaming” atau “fitur Slot Maxwin dengan desain modern” muncul secara alami dari perubahan kebutuhan pencarian. Pengguna tidak selalu mencari nama permainan saja. Mereka juga ingin memahami ciri, mekanisme, dan pengalaman visualnya.
Desain Ramai Tetap Membutuhkan HierarkiLebih banyak efek tidak otomatis menghasilkan antarmuka lebih baik. Terlalu banyak kilatan, ikon, angka, serta animasi justru dapat meningkatkan beban visual.
Joker Gaming perlu menjaga hierarki informasi agar simbol utama, tombol kontrol, saldo, serta fitur permainan tetap mudah ditemukan. Prinsipnya sederhana: dekorasi menarik perhatian, sedangkan struktur membantu pengguna memahami layar.
Di sinilah desain memiliki nilai fungsional. Visual bagus bukan soal membuat semuanya bergerak. Kadang elemen paling efektif justru bagian dengan gerakan paling sedikit.
Fitur Joker Gaming Membentuk Nilai Tambah ProdukDalam ekonomi produk digital, nilai tambah muncul saat konsumen merasakan perbedaan nyata antara satu pilihan dengan alternatif lain. Pada permainan, nilai tersebut dapat berasal dari tema, audio, navigasi, mekanisme bonus, maupun cara sebuah fitur diperkenalkan.
Joker Gaming dapat menggunakan animasi sebagai penanda saat mekanisme tertentu aktif. Efek visual lalu bekerja sebagai feedback, bukan ornamen kosong. Pengguna memperoleh sinyal mengenai perubahan kondisi permainan tanpa harus membaca teks panjang.
Pendekatan tersebut membuat fitur Slot Maxwin lebih mudah dikenali. Namun visual tidak mengubah prinsip dasar hasil permainan menjadi sesuatu yang bisa diprediksi. Efek dramatis tetap perlu dibedakan dari informasi mengenai aturan dan mekanisme.
Efek Visual Bukan Indikator Hasil BerikutnyaBagian ini sering tercampur dalam percakapan komunitas. Animasi tertentu kadang dianggap sebagai kode, pola, atau sinyal menuju hasil berikutnya.
Secara logis, tampilan antarmuka berfungsi menyampaikan kondisi ronde saat ini. Kilatan layar, perubahan suara, atau gerakan karakter tidak layak dijadikan dasar untuk memastikan hasil selanjutnya tanpa dokumentasi mekanisme resmi.
Bagi pembaca, pemisahan tersebut penting. Pengalaman visual boleh terasa intens, tetapi interpretasi tetap perlu berpijak pada aturan permainan.
Ekonomi Perhatian Membuat Provider Harus Punya IdentitasKatalog digital menciptakan paradoks kecil. Pilihan bertambah, tetapi waktu pengguna untuk menilai setiap pilihan justru makin pendek. Provider akhirnya harus memenangkan perhatian sebelum berbicara soal kedalaman fitur.
Joker Gaming melalui sentuhan visual pada Slot Maxwin memperlihatkan bagaimana identitas dapat dibangun dari detail kecil. Thumbnail menjadi pintu masuk, karakter menciptakan pengenalan, animasi memberi respons, sedangkan antarmuka menjaga informasi tetap terbaca.
Perubahan ini menjelaskan kenapa hasil presentasinya terasa berbeda tanpa harus menganggap visual sebagai penentu hasil permainan. Dalam pasar hiburan digital, desain bekerja sebagai pembeda produk dan alat komunikasi. Ketika identitas visual kuat bertemu struktur antarmuka rapi, Slot Maxwin tidak sekadar terlihat lebih modern. Produk juga memperoleh posisi lebih jelas di tengah persaingan provider yang makin padat.
September 4 Green Energy News
Headline News:
- “US Forest Service Closing 23 Research Facilities As Part Of Reorganization Under Trump” • The US Forest Service is closing 23 research stations in more than a dozen states as part of an organizational overhaul under President Donald Trump that is intended to trim costs and concentrate the agency’s resources in Western states, officials said. [ABC News]
New Hampshire (Cate Bligh, Unsplash, cropped)
- “EU Heavy-Duty Vehicle Transition Needs Renewed Political Momentum” • Europe’s road transport sector is under growing pressure. The crises triggered by the wars in Iran and Ukraine have pushed diesel prices sharply higher reinforcing concerns over Europe’s energy security. Extreme weather is increasingly disrupting transport operations. [CleanTechnica]
- “El Niño To Be ‘Very Strong’ And Last Until February, UN Climate Agency Warns” • El Niño is set to become “very strong” in the months ahead, with the weather phenomenon near certain to persist through to February, the UN climate agency warned. The World Meteorological Organisation said El Niño would peak towards the end of this year. [Euronews]
- “It’s Game On As Ford Fathom Steals Thunder From Tesla Cybercab Launch” • The Ford Fathom electric pickup truck seems aimed to steal market share from industry leader Tesla one way or another. News broke around the Fathom right in the middle of the leadup to a major promotional event for the Tesla Cybercab robotaxi in Texas. [CleanTechnica]
- “France Had Its Hottest Summer Since Records Began Over A Century Ago, Environment Minister Says” • According to the national weather agency Meteo France, the summer of 2026 had an average temperature of 24°C. That is 3.6°C above the normal average, and 0.9°C higher than the record set in 2003, when the average was 2.7°C above normal. [Euronews]
For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.
Analysis: UK solar power hits record high over summer 2026
Solar power generation in the UK reached a new record over the summer of 2026, as temperatures across the nation soared, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Collectively over June, July and August, solar farms and rooftops generated 8.8 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in the UK*, as shown in the chart below.
Speaking to Carbon Brief, Chris Hewett, chief executive of trade association Solar Energy UK welcomed the new record, adding that it was driven by “clear skies and continued growth in deployment”.
This surge in generation took place amid the hottest summer on record in the UK, with five heatwaves between May and August.
Summer 2026 was the sixth sunniest on record, with more than 620 hours of sunshine, according to the Met Office. England and Wales – which experienced the most extreme heat – saw their second-sunniest summers on record.
June 2026 was the hottest June in England since records began in 1884, according to Met Office data, while Wales and the UK as a whole experienced their second-warmest June.
It was the driest July for England and Wales since records began in 1836, with some parts of London seeing no rain at all in the month, while Wisley in Surrey had no rain for 62 days.
In England, temperatures peaked at 38.1C at Kew Gardens in London on 13 August.
According to the Met Office, this summer’s record mean temperature was made 130 times more likely by climate change.
Amid these hot and sunny months, solar power generation increased 23% from the same period in 2025. This is double the level of solar generation over the summer of 2021, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
While solar panels can be affected by periods of extreme heat, the longer hours of daylight and higher levels of irradiation over the summer more than offset any efficiency losses.
June, July and August all saw solar set new monthly records for solar generation – July saw the highest solar generation in a calendar month ever, with 3.3TWh meeting 15% of overall electricity demand for the month.
As of the end of August, the total UK solar generation in 2026 stood at 17TWh – 13% higher than the same point in 2025.
The number of solar farms and rooftop installations has grown substantially in recent years, helping to boost generation. Domestic rooftop solar accounts for around 29% of total capacity.
In 2025, the UK’s solar capacity reached 21 gigawatts (GW) by the third quarter of the year, according to UK government figures. This is a jump of 3GW, or 18%, year-on-year, as Carbon Brief reported in January.
(Capacity is the maximum output possible from an electricity generation, whereas generation is what was produced over a certain time period, such as a day, month or year.)
According to the University of Sheffield, the installed solar capacity is now nearly 24GW.
This includes nearly 172,000 solar installations that have been fitted across the UK since the start of 2026, according to recent government figures. In July alone, more than 19,800 rooftop solar panels were installed – the equivalent of one installation every two minutes.
In total, nearly 1.7m households in the UK now have solar panels installed.
Over 26 heatwave days this summer – periods of at least three days when temperatures exceed the Met Office’s county-level heatwave temperature threshold – UK households with rooftop solar panels avoided an estimated £86.7m in electricity costs, according to analysis by Utility Bidder.
Talking about the surge in solar generation this summer, Hewett says:
“[It] not only kept bills down for people with solar and batteries in their homes, but helped keep overall power prices much lower than they would have been if Britain had been relying on more gas generation during the day”.
Despite the record generation, no new half-hourly solar power output record was set in the summer of 2026. This still stands at 15.2 megawatts (MW) on 23 April 2026.
* This article refers to the UK throughout, but strictly relates to the island of Great Britain, made up of England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland is part of the separate, all-Ireland electricity system.
related Factcheck: 10 flaws in the Conservative report on ‘cheap power’ 20.08.2026 Renewables Q&A: What is ‘long-duration energy storage’ – and why does the UK need it? 19.08.2026 Electricity Q&A: What does China’s 15th ‘five-year plan’ for renewables mean for climate change? 29.07.2026 China policy Analysis: Wind and solar power overtake fossil fuels in Germany for first time ever 28.07.2026 EnergyThe post Analysis: UK solar power hits record high over summer 2026 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Lineup Just Dropped: Are You Joining Food Tank at Climate Week?
There’s no question that, when it comes to the future of food and agriculture, “business as usual” doesn’t work.
At major global events like Climate Week NYC, which coincides with the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, we need to keep the pressure on leaders to act—but we can’t keep having the same conference-room conversations over and over again. We need to show the world that food and ag are key solutions to the climate crisis—but we need to move toward urgent, lifesaving action.
I’m so excited to share the six days of food and agriculture programming that Food Tank and our partners are bringing to New York City during Climate Week NYC, all hosted at WNYC–NPR’s The Greene Space and livestreaming around the world, from September 20–25.
To break out of our routines and break down walls, you’re invited to our “All Things Food and Agriculture” Film Festival. You’re invited to our friend and renowned food expert Marion Nestle’s 90th birthday party. You’re invited to events that place a strong focus on the future, highlighting the next generation of farmers and grappling with educating the next generation of eaters. You’re invited to help us bridge the food movement with the arts, as we invite acclaimed Broadway performers and musicians to raise the emotional stakes.
In short: You’re invited to a series of Food Tank Summits that bring together more than 225 luminary speakers and performers—countless diverse visionaries, creative thinkers, and problem-solvers.
And if you’re unable to join us in person, nearly every event will be livestreamed, with videos immediately posted after the event concludes. You can find livestream links—and a way to set up notifications—via our YouTube page HERE. I’ll also send out reminder emails that include livestream links, so you won’t miss a moment.
Check out our full schedule by scrolling down or CLICKING HERE.
Our Climate Week events are selling out quickly! If you want to bypass the waitlist on a sold-out event, Food Tank members get access to special promo codes. You can join at FoodTank.com/Join.
There’s no way we could do this alone, so a big thank-you to all our 2026 event co-hosts: American Farmland Trust; Amy’s Kitchen; Arrell Food Institute; Bel US; Bonterra; CARE; CookUnity; Diestel Family Ranch; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Food Planet Prize; Future Food Institute; Global Traceability Framework for Beef and Leather; Groundswell; Halter; Handsome Brook Farms; The Henry Ford; James Beard Foundation; Mill; New York City Mayor’s Office of Food Policy; New York University; Northstar Recycling; NRDC; Once Upon a Farm; Organic Center; Organic Valley; Organic Voices; Pilot Light; RAAPID; Restaurant Technologies; Rockefeller Foundation; Rodale Institute; Stonyfield; Strong Roots; Support + Feed; Kat Taylor, President of TomKat Foundation; United Nations Environment Programme; and Whole Foods Market.
Here’s the lineup, with links to secure your spot:
Sunday, Sept. 20
EVENING: “Putting Farmers First: How Young Farmers are Shaping the Future of Food,” with Whole Foods Market. 6:30PM reception; 7–8:30PM program. Register HERE.
The evening will explore how the next generation of farmers is shaping the future of food, the barriers they continue to face, and the investments, partnerships, and policies needed to ensure they can thrive. Confirmed speakers and performers include: Jason Buechel, Whole Foods Market; Tristen Buettel, Broadway Actor, Singer, and Dancer; Amalia Colón-Nava, Dirtbaby Farm; Cullen Curth, Pianist, Music Director, and Conductor; Emily Grant, Rise and Shine Acres; Michelle Hughes, National Young Farmers Coalition; Sarah Jones, Jones Farms Organic; DeVonne Jackson Perez, Brooklyn-based Urban Farmer and Sustainability Educator; Caitlin Leibert, Whole Foods Market; Brita Lundberg, Lundberg Family Farms; Becca Millstein, Fishwife; Sonya Gafsi Oblisk, Whole Foods Market; Anna Turrell, Mars Snacking; and many more to be announced soon!
Monday, Sept. 21
MORNING: “Solving Food Waste is a Key Solution to the Climate Crisis,” with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Food Planet Prize, NRDC, Restaurant Technologies, CookUnity, and Mill. 9AM breakfast and musical guest; 9:30AM program; 11AM lunch. Register HERE.
The morning will bring together leaders from across the food value chain to explore innovative solutions, successful partnerships, and scalable strategies that are preventing waste before it happens, recovering surplus food, and creating a more circular food system. Confirmed speakers and performers include: María Bengochea, CookUnity; Veleké Brown, E-RoadMap Corporation (Operation No Food Gap); Cullen Curth, New York City-based Pianist; Julie Gehrki, Walmart Foundation; Diana Geseking, Restaurant Technologies; Robert Jones, Culinary Institute of America; Matthew Jozwiak, Rethink; Madeline Keating, NRDC; Martin Krause, UN Environment Programme; Nathan Lucrezio, Broadway Actor; Adalberto Maluf Filho, Brazil’s National Secretary for Urban Environment, Water Resources and Environmental Quality; Emily Norford, Food Planet Prize; Lou Pieh, Mill; Gwyneth Rampton, Compass Group USA; U.S. Representative Andrea Salinas, Oregon’s 6th Congressional District; Tia Schwab, C40 Cities; Jackie Suggitt, Walmart; and many more to be announced soon!
AFTERNOON: “Mission Driven Brands Sustainability Summit.” 1:30PM lunch and musical guest; 2PM program; 3:30PM reception. If you work in this space, register HERE.
This annual event convenes leaders from across the food, retail, and hospitality sectors to explore how businesses can drive meaningful environmental and social impact. Confirmed speakers and performers include: Jordan Catalana, Tapestry Foundation; Stephen Cronk, Maison Mirabeau and The Regenerative Viticulture Foundation; Dana Cowin, Progressive Hedonist; Ryan Fielding Garrett, New York City-based Composer, Music Director, Orchestrator, and Musician; Ann Marie Hourigan, Whole Foods Market; Mark Kaplan, Wholechain; Shawna Laczko, Northstar Recycling; Elaina Leibee, Erewhon Natural Food Market; Peter McGuinness, Bel US; Sarah McMullin, Target Owned Brands; Daniel Quadrino, Broadway Actor; Rob Samuels, 8th-Generation Whisky Maker, Maker’s Mark; Beatrix Scolari, Bonterra Organic Estates; Jason Weller, JBS; and many more to be announced soon.
EVENING: “All Things Food and Agriculture” Film Festival, with TomKat Foundation; Halter; The Rockefeller Foundation; The Henry Ford; and Groundswell. 6:30PM doors and musical guest; 7PM program; 8:30PM reception. Register HERE.
This special event will showcase powerful short films and documentaries highlighting the people, innovations, and ideas transforming our food system. Confirmed speakers and performers include: Xiye Bastida, Re-Earth Initiative; Brandon Burks, Broadway Actor, Singer, and Dancer; Elijah Caldwell, OBIE Award-winning Actor, Singer, Pianist, and Music Director; Sara Farley, The Rockefeller Foundation; Andrew Fraser, Halter; Spence Medford, The Henry Ford; Kacie Scherler-Abney, Fifth-Generation Rancher; Zach Scherler-Abney, Scherler-Abney Land & Cattle; Jennifer Sherman, Alice Waters Institute; Kat Taylor, TomKat Ranch and TomKat Ranch Educational Foundation; Rebecca Harrell Tickell, Director and Producer, Groundswell; and Haven Worley, Director, Irish Farmers: A Love Story.
Tuesday, Sept. 22
MORNING: “Thriving Farms and Ranches,” with American Farmland Trust. Register HERE.
We’ll explore solutions that empower farmers and ranchers while building a more sustainable and secure food system for future generations. Confirmed speakers and performers include: Hillary Barile, Rabbit Hill Farms; Amanda Beal, Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry; John Chester, Farm Lore Films; Oliver English, Common Table Creative; Simon English, Common Table Creative; Heidi Exline, American Farmland Trust; Tim Fink, American Farmland Trust; Olivia Fuller, Fuller Farm; Dominick Grant, Dirt Capital Partners; Will Harris, White Oak Pastures; Brooks Lamb, Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator; Caitlin Leibert, Amazon Worldwide Grocery; Bianca Moebius-Clune, PhD, American Farmland Trust; Jenny Lester Moffitt, American Farmland Trust; Heather Oppel, General Mills; Madison Claire Parks, Broadway Actress; John Piotti, American Farmland Trust; Karen Ross, California Secretary of Food and Agriculture; Deydra Steans, S3 Legacy Ranch; Kat Taylor, TomKat Ranch Educational Foundation; Jeff Tkach, Rodale Institute; Noah Turner, Broadway Music Director; and many more to be announced soon.
AFTERNOON: “Nourishing the Future: How Farming Practices Shape the Food We Eat, the Health We Build, and the Longevity We Seek,” with Diestel Family Ranch. Begins 1:30PM. Register HERE.
Through farmer stories and more, we’ll examine why the next frontier in food systems may be measuring value not just by cost, yield, or convenience, but by nourishment. Confirmed speakers and performers include: Elder Raymond Bryant, San Antonio Million Gardens Project; Melissa Clark, The New York Times and NYT Cooking; Heidi Diestel, Fourth-Generation Farmer, Diestel Family Ranch; Mercedes Diane Griffin Forbes, Forbes Food & Ag; Clair Rachel Howell, Broadway Performer; Anne Marie Hourigan, Whole Foods Market; Noah Turner, Broadway Music Director; Chef Andrew Zimmern; and many more to be announced soon!
EVENING: “People-Focused. Climate-Friendly. Food-Forward New York City,” with Support + Feed, Strong Roots, and the NYC Mayor’s Office. Begins 6:30PM. Registration page HERE.
What does people-focused, climate-friendly, and plant-forward urban food policy look like? Confirmed speakers and performers include: Maggie Baird, Support + Feed; Maria Caputo, New York-based Composer; Emma Curtis, Strong Roots; Kaitlyn Davidson, Broadway Actor; Shyria Donawa, NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygeine; Ora Kemp, New York City Mayor’s Office of Food Policy; Kevin Nakagawa, Open Doors; Norman Priester, NYC Department of Corrections; Siddhartha Sanchez, New York City Mayor’s Office of Food Policy; and many more to be announced soon!
Wednesday, Sept. 23
ALL DAY: “The Roots of Organic: From Soil to Shelf,” with Organic Valley, Once Upon a Farm, Handsome Brook Farms, Stonyfield, Amy’s Kitchen, and in collaboration with Organic Voices, the Organic Center, and the Rodale Institute. More info and registration for this all-day event is HERE.
Confirmed speakers and performers include: Benjamin Bartley, UNFI; Alexis Bramley, Organic Trade Association; William Brinkerhoff, Soil Scientist, Chef, and Science Communicator; Marcia Brown, POLITICO; Amy Bruch, Cyclone Farms; Duron Chavis, Happily Natural Day and Sankofa Community Orchard; Taylor Clayton, Adams Group; Cullen Curth, Pianist, Music Director, and Conductor; Beatriz Daim, Tradin Organic; Kathleen Davis, Science Friday; Matthew Dillon, Organic Trade Association; Abianne Falla, CatSpring Yaupon; Tracy Favre, Handsome Brook Farms; Ryan Fielding Garrett, Broadway Music Director; Christopher Gergen, Regenerative Organic Alliance; David Gonthier, University of Kentucky; Alison Grantham, Grow Well Consulting; Stephanie Grotta, Target; Taylor Hurd, Singer-Songwriter; Chef Johanna Hellrigl, AMA and 2026 James Beard Award Semifinalist; Celia Hottenstein, Wicked on Broadway; Steven Jennings, Ahold Delhaize USA; Jane Kuhn, Once Upon a Farm; Annie Leeson, AgriCarbon; Brandon Lombardi, Sprouts Farmers Market; Jessica Luhning, Organic Valley; Britt Lundgren, Stonyfield; Chef Joshua McFadden, Farmer and James Beard Award-Winning Author of Six Seasons; Kousha Navidar, Climate One; Shawna Nelson, Organic Valley; Chef Priyanka Naik, Food Network Champion, TV Host, and Author of The Modern Tiffin; Leah Penniman, Farmer, Author, and Food Justice Activist, Soul Fire Farm; Sandy Pfaff, Organic Trade Association; Gwyneth Rampton, Compass Group USA; Maria Rodale, Rodale, Inc.; Amber Rubarth, Singer-Songwriter; Paul Schiefer, Amy’s Kitchen; Amber Sciligo, The Organic Center; Suzanne Sengelmann, Lundberg Family Farms; Erin Silva, UW-Madison; Sarela Herrada, SIMPLi; Travis Taber, Wicked on Broadway; Annie Watson, Organic Dairy Farmer, Sheepscot Valley Farm and Stonyfield Producer; Jake Wedeberg, Organic Dairy Farmer; Stefanie Wilbur, Lazy Dog Farm; Jayke Workman, Chicago on Broadway; Nijia Zhou, Amazon Worldwide Grocery and more to be announced soon!
Also all day via livestream at FoodTank.com, we’ll have additional exclusive online content including interviews with Selena Ahmed, Periodic Table of Food Initiative and American Heart Association; Shannon Cappellazzi, Oregon State University; John Foraker, Once Upon a Farm; Seth Goldman, Eat the Change and JUST Ice Tea; Brad Heins, University of Minnesota; Stephanie Jerger, Organic Trade Association; Keefe Keeley, Savanna Institute; Vernon Martin, Crystal Spring Farm and Handsome Brook Farms; Kathleen Merrigan, Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at Arizona State University; Chellie Pingree, U.S. House of Representatives; David Rosmann, Rosmann Family Farms; Rachel Stroer, The Land Institute; and Brise Tencer, Organic Farming Research Foundation.
Thursday, Sept. 24
MORNING: “Chefs Save the World,” with The James Beard Foundation and CARE. Begins 9AM; register HERE.
This annual event highlights how culinary leaders are using their platforms to drive meaningful impact in their communities and beyond. Confirmed speakers and performers include: Chef Fariyal Abdullahi, Hav & Mar, Chef Bleu Adams, IndigeHub; Elijah Caldwell, Actor, Singer; Nick T. Daly, Broadway Actor, Singer; Erica Helms, James Beard Foundation; Emily Janoch, CARE; Ellie Krieger, Dietitian and Nutritionist; Anne E. McBride, PhD, James Beard Foundation; Taylor Montgomery, Montgomery Sky Farm; Liz Murray, The Marlow Collective; Chris Noble, CARE; Chef Grace Ramirez, La Latina Cocina, Chef Sean Sherman, NĀTIFS; Chef Andrew Zimmern, and many more to be announced soon!
AFTERNOON: “Acting at the Speed of Crisis: Challenges & Opportunities for Food Security and Rapid Response,” with RAAPID and Arrell Food Institute. Begins 1:30PM; registration page HERE.
This timely program will explore how organizations can rapidly mobilize resources, leverage innovation, and build more resilient systems to meet urgent food security needs. Confirmed speakers and performers include; Inbal Becker-Reshef, RAAPID; Ertharin Cousin, Food Systems for the Future; Evan Fraser, Arrell Food Institute; Ruth Hill, CGIAR; Melissa Mahtani, International Affairs Journalist Oluchi Nwaokorie, Broadway Actor and Singer; Ambassador Philip Thigo, Office of the President of Kenya; Máximo Torero Cullen, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Noah Turner, Broadway Music Director; Michael Werz, Council on Foreign Relations; Simon Winter, Rockefeller Foundation Catalytic Capital; Andrew Zolli, Planet; and many more to be announced soon!
EVENING: Marion Nestle’s 90th Birthday Party, with New York University and Rodale Institute. RSVP HERE.
As Marion celebrates her 90th birthday, we will honor her extraordinary legacy of advancing evidence-based nutrition, championing transparency in the food system, and empowering people to ask critical questions about the food we eat. Confirmed speakers and performers include: Jennifer Berg, NYU Food Studies; Mark Bittman, Author and Food Journalist; Maria Caputo, New York-based Composer; Nancy Easton, Wellness in the Schools; Kathleen Finlay, Glynwood Center for Regional Food and Farming; Cathy Kaufman, Culinary Historians; Frances Moore Lappé, Small Planet Institute; Marion Nestle, New York University; Kristie Patten, NYU Steinhardt; Jake Pedersen, Broadway and Television Actor; Ruth Reichl, Author and Food Journalist; Maria Rodale, Rodale Inc.; Amber Rubarth, Singer-Songwriter; Kim Severson, The New York Times; Max Sinsheimer, Sinsheimer Literary, LLC; Lisa Sutherland, Jacksonville University; and more to be announced soon!
Friday, Sept. 25
MORNING: “Planet Aqua, Planet Peace: The Paideia Vision For Integral Ecology, Food Systems, Public Health, and Global Justice,” with the Future Food Institute and the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Event page HERE.
Water connects every aspect of our food systems, public health, ecosystems, and communities. Confirmed speakers and performers include: Blu Allen, Broadway Actor, Singer; Elijah Caldwell, Actor, Singer, Jenn Kemmerly, Monterey Bay Aquarium; David Laborde, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Kaveh Madani, United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health; Kathleen McDavitt, Aquaculture Stewardship Council; Laura McDearis, Marine Stewardship Council; Wendy Norden, Monterey Bay Aquarium; Sara Roversi, Future Food Institute; Brendan Shane, Trust for Public Lands; Simone Venturini, Mayor of Venice; and many more to be announced soon!
AFTERNOON: “The Future of Food Education,” with Pilot Light and with support from Nielsen Massey. Sign up HERE.
To close out Climate Week, the afternoon will bring together educators, school leaders, policymakers, chefs, nonprofit organizations, and advocates to explore how meaningful food education in schools can empower young people to make healthier choices, strengthen connections to food and agriculture, and inspire the next generation of climate leaders. Confirmed speakers and performers include: Jenna Bainbridge, Broadway Actor and Disability Rights Advocate; Linda Carmen Bryant, San Antonio Million Gardens Project; Maria Caputo, New York-based Composer; Alexandra DeSorbo-Quinn, Pilot Light; Nancy Easton, Wellness in the Schools; Gerardo Martinez, Wild Kid Acres; Taylor Meredith, Pilot Light; Shanon Morris, Harlem Grown; Liz Neumark, Great Performances, The Sylvia Center; Kim Severson, The New York Times; Amanda Torres; Public School Educator; Jeremy Walter, New York City Department of Education; Karen Washington, Food Justice Advocate, Farmer, and Author, Lyndsey Waugh, Sprouts Healthy Communities Foundation; and many more to be announced soon!
Our Climate Week programming is made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.
Photo courtesy of Unsplash
The post Lineup Just Dropped: Are You Joining Food Tank at Climate Week? appeared first on Food Tank.
How this summer’s heat and drought impacted crops in Europe – in six charts
Farmers around Europe are dealing with the aftermath of a summer of extreme heat, drought and wildfires that were exacerbated by climate change.
Human-caused climate change is increasing the severity and likelihood of many extreme weather events around the world, which is increasing volatility for food producers.
This summer resulted in, for example, shrunken potatoes in the Netherlands, reduced carrot harvests in France, dried-up rice fields in Italy and scorched olive groves in parts of the Mediterranean region.
Global food prices are currently at their highest level since early 2023 due to “heatwaves and energy price dynamics”, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.
Other factors such as blocked fertiliser supplies in the Strait of Hormuz and high fuel costs have also played a role in this year’s agricultural outputs.
In the six charts below, Carbon Brief provides a snapshot of the impact this summer’s extremes are considered to have had on crop production and yields across Europe.
1. Most EU countries expect to see declines in cereal production this year
2. Most countries are recording reduced crop yields
3. Around €2bn worth of cereal losses after June heatwave
4. UK yields of wheat, barley and oats are all due to drop in 2026
5. Maize production in France is due to hit a four-decade low
6. Declines in EU grains since 2025
Article Contents Expand menu- 1. Most EU countries expect to see declines in cereal production this year
- 2. Most countries are recording reduced crop yields
- 3. Around €2bn worth of cereal losses after June heatwave
- 4. UK yields of wheat, barley and oats are all due to drop in 2026
- 5. Maize production in France is due to hit a four-decade low
- 6. Declines in EU grains since 2025
France, in particular, will see heavy losses in the amount of cereals – such as wheat, barley and oats – it produces this year, according to European Commission data.
French cereal production is expected to drop by almost 8 megatonnes (Mt) in 2026, compared to 2025.
The chart above shows that most European countries, aside from Bulgaria, will also see production losses this year.
Germany is due to see the second-largest losses in production, dropping by almost 4Mt compared to 2025.
Prof Til Feike, a cropping systems expert at the Julius Kühn-Institut, says many areas in Germany and Austria, as with other parts of Europe, have been “hit hard by a long-lasting dry period in combination with record-high heatwaves”.
This has resulted in dry grassland for animals and lower yields of maize, which is a “key fodder crop” for livestock. He tells Carbon Brief:
“In the long run, farming must adapt better to more extreme weather conditions, not only heat and drought, but also prolonged wet periods. So, there is no one-fits-all solution for climate change adaptation.”
2. Most countries are recording reduced crop yieldsHeat and a lack of water have “substantially worsened” crop expectations this summer in western and most of central Europe, according to a recent bulletin from the EU Joint Research Centre.
Yields are expected to be “significantly reduced”, with local crop failures “likely” in areas such as France, southern Germany, northern and central Italy, and Hungary, it added.
The chart below shows that yields of cereal grains – which, here, refers to the tonnes of a grain grown per hectare of land – are expected to fall in most EU countries in 2026.
Changes in cereal yields in 26 EU countries between 2025 and 2026. Malta is excluded due to a lack of available data. Source: European Commission.Slovakia, Austria and Hungary are expected to see the largest declines in cereal yields, reducing by more than one tonne per hectare in 2026 compared to 2025.
The recent EU bulletin noted that irrigated crops performed well in Portugal this summer – the country with the largest yield increases. Other crops relying on rainfall showed growing signs of heat stress, it added.
3. Around €2bn worth of cereal losses after June heatwaveThe record heatwave that hit many parts of Europe in June contributed to an estimated €2-2.3bn in cumulative grain production losses, as shown in the chart below.
Estimates of revenue lost due to changes in production forecasts between June and July 2026. Source: ECIU.The intense June heat in western Europe would have been “virtually impossible” just 50 years ago, according to a rapid climate attribution study. It was the region’s hottest June on record.
The Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) thinktank analysed June and July 2026 grain forecasts from Coceral, a European grain traders association.
ECIU estimated lost supply by multiplying the change in tonnes of grains between these two months by prices for harvest delivery in 28 European countries.
Major grain producers France, Germany, Hungary and Spain accounted for 86% of the lost revenue, according to the ECIU.
Extreme heat is also expected to have a wider economic impact across the continent. Analysis from Triodos Bank found that this summer’s extreme weather could reduce the EU’s gross domestic product (GDP) by around 1% this year, or around €180bn.
4. UK yields of wheat, barley and oats are all due to drop in 2026If current trends continue, the average yields for cereals and oilseeds will result in the UK’s worst harvest since detailed records began in 1984, according to ECIU.
Yields of cereals and oilseed rape in the UK over 1990-2026. Source: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.Barley yields could fall by 15%, oats by 14% and wheat yields by 6% year-on-year, according to 2026 harvest surveys from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, a non-departmental public body that provides agricultural data to the UK government.
ECIU said that, even if the situation improves, this year is still expected to be one of the five worst harvests on record. This means that four of the five worst harvests in the UK have occurred in the past decade.
Consumers will likely see higher prices and/or smaller vegetables in supermarkets as a result, Tim O’Malley, chairman of UK company Nationwide Produce, told BBC News in August.
Other crops, such as berries, have grown successfully in the extreme heat. But the Guardian noted fears this could dip later this year “as plants become exhausted from heavy cropping during the heatwave”.
5. Maize production in France is due to hit a four-decade lowFrance has been acutely affected by this summer’s extreme weather, with more than 7,300 excess deaths during heatwaves and a record number of weather stations recording temperatures of above 40C.
The country is the EU’s largest agricultural producer, but heat, drought and wildfires have affected many crops.
The chart below shows that maize production is set to drop by more than one-third (35%) year-on-year.
Maize production in France over 1980-2026. Source: Agreste.This could result in France’s lowest maize production since 1980, according to data from Agreste, the country’s agriculture ministry’s statistics service.
Due to the heat, “record-early” grape harvests have also been recorded in various parts of the nation since mid-July, reported Le Monde. In some cases, this means “smaller, less juicy grapes, which will yield less wine”, explained the newspaper.
6. Declines in EU grains since 2025 Production of cereal crops in Europe over 1993-2026. The “other” category includes oats, rye, sorghum, millet and buckwheat. Source: European Commission.Overall in the EU, data and projections indicate declines in the output of cereal grains this year.
Cereal production is set to fall by 9% compared to 2025, according to the European Commission.
Just one year in the past decade – 2024 – recorded lower production levels.
Maize production is set to be particularly affected, with projections indicating a 13% drop, to 52Mt – the lowest level in the EU since 2007.
related Livestock heat deaths in transit doubled in UK record-hot summer of 2025 25.06.2026 Food and farming Q&A: What England’s new ‘land-use framework’ means for climate, nature and food 20.03.2026 Food and farming Mapped: How extreme weather is destroying crops around the world 11.03.2026 Food and farming Adopting low-cost ‘healthy’ diets could cut food emissions by one-third 21.01.2026 Food and farmingThe post How this summer’s heat and drought impacted crops in Europe – in six charts appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Europe | Meeting with Hansen and Heydon: ECVC calls for immediate support to ensure no farms are lost
ECVC together with other agricultural organisations met with Commissioner Hansen and Irish Minister Heydon to discuss this summer’s severe weather events and expressed concern over the authorities’ lack of preparedness for this foreseeable crisis.
The post Europe | Meeting with Hansen and Heydon: ECVC calls for immediate support to ensure no farms are lost appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.
Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.