You are here
News Feeds
Art and Science Exhibition Showcases Bird Extinction and Resilience
THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 22 SEPTEMBER 2026
Archive reference: SLF-2007-065
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal scientific record: IUCN Independent Scientific Review Panel report, 2005
Authenticated corporate record: The Shell Sustainability Report 2005
Contemporaneous correspondence: Rick Steiner to Jeroen van der Veer, 14 July 2005; Ian Craig, Sakhalin Energy, to Steiner, 15 July 2005; Steiner resignation email, 29 August 2005
Contemporaneous reporting: Reuters-era coverage collected in the archive; The Guardian/Observer, March–September 2005
Judicial context: Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Evidence standard: Steiner’s scientific concerns and personal assessments are attributed to him. Sakhalin Energy’s responses are attributed to the company. ISRP conclusions are distinguished from Steiner’s individual position. Neither the panel nor Steiner possessed regulatory authority to stop Sakhalin II.
The previous three instalments followed Shell’s relationship with Sakhalin into the post-2022 world of Russian decrees, missing LNG cargoes, frozen compensation and litigation.
This file goes backwards.
To understand why Sakhalin II had become such an internationally sensitive project long before Vladimir Putin dismantled its original corporate structure, it is necessary to return to 2005.
And to a scientist who eventually decided he could no longer participate.
Rick Steiner was not an outside campaigner commenting on the Independent Scientific Review Panel from a distance.
He was inside the process.
The surviving documents provide something more useful than hindsight: they record what he said before the PA-B platform was installed, how Sakhalin Energy responded, and what he said when he subsequently withdrew.
That paper trail allows the disagreement to be reconstructed without turning either side’s position into established fact.
1. Steiner’s Sakhalin concerns pre-dated the whale panelRick Steiner’s involvement with Sakhalin did not begin in 2005.
Years earlier, he had examined oil-spill preparedness on the island with Dan Lawn and Jonathan Wills.
Their 1999 report, Sakhalin’s Oil: Doing It Right, was explicitly intended to review environmental monitoring and oil-spill prevention and response, and to recommend improvements. The authors described themselves as independent of government, the oil industry and organised environmental groups.
The report eventually contained 78 recommendations. Its sponsors recorded that the investigators remained concerned that Sakhalin was not yet adequately prepared either to prevent or respond to a major oil spill.
Steiner brought unusual personal experience to that subject. The report identifies him as a University of Alaska professor and former commercial fisherman who had participated in the response to the Exxon Valdez spill.
His separate paper, Oil Spills: Lessons from Alaska for Sakhalin, described catastrophic tanker accidents as a serious risk and argued for much stronger prevention and emergency-response arrangements.
Those were Steiner’s assessments.
They were not judicial findings against Sakhalin Energy.
But they establish that by the time the western gray whale controversy intensified, Steiner had already been examining Sakhalin petroleum risks for years.
2. The environmental argument widenedBy January 2003, environmental organisations from Russia, the United States, Japan and South Korea had issued a common set of demands concerning Sakhalin I and II.
They called for best available technology, higher pollution-control standards and application of the precautionary principle to western gray whale habitat.
Among their demands were that the proposed PA-B platform be positioned farther from the feeding habitat; offshore pipelines avoid that habitat; seabed disturbance be reduced; seismic activity be restricted while whales were present; and cumulative effects be independently studied.
Those demands were advocacy positions.
Sakhalin Energy disputed many of them.
But the same broad subjects — noise, cumulative effects, platform location, vessel risk, spill preparedness and independent scientific scrutiny — subsequently appeared in the formal independent review process.
3. Sakhalin Energy itself requested the independent reviewIn 2004, Sakhalin Energy asked the International Union for Conservation of Nature — IUCN to convene an independent scientific panel to examine the potential effects of Sakhalin II Phase 2 on western North Pacific gray whales.
The population was extraordinarily small.
IUCN’s published report described approximately 100 animals and classified the population as Critically Endangered at the time. (IUCN)
This point matters.
The ISRP was not imposed on Shell by a court.
It was not a Russian regulatory tribunal.
It was an independent scientific mechanism established under IUCN auspices at Sakhalin Energy’s request.
Rick Steiner became one of the participants.
4. The panel did not give Sakhalin II a clean bill of healthThe final 2005 report was far more cautious than a conventional project endorsement.
The panel acknowledged that Sakhalin Energy had spent substantial sums on whale research and mitigation.
It also concluded that significant information gaps remained.
One particularly important issue was Sakhalin Energy’s use of the engineering-risk principle:
ALARP — “as low as reasonably practicable.”
The panel said the lack of specificity in how ALARP had been applied to decisions including the PA-B platform locationprevented it from completing a rigorous evaluation of some risks and mitigation options. (IUCN Portals)
Its population modelling was equally sobering.
The panel concluded that the loss of one additional female each year, beyond then-current mortality, could drive the population towards extinction with high probability. (IUCN Portals)
The panel therefore adopted an explicitly precautionary approach.
Its strongest option was temporary suspension and delay of development around the feeding grounds while risk assessment and independent monitoring mechanisms were improved. (IUCN Portals)
That was scientific advice.
It was not an order.
5. Shell did make one major design changeThe story would be distorted if the response of Shell and Sakhalin Energy were portrayed simply as rejection of the scientific process.
In March 2005, Sakhalin Energy announced that the offshore pipelines would be rerouted approximately 20 kilometresfarther from the principal feeding ground.
Contemporaneous reporting described roughly 12 additional miles of pipeline. (The Guardian)
Shell’s own Sustainability Report 2005 subsequently said that Sakhalin Energy had taken the panel’s advice and moved the offshore pipelines farther from the feeding area.
The same corporate report said advanced acoustic modelling and independent scientific observers had been used during installation of the production-platform bases and reported that installation had been completed without signs of disturbance to the whales. That was Shell’s published assessment of the outcome. (Shell)
So there was a concrete result from the scientific intervention:
the pipeline route changed.
But the platform location did not.
6. The PA-B platform became the dividing lineContemporary press coverage immediately recognised the distinction.
The Guardian reported on 31 March 2005 that the pipelines had been rerouted but that campaigners continued demanding relocation of the platform itself. (The Guardian)
A few weeks later, Sakhalin Energy chief executive Ian Craig said the company would continue engaging whale experts and maintained that the company had been open and transparent about the project. (The Guardian)
Thus two things were simultaneously true.
Sakhalin Energy had altered part of the engineering design because of whale concerns.
And significant disagreement remained about the PA-B platform.
For Rick Steiner, that disagreement was not academic.
The concrete base was about to move.
7. 14 July 2005: an urgent letter to Jeroen van der VeerThe archive contains a remarkable one-page document dated:
14 July 2005It is marked:
URGENTIt is addressed directly to:
Jeroen van der Veer
Chief Executive Officer
Royal Dutch Shell
The subject is:
“postponement of PA-B platform tow-out to Sakhalin.”
Steiner identifies himself as a member of the Independent Scientific Review Panel and the subsequent review process.
He says the PA-B base is scheduled to be towed to the Piltun field the following day.
His request is unambiguous:
postpone it.
8. Steiner listed what he believed remained unresolvedThe significance of the letter lies in its specificity.
Steiner did not merely say that he disliked the project.
He identified outstanding subjects that he believed still required adequate resolution:
acoustic modelling;
the adequacy of the noise-impact assessment;
noise intervention and action levels;
noise-mitigation protocols;
independent oversight and monitoring;
ship-collision assessment and mitigation;
oil-spill prevention and response preparedness;
and:
independent review of the PA-B location and alternatives farther from whale habitat.
He argued that the precautionary approach required postponing the tow-out until independent review was complete and the outstanding issues had been reasonably resolved.
That is Steiner’s position in his own contemporaneous document.
It should not be conflated with a unanimous ISRP instruction.
9. The letter closely tracked concerns in the panel’s own reportThis is an important distinction.
Steiner’s demand to postpone the tow-out was his.
But many of the underlying subjects were not invented by him individually.
The ISRP report itself had identified uncertainties surrounding noise, vessel collision, cumulative effects, spill risks, monitoring, mitigation and the basis for the PA-B location decision. (IUCN Portals)
The panel’s oil-spill analysis was particularly detailed.
It said effective response in Sakhalin’s severe conditions would be difficult and expensive, and noted that the PA-B Health, Safety and Environment case had not yet been completed in documentation supplied to the panel at the time of its review. (IUCN Portals)
Thus the documentary distinction is:
Steiner personally demanded postponement.
But:
the risk categories underpinning his demand had been examined by the independent panel itself.
10. Shell’s chief executive did not ignore the letterThe following day, 15 July 2005, Sakhalin Energy chief executive Ian Craig replied.
The surviving company letter says Craig had been asked by Jeroen van der Veer to respond to Steiner’s fax because van der Veer believed Craig was the appropriate person to discuss the specific matters raised.
That is significant in itself.
The appeal reached the top of Royal Dutch Shell.
And a reply came back immediately.
Craig thanked Steiner for his role in the Independent Scientific Review Panel and described the ISRP report and subsequent exchanges with Sakhalin Energy as an important contribution to the company’s efforts to mitigate potential effects on the western gray whales.
The two sides were therefore not disputing whether the science mattered.
They were disputing what should happen while the scientific process remained unfinished.
11. Sakhalin Energy said the outstanding issues were still being worked onCraig’s reply acknowledged continuing work.
The company said a further workshop would address subjects including:
ship strikes and collisions;
noise;
oil and gas spills and accidents;
habitat disturbance and degradation;
the PA-B location;
cumulative effects;
research and monitoring;
mitigation;
and independent mechanisms for verifying compliance with protection measures.
This is an important company-side document because it confirms that, on the eve of PA-B installation, the scientific process had not simply ended.
Outstanding matters were still under discussion.
But Sakhalin Energy did not accept Steiner’s conclusion that this required stopping the platform.
12. The company relied on the Gland workshopCraig referred to a scientific workshop held at Gland, Switzerland, in May.
According to the IUCN summary quoted in his letter, many participants accepted the proposed platform location after explanation, although some preferred no installation at that site.
The letter also said most participants considered that moving the platform to another technically accessible location was unlikely to make a significant difference to potential impacts.
Sakhalin Energy said documentation supporting that conclusion was being finalised.
Craig added that the company was concentrating on effective mitigation during installation and had gained useful experience from installation of the Lunskoye gravity-base structure earlier that month.
The company’s position can therefore be stated fairly:
continued scientific review and mitigation were compatible with proceeding with the PA-B installation.
Steiner’s position was the opposite:
the independent review should be completed before the effectively irreversible tow-out occurred.
13. This was the real disagreementThe documentary record is more interesting than a simple argument about whether Shell “listened to scientists.”
It clearly did listen in some respects.
The pipeline was rerouted.
Scientific monitoring continued.
The permanent advisory structure was later expanded.
But the PA-B episode exposed a harder governance question:
When must scientific uncertainty actually stop construction?For Steiner, the unresolved issues justified a pause.
For Sakhalin Energy, they justified continued analysis, monitoring and mitigation while the project proceeded.
Those are materially different applications of the precautionary principle.
14. The platform proceededThe PA-B base was subsequently installed.
Shell’s Sustainability Report 2005 presented the installation as successfully managed from the standpoint of whale disturbance, stating that external scientific observers monitored noise levels and that the platform bases were installed without observed signs of disturbance to the whales. (Shell)
That is an authenticated Shell statement.
It is not the same thing as an independent finding that every concern raised by Steiner had been resolved.
Nor does the absence of observed immediate disturbance establish the absence of every possible longer-term, cumulative or population-level effect.
The original ISRP had specifically warned against waiting for conclusive population-level evidence before addressing risks. (IUCN Portals)
15. Six weeks later, Steiner withdrewThe archive also contains Steiner’s email dated:
29 August 2005Its heading records:
“ISRP resignation 8/29/05.”
Steiner told fellow participants:
“I have decided to opt out of further participation”
in the continuing Sakhalin II Phase 2 review process.
He said he had made his concerns clear to the other scientists, Shell and prospective lenders.
Then the email moved beyond technical criticism into personal judgment.
Steiner wrote that he believed the process was being unfairly exploited by Shell and singled out the PA-B location decision as an example.
That was Steiner’s opinion.
It was not an ISRP finding.
16. “Sub-optimization”Steiner used a revealing concept in explaining his departure:
“sub-optimization”He described it as doing something in the best possible way when, in his view, it should not be done at all.
He then said there was much Shell could do to make the project safer, but that he no longer believed the particular scientific process would achieve that objective.
He concluded that he could no longer participate and told potential lenders that his own recommendation was to opt out of the project.
Again, these were strong personal conclusions.
They should neither be diluted nor presented as collective findings of the other scientists.
17. The resignation became publicThe dispute did not remain within scientific correspondence.
On 11 September 2005, The Observer reported Steiner’s resignation and reproduced part of his explanation.
The newspaper described the resignation as a setback for the Sakhalin project and placed it in the context of the continuing environmental controversy and the project’s sharply increasing cost. (The Guardian)
One qualification is necessary.
Some contemporary press reports simplified complicated corporate and legal developments, and not every statement in them should be accepted uncritically.
For this archive, their value is narrower:
they independently confirm that Steiner’s withdrawal and criticism were public events at the time.
The resignation was not reconstructed twenty years later.
18. Steiner did not speak for the entire panelThis point is essential.
Rick Steiner was a member of the independent scientific process.
But his resignation did not mean the entire panel had resigned.
Nor does his criticism establish that all panel members shared his assessment of Shell’s conduct.
Indeed, Ian Craig’s July reply specifically relied on the Gland discussion as evidence that many participants were prepared to accept the PA-B location after considering the alternatives.
The proper documentary formulation is therefore:
There was significant scientific concern.
There was disagreement about how the precautionary principle should affect the construction schedule.
Steiner reached a point at which he personally could no longer participate.
Others continued.
19. Nor did the scientific process disappearIn October 2006, IUCN announced the creation of the longer-term:
Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel — WGWAPTen scientists were initially appointed to provide continuing independent advice on Sakhalin II and wider industrial risks to the whale population. (IUCN)
This is an important counterpoint to Steiner’s resignation.
The institutional experiment did not collapse.
It became more permanent.
Indeed, the WGWAP ultimately operated for many years, generating the extensive scientific record examined in earlier Shell Leaks Files.
But later disputes show that the underlying tension did not vanish.
In 2007, IUCN reported disagreement between the scientific panel and Sakhalin Energy over underwater-noise criteria. (IUCN)
In 2009, IUCN publicly criticised Sakhalin Energy for providing important information too late for effective panel review. (IUCN)
Those later events do not retrospectively prove Steiner right about every 2005 issue.
They do establish that questions about information, timing, independent review and the relationship between scientific advice and operational decisions remained part of the Sakhalin system years after he left.
20. Shell’s own later record acknowledged the long-term value of the processThere is another side to the historical record.
Shell did not subsequently repudiate the whale-review process.
Its 2006 Sustainability Report highlighted the pipeline reroute, continuing scientific monitoring and creation of the long-term advisory panel. It said the whale population had grown and described the project’s approach as one involving independent scientific advice and operational mitigation. (Shell)
A decade later, Shell’s 2015 Sustainability Report was still citing its partnership with IUCN and the 2005 pipeline reroute as examples of efforts to reduce effects on whale habitat. (Shell)
Thus the archive should avoid an overly simple conclusion.
The scientific process both:
changed Shell’s project, and
failed to persuade Shell to accept every recommendation or every scientist’s interpretation of precaution.
Both propositions are supported by the record.
21. The controversy eventually entered an English courtroom — but on a different issueSakhalin II later appeared in the English High Court in:
Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth
[2008] EWHC 638 (Admin).
The case concerned access to environmental information relating to proposed UK export-credit support.
Mr Justice Mitting recorded that approximately US$650 million in project support had been sought and that Sakhalin II posed potentially serious consequences for western gray whale habitat. (vLex)
But the limits of that judgment are critical.
The court did not decide whether Steiner was correct.
It did not decide that PA-B should have been postponed.
It did not find that the platform harmed the whale population.
It did not rule that Shell had unlawfully ignored the ISRP.
The case concerned governmental disclosure.
Its relevance here is simply that the environmental controversy surrounding Sakhalin II and the western gray whale became sufficiently important to form part of an English public-law dispute over contemplated British financial support.
22. What later history can — and cannot — tell usIt is tempting to judge the 2005 dispute by looking at what subsequently happened to the whale population.
That would be too simplistic.
Later conservation work recorded encouraging population growth.
But the whales continued to face industrial, shipping, fishing and other risks.
The eventual recovery trajectory cannot tell us what would have happened under a different 2005 construction plan.
Nor can it retrospectively demonstrate that every precaution urged by Steiner was necessary.
The stronger historical comparison is procedural.
Steiner warned about:
noise;
ship collision;
spill preparedness;
cumulative effects;
independent oversight;
monitoring;
and:
making irreversible project decisions before the scientific review was complete.
Many of those same categories remained central to the WGWAP programme for years afterwards. (IUCN)
That continuity is established.
Causation is not.
Documentary Findings EstablishedRick Steiner had been examining Sakhalin environmental and oil-spill risks years before the 2005 Independent Scientific Review Panel.
Sakhalin Energy asked IUCN to establish an independent scientific review of Sakhalin II Phase 2 and its potential effects on the western gray whale. (IUCN)
The ISRP identified substantial uncertainty concerning risks, mitigation and aspects of Sakhalin Energy’s decision-making, including the PA-B platform location. (IUCN Portals)
The panel’s most precautionary option was suspension and delay of development near the feeding grounds while risk assessment and independent oversight were strengthened. (IUCN Portals)
Sakhalin Energy subsequently rerouted the offshore pipelines approximately 20 kilometres farther from the principal feeding area. Shell later expressly attributed that change to the scientific review. (Energy Intelligence)
The PA-B platform itself was not relocated.
On 14 July 2005, Rick Steiner sent an urgent letter to Jeroen van der Veer requesting postponement of the PA-B tow-out and identifying multiple unresolved scientific and operational issues.
On 15 July 2005, Sakhalin Energy chief executive Ian Craig replied at van der Veer’s request. The company acknowledged continuing scientific work but defended proceeding with the platform location and mitigation process.
The PA-B installation proceeded.
On 29 August 2005, Steiner withdrew from further participation in the continuing review process.
His resignation and criticism were reported publicly in September 2005. (The Guardian)
IUCN established a permanent Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel in 2006. (IUCN)
Rick Steiner’s stated positionSteiner believed the PA-B tow-out should be postponed until independent review had been completed and the outstanding scientific issues reasonably resolved.
He later concluded that the continuing process was being used in a manner with which he could no longer associate himself.
He advised prospective lenders not to support the project.
Those are Steiner’s conclusions.
They are not presented here as findings by IUCN, the full ISRP, a court or a regulator.
Sakhalin Energy’s stated positionSakhalin Energy regarded the ISRP as a valuable contribution to whale protection.
It said the PA-B location had been extensively discussed; that many participants at the Gland workshop accepted the proposed location after explanation; that relocation within technically viable areas was not expected to produce a significant reduction in potential impact; and that mitigation and continuing scientific review could manage the remaining issues.
Shell’s subsequent Sustainability Report stated that monitoring during platform-base installation showed no signs of disturbance to the whales. (Shell)
Those are company positions and observations.
Not establishedIt is not established that Steiner’s July 2005 demand to postpone the PA-B tow-out represented the unanimous view of the ISRP.
It is not established that Royal Dutch Shell or Sakhalin Energy violated a legal obligation by declining to postpone the tow-out.
It is not established that installation of PA-B caused a population-level decline in western gray whales.
It is not established that the absence of observed immediate disturbance during installation proves the absence of every longer-term or cumulative effect.
It is not established that later growth in the whale population proves the 2005 scientific concerns were unnecessary.
It is not established that Steiner’s resignation invalidated the continuing IUCN scientific process.
And it is not established that the ISRP as a whole approved Sakhalin II merely because most of its members continued working with Sakhalin Energy.
CommentaryThe most revealing document in this file may be the one-day exchange between Steiner and Sakhalin Energy.
On 14 July, the scientist said:
wait.
On 15 July, the company effectively said:
the scientific work will continue, but the project will continue too.
That is the point at which the abstract language of precaution met the concrete reality of a multibillion-dollar construction schedule.
The disagreement was not simply science versus ignorance.
It was more difficult than that.
Shell had commissioned independent science.
The science had already altered the project.
Shell accepted some recommendations.
It rejected — or did not accept — the operational consequence Steiner drew from others.
And the scientist then had to decide whether remaining inside the process made him more useful than leaving it.
He chose to leave.
Why the July 2005 correspondence mattersThe letters also illuminate a recurrent problem in corporate scientific advisory systems.
An independent panel can investigate.
It can advise.
It can warn.
It can monitor.
But unless its mandate gives it decision-making authority, management retains the final decision.
That was true at Sakhalin.
The ISRP could identify the most precautionary option.
Steiner could appeal to Shell’s chief executive.
The scientists could continue reviewing noise, collision risks, spills and habitat.
But the scientists could not themselves order the PA-B base to remain in port.
That structural limitation does not mean the advisory process was worthless.
The pipeline reroute demonstrates the opposite.
But it explains why Steiner’s resignation deserves to be retained in the documentary history alongside Shell’s later celebration of the same scientific partnership.
Both are part of the record.
Source RecordThe principal scientific source is the 2005 IUCN Independent Scientific Review Panel report, Impacts of Sakhalin II Phase 2 on Western North Pacific Gray Whales and Related Biodiversity. It records the exceptionally small whale population, the project risks, weaknesses and information gaps in some risk assessments, the panel’s concerns regarding the PA-B decision and its precautionary recommendations. (IUCN)
IUCN — Independent Scientific Review Panel report, 2005
The authenticated corporate account is The Shell Sustainability Report 2005. Shell records the establishment of the independent panel, the approximately 20-kilometre pipeline reroute, acoustic modelling, monitoring during platform-base installation and its plans for a permanent whale advisory panel. (Shell)
Shell Sustainability Report 2005
The archive holds Steiner’s 14 July 2005 urgent letter to Jeroen van der Veer, requesting postponement of the PA-B tow-out and enumerating unresolved scientific and safety issues.
It also holds Sakhalin Energy chief executive Ian Craig’s 15 July 2005 response, sent after van der Veer asked him to address Steiner’s concerns.
The archive additionally contains Steiner’s 29 August 2005 resignation email, in which he explained why he was withdrawing from further participation and set out his personal assessment of the process.
Contemporaneous reporting documents the March 2005 pipeline reroute and the continuing disagreement over the platform location. (The Guardian)
The Guardian — Shell reroutes Sakhalin pipeline, 31 March 2005
The Observer subsequently reported Steiner’s resignation on 11 September 2005. (The Guardian)
The Observer — Rick Steiner resignation, 11 September 2005
IUCN’s 2 October 2006 announcement documents the creation of the permanent Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel following the original review. (IUCN)
IUCN — New Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel, 2 October 2006
The judicial background is Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin). Mr Justice Mitting recorded the environmental significance of Sakhalin II, the western gray whale issue and the approximately US$650 million of contemplated UK-backed project finance. The case concerned environmental-information disclosure, not the merits of Steiner’s PA-B objections. (vLex)
Archive disclaimer: The direct Steiner correspondence records the views of one participant in the scientific process. His allegations and characterisations are attributed to him and are not adopted as findings of fact. Sakhalin Energy’s contemporaneous reply and Shell’s sustainability reporting record the company’s position. The ISRP’s conclusions are independent scientific assessments, not regulatory orders or judicial findings. No causal claim is made that PA-B installation produced a particular population-level outcome for western gray whales.
Site-wide disclaimer applies.
Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers LVI: Before the Whale Panel — Rick Steiner, Exxon Valdez and the 78 Warnings Shell Faced Before Sakhalin II Phase 2The 2005 resignation was not the beginning of Rick Steiner’s Sakhalin story.
Six years earlier, he had already travelled to the island with two other oil-pollution specialists.
Their report was called:
Sakhalin’s Oil: Doing It RightIt contained:
78 recommendations.The investigators examined tanker routes, double hulls, tug escorts, vessel monitoring, spill-response equipment, independent oversight, liability, emergency exercises and the implications of trying to clean oil from some of the harshest waters on earth.
Steiner then carried the lessons of the Exxon Valdez disaster into a separate warning about Sakhalin.
One sentence captured his central concern:
a major accident off Sakhalin would not merely be an environmental disaster — it could become an economic and social catastrophe as well.
The next file returns to 1999 and asks:
What did Steiner and his colleagues tell Shell and the Sakhalin authorities six years before he walked away from the whale-review process — and how many of those warnings were still unresolved when Sakhalin II Phase 2 moved ahead?
THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 22 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 22, 2026 at 7:09 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
Why scientists want your photos of wildlife eating lunch
The food chain you learned about in school isn’t the full picture. Yes, the rat eats your garden crops, the ermine snags the rat, and the eagle picks off the ermine. But that linear story misses a whole lot of nuance. Parasites like ticks and intestinal worms feed on the eagle and ermine. When those predators die, ants and other scavengers devour their carcasses. Oh, and rats are known to eat their own babies, so they’re predators of themselves.
Capturing the extraordinary complexity of species interactions has been a time-honored — and time-consuming — process of scientists getting out in the field and spying on birds’ nests, for instance, to see what the parents feed their young. Less romantically, they’ve had to sift through scat for the bones of prey animals.
Now they’ve got an even more powerful — and far less smelly — tool in the form of a citizen science project called Who Eats Whom. It taps into the nonprofit social network iNaturalist, which identifies species in photos that people upload and geotag. You can search for “brown rat,” for example, and find an image of an American ermine carting one off near Monty Drive in Ottawa, Canada. If that’s not metal enough for you, search for “red-tailed hawk” to see the raptors laying waste to snakes and squirrels all across the United States.
Who Eats Whom isn’t just engrossing — it could help inform conservation efforts on a rapidly warming planet. So far, it’s incorporated 17,000 interactions involving 5,700 species in more than 100 countries. “That’s just kind of the power of crowdsourcing,” said ecologist Bradley Allf, who developed the platform while at North Carolina State University but is now at Colorado State University. “You can generate a ton of valuable information in a way that you can’t if you’re just an individual scientist trying to follow snakes around and hope they eat something while you’re watching them, or waiting for them to poop and be able to take their scat.”
While the database literally offers snapshots in time, the idea is to amass data over the coming years, revealing how ecosystems are transforming alongside the planet as a whole. “Even if we look back, say, five years ago, there have been a lot of changes in the feeding patterns of these animals,” said Aditi Mallavarapu, a computer scientist at North Carolina State University and co-author of a new paper describing the work in the journal PLOS Biology. “So not only looking at what is being observed, but also noticing what is not being observed.”
Who Eats Whom, then, is more than a repository of captivating photos. If you click on “Interactive Food Web” at the top right of the site, it brings up a sprawling web of interactions. Search again for “red-tailed hawk” and you’ll see a plethora of small mammals that people have photographed them predating. (Arrows pointing to a species indicate the food going into it.) Look even closer and you’ll find that one of its meals, the American robin, eats the common buckthorn and yaupon holly.
And let’s not forget the pollinators. Search for “Western honey bee” in the interactive food web and you’ll see that it — among many other insects — ends up in the belly of the goldenrod crab spider, an absolutely gorgeous, ghostly white arachnid. But notice also all the plants that the bee feeds on — honeysuckles, thistles, buttercups — and helps reproduce by spreading their pollen around. “There’s all kinds of complicated ways that energy moves through real food webs, and we’re trying to document that messiness as much as we can,” said Allf, who is also the lead author of the new paper.
Who Eats Whom offers plenty of surprises. People have snapped New World vultures dining on all manner of carcasses, from wild boars to raccoons to groundhogs. On a beach in California’s San Luis Obispo County, though, at least one of the birds found itself a baby white shark, which had likely been stillborn.
With so many smartphone-wielding folks wandering beaches and forests and deserts, ecologists have gained an army of invaluable allies. “The biggest challenge is really data acquisition, because there’s so many species and so many interactions out there,” said Peter Roopnarine, curator of invertebrate zoology and geology at the California Academy of Sciences, who wasn’t involved in the project. “They sometimes can be ephemeral — like it happens once in a lifetime of a species, and that’s it. And they’re dispersed all over the place.”
By better understanding who eats whom, scientists and conservationists can better protect species. As the planet rapidly heats, species are marching toward the relative coolness of the poles. This is reshuffling ecosystems and changing how species interact. With a platform like Who Eats Whom, normal people with smartphone cameras may well be the first to document the arrival of a new animal in their area. “It’s obviously super engaging, I think, for the people who are participating,” said Rebecca Johnson, director of the Center for Biodiversity and Community Science at the California Academy of Sciences, who wasn’t involved in the project. “It gives you a new way of thinking about your nature observations that you might share.”
At the same time, invasive species — most notoriously, things like the lionfish — are shaking up ecosystems the world over. Left unchecked, hungry invaders can decimate native species, which may already be weakened by skyrocketing temperatures and worsening droughts. “We need to know who’s being consumed by these invasive species,” Roopnarine said, “and are there species on that menu that we really need to be worried about?”
To properly protect species in this topsy-turvy world, conservationists can’t just set aside some land or sea and call it a victory. They also need to ensure that carnivores and omnivores have the prey they usually hunt, and herbivores have the plants they usually graze. “Species don’t just need space — they don’t just need a habitat,” Allf said. “They need the relationships that allow them to survive.”
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why scientists want your photos of wildlife eating lunch on Sep 22, 2026.
Building Thriving Farms: “Farmers Cannot Carry the Climate Transition Alone”
Farmers across the U.S. are facing mounting economic pressures alongside the growing impacts of climate change. More than half of farms had negative income in 2024, while extreme weather disasters cost farmers billions, in addition to new tariffs and soaring input costs, and rising land prices threaten access for the next generation.
Supporting viable farms and ranches is essential to strengthening rural communities and building a more resilient food system amid these challenges.
“Farmers cannot carry the climate transition alone,” Food Tank President Danielle Nierenberg said during “Thriving Farms and Ranches,” a summit held in partnership with the American Farmland Trust at Climate Week NYC. You can watch the entire event stream here.
“If we want healthier soils, if we want cleaner water, if we want to protect biodiversity, if we want nutritious food, if we want thriving rural communities, then we have to build an economy that rewards the people making those outcomes possible,” says Nierenberg.
Throughout the morning, speakers discussed how agriculture can help address climate change while ensuring the people who grow our food have the resources to thrive. A central theme emerged across conversations: Climate solutions must also support the economic well-being of farmers and rural communities.
“Even though more and more farmers are eager to follow regenerative practices, none of that makes much of a difference if farms are going out of business,” says John Piotti, President and CEO of American Farmland Trust.
Piotti highlighted the connection between farm profitability and environmental stewardship. While agriculture plays an important role in climate solutions, farmers need economic stability to sustain those efforts.
“Ultimately we need to pay farmers adequately not only for the food that they grow but for the ecological services they provide,” says Piotti. American Farmland Trust’s new Thriving Farms and Ranches initiative focuses on strengthening the economic viability of farms and ranches alongside their environmental contributions.
The economic challenges facing farmers also affect who can access land and continue farming. During a panel on farmland access for a new generation, Brooks Lamb, Director of Food Systems and Agriculture Policy at Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator, described rising land values and growing barriers for young farmers.
“In a lot of communities across the country, land values have skyrocketed…Sometimes even $40,000 an acre, in part because of real estate development,” says Lamb. “We’re seeing a lot of rural gentrification.”
Dominick Grant, Partner and Managing Director of Dirt Capital Partners, says land ownership is critical to supporting farmers’ long-term investments: “Land ownership is the foundation upon which everything is built…the ability for a farmer to invest in regenerative practices, their community, and a rural economy.”
Olivia Fuller, a fourth-generation farmer at Fuller Acres, points to another way communities can help sustain local farms: simply building relationships directly with farmers. “Find out who the farmers are in your community that you can support. Build relationships, show up at the farm for events…We need more of that.”
Speakers also explored how women farmers, local procurement, and farm-to-school programs can strengthen food systems. Hillary Barile, Owner of Rabbit Hill Farms, says farmers often want to make sustainable decisions but must balance those choices with economic realities.
“Every farmer that I’ve ever met wants to make the more sustainable choice that they can for their farm…but they have to balance those decisions with economic sustainability,” says Barile.
For Heather Oppel, Senior Climate Manager at General Mills, climate and agricultural solutions must also reflect the communities implementing them. Women comprise more than one third of U.S. agricultural producers, yet they face persistent systemic barriers in securing loans, land access, and technical assistance.
“Regenerative agriculture and women go hand in hand,” says Oppel. “In order to make this transition durable, it needs to be locally relevant.”
State policies also can—and must—help farmers respond to climate pressures.
“Our farmers are experiencing the impacts of climate change every day,” says Amanda Beal, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry. “We are in a drought…we are seeing the impacts of extreme weather events, soil erosion, rivers flooding fields.”
And local procurement is a powerful way for institutions to support farmers, economic development, and children’s health: The school cafeteria is America’s biggest restaurant.
“Local procurement supports farmers and local economic development. Kids eat it, and therefore they will be healthier,” says Karen Ross, Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. “And there’s experiential learning. The children are connected with nature and understand how farming and nature can be compatible.”
Farm-to-school programs offer another way to connect farmers, communities, and the next generation. Kat Taylor, Chair of the Board of Directors at TomKat Ranch Educational Foundation, says California’s universal school meals program success demonstrates how quickly food systems can shift when investment and political will align.
“It’s not just the morally right thing to do for kids,” says Taylor. “It was also the right thing to do for the supply chain to shift it in favor of ecological and racial justice.”
Much of the work of ecological regeneration happens below the ground, in the soil. Ranchers joined the stage to speak about the realities of regenerative grazing, and how ranching can support soil health while strengthening rural economies and communities.
“The bounty is so great from the soil…and the economic impact. Our whole town is thriving,” says Will Harris, Owner of White Oak Pastures.
Finally, the program looked toward the next generation of eaters and farmers.
Access to land, economic viability, and opportunities to learn remain critical challenges to the next generation of farmers. But without more young people farming, the industry faces further consolidation or development that takes farms out of production and negatively impacts rural communities.
Connecting young people with farming and the natural world can help get children and young people excited about agriculture, says Jeff Tkach, CEO of Rodale Institute: “What gets kids excited is the world of soil. There’s a world beneath our feet…we only know about 5 percent of what we believe there is to know about it.”
And it’s working, says Deydra Steans, Manager of S3 Legacy Ranch—though young farmers still need much more education and support.
“There’s a trend. More young folks wanting to return to the farm,” says Steans.
Explore the entire Food Tank event schedule during Climate Week NYC 2026, and live-stream every Summit on FoodTank.com and Food Tank’s YouTube channel.
Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.
Photo by Ryan Rose for Food Tank.
The post Building Thriving Farms: “Farmers Cannot Carry the Climate Transition Alone” appeared first on Food Tank.
Shell Singapore Charged Over Pulau Bukom Oil Leaks and Alleged Reporting Delays
The charges, filed on 22 September 2026 under Singapore’s Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, relate to separate incidents in October and December 2024 at the Shell Singapore Energy and Chemicals Park on Pulau Bukom.
According to Channel NewsAsia, the first incident involved approximately 40 tonnes of oily mixture being discharged into Singapore waters through a hole in a pipeline within Shell’s refining facility at about 8am on 20 October 2024. (CNA)
The charge alleges that Shell did not notify the port master until approximately 12.55pm that day. (CNA)
That timing is potentially important because Singapore regulations require operators of such facilities to report pollution incidents without delay and to the fullest extent possible.
A second leak two months laterThe prosecution also concerns a second pollution incident over the Christmas period of 2024.
According to the charges reported by CNA, an estimated 485kg to 956kg of oil mixture entered Singapore waters from the Pulau Bukom facility between approximately 9.30am on 26 December and 8.30am on 28 December 2024. (CNA)
Shell is again accused of failing to report the incident immediately.
The December incident had already attracted regulatory attention at the time. Singapore’s Maritime and Port Authority and National Environment Agency announced on 27 December 2024 that Shell had shut down an oil-processing unit while the suspected leak was investigated.
Shell estimated at the time that a few tonnes of refined petroleum products had leaked together with cooling-water discharge. Containment booms, absorbent material, dispersants and an oil-skimming system were deployed, while government agencies used boats, satellites and drones to monitor the surrounding waters. (MPA)
Precautionary booms were also deployed at locations including the Sisters’ Islands Marine Park and Sentosa.
The October 2024 incidentThe earlier October incident had involved what authorities described at the time as a leak from a Shell land-based pipeline between Bukom Island and Bukom Kecil.
The Maritime and Port Authority said on 20 October 2024 that it had been alerted at about 1pm to a leakage that had occurred at approximately 5.30am that morning. Shell deployed containment booms and vessels equipped with dispersants, while MPA deployed additional craft, drones and satellite surveillance. (MPA)
By the end of that month, Singapore authorities said the clean-up of the leaked material — described as “slop”, an oily mixture — had been completed and that no further oil sightings had been observed at sea or ashore. Investigations nevertheless remained ongoing. (MPA)
The significance of the latest development is that those investigations have now resulted in charges.
Shell asks for more timeAt the 22 September court hearing, a Shell representative reportedly requested an eight-week adjournment.
According to CNA, the company said it needed time to obtain internal instructions, appoint legal counsel and locate historical records.
One complication is that the business associated with the incidents was divested in 2025, according to Shell’s representative. The company therefore said additional time would be necessary to retrieve and examine the relevant historical material before responding to the allegations. (CNA)
The proceedings were adjourned until October.
CNA also reported that Shell faces a separate prosecution by Singapore’s National Environment Agency concerning the same incidents. (CNA)
Potential penaltiesThe penalties are not insignificant.
According to CNA, an entity convicted as the occupier of land from which oil or an oily mixture is discharged into Singapore waters may face a fine ranging from S$1,000 to S$1 million.
A failure to report such a discharge without delay and to the fullest extent possible can attract a further fine of up to S$5,000. (CNA)
These are charges, not findings of guilt. Shell has not yet presented its substantive response to the allegations, and the issues will now proceed through Singapore’s judicial process.
From “top priority” to courtroomThere is, however, an uncomfortable contrast between the present charges and Shell’s public statements when the December 2024 leak occurred.
At the time, Shell said that the health and safety of its employees and protection of the environment were its “top priority”, while emphasising that it was cooperating with authorities and carrying out containment and clean-up operations. (CNA)
Nearly two years later, Singapore prosecutors are not merely examining how the oil escaped. They are also alleging failures in the way the incidents were reported.
That makes this more than another historical Shell spill story.
The court will have to determine whether the prosecution’s allegations are proved. But the existence of formal charges means that questions surrounding the Pulau Bukom leaks — including how the discharges occurred and how promptly Shell informed regulators — are now matters for judicial scrutiny rather than simply corporate explanation.
For a company that routinely emphasises its commitment to safety, environmental responsibility and regulatory compliance, that is a development worth watching closely.
Source: Channel NewsAsia, 22 September 2026; Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore statements concerning the October and December 2024 Pulau Bukom incidents.
Shell Singapore Charged Over Pulau Bukom Oil Leaks and Alleged Reporting Delays was first posted on September 22, 2026 at 6:47 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
As loss and damage fund stalls, Nepal crowdfunds flood relief
People around the world have donated almost $90 million to a government-led campaign to help Nepal recover from its recent devastating Himalayan flood, according to a Nepali climate negotiator, even as the UN chief slammed the tiny amount of money in a new fund to deal with such disasters.
Individuals and companies from Nepal and abroad have chipped in from $5 to “many millions” of dollars to the Prime Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund, Manjeet Dhakal, an advisor to the poorest countries at UN climate talks, told an event on Monday focused on early warning systems.
The prompt and substantial response from the public contrasts with the slower, more limited support that is potentially on offer from the UN’s new Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), set up by governments to compensate developing countries for climate disasters.
Comment: Human security relies on adapting to the world’s new climate reality
Over three weeks have passed since Nepal’s finance and environment ministers asked the FRLD board to take an urgent decision to allocate funding to help Nepal protect people and restore essential services in the wake of the disaster, which caused around 1,450 deaths and left more than 5,000 people missing.
“Time is of the essence,” the ministers wrote in an appeal to the FRLD on August 31, which was swiftly followed by a letter from a group of developing-country board members urging the FRLD board’s co-chairs to organise an extraordinary meeting to come up with a response.
Loss and damage fund hesitatesYet, despite informal online meetings, the co-chairs have yet to convene a meeting with the power to allocate funds. The board’s next scheduled meeting begins on December 15.
Dhakal said on Monday that the request has “received some positive response, but still there is some discussion ongoing about how to respond to that”.
“If they can’t respond in a timely manner, then is [the fund] fit for purpose in terms of disasters that the world would be facing in the coming years? The scale and intensity of these disasters is increasing,” he said.
With just $820 million pledged to it by rich countries and not all of that yet delivered, the FRLD has earmarked just $350 million to spend in its initial phase and without further contributions could run out of money next year.
Because of these limited funds, and a huge number of requests for funding totalling nearly $3 billion, the FRLD has said it will only give out a maximum of $20 million to each project for now. It has yet to approve funding for any projects.
Dhakal recently told The Nation magazine that this amount was just a “symbolic gesture”. Nepal’s government has estimated the costs of recovery and reconstruction at $4.8 billion, with homes, roads, bridges, hospitals and hydropower stations in the affected area needing to be repaired and rebuilt.
“Ridiculously small” fundingIn a speech to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, the body’s outgoing Secretary-General António Guterres criticised the “ridiculously small” level of funds made available by wealthy governments to the FRLD. Developed countries should “make the loss and damage fund work at scale”, he said.
Secretary-General António Guterres speaks at UNGA (Photo: UN Photo/ Loey Felipe)The Portuguese diplomat told world leaders that when he travelled to Nepal three years ago, he had “sounded the alarm on accelerating glacier melt, warning that the rooftops of the world are caving in”.
“Some dismissed it all as overstating dangers, but as tragic events have shown, impacts are arriving sooner, hitting harder, and spreading further than many anticipated,” he said.
A recent study by scientists with the World Weather Attribution group found that climate change contributed to the rock-ice avalanche which sparked a huge flash flood along a river valley on the Nepal-Tibet border.
Speaking at a separate event in New York on Monday, leading climate scientist Johan Rockström highlighted those findings on the role of global warming in the Himalayan disaster.
“This will be potentially the first poster-child case of a loss and damage invoice, because here we have a proven case of a catastrophe which would not have occurred if it hadn’t been for human-caused climate change,” he said.
The post As loss and damage fund stalls, Nepal crowdfunds flood relief appeared first on Climate Home News.
Offshore wind job training built for a boom is facing down a bust
A former Navy sailor and union laborer from Local 1298 on Long Island, William “Billy” Bishop jumped at the chance to work on the water again when he learned two years ago about job opportunities on offshore wind construction projects.
After earning a safety certification from the National Offshore Wind Training Center — a collaboration between Long Island’s Suffolk County Community College, the Long Island Federation of Labor, and multinational wind farm developer Orsted — Bishop worked on a wind farm near Rhode Island. Now he’s doing structural inspections and maintenance on Sunrise Wind, which is under construction off the coast of Long Island in New York.
But the Trump administration’s efforts to crush offshore wind projects, part of its broader assault on clean energy, have created deep uncertainty for training programs like NOWTC and workers like Bishop.
“I would definitely do this forever, and I’ve looked into it since getting the job. But I see contracts are falling through nonstop now in America,” said Bishop. “This might be the last one for a while.”
In 2021, the Biden administration set a target to generate 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power by the end of the decade, starting from almost zero, which jump-started a massive effort to train people for jobs in the industry. That rapid ramp-up would have required an estimated 77,000 workers — to build the wind farms, connect the turbines to the grid, operate and maintain the facilities, manufacture the rugged steel components, and more.
Instructor Ian Champlin (second from left) demonstrates rescuing an unconscious casualty as part of a safety training at the National Offshore Wind Training Center onJuly 21 in Brentwood, New York.Annie Grossinger for The Hechinger Report
To that end, several states and energy developers collaborated with universities, unions and community workforce groups on a variety of offshore wind education and training initiatives, including safety certifications for skilled laborers, apprenticeships for turbine technicians, and graduate programs in offshore wind planning and policy.
But since President Donald Trump took office for his second term, an offshore wind industry that seemed primed to explode has been pummeled by legal, administrative, and economic challenges. While the Trump administration has also taken aim at solar and onshore wind, it has the most leverage over projects offshore, where the federal government is the landlord. The onshore wind industry in the United States already dwarfed its offshore cousin and continues to grow, for now, despite federal pushback. But the near-term outlook for offshore wind is bleak, and there could be more lasting consequences if wind developers shy away from investing in a market they perceive as risky.
When it comes to energy policy, “the pendulum always swings from one president to another,” said Timothy Fox, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, an industry research firm based in Washington, D.C. “But now the swings are so dramatic that the pendulum’s going to fall off the clock.”
For now, offshore wind training programs are staying afloat by downsizing, focusing on skills that are also useful for careers outside of offshore wind, or sending graduates to work on the handful of offshore projects already under construction when Trump took office. The leaders of these training initiatives insist that an energy-hungry nation still needs offshore power and that the wind boom isn’t dead, just delayed.
“We’re not making any decisions right now,” said Roger Clayman, a NOWTC director and the retired executive director of the Long Island Federation of Labor. “Offshore wind will be back.”
Dan Ramos, let, and Pedro Costa practice using the 24-volt emergency rescue kit during training at the National Offshore Wind Training Center.Annie Grossinger for The Hechinger Report
The domestic offshore wind industry is still in its infancy; the first commercial-scale wind farm, off the Long Island coast, only started delivering power in December 2023. Back then, the industry seemed poised for exponential growth spurred by billions in federal grants, tax credits, loans, and other spending under Biden. Several much larger wind farms were already under construction and dozens more were in the permitting pipeline.
A March 2024 report by the Department of Energy estimated that the nation would face a massive deficit of qualified wind workers by 2030. “We anticipated not only expanding but that there would be multiple centers,” said Matthew Aracich, another NOWTC director and the president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Nassau and Suffolk Counties in New York.
Instead, the wind rush came to a screeching halt on January 20, 2025. One of Trump’s first actions of his second term was to sign the “wind order,” pausing all new leases and permit approvals for both onshore and offshore projects. Later that year, the government issued emergency stop-work orders on the five offshore wind projects under construction, arguing that they raised national security concerns.
Both the stop-work orders and the wind order were eventually overturned in federal courts. But the Trump administration’s war on offshore wind continued on other fronts.
The government rolled back renewable energy tax credits, which it labeled “market distorting subsidies for unreliable, foreign controlled energy sources,” and rescinded hundreds of millions in grants earmarked for offshore wind and related projects. Meanwhile, the administration has tried to revoke existing permits for offshore wind and slow-walk permitting reviews for new wind projects. Earlier this year, the administration started paying wind energy developers to abandon their offshore leases.
Union member Joe Mascio adds his signature to a wall signed by everybody who earns a safety certification at the National Offshore Wind Training Center. Annie Grossinger for The Hechinger ReportThe combined effects have dimmed offshore wind’s near-term prospects. There are about 6 gigawatts of offshore wind online or under construction off the U.S. coast — less than a third of what the Biden administration had approved for construction. And no new offshore wind farms have broken ground since he left office. That could leave the programs preparing skilled laborers for offshore construction jobs in the lurch when all existing wind projects are complete.
“I think we’re going to be busy into 2027. How deep into 2027, we don’t know,” said Clayman. That’s when Orsted’s Sunrise Wind off the coast of Long Island is scheduled for completion. (Orsted declined to be interviewed for this story, as did Equinor, another major wind-farm developer in U.S. waters that invested in workforce development.)
Similar questions are facing other unions that upskilled their members for offshore wind jobs, including the Pile Drivers Local Union 56 in Boston, whose workers needed extra training to handle the massive offshore piles that can weigh about 1,800 tons. The heavy-lift training was supported by the international offshore energy company Deme, and grants from the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, a state economic development agency. These workers helped build Vineyard Wind 1, completed this March off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, and Revolution Wind, off the coast of Rhode Island, which was just finished.
“Right now, our projects are on the tail end,” said John Dunderdale, business manager for the pile drivers’ union. He said the trained workers assisted with projects off the coast of New York, and the union had been approached about sending workers to help build overseas wind farms.
Read Next Offshore wind power projects are flailing, just when the East Coast needs them most Austin CoronaWith or without new offshore wind projects, there’s plenty of work for pile drivers and other skilled labor on normal building and infrastructure projects. But Dunderdale mourns the missed opportunities, notably the New England Wind and SouthCoast Wind projects, both of which were on the cusp of starting construction when Trump took office but are now on indefinite hold.
“We should have been on to the next one,” he said. “The jobs were there. The training was there. The money, you know, everything was there.”
Other training programs are trying to adapt to the new realities of offshore wind, too. A half-hour drive from the NOWTC, on the campus of Stony Brook University, about a dozen undergraduates recently gathered in a lab for a lesson on wiring high-voltage direct current, or HVDC. Huddled around docking stations the size of vending machines, they attempted different wiring setups with simulated HVDC, which, because it transmits electricity efficiently over long distances, is often used for energy sources like wind and solar that are far from population centers.
The class was one of several started in 2024 on State University of New York campuses as part of an effort called the Offshore Wind Training Institute, funded with $20 million from the state and the SUNY system. The class was designed to prepare people specifically for the emerging offshore wind industry. But more recently, it has shifted to focus on a wider range of HVDC applications, such as connecting solar farms to battery storage and integrating regional grids.
Read Next Trump destroyed offshore wind. The Northeast can’t live without it. Jake Bittle“Luckily, we have a skill and a discipline that we’re teaching these students that does not entirely rely on offshore wind,” said Derek O’Connor, senior workforce development manager in Stony Brook’s Office for Research and Innovation.
A similar pivot occurred within “A Taste of the Trades,” a paid summer training program for local high schoolers created two years ago by Stony Brook, Suffolk County Community College, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and a company working on the Sunrise Wind project. The program offers hands-on learning for a wide range of jobs in the energy sector, including welding and microgrid development. The first summer, networking events and visits to job sites were designed to introduce students to opportunities in offshore wind, but more recently, students have been exposed to a wider range of electric grid operations and infrastructure jobs.
The more you look at the variety of skills needed for work in offshore wind, the more you see overlaps with what’s needed in the nation’s energy sector writ large, said O’Connor. “We’ve been flexible and agile in responding to some of the changes, being less focused on the power generation source and more about grid stability and reliability.”
Indeed, despite the political attacks on offshore wind and the diminishing opportunities, the clean energy sector overall faces a big and growing shortage of workers. Wind turbine technicians and solar installers, for example, are among the fastest growing occupations in the United States, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
“The industry continues to grow, even with the uncertainty that we’re experiencing,” said Abby Huston, vice president of programs for the Clean Power Institute, the nonprofit workforce development arm of the American Clean Power Association, a national advocacy and trade organization. “What we’ve found is there’s a lot more adaptation in terms of how to build workforce programs rather than closing them down, because there’s still such a huge need.”
Other examples: Her group is partnering with schools and community colleges to build awareness of clean energy and its career opportunities broadly; the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center has shifted some of its funding focus from offshore wind to a new, broader portfolio in “ocean tech,” such as improving coastal resilience and monitoring the health of marine ecosystems by analyzing traces of DNA in the water; and a Maryland state job training program created in 2022 to bolster the offshore wind industry has placed thousands of people in fields requiring similar skills such as shipbuilding and aerospace.
Meanwhile, energy industry experts say there are plenty of reasons to believe that offshore wind could eventually make a comeback; the surging demand and cost of energy is putting more pressure on policymakers to tap every available source.
Back at the NOWTC, workers are still signing up for training, but they are increasingly people renewing their certifications, which last two years, rather than first-timers, according to Clayman.
This summer, one of those workers renewing their certificates was Bishop. He estimates that he has another year on the Sunrise project before it’s completed. At that point, he’ll likely return to working construction onshore — unless there’s a dramatic shift in offshore wind’s fortunes.
Sign up for Hechinger’s climate change newsletter.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Offshore wind job training built for a boom is facing down a bust on Sep 22, 2026.
In UN Speech, Trump Brags About Fossil Fuel Resource Grabs
Donald Trump used his platform at the UN General Assembly to brag about the U.S’s fossil fueled imperialism. From Iran, to Venezuela, to Greenland, Trump’s actions follow a familiar path: use military force to dominate sovereign nations, let Big Oil cash in, and leave ordinary people to bear the costs through war, pollution, rising energy bills, and worsening climate disasters.
Governments have a choice: Follow Trump into a future of conflict and economic volatility, or build prosperity and energy independence and political stability through clean, renewable energy. On the road to COP31, governments must reject Trump’s attempt to build a fossil fuel empire and show that his agenda will not dictate our shared future.
Lower energy costs, community benefits drive 30% battery growth rate: RMI
The report arrives as the energy storage industry faces headwinds from tariffs, Treasury regulations and new White House restrictions on foreign-made bulk electrical components.
Who Will Shape the Next Decade of Conservation in Texas?
Storytelling As A Catalyst For Change at Climate Week NYC Film Festival
Lights… Camera… Food system action!
Storytelling is a powerful catalyst for education, connection, and transformation, and filmmakers and documentarians are highlighting inspiring people and unsung innovations in food systems across the globe.
“Stories and food are what make us human,” says Haven Worley, Director of “Irish Farmers: A Love Story,” at the All Things Food & Agriculture Film Festival, hosted by Food Tank in partnership with Kat Taylor, President of TomKat Foundation; Halter; The Henry Ford; The Rockefeller Foundation; and Groundswell during Climate Week NYC.
Watch the livestream recording on Food Tank’s YouTube channel.
“As conveners, as storytellers, we can share what’s working across the country,” says Spence Medford, Senior Vice President and Chief Advancement Officer at The Henry Ford, after screening the foundation’s new “Farm to School Lunch Across America” film. “There’s innovation that’s happening in the food system right now; people just don’t know about it.”
At Climate Week, the packed audience also enjoyed a screening of clips from the documentary short “Language of the Land,” produced by Halter. The film follows 5th-generation ranchers Kacie and Zach Scherler-Abney of Scherler-Abney Land & Cattle, as they transition their Oklahoma farm to regenerative practices.
“It’s a beautiful thing to see producers from different parts of the world who share this goal and really want to work with one another,” says Helen Moore, VP of Commercial Strategy at Halter.
“Especially with our generation, there’s a huge interest in agriculture and…a real genuine interest in connecting with food sources,” Zach Scherler-Abney added.
In introducing the “Powered By Community” film series, a grassroots project highlighting local changemakers, Big Green president Madeleine Nelson reminded the crowd that “Small can scale.”
“These local projects are part of the solutions that we need to change the food system for the better,” she says.
Jennifer Sherman, Program Director at the Alice Waters Institute, echoed this sentiment.
“There is no change that is too small,” she says.
Then, Kat Taylor, Founder of TomKat Ranch and TomKat Ranch Educational Foundation, and director and producer Rebecca Harrell Tickell took the stage with clips from “Groundswell,” the feature-length documentary that premiered at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year.
“The farmers are not only right; we should be listening to them more often and enabling them more, and giving them more agency,” Taylor says.
When pitching the film project, back in 2013, the team faced pushback from producers who didn’t believe regenerative agriculture was actually transformative, Harrell Tickell recalled. The film has been its own proof-of-concept.
“They laughed us out of Hollywood,” Harrell Tickell says. “We were filming a movement as it was coalescing. … It feels like we’re just getting started even though it’s been over a decade to get to this point.”
Stories like these, filmmakers said, only reinforce the importance of storytellers following their passions and telling true stories.
“We have to fight to curate and support and bubble up hope,” says Sara Farley, Regenerative School Meals Co-Lead and Vice President for the Food Team at The Rockefeller Foundation. She presented clips from “Food 2050,” which she described as a radical listening project.
“The future isn’t written,” she continued. “Use the creative part of your brain to imagine the future.”
Explore the entire Food Tank event schedule during Climate Week NYC 2026, and live-stream every Summit on FoodTank.com and Food Tank’s YouTube channel.
Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.
Photo by Ryan Rose for Food Tank.
The post Storytelling As A Catalyst For Change at Climate Week NYC Film Festival appeared first on Food Tank.
UN Secretary-General Guterres calls for future beyond fossil fuels
Today, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called on governments at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City to “adopt a national plan to transition away from fossil fuels aligned with 1.5 degrees”.
In response, Romain Ioualalen, Global Policy lead at Oil Change International, said:
“The message from UNSG Guterres is clear: continued fossil fuel dependence is the pathway to climate and economic chaos. It exposes people to price shocks, geopolitical conflict, and devastating climate impacts, while fossil fuel billionaires reap the profits of the crisis they created.
“It’s time for countries to act, and it starts by developing their national roadmaps to achieve prosperity beyond fossil fuels. Their credibility is on the line. We need publicly led plans, with clear and time-bound plans for a fair fossil fuel phaseout that protects workers and communities, strengthens energy sovereignty, and mobilizes the necessary public funding. We need governments to step up.
“The newly published IEA report makes it clear that at the core of these roadmaps must be a commitment to electrifying economies. But this must come with a clear commitment to dismantling fossil fuel infrastructure and generating electricity through renewable energy.
“Oil and gas companies cannot be allowed to take in billions in profit while families struggle to pay skyrocketing energy and food bills. Taxing excessive oil and gas profits is an urgent step needed to make fossil fuel companies pay for the energy crisis they created, and for countries to mobilize public finance needed for climate action.”
Guterres’ final UN speech calls for "polluters to pay" as campaigners present over 2 million signatures at the UNGA
As UN Secretary-General makes final UN General Assembly speech, global campaigners say the call to “Make Polluters Pay” has gone mainstream. In his powerful speech, he reaffirmed the importance of national governments adopting national plans to transition away from fossil fuels, aligned with the 1.5°C goal, and made a clear call for those most responsible for the climate crisis to be held accountable:
“Those who polluted the most – and profited the most – must do far more to repair the damage they caused. Polluters must pay. And to the leaders, cities, civil society and citizens working to hold them accountable: you are on the right side of history. Keep going,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
The call for greater accountability from the fossil fuel industry driving the climate crisis came just 1 day after campaigners presented 2 million signatures demanding that governments “Make Polluters Pay” to the United Nations.
Throughout his tenure, Guterres has been among the forceful voices calling on the fossil-fuel industry to be made to answer for the damage their products cause, from urging windfall taxes on record oil and gas profits, to endorsing ‘solidarity levies’ to close the international climate finance gap owed to Global South countries, and calling for action to tackle those he called the “godfathers of climate chaos”. Campaigners say his intervention today shows how far that argument has traveled, and voice their hope that his successor will carry it forward at a moment when the case has never been more urgent.
Earlier this week, members of the Make Polluters Pay International coalition, alongside frontline campaigners and communities, gathered in New York to highlight the growing public demand for fossil-fuel companies to pay for the costs of the climate damage their industry has caused. They presented at the UN petitions with a combined total of over 2 million signatures calling on governments to Make Polluters Pay.
This comes after a year marked by devastating wildfires, floods and deadly climate disasters, and continuing global energy insecurity linked to dependence on oil and gas. Campaigners say the message to governments is simple: we are breaching 1.5°C, a limit governments swore to hold, and the need for urgent action has never been clearer. As fossil-fuel companies keep raking in colossal profits, ordinary people are left paying the price through higher energy and food bills, and losses that can never be fully repaired: homes, harvest, lives.
The Make Polluters Pay campaign has mobilised millions of people around the world behind a demand for governments to introduce binding measures requiring fossil-fuel companies to contribute to the costs of climate damage, and shifting the financial incentives that keep money flowing towards coal, oil & gas.
Campaigners are calling for measures including climate damages taxes, surtaxes on fossil-fuel profits and fines, with revenues directed towards recovery, adaptation, loss and damage and a just transition to renewable energy.
The campaign saw members of the Make Polluters Pay International coalition come together including 350.org, Greenpeace International, Fossil Free Media and Oxfam International, alongside frontline campaigners and communities affected by climate change.
Louise Hutchins, Co-Convenor of the Make Polluters Pay International Coalition, said:
“When the UN Secretary-General calls for fossil-fuel companies to pay, you know this demand has become impossible to ignore. Millions of people around the world are calling for it and governments are starting to listen. After months of super-profits from the oil and gas industry, finance ministers are putting windfall taxes back on the agenda.
“This is a sign of how quickly the politics are changing. The movement is growing, the public is behind it, and governments need to catch up.”
Anne Jellema, Executive Director of 350.org, said:
“For years, campaigners and communities on the frontlines have been saying the same thing: the companies that profited from fossil fuels must pay their fair share of the costs of the crisis they helped create.
“Today, that demand is moving into the mainstream. The Secretary-General’s call for polluters to pay reflects what millions of people are demanding around the world.
“We have watched homes burn, communities flood and families struggle with the costs of climate and energy crises, while fossil-fuel companies continue to make extraordinary profits. We pay. They profit. It’s time to change that.
“The voices of more than 2 million people are now being brought to the UN. Governments have the power to make polluters pay , and they must use it.”
Mads Christensen, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, said:
“Guterres has spent years warning leaders where fossil-fuel dependence leads, and this year proved him right. From deadly heat to devastating fires and floods, the very dependence driving these disasters is shaking entire economies and leaving families exposed to volatile energy and food prices, while the companies behind it keep raking in the profits. The worse the crisis grows, the more they make: the very instability that empties people’s wallets fills theirs.
“That is the system permanent surtaxes on fossil-fuel profits start to break. New rules forcing governments to align their taxes and spending with global climate goals would raise hundreds of billions of dollars to support the countries and communities least responsible, while incentivising money out of fossil fuels and into secure, renewable energy that actually protects people. As long as destruction stays profitable, the transition to a safer, fairer future will keep being held back. Guterres has named the solution, governments must now act on it.”
Amitabh Behar, Executive Director of Oxfam International, said:
“The people who have contributed least to the climate crisis are paying the highest price. They are losing homes, livelihoods and access to food and facing an increasingly uncertain future, while fossil-fuel corporations and their billionaire backers continue to profit.
“The call to Make Rich Polluters Pay is about justice. It is about ensuring that those who have benefited most from the fossil-fuel economy pay for the damage it has caused.
“Today the Secretary-General joined millions of people around the world in demanding that ‘polluters must pay’. It’s time for governments to listen and ensure that new sources of finance reach the communities on the frontlines of this crisis.”
Rev. Fletcher Harper, Executive Director, GreenFaith
“Every religion teaches the same moral principle: you do not get to harm your neighbor and walk away from the damage. That simple truth is why religious leaders from around the globe – Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish and many others – are calling for polluters to pay for the harm they’ve caused. Communities around the globe are suffering the mounting costs of climate damage – costs that have not been paid by the polluters. They have been pushed onto families, communities, and taxpayers. In moral terms, that is theft. And it must stop.”
Jamie Henn, Spokesperson for the US Make Polluters Pay Campaign
“Yesterday, more than two million people brought the Make Polluters Pay demand to the United Nations. Today, Secretary-General Guterres made clear that he stands with them. Around the world, people are paying the costs of a climate crisis fueled by a handful of wealthy fossil fuel corporations, while those same companies continue to rake in enormous profits. The Secretary-General has been a powerful voice for holding polluters accountable, and his message today shows just how far this demand has traveled. Now other world leaders need to follow his lead and make polluters pay.”
Campaigners say the Secretary-General’s intervention marks an important moment in the growing push to hold fossil-fuel companies financially accountable for climate damage. The call comes as governments gather in New York to discuss global security, economic stability and resilience. Campaigners argue that these conversations cannot be separated from the climate and fossil-fuel crises.
Continued dependence on oil and gas leaves economies exposed to volatile global markets while accelerating climate disruption. They say the real route to energy security is to rapidly reduce fossil-fuel dependence, accelerate clean electrification and ensure that fossil-fuel companies contribute to the costs of the transition, adaptation and loss and damage.
The campaigners are calling on governments to:
- Make fossil-fuel companies pay through climate-damages taxes, permanent surtaxes on fossil fuel profits and meaningful fines.
- Direct the revenues to communities, including funding adaptation, recovery and loss and damage.
- Accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels towards clean, affordable and secure energy.
- Ensure polluters are held accountable through progressive fiscal policy, rather than allowing the costs of climate damage to continue falling on ordinary people.
At least 2,400 oil and gas spills occurred across Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico in 2025
Oil and gas operators reported more than 2,400 spills across Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico in 2025, releasing a combined 5.8 million gallons of liquid, according to the annual Western Oil and Gas Spills Report from the Center for Western Priorities.
New Mexico operators reported 1,277 liquid spills, up 13 percent from 1,133 the year before, totaling 3.56 million gallons. A single OXY USA water storage tank failure accounted for nearly half of that volume on its own. Gas releases from venting and flaring fell eight percent, but operators still wasted 9.8 billion cubic feet of gas, in a state that produced 16 percent of the nation’s crude oil in 2025. Colorado spills fell 11 percent to 338, though volume nearly doubled to 794,000 gallons. Wyoming was the only state where both spill count and volume declined, dropping to 786 spills and 1.43 million gallons.
This year, CWP also analyzed Colorado’s historical spill filings and found 6,084 records between 2016 and 2025, with annual filings jumping more than fifteen-fold since 2020, from 125 that year to 1,948 last year. These are spills that were missed by operators for years before a well was plugged. Most of these spills surfaced only when companies plugged wells or tore down old equipment. This reveals that most spills go unreported despite the state’s strong reporting requirements, and implies the actual scale of spills and leaks is much bigger than this report captures, not just for Colorado, but in all three states.
“With the Trump administration pushing even more oil and gas drilling on public lands, this problem is set to increase rather than improve,” said Kate Groetzinger, CWP communications director. “We could be building out clean energy. Instead, we’re doubling down on dirty oil and gas production.”
Why submitting a public comment still matters—and how to write a good oneOn a new episode of The Landscape, Kate and Aaron talk to Nick Holshouser, a data analyst with Wandering Nature, LLC, who is analyzing the public comments coming in on the Trump administration’s proposal to repeal the 2001 roadless rule in real-time at roadless.org, and Blaine Miller-McFeeley, a senior legislative representative at Earthjustice, about public comment periods under the Trump administration. We cover why you should still submit public comments (even though the Trump administration probably isn’t interested in your opinion) and how to write a comment that requires an agency response and helps build the legal record against bad agency actions.
Quick hits Trump administration says developers, loggers can kill endangered species Another flash flood hit the Grand Canyon, setting back recovery from a deadly flood weeks ago Colorado agencies call for removal of Roan Plateau parcels from federal oil and gas lease sale St. Mary’s Glacier, a Colorado landmark, has melted amid a record-hot summer Leaked documents reveal Trump’s plan to take control of your national parks National park rangers have a mental health problem. Could it get worse? The roadless rule is facing repeal, experts want to be clear about wildfires and roads Opinion: Montana mines and how we move forward Quote of the dayUnless you’re wearing a T-shirt that says, ‘I’m here to draw the blood of endangered species,’ you’re basically off the hook.”
—Brett Hartl, Center for Biological Diversity government affairs director, Stateline
Picture This@usinteriorSome places remind you just how vast and extraordinary this country really is.
At Vermilion Cliffs National Monument in Arizona, layers of sandstone twist, fold and sweep across the landscape at White Pocket, creating a scene that hardly looks real.
Managed by @mypubliclands, this remarkable landscape is part of the millions of acres of public lands that belong to all Americans.
You may never stand in this exact spot, but images like this give all of us a chance to appreciate the incredible beauty of our country.
Photo by BLM
Featured photo: BLM truck and oil and gas infrastructure. Source: BLM Colorado
The post At least 2,400 oil and gas spills occurred across Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico in 2025 appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
STATEMENT: New map tracks $25.9 million in NPS projects blocked by Trump administration
DENVER—The Center for Western Priorities today published an interactive map of the 133 National Park Service partner agreements that were disapproved by the Department of the Interior on August 7, blocking $25.9 million in funding. Parks and their partners had already secured the funding for these programs from congressional appropriations, existing federal programs, and internal funding. The Interior department review was the final step before the agreements could be signed and the money released.
The disapproved agreements were first reported on by the Washington Post earlier this month. Interior told the Washington Post it had disapproved agreements with groups “actively working against the best interests of the American people and the priorities of this administration.” NPS staff reported they received no explanation beyond a note in the records reading “Disapproved by DOI.”
Every agreement appears on the map with the park or office that requested it, the partner organization that would have carried out the work, the dollar figure attached to it, and the National Park Service’s own written statement of what disapproval means for that site. The complete dataset is available to download as a CSV.
The Center for Western Priorities released the following statement from Center for Western Priorities Communications Director Kate Groetzinger:
“Revoking funding for organizations that support America’s national parks shows how much disdain Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has for America’s public lands. The Interior department says these groups were ‘working against the best interests of the American people.’ That makes no sense. Anyone working to make our parks better, safer, and cleaner is clearly working in America’s best interest.
“Every one of these projects had its funding secured, and parks were counting on the work getting done. Blocking these agreements did not save a dollar. It pushed the work down the road and likely made it even more costly in the future. At Joshua Tree, for example, national park staff wrote that without approval for their projects, wildfires there will be larger and cost more to fight. Let’s hear the Interior department explain why that’s a good thing for the American people.”
Methodology:The map draws on data from the National Park Service’s Financial Assistance Submission Tracker, with status as of September 9, 2026 and subsequently provided to the Center for Western Priorities. The August 7 batch held 140 requests; seven have since moved to another status and are excluded. Project descriptions and impact statements appear as written in the records. Full methodology, a data dictionary, and the source code are published at github.com/Center-for-Western-Priorities/2026-NPS-Agreement-Disapprovals.
Learn more:-
Trump administration blocks $25 million in funding for national parks — Washington Post
-
Gold statues and staff cuts: How Trump has disrupted America’s parks — New York Times
The post STATEMENT: New map tracks $25.9 million in NPS projects blocked by Trump administration appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
Fact brief - Does wind power require backup from fossil fuels?
Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.
Does wind power require backup from fossil fuels?Most power grids still combine fossil fuels with renewables, but some already run entirely on renewable energy and offer models others could follow.
The majority of 100% renewable grids rely primarily on hydropower, though certain nations have significantly incorporated wind in their portfolios. Costa Rica and Uruguay have achieved 99-100% renewable power with around 17% and 35% coming from wind, respectively.
Several U.S. municipalities meet electricity demands using diverse portfolios of renewables, including wind. Burlington, Vermont’s 2024 supply was 99.9% renewable, mainly via hydropower, biomass, and wind; Seattle, Washington was 95% renewables powered in 2024. In Kansas and South Dakota, wind alone comprises 60% of generation.
Energy storage is also rapidly expanding as a solution to intermittency, with the U.S. ranking second globally and achieving record growth in 2025. Such combinations of renewable resources, storage, and transmission continue to enable more reliable, renewable grids.
Go to full rebuttal on Skeptical Science or to the fact brief on Gigafact
This fact brief is responsive to quotes such as this one.
Sources
Climate Council 11 countries leading the charge on renewable energy
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark Denmark #1 in share of renewables in net electricity generation for 2024 in the EU
IEA Lithuania
City of Burlington Electric Department Our Energy Portfolio
City of Seattle Power Supply and Delivery
Analysis of EIA data Share of electricity gen by wind, by state, 2025
U.S. Energy Information Administration Electricity Data Browser
U.S. Grid Energy Storage Factsheet University of Michigan
Princeton University Net-Zero America
NREL NREL Report Redefines Wind as a Grid Stabilizer, Not a Liability
Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles
Please use this form to provide feedback about this fact brief. This will help us to better gauge its impact and usability. Thank you!
About fact briefs published on Gigafact
Fact briefs are short, credibly sourced summaries that offer "yes/no" answers in response to claims found online. They rely on publicly available, often primary source data and documents. Fact briefs are created by contributors to Gigafact — a nonprofit project looking to expand participation in fact-checking and protect the democratic process. See all of our published fact briefs here.
Tucson nurses plan protests over unsafe staffing and working conditions amid contract negotiations
Explainer: How sea level rise poses an ‘existential threat’ to humans, heritage and nature
For millions of people around the world, rising sea levels are already reshaping economies, livelihoods and cultures.
The world’s oceans are currently rising at a faster rate than at any time in at least the past three millennia, with human influence the “dominant cause” of sea level rise since at least 1970.
At the UN general assembly in New York this week, world leaders are set to adopt a high-level declaration on the “existential threats” posed by sea level rise.
The declaration notes: “Sea level rise is not a distant scenario, but a real and lived experience for many.”
On average, global sea levels rose by 20 centimetres (cm) between 1901 and 2018.
This is due to both the melting of glaciers and ice sheets and the expansion of seawater as it warms, as well as changes in land-water storage.
The rate of the rise has accelerated in recent years, with ocean levels rising 10.6cm since 1993.
Sea level rise can vary locally due to seismic and volcanic activity, groundwater extraction and changes to the Earth’s surface resulting from ice melt.
Under a moderate-emissions scenario, scientists predict that global average sea level will rise an additional 56cm by 2100, relative to a 1995-2014 baseline.
Here, Carbon Brief unpacks some of the key ways that sea level rise threatens both societies and ecosystems.
- Cities and coastal communities
- Biodiversity and coastal ecosystems
- Small island developing states
- Coral reefs
- Heritage sites
- Cities and coastal communities
- Biodiversity and coastal ecosystems
- Small island developing states
- Coral reefs
- Heritage sites
Around 770 million people – 10% of the world’s population – are at “acute risk” of negative impacts from sea level rise, according to a report from the UN secretary general released last month.
(The report defines locations at acute risk as those that are less than five metres above the high-tide line.)
The people at risk include the residents of several of the world’s largest cities, including Mumbai and Kolkata in India and Shenzhen and Guangzhou in China. It also encompasses the entire populations of many island nations. (See: Small island developing states.)
There are two ways to consider sea level rise.
Global-average sea level rise is the amount the ocean surface has moved upwards, on average, relative to a baseline.
Relative, or local, sea level rise, is how much the ocean has risen in a given place. This can vary from the global average due to a number of factors, including land motion and ocean circulation, as well as changes to the Earth’s surface, rotation and gravitational pull due to the melting of the ice sheets.
Higher sea levels bring with them myriad dangers for coastal communities: they can increase persistent flooding and inundation, strengthen dangerous storm surges and erode beaches and cliffs. Sea level rise also causes the water table of coastal land to rise, which exacerbates flood risk.
The frequency of 100-year “extreme sea level events” has already increased 12-fold since 1900. These are events where high tides, storm surges and relative sea level rise combine to produce exceptionally high sea levels. Under a moderate-emissions scenario, these events are likely to occur at least annually – and, potentially, even more frequently – in many places by the end of the century.
In addition to damage to homes and other buildings, critical infrastructure – such as water systems and wastewater management projects – is increasingly vulnerable to flooding as a result of sea level rise. Flooding can cut communities off from essential services, such as hospitals and markets, with low-income and other marginalised groups disproportionately affected.
Inland encroachment of seawater leads to the saltwater intrusion and threatens agriculture in low-lying coastal areas.
Vertical land motion can also amplify the risk of rising seas. This includes a shifting of the land in response to seismic or volcanic activity or to land sinking, known as subsidence. The changes in local sea level due to these types of vertical motion can equal or surpass the contributions of climate-driven sea level rise.
Many of the coastal cities experiencing the largest changes in their relative sea level are located in east and south-east Asia. One notable example is Jakarta, Indonesia, which has been sinking by up to 15cm per year over the past decade, due largely to the overextraction of groundwater, which leads to the collapse of underground aquifers.
But even as the risks from sea level rise increase, population growth in coastal areas continues to outstrip that of inland areas. Between 2000 and 2018, the global population grew by slightly more than 23%. The population living within 5km of a coast increased by 28% over that same time.
The associated development of coastal areas means that, even without future sea level rise, global losses from flooding in the world’s largest 136 coastal cities could reach up to $52bn per year by 2050 – up from $6bn in 2005.
In response to the growing threats posed by sea level rise, communities around the world have implemented a number of adaptive actions.
Venice’s MOSE 1 flooding protection system, Italy. Credit: James Hancock / Alamy Stock PhotoIn 2003, the Italian city of Venice began a years-long project to construct three floodgates that could be raised during high tide events to protect the city’s lagoon from the encroachment of the Adriatic Sea. The system was engaged for the first time in October 2020 and then another 48 times in the following two years.
Other communities have opted for less technologically intensive adaptations, including constructing seawalls, restoring mangrove forests and marshes, disincentivising development in high-risk areas and relocating residents, buildings and infrastructure to higher ground or inland areas.
However, existing adaptations may not be sufficient to protect communities. Under a low-emissions scenario, these protections may be breached 10 times as frequently over the next 30 years as they currently are.
Biodiversity and coastal ecosystemsThe world’s coastal ecosystems are rapidly being destroyed due to both development and sea level rise.
This combination of pressures is called “coastal squeeze”, where ecosystems that may have otherwise shifted inland in response to sea level rise find their paths blocked by human-made structures.
Coastal squeeze has contributed to the widespread loss of the world’s wetlands.
Globally, nearly 28m hectares of coastal wetlands – including estuaries, tidal flats, mangroves and seagrass – have disappeared since 1970, according to the 2025 “global wetland outlook” report. This is an area equivalent to roughly the size of Ecuador.
Although the report names conversion to agriculture as the largest driver of wetland loss, it notes:
“Climate change is increasingly exacerbating the impact of other drivers on wetlands and human wellbeing through changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, associated fires, floods and droughts and through sea level rise.”
In the continental US, just 16% of coastal wetlands are migrating inland at rates that exceed local sea level rise. Nearly three-quarters of sites are moving at rates that do not outpace sea level rise, while 11% are submerging.
Low-lying islands are particularly threatened by sea level rise, due to their large amounts of coastline relative to their land areas. At the same time, islands are often “hotspots” of biodiversity, with many home to species found nowhere else in the world. More than 20% of the Earth’s known plant species are found only on islands.
A 2013 study modelled the impact of different amounts of sea level rise on 10 island biodiversity hotspots, comprising nearly 4,450 individual islands. It found that in a future with one metre of sea level rise, around 6% of the island habitat area would be completely submerged, while more than 11% of the hotspot islands would see their land area reduced by at least half. This could put dozens of species at risk of extinction, the study said.
Beach spectaclepod (Dithyrea maritima). Credit: piemags/nature / Alamy Stock PhotoIn 2024, researchers documented the first known extirpation, or local extinction, of a plant species in the US due to sea level rise. Hurricanes and storm surges – amplified by sea level rise – began to kill off the only US population of the Key Largo cactus in the 2010s.
The remaining cacti suffered from soil erosion and saltwater intrusion and the final remaining specimens were removed in 2021 in an effort to cultivate them in greenhouses. (Other Caribbean islands, including Cuba, do still have surviving populations of the cactus.)
As native flora and fauna are diminished or even eliminated by rising sea levels, coastal ecosystems may become vulnerable to colonisation by invasive alien species, further harming biodiversity.
And as coastal communities are forced to relocate due to sea level rise, there are knock-on effects for biodiversity as they develop on new lands. These secondary biodiversity impacts are likely to be particularly prevalent in south-east Asia, due to the large number of people living in low-lying areas who may be forced to migrate due to sea level rise.
Small island developing statesSea level rise poses an “acute and disproportionate” threat to small island developing states, says the recent UN report. It adds:
“Even under moderate scenarios, rising seas will render many low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states increasingly uninhabitable without extraordinary adaptation.”
Climate change is already resulting in loss and damage to small island nations, which are particularly vulnerable to both climate change in general and sea level rise specifically.
This vulnerability is in large part due to the geography of these countries. Several small island Pacific states are made up of atolls – ring-shaped coral or sandy islands that encircle lagoons. These often have average elevations of 1-2 metres above sea level and maximum elevations of 3-5 metres above sea level.
Panoramic aerial view of Kanton Island. Kiribati. Credit: Galaxiid / Alamy Stock PhotoSome modelling evidence has shown that reef islands can grow vertically in response to sea level rise, as waves washing over the islands transport sediment from the ocean onto the surface. However, the strength of such waves would likely make these islands unsuitable for building on.
Other research has shown that Pacific islands respond in many different ways to rising sea levels, with “complex” outcomes, both positive and negative.
In addition, most of the small-island nations in the Pacific Ocean are located in a region where relative sea level rise from the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is projected to be 11-33% higher than the global average rise in 2100 – regardless of emissions scenario.
The effects of this higher-than-average sea level rise is already evident.
In 1999, Kiribati lost two small, uninhabited islands to the rising seas. Several uninhabited islands in the Solomon Islands had vanished by 2014, while a further six islands had been severely eroded by the ocean, necessitating the relocation of some communities.
In addition, most small island developing states are located in parts of the ocean that are often hit by tropical cyclones. Sea level rise can enhance storm surge, leading to greater destruction during such storms.
However, small island developing states are also vulnerable “because they lack the means to address the impacts on their own”, reads the UN report.
According to the UN, these countries will require up to $6bn annually by 2035 in order to adapt to climate change. However, they received just $1.2bn in public adaptation finance in 2022-23.
Aerial view of the damage caused by hurricane Dorian, Bahamas. Credit: AC NewsPhoto / Alamy Stock PhotoCurrently, small island developing states experience “expected” annual climate damages of $1.64bn due to coastal flooding, equivalent to 0.13% of their cumulative GDP. But, even if warming were limited to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures, these annual damages are projected to grow to $24bn.
In the international policy arena, questions have arisen over what should happen to island nations’ maritime boundaries as their land is enveloped by the sea. This is because maritime holdings, such as exclusive economic zones, are determined based on a country’s land borders.
However, a 2025 report by the UN International Law Commission considered the legal implications of sea level rise. It concluded that international law allows for countries’ borders to stay the same, “notwithstanding changes to the coastline as a result of climate change-related sea level rise”. It also noted:
“There is a need to develop legal and practical solutions to better protect persons affected by sea level rise, including those who remain in situ and those who are internally or externally displaced by it.”
Other small islands also face similar issues in their exposure to threats posed by sea level rise.
Coral reefsCoral reefs are among the ecosystems that are most vulnerable to climate change.
They are also being visibly affected already – almost entirely due to ocean warming. Even though these ecosystems are completely submerged to begin with, they are also impacted by sea level rise.
As the ocean rises, the water over shallow ecosystems deepens.
The effects of this are twofold. Deeper water reduces the temperatures experienced by reefs. This can act as a buffer against marine heatwaves and global ocean warming.
At the same time, the increased depth reduces the amount of light that can reach the coral communities, which can impact their survival.
In addition, sea level rise-assisted erosion will add more sediment to the near-shore waters. These particles can settle on corals, impeding their ability to feed and reproduce, as well as interfering with photosynthesis by the zooxanthellae algae that live symbiotically with corals. Together, this leads to slower coral growth and increased stress on reefs.
So far, reefs in some parts of the world have been able to “keep pace” with sea level rise, growing vertically at accelerated rates and therefore maintaining suitable levels of light availability.
However, modelling has shown that few reefs have the capacity to continue to maintain their distance from the surface under a moderate-emissions scenario.
Coral reef. Credit: imageBROKER.com / Alamy Stock PhotoAs coral reefs degrade, the seafloor below them can wear away. This erosion is contributing to greater apparent levels of sea level rise on coral reefs in the Caribbean, as well as the US states of Florida and Hawaii.
Sea level rise may also have the ability to spur reef growth in shallow environments previously thought to be uninhabitable for corals. In Sanya Bay in the northern South China Sea, sea level rise since the mid-1980s has allowed for the recolonisation of a reef that had been dormant for more than five millennia.
But the opportunities for such recolonisation are far outstripped by the loss of coral elsewhere. Since 1980, the world has lost nearly 10% of its coral cover due to climate change-induced ocean warming. The UN declaration reads:
“Every fraction of a degree of global warming increases the risks to coral reefs.”
Heritage sitesThroughout human history, many societies developed along rivers and coastlines, due to the abundance of food and ease of transportation. However, their proximity to the sea means that many of these sites are now at risk of being damaged or destroyed by sea level rise.
Cultural heritage includes “physical sites, living heritage, traditional lands, burial grounds, underwater cultural heritage, archaeological and sacred sites and culturally significant coastal landscapes”, according to the UN sea level rise report.
Tongariki, Rapa Nui, Chile. Credit: Robert Wyatt / Alamy Stock PhotoSeveral studies have mapped the cultural and natural heritage sites that are most at risk from flooding and erosion due to sea level rise.
There are 49 Unesco world heritage sites located at low elevations along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Nearly every one of these is already at risk from erosion or severe flooding events – 42 face issues with erosion, while 37 are at risk from a 100-year flood event. Both of these risks will increase over the remainder of the century as sea levels continue to rise.
The locations at risk include the archaeological sites of the ancient cities of Carthage in present-day Tunisia and Ephesus in Turkey, the ruins of Pompeii and Herculaneum in Italy and the medieval Cathedral of St James in Šibenik, Croatia.
The sea level rise associated with warming of 3C above pre-industrial temperatures would impact nearly one-fifth of all Unesco cultural world heritage sites. The sites at risk include Japan’s Hiroshima Peace Memorial, South Africa’s Robben Island, Chile’s Rapa Nui and the Sydney Opera House. Many of these become vulnerable at lower levels of global warming.
In Africa, 56 out of 284 cultural and natural heritage sites already face threats from flooding or erosion due to sea level rise. This number is expected to nearly triple – to 191 threatened sites – by 2050 under a moderate-emissions scenario. However, mitigating emissions could reduce the number of very-highly exposed sites – those with at least 75% of their area vulnerable – by one-quarter.
Globally, there are 386 Unesco heritage sites along the coast that are, at most, 20 metres above sea level and are therefore potentially affected by coastal erosion and flood hazards.
These threatened sites include 289 cultural heritage sites and 91 natural heritage sites, as well as six “mixed” sites that are recognised for both their cultural and natural significance.
The UN declaration calls for action to mitigate damage to significant sites, saying:
“Protection, preservation and documentation of cultural heritage is a priority.”
Mombasa: Key outcomes from the Our Ocean Conference in Kenya 24.06.2026 Marine life Guest post: How a record-high ‘energy imbalance’ is driving global warming 10.06.2026 Climate system AMOC: Is global warming tipping key Atlantic ocean currents towards ‘collapse’? 24.04.2026 AMOC Guest post: The challenges in projecting future global sea levels 17.02.2026 GreenlandThe post Explainer: How sea level rise poses an ‘existential threat’ to humans, heritage and nature appeared first on Carbon Brief.
It’s time for utility bill reform
Programs that serve broad public purposes should be financed through state general funds rather than hidden in your electric bill, writes Marc Brown at the Consumer Energy Alliance.
National Nurses United endorses Justin Pearson for Tennessee’s 9th District
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.