News Feeds

This article How to combat fear at the polls this November was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

The ophthalmologist said he was going to touch my eyeball, then tilted my exam chair back in the darkness. I felt my body brace as movie torture scenes flashed through my mind. I noticed that I wasn’t breathing, so I practiced inhaling through my nose, and exhaling as steadily as I could for the rest of the exam.

Noticing our bodies and breathing intentionally may sound simple, but they are two of the practices that can keep us grounded when we are navigating scary or upsetting situations. As we approach a midterm election marred by threats of violence, I am practicing these skills as often as possible, not to suppress my feelings, but to be aware of how they are affecting me, so I can make conscious choices. 

Why staying grounded matters

The forces of authoritarianism want us to feel knocked off center by the many ways they are trying to keep people from voting. Trump administration officials continue to suggest that ICE, FBI or other federal agents could be sent to polling places. It’s important that election volunteers and voters stay grounded to avoid playing into their hands. One danger is that fearful voters will just stay home, whether or not the administration carries out their threats. Another danger is that we resist any government interference in ways that increase the chaos, which Trump would use to bolster his narrative that the left is the real threat.

Many national and local groups are hosting trainings to prepare people to protect our vote calmly and nonviolently. A widely used tool is the “Election Defense Scenarios” guide, which sketches out 18 possible threats and what people can do about them. Author Daniel Hunter writes, “One of the clearest lessons from every scenario in this guide — and from democratic movements around the world — is this: Illegal and unjust orders only work if people comply with them.” He notes that a more subtle theme of the guide is handling fear. For example, those volunteering at the polls should make sure we do not become “vectors of fear” by spreading unfounded rumors.

Sign up for the latest updates. /* Add your own Mailchimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ (function($) {window.fnames = new Array(); window.ftypes = new Array();fnames[0]='EMAIL';ftypes[0]='email';}(jQuery));var $mcj = jQuery.noConflict(true); Support Us

I learned the danger of rumors in 2020. Weeks before the presidential election, my friend Ingrid Lakey heard that the neo-fascist Proud Boys were coming to a park near her home in Philadelphia. Despite growing up as George Lakey’s daughter, and years of training for nonviolent direct action with Earth Quaker Action Team, or EQAT, Ingrid did not feel prepared to de-escalate armed militants if they wanted to stir up trouble. Neither did I, though given the times, we both wanted to increase our ability to handle scary situations. With two other friends from EQAT, we decided to show up, not to intervene, but to see what we could learn. 

We met early for a few minutes of silent Quaker worship and named our intention to observe what happened, including inside ourselves. We walked to the park early and watched hundreds of people arrive, none wearing MAGA hats. When the crowd’s energy became frenzied, we asked people nearby what was happening and were told there was a Proud Boy with a bat. Later we heard it was a hockey stick, or maybe a gun. 

The four EQAT members helped each other to assess what was actually happening rather than get caught up in the fearful energy. In the end, the Proud Boys never actually showed up, but the rumor of their presence led a small crowd to chase a man into his car. Within a few days, a video of his window being smashed got millions of views on conservative social media.

If a similar video emerges this election season, there is no doubt that Trump and the media that support him would use it to claim that leftists are the true threat to the vote, distracting from his many efforts to stop people from voting. Even if armed agents do show up near polling places, managing our fear will help us choose responses that will aid us both in court and in the court of public opinion. 

If Election Day turns out to be relatively uneventful — if our fear was the point, and the armed men never show — preparing ourselves for the worst-case scenarios will build nonviolence skills and relationships between organizations. Both will be important in the work ahead, no matter who wins the midterms.    

We have more experience than we realize

The good news is that many more Americans have learned the value of nonviolent discipline in recent years. Even before people were moved by the successful nonviolent resistance in Minnesota in January, Trump’s second term motivated newly activated people to undergo training in both resistance strategies and de-escalation tactics to help large marches stay grounded and on message. 

EQAT has played a role in the Philadelphia area serving as peacekeepers (also known as marshals or a safety team, depending on the group) and training more people to take that role. Knowing that “stay calm” is the first step in any situation, our trainings always include grounding practices, such as breathing, humming or singing together. In-person roleplays enable people to practice holding their center in ways that online trainings can’t replicate.

Previous Coverage

Timely lessons for keeping people safe in the streets 

I’ve seen this training pay off. At a Philadelphia No Kings march, one of our peacekeepers saw a marcher knock the red hat off of a Trump supporter who was trying to film himself arguing with the crowd. Our peacekeeper stationed himself by the provocateur and told protesters walking by, “Don’t take the bait.” The Trump supporter continued to try to draw a reaction, but other peacekeepers joined the first one, preventing the clickbait confrontation he clearly wanted.

While people this year are most worried about encountering armed agents at the polls, it’s important to remember that it’s not always outsiders who need de-escalation. An argument broke out at the front of a different No Kings march just before it was due to begin. A local march leader was angry at a man with a very large Palestinian flag that was flapping in the wind and hitting some participants in the face. A nearby marshal physically separated the two men, then spoke to each individually, calming them down so a solution could be found. The Palestinian flag remained visible near the front, but positioned so it wasn’t in anyone’s face. Incidentally, the marshal was the mother of two teenagers, and her day job is teaching neurodivergent children.

I find it helpful to remind people that they probably have skills from work or family life that are useful in dealing with conflict. This builds confidence, which also reduces fear. In the nonviolence trainings I’ve been offering, I often ask participants to get in small groups and share a time when they navigated a scary situation and kept their cool, paying attention to what helped them. Together we create a “fear toolbox” on newsprint to help us remember what works for us in a pinch.

Sometimes hard experiences teach us the most. When I was lead marshal for a march in early 2017, a man with a long robe, long hair and a beard inserted himself in front of local justice leaders holding the lead banner, just before the march was about to start. First, I calmly asked him to move behind the banner. He repeatedly refused. When I learned that “Philly Jesus,” as he’s known, had a history of this sort of thing, I asked other marshals to help, to no avail. The march started anyway, and our attempt to encircle the interloper so the marchers could pass him only escalated the conflict. Some marchers yelled that we should physically remove Philly Jesus, while others criticized us for surrounding a mentally ill person who was holding a thick walking stick, which in hindsight was not a smart choice.

The turning point came when I realized how dysregulated I was, stressed to a degree that was making me ineffective. First, I took a deep breath. That simple step allowed me to acknowledge that I needed to call in the action lead, a well-known pastor whom I had worked with before. I explained the situation to Rev. Gregory Holston, and he strode to the front of the march. After reassuring those most upset by Philly Jesus’ presence, the tall reverend began walking beside the robed figure, transforming the scene. Suddenly it looked like Jesus was accompanying the pastor instead of stealing the show.

When the march was over, I was still feeling unsettled, so I asked Ingrid Lakey, who had been at the back of the march, to lead a debrief for the marshals. She invited us to get in touch with how we were feeling, then led a discussion about what had happened, including what had eventually worked. That debrief cemented three learnings that I have recalled many times since: Remember to breathe; don’t be afraid to ask for help; and always debrief with friends to name what you learned.

Assessing and reducing risk

There is a difference between anxious energy, which makes it hard to think straight, and fear that is a response to real risk. Staying grounded can help us assess which is which and choose a response that feels appropriate for the situation.

Not long ago, I supported a nonviolent direct action where participants briefly trespassed on federal property, which has become more risky during the second Trump administration. After the protesters finished their action and crossed the street, a Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, vehicle sped around the corner and spun around like a stunt driver in an action movie. The agent jumped out to face the protesters with aggressive body language and an accusatory tone of voice. 

I’d seen DHS respond to protesters with excessive physical force under the Obama and Biden administrations. Knowing the Trump administration’s tolerance for state violence only increased my concern about the agent’s aggressive signals. Although I was the police liaison and had planned to immediately introduce myself to any law enforcement, I trusted my intuition that I should not approach the agent until he calmed down.

If armed government agents do appear at or near the polls this election — or armed militia, for that matter — there are ways to respond that reduce the risk of a confrontation. 

In the midterm election in Arizona in 2022, when right-wing Oath Keepers tried to intimidate voters by photographing them and their license plates, it took a while to get a judge to ban their behavior. In the meantime, ordinary people countered their intimidation by creating a welcoming atmosphere for voters, creating a protective perimeter around the polls, and handing out water and snacks. 

In Washington, D.C.’s primary this year, when National Guard troops entered the polls, volunteers confronted them and insisted they had no legal right to be there, while filming the encounters. As Daniel Hunter reported in Waging Nonviolence, “After forceful haranguing, the troops left without further incident.” 

#support-block_5ede86897a50a01ba13967e3d014ce8f { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

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

Donate

Understanding which government department we are dealing with can help our assessment of risk. While any armed agents at the polls constitutes illegal voter intimidation, the National Guard is generally better trained than ICE, which is particularly prone to violent lawbreaking. Identifying who we are dealing with will also help us pass on accurate information to lawyers who will petition for an injunction.

Showing up to potentially chaotic situations is not going to be everyone’s role. Our bodies have different experiences of trauma, vulnerability to police violence and physical stamina. As individuals, we need to assess how much risk we are willing to take. At the same time, we know from movement history that in times of crisis, more people become willing to risk their own safety to protect their communities. Speaking honestly about the various factors that impact our individual and group risk — race, citizenship, gender identity and health, to name a few — can help people identify their own limits before they are in a dangerous situation, or know when to leave if one escalates.

In the meantime, train and practice 

No matter how much training we have, none of us know for sure how we will react if we are pepper-sprayed or witness other people being hurt. That’s why the civil rights movement put so much emphasis on preparation, which greatly reduces the risk that we will lash out. That is why I’m offering nonviolence trainings in partnership with the LGBTQ Connection PAC, which is augmenting its usual deep canvass work with this kind of preparation. 

Freedom Trainers, a decentralized network that teaches strategic noncooperation, is offering two-day trainings and a host of resources for the specific ways authoritarians may try to stop people from voting. The Election Safeguards Response Network, or ESRN, is a nonpartisan coalition connecting national, state and local organizations in election defense. Indivisible has a series of online trainings that are drawing thousands and which include guidance on how to talk about this election. 

If all you can find is online training, take it, and then find a local group to plug into, especially if you already have de-escalation skills. If you can’t find a local group, recruit a few friends and commit to some grounding practices before you go to the polls. Maybe sing or pray or touch the grass together. Or read aloud Daniel Hunter’s reminder in the Election Defense Scenarios: “This regime desperately wants you afraid. … Don’t comply. Because here is the other truth: They fear you. They fear activated voters who are engaged. They fear a free people who show up, stay loud, and refuse to be turned away. Go be that.”

By showing up grounded and together this election, we are building the movement we need for the long haul.

A portion of this article was previously published by Friends General Conference.

This article How to combat fear at the polls this November was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

CEDAR HILL, TEXAS (September 18, 2026)Dogwood Canyon Audubon Center will host a special Art Exhibit and Art Sale featuring Filipina-American sculptor Elaine Antonio Bordeaux on Saturday, September...

The U.S. Forest Service announced on Friday that it will conduct a 15-day comment period before signing off on a special use permit for Pitkin County, Colorado to manage operations at the Maroon Bells Scenic Area. The opportunity for public comment was added following pressure from public lands advocates, including the Center for Western Priorities. The comment period will begin after county commissioners vote on the special use permit this Wednesday.

The agency still intends to approve the permit using a categorical exclusion, which lets it skip the environmental review and public comment process required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Forest Service has not yet released a map or an acreage number for what the permit would cover. “The public can’t meaningfully participate if USFS is withholding key information about the scope of what it’s proposing,” said CWP executive director Aaron Weiss.

Pitkin County has partnered with the Forest Service on operations at Maroon Bells for decades, but the partnership is not a solution for a lack of federal funding. “We feel like this is the best path forward, and if we can all work together and get federal lands funded at a higher level, that one day, the county could give this back,” said Gary Tennenbaum, director of Pitkin County Open Space and Trails. “Ultimately, we would like the federal government to fund their public lands.”

Scott Fitzwilliams, retired White River National Forest supervisor, worries the arrangement could set a dangerous standard. “Partnerships should add to the agency’s capability,” he said. “They should not become a mechanism to normalize the decline and dismantling of our federal agencies.”

How Trump has disrupted America’s national parks

The Trump administration diverted at least $67 million in national park entrance fees this spring to projects in Washington, D.C., including a no-bid contract to cover four statues near the National Mall in gold leaf, according to documents reviewed by the New York Times. Workforce cuts have left at least 20 percent of parks significantly understaffed. Roughly 1,500 repairs and upgrades at more than 200 National Park Service sites were labeled “low priority,” and most will go unfunded when the fiscal year closes September 30.

Quick hits Trump signs orders loosening hunting restrictions

The Hill | Deseret News | Newsweek | Outdoor Life | USA Today | Mongabay

Border wall construction begins in Big Bend region

Associated Press

Trump asked Americans to help him whitewash national parks. They revolted instead

The Guardian

2025 saw a $1.3 billion dip for public land agency contractors

Wyoming Public Radio

Report: The current state of public lands

Mountain Pact

Prospectors filed 16 mining claims the same day the lands Trump cut from Bears Ears were opened to mining claims

Salt Lake Tribune

Federal employee unions sue to block reorganization of Forest Service

Arizona Daily Sun

Trump says planned 250-foot arch will be ‘military complex’ for drones, snipers

Washington Post | USA Today | The Hill | Time | ABC | Associated Press

Quote of the day

Our parks tell the history of this country. You may not like the history, but it is the history, and so you should tell the story that did take place, not come in and edit.”

—Fran Mainella, former National Park Service director under George W. Bush, New York Times

Picture This @katmainppThe wait is finally over!

Fat Bear Week starts Tuesday, September 22, 2026. This year, 16 bears go head to head in a bracket-style competition to see which bear of Brooks River is the fattest. A fat bear is a successful bear, and Fat Bear Week celebrates the success of these wild, brown bears.

America’s natural and cultural landscapes that support these fat bears, embody an evolving national story. Katmai National Park and Preserve offers a powerful lens through which visitors can experience an important part of this story. This year, when America celebrates its 250th year of independence, the park honors the places that sustain its communities, whether human or wildlife.

Learn more at the fat bear link in our bio!

Graphics designed by hand by Sara Wolman, courtesy of explore.org #fatbearweek

Featured photo: Maroon Bells Scenic Area. Source: David Blackley, CC BY-ND 2.0

The post Forest Service adds comment period for Maroon Bells management decision appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Print article Share

This year’s so-called “super El Niño” is entering into record-breaking territory. 

Sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific now equal the previous daily record set in 2015 and will likely keep rising in the days ahead.

El Niño is a naturally occurring climate phenomenon in the Pacific that reshapes weather patterns around the world and temporarily boosts global temperatures. 

The current El Niño event – which has been underway since June and is expected to last until next year – has been developing faster than any previous event on record. 

The strength of an event is tracked using the “Niño 3.4 anomaly”, which measures how much warmer sea surface temperatures in a section of the central Pacific are than average. 

As of 19 September, the daily anomaly in the Niño 3.4 region stands at 3.07C, putting it in a statistical tie with the previous record of 3.08C.

Some scientists, using a different baseline for calculating the anomaly, have already called the new record. 

Either way, this is remarkable, in part because of how early in the calendar year it is occurring. El Niño typically peaks in the winter months, most commonly in November or December. 

Every strong El Niño on record has continued to strengthen after mid-September – and there is every reason to think that this one will as well.

(For more on El Niño, see Carbon Brief’s recent interactive explainer.) 

Record territory

El Niño events are typically classed as “weak” when the Niño 3.4 anomaly reaches 0.5C, “moderate” above 1C, “strong” above 1.5C and “very strong” above 2.0C.

For this year’s event, the Niño 3.4 anomaly has now reached 3.07C, which puts it in a statistical tie with the record set on 18 November 2015, set during a “very strong” El Nino event.

The chart below shows how the strength of the current El Niño (red line) is dramatically outpacing both 2015-16 (blue) and another “very strong” event in 1997-98 (light blue).

Daily Niño 3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies, 1982-2026, each relative to a centred 30-year climatology (ONI convention). Chart by Carbon Brief.

To analyse the developing El Niño, Carbon Brief followed the convention of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Oceanic Niño index (ONI).

ONI is calculated by subtracting the latest 30-year average temperature in the Nino 3.4 region from daily sea surface temperatures. This approach allows for the most recent years to be compared against the most recent 30-year period. It removes much of the influence of longer-term, human-driven warming from the index. 

(While meteorological organisations typically track changes to ONI on a three-month rolling average basis, Carbon Brief’s analysis looked at how the metric is changing on a daily basis.)

If ONI is calculated using a baseline of 1991-2020 then the current El Niño has already set a new record.

Since the start of June, El Niño’s strength has been greater than any other year. In early September in both 1997 and 2015, anomalies were around 1.9C – more than one degree below where they are this year.

An alternative index 

There is another commonly used metric – the relative Oceanic Niño index (RONI) – used to study El Niño. 

Introduced by NOAA in 2024, the RONI index adjusts for tropical ocean warming linked to human-caused climate change. To do this, it takes sea surface averages in the Nino 3.4 region and subtracts out temperature anomalies observed across the tropical oceans (between the latitudes of 20 degrees north and south). 

This approach may better remove the influence of climate change in this specific region, but can also diminish the apparent strength of strong El Niño events, such as the current one, which extend well outside the Niño 3.4 region.

The chart below shows daily RONI values, which are record setting for this time of year, but remain below an all-time daily record set during the 1982-83 El Niño event.

Daily relative Niño 3.4 (RONI) anomalies for every year, 1982-2026. Chart by Carbon Brief.

RONI stood at around 2.5C in mid-September, some 0.7C below the 1982 record. 

However, that record was set in late December, at the peak of the event. 

The 1982-83, 1997-98 and 2015-16 events added between 0.5C and 1.9C to their RONI values between mid-September and their peaks.

On track to smash monthly and seasonal records  

Because daily El Niño values are noisy, scientists typically turn to monthly or seasonal averages to compare El Niño events. 

The latest full calendar month for which data is available – August 2026 – had a Niño 3.4 anomaly of around 2.45C. This is higher than the peak of every prior El Niño event on record except 2015-16 – where the anomaly reached 2.75C – and 1877-78, when the anomaly sat at around 2.7C, based on a reconstruction of sea surface temperatures using sparse ship data.

The figure below shows the monthly evolution of the five strongest El Niño events on record alongside 2026, as well the current forecast from 14 seasonal forecast models.

Monthly Niño 3.4 anomaly (degrees C) for the five strongest El Niño events on record, for 2026 through August and the 2026-27 forecast across 14 models, each relative to a centred 30-year climatology (ONI convention). Data from NOAA CPC, Copernicus C3S, ECCC and JAMSTEC. Chart by Carbon Brief.

Taken together, the models project a peak monthly anomaly later this year of around 4.1C, with 80% of the 674 individual model runs falling between 3.4C and 4.6C. 

Every single model run peaks above the 2015-16 record. The projected margin over that record, some 1.3C, is larger than the entire gap between the strongest and fifth-strongest El Niño of the past 150 years.

Some caution here is warranted, however. No seasonal forecast system has ever been verified against an event of this size, because none has ever occurred. The models also predicted temperatures slightly warmer than observed this summer, with real-world observations for August coming in around 0.3C below forecasts.

However, all strong El Niño events on record have continued to strengthen well into the winter – and the models are in near-unanimous agreement that this one will, too. If the forecast holds, the current event will peak between November and January at a level far beyond any event previously observed in the instrumental record.

El Nino’s effect on global temperatures typically lags rising ocean temperatures in the Pacific by several months, so most of the impact will be felt in 2027 rather than 2026. 

Carbon Brief’s most recent “state of the climate” quarterly analysis found 2026 on track to be the warmest or second-warmest year on record. The next update in early October will examine what a record El Niño means for 2027.

El Niño: Indonesia fire emissions in 2026 ‘on track’ to match record for this century 11.09.2026 El Niño and La Niña Explainer: How the ‘super El Niño’ will reshape the world’s weather 18.08.2026 El Niño and La Niña Analysis: What are the causes of recent record-high global temperatures? 10.12.2025 Climate pollutants State of the climate: First quarter of 2020 is second warmest on record 20.04.2020 Climate modelling

The post Analysis: ‘Super El Niño’ reaches ‘remarkable’ all-time record appeared first on Carbon Brief.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact

Milagros R. Elia

Program Manager, Climate and Clean Energy Advocacy

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

milagros@envirn.org

914.455.1165

Nurses Condemn EPA Repeal of Carbon Pollution Standards for Power Plants

(Washington, DC) – On Sept. 14th 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the repeal of the 2024 Power Plant Regulations. The 2024 Power Plant standards were expected to deliver substantial public health benefits by reducing carbon pollution, fine particulate matter, mercury, and other hazardous pollutants. According to EPA projections, the carbon standards alone could have prevented up to 1,200 premature deaths, 870 hospital and emergency department visits, 1,900 new asthma cases, 360,000 episodes of asthma symptoms, and tens of thousands of missed school and workdays in 2035. These protections were also in place to safeguard drinking water, and provide particularly important benefits for children, pregnant people, and communities disproportionately burdened by power plant pollution.

In response to the proposal, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments Executive Director Katie Huffling, DNP, RN, CNM, FAAN issued the following statement:

“The EPA’s decision to repeal the 2024 Power Plant standards threatens public health, deepens climate-related health risks, and places an unjust burden on already overexposed communities.” Repealing these protections will not make families safer or healthier. It disregards the scientific evidence and will prolong dependence on polluting fossil-fuel infrastructure while shifting the health and financial costs onto children, older adults, pregnant people, people with chronic illnesses, and communities that have endured decades of disproportionate pollution. Nurses call on federal leaders to restore strong, science-based safeguards and accelerate a just transition to clean, reliable energy that protects health.

“The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments is committed to continue working with nurses, health professionals, community partners, and policymakers to defend science-based environmental protections and advance energy policies that place human health, equity, and a livable climate at their center.”

###

The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments is the only national nursing organization focused solely on the intersection of health and the environment. The mission of the Alliance is to support nurses in promoting planetary health and equity globally by educating and leading the nursing profession, advancing research, incorporating planet-safe practice, and influencing policy. http://enviRN.org

 

The post Press Release! Nurses Condemn EPA Repeal of Carbon Pollution Standards for Power Plants appeared first on ANHE.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas backed off the standards it proposed in March, eliminating a non-refundable interconnection fee, halving its financial security requirement and extending energization milestone deadlines.

Nurses at Sharp Tri-City Medical Center in Oceanside, Calif., will hold an informational picket on Tuesday, Sept. 22, to protest Sharp HealthCare’s broken promises to their patients and community.

The September 10 special meeting of the Village of Questa City Council on Kit Carson Electric Cooperative’s (KCEC) proposed hydrogen facility delivered a shock to the hundreds of people who attended. Longtime Questa Attorney Marcus Rael, Jr., who lives in Albuquerque but was born and bred in Questa, provided the documentation that essentially says the Village of Questa has no authority to stop the facility because the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which issued the Environmental Analysis (EA) Record of Decision (ROD) allowing the development, has supremacy over the project.

Rael passed out printed documentation of rules and regs and went painstakingly through the process of explaining it. Here’s a summary that leads up to the supremacy decision:

• In February of 2026 the Village took action to zone the tailings dam, site of the project, as heavy industrial. The green hydrogen plant and the solar array qualify as heavy industrial and are allowed in that type of zone. The New Mexico Construction Industries Division (CID) confirmed in a letter that the village of Questa holds the statutory authority to approve planning and zoning applicants for the village of Questa.

• Taos County initially issued a zoning clearance building permit for a fence but that was later withdrawn.

• CID identified Kit Carson as a rural electric cooperative that . It cites New Mexico State Statute 60-13-3D3 for the exclusion applicable to construction, reconstruction, operation or maintenance of a cooperative’s plant or facilities.

• Projects by rural electric cooperatives are governed by the National Electric Code and the New Mexico Electric Code, which was adopted by the New Mexico Administrative Code, that states no permitting is necessary for electrical utility projects.

• The Public Regulatory Commission states that green hydrogen projects specifically do not require construction permitting.

• The municipality, county, and state have no authority over the project, only the U.S government does.

• The two acequias in Questa, Cabresto Lake and Irrigation Association and Llano Community Ditch, filed a complaint against the USDA that is still pending in court.

Rael stood for questions and they readily came. Several people asked Rael about his dealings with KCEC and if he knew in advance about this situation. He responded that he’d had preliminary meetings with KCEC attorneys and was allowed to ask some questions. He also requested a copy of the USDA application for the hydrogen project and was denied access, so he filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)—twice. The Village of Questa and several other lawyers have also submitted FOIAs. No one has had a response.

Mayor Ortega, who has been accused of conflict of interest as a board member of KCEC (and who wielded an active gavel during the meeting), spoke up about Chevron, owner of the former molybdenum mine and the well for the hydrogen project. He stated that one way to stop the project is to ask Chevron to not provide the water to KCEC. He claimed that Chevron had turned its face from the community. Later in the meeting Attorney Rael stated that the mayor did not vote on the zoning ordinance when it came before the village council. Ortega also has stated that he would abstain from any votes having to do with KCEC. Rael then explained that Chevron is no longer managed by Chevron Mining Corporation or managed by Chevron Environmental Resources. The mine site and the tailing site are being managed by Chevron Asset Control. And what that company does is sells things off that they no longer need. “And they are very difficult to deal with.”

Many people raised questions about water, which in this time of extreme drought and climate crisis is critical. The fact that when KCEC first proposed the hydrogen plant, which breaks down water into energy, the water was supposed to be Chevron’s reclaimed water at the water treatment plant but was then changed to one of its tailing facility wells within the Village of Questa. Danny Garcia, Chairman of the Cabresto Lake and Irrigation Association, described the dire situation of surface water rights that have dropped precipitously over the past few irrigation seasons. By 1976 the Llano Community Ditch was receiving only 60 percent of its traditional amount of water. By 2020, that amount had diminished to 30 percent. For the last few years, Llano has received only two or three weeks-worth of water while Cabresto’s irrigation season is over (the two acequias are the plaintiffs in the complaint against the USDA). He also presented a history of Questa’s water rights and well development. Over the years a number of wells were drilled for domestic purposes in Questa but currently only two wells are in use. The well that will provide water for the hydrogen project is 500 feet deep and will supposedly supply clean water for the project (KCEC says it will divert 40-to-50 afy to the hydrogen plant but will apply to transfer the well’s 250 afy capacity). The Office of the State Engineer will have to provide an assessment as well as oversee Chevron’s application to transfer use of the well.

Attorney Rael pointed out that the Village originally had a well that was 175 feet deep. For a municipality, that’s just not sufficient, so “in 2016, we got the village to deepen the well.” Someone interrupted to ask, “Why are you saying we?” Rael responded, “Because I represented the village at the time. I’m from here, but if you don’t like my use of the word we, I’ll say they. The village deepened their well. As the village attorney, I worked on that.”

The other water issue raised is how the hydrogen plant uses the water. It takes H2O, hydrogen and oxygen, splits the atoms, saves the hydrogen, and releases the oxygen into the air.  Ninety percent of the water is going to be turned into hydrogen and get burned and then released as carbon into the air. It will not be recycled. When asked if anything could be done to protect the water, Rael said that the village of Questa or other individuals could go to the Office of the State Engineer when Chevron actually applies for the change of use for the tailings well and protest the transfer.

Longtime activist Juan Montes urged that the water transfer should be protested and also brought up another issue that La Jicarita covered in a previous article: “that this town has been run by a shadow government, by the Questa Economic Development Fund.” In the La Jicarita article, Honorio Justin Rael, a UNM Law School student, native of Questa, and co-author of the complaint filed against the USDA, had this to say at an August Village of Questa meeting:

“The people who make decisions for this town do not sit on that board [Village City Council]. It is the Questa Economic Development Fund. The Questa Economic Development Fund is an independent Chevron-funded nonprofit partner, but they are not an elected governing body.

Yet their agendas are probably four times the size of any agenda I’ve seen from this village. And you know how we’ve never gotten any updates on what’s going on with this project? Well, they get monthly detailed updates from the mayor. Last year, they made teams to complete the zoning ordinance that allowed this project to move forward without a project-specific vote.”

After some interruptions and an argument over whether the tailings at the proposed hydrogen site and solar array are completely covered, several people were ejected from the meeting by the state police (why are police always present at these kinds of community meetings?). Several other issues were raised about who will be responsible for costs if the project fails and the possibility of rate increases. On a more positive note, Shirley Romero, longtime San Luis Valley activist who was part of a land grant coalition that won back access to the privatized San Luis Land Grant, urged everyone not to give up hope and to engage their congressional delegation in the fight. Guy DiCharry, the attorney who filed the complaint against the USDA, told the Taos News he had sent a letter to the Regulation and Licensing Department challenging its interpretation of state statute exempting KCEC from permitting requirements but had not yet heard back. 

Registered nurses at St. Joseph Health College Station Hospital in College Station, Texas, will hold a rally on Tuesday, Sept. 22. Nurses plan to commemorate neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) awareness month and celebrate the dedication that NICU nurses demonstrate to the babies in their care, as well as raise concerns about issues in the St. Joseph NICU.

A Trump-appointed judge said the One Big Beautiful Bill Act did not convert the funding into “a lump-sum amount subject to EPA’s discretion.” Defendants acted contrary to Congress’ intent and with “no other statutory authority” when they terminated it, she said.

CIW co-founder Lucas Benitez stands outside of Kroger’s annual shareholder meeting in 2013 CIW co-founder Lucas Benitez in the Cincinnati Enquirer: “Ending modern-day slavery requires more than successful prosecutions. It requires changing the conditions that allow slavery to exist in the first place.”

While the Fair Food Program continues to change the lives of farmworkers across the U.S. and inspire worker-led human rights initiatives around the world, some of the country’s largest food corporations still refuse to bring the FFP’s proven protections into their own supply chains. Despite years of rallies, marches, shareholder resolutions, letters from customers, and mounting evidence of the program’s unparalleled success in preventing abuse, Kroger refuses to join the FFP.

And while the FFP continues to build a growing track record of prevention, Kroger’s own produce supply chain repeatedly makes headlines for the very abuses the Program has so effectively stopped. Three years ago, after the U.S. Department of Labor identified Kroger as a buyer of watermelons harvested by workers trapped in a brutal forced labor operation, CIW senior staff member and farmworker leader Gerardo Reyes Chavez took to the pages of the Cincinnati Enquirer — Kroger’s hometown paper — with a direct appeal: It is finally time, Kroger, to the human rights crisis in your supply chain and join the Fair Food Program.

Three years later — and yet another forced labor prosecution tied to its supply chain — Kroger still has not acted.

Just weeks ago, another key member of the Moreno trafficking operation, Alexander Villatoro Moreno, was sentenced to 70 months in federal prison. Meanwhile, a separate class-action lawsuit filed by farmworkers in North Carolina has brought new allegations of severe labor abuses at another agricultural operation whose produce, according to publicly available information, was purchased by Kroger.

In the wake of these very latest revelations, CIW co-founder Lucas Benitez has turned to the pages of Kroger’s hometown newspaper, the Cincinnati Enquirer, to launch a renewed call for action. His new op-ed, which we share in full below, picks up where Mr. Chavez’s appeal left off three years ago — with even more evidence of the consequences of Kroger’s continued inaction, and an urgent reminder that the solution has been there all along: Join the Fair Food Program.

 

Kroger must do more to prevent forced labor | Opinion Kroger should join the Fair Food Program.

Three years ago, the U.S. Department of Labor identified Cincinnati-based Kroger as a buyer of watermelons harvested by workers trapped in a brutal forced labor operation. At the time, we at the Coalition of Immokalee Workers wrote to Kroger in these pages, urging the grocery giant to join the Fair Food Program, the only human rights enforcement program in agriculture proven to prevent forced labor and other severe abuses before workers are harmed.

Three years later, Kroger still refuses.

Why prevention matters

That refusal matters because just weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Justice announced another conviction in that same forced labor case. Alexander Villatoro Moreno, a key member of the trafficking operation, was extradited from Mexico, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 70 months in prison.

Federal prosecutors described a familiar pattern. Workers were recruited from Mexico through fraud, saddled with crushing recruitment debts, stripped of their passports, housed in degrading conditions, threatened with arrest and deportation, and warned that their families back home could be harmed if they resisted.

And the Villatoro case is hardly an isolated incident.

Around the same time the Villatoro case was wrapping up, farmworkers in North Carolina filed a class-action lawsuit alleging wage theft, passport confiscation, illegal recruitment fees, threats, and the denial of drinking water, bathrooms, and medical care during episodes of dangerous heat stress. And, yet again, publicly available information indicates that Kroger purchased produce from the company where the plaintiffs say they worked.

That marks the fourth time in just five years that Kroger has been linked to allegations of forced labor or similarly egregious labor abuses in its produce supply chain.

Enough is enough.

Justice is important. But justice that comes only after workers have endured coercion, violence, and exploitation is not enough.

For those of us who have spent decades fighting modern-day slavery in U.S. agriculture, one lesson has become unmistakably clear: If our goal is to end forced labor, prosecutions alone will never get us there. We must prevent these crimes before workers become victims.

A choice Kroger can make

That is precisely what the Fair Food Program was built to do.

Instead of relying on voluntary corporate promises or social audits that repeatedly fail to detect abuse, the Fair Food Program changes the economics that allow exploitation to flourish. Participating buyers use their purchasing power to reward growers who respect workers’ rights and cut off those who do not. Workers receive education about their rights, access to a 24-hour complaint hotline, protection from retaliation, and independent monitoring that identifies problems while they are still small enough to be corrected—not after they have grown into forced labor operations.

Had those protections been in place on the melon farms involved in the Villatoro case, workers would have had safe ways to report abuse, investigators would have intervened early, and the conditions that allowed forced labor to take root could have been dismantled long before federal prosecutors needed to get involved.

A farmworker takes a break to drink water. FFP farms comply with mandatory heat stress protections that include the provision of water, electrolytes, rest breaks, training, and the ability to stop work and seek medical treatment without fear of retaliation

Instead, Kroger continues to rely on the same voluntary social auditing systems that have repeatedly failed to detect forced labor before workers are harmed.

Three years ago, we asked whether having a modern-day slavery case surface every year or two was an acceptable level of risk for Kroger, so long as produce continued arriving on store shelves on time, at the right quality, and at the right price.

Three years later, that question remains unanswered.

Many of Kroger’s competitors have already answered it. Walmart, Whole Foods Market, Trader Joe’s, Giant, Stop & Shop, and The Fresh Market have all joined the Fair Food Program, using their purchasing power to help prevent forced labor rather than merely respond to it after the damage has been done.

Ending modern-day slavery requires more than successful prosecutions. It requires changing the conditions that allow slavery to exist in the first place.

That is the power of the Fair Food Program: the power of prevention.

And it is long past time for Kroger to embrace it.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is set for a bigger role at this year’s UN climate summit, as Türkiye’s COP31 presidency seeks backing for a new pledge on the technology’s energy use.

In a statement on Monday, the COP31 hosts said they will launch the Antalya Pledge on AI, which they billed as a “political” commitment on how AI is “designed, procured, powered, deployed, measured and managed” in support of climate action. 

“We must openly discuss AI’s growing energy consumption and it is time for governments to start setting the terms,” COP31 president Murat Kurum said in an emailed statement. “We expect companies to be transparent about their energy use and to power their operations with clean energy”. 

No further details about the pledge have been made available so far, including whether it will include a clean energy commitment or whether governments and companies will be invited to sign on. The COP31 presidency said it would share a draft before the summit opens in Antalya in early November.

UN climate chief Simon Stiell went further in a New York speech on Monday, warning that AI leaders are “on thin ice when it comes to license to operate, and sinking deep underwater when it comes to public support”.

“Energy-guzzling artificial intelligence is driving up planet-heating pollution from coal, oil and gas, while ratcheting up energy costs for households and businesses,” he said, adding that data centre projects are being put on hold due to public opposition from New York to Texas.

Growing energy use and emissions

Concerns about the environmental impacts of AI infrastructure and its impact on rising electricity prices have led to a growing backlash in some communities, especially in the US.

Big Tech’s breakneck race to develop new AI models and build out the energy-hungry infrastructure supporting them has stoked fears over the technology’s growing climate impact. 

Greenhouse gas emissions generated by data centres through their electricity use are set to more than double between 2024 and 2030, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Data centres, which underpin various technologies including AI, are expected to consume more power than all but five countries by the end of the decade. 

• Jun 23, 2026 News UN asks AI companies to reveal full environmental impacts UN chief António Guterres says big AI firms should disclose the emissions, water and energy use of their data centres amid community opposition Read more
• Mar 3, 2026 News Explainer: Will AI data centres make or break the energy transition? As grids struggle to meet soaring electricity demand for AI data-crunching, big tech is under pressure to cover the costs of boosting power supplies – which may be dirty or clean Read more

The AI race is also driving a surge in new fossil gas investment in the United States, where Big Tech giants including Microsoft, OpenAI and Meta have struck up major deals with fossil fuel operators to power their infrastructure. 

In China, the other major global AI force, coal provides around 70% of the electricity powering the country’s data centers, according to an IEA report published last year. 

More space for AI at COPs?

Despite AI’s rapidly growing relevance for the world’s ability to limit global warming, high-level discussions on the climate impact of the technology have been largely absent at UN climate summits.

While the pledge is still being developed and scarce details have been made public so far, the Antalya initiative, alongside sharper rhetoric from Stiell, suggests that might be changing.

Climate Home News understands that the UN climate change body is encouraging AI companies to be present at COPs as the climate summits set the global direction for energy policy and tech firms now have a major stake in it.

Earlier this year, UN Secretary-General António Guterres launched an initiative aimed at holding AI companies accountable for their environmental impacts and repeated a call for all big AI companies to commit to powering every data centre with renewable energy by 2030. 

Align AI with science

Stiell said that tech titans need to start showing why the benefits of AI outweigh its “skyrocketing costs”, by setting credible climate targets, coming clean about their energy use and powering data centres with renewable energy. 

AI proponents claim that, despite its growing energy use, the technology’s widespread application would bring net benefits in the fight against climate change by driving massive energy efficiency gains and optimising renewable energy integration. The IEA estimates that existing AI applications could cut emissions by more than data centres add.  

Fossil fuel expansion threatens COP31 hosts’ credibility, experts warn

But critics argue that it is wrong to compare theoretical gains with real-world emission growth and any gains are outweighed by the widespread adoption of AI tools by fossil fuel companies to extract planet-heating oil and gas faster and more cheaply.

Stiell said the tech industry needs to “respect science and start aligning with global climate efforts – urgently”. 

Alongside the AI pledge, the COP31 presidency has also announced it will launch an ‘AI for Clean Technologies’ Initiative, which will develop a portfolio of AI-enabled clean-technology pilots in priority sectors, including smart energy and green industry. 

This programme aims to demonstrate the responsible use of AI in practice, the COP31 presidency promised.

The post COP31 presidency announces AI pledge as UN climate chief says Big Tech ‘on thin ice’ appeared first on Climate Home News.

Newsom signed several other bills with direct or indirect implications for electric utilities and power infrastructure stakeholders, including Assembly Bill 192 standing up the transmission infrastructure accelerator.

The $3.3-billion project aims to improve downstate power delivery by 2030. It is being developed by New York Transco and the New York Power Authority.

India, a country of nearly 1.5 billion people, has long relied on coal to power its growing economy. But over the last two years, it has seen a remarkable shift: The rapid buildout of renewable energy has halted the growth of coal. 

Read more on E360 →

What California’s paraquat phaseout means for your state Anthony Lacey September 21, 2026

When California regulators asked the pesticide industry for more information about the toxic chemical paraquat, the companies abandoned the state instead of providing the data.

It’s a telling sign that every state should heed – not just because California is the second state to phase out paraquat but because of what the industry’s behavior revealed.

California regulators sought data to determine whether the health and safety risks of paraquat were fully understood and whether they could be controlled after new studies linked exposure to paraquat to thyroid damage and birth defects.

If the paraquat companies had proof the chemical was safe to use, submitting that information might have kept them in the largest paraquat market in the country. 

Instead, they walked away from California entirely. 

That’s the clearest signal a company can send that no fix exists. When managing health and environmental risks from pesticides is possible, California regulators tend to allow the industry to propose mitigation plans because it’s the cheaper, more profitable and politically palatable path. 

When industry chooses to ditch an entire market instead, that’s a strong indication the risk sits beyond what regulators assume they can address by merely restricting how it’s used.

Failing to turn over safety data

A 2024 California law required the state’s pesticide regulators to reevaluate paraquat’s risks to public health and the environment. As questions arose, regulators called on the paraquat companies for missing safety data. 

California’s regulators sought additional data from industry after their own scientists publicly reviewed studies linking paraquat to preterm birth, congenital heart and limb defects, low birth weight, hypothyroidism and lower thyroid hormone levels.

The state also requested a study on field volatility. Field volatility studies monitor how far a pesticide travels through the air after it's applied, which regulators use to estimate exposure risks to nearby workers and communities. 

That request followed new data submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Syngenta, the world’s largest paraquat distributor at the time. The data indicated that paraquat vapor may travel more than 2.7 miles from the field where it's applied, based on early estimates from computer models. 

When regulators ask for this information, what they really want to see is if they can keep the product on the market, not pull it. If the answer had been, “it travels a manageable distance, and here's how buffer zones or application changes address the risks,” paraquat might have been allowed to stay in use in California under new restrictions.

The companies shared some data, but ultimately decided to pull their products from California rather than provide the requested data about birth defects, thyroid damage and field volatility. 

Instead of complying with the state’s request, all seven paraquat manufacturers chose to walk away from their largest market. And it wasn’t just one or two major companies who could afford to take the hit. Every company had the chance to provide data when the regulators began their process, but all  chose to back out. 

Their decision triggered a so-called “voluntary” end to the sale of paraquat in California, which the state’s pesticide regulatory program announced in August. 

The word “voluntary” is somewhat misleading. The inability or unwillingness to prove that the ongoing use of paraquat is safe belies the industry’s “voluntary” action.  

Why 2.7 miles is a mitigation problem, not just a statistic

The paraquat regulations currently in place in California and across the country were implemented under the assumption that only people working directly with the chemical  were at risk of breathing it in. 

The new 2.7-mile estimate from the Syngenta data means that people living around areas where it’s used are not protected by those regulations. 

That distance matters because it falls largely outside what standard regulatory tools can fix. That is why both California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation and the EPA asked pesticide companies to monitor how far paraquat actually moves in the air away from the application site. 

Industry left California, rather than submit that data to DPR.

Regulators often use buffer zones to protect nearby workers and communities when they believe a risk is contained to a few hundred feet. Application timing restrictions are implemented when the danger is tied to specific conditions, like wind speed on the day of applying. But a vapor that can potentially travel multiple miles after application isn't something a buffer zone or a limited application schedule can reliably contain. 

There are no obvious restrictions that manage a risk of that magnitude for paraquat, which may be exactly why the companies were unable to successfully propose one. 

Paraquat health risks

Paraquat is one of a small number of chemicals with a clear link to Parkinson's disease. Chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing the disease by reducing the number of neurons in dopamine-producing parts of the brain. 

Exposure to the chemical is also linked to thyroid cancer, childhood leukemia, kidney cancer, lung damage and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. 

More than 70 countries have already banned it, along with the state of Vermont.

The risk isn't abstract. In March, a truck spilled 60 gallons of paraquat on a highway in Dorris, a small town in Northern California, forcing roughly 600 residents, including students at a nearby elementary and high school, to shelter in place. Ten people were hospitalized.

The companies had every reason to address the problems and didn't.

Despite the risks, paraquat manufacturers had a straightforward business incentive to keep selling in California: it was their biggest U.S. customer base. Over the past 10 years, paraquat use peaked in the state at around 11 million pounds in 2018. It has since declined to roughly 370,000 pounds in the most recently available year of data (2023). 

That decline suggests farmers have effective alternatives. But that’s still a massive amount of paraquat. 

If mitigating these risks had been possible, proposing a plan would have cost far less than walking away from the nation’s biggest market entirely. 

The pesticide companies didn't contest DPR's initial concerns about potential health effects, nor did they  propose ways to mitigate the human safety risks. They simply left, and DPR canceled every paraquat product registered in the state, a step so rare in California that it almost never happens.

Why this matters regardless of your state’s regulatory tools 

Not every state has California’s regulatory authority to reevaluate and cancel a pesticide's registration. 

But what happened in the state makes one thing clear: when given the chance to demonstrate that paraquat's risks could be managed, the industry that profits most from paraquat could not do it. 

States like Michigan and Maine have utilized their pesticide regulatory authority to cancel the registration of dacthal and ban chlorpyrifos, respectively. 

Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, and several other states have restricted other high-risk pesticides through legislation, without needing California's specific reevaluation process. Other states have recently attempted to ban or restrict the use of paraquat through legislation. 

California's story strengthens the case for state action, regardless of the route a state must take. In the face of unknown exposure and health risks that cannot be controlled or mitigated, the only answer is to cancel paraquat. 

What you can do

• Contact your state lawmakers to urge them to ban paraquat 

• Contact your state's pesticide regulators and ask them to take action on paraquat

• Find and support farmers in your community who don’t use paraquat at your local farmers market

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Family Health Paraquat California The decision highlights safety risks that regulations can’t address Authors Emily Bryson, MPH September 21, 2026

Climate change is already affecting what farmers can grow, when they can plant, and how much they can harvest. Across the globe, they are navigating drought, unpredictable rainfall, and extreme heat. Meanwhile, public investment in agricultural research is uncertain, global conflicts are contributing to hunger and displacement, and food is becoming more expensive.

“I can’t overstate how intense climate impacts are for young farmers across the country right now,” says Michelle Hughes, Executive Director of the National Young Farmers Coalition, at “Putting Farmers First: How Young Farmers are Shaping the Future of Food,” which Food Tank hosted at Climate Week NYC 2026 in partnership with Whole Foods Market.

“Farming is starting to feel not only hard but borderline impossible for some folks,” says Hughes. 

And the pressures facing farmers extend beyond climate change. Sarah Jones of Jones Farms Organics, a fourth-generation, family-owned farm in Colorado’s San Luis Valley and the region’s first Regenerative Organic Certified grower, described the many roles farmers must take on to keep their businesses operating.

“We’re biologists, environmentalists, mechanics, engineers. We do marketing, sales, social media, we’re distributors, brand designers, customer service…it doesn’t end,” says Jones.

Farmers also face significant financial risks and difficult working conditions. Brita Lundberg, Fourth-Generation Farmer and Communications Manager at Lundberg Family Farms, highlighted the demands of agricultural work and the challenges of maintaining a viable livelihood.

“Farming is hard, it’s risky, and it’s capital-intensive. And still, data from the USDA shows that 84 percent of U.S. farmers take on second jobs to support their livelihoods,” says Lundberg.

For Amalia Colón-Nava, Farmer and Co-Director of Dirtbaby Farm, these economic challenges affect both farm owners and agricultural workers—and they are rooted in a long history of exploitation. 

“Whether you are a farm owner or a farm laborer, there’s a huge gap in how we can pay ourselves…So many farmers are actually not able to sell vegetables for a profit. Our food system is built off of slavery, exploited labor, and that culture still exists,” says Colón-Nava. “Food is a human right; it’s not a privilege.”

For DeVonne Jackson Perez, Co-Founder of Good Ground and Director of Brooklyn Supported Agriculture, conversations about climate resilience must account for farmers’ basic needs and working conditions. 

“We can’t really talk about climate resilience or supporting farmers without using them as if they too are a product,” says Jackson Perez. “Farming is one of the most dangerous careers that you can choose, but many don’t have healthcare.”

Speakers also pointed to gaps between consumer demand and the markets farmers need to adopt more sustainable practices. Jones says many farmers are prepared to transition to organic production but lack the buyers to make that change financially viable.

“We’ve got to get back to community over commodity,” says Jones. “Farmers are ready and willing. I could list 10 farmers that would go organic tomorrow if you give them the market.”

Creating those markets is one of the most important ways retailers can support farmers, says Sonya Gafsi Oblisk, Whole Foods Market Chief Merchandising & Marketing Officer and Vice President, Amazon Worldwide Grocery Stores Private Brands & Marketing.

“As a retailer, the number-one thing we can do is really create a market and demand…There can’t be supply without demand,” says Gafsi Oblisk, who also emphasizes that transforming the food system requires changes in consumer behavior: “To change the food system at scale, we need to be able to change demand, not just supply…Vote with your wallet.”

Speakers also said that businesses must prioritize farmer input when developing sustainability initiatives.

“The first thing we need to do is listen. We have to put farmers’ voices first,” says Caitlin Leibert, Global Head of Sustainability at Amazon Grocery and Whole Foods Market. “We can’t just say as a retailer we want this…We have to invest and co-create the future we want to see.”

Building on-farm resilience through soil health and transitioning to organic practices takes more than one growing season, and farmers need to know that they will have buyers for their crops after they make the investment. This requires long-term investment, looking beyond immediate purchasing decisions.

“The top thing we can do as retailers is help commit to the supply not just for tomorrow and next month and six months from now, but what are the commitments we can make further out,” says Jason Buechel, Vice President of Amazon Worldwide Grocery Stores and Chief Executive Officer of Whole Foods Market. “Many farmers depend on small, regional, local banks, where their business is considered high risk.”

For Becca Millstein, Co-Founder and CEO of Fishwife, strengthening food systems also means investing in sustainable seafood production and helping consumers understand the role of aquaculture.

“More than half of our seafood globally is produced from aquaculture, but there’s broad misunderstanding of what that means. Aquaculture has long been saddled with a really unfortunate reputation,” says Millstein, but “there are advances being made every single day in aquaculture…In many ways, aquaculture has more resilience than wild fisheries.”

Storytelling plays a major role in creating more sustainable food systems, speakers agreed. Anna Turrell, Global Chief Sustainability Officer at Mars Snacking, called for more storytelling to generate greater visibility for the farmers who supply the food industry.

“[Mars] won’t be here in the future if we don’t start investing in our supply chains differently, and bring the faces in that supply chain to light,” says Turrell. “I’d love to see the farmer faces of our food showing up everywhere in the next five years.”

Ultimately, speakers emphasized that supporting farmers requires action across the food system, from creating reliable markets and providing long-term investment to improving labor conditions and strengthening consumer connections.

“Sometimes when we get in these spaces we often think too lofty and then we don’t do anything… teach somebody, fund an organization, there are little things we can do day to day. The agriculture industry needs everything,” says Jackson Perez.

As retailers, brands, and consumers consider the future of food, the event underscored the importance of putting farmers’ needs at the center of efforts to build a more sustainable and equitable food system.

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.

The post Putting Farmers First to Build a Resilient Food System appeared first on Food Tank.

Relief materials have been distributed in Kalika Rural Municipality of Rasuwa, and support has also been extended to the families of the deceased and the missing.

The post Nepal: Peasant Union ANPFA and allies are organizing flood relief efforts, while insisting on climate justice appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Reabold Resources has hit back at doubts over plans to frack at West Newton in East Yorkshire made by the partner it is seeking to acquire.

Road closure plans as part of West Newton fracking operation. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

Earlier this month, Union Jack, which has a 16.665% stake in West Newton, said it had concerns over the “technical viability of the project” to recomplete the West Newton-A2 well (WNA-2), due to be carried out by the end of 2026.

Union Jack, which rejected Reabold’s takeover bid, also said it was concerned about the ability of the site operator, Rathlin Energy, to deliver “overall sustained commercial production”.

This morning, Reabold accused Union Jack of “speculative” and “unsupported” comments over West Newton. Official statement

“Undeveloped discovery”

In a circular to shareholders on 11 September 2026, Union Jack said:

“West Newton remains an undeveloped gas and condensate discovery that has yet to establish sustained commercial production.”

Two wells drilled in the West Newton field had “failed to establish sustained flow”, consistent with wellbore formation damage, Union Jack said.

It added that an initial review had concluded:

“The outcome of the proposed stimulation is not known.”

Union Jack also raised concerns about possible legal action over the Environment Agency’s variation of the West Newton permit. It said:

“The outcome of those proceedings (if any) is outside the control of either company, and an adverse outcome, or interim relief granted before or during operations, would immediately halt the planned work and capital expended to date could be at risk.”

“Misleading, selective and highly speculative”

This morning, Reabold said it “strongly rejects the suggestion that West Newton lacks strategic merit”.

It accused the Union Jack board of “highly selective views” on West Newton. It also said the Union Jack circular contained “a number of misleading, selective and highly speculative statements regarding Reabold, the offer and the West Newton project”.

Reabold, which has a near 80% stake in Rathlin Energy, said:

“The New Board seeks to characterise West Newton as a risk that Union Jack Shareholders should avoid.

“Reabold considers this position inconsistent with Union Jack’s longstanding investment in West Newton and the repeated statements made by the former Union Jack board regarding the significance of the project.

“West Newton remains one of the largest onshore conventional gas and condensate discoveries in the United Kingdom. Significant technical work has been undertaken to understand historic well performance and to design the forthcoming WNA-2 recompletion programme.”

Reabold described as “largely speculative” the new board’s comments on reservoir performance, permitting matters and future development activity.

It added:

“Importantly, the New Board provides no independent technical report to support its assertions regarding the project’s prospects.”

Reabold described the rejection of its offer by the new Union Jack board as “self-serving” and said it was “not in the best interests of Union Jack as a whole or for Union Jack shareholders”.

It said Union Jack may require additional funding to meet future commitments, including those at West Newton.

• The Takeover Panel has extended the deadline for the Reabold offer for Union Jack until 1pm on 2 October 2026.

Road closure

The first stage in the West Newton project is construction of passing places along the lorry route on Pasture Lane. The road is due to be closed from Wednesday 23 September to Monday 5 October 2026.