G1. Progressive Green

Horne 5: une épée de Damoclès en zone urbaine surpolluée Quebec, Canada

Image : Horne 5. Crédit : Ressources Falco Ltée, Rouyn-Noranda.(1)

Résumé

Notre cas emblématique de résistance à l’extractivisme concerne la réouverture d’une mine dans la ville de Rouyn-Noranda, au Québec (Canada). Le projet minier Horne 5 de Ressource Falco Ltée vise l’extraction d’un gisement polymétallique dont le principal attrait économique est l’or. Le projet est situé dans le quartier Notre-Dame et sous la Fonderie Horne de Glencore qui, depuis son ouverture en 1927, pollue drastiquement l’air de Rouyn-Noranda. 

 

Le projet Horne 5 figure parmi les projets miniers les plus dangereux, inacceptables et nuisibles des dernières décennies au Québec. En plus de présenter des risques psychosociaux importants, ce projet comporte des dangers catastrophiques pour la sécurité publique, l’équilibre socioéconomique, ainsi que pour la protection de l’environnement.

Image : La Fonderie Horne – Symbole de la pollution à Rouyn-Noranda, 1978. Crédit : Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec.(2)

Image : Les travailleurs de la Mine Noranda — photo prise entre 1962 et 1978. Crédit : Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image : Travailleurs de la Mine Noranda sur la ligne de piquetage pendant la grève de 1946-1947. Crédit : Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image : Marche anti-pollution organisée par le théâtre de Coppe qui avait pour thématique l’enterrement du lac Osisko, 1985. Crédit : Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image : La Fonderie Horne de Glencore sous la neige et les rejets toxiques, photo prise entre 1962 et 1978. Crédit : Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image : La Fonderie Horne de Glencore pollue encore aujourd’hui. Crédit : Guillaume Proulx, 2019. Rouyn-Noranda.

 

Le paysage culturel de Rouyn-Noranda

Rouyn-Noranda est une ville de 42 000 habitant·e·s, située sur le Nitakinan, anicinape aki, territoire anicinabe non cédé. Le contexte politique de Rouyn-Noranda a été marqué par des luttes critiques sur les plans sociaux et juridiques et favorisant historiquement les industries extractives. Cette ville est un îlot de culture (musique, arts visuels, arts performatifs, théâtre, etc.) au sein de la forêt boréale. Rouyn-Noranda est le berceau d’une communauté pluriculturelle, résistante, militante et familiale. Le projet Horne 5 est situé notamment sur le territoire ancestral de la Première Nation de Long Point. Rouyn-Noranda cohabite avec les activités industrielles historiques depuis sa création, il y a 100 ans cette année.

Image : Page Facebook du Collectif 33 (3), Rouyn-Noranda.

Si accepté, le projet minier Horne 5 s’insérerait au cœur même de ce milieu de vie, sous une zone déjà fragilisée par de nombreuses galeries minières abandonnées. La littérature reflète d’ailleurs un manque de données sur les mines en milieu urbain, puisque ces études de cas sont peu nombreuses.

 

Horne 5 – L’épée de Damoclès

Image : Ressources Falco Ltée (4).

Le projet Horne 5 qui prévoit l’extraction de 15 500 tonnes de minerai par jour à des profondeurs allant jusqu’à 2 000 m et générant 80 millions de tonnes de résidus miniers a été soumis au BAPE (Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement) pour une consultation publique en 2024. Cette procédure nécessite, lorsque le gouvernement confie un tel mandat, que le président du BAPE forme une commission d’enquête chargée d’évaluer les impacts du projets., Cette évaluation formelle a mis en lumière  est associé à plusieurs enjeux critiques, dont :

1. Affaissements de terrain et sismicité induite : Sans compter tous les risques liés aux affaissements de terrain et la sismicité induite, notons que le projet est situé sous la Fonderie Horne — composée d’infrastructures désuètes — où des bassins d’acide sulfurique et autres produits toxiques pourraient engendrer de véritables catastrophes environnementales et des risques de mortalités importantes chez les travailleur·euse·s de même qu’au sein de la population. Rouyn-Noranda aura d’ailleurs déjà été témoin d’affaissement de terrain soudain en 2013, en plein coeur du parc Mouska — une aire de détente et de jeux familiale. Le trou de plus de 3 mètres se trouvait au-dessus du site de l’ancienne mine Chadbourne, l’une des nombreuses mines abandonnées dans les sous-sols de la ville. (5)

2. Droits ancestraux : L’apparence de contravention aux droits ancestraux de la Première Nation de Long Pointe constitue un enjeu important à ce projet minier. En effet, lors de la commission d’enquête, les réponses fournies par le gouvernement ont soulevé « des doutes raisonnables à l’effet que l’obligation constitutionnelle de consulter les autochtones détenteurs de droits ancestraux n’a pas été respectée pour l’ensemble des communautés dont le territoire est visé par le projet minier Horne 5, à commencer par la Première Nation de Long Pointe. ». (6)

3. Protection de l’eau : En plus de menacer l’intégrité de nombreux plans d’eau par l’implantation de pipelines de prélèvement d’eau douce, le projet Horne 5 comporte de nombreux risques de contamination grave du lac Dufault, soit le lac qui approvisionne l’unique station de pompage en eau potable de la ville de Rouyn-Noranda. Cette contamination pourrait se matérialiser par des fuites des pipelines de 17 km transportant les résidus miniers ou des fuites provenant des digues des parcs à résidus.

4. Écoblanchiment : La compagnie utilise un discours d’écoblanchiment quant aux actions liées à son plan de gestion du passif minier du projet, alors que leur plan en ce qui concerne les résidus miniers menace sérieusement l’environnement et la santé humaine. En effet, après avoir sélectionné un site non restauré pour accumuler les résidus projetés, le promoteur cherche à faire croire à la communauté qu’ajouter des matières acidogènes, lixiviables et cyanurées dans l’environnement puisse constituer une option avantageuse.

5. Qualité de l’air : Les activités industrielles réalisées par la Fonderie Horne de Glencore dans la ville de Rouyn-Noranda génèrent des taux alarmants de métaux lourds (arsenic, baryum, cadmium, cuivre, nickel et plomb). Les niveaux inacceptables de pollution atmosphérique générés par la fonderie, ainsi que la complicité du gouvernement qui les tolère constituent l’un des scandales environnementaux les plus persistants et les plus controversés au Québec. La littérature démontre d’ailleurs que la population de Rouyn-Noranda est exposée à un surplus de cancers du poumon, de maladies pulmonaires obstructives chroniques, de problèmes neurologiques et à des retards de croissance intra-utérins. La Fonderie Horne est encore autorisée à opérer la fonte de déchets provenant des quatre coins de la planète pour en extraire le cuivre, sous le seuil de 45 ng/m³ d’arsenic dans l’air à Rouyn-Noranda. La compagnie réclame actuellement un report jusqu’en 2030 pour l’atteinte d’un seuil intérimaire de 15 ng/m³, nonobstant la norme québécoise de 3 ng/m³. Pourtant, l’Institut national de santé publique du Québec stipulait en 2022 que si le seuil de 15 ng/m³ protège les groupes vulnérables (comme les enfants) contre certains effets, la seule cible à considérer comme sécuritaire demeure la norme de 3 ng/m³. Le projet Horne 5 cherche ainsi à s’insérer dans un milieu où les normes sont déjà dépassées, contrevenant au régime d’application de l’article 197 du Règlement sur l’assainissement de l’atmosphère. L’autorisation d’un nouveau projet minier ne ferait ainsi qu’aggraver une situation illégale tolérée depuis trop longtemps.

 

Credit: Guillaume Proulx, 2019, Rouyn-Noranda.

 

6. Coûts sociaux et économiques multiples : Les impacts socioéconomiques incluent d’abord l’augmentation de la demande en logement induite par l’arrivée de nouveaux travailleurs et de leur famille. Cette demande se manifeste malgré un taux d’inoccupation extrêmement faible de 0,9 % en 2025 (7), ce qui est nettement inférieur au seuil d’équilibre de 3 % reconnu au Québec. Autrement dit, Rouyn-Noranda est déjà confrontée à une grave crise du logement qui ne fera qu’empirer avec l’arrivée de nouveaux travailleurs. « Par ailleurs, la relocalisation progressive de résident·e·s pour la création d’une zone tampon à proximité de la Fonderie Horne — mesure à venir après 2028 — témoigne de l’ampleur des défis environnementaux et sanitaires avec lesquels la ville et sa population doivent (déjà) composer» (8). S’ajoutent à cela l’anxiété et la fatigue sociale de la population ainsi que les menaces sur l’attractivité et la vitalité de Rouyn-Noranda sur le long terme.

Agenda des luttes et de la résistance

Voici un survol de l’agenda de la mobilisation citoyenne en lien avec le projet Horne 5.

• 17 mai 2024 | Appel à la mobilisation citoyenne

Diffusion d’un communiqué de presse qui invitait la population de Rouyn-Noranda à assister à la première rencontre d’information au sujet du projet Horne 5. 

• 21 mai 2024 | Envoi d’une lettre officielle au ministre de l’Environnement et d’une lettre officielle au président du BAPE 

Envoi d’une lettre officielle au ministre faisant la demande conjointe d’audiences publiques menées par le Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) concernant le projet Horne 5 ainsi que d’une lettre officielle au président du BAPE faisant la demande conjointe de tenir une rencontre préparatoire à l’intention du public avant l’audience publique. La rencontre préparatoire a eu lieu le 13 août 2024.

• 27 juin 2024 | Invitation à un atelier de planification de la participation communautaire

Diffusion d’un communiqué de presse invitant les citoyen·ne·s à un atelier gratuit le 7 juillet 2024 sur la planification d’une participation aux audiences du Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) pour le projet minier Horne 5.

• 14 et 26 août 2024 | Participation à des rencontres stratégiques avec les citoyen·ne·s de Rouyn-Noranda

Deux rencontres stratégiques tout juste avant le début de la commission d’enquête.

• 27 août 2024 | Début des audiences du BAPE à Rouyn-Noranda : Plusieurs questions cruciales à poser sur l’inquiétant projet minier Horne 5

Diffusion d’un communiqué de presse stipulant que : « La société civile est prête pour l’exercice. Malgré le déclenchement du dossier en plein été et une présentation de la documentation anarchique et sans préavis de la part de la compagnie, les groupes sont parvenus à étudier en détail le dossier en mettant leurs ressources en commun.»

Image : Rouyn-Noranda pendant le Bureau d’audiences publiques de l’environnement au sujet du projet Horne 5. Crédit : Radio-Canada / Lise Millette (9)

• Du 27 au 29 août 2024 | Participation aux cinq séances de la première partie des audiences publiques du BAPE à Rouyn-Noranda.

Période d’information et de présentation des tenants et aboutissants du projet ainsi que des enjeux environnementaux. Les citoyen·ne·s peuvent notamment poser des questions au promoteur. 

 

• 16 au 26 septembre 2024 | Période de temps octroyée à la transmission de points de vue à l’oral, par le biais d’un mémoire, par commentaire ou par image commentée.

Le 26 septembre était la date limite pour le dépôt des mémoires. La Coalition Québec Meilleure Mine et MiningWatch Canada ont fait un dépôt d’un mémoire conjoint concernant le projet minier Horne 5 de Ressource Falco Ltée.

 

• 30 septembre au 3 octobre 2024 | Deuxième partie d’audience publique du BAPE pour le projet minier Horne 5 de Ressources Falco.

Cette deuxième partie permet aux personnes de s’exprimer sur le sujet. C’est l’occasion d’émettre, par exemple, des recommandations ou même de faire la présentation à l’oral de son mémoire.

 

• Automne 2024 | Recommandation d’octroi d’un mandat d’analyse des risques sismiques de la part des autorités de santé régionales.

Les autorités de santé régionales (le CISSS-AT) ont recommandé au ministère d’exiger des études approfondies sur les risques de tremblements de terre causés par la mine. La préoccupation majeure concerne le centre de radio-oncologie — également situé dans le quartier Notre-Dame — de Rouyn-Noranda, où les vibrations pourraient endommager les équipements de soin.

• 23 décembre 2024 | Dépôt du rapport du BAPE au ministre.

 

Le nerf de la guerre

C’est par le processus du Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) que la Commission d’enquête a officiellement conclu, le 7 janvier 2025, que le projet Horne 5 est inacceptable. Le rapport stipule que le projet ne répond pas aux exigences minimales de sécurité, de santé publique et de protection de l’environnement. Un réseau important d’organisations s’est uni pour se tenir debout face à Ressource Falco Ltée avant et pendant la Commission d’enquête menée par le BAPE.

 

Portrait des combattant·e·s

Premières Nations

• Première Nation de Long Point (LPFN) : Suite à la commission d’enquête, la Première Nation se questionne au sujet des répercussions du projet sur la qualité de l’air, de l’eau et sur l’économie locale. Elle exige que des études environnementales et socioéconomiques soient menées directement par la communauté pour protéger ses droits ancestraux. La LPFN s’est exprimée lors des audiences du BAPE, a fait valoir ses droits sur son territoire traditionnel non cédé et a insisté sur le fait que le projet doit obtenir le consentement préalable et éclairé de la LPFN, tel que détaillé dans son communiqué de presse : « No Consent = No project ».

 

Groupes environnementaux

• Conseil Régional de l’environnement de l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue — Organisme sans but lucratif (OSBL) visant à promouvoir la conservation et l’amélioration de la qualité de l’environnement) : a soumis 162 recommandations au BAPE, dénonçant le manque de considération des effets cumulatifs du projet. Le CREAT souligne l’insécurité sanitaire illustrée par les « gestes simples » (nettoyage par aspirateur avec filtres HEPA, alimentation spécifique pour limiter l’absorption de plomb et de cadmium) suggérés à la population par la Santé publique, témoignant d’un milieu déjà saturé de contaminants et de stresseurs environnementaux.

• Eau Secours — OSBL basée à Montréal visant la promotion de la protection et de la gestion responsable de l’eau au Québec : rappelle à la deuxième partie du BAPE le manque flagrant de cohérence dans la proposition de la compagnie de créer un parc à résidus minier (prévision de 40 millions de tonnes de résidus hautement réactifs et acidogènes) directement dans le bassin versant de la source d’eau potable de la ville, soit le Lac Dufaut. L’organisme souligne que le promoteur n’a d’ailleurs pas présenté de plan d’urgence en cas de bris d’installations.

• Action Boréale — OSBL basée en Abitibi-Témiscamingue visant à promouvoir la préservation des forêts boréales du Québec : Rappelle au gouvernement, suite au dépôt du dur rapport du BAPE, son rôle de responsable de l’environnement. L’Action Boréale affirme que le projet comporte plus de répercussions négatives que d’avantages pour la communauté.

• Société pour vaincre la pollution (SVP) — OSBL oeuvrant à défendre les droits des citoyen·ne·s à un environnement sain : Apporte un soutien, affirmant qu’« il s’agit d’une mine de trop pour Rouyn-Noranda ».

• MiningWatch Canada — organisation non gouvernementale basée à Ottawa, agissant à titre de chien de garde de l’industrie minière : Demande encore à ce jour au gouvernement de cesser tout investissement dans ce projet nocif et de confirmer publiquement son opposition.

• Regroupement vigilance mines de l’Abitibi et du Témiscamingue (Revimat) — OSBL qui milite pour améliorer la Loi sur les mines et pour la protection de l’environnement : réitère son opposition au projet dans un communiqué de presse conjoint de réaction notamment puisque « la possibilité de mouvements sismiques peut causer des dommages aux structures de la fonderie et libérer des produits toxiques dans l’air ». 

• Comité Arrêt des rejets d’émissions toxiques (ARET) — groupe citoyen qui milite pour la réduction des polluants atmosphériques  : fais, pour sa part, référence à la qualité de l’air dans ce même communiqué de presse : « Nous comptons donc que ces recommandations mettront fin au projet, car la population est déjà surexposée à des rejets toxiques de façon inacceptable ».

Santé, justice sociale, et solidarité communautaire

• Mères au Front (Rouyn-Noranda) — groupe local du mouvement pancanadien Mères au front qui rassemble des mères et grands-mères mobilisées par le désir d’agir pour protéger l’avenir de nos enfants et la vie sur terre face à l’urgence climatique. Ce groupe, agissant uniquement par devoir de protection envers les générations futures, place au cœur de sa lutte le droit à la santé, à la sécurité et à un environnement sain. Elles considèrent que l’industrie minière est incompatible avec les périmètres urbains et s’opposent au projet Horne 5 parce qu’il accroîtrait la vulnérabilité d’une population déjà surexposée à de nombreux contaminants neurotoxiques.

Image : Manifestation organisée par Mères au Front le 13 octobre 2024 à Rouyn-Noranda pour rappeler au gouvernement Legault (premier ministre à l’époque) que la situation qui perdure à Rouyn-Noranda est inacceptable. Crédit : Maude Desbois (10)

• Centre Entre-Femmes : Présent dans la communauté depuis plus de 30 ans, cet organisme œuvre à l’amélioration des conditions de vie des femmes. Sa lutte contre le projet Horne 5 porte sur la pauvreté et les inégalités économiques : les emplois créés étant majoritairement masculins, le centre dénonce un accroissement des écarts salariaux en région industrielle et demande une analyse des impacts selon le genre, craignant également une hausse des risques de violence et des problématiques liées à la consommation d’alcool et de drogue.

 

• Coopérative d’habitation Boréale : S’opposant à la vision de 15 ans du promoteur, la Coopérative défend un cycle de développement urbain sur 40 ans en vue d’assurer l’avenir du quartier. Sa lutte met en lumière les coûts sociaux invisibles : elle rappelle que les populations portent dans leur chair les détresses (suicides, violences conjugales) liées aux fluctuations du prix de l’or, des drames humains dont aucun budget ne prévoit d’éponger les conséquences. La Coopérative a reçu une très forte demande dans les dernières années, demande auquel elle ne peut répondre.

 

 

• L’Association des locataires de l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue : s’oppose aussi au projet Horne 5 et a participé au BAPE, revendiquant notamment au sujet de la pression que ce projet viendrait ajouter à cette « zone sacrifiée ». Cette association considère qu’un logement est « un lieu où toustes devrait être en sécurité jour et nuit. ». La ville de Rouyn-Noranda est en crise du logement depuis près de 15 ans. Leur argumentaire soulignait aussi qu’en plus de toutes les dangerosités soulevées du projet, le milieu a plus souvent qu’autrement le fardeau de trouver des solutions et les accommodements pour la population. Cette pression supplémentaire n’est absolument pas souhaitable sur les organismes communautaires de Rouyn-Noranda.

L’oppression systémique de l’extraction

 

Au Québec, les communautés visées par des projets miniers sont opprimées par un flagrant manque de suivi de la part du gouvernement dans les investissements massifs qu’il octroie au secteur minier, ainsi que par l’accélération des projets miniers au détriment des communautés. 

Pour sa part, Ressources Falco Ltée. exerce une rétention et une déformation de l’information perpétuelle, en plus de manquer d’écoute face aux inquiétudes de la population et de considération envers les évaluations environnementales. Le dépôt récent (sorti dans les médias à la fin mai 2026) du rapport d’experts mandaté pour l’analyse des risques associés à la sismicité abonde en ce sens. Ce rapport tant attendu par la population n’a pas éclairé le flou qui persiste quant à la sécurité des personnes et du centre de radio-oncologie. Une demande d’accès à l’information n’a permis d’obtenir qu’une version entièrement caviardée dudit rapport, empêchant de connaître presque l’entièreté du contenu. 

Parallèlement, la communauté de Rouyn-Noranda subit un cycle historique de menaces de fermeture industrielle de la part de Glencore, créant une polarisation profonde au sein des familles et de la population, plaçant les citoyen·ne·s dans un faux dilemme permanent entre survie économique ainsi que de la protection de l’environnement et de la santé globale. 

Toustes retiennent leur souffle depuis longtemps maintenant.

Un an et demi après le dépôt du rapport du BAPE, le projet Horne 5 franchit ses dernières étapes d’évaluation d’impacts. À ce stade critique précédant une possible exploitation, les communautés sont dans l’attente de la décision finale concernant le décret d’autorisation prétendu pour juin 2026, selon le dernier Comité consultatif de la compagnie en date du 18 mars 2026. Le paysage culturel de la ville dépend désormais de ce décret gouvernemental, qui déterminera si les autorités choisissent d’ignorer ou de respecter le constat d’inacceptabilité émis par le BAPE. Il est sincèrement souhaité que la décision finale serve le meilleur intérêt de la population locale et de la Première Nation Anicinape, tout en garantissant la protection de l’environnement ainsi que la qualité de l’eau et de l’air.

À ce jour, toutefois, le réseau de militant·e·s demeure mobilisé. 

Et dans quel but?

Une victoire signifierait le rejet et l’arrêt définitif du projet Horne 5 afin de garantir la sécurité et la santé des citoyen·ne·s de Rouyn-Noranda grâce à une considération réaliste des impacts cumulatifs du projet, de la capacité de support du milieu où siège le projet et du rythme effréné de l’agenda pro-extractiviste des entreprises qui prisent la région de l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue. En attendant, nous sommes fier·ère·s de dire que les gens de Rouyn-Noranda sont une grande inspiration pour la Coalition Québec meilleure mine et que leurs efforts représentent un exemple à suivre. Les moyens pris par la communauté pour se mobiliser contre tous ces géants extractivistes est « admirable à l’échelle mondiale ».

Image : La Fonderie Horne au coucher du soleil. Crédit : Guillaume Proulx, 2020, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image : Quartier Notre-Dame, la nuit. Crédit : Guillaume Proulx, 2019, Rouyn-Noranda.

Notes de fin d’ouvrage

 

1 – Profil Facebook de l’entreprise : https://www.facebook.com/RessourcesFalco/

 

2-  Rivard, J. (December 2021). Démarrage de l’usine d’acide sulfurique de la fonderie Horne – 20 décembre 1989 | Héros sans panache | Société d’histoire de Rouyn-Noranda.http://shrn.ca/des-jours-qui-ont-fait-rouyn-noranda/20-decembre-1989-demarrage-de-lusine-dacide-sulfurique-de-la-fonderie-horne

 

3 – Page Facebook du Collectif 33 :https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=122104798005292317&set=pcb.122104801341292317&locale=fr_CA

 

4 –  Cotnoir, J.-M. (May 25, 2026).Horne 5 : le flou persiste quant aux risques sismiques. Radio-Canada.https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2256119/horne-5-mine-risque-sismique-cisss-at

 

5 –  Luneau, A.-C. (2013, February 6). Rouyn-Noranda : le sol s’affaisse au parc Mouska. Radio-Canada.  https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/599141/trou-parc-mouska

 

6 –  QMM and MWC. (2024, September 26). Mémoire | BAPE projet minier Horne 5 de Ressources Falco à Rouyn-Noranda | Mining Watch Canada. https://miningwatch.ca/fr/blog/2024/9/26/memoire-bape-projet-minier-horne-5-de-ressources-falco-rouyn-noranda

 

7-  OBVAT. (2026, 4 juin). Taux d’inoccupation des logements, Abitibi-Témiscamingue et Québec, 1996 à 2026p – L’Observatoire de l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue. https://www.observat.qc.ca/statistiques/taux-dinoccupation-des-logements-abitibi-temiscamingue-et-quebec-1996-a-2026p/ 

8- BAPE, Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement. (2024).Projet Horne 5 à Rouyn-Noranda par Ressources Falco ltée: rapport d’enquête et d’audience publique. Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement. https://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/fr/dossiers/mine_horne5/

 

9 –  Millette, L. (2025, 4 mars). Projet Horne 5 : Québec freine l’élan de Ressources Falco. Radio-Canada. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2145532/falco-horne-fonderie-rouyn-noranda-mine

10 –  Fortin-Rondeau, I. (2025, 18 novembre). Le Pudding à l’arsenic : une version industrielle signée Fonderie Horne. https://www.meresaufront.org/billets-de-blogue/le-pudding-a-larsenic-une-version-industrielle-signee-fonderie-horne

 

Horne 5: A Sword of Damocles Hanging Over a Heavily Polluted Urban Area Quebec, Canada

Image: Horne 5. Credit: Ressources Falco Ltée, Rouyn-Noranda. (1)

Abstract

Our emblematic case of resistance to extractivism concerns the reopening of a mine in the city of Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec (Canada). Falco Resources Ltd’s Horne 5 mining project aims to extract a polymetallic deposit whose primary economic value lies in gold. The project is located in the Notre-Dame neighborhood and beneath Glencore’s Horne Smelter, which, since its opening in 1927, has drastically polluted the air in Rouyn-Noranda. The Horne 5 project ranks among the most dangerous, unacceptable, and harmful mining projects in Quebec in recent decades. In addition to posing significant psychosocial risks, this project entails catastrophic dangers for public safety, socioeconomic stability, and environmental protection.

Image: The Horne Smelter – A symbol of pollution in Rouyn-Noranda, 1978. Credit: Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec. (2)

Image: Workers at the Noranda Mine—photo taken between 1962 and 1978. Credit: Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image: Noranda Mine workers on the picket line during the 1946–1947 strike. Credit: Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image: Anti-pollution march organized by the Théâtre de Coppe, themed around the “burial” of Lake Osisko, 1985. Credit: Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image: Glencore’s Horne Smelter under snow and toxic waste, photo taken between 1962 and 1978. Credit: Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image: Glencore’s Horne Smelter continues to pollute to this day. Credit: Guillaume Proulx, 2019. Rouyn-Noranda.

 

The Cultural Landscape of Rouyn-Noranda

Rouyn-Noranda is a city of 42,000 residents, located on Nitakinan, Anicinape Aki, unceded Anishinaabe territory. The political context of Rouyn-Noranda has been marked by critical social and legal struggles and including a long legacy of tensions with extractive industries. This city is an island of culture (music, visual arts, performing arts, theater, etc.) within the boreal forest. Rouyn-Noranda is the home of a multicultural, resilient, activist, and family-oriented community. The Horne 5 project is located notably on the ancestral territory of the Long Point First Nation. Industrial activities have been a central part of Rouyn-Noranda’s development since the city’s founding 100 years ago this year.

Image: Facebook page of Collectif 33 (3) , Rouyn-Noranda.

If approved, the Horne 5 mining project would be situated at the very heart of this dynamic city, in a vibrant residential area, beneath an area already weakened by numerous abandoned mine tunnels. The literature also reflects a lack of data on mining in urban areas, as there are few such case studies.

 

Horne 5 – A Sword of Damocles

Image: Falco Resources Ltée. (4)

The Horne 5 project, which plans to extract 15,500 tons of ore per day from depths of up to 2,000 meters and generate 80 million tons of mine tailings, was entrusted to the BAPE (Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement) for a public review in 2024. As is standard procedure when the government grants such a mandate, the BAPE president formed a commission of inquiry to evaluate the project’s impacts. This formal examination brought to light several critical issues including:

1. Land subsidence and induced seismicity: Even before considering the risks associated with ground subsidence and induced seismicity, it is worth noting that the project is located beneath the Horne Smelter—an industrial complex with outdated infrastructure—where ponds of sulfuric acid and other toxic substances could cause major environmental disasters and pose significant risks of fatalities to workers as well as the general population. Rouyn-Noranda has, in fact, already witnessed a sudden ground subsidence in 2013, right in the heart of Mouska Park—a family recreation and playground area. The hole, over 3 meters wide, was located above the site of the former Chadbourne Mine, one of the many abandoned mines beneath the city. (5)

2. Ancestral Rights: The apparent violation of the ancestral rights of Long Point First Nation is a major issue in this mining project. Indeed, during the commission of inquiry, the government’s responses raised “reasonable doubts that the constitutional obligation to consult Indigenous peoples holding ancestral rights was not respected for all communities whose territory is affected by the Horne 5 mining project, starting with the Long Point First Nation.” (6)

3. Water Protection: In addition to threatening the integrity of numerous water bodies through the installation of freshwater intake pipelines, the Horne 5 project poses numerous risks of serious contamination of Lake Dufault, the lake that supplies the sole pumping station in the drinking water supply of the city of Rouyn-Noranda. This contamination could result from leaks in the 17-kilometer pipelines transporting mine tailings or from leaks in the tailings pond dams.

4. Greenwashing: The company uses greenwashing rhetoric regarding actions related to its project’s mining liability management plan, even though its plan for handling mine tailings poses a serious threat to the environment and human health. Indeed, after selecting an unreclaimed site to store the planned tailings, the developer is trying to convince the community that adding acid-generating, leachable, and cyanide-containing materials to the environment could be a beneficial option.

5. Air Quality: The industrial activities carried out by Glencore’s Horne Smelter in the city of Rouyn-Noranda generate alarming levels of heavy metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, nickel, and lead). The company’s unacceptable levels of air pollution from the smelter and the government’s complicity in allowing it are one the most persistent and controversial environmental scandals in Quebec. The literature shows that the population of Rouyn-Noranda is exposed to an increased incidence of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neurological problems, and intra-uterine growth retardation. The Horne Smelter is still authorized to operate by smelting waste from all over the world to extract copper, provided that arsenic levels in the air in Rouyn-Noranda remain below 45 ng/m³. The company is currently seeking an extension until 2030 to meet an interim threshold of 15 ng/m³, despite Quebec’s standard of 3 ng/m³. However, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec stated in 2022 that while the 15 ng/m³ threshold protects vulnerable groups (such as children) from certain effects, the only target to be considered safe remains the 3 ng/m³ standard. The Horne 5 project thus seeks to operate in an environment where standards are already being exceeded, violating the enforcement regime of Section 197 of the Clean Air Regulation. Authorizing a new mining project would therefore only exacerbate an illegal situation that has been tolerated for far too long.

Credit: Guillaume Proulx, 2019, Rouyn-Noranda.

 

6. Multiple social and economic costs: The socioeconomic impacts include, first and foremost, the aggravation of the housing crisis. The arrival of new workers and their families will lead to an increased demand for housing. This demand occurs despite an extremely low vacancy rate of 0,9 % recorded in 2025 (7), which is significantly below the 3% balance threshold recognized in Quebec. In other words, Rouyn-Noranda is already facing a severe housing crisis that will be further exacerbated by the arrival of new workers. “Furthermore, the gradual relocation of residents to create a buffer zone near the Horne Smelter — a measure to be implemented after 2028 — underscores the scale of the environmental and health challenges that the city and its population must (already) contend with.” (8) Added to this are the population’s anxiety and social fatigue, as well as threats to Rouyn-Noranda’s long-term attractiveness and vitality.

Timeline of Resistance

Here is an overview of the timeline of citizen mobilization related to the Horne 5 project.

• May 17, 2024 | Call for citizen mobilization

Release of a press release inviting the residents of Rouyn-Noranda to attend the first information meeting regarding the Horne 5 project. 

• May 21, 2024 | Official letters sent to the Minister of the Environment and the President of the BAPE 

An official letter was sent to the Minister requesting that the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE – Office of Public Hearings on the Environment) hold public hearings regarding the Horne 5 project, along with an official letter to the President of the BAPE requesting a preparatory meeting for the public prior to the public hearing. The preparatory meeting took place on August 13, 2024.

• June 27, 2024 | Invitation to a community engagement planning workshop

Release of a press release inviting citizens to a free workshop on July 7, 2024, on planning participation in the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) hearings for the Horne 5 mining project.

• August 14 and 26, 2024 | Participation in strategic meetings with residents of Rouyn-Noranda

Two strategic meetings just before the start of the public inquiry.

• August 27, 2024 | Start of the BAPE hearings in Rouyn-Noranda: Several crucial questions to ask about the troubling Horne 5 mining project

Release of a press release stating: “Civil society is ready for the process. Despite the case being launched in the middle of summer and the company’s chaotic and unannounced presentation of documentation, the groups managed to study the case in detail by pooling their resources.”

Image: Rouyn-Noranda during the Bureau d’audiences publiques de l’environnement (BAPE) hearing on the Horne 5 project. Credit: Radio-Canada / Lise Millette (9)

• August 27–29, 2024 | Participation in the five sessions of the first part of the BAPE public hearings in Rouyn-Noranda.

Period for providing information and presenting the ins and outs of the project as well as environmental issues. Citizens may, in particular, ask questions of the proponent.

 

• September 16–26, 2024 | Period set aside for the submission of views orally, via a brief, through comments, or via annotated images.

September 26 was the deadline for submitting briefs. The Coalition Québec Meilleure Mine and MiningWatch Canada submitted a joint brief regarding Falco Resources Ltd.’s Horne 5 mining project.

 

• September 30 to October 3, 2024 | Second part of the BAPE public hearing for Falco Resources’ Horne 5 mining project.

This second part allows individuals to speak on the subject. It is an opportunity to, for example, make recommendations or even present one’s brief orally.

 

• Fall 2024 | Recommendation by regional health authorities to commission a seismic risk analysis.

Regional health authorities (the CISSS-AT) recommended that the ministry require in-depth studies on the risks of earthquakes caused by the mine. The primary concern is the radiation oncology center—also located in the Notre-Dame neighborhood—in Rouyn-Noranda, where vibrations could damage medical equipment.

 

• December 23, 2024 | Submission of the BAPE report to the minister.

 

The turning point

It was through the process of the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) that the Commission of Inquiry officially concluded, on January 7, 2025, that the Horne 5 project is unacceptable. The report states that the project does not meet minimum requirements for safety, public health, and environmental protection. A large network of organizations came together to stand up to Ressource Falco Ltd. before and during the BAPE-led Commission of Inquiry.

 

Portraits of the activists

First Nations

• Long Point First Nation (LPFN) : Following the inquiry, the First Nation has raised concerns about the project’s impact on air and water quality, as well as on the local economy. It is demanding that environmental and socioeconomic studies be conducted directly by the community to protect its ancestral rights. The LPFN spoke at the BAPE hearings, asserted its rights over its traditional unceded territory, and emphasized that the project must obtain the LPFN’s prior and informed consent, as detailed in its press release: “No Consent = No Project”.

 

Environmental Groups

• Abitibi-Témiscamingue Regional Environmental Council — A non-profit organization (NPO) dedicated to promoting environmental conservation and improving environmental quality. They submitted 162 recommendations to the BAPE, criticizing the lack of consideration for the project’s cumulative effects. The CREAT highlights the health risks illustrated by the “simple measures” (vacuuming with HEPA filters, specific dietary guidelines to limit lead and cadmium absorption) suggested to the public by provincial public health authorities, reflecting an environment already saturated with contaminants and environmental stressors.

 

• Eau Secours — a Montreal-based non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the protection and responsible management of water in Quebec. Eau Secours has pointed out to the second part of the BAPE the glaring lack of consistency in the company’s proposal to create a mine tailings pond (projected to hold 40 million tons of highly reactive and acid-generating tailings) directly within the watershed of the city’s drinking water source, Lake Dufaut. The organization also points out that the developer has not presented an emergency plan in the event of a facility failure.

 

• Action Boréale — a non-profit organization based in Abitibi-Témiscamingue dedicated to promoting the preservation of Quebec’s boreal forests. They have consistently reminded the government, following the release of the BAPE’s scathing report, of its responsibility for the environment. Action Boréale asserts that the project has more negative impacts than benefits for the community.

 

• Société pour vaincre la pollution (SVP) — a non-profit organization working to defend citizens’ rights to a healthy environment: Offers support and states that “this is one mine too many for Rouyn-Noranda.”

 

• MiningWatch Canada — an Ottawa-based non-governmental organization acting as a watchdog for the mining industry. They continue to call on the government to cease all investment in this harmful project and to publicly confirm its opposition.

 

• Regroupement vigilance mines de l’Abitibi et du Témiscamingue (Revimat) — a non-profit organization advocating for improvements to the Mining Act and environmental protection. They have consistently reiterated their opposition to the project in a joint press release, noting in particular that “the possibility of seismic activity could damage the smelter’s structures and release toxic substances into the air.” 

 

• Comité Arrêt des rejets d’émissions toxiques (ARET) — a citizens’ group advocating for the reduction of air pollutants. They refer to air quality issues in the same press release: “We therefore expect these recommendations to put an end to the project, as the population is already unacceptably overexposed to toxic emissions.”

 

Health, Social Justice, and Community Solidarity

• Mères au Front (Rouyn-Noranda) — a local chapter of the pan-Canadian Mères au Front movement, which brings together mothers and grandmothers driven by a desire to act to protect our children’s future and life on Earth in the face of the climate emergency. This group, acting solely out of a duty to protect future generations, places the right to health, safety, and a clean environment at the heart of its struggle. They believe that the mining industry is incompatible with urban areas and oppose the Horne 5 project because it would increase the vulnerability of a population already overexposed to numerous neurotoxic contaminants.

Image: Protest organized by Mères au Front on October 13, 2024, in Rouyn-Noranda to remind the Legault government that the ongoing situation in Rouyn-Noranda is unacceptable. Credit: Maude Desbois (10)

 

• Centre Entre-Femmes: Active in the community for over 30 years, this organization works to improve women’s living conditions. Its opposition to the Horne 5 project centers on poverty and economic inequalities: since the jobs created are primarily male- , the center condemns the widening wage gaps in industrial regions and calls for a gender-based impact analysis, also fearing an increase in the risk of violence and issues related to alcohol and drug use.

 

• Coopérative d’habitation Boréale: Opposing the developer’s 15-year vision, the housing cooperative advocates for a 40-year urban development cycle to secure the neighborhood’s future. Its struggle highlights the invisible social costs: it points out that communities bear the brunt of the hardships (suicides, domestic violence) linked to fluctuations in the price of gold—human tragedies for which no budget provides to absorb the consequences. The Cooperative has received a very high volume of demand in recent years, a demand it cannot meet.

 

• The Abitibi-Témiscamingue Tenants’ Association also opposes the Horne 5 project and participated in the BAPE, raising concerns in particular about the pressure this project would place on this “sacrificed zone.” This association considers housing to be “a place where everyone should be safe day and night.” The city of Rouyn-Noranda has been in a housing crisis for nearly 15 years. Their argument also emphasized that, in addition to all the dangers raised by the project, the community more often than not bears the burden of finding solutions and accommodations for the population. This additional pressure is absolutely undesirable for Rouyn-Noranda’s community organizations.

The systemic oppression of extraction

 

In Quebec, communities affected by mining projects are oppressed by a glaring lack of oversight by the government regarding the massive investments it grants to the mining sector, as well as by the acceleration of mining projects at the expense of communities. 

For its part, Falco Resources Ltd. engages in the constant withholding and distortion of information, in addition to failing to listen to the public’s concerns and to take environmental assessments seriously. The recent filing (released to the media in late May 2026) of the expert report commissioned to analyze the risks associated with seismic activity supports this view. This report, so eagerly awaited by the public, has failed to clarify the uncertainty that persists regarding the safety of people and the radiation oncology center. A freedom of information request yielded only a heavily redacted version of the report, making it impossible to access nearly all of its content. 

At the same time, the community of Rouyn-Noranda is enduring a historic cycle of threats of industrial closure from Glencore, creating deep polarization within families and the population, and placing citizens in a constant false dilemma between economic survival and the protection of the environment and overall health. 

Everyone has been holding their breath for a long time now.

A year and a half after the BAPE report was submitted, the Horne 5 project is entering the final stages of its environmental impact assessment. At this critical juncture preceding potential mining operations, communities are awaiting the final decision regarding the authorization decree, which is reportedly scheduled for June 2026, according to the company’s latest Advisory Committee meeting dated March 18, 2026. The city’s cultural landscape now hinges on this government decree, which will determine whether authorities choose to ignore or respect the BAPE’s finding of unacceptability. The community is sincerely holding out hope that the final decision will serve the best interests of the local population and the Anicinape First Nation, while ensuring the protection of the environment as well as water and air quality.

To date, however, the network of activists remains mobilized. 

 

And to what end?

A victory would mean the rejection and permanent stop of the Horne 5 project in order to ensure the safety and health of the citizens of Rouyn-Noranda through a realistic assessment of the project’s cumulative impacts, the carrying capacity of the project site, and the relentless pace of the pro-extractive agenda of companies targeting the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region. In the meantime, we are proud to say that the people of Rouyn-Noranda are a great inspiration to the Coalition Québec meilleure mine, and that their efforts serve as an example to follow for other mining struggles throughout the province. The measures taken by the community to mobilize against all these extractive giants are “admirable on a global scale.”

Image: The Horne Smelter at sunset. Credit: Guillaume Proulx, 2020, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image: Notre-Dame neighborhood at night. Credit: Guillaume Proulx, 2019, Rouyn-Noranda.

Endnotes

 

1 – Company Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/RessourcesFalco/

 

2-  Rivard, J. (December 2021). Démarrage de l’usine d’acide sulfurique de la fonderie Horne – 20 décembre 1989 | Héros sans panache | Société d’histoire de Rouyn-Noranda.http://shrn.ca/des-jours-qui-ont-fait-rouyn-noranda/20-decembre-1989-demarrage-de-lusine-dacide-sulfurique-de-la-fonderie-horne

 

3 – Collectif 33 Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=122104798005292317&set=pcb.122104801341292317&locale=fr_CA

 

4 –  Cotnoir, J.-M. (May 25, 2026).Horne 5 : le flou persiste quant aux risques sismiques. Radio-Canada.https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2256119/horne-5-mine-risque-sismique-cisss-at

 

5 –  Luneau, A.-C. (2013, February 6). Rouyn-Noranda : le sol s’affaisse au parc Mouska. Radio-Canada.  https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/599141/trou-parc-mouska

 

6 –  QMM and MWC. (2024, September 26). Mémoire | BAPE projet minier Horne 5 de Ressources Falco à Rouyn-Noranda | Mining Watch Canada. https://miningwatch.ca/fr/blog/2024/9/26/memoire-bape-projet-minier-horne-5-de-ressources-falco-rouyn-noranda

 

7-  OBVAT. (2026, 4 juin). Taux d’inoccupation des logements, Abitibi-Témiscamingue et Québec, 1996 à 2026p – L’Observatoire de l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue. https://www.observat.qc.ca/statistiques/taux-dinoccupation-des-logements-abitibi-temiscamingue-et-quebec-1996-a-2026p/ 

8- BAPE, Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement. (2024).Projet Horne 5 à Rouyn-Noranda par Ressources Falco ltée: rapport d’enquête et d’audience publique. Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement. https://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/fr/dossiers/mine_horne5/

 

9- Millette, L. (2025, March 4). Projet Horne 5 : Québec freine l’élan de Ressources Falco. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2145532/falco-horne-fonderie-rouyn-noranda-mine

 

10-  Fortin-Rondeau, I. (2025, November 18). Le Pudding à l’arsenic : une version industrielle signée Fonderie Horne. https://www.meresaufront.org/billets-de-blogue/le-pudding-a-larsenic-une-version-industrielle-signee-fonderie-horne 

 

MEDIA ADVISORY

For Immediate Release

All eyes on Article 9.1

Bonn, Germany— Under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, Global North countries most responsible for historical emissions and spurring the climate crisis are required to help provide the climate finance necessary for Global South countries to respond to climate change. Yet, year after year, Global North governments come to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and refuse to pay their climate debt while using every tactic in their obstructionist playbook to block any meaningful attempt to discuss, let alone implement, delivery of meaningful climate finance. As the 64th meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies of the UNFCCC (SB64) heads into its final stretch the story is no different. 

Finance remains entirely inadequate. Article 9.1 continues to be contested and diluted. But Global North countries must fulfil their obligations under Article 9.1 and provide public, grant-based, predictable and adequate finance to the Global South. Not as aid or charity, but as the fulfillment of a  a legal and moral obligation. In the final hours of these climate negotiations, climate finance remains a defining test of whether the climate regime is prepared to uphold the principles of equity and historical responsibility. 

Join members of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) to hear about what’s currently happening in the Article 9.1 negotiations and what can be done to set us on a path towards a COP31 that delivers on climate finance obligations.  

WHEN: Wednesday 17 June 2026, 11:00-11:30 CEST (UTC + 2) 

WHERE: Nairobi 4, Main building, Inside the World Conference Center and webcast here

WITH: 

• Aleijn Reintegrado – Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development 
• Meena Raman – Third World Network
• Teresa Anderson – ActionAid
• Wanun Permpibul – Climate Watch Thailand
• Moderated by Rachitaa Gupta, Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice

CONTACT: dcj.comms@demandclimatejustice.org 

For more detail on DCJ’s demands across all topics on the agenda for Bonn, read  DCJ’s SB64 Position Paper: Advancing Climate Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis

The post Media Advisory: All eyes on Article 9.1 appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

Maryland county allows dense development over fire training area

By Pat Elder
June 16, 2026

This map shows PFAS contamination in surface waters downstream of the former Montgomery County Public Safety Training Academy in Rockville, Maryland, where firefighting foams containing PFAS were historically used during training exercises. The striped corridor marks the Maryland water-contact advisory area along Muddy Branch Creek, while sampling locations MB8 and MB9 document contamination extending through a residential watershed near the former training grounds.

NBC4 Washington recently reported that PFAS contamination has been discovered in a creek and pond system near the former Montgomery County Public Safety Training Academy in Rockville. The report included a map showing contaminated surface waters, sampling locations, and a water-contact advisory area. The contamination has been traced to historical firefighting activities at the former academy, where firefighting foams containing PFAS were used during training exercises for decades.

Maryland maintains a statewide firefighter training network through the Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute (MFRI), which operates six regional training centers serving every part of the state. In addition to these state-supported facilities, many counties operate their own fire academies and public safety training centers, including facilities in Montgomery, Carroll, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Howard, Prince George's, and Washington counties. These facilities have trained generations of firefighters and emergency responders, often using live-fire exercises and, historically, firefighting foams containing PFAS.

Dozens of firefighter training grounds, burn pits, foam-training areas, airport fire-training facilities, and military fire-training sites have operated throughout Maryland over the last fifty years. These facilities routinely discharged aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), the same PFAS-laden foam responsible for widespread contamination at military bases throughout the state.

Military Poisons has documented PFAS contamination at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Joint Base Andrews, Fort Meade, Fort Detrick, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Webster Field, the Naval Research Laboratory Chesapeake Bay Detachment, Forest Glen Annex, and several former military facilities throughout Maryland. At the same time, the organization has repeatedly warned that firefighter training academies, airports, and other non-military facilities have also created contamination patterns similar to those found on military bases.

The Maryland Department of the Environment has been reluctant to investigate, publicize, regulate, or clean up any of this. Maryland is behind many states in this regard.

Mongomery County planning documents provide disturbing details.

The former Montgomery County Public Safety Training Academy property consisted of approximately 44.84 acres at 9710 Great Seneca Highway in Rockville, Montgomery County, approved the disposition of essentially the entire site for private redevelopment as "The Elms at PSTA," (Public Safety Training Academy) a project containing roughly 630 residential units plus retail and open space. The academy closed in 2016, and the county subsequently sold or agreed to sell the property to the developer.

Montgomery County still owns land immediately adjacent to the former academy. Planning documents identify a 6.25-acre county-owned parcel south of the redevelopment site, currently occupied by the County Innovation Incubator and the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence. The county also retained and received additional land associated with a potential future school site (Parcel V), which planning documents describe as approximately 6.5 acres.

‍Hundreds of homes are being built on property that served as Montgomery County's primary police and firefighter training facility for roughly forty years. The question that now demands an answer is whether Montgomery County or MDE investigated the property for PFAS contamination associated with historical firefighting activities before approving the redevelopment.

Given the well-established association between firefighter training facilities and PFAS contamination, it is difficult to understand how a comprehensive PFAS investigation was not publicly discussed before the site was approved for redevelopment. Firefighter training centers have been recognized nationwide as major PFAS source areas for years.

The planning documents note that a stream and approximately 3.35 acres of stream buffer run through the eastern portion of the former academy property and drain toward Muddy Branch.

The Maryland Department of the Environment recommends that all private well owners, regardless of location, have their well water tested at least once a year to ensure that their water is safe to drink and to include PFAS in that testing. The agency ought to be identifying well owners much further away and it ought to be providing these services. They dropped the ball.

‍It is important that the public be provided with the analytical results for each PFAS compound detected in the creek, pond, groundwater, and air. This is precisely the type of information the Maryland Department of the Environment has been hesitant to release at other severely contaminated PFAS sites around the state.

Although most PFAS compounds are not volatile, several compounds, especially PFOS, which is likely to dominate the chemical signature here, can attach to soil particles and become airborne. The carcinogens saturate the banks of the creek. When the water recedes, the toxins dry in the sun and are lifted by the wind into our lungs and into our homes as dust. The dust is a major PFAS pathway to small children. People living nearby should have their houses tested and they should change their air conditioner filters regularly. Sweeping and vacuuming ought to be traded for wet-mopping.

Since 2019, I have been writing about Maryland’s PFAS contamination associated with firefighter training activities. In 2021, when elevated PFAS levels were discovered in drinking water wells serving Westminster and Hampstead, I publicly questioned whether the Carroll County Public Fire Training Center was contributing to the contamination. At the time, I argued that Maryland should move beyond testing drinking water wells and begin identifying actual contamination sources through groundwater and surface-water investigations. My concern was that firefighter training facilities had used PFAS-containing foams for decades and were being overlooked as potential contributors to contamination. I sent all of my work to the Maryland Department of the Environment. They know the score.‍

The analytical data collected from Muddy Branch are essential for a host of reasons, but mostly because PFAS compounds can accumulate in fish. The EPA has reported that PFOS may bioaccumulate in fish up to 4,000 times the amount in the water. Streams and retention ponds near firefighter training facilities have been documented with PFOS concentrations in the hundreds and thousands of parts per trillion. Under such conditions, fish may contain PFAS concentrations in the hundreds of thousands or even millions of parts per trillion. One fish outside a fire training area in Michigan had 10 million parts per trillion in its filet.

‍The county health department must strive to identify those who have consumed fish from these waters. The county should also offer blood testing to individuals who may have been exposed to PFAS through consumption of the fish. The state will not do it.‍ ‍

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has established guidance for PFAS blood levels and recommends clinical follow-up for individuals with more than 2 parts per billion of seven different PFAS compounds. Residents should not be forced to pay out of pocket to determine whether they have been exposed to chemicals released from a government-operated facility. But, government agencies may balk at the idea, so If people living in these nice new homes ought to know a PFAS skin prick test is available for $279 from Empower DX.‍ ‍

We must demand complete transparency. The state and the county should release the full analytical results for every PFAS compound detected at each sampling location, including surface water, groundwater, sediment, fish tissue, and any other environmental samples collected during the investigation. The public cannot adequately assess the risks posed by this contamination without access to the underlying data.

The contamination discovered near the former Montgomery County Public Safety Training Academy is not an isolated incident. It is the predictable consequence of decades of PFAS use at firefighter training facilities throughout Maryland. The question is no longer whether these facilities contaminated groundwater, streams, ponds, fish, and nearby communities. The question is how many sites remain uninvestigated, how many people have been exposed, and why state regulators failed to act sooner despite years of warnings.‍‍ ‍

——————————

I’ve written 80 articles on PFAS contamination emanating from fire training areas in Maryland. Here are two:

Bad News for Westminster (MD) and the Surrounding Region – February 2, 2021

Here, I identified the Carroll County Public Fire Training Center as a potential PFAS source and asked, "Where's the PFAS coming from in Westminster?"

https://patelder.weebly.com/westminster-md--pfas.html?utm_source=

——————————————————

Small Naval Facility in Southern Maryland Causes Massive PFAS Contamination - April 15, 2021

This article connected extremely high PFAS concentrations to a naval fire station and historical firefighting foam use.

https://www.militarypoisons.org/latest-news/small-naval-facility-in-southern-maryland-causes-massive-pfas-contamination?utm_source=‍ ‍

Every year on 16 June, South Africa commemorates Youth Day and honours the courage of the young people who stood up for dignity, equality, and a better future in 1976.

Fifty years later, young people continue to face barriers that limit their opportunities and undermine that vision. While democracy opened many doors, millions of young South Africans are still locked out of opportunities by poverty, unemployment, and the rising cost of living.

One of the most overlooked barriers is access to affordable electricity.

As South Africa prepares for the 2026 Local Government Elections, we must ask: How can young people build their futures without reliable, affordable, and clean energy?

For many households, the promise of opportunity is interrupted by rising electricity costs, disconnections, and an energy system that prioritises profit over people’s needs. For young people in particular, access to affordable electricity can shape the course of their futures. It means being able to study after dark, charge devices needed for learning and job-seeking, access information, and participate in an increasingly digital world. Affordable electricity is therefore about far more than keeping the lights on. It powers opportunity, helping to unlock the rights to education, health, and dignity that every young person deserves. 

Yet South Africa’s energy system continues to fail those who need it most. Around 80% of the country’s electricity still comes from ageing coal-fired power stations, locking communities into a system that is polluting, expensive, and increasingly unreliable. Air pollution linked to coal-fired power generation contributes to thousands of premature deaths every year, while rising electricity costs leave millions in the dark.

Young people are among those hardest hit. With youth unemployment at around 60% and the cost of living continuing to rise, many households are forced to ration electricity or go without it. What should be a basic service has become another source of hardship and inequality.

The Free Basic Electricity (FBE) programme was introduced to support vulnerable households for these kinds of hardships. However, despite its intention, millions of eligible families remain excluded due to administrative barriers and outdated systems. 

It’s not like there is no solution. South Africa has abundant renewable energy resources and the potential to build an energy system that delivers clean, affordable, reliable power to communities. With the right investments, municipalities can play a leading role in generating and distributing publicly owned renewable energy that strengthens local economies and expands access to electricity.

Expanding FBE from 50 kWh to 350 kWh through municipally owned renewable energy would help ensure households can meet their basic energy needs while reducing dependence on expensive, polluting fossil fuels. More than a social support measure, an expanded FBE programme is an investment in education, employment, public health, and economic opportunity. It is an investment in the future of South Africa’s young people.

 

28 July 2023: Portrait of Letta Kedebone. Photograph by Daylin Paul

The generation of 1976 fought to transform the South Africa they inherited. Today’s generation must do the same. Ours is to ensure that future generations inherit a country where access to affordable energy, economic opportunity, and a healthy environment is not a privilege but a right enjoyed by all. A better future requires more than promises. It requires power.

—

Author: Boitumelo Masipa

The post Powering the Future: Why Energy Justice is a Youth Issue appeared first on 350.

As the European Union tightens sanctions on Moscow, Russia’s Arctic energy exports continue to find buyers—and increasingly rely on opaque and potentially dangerous shipping practices. New developments highlighted in Bellona’s April Arctic Digest show that Russian liquefied natural gas exports to Europe actually increased in early 2026, while vessels transporting Arctic oil have been linked to fraudulent insurance documents and increasingly evasive tactics aimed at avoiding oversight.

Together, the trends illustrate a growing contradiction. Europe is trying to wean itself from Russian fossil fuels, but the transition remains slow. In the meantime, the expanding “shadow fleet” used to move Arctic oil and gas is introducing new environmental and maritime safety risks into one of the world’s most fragile regions.

Russian LNG exports to Europe continue to rise

In April, the EU adopted its twentieth sanctions package against Russia, introducing new restrictions aimed at Arctic oil and LNG exports. Among the measures were bans on servicing Russian LNG carriers, sanctions on the port of Murmansk, and an expansion of the list of sanctioned vessels. Beginning in 2027, EU LNG terminals will no longer be allowed to provide services to Russian companies.

Yet despite mounting sanctions pressure, Russian LNG exports are still growing.

According to Reuters, Russia exported 11.4 million tons of LNG during the first four months of 2026, an increase of 8.6 percent compared with the same period in 2025. Exports to Europe rose even faster. Data compiled by the environmental group Urgewald showed that EU countries imported 91 cargoes of LNG from the Yamal LNG project between January and April, totaling 6.69 million tons—17.2 percent more than during the same period a year earlier. Belgium’s Zeebrugge terminal remained the leading destination.

Bellona analysts say the sanctions are beginning to bite, but much more slowly than many had hoped.

“The previously introduced ban on imports of Russian LNG into Europe did not have a substantial impact on LNG import volumes in April,” Bellona noted in its commentary. “The ban on purchasing LNG under short-term contracts entered into force on April 25 and is likely to produce any noticeable effect only closer to the end of the year.”

Longer-term prospects are more challenging for Moscow. Analysts at the Centre for High North Logistics concluded that once the European market closes entirely in 2027, redirecting exports to Asia will require a major overhaul of Russia’s Arctic logistics system. Existing shipping capacity would be able to support barely half the number of voyages currently needed.

For now, however, Europe’s effort to disentangle itself from Russian gas remains incomplete.

Phantom insurers and growing environmental risks

As sanctions tighten, Russia’s shadow fleet is becoming increasingly opaque.

Bloomberg reported in April, citing Ukrainian intelligence, that several tankers carrying Russian oil were sailing under insurance certificates issued by a company called Seaguard P&I. But investigators discovered that the company appeared to exist only on paper. Its supposed address in Pinneberg, Germany, turned out to be an ordinary residential building, and no corporate registration records could be found.

One of the vessels carrying such documentation was the tanker Paz, which loaded Arctic oil in Murmansk in March. Another vessel, Deyna, was detained by French authorities while transporting Russian oil from Murmansk. Ukrainian intelligence says at least five additional vessels obtained similarly questionable insurance certificates.

The implications extend beyond sanctions evasion.

“The observed increase in the number of shadow fleet tankers operating along the Northern Sea Route represents the primary risk factor for oil spills in the harsh Arctic environment,” Bellona warned.

Many of the vessels involved are aging tankers purchased secondhand and transferred to obscure ownership structures. Should an accident occur, uncertainty over insurance coverage could complicate cleanup efforts and compensation claims.

Dodging Norway while GPS signals disappear

Another pair of developments highlighted by Bellona point to the increasingly uneasy security environment surrounding Arctic shipping.

In April, the 23-year-old tanker Apple, operating under the flag of Equatorial Guinea and already sanctioned by the United States, European Union and United Kingdom, made an unusual approach to Murmansk. Instead of entering waters where Norwegian authorities might exercise oversight, the vessel made a wide detour roughly 200 nautical miles offshore, bypassing Norway’s exclusive economic zone and avoiding inspection. Attempts by Norway’s Vessel Traffic Service in Vardø to establish contact failed.

“They were unable to make contact,” Arve Dimmen of the Norwegian Coastal Administration told the Barents Observer. As a result, Norwegian authorities were unable to obtain information normally required under pollution reporting systems.

At the same time, Norwegian authorities reported increasing interference with GPS and satellite navigation signals near the Russian border and over the Barents Sea. Measurements detected jamming and spoofing at unusually low altitudes, with preliminary analysis indicating Russia as the source.

“Everyone who uses GPS must be able to trust the information they receive,” warned Stein Kristian Hansen of the Finnmark Police District. “Manipulating these signals is unacceptable.”

Taken together, these developments suggest that sanctions alone are unlikely to bring about a rapid decline in Russia’s Arctic exports. Instead, they are producing a sprawling parallel maritime system—one characterized by aging ships, obscure insurers, evasive navigation and growing environmental risks.

For Europe, the challenge is becoming increasingly clear: reducing dependence on Russian energy may be proceeding more slowly than expected, but the risks associated with allowing those flows to continue are rising just as rapidly.

The post Europe’s Russian LNG Dilemma Deepens as Shadow Fleet Risks Mount in the Arctic appeared first on Bellona.org.

MEDIA ADVISORY

For Immediate Release

Will Bonn catalyse or catastrophise:

State of play during week two of UN Bonn climate negotiations

Bonn, Germany— There are only a few days remaining before the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in Bonn, Germany officially come to a close. To catalyse the action needed to curb the climate crisis, governments must make every minute in the negotiating rooms count. Real action in this moment means:

1. Advancing a Belém Action Mechanism that is people-centred, incorporates Just Transition principles, goes beyond the energy sector and is operationalised by COP32. 
2. Following through with commitments from the Global North to deliver the climate finance needed to ensure Global South communities can meaningfully adapt and respond to climate change. 
3. Rejecting risky, unproven and harmful schemes like carbon markets in Article 6 and geo-engineering, which lock us into decades more of fossil fuels rather than curbing emissions. 
4. Laying the groundwork for the community-driven solutions that can truly transform all emissions-intensive industries, including the fossil fuel industry and industrial agriculture.
5. Addressing the links between fossil-fuelled violence and genocide, and acknowledging that the military industrial complex is sending emissions soaring while destroying land and communities already experiencing devastating impacts from the climate crisis.
6. Ending corporate capture of climate policy and holding the Global North accountable to doing their fair share of climate action. 

Join members of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) to hear about the current state of play in the negotiations and what governments must do as the clock winds down to ensure that the UN Bonn climate talks catalyse climate action, not further catastrophise the climate crisis. 

WHEN: Tuesday 16 June 2026, 9:30-10:00 CEST (UTC + 2) 

WHERE: Nairobi 4, Main building, Inside the World Conference Center and webcast here

WITH: 

• Meena Raman, Third World Network
• Margaret Mullen, Re-Earth Initiative
• Chadli Sadorra, Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development
• Jax Bongon, IBON International 
• Moderated by Rachitaa Gupta, Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice

CONTACT: dcj.comms@demandclimatejustice.org

For more detail on DCJ’s demands across all topics on the agenda for Bonn, read  DCJ’s SB64 Position Paper: Advancing Climate Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis

The post Media Advisory: Will Bonn catalyse or catastrophise? appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

The Pondera County Commissioners filed litigation against the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday, June 12th challenging the agency’s decision to exempt a portion of the Madison Aquifer in the county from protections under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The exemption and corresponding permits will allow Montana Renewables, a Great Falls-based biofuels company, to truck high strength industrial wastewater from its refinery in Great Falls and inject it into the Madison Aquifer via two retired oil and gas wells about 7 miles southwest of the town of Valier.

The Madison Aquifer Coalition (an affiliation of local landowners and county residents), the Golden Triangle Resource Council, and Glacier-Two Medicine Alliance joined Pondera County in filing the suit, with Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center as legal representatives.

The groups contend that the EPA erred when it determined that the industrial wastewater will not contaminate shallower aquifers that currently serve as sources of drinking or agricultural water, or that the exempted portion of the Madison Aquifer could never be a viable source of drinking water in the future.

“The EPA relied on an outdated model and wildly inaccurate assumptions about the geology, water quality, and economic viability of the Madison Aquifer as a source of drinking water in reaching its short-sighted decision to permit Montana Renewables to pollute this aquifer,” said Zane Drishinski, Pondera County Commissioner, farmer and rancher. “Rural communities across central Montana increasingly rely on deeper and deeper aquifers like the Madison for their water supply and the Commission simply wants to preserve the ability for people in our county to safely do so as well.”

A prolonged recent drought, coupled with climate prediction models that indicate reduced precipitation for this part of Montana in the future, has ranchers like Lisa Schmidt worried.

“My whole livelihood, like most of my neighbors, depends on access to clean water,” said Lisa Schmidt, a member of the Madison Aquifer Coalition who operates a 131-year-old sheep and cattle ranch. “Every year that water is getting less and less reliable. It makes no sense to me to put our fragile water supplies at further risk by injecting industrial wastewater into the Madison Aquifer.”

The EPA issued the aquifer exemption last month, along with two permits to the well owner, Montalban Oil and Gas Operations, to explicitly allow Montana Renewables to inject upwards of 232,000 gallons of industrial wastewater per day into the Madison Aquifer. The industrial wastewater, a byproduct of the manufacture of transportation biofuels like “renewable biodiesel” or “sustainable aviation fuel,” is currently being shipped out of state as it is too contaminated to be accepted for treatment by the City of Great Falls wastewater treatment facility.

“Clean water is essential to our farming and ranching economy and our quality of life in Pondera County,” said Jim Morren, Pondera County Commissioner. “The EPA’s short-sighted decision is particularly frustrating because a common-sense alternative exists, a solution that does not put farmers, ranchers, and rural residents’ water at risk, and that solution is treatment.”

In 2024, Montana Renewables received a $1.67 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy to expand its production of biofuels. The agreement included financing and direction for Montana Renewables to build a wastewater treatment facility at its Great Falls refinery. In July 2025, Montana Renewables publicly committed to building that treatment facility. Despite this commitment, the company has refused to rule out the disposal of wastewater via underground injection in Pondera County.

“The initial exemption was right at the bottom of each well,” said Millie Whalen of Golden Triangle Resource Council. “When we and others pointed out all the reasons why the injected wastewater would likely not stay there, such as natural cracks characteristic of karstic formations, improperly sealed wells that dot the landscape, injection pressure, and the EPA’s own acknowledgement of hydrological connections, the EPA simply made the exemption bigger rather than take the close look required.”

The County and other groups involved in today’s filing have been fighting the underground injection for nearly 2.5 years. Throughout that time, the Pondera County Sanitarian and Board of Health have repeatedly asked for wastewater samples from Montana Renewables, only to be rebuffed.

“At the initial public meeting in January 2024, Montana Renewables CEO Bruce Fleming claimed the wastewater was so clean you could drink it,” Corrine Rose, Pondera County Sanitarian recalled. “Yet they refuse to provide the County with a sample, and the lab results they provided the EPA indicate this wastewater is nasty stuff. Before any of this high strength industrial wastewater is dumped in our aquifer, we want to see the EPA require more transparency, testing and monitoring.”

The delivery of the wastewater would require several dozens of trucks a day traversing rural ranch roads, creating potential hazards for county infrastructure, public safety, and local wildlife.

“The wells are situated near Dupuyer Creek which provides important habitat and a dispersal corridor for grizzly bears,” said Peter Metcalf, executive director of Glacier-Two Medicine Alliance, an East Glacier-based conservation organization focused on protecting local public lands, waters and wildlife. “In addition to impacts to clean water, this ill-conceived project could have real effects on grizzly bears and other fish and wildlife in the area, all of which could be avoided by treating the wastewater on site.”

“We are deeply disappointed in the EPA for not protecting our rural community and our water and with Montana Renewables for trying to foist their wastewater on us when an attainable alternative exists,” said Tom Kuka, Pondera County Commissioner, rancher and Blackfeet tribal member. “We are simply asking the court to invalidate this aquifer exemption and for Montana Renewables to be a good neighbor and treat its wastewater.”

Contacts:

Andrew Hawley, Western Environmental Law Center, 206-487-7250, hawley@westernlaw.org

Jim Morren, Zane Drishinski, or Tom Kuka, Pondera County Commissioners, 406-271-4010, commissioner@ponderacountymt.gov

Corrine Rose, Pondera County Sanitarian, 406-271-4020, sanitarian@ponderacountymt.gov

Lisa Schmidt, Madison Aquifer Coalition, 406-728-0159, lschmidt@a-land-of-grass-ranch.com

Mildred Whalen, Golden Triangle Resource Council, mwhalen729@verizon.net

Caitlin Cromwell, Northern Plains Resource Council, 406-248-1154, caitlin@northernplains.org

Peter Metcalf, Glacier-Two Medicine Alliance, 406-434-6223, peter@glaciertwomedicine.org

Jenny Harbine, Earthjustice, 406-223-7781, jharbine@earthjustice.org

 

The post Pondera County, local landowners, conservationists sue EPA to protect Madison Aquifer from industrial wastewater injection  appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

When the US-Israel war in Iran began, it took just one 50km waterway to remind the entire world how fragile fossil fuel dependence really is. Oil prices spiked, energy bills surged, and households from Asia to Europe were left absorbing the cost of a crisis they had no part in creating. 

We are all currently living through the second major energy crisis in five years. And it’s raising the same question as the first: is the world finally investing in energy that can’t be blockaded, weaponized, or priced out of reach by a conflict on the other side of the globe?

The IEA’s World Energy Investment 2026 report, released earlier this month, tracks where the world’s money is going in energy. This is important because investment is a leading indicator of real, physical things being built: solar plants, wind turbines, power lines, gas pipelines, coal mines. Follow the money, and you can see the future taking shape.

The money is finally moving in the right direction

So the good news first. The report reveals that for the first time in history, clean energy is on track to get nearly twice the investment of fossil fuels in 2026. Renewables, energy storage, power grids and low-emission fuels are attracting US$2.2 trillion this year, compared to US$1.2 trillion still flowing to oil, gas and coal.* Just over a decade ago, in 2015, renewables received just one sixth of the money that went into energy— roughly US$290 billion out of USD US$1.8 trillion. Today clean energy commands two-thirds of all global energy investment. 

Solar is leading the charge, pulling in US$365 billion – which is US$1 billion every single day. A decade ago, building 1 gigawatt of solar capacity cost US$3 billion. Today it costs US$700 million. That 80% cost decrease is why solar has grown nearly ten times and why its fast becoming the energy source of first resort in places that can no longer afford to wait for governments to move away from fossil fuels. The unglamorous infrastructure of a renewable future, grids and batteries, is also finally getting the capital it has long been denied with grid investment up nearly 20% to US$550 billion, and battery storage crossing US$100 billion.

The report also reveals that when the fossil fuel system fails people, they don’t wait. After declaring a national energy emergency in March 2026 as a result of the ongoing global energy crisis, the Philippines tripled its solar imports in a single quarter. Fifteen African countries recorded nearly as many solar imports in the first three months of 2026 as in all of 2025 combined. In India, when LNG supplies were disrupted in early 2026, households switched to induction cookstoves. EV sales in Southeast Asia more than doubled in 2025, reaching half a million with a nearly 20% market share — up from just 9% in 2023. European heat pump sales jumped 17% in the first quarter of 2026, even as governments cut subsidies.

The world is moving towards renewables, faster and more irreversibly than any single government, conflict or corporate lobby can stop — and this report, for all its uncomfortable contradictions (that you’ll read below), confirms it.

The money flowing into clean energy is not reaching the people that need it most

Now the bad news. Renewables attracting nearly twice the investment of fossil fuels is, by any measure, a significant shift. But look at where that money is actually going, and a very different picture emerges. Wealthy countries and China account for more than 70% of all energy investment in 2026. 

Emerging economies, home to two-thirds of the world’s population, receive less than 30% of global energy investment, and just 20% of power sector investment specifically. This is because borrowing costs in emerging economies are already double those of wealthy nations and China — meaning the same solar project that makes financial sense in Germany simply does not pencil out in Ghana. Higher financing costs are not a minor inconvenience; they are the difference between a project happening and not happening at all.

And yet the proof that clean energy works — for energy security, for affordability, for independence from volatile fossil fuel markets — is right there in the data. Clean energy investments saved China, the European Union, Japan and Korea, Southeast Asia and India a combined US$260 billion in 2025 alone. That money would otherwise have been spent in fossil fuels subsidies or costs, but was made free for other investments – like better schools, health systems and extreme weather protection. China had the largest benefit at US$110 billion. Those savings are real. But they must also reach the two-thirds of humanity that needs them most.

Coal and gas investments is rising 

Unfortunately, the report also shows that Big Oil executives didn’t read this energy crisis as a warning to back down. They took the crisis as a chance to expand production and speculate on higher prices. While oil investment is falling for the third year running, companies are already eyeing new offshore frontiers in Africa, Asia and Latin America — waiting to see how high prices go before committing further.

Meanwhile, coal and gas are not waiting at all. Coal investment has hit a 14-year high, reaching US$180 billion in 2026, with China accounting for 70% of it and India having doubled its coal investment over the past decade. Rather than retreating from the crisis, companies are accelerating investment in Africa, Central and South America while simultaneously pushing deeper into LNG. 

Global LNG investment has surged more than 10% to US$330 billion, a ten-year high, driven largely by the United States — where it turns out the biggest new customers for fossil fuel infrastructure are not oil companies but tech giants. Gas turbine orders hit a 25-year high in 2025, with American tech companies ordering US$28 billion worth of turbines for onsite power generation alone. The AI boom is being built on fossil fuels and those data centres, already consuming 1.5% of global electricity, are on track to more than double their demand by 2030. 

None of this is consequence-free, neither for us or our planet. Coal is the single largest contributor to the human-caused climate crisis, responsible for over 40% of global CO₂ emissions. And gas — still marketed in some quarters as a transition fuel — leaks methane at every stage of production, a greenhouse gas over 80 times more potent than CO₂ over a 20-year period. Every billion that goes into new fossil fuel infrastructure is a decision to lock in decades of emissions the planet has no room left to absorb. 

The contradiction in this report is not a market failure. It is a choice.

While the war in South West Asia (Middle East) did not create the energy transition, it has made its urgency impossible to argue with. Energy generated from the sun and wind cannot be blockaded, weaponized or held hostage the same way as fossil fuel shipping routes can be.

And yet, beyond all logic, billions are still being poured into coal mines, gas pipelines and LNG terminals — infrastructure built to last decades, for a fuel system the world is already moving away from. Every dollar spent locking in fossil fuel dependency is a bet against the direction the world is already travelling — and a cost that will ultimately be borne by the communities least responsible for the crisis.

The renewable revolution is not a future event. It is happening now, in the Philippines, in India, in fifteen African countries quietly breaking solar import records while the headlines focus elsewhere. Now the trillions still flowing to coal, gas and oil need to be stopped urgently. 

Governments have a choice. Stop enabling polluters, and urgently invest money into renewables. 

So do we. Let’s demand better.

Join the Great Power Shift.

 

*The IEA’s $2.2 trillion figure for ‘clean energy’ includes nuclear energy alongside renewables, storage, grids and low-emission fuels. 350.org does not support nuclear as clean energy due its carbon intensive set-up and proven high risk of deadly disasters. We use the IEA’s aggregate here for reference only. 

 

The post Clean energy just hit record investment appeared first on 350.

For Immediate Release

What UNFCCC’s WTO dialogue did—and did not—do-

Climate & Trade Justice Groups React

Bonn, Germany— Join climate and trade justice analysts and advocates with the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) at the UN Bonn Climate talks to hear more about the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s first ever trade and climate dialogue. The dialogue, which occurred on Saturday June 13, included officials from the World Trade Organization (WTO), UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the International Trade Center (ITC). Kicking off a three-year forum mandated at COP30 in Belém, trade and climate officials discussed all things trade at a day-long dialogue focused on the relationship between their two multilateral regimes and changes needed for both.

WHEN: 15 June 2026, 12pm CEST (UTC + 2) 

WHERE: Nairobi 4, Main building, Inside Bonn’s World Conference Center, or webcast here

WHO

• Priscilla Papagiannis, Brazilian Network for Peoples’ Integration (REBRIP)
• Erika Lennon, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
• Luc Tezenas, Resource Justice Network (RJN)
• Victor Menotti, Demand Climate Justice

CONTACT dcj.comms@demandclimatejustice.org

The post Media Advisory: What UNFCCC’s WTO dialogue did—and did not—do appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

Media Advisory

For Immediate Release

Delay, Distract, Destruct, Repeat–

Global North governments abandoning climate action at home and at UN climate talks

Bonn, Germany— The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in Bonn, Germany (SB64) are headed into the final days. In these rooms, governments continue to construct the foundation of international climate collaboration in an era of climate crisis. The details of many of the essential building blocks are still being debated– including on climate finance, just transition, false solutions, historical responsibility, agriculture and a fossil fuel phase-out. 

Global North governments like the United States, United Kingdom, Japan and the European Union are historically most responsible for the climate crisis. The Global North should be the most invested in laying the groundwork to ensure we can build a strong and sustainable house of climate action. Instead, their extraction, colonialism, imperialism, patriarchy, racism and war-mongering has fuelled this planet to the brink of collapse, risking hundreds of millions of lives and livelihoods. According to the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) enshrined in the UNFCCC, Global North governments should be leading the way to a climate just world by doing their fair share of climate action, delivering their climate debt, rapidly enacting just transitions and supporting Global South countries and communities in doing the same.  

Instead of acting like the climate champions they proclaim they are, Global North governments are ramping up a predictable yet inexcusable strategy of “Delay, Distract, Destruct, Repeat.” In the case of the United States, it hasn’t even officially shown up to the table, yet is still pulling the strings behind the scenes. Meanwhile the United Kingdom. Japan and the European Union are rolling back their already very weak climate commitments at home and reneging on all of their responsibilities in the global house of climate action. 

Join members of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) to learn more about how Global North governments are destroying international collaboration here in Bonn and delaying climate action at home, and what can be done to hold them accountable. 

WHEN: Monday 15 June 2026, 11-11.30 CEST (UTC + 2) 

WHERE: Nairobi 4, Main building, Inside the World Conference Center and webcast here

WITH: 

• Leon Sealey-Huggins, War on Want
• Victor Menotti, Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice
• Tobias Holle, Shifting Advocacy
• Analyah Schlaeger dos Santos, ShiftUS, Global Afro Descendants
• Moderated by Nona Chai, Just Transition Alliance

CONTACT: dcj.comms@demandclimatejustice.org

For more detail on DCJ’s demands across all topics on the agenda for Bonn, read  DCJ’s SB64 Position Paper: Advancing Climate Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis

The post Media Advisory: Delay, Distract, Destruct, Repeat appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

MEDIA ADVISORY

For Immediate Release

Just or Bust:

Will Bonn deliver a truly just transition, or bust the phase-out with false solutions?

Bonn, Germany— Saturday marks the close of week one of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in Bonn, Germany. With only one more week left to go, so much remains to accomplish before these negotiations– SB64 – can be considered a true success. 

In one room, governments are discussing the next steps for the Just Transition Mechanism, which was agreed at COP30 thanks to the sustained organising of civil society and movements. But importantly, the creation of a mechanism alone does not guarantee justice. A central question in Bonn is whether the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM) will be people-powered, align with just transition principles and become fully operational by 2027. 

In other rooms, governments– especially from Global North countries– are seeking to seed carbon markets in place of true climate finance and ramp up dangerous, risky technologies like geo-engineering in place of keeping fossil fuels in the ground. All of this equates to those who have done the most to cause the climate crisis orchestrating their great escape from accountability and liability. 

What are the differences between false solutions and real solutions that will advance a just transition and help address the climate crisis?And is progress so far at the Bonn climate negotiations meeting expectations? Join members of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) as we close week one of the UN Bonn climate talks to hear more about the state of negotiations and what governments must make happen in week two.

WHEN: Saturday 13 June 2026, 11-11.30 CEST (UTC + 2) 

WHERE: Nairobi 4, Main building, Inside the World Conference Center and webcast here

WITH: 

• Nona Chai, Just Transition Alliance 
• Theresa Rose Sebastian, Re Earth Initiative
• Ranjana Giri, Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development
• Kaveri Choudhury, ETC group 
• Moderated by Rachitaa Gupta, Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice

CONTACT: dcj.comms@demandclimatejustice.org 

The post Media Advisory: Just or Bust appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

We invite you to watch this short “teaser” video of "Radical Visions Reconnecting Academia and Nature: A Community Truth, Reckoning and Right Relationship" from a two-day event in March 2026.

The post Radical Visions Reconnecting Academia and Nature: A Community Truth, Reckoning and Right Relationship appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

By Pat Elder
June12, 2026

Damhussøen, a large lake in the heart of Copenhagen,
is lovely, but the water and fish are poisoned.

Denmark may possess some of the most extensive PFAS monitoring data in Europe, yet the results from the Forever Pollution Project reveal contamination levels in fish, sewage sludge, and surface waters that challenge the assumptions underlying European PFAS policy itself. Thousands of measurements collected by Danish authorities show that PFAS contamination is not confined to a handful of industrial sites or military installations, although they are leading sources of contamination.

The chemicals appear throughout military, industrial and residential wastewater systems.  Urban watersheds, aquatic food webs, and agricultural waste streams are profoundly impacted across the country. The Danish data reveal a simple but troubling reality. PFAS get around. They move through wastewater systems, surface waters, fish, wildlife, sewage sludge, and agricultural landscapes with remarkable efficiency. The picture that emerges is of contaminants that have become embedded in modern society, spreading through environmental systems like a cancer that has metastasized.

The Danish results are alarming. Fish collected from Copenhagen's Damhussøen contained approximately 355,000 nanograms per kilogram of total PFAS. That’s the same as 355,000 parts per trillion. In the absence of fish consumption advisories, many people assume the fish are safe to eat. But the government's silence should not be mistaken for a declaration of safety. At the same time, Denmark and the European Union are working to keep these chemicals below 100 parts per trillion in drinking water.

Sludge, Surface Waters, and Fish

Sewage sludge samples in Denmark reached concentrations exceeding 70,000 nanograms per kilogram (parts per trillion) of total PFAS while Denmark continues to recycle sewage sludge to agricultural land. In contrast, the state of Maine banned the land application of sewage sludge entirely after PFAS contamination from biosolids was shown to cause widespread contamination of milk and eggs. Several U.S. states have now adopted legislation. Michigan allows land application only when combined PFOS/PFOA concentrations are below 20 µg/kg, although many in the scientific community claim this is too high.

The PFAS in sludge poisons soil, crops, farm animals, humans, groundwater, and surface water. The chemicals may never break down, so it is miserable public policy to allow these carcinogens to be spread on agricultural fields. When the rains come, the contaminants act like a giant coffee percolator, creating a witch’s brew of lethal leachate.

Macbeth’s three witches chanting “double double toil and trouble. For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

Surface waters throughout Denmark show dangerous levels of PFOS that wildly bioaccumulate in plant and animal living tissue.  Yet, while the European Food Safety Authority has established a low health-based threshold for PFAS exposure, European Union regulations continue to permit the sale of fish containing PFAS concentrations that exceed the threshold after only a few grams of some fish are consumed. Denmark's data-rich record therefore exposes a question that extends far beyond its borders: are European governments measuring a public-health crisis that existing policies are simply not equipped to address?

Denmark's monitoring network has revealed widespread PFAS contamination, but it fails to provide a complete picture of where contamination originates or how it moves through the environment. The available data provide little insight into military sources, despite decades of military activity at air bases, naval facilities, and training grounds that have recklessly contaminated our world.

The Danish data reveal contamination that should command public attention. Fish collected from Damhussøen contained approximately 311,000 ng/kg PFOS and roughly 355,000 ng/kg total PFAS.  

(Let's identify these pesky acronyms. PFAS represent all 40,000  per-and poly fluoroalkyl substances known to exist, while PFOS is an abbreviation for per fluoro octane sulfonate, a particularly deadly PFAS compound.)

A review of publicly available reporting and government communications found no evidence that the astonishing Damhussøen fish results has been reported in the press.

Such concentrations are alarming because PFOS are carcinogenic and fish are typically the leading pathway to human ingestion. According to U.S. EPA research, PFOS concentrations in fish tissue can reach 4,000 times the concentrations found in surrounding water. PFOS levels in the single digits in lakes and streams may therefore produce heavily contaminated fish.

SLUDGE

The top five PFAS sludge concentrations in Denmark based on the Denmark wastewater-treatment-plant dataset used in the Forever Pollution / Le Monde project.‍ ‍

Photo - Horsens Central Wastewater Treatment Plant, (Horsens Centralrenseanlæg)

Four of the five highest concentrations in Denmark were associated with large urban wastewater systems serving major population centers.

Sewage sludge can be transported long distances by truck or ship before land application.  The location of a wastewater treatment plant, therefore, does not indicate where PFAS-contaminated biosolids are ultimately spread.

The location of the plant does not reveal the military bases, airports, or industrial sources responsible for initially introducing PFAS into the sewer system.

The Le Monde/Forever Pollution data reveal that PFAS contamination in Danish sewage sludge is widespread and, in many locations, extraordinarily high. Analysis of the Danish wastewater-treatment-plant dataset identified several sludge samples containing tens of thousands of nanograms per kilogram of total PFAS.

Sewage sludge serves as a major reservoir for PFAS collected from households, industry, commercial activities, and urban runoff. The sludge data also demonstrate that PFAS contamination is not limited to a handful of military and industrial  locations but is distributed across wastewater systems throughout the country.

Because Denmark has historically recycled sewage sludge to agricultural land, these findings raise important questions about the long-term movement of PFAS from wastewater systems into soils and drainage waters.

SURFACE WATER - Top 5 PFAS Surface Water Sites in Denmark

Highest reported total PFAS concentrations in surface water samples from the Denmark EPA dataset.

Given the rural setting and the apparent absence of industrial or military activity, the contamination near Alstrup (Guldborgsund) may be more consistent with historical sewage sludge application or other wastewater-derived sources that have dispersed PFAS across agricultural land.

At first glance, PFAS concentrations in surface waters may seem modest when compared to the extraordinarily high concentrations found in sewage sludge, where levels can be several orders of magnitude greater than those measured in streams, rivers, and lakes. Yet these findings are highly significant because PFAS, particularly PFOS, can accumulate dramatically in aquatic food webs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reported bioaccumulation factors for PFOS in fish of up to 4,000 times the concentrations measured in surrounding water.

 Because PFAS are highly persistent and continuously transported through rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, contamination that appears modest in the water column can ultimately result in substantial concentrations in aquatic, terrestrial, and human life.

BIOTA

Top Five PFAS Biota Concentrations in Denmark

The highest PFAS concentrations in Danish biota were recorded in samples collected from lakes and stream systems.

The most contaminated sample was collected from Damhussøen in Copenhagen, where total PFAS concentrations reached 355,080 ng/kg fresh weight, including approximately 311,000 ng/kg of PFOS alone.

Although the PFAS Data Hub classifies these samples only as 'biota,' the reporting units, monitoring locations, and PFAS profiles strongly suggest that many represent fish collected under Denmark's national environmental monitoring program.

The absence of species information in the publicly available dataset limits interpretation because PFAS accumulation can vary substantially among fish species, shellfish, and aquatic invertebrates.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the European Union's independent scientific agency responsible for assessing risks related to food, animal feed, nutrition, animal health, and environmental contaminants. The agency has developed guidelines for PFAS consumption.

The EFSA’s “tolerable weekly intake” is 4.4 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per week for the sum of PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, and PFHxS. Increasing numbers of scientists argue that no levels of PFAS are safe because the carcinogens bioaccumulate in our bodies. The EFSA’s tolerable weekly intake is a scientific health benchmark, not a legal limit.

.

Damhussøen Fishing in Denmark is a nationally supported Danish fishing portal that publishes fishing regulations and site-specific guidance.‍ ‍

How much PFOS is in this tiny piece of contaminated fish?‍ ‍

• The piece of fish shown on the scale weighs 0.08 grams.

• Fish from Damhussøen have been reported to contain 311,000 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg) of PFOS.

• That is the same as 311 ng PFOS per gram of fish.

• Therefore, the tiny piece of fish shown here contains approximately 25 nanograms of PFOS. (311 ng/g × 0.08 g = 24.88 ng PFOS)

• EFSA’s Tolerable Weekly Intake = 4.4 ng/kg body weight/week

• Child's weight = 25 kg

• Child’s weekly intake = 4.4 × 25 = 110 ng/week

• PFOS in fish piece = 24.88 ng

• 24.88 ÷ 110 = 0.2262

‍ The 25 nanograms of PFOS in the tiny piece of Damhussøen fish represents approximately 23% of EFSA's recommended maximum weekly intake for a 25-kilogram child. The child could consume four of these tiny pieces a week.

‍ Now, let’s consider a meal

• A typical serving of fish weighs about 200 grams.

• A 200-gram serving of Damhussøen fish would contain approximately 62,200 nanograms of PFOS.(311 ng/g × 200 g = 62,200 ng)

• For a 25-kilogram child, that is about 191 times EFSA's recommended weekly intake. (62,200 ng ÷ 325 ng = 191)

• "Bon appétit!"

The concern is not that a child becomes sick after eating a single meal. Rather, the concern is that PFOS accumulates in the body over time. Prenatal and childhood exposures have been linked to reduced vaccine effectiveness, impaired immune function, behavioral problems, elevated cholesterol, and developmental effects. Scientists have found that even very low levels of PFOS in the blood affect children's health, which is why European regulators established the threshold in the first place.

EFSA does not regulate food. It provides scientific advice to the European Commission and member states. The tolerable weekly intake is essentially a warning threshold developed by toxicologists and epidemiologists. Exceeding it does not trigger a fine or make a fish illegal to eat. Instead, it indicates a level of exposure that EFSA believes may pose health concerns, particularly over a lifetime,

There are no obvious virtual public records of specific, prominent Danish public fish advisories for Damhussøen and other bodies of water comparable to the advisories commonly issued by U.S. states around military bases. Denmark has focused more on environmental monitoring rather than fish consumption bans or advisories.

Europe's leading scientific health benchmark for PFOS exposure

‍Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 on food contaminants sets maximum concentrations for high-profile PFAS in food. The limits apply to four compounds: PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, and PFHxS.  

‍These ten PFAS are frequently found in fish. Their combined total may exceed that of the four EU-regulated compounds: PFUnDA, PFDA, PFTrDA, PFDoDA, PFHpS, PFDS, PFPeS, PFBS, 6:2 FTS, FOSA   

‍See Table 1 below. If higher concentrations are discovered in laboratory tests, the product must be removed from the market.‍‍

We already saw that the EFSA says a 25-kg child should not exceed 110 nanograms per week from these four PFAS combined.

Now, let’s look at the Commission's legal maximum for perch, whitefish, char, eel, roach, smelt, etc.:

• 45 µg/kg (sum of the four PFAS).

• Convert that to nanograms:  (or ng/g)

• A fish at the legal limit would therefore contain 45 ng PFAS per gram of fish.

• How much fish would a 25-kg child need to eat to reach EFSA's weekly limit?

• 110 ng  ÷ 45 ng/g  = 2.4 grams of fish.

In other words:

A perch or whitefish containing PFAS at the maximum concentration allowed under EU food law would cause a 25-kg child to reach EFSA's entire weekly intake after eating only about 2.4 grams of fish.

That's less than a bite.

For a 70-kg adult: 4.4 × 70 =3 08 ng/week

308 ÷ 45 = 6.8 g

An adult would reach EFSA's weekly intake after eating only about 7 grams of fish at the legal limit.

Again, that's a tiny amount of fish.

It’s time for Europe to wake up to the nightmare of PFAS. The EFSA reports that for PFOS and PFOA, "Fish and other seafood" was the most important contributor to dietary exposure. EFSA's 2018 assessment  estimated that up to 86% of dietary PFAS exposure from food came from "fish and other seafood."

According to EPA research, PFOS concentrations in fish tissue can reach thousands of times the concentrations found in surrounding water. Even relatively modest PFOS levels in lakes and streams may therefore produce heavily contaminated fish.

The sludge data are equally troubling. The highest concentration identified in the Danish dataset occurred in Horsens, where sewage sludge contained approximately 70,700 ng/kg total PFAS, including about 67,000 ng/kg PFOS. The median sludge concentration in the Danish data is approximately 24,900 ng/kg total PFAS, indicating that elevated contamination is not confined to a handful of isolated locations. Because sewage sludge has historically been spread on agricultural land, PFAS contained in sludge may migrate into soils, crops, groundwater, drainage systems, and nearby surface waters.

Denmark's extensive monitoring effort raises an obvious question: if so much attention has been devoted to PFAS elsewhere, what do we know about Greenland?  Coming up in Part 2.

Canada is taking action to build a stronger, more secure and competitive economy by investing in a Cascade-led coalition of geothermal experts and innovators.

On June 11, the Honourable Tim Hodgson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, announced approximately $468,000 in funding through Natural Resources Canada’s Energy Innovation Program to support the Canadian Deep Geothermal Roadmap project, led by the Canadian Deep Geothermal Coalition.

This project will develop Canada’s first national roadmap for deep geothermal energy resources, which harness the Earth’s natural heat to provide reliable, clean energy. CDGC will lead the development of the roadmap, with Cascade Institute serving as the Secretariat to support co-ordination and delivery. CDGC will work with industry, researchers, Indigenous partners and governments to identify technology opportunities and research and development priorities to support next-generation geothermal development in Canada.

“Canada’s clean energy future relies on the talent and innovation of Canadian researchers, businesses and industry leaders, and British Columbia is leading the way,” said Minister Hodgson. “Our government is committed to creating new jobs for Canadians while supporting technologies that will help meet future energy needs.”

Thomas Homer-Dixon, founder and executive director of the Cascade Institute, applauded the announcement as an vital step toward addressing serious challenges: “Canada has a strong foundation for next-generation geothermal — from world-class geology to deep subsurface expertise and a highly skilled workforce. What’s been missing is a clear, shared path forward. This roadmap will bring together industry, researchers, Indigenous partners and governments to define that path, grounded in evidence and focused on practical opportunities. With federal support, the Coalition can develop a strategy that helps translate Canada’s strengths into real projects and long-term sector growth.”

Conventional geothermal technologies can already provide clean and reliable heat and power. Next-generation geothermal systems have the potential to do this across more regions of Canada while leveraging Canadian expertise in areas such as drilling and subsurface engineering. The roadmap will help enable investment and support the growth of Canada’s geothermal sector.

The Canadian Deep Geothermal Coalition, launched in 2025, is a growing alliance of organizations committed to accelerating deep geothermal development in Canada.

The post Canada invests in first national geothermal energy roadmap; Cascade Institute to lead coalition appeared first on Cascade Institute.

BONN, 11 June — At the UN climate negotiations SB64, civil society organizations, grassroots movements, and climate justice advocates from across Africa, Asia, and Latin America came together today to strongly reject geoengineering as a false solution and dangerous distraction from real climate action.

Speakers from across the Global South warned that geoengineering, which is the large-scale technological interventions designed to manipulate the Earth’s systems, is being advanced despite its profound ecological, social, and geopolitical risks. Rather than addressing the root causes of the climate crisis, these approaches enable business to continue as usual.

At the same time, geoengineering is being advanced through climate policy spaces, particularly through the Paris Agreement’s Article 6 which gives entry to carbon markets. Kwami Kpondzo, Global Forest Coalition said, “Africa must not be taken in or drawn into a new cycle of colonialism disguised in this wave of carbon markets and carbon credits. Polluters are promoting geoengineering technologies to maintain carbon market schemes which continue to worsen the climate crisis.”

The African continent has strongly opposed geoengineering technologies, especially solar geoengineering. This was evident at the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) meeting last year where governments expressed that “such technologies must not be considered as viable options within the multilateral environmental agenda” and called for “the establishment of a Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement”  which would ban any efforts to normalise these technologies. Kpondzo added, “We welcome African leadership in advancing efforts on an international solar non use agreement.”

Gina Cortes Valderrama, Women and Gender Constituency of UNFCCC added, “The Women and Gender Constituency also calls on the UNFCCC and all UN bodies to recognize solar geoengineering as a category of technology that poses unprecedented risks, that is advancing without consent or justice frameworks, and that functions as a deliberate deferral of the structural transformation we need. We support the Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement.”

Climate justice campaigners also pointed to the colonial dimensions of geoengineering, and intersections between extractivism and the current destructive development model, noting how they reproduce historical patterns of exploitation, turning lands, waters, and skies in the Global South into sites for experimentation and testing.

While sharing perspectives from Asia and the Pacific regions, Kaveri Choudhury, ETC Group said, “We are deeply concerned by the push for geoengineering proposals in the Asia-Pacific region at a time when climate solutions need real solutions more than ever. Geoengineering is a false climate solution that threatens the very integrity of life on earth. We need to urgently focus on protecting ecosystems for their intrinsic value and centered on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, local communities and peasants who are the guardians of these ecosystems.”

Gina Cortes Valderrama, Women and Gender Constituency added, “Geoengineering is a political choice that sends the message to the people that it is preferable to risk unprecedented harm to planetary systems than to confront the fossil fuel economy and the corporate power that sustains it. We are not here to ask how to govern a technology that should not exist. We are here to support the real solutions already being built by frontline communities.”

“Indigenous Peoples and local communities have the solution for global warming. These include the use of traditional knowledge through agroecology and community forest conservation,” added Kpondzo.

The press conference concluded with a strong call for South-South solidarity, as movements across Africa, Asia, and Latin America continue to build collective resistance to geoengineering. 

Additional Information

1. Press Conference Livestream
2. Policy decision: African Environmental Ministers Call for Establishment of Solar Non Use Agreement
3. Policy Brief: Don’t Geoengineer Africa
4. Press Release: African Climate Justice Movements Celebrate African Leadership in Rejecting Solar Geoengineering
5. Opinion: Africa Is Not a Solar Geoengineering Test Site
6. Geoengineering Projects Tracker 

EWG statement on California Supreme Court declining to hear rooftop solar case Anthony Lacey June 10, 2026

SACRAMENTO – California’s Supreme Court in a brief order today declined to hear an appeal by the Environmental Working Group and allies of an appeals court decision that threatens the future of affordable rooftop solar in the state.

The high court’s decision means the lower court’s ruling stands. The California Court of Appeals in March upheld a California Public Utilities Commission policy sharply scaling back the state’s once-thriving rooftop solar program, known as net energy metering. 

The state’s monopoly utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison – sought the policy, seeing rooftop solar as their main competition and their regulator went along with them.

EWG, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Protect Our Communities Foundation in April petitioned the state Supreme Court to review the appeals court’s ruling.

The advocates have argued that the appeals court, in upholding the policy, gave too much deference to the commission’s decision-making. 

They also said both the policy and ruling ignored the California State Legislature’s clear directives on how to value rooftop solar. Specifically, they said the ruling ignored many benefits of small, distributed solar systems, which help lower costs and make energy more affordable for everyone at a time of sky-high energy bills.

The following is a statement from Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California:

This is a deeply disappointing decision that sets California back on its clean energy goals. The net metering policy is fundamentally flawed and has had disastrous effects in causing rooftop solar installations to plummet, with significant job losses in the once-thriving solar industry.

At a time when Californians struggle to pay some of the highest electricity rates in the country, it makes no sense to leave in place a policy that is anti-affordability, anti-clean energy and will further complicate the state’s ability to meet its clean energy goals.

EWG will continue to advocate for sensible, pro-renewable policies that promote reliable, clean power like solar and that can help with lowering the cost of energy in California.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Energy Renewable Energy California Decision leaves in place harmful policy undermining cost-saving clean energy Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 June 10, 2026

By Pat Elder
June 10, 2026

See the District Council’s statement here.

1. "It has not been confirmed that these substances originated from the site."

This is the most vulnerable statement in the Council's response. The statement leaves readers with the impression that the origin of the contamination remains largely unknown. The evidence suggests otherwise.

The former RAF Upper Heyford was operated by the U.S. Air Force for decades and hosted activities widely recognized as major sources of PFAS contamination, including the use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) in fire-training exercises, emergency response operations, hangar suppression systems, and fuel-handling areas. Historical records document practices that allowed firefighting foams, fuel mixtures, and other wastes to enter the environment.

Hundreds of brooks and rivers draining from U.S. Air Force bases worldwide have demonstrated similar PFAS contamination, although not at these ghastly levels.

The chemical profile of the contamination provides an unmistakable line of evidence. The PFAS detected in Gallos Brook are dominated by PFOS and PFHxS, compounds that are widely recognized as characteristic components of the legacy 3M firefighting foams used extensively at U.S. Air Force installations worldwide. This PFOS/PFHxS signature has been repeatedly identified at military airfields and fire-training areas and is one of the most recognizable fingerprints of historic AFFF contamination. The combination of this chemical fingerprint, the location of the contamination, and the documented history of firefighting foam use at Upper Heyford makes the former airbase the obvious source of the contamination.

It is, however, possible there may be other sources, including private and public entities who may be contributing a small fraction of the contamination and therefore, are ultimately liable for damages, once a thorough investigation has been completed. At multiple U.S. Air Force bases of comparable size, several hundred sites have been examined in surface water, soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, and sediment. 

Even the most strident skeptics among you will eventually come to understand the scourge of these chemicals.

2. The statement ignores the magnitude of contamination

One of the most striking features of the Council's response is what it does not say. At no point are readers informed of the actual PFAS concentrations measured in Gallos Brook.

This omission is significant because the severity of contamination cannot be understood without discussing concentration levels. A stream containing a few nanograms per liter of PFAS presents a very different situation from one containing tens of thousands of nanograms per liter. The Council acknowledges the presence of PFAS but never explains whether the detected concentrations are low, moderate, or exceptionally high. The same tactic has been used for ten years by governments worldwide. England is dreadfully behind the learning curve.

The result is that the public is deprived of the context necessary to evaluate the seriousness of the contamination. Without discussing the actual measurements, the response risks portraying a significant and threatening environmental issue as a routine regulatory matter.

3. "There is no evidence to suggest an immediate risk to the health of residents."

This phrase is frequently used by government agencies dealing with environmental contamination, but it deserves careful scrutiny.

The statement refers specifically to an "immediate" risk and to "residents." It does not say there is no long-term risk. It does not say the contamination is harmless. It does not say that fish are safe to eat, that wildlife is unaffected, or that exposure pathways have been adequately characterized.

Nor does the Council call for the comprehensive environmental and public health investigation that the situation warrants. The response contains no commitment to expanded surface water monitoring, fish tissue analysis, groundwater investigations, soil sampling, household dust testing, air monitoring, or biomonitoring of residents through blood testing. Without such measures, it is impossible to fully understand the extent of contamination, identify all significant exposure pathways, or assess the long-term implications for nearby communities.

The absence of evidence of an immediate health emergency should not be mistaken for evidence of safety. PFAS contamination is often characterized by chronic, low-level exposure occurring over many years through water, food, soil, air, dust, and other environmental pathways. Determining whether such exposures are occurring around Upper Heyford requires additional investigation, not reassurance based on incomplete information. Given the frightening concentrations reported in Gallos Brook and the former airbase's history of firefighting foam use, a comprehensive environmental assessment should be regarded as a necessary next step rather than an optional precaution.

Most of the health concerns associated with PFAS arise from long-term exposure over many years. Scientific studies have linked certain PFAS compounds to elevated cholesterol, immune system suppression, thyroid disease, developmental effects, kidney cancer, and testicular cancer. The absence of an immediate health emergency should not be confused with the absence of a significant public health concern. The Council's language attempts to reassure residents without adequately explaining the nature of the risks that PFAS contamination presents over time.

4. The response avoids discussing fish and wildlife

Perhaps the most important omission in the entire document is the absence of any discussion of fish and wildlife.

PFAS are well known for their ability to bioaccumulate. The concentrations in water become substantially higher in aquatic organisms as these chemicals move through food webs. This is one of the principal reasons PFAS contamination is regarded as a public health and ecological concern around the world.

The Council discusses water quality, planning controls, and drinking water supplies, but never addresses whether fish, aquatic organisms, sediments, or wildlife have been tested. Nor does it discuss whether fish consumption advisories or ecological assessments may eventually be warranted. By focusing almost exclusively on drinking water, the response overlooks one of the most significant pathways through which PFAS can affect both humans and ecosystems.

The ecological story begins in the sediments of Gallos Brook. PFAS accumulate in stream sediments and are taken up by aquatic invertebrates—the insects, worms, crustaceans, and other tiny organisms that form the foundation of the aquatic food chain. These organisms are consumed by small fish, which in turn are eaten by larger fish, birds, mammals, and other predators. At each step, PFAS can become more concentrated in the tissues of living organisms. The contamination therefore does not remain confined to the water itself; it moves through the ecosystem.

The result is a contamination pathway that extends far beyond the brook. Fish, birds, otters, foxes, and other wildlife may all be exposed through the food chain. Ultimately, humans may also be exposed through the consumption of contaminated fish and other locally harvested foods. Without testing sediments, aquatic invertebrates, fish, and wildlife, regulators cannot accurately assess the full environmental consequences of the contamination or determine the extent to which PFAS have become embedded within the Gallos Brook ecosystem.

The Council's statement also fails to acknowledge another important exposure pathway: contaminated air and dust.

PFAS, particularly PFOS, bind strongly to soils, sediments, and organic matter. Along the banks of Gallos Brook, contaminated sediments are deposited during periods of high water. As water levels recede, these sediments dry in the sun and can be broken down into fine particles by weather, foot traffic, maintenance activities, and wind. Once airborne, contaminated dust can be inhaled directly or carried into nearby homes, schools, and workplaces, where it may accumulate over time.

Exposure to PFAS is therefore not limited to direct contact with contaminated water. Scientific studies have increasingly identified household dust as an important pathway of human exposure, particularly for children. Contaminated dust can be inhaled, ingested, or tracked indoors from contaminated outdoor environments. Yet the Council's response contains no discussion of dust sampling, air monitoring, soil testing along the brook, or any effort to determine whether PFAS contamination is moving beyond the waterway itself and into the surrounding community.

This omission is particularly troubling because PFOS, the dominant compound detected in Gallos Brook, is a carcinogen that has been associated with serious health concerns and is classified as a human carcinogen. None of these issues are addressed in the Council's statement.

5. The focus shifts from pollution to planning

Residents concerned about Gallos Brook are primarily asking questions about contamination, environmental damage, and responsibility. Yet much of the Council's response focuses instead on planning procedures.

Large portions of the statement describe how future planning applications will be assessed, how contamination studies may be required, and how remediation conditions can be imposed on developers. While these are legitimate responsibilities of the Council, they do not directly address the concerns that prompted the public response.

The central questions remain: How severe is it in multiple environmental media, and how far has it spread? Who will investigate it?

The Council's statement never addresses perhaps the most important practical question: Who will pay? If further investigations confirm extensive PFAS contamination originating from the former airbase, the costs of characterization, long-term monitoring, ecological restoration, and remediation could ultimately reach tens or even hundreds of millions of pounds. Will those costs fall on local taxpayers, developers, the British government? The United States government will not admit wrongdoing and will not agree to any form of compensation.

6. Claims regarding remediation are vague

The Council states that land contamination was assessed and remediated where necessary during previous phases of redevelopment. However, no evidence is provided that PFAS were specifically investigated as part of those assessments.

This distinction is important because much of the redevelopment at Heyford Park occurred before PFAS became a major focus of environmental regulation. Many contamination investigations conducted during the 1990s and early 2000s concentrated on petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, heavy metals, and other traditional pollutants. In numerous cases throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere, PFAS were not included in testing programs at all.

Consequently, a statement that contamination was assessed and remediated should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that PFAS contamination was identified, characterized, or addressed. The public deserves clarity regarding whether PFAS were actually analyzed during those earlier investigations.

7. PFAS are no longer merely an "emerging" issue

The Council characterizes PFAS as an "emerging national issue." While that description may once have been appropriate, it no longer reflects the state of scientific knowledge.

PFAS have become one of the most extensively studied classes of environmental contaminants in the world. Governments across Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia have established drinking water standards, issued fish consumption advisories, restricted certain PFAS compounds, funded major research initiatives, and pursued legal action against manufacturers and polluters.  England is dreadfully behind.

Describing PFAS as an emerging issue risks minimizing the depth of scientific understanding that already exists. The challenge facing regulators today is not whether PFAS are a concern, but how best to manage contamination that has already become widespread.

Conclusion

The Council's statement is notable, not for what it says, but for what it leaves unsaid. It does not discuss the extraordinary concentrations measured in Gallos Brook. It does not address fish, wildlife, sediments, household dust, or the potential for PFAS to move through food webs and into surrounding communities. It offers reassurance while proposing no comprehensive investigation capable of determining the true extent of contamination. These omissions matter because PFAS are among the most persistent and extensively studied pollutants in the world. They do not simply disappear. They accumulate in ecosystems, concentrate in living organisms, and remain in the environment for generations.

The residents of Upper Heyford deserve more than carefully worded assurances and planning discussions. They deserve a transparent, independent investigation of surface water, groundwater, sediments, fish, wildlife, soil, air, and human exposure pathways. They deserve clear answers about responsibility, long-term health implications, and the potentially enormous costs of remediation. The central question is no longer whether PFAS contamination exists in Gallos Brook. The evidence has already answered that. The question is whether public officials will confront the problem with the urgency, transparency, and scientific rigor it demands, or continue to manage public concern while the contamination remains in place.

 

 

 

 

Katherine Matos Meza

Ask 2,000 Canadians what they think about geothermal energy, and most will answer with a shrug.  

That shrug is loaded with meaning to Katherine Matos Meza, a Cascade Institute researcher studying public perceptions of geothermal.  

When she and Carlos Gorraez Meraz, a collaborator at Royal Roads University, recently asked 2,603 people in western Canada to share their impressions of the clean-energy option, the predominant response was a vague, fuzzy familiarity.  

That’s both good news and bad news, according to the new report they co-authored, Deep Listening: Assessing the social acceptance of geothermal energy in Alberta and British Columbia. 

“Public perceptions around geothermal are still forming,” says Matos Meza. “That’s a great opportunity to engage people, to educate them, to help them understand the important role geothermal energy could play in ensuring clean, secure, and affordable electricity for Canadians.” 

Recent advances have made geothermal energy — clean, inexhaustible power extracted from hot rock kilometres below the surface — a powerful addition to the mix of technologies like wind and solar.  

But of all the energy sources Matos Meza asked about in a survey of Albertans and British Columbians last year, geothermal had the lowest familiarity. Acceptance is moderate and opinions are soft. People have not yet decided what to make of geothermal because, in general, they’ve barely heard of it.  

For Matos Meza, that gap in understanding is simultaneously a big opportunity and a flashing red warning.  

“Right now, they’re subject to misinformation, or to other actors who might give them negative insights.” 

Matos Meza contributes research to all of Cascade’s programs — geothermal, polycrisis, democracy — thanks to her background in stakeholder mapping, survey design, and environmental impact assessment. She has worked in both the public and private sectors, and holds a master’s degree in Environment and Management from Royal Roads University. She also built the data behind the Polycrisis Community Map, which links researchers working on the world’s interlocking crises.  Her study of public acceptance of geothermal is aimed at helping entrepreneurs, policymakers, and communities realize the environmental, financial, and social benefits of the technology.  

Matos Meza says the key finding of her research is that there’s still time to positively shape public perceptions of geothermal, whereas perceptions of other energy forms are tougher to budge.  

Carlo Gorraez Meraz of Royal Roads University.

A second part of the research, currently ongoing, includes qualitative analysis of the survey’s open-ended question about perceived risk. Open-ended questions like these are about more than tallying yes and no answers, says Matos Meza. 

“From there we can identify information gaps, emotional threats, technical concerns, structural distrust. And we can do it at an early stage, before concerns harden into positions.” 

This is where Matos Meza’s work plugs into Cascade’s overarching mission. The Institute sees geothermal energy as a “high-leverage intervention” to address the polycrisis — a single push that can simultaneously address climate heating, energy insecurity, and economic inequalities.    

Matos Meza understands that technological transitions are also social ones. Without social acceptance, the advancement of this promising but underdeveloped clean energy resource could stall. With strong social acceptance, geothermal can be part of the positive snowball effect the Cascade Institute calls a virtuous cascade.  

“Perceptions are evolving fast,” she says. “The sooner people are introduced to the benefits of geothermal energy, the better.” 

That’s why she believes we need to investigate social acceptance now, while the ground for growing public perceptions is still fertile: “My goal is to understand the forces shaping social acceptance of geothermal well enough that we can actually address them through effective and transparent communication.” 

The post Researchers use “deep listening” to gauge geothermal sentiments appeared first on Cascade Institute.

California Assembly utilities committee advances bill cutting red tape for ‘balcony solar’ Anthony Lacey June 10, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group today applauds the state Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee for advancing a bill that will help Californians tackle sky-high energy bills by installing small “balcony solar” systems in their homes.

The Plug and Play Solar Act, SB 868, would cut the red tape blocking these affordable systems from being placed in apartments, condos and single-family homes. The bill would also ensure the systems meet strict safety standards.

The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network. The legislation cleared the Senate last month. The Assembly Appropriations Committee will debate it in August. 

“Balcony solar lets California residents place a small solar panel on a sunny patio or balcony, plug it into a regular wall outlet and start saving on their electricity bill right away,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California.

Balcony solar already thrives in Europe, with over 4 million systems installed in Germany alone. And efforts to ease their deployment continue to gather steam in other countries.

But in the U.S., regulatory barriers have kept this technology out of reach for many. SB 868 removes those barriers while setting statewide safety standards.  

Other states are also taking steps to make these systems more accessible, including in New York, where a balcony solar bill now sits on Gov. Kathy Hochul’s desk.  

‘Powerful cost-cutting tool’

“Installing balcony solar is as simple as plugging an appliance like a toaster into a standard wall outlet,” said Del Chiario. “At a time when many struggle to pay their energy bills, balcony solar is a powerful cost-cutting tool.”

A single 400-watt balcony solar system can cover roughly 14% of the average apartment’s electricity usage, providing savings of about $250 per year. While the cost of balcony solar starts around $500 today, with broader adoption enabled by SB 868, EWG expects costs to fall, making solar even more accessible to renters and low-income households.

California electricity rates have nearly doubled over the past decade, leaving the state with the nation’s second-highest energy prices. SB 868 provides consumers with a straightforward way to take control of their energy bills.

The bill ensures these plug-and-play systems meet strict safety standards. All systems must be certified by UL, or Underwriters Laboratories, the global independent safety science company, or an equivalent national testing lab. To protect utility workers and prevent electrical hazards, systems must automatically shut off within seconds if the grid goes down. 

System size is capped at 1,200 watts, enough to power everyday appliances such as fridges, lights, Wi-Fi routers and window AC units.

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Energy Renewable Energy California Affordable plug-in systems can generate savings on monthly electricity bills Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 June 10, 2026