G1. Progressive Green

In March the world’s largest tourism trade fair took place again in Berlin and was met with resistance from Berlin to Mexico. As the event put the spotlight on the upcoming FIFA World Cup, campaigners called out the deadly impact the tournament and a profit-driven model of tourism have on human rights. Here Asamblea Berlin explain the action they took at the fair to denounce the industry.

Source

Vermont passes first-in-the-nation bill to ban toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease Anthony Lacey May 13, 2026

In a historic show of bipartisan leadership, Vermont lawmakers today approved a bill to ban the highly toxic herbicide paraquat. It’s the first time a state legislature has passed legislation to phaseout paraquat, a chemical linked to Parkinson’s disease.

House Bill 739 would, if enacted, end Vermonters’ exposure to one of the most dangerous pesticides still in use. 

The Environmental Working Group is urging Gov. Phil Scott to sign the legislation and set a first-in-the-nation precedent for banning paraquat. The vote also comes as 12 other states have introduced bills to ban or restrict the chemical and California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation is re-reviewing paraquat.

Paraquat has been linked not only to Parkinson’s disease but also to other serious health harms, including cancer. More than 70 countries have banned paraquat due to these health concerns, yet it remains used in the U.S.

“With today’s vote, Vermont is making history and putting the health of its residents first,” said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at EWG. “This is the first time any legislative body in the country has passed a bill to fully ban paraquat, sending a powerful signal that the days of tolerating this dangerous chemical are numbered. 

“Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike have made clear that safeguarding farmers, rural communities and children must take precedence over continued use of one of the most hazardous pesticides still on the market.” he added. “Now that the House has passed this landmark bill, we urge Gov. Scott to sign it.”

State Rep. Esme Cole (D-Windsor) and state Sen. Martine Gulick (D-Chittenden-Central District) championed their chambers’ versions of the bills. 

In addition to EWG, groups supporting the paraquat ban bill include the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, The Michael J. Fox Foundation, Parkinson’s Foundation, the American Parkinson Disease Association, the Vermont Natural Resources Council and others.

“No one, including farmers, farmworkers, families or children, should be exposed to a chemical with such well-documented risks,” added Horsfield.

Once Scott signs the legislation, it would mark a major milestone in the fight to eliminate paraquat use in the U.S. and could accelerate efforts in other states. 

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and education, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Paraquat Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 13, 2026

Food industry claims state chemical laws will spike grocery bills, but that doesn’t add up Ketura Persellin May 13, 2026

In a page straight out of the industry playbook, a powerful group of U.S. food companies has funded a “study” claiming consumers will pay more if harmful chemicals are labeled or banned.

The industry front group, which represents food giants Nestlé and General Mills, among many others, is also backing other efforts to quash states’ ability to enact stricter food chemical laws.

The Policy Navigation Group, a lobbying and consulting firm whose clients include Dow Chemical and Snack International, published the so-called study. It says food chemical laws in Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia would increase household grocery spending by 12%, or $860, per year. 

Louisiana and Texas enacted laws requiring a simple label or QR code be added to a food products packaging if it includes select ingredients of concern, such as certain artificial dyes and preservatives. West Virginia’s law bans food products containing potentially harmful ingredients like propylparaben, Red Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 40 and Yellow Dye No. 5 from being sold in the state.

Federal regulatory failures have driven dozens of states to introduce similar laws targeting dyes, additives and other ingredients of concern.

But the study has serious flaws. From faulty data to bad math and poor logic, scrutinizing the claims makes clear they don’t add up.

Flawed grocery price analysis

The study uses highly selective examples, false assumptions and outdated models to drive up the cost estimates.

The study’s central assumption is that consumers who see a warning label on food will waste valuable time searching for an alternative that is more expensive. That’s because the study’s authors looked at only a handful of selected retailers who possibly charge more for products with fewer ingredients of concern. 

But that’s not how most Americans actually shop.

Many major grocery chains, including Kroger, Publix, ShopRite and Wegmans, already offer affordable store-brand products that are free of many of the chemicals states are targeting with new food safety laws. 

ShopRite, for instance, designed its Wholesome Pantry store brand to be free of artificial additives at competitive prices.

The study largely fails to account for these affordable, available alternatives – a limitation the researchers themselves acknowledge, noting that their focus on particular retailers likely led them to overlook some products and introduce bias in their results.

Texas, where H-E-B dominates the grocery business, is a heavy focus of the study. Under market pressure, H-E-B has already removed more than 175 synthetic ingredients from its store-brand line. That’s most of the ingredients targeted by Texas’ food chemical labeling law. 

The study didn’t disclose the products and brands it analyzed. But its retailer of choice, Amazon, also owns Whole Foods, so it’s possible many of the pricier alternatives the study identified were Whole Foods products, not the kind of everyday substitutes most shoppers reach for.  

According to a separate food industry report from February, two-thirds of all grocery retailers are reformulating brands to meet consumers’ desire for cleaner products. This includes removing artificial dyes and additives while maintaining affordability.

Faulty math skews study's outcomes

The study’s flaws don’t stop there. 

Most significantly, it claims to be a cost-benefit analysis yet it fails to include the benefits of food chemical labels. This is not a minor methodological oversight but a fundamental failure.

Lower consumer exposure to chemicals of concern would benefit public health, yielding significant healthcare savings. Increased consumption of ultra-processed food, or UPF, is linked to higher rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes, dementia and reproductive harm. 

And the study’s calculations included the 14% of consumers who said they would ignore warning labels. This inflates estimates in consumer spending by assuming cost increases among consumers whose behavior would not actually change. 

It also relied on consumer behavior data that is more than 16 years old, a limitation the researchers themselves flagged as a source of unknown bias. 

Rather than use the lowest available prices for label-free alternatives, as a budget-conscious shopper would likely do, the study used average prices, further overstating the real cost to consumers.

Further, industry representatives and lawmakers sympathetic to them have misused the results to claim that labeling laws would increase by 12% the prices we see on store shelves. The study doesn’t predict that individual grocery items will get more expensive. It actually – and inaccurately – predicts some people will choose to buy more expensive groceries to avoid ingredients of concern. Those are not the same thing.

Helping shoppers make more informed choices is a public health benefit, not a burden. But the study frames labeling requirements as financial harm only.  

Real-world effects of changing food labels

Faulty studies and overinflated price claims are tired industry responses to requests for greater food ingredient transparency. 

In 2022, a federal rule took effect requiring labels on products made with genetically modified ingredients. Industry-funded studies predicted major price increases when products made with GMO ingredients were required to bear labels. 

But the new labels didn’t drive prices up. Many brands simply chose to include the new symbol on their existing labels while other household staples like Cheerios and Grape Nuts were reformulated at no extra cost to consumers.

Consumer Reports found similar industry-funded studies overstated the costs of GMO labeling by nearly a factor of 10. The most realistic industry estimate was around $66 per family of four per year, compared to the original estimate of nearly $500, and even that lower figure was likely inflated. 

Food companies update their labels regularly for seasonal promotions and rebranding, without consumers switching to pricier products. Ingredient disclosure labels would be no different.

A label change would cost a company as little as $205, an amount too small to show up on store shelves, according to the Agriculture Department in 2024.

Clearer labels mean more confident consumers

The study’s authors are correct about one thing: Shoppers’ time is valuable.

Right now, consumers who want to make better food purchases have to read fine-print ingredient lists on every product. Clear labels designed to identify chemicals of concern make it easier and faster for them.

While states push for better public health protections, EWG has tools to help you shop with confidence. 

At home, consumers can check EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Chemicals, which highlights top food chemicals to avoid due to health and safety concerns. 

For more guidance, search  EWG’s Food Scores, which provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives. 

Or if you’re on the go, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information at your fingertips while you shop.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Authors Jared Hayes Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN May 13, 2026

EWG on FDA’s request for information on SPF and UV protection values rcoleman May 13, 2026

Attached are EWG’s comments asking the Food and Drug Administration consider moving away from SPF testing in people in favor of in vitro UV protection testing, and for the agency should consider replacing the SPF value with a UV protection value that equally weights the entire UV spectra.

File Download Document fda-1978-n-0018-15844_attachment_1.pdf Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Sunscreen Toxic Chemicals Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. Carla Burns Emily Spilman November 1, 2021

EWG on FDA’s request for information on butylated hydroxyanisole in food rcoleman May 13, 2026

Attached are EWG’s comments asking the Food and Drug Administration to remove BHA from food. submitted in response to the agency’s request for information.

File Download Document ewg-s-final-comments-on-bha-to-fda-4_13_2026-1-1.pdf Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. May 13, 2026

Today, the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) accepted a rulemaking petition filed by an oil and gas industry-led organization that would begin the process to create a rule allowing oil and gas wastewater—called “produced water”—to be discharged to New Mexico surface and ground waters and used in agriculture. Produced water is a toxic soup of chemicals that the WQCC concluded less than a year ago in a prior rulemaking could not be treated to levels safe to discharge into the state’s waters. The existing rule banning produced water discharge went into effect 10 months ago and is available here. As written, the new industry-proposed rule would be one of the most permissive rules on oil and gas wastewater discharge nationwide.

Accepting the rulemaking petition and scheduling a hearing is the first step in a long rulemaking process. Technical testimony and arguments on the merits of the proposed rule will be heard in a multi-day hearing to be scheduled at a later date.

The Western Environmental Law Center, representing Amigos Bravos, Sierra Club, and Citizens Caring for the Future, argued two motions in opposition to the petition at last month’s WQCC meeting. Despite almost four hours of public testimony at last month’s meeting, the vast majority of which in opposition, and multiple motions and arguments against the petition from groups that have officially entered as parties in the matter, the WQCC voted 7-4 to move forward with the rulemaking.

“I’m disappointed the commission voted today to consider allowing discharge of oil and gas’ wastewater and threatening New Mexico rivers, streams, and ground water,” said Tannis Fox, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “The protective rule adopted less than one year ago underwent a rigorous debate, spanning 18 months and hundreds of pages of expert testimony. But the oil and gas industry won’t take no for an answer and the New Mexico Environment Department is sitting on the sidelines while industry proposes to undo the rule NMED proposed and its scientists supported with expert testimony during the first rulemaking.”

“I can’t believe we are back here,” said Rachel Conn, deputy director of Amigos Bravos. “How many times do we as New Mexicans who care about clean water have to stand up to defeat this ill-advised effort to discharge toxic oil and gas wastewater into our rivers, streams and groundwater? The rule passed last year, after an 18-month process with days of technical testimony, protects our water by prohibiting discharge while encouraging the development of science and treatment technology through pilot projects. We have entered as a party in this new rulemaking and will be presenting a technical case in opposition to discharge of this toxic wastewater.”

“For more than 50 years, the Water Quality Control Commission has based its decisions on science to ensure we protect our ground and surface waters from contaminants that can harm humans as well as animal and plant life,” said Dale Doremus, a former state hydrologist now with the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter. “It is critical that we have science-based water quality standards, promulgated by the commission, for all possible contaminants in produced water before any discharge to ground and surface water is considered. For a rule this important to New Mexico’s water quality future, it should be the Environment Department bringing forward a proposed rule, not the industry that will be regulated.”

“Many of my neighbors here in southern New Mexico have told me they are worried that the risk of contaminating the clean water they use for irrigation and watering their animals with the chemicals in oil and gas waste is not worth the small water quantity produced water would provide,” said Haley Jones, organizer for Citizens Caring for the Future. “Clean water is extremely precious down here, and we can not afford to risk spoiling this resource that is so critical to our southern New Mexico communities.”

As seen in previous meetings and hearings on produced water, New Mexicans showed up in force at last month’s meeting to give public comment in opposition to the proposed industry rule that, if adopted, would allow discharge of produced water into New Mexico’s ground and surface waters. Additional opportunities for public comment will be provided during the hearing on the petition.

Background
In the Permian Basin of southeastern New Mexico and Texas, oil and gas extraction brings to the surface an average of about four barrels of “produced water” per barrel of oil, and as much as 12 barrels. Produced water contains hundreds of known and unknown chemicals, many of which are toxic to human health and the environment. Some of those chemicals are industry “trade secret” fracking chemicals undisclosed to the public. The industry has historically injected this waste back underground, which is expensive and can cause earthquakes and water contamination. The oil and gas industry has a very expensive problem of what to do with this waste.

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) petitioned the WQCC in December 2023 to adopt a rule to prohibit all discharges of produced water to ground and surface waters. NMED based its petition on the best available science, which shows that produced water contains toxic chemicals harmful to human health and the environment, and that technologies to effectively treat produced water so it is safe are not available at scale. NMED supported its petition with the expert testimony from five of its scientists with expertise in protecting the state’s ground and surface water.

Amigos Bravos and Sierra Club, represented by Western Environmental Law Center, supported the prohibition with expert testimony, demonstrating based on peer-reviewed literature that we don’t know all the chemicals in produced water, a mixture of fracking fluids and underground water for which there is no effective treatment. Moreover, the state of New Mexico does not have surface water quality standards for at least 180 potentially toxic chemicals in produced water. While the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, New Mexico’s most powerful industry lobbying behemoth, opposed the ban on discharge, one of its primary experts testified that discharge of treated produced water at scale is premature.

In May 2025, the WQCC adopted a rule completely banning produced water discharge to ground and surface waters effective from July 12, 2025 through December 31, 2030. The existing rule also allows non-discharging pilot projects for further research on treatment.

Before the rule entered into force, an oil and gas industry group filed a new rulemaking petition that would be plagued with controversy. After Gov. Lujan Grisham’s office ordered department heads to get the industry-written rule “over the finished line” [sic], public outcry forced the WQCC to reverse its decision to undertake a new rulemaking. Today, the WQCC decided to undertake a rulemaking hearing for yet another industry-proposed rule less than a year after adopting the five-year ban on produced water discharge.

Contacts:

Tannis Fox, Western Environmental Law Center, 505-629-0732, fox@westernlaw.org

Rachel Conn, Amigos Bravos, 575-770-8327, rconn@amigosbravos.org

Dale Doremus, Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter, 505-795-5987, doremuswater@gmail.com

The post NM Water Commission caves to industry, will make rule reversing 11-month-old fracking wastewater discharge ban appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

6 reasons why the toxic weedkiller paraquat must be banned now Anthony Lacey May 12, 2026

The agricultural chemical paraquat – potentially fatal, if ingested – stands out as one of the pesticides that are most urgent to ban.

California regulators are weighing whether to prohibit paraquat, a toxic weedkiller linked to a greater risk of developing Parkinson’s disease and other health harms. A recent paraquat spill in the state, leading to shelter-in-place orders, shows a ban is long overdue.

Beyond California, 13 states have introduced legislative efforts to prohibit paraquat. At least 70 countries have banned paraquat due to its health concerns, including China, which manufactures the bulk of the world’s supply of the toxic pesticide.

But at the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency has a long history of delay. Since the EPA is not acting to protect us, states are poised to take the lead. 

Here are six reasons why paraquat is uniquely terrible, and why a ban is long overdue.

1. The most notorious Parkinson’s pesticide

Paraquat stands out among the handful of agricultural chemicals linked to Parkinson’s disease. Chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing the disease by reducing the number of neurons in dopamine-producing parts of the brain. 

Researchers have used paraquat exposure in animals to study Parkinson’s disease.  

A study using data from the National Institutes of Health found people who sprayed paraquat were more than twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s as those who applied other pesticides. And a meta-analysis of 13 studies found a 64% increase in the likelihood of paraquat exposure leading to the disease.

2. Other serious health harms

Exposure to paraquat is linked to greater risk of several other serious health problems, not only Parkinson’s disease.

Some other pesticides, when they cause health harms, can affect one organ in particular. Paraquat’s toxicity is more pernicious, since its effect is broader, damaging the lungs, kidneys and brain simultaneously.

Other health problems linked to paraquat include thyroid disease and cancer, childhood leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

3. Potential harm to farmers and farmworkers

Paraquat is mostly used to clear fields before farmers plant corn, soybeans, cotton, almonds, peanuts, wine grapes and other crops. And the farmworkers applying the weedkiller are exposed to its health threats, largely by inhaling paraquat vapor.

An EWG investigation found growers and spray companies often permit farmworkers to use the harmful chemical in ways that could endanger themselves and those around them. 

The investigation shows companies fail to provide emergency supplies for their workers, allow application without the correct equipment, and even permit spraying by untrained and underprepared employees. 

EWG’s findings align with studies showing off-label use is common – further highlighting  why existing restrictions on paraquat aren’t enough. The only way to ensure safety is to stop using it. 

4. Risks to the public from vapor

It’s not just farmers and farmworkers who face health risks. Most recently, findings from UCLA researchers show that people living or working within 500 meters, or about 1,640 feet, of paraquat application could more than double their odds of developing Parkinson’s.

Paraquat doesn’t stay where it’s applied. While much of it ends up in the soil for years, the chemical can also travel through the air.

An EPA review of new test data indicates that paraquat can volatilize more than previously measured and the screening model indicates the potential for exposure to people up to and over 2.7 miles away, much farther than previously thought. 

The EPA has requested additional testing data to measure how far paraquat can travel as a vapor volatilization – but action is years away. 

5. Danger of accidental spills

In March, a large container of paraquat fell from a truck in the northern California town of Dorris, spilling roughly 60 gallons of the chemical onto a major roadway and into the surrounding community. 

Citing the threat of exposure to airborne paraquat releases, officials ordered a lockdown affecting about 600 residents, including those at a local elementary school. 

The local sheriff’s department noted paraquat is “a highly toxic herbicide that can be fatal if inhaled or ingested. This chemical can be an airborne risk.”

In 2024, paraquat from a Louisiana farm spilled into a rural water system, prompting a “do not use” warning for the water for about 200 people living nearby.

Communities near farm fields shouldn’t have to worry whether an accidental spill of paraquat will force them to stay in their homes if they want to avoid the chemical’s health risks. 

State bans on paraquat could eliminate the danger of spills. 

6. Threat of accidental or deliberate ingestion

“One sip can kill” – that’s the EPA’s message about paraquat, which dedicates a site to warning against accidentally or deliberately ingesting the chemical. 

Data from 1998-2008 in California found more than 1,400 cases of accidental poisoning because of improper paraquat storage in unmarked bottles, cups and other containers. These poisonings caused at least 50 deaths, with 12 definitively linked to improper storage. 

It’s long past time to ban paraquat

The EPA is reviewing the risks of paraquat use. But a final decision by the agency about whether to restrict it, and how, is likely years away. 

And the EPA has a long history of failing to act. No wonder eight former EPA pesticide officials recently urged states to ban paraquat.

Even major countries where paraquat is made have banned it. But not the U.S. Waiting for the EPA to act leaves Americans unnecessarily exposed to the toxic herbicide. 

That’s why California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation should act swiftly to prohibit paraquat use in the state, and why the 13 states considering legislative bans must push ahead. 

The reasons for banning paraquat are clear. Now it’s time to act.

Areas of Focus Paraquat Authors Anthony Lacey May 12, 2026

Watch this CELDF live-streamed conversation from May 7th 2026, on colonization and nationalist U.S. propaganda with Anne Keala Kelly and Dina Gilio-Whitaker.

The post “What Revolution? Systemic Racism, Sexism, and Genocide from America’s Beginning” appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

Register for direct action training and catch up with Max Wilbert's work to educate and organize people to protect the remaining old-growth forests in Lane County, Oregon in CELDF’s monthly newsletter, Common Sense, Collective Action for Right-Relationship!

The post “Common Sense” Newsletter – May 2026: Physical Mobilization, Register Today! appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

MEDIA ADVISORY Ketura Persellin May 11, 2026

ALBANY, N.Y. – State lawmakers and public health advocates will hold a rally at the New York Capitol on Wednesday, May 13, from 1 to 2 p.m. EST, to urge passage of legislation to ban the use of the toxic herbicide paraquat, a chemical linked to Parkinson’s disease.

Momentum for the bill is building in the New York Legislature. The Assembly version of the paraquat ban bill, A.10074A, was reported to the floor calendar last week. The identical Senate version, S.9094A, is slated for consideration by the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee soon.

WHO

Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal (D/WF-Assembly District 67), bill sponsor

Sen. Pete Harckham (D/WF-40th Senate District), bill sponsor

Dr. Rebecca Gilbert, Ph.D., chief mission officer, American Parkinson Disease Association

Mike Mooney, former landscaper living with Parkinson’s disease

Wes Gillingham, organic farmer, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York

Sarah Teale, an Emmy-nominated documentary filmmaker and farm owner, who discovered that 36 of her neighbors and her husband, Gordon Chaplin, had Parkinson’s disease. They are all from a small farming community in Hebron, N.Y., where paraquat was widely used.

Jud Eson, an artist living with Parkinson’s disease and member of the Albany Parkinson’s disease community involved at the Capital District YMCA

Nancy Eson, wife and care partner of Jud Eson

Representatives from the Environmental Working Group, The Michael J. Fox Foundation and the Parkinson’s Foundation will emcee the event. 

WHAT

Rally urging passage of legislation to ban paraquat in New York.

WHEN

Wednesday, May 13, from 1 to 2 p.m. EST

WHERE

3rd floor staircase, outside of the Assembly Lobby,  inside New York State Capitol, Albany, N.Y.

WHY

Paraquat is one of the most toxic herbicides still in use in the U.S. and has been associated with a significantly increased risk of Parkinson’s disease. 

The chemical has been banned in more than 70 countries over its outsize risks to human health, including in China, where most of it is produced. Advocates and lawmakers  urge swift legislative action to protect public health, farmworkers and communities across New York.

###

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 Paraquat Lawmakers, advocates to rally at New York Capitol supporting ban on toxic Parkinson’s pesticide Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 11, 2026

By Christopher Collins, Cascade Institute 

The version of record of this column appeared in The Conversation. 

Historically, the United States hasn’t always been easy to deal with, but it was consistent. Even countries that disagreed with American policies knew there was a logic underlying its actions, and this predictability gave the country some credibility.

But now, under U.S. President Donald Trump’s second administration, American foreign policy has become haphazard and contradictory, driven by a leader who believes his ability to exercise power around the world is constrained only by his own morality.

This is new and, for observers around the world, perplexing. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently said: “Washington has changed. There is almost nothing normal now in the United States.”

Trump maelstrom

Some, like U.S. Vice President JD Vance, are labouring to erect a retroactive, pseudo-intellectual scaffolding around this chaotic mess, seeking to frame it as a coherent doctrine. But it’s become increasingly clear there’s no grand plan, just a Trumpian maelstrom of impulsive reactions, extractive transactions and personal grudges that shift with the news cycle.

To understand this political dysfunction, a German thinker from more than 100 years ago, Max Weber, offers a helpful guide.

Most famous today for his theory of “the Protestant work ethic,” Weber’s writing also explored the concept of “patrimonialism.”

This is a system of governance in which a ruler treats the state as personal property, governs by whim and uses the state’s resources to reward cronies and enrich family. Drawing largely on his understanding of the Ottoman Empire, Weber called the most extreme form of this system “sultanism.”

Reading Weber today, it seems the best description of how the U.S. engages the wider world could be termed “sultanism with American characteristics.”

Loyalty over experience

Consider Iran. Following the start of Operation Epic Fury, the Trump administration cycled through so many conflicting war aims that CNN was able to assemble a montage of the contradictions.

Senior administration officials worked feverishly to build a strategy around the operation, but it soon became clear that this “war of choice” was started based on little more than the president’s whim.

Weber’s framework extends to the people around Trump. In sultanistic systems, staff are selected based on loyalty, not merit, and serve the ruler, not the state.

As Weber wrote, this leads to “an administration and a military force which are purely personal instruments of the master.”

We see this pattern vividly illustrated by the Trump administration’s approach to staffing senior roles, including those leading high-stakes diplomatic negotiations.

Look at Steve Witkoff, a real estate developer and longtime Trump friend with no foreign policy experience, who has served as the administration’s lead envoy on some of the most sensitive negotiations in the world.

Or Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, who, despite having no background in foreign policy, was entrusted with key roles in Middle East diplomacy, while his investment firm pursues deals with the same Gulf states he is negotiating with on behalf of his country.

Serving the sultan

These are not appointments that a merit-based system would produce. But right now in America, officials serve the sultan, not the republic, which is why their speeches are regularly given for an “audience of one.”

Furthermore, in seeking the sultan’s favour, appointees regularly debase themselves on television, such as when Kevin Warsh, Trump’s pick to be the next head of the Federal Reserve, refused to admit Trump lost the 2020 election.

This sultanistic pattern of rewarding loyalty and punishing defiance is expanding. Federal disaster relief, long treated as a non-partisan obligation of the government, has become a stark illustration of this logic.

Since the start of his second term, Trump has approved just 23 per cent of disaster funding requests from blue states, compared to 89 per cent for red states. In some cases, the conditionality for disaster aid has been made explicit: for example, in 2025, as fires ravaged Los Angeles, Trump threatened to withhold aid unless California enacted voter ID laws — a condition with no relationship to disaster recovery.

This fear of punishment also helps explain why, fearing for their businesses, many media companies are bowing to “the court of King Trump.”

‘Orgy of corruption’

Finally, Weber’s framework sheds light on what may be the most defining feature of the Trump administration: a blurring of the lines between public office and private enrichment. Under sultanism, the distinction between the ruler’s personal wealth and the state’s treasury is, at best, notional.

Trump and his team have governed accordingly, with perhaps the most egregious example being hundreds of millions of dollars of insider trading around the Iran war. In a healthy democracy, this “orgy of corruption” would be investigated and prosecuted. But in a patrimonial system this is simply how things work: the state exists to serve the ruler and his inner circle.

This is what the world must now manage. A sultanistic system does not respond to appeals to shared values or long-standing agreements. It responds to leverage, personal relationships with the ruler and transactional incentives.

Policymakers and business leaders increasingly understand they are dealing with a court that rewards fealty and punishes defiance. That’s why the Swiss gave Trump a gold bar in exchange for lower tariffs, and why the Qataris gave him a “palace in the sky.”

In 2026, appeals to shared democratic values or common national interests are pointless; bring the sultan something he wants or face punishment. Weber helps explain why.

The post Donald Trump’s chaotic mess: When U.S. power serves the ‘sultan,’ global rules erode appeared first on Cascade Institute.

We reject the US-Israel War on Iran. We stand in solidarity with all those fighting back against the US’ escalating aggression – unnecessary, avoidable, and already unleashing profound destruction in global energy and food systems.

As fertilizer and energy prices surge, smallholder food producers bear the brunt of skyrocketing production costs, while large industrial agriculture corporations are positioned to capture windfall profits. This crisis has once again demonstrated that industrial agriculture is unable to reliably feed the world, echoing the disruptions seen in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Industrial agriculture – marked by fossil fuel-based synthetic fertilizers, import-dependence, export-orientation, deforestation driven global commodity chains – is fundamentally ill-equipped to cope with the recurrent shocks that now define our global reality. 

At the same time, the environmental costs of this system are becoming impossible to ignore. The widespread use of synthetic fertilizers drives ecosystem degradation, contaminates waterways, fuels harmful algal blooms, harms wildlife, creates dead zones in aquatic ecosystems, and contributes to soil degradation and biodiversity loss. Fertilizers are also responsible for some of the most dangerous agricultural emissions, releasing potent greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane. 

Far from enhancing resilience, fertilizer-dependent industrial agriculture is actively undermining the ecological foundations on which food security depends. Fertilizers don’t feed people; they sustain an extractivist approach to food production where nearly half of the world’s grain, instead of feeding millions of hungry mouths in the Global South, is diverted to animal feed, propping up global industrial livestock production. 

The current crisis is a long-overdue indictment of the very foundations on which food economies are built, and a critical opportunity for transformation. What we are facing is no longer simply a matter of urgency. It is a question of survival. The continued reliance on fertilizer-intensive industrial agriculture is neither sustainable nor resilient. 

We must urgently phase out this model and transition toward equitable, humane and agroecological food systems, an approach based on food, land, and water recognised as fundamental rights–not mere commodities- that puts people, animals and our environment at the center. It can restore ecosystem health, reduce dependence on fossil-based inputs, and build resilient and locally adapted food systems. Only by making this shift can we secure true food security through food sovereignty and ensure that nutritious, affordable food remains accessible to all.

The post Statement: US-Israel War on Iran is Having Devastating Impact on Agriculture in Global South appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

For over a decade, the biomass industry has sold a lie. They’ve been lying to Southern communities and decision-makers. This is especially true of the UK company Drax. They’ve violated […]

The post Communities Across the South Unite Against Drax first appeared on Dogwood Alliance.

On Monday, we partnered with Wells Fargo workers to deliver union gift bags to 200+ bank branches across the country. The gift bags included coffee, candy – and an invitation for workers to learn about the union by talking with unionized bank workers.

The goal? Support more bank workers getting involved in the fight to unionize Wells Fargo.

But, maybe you’re wondering why we, a climate coalition, are spending our time supporting worker power. So I thought I’d use this month’s newsletter to explain our strategy.

Over 150 years of labor organizing has demonstrated that organizing workers can be an incredibly effective strategy, one capable of moving corporations in huge and meaningful ways. We’ve even glimpsed this within the climate movement. 

In 2019, Amazon Employees for Climate Justice organized more than 8,000 Amazon employees around climate demands, and nearly 2,000 employees walked out of work to join a climate strike. In response, the company committed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040, announced the $10 billion Bezos Earth Fund, and ordered 100,000 electric delivery vehicles.  

Yes, there’s still a heck of a lot of work to be done to make Amazon a responsible social actor, but those were remarkable victories – and they wouldn’t have happened without a critical mass of organized workers.

So, that’s part of the reason we’re supporting workers’ fight for a union. By building with bank workers, we can build the power to win real concessions from Wells Fargo. But it’s about much more than that, too.

We’re living in an age of truly grotesque wealth inequality. America’s richest twelve billionaires are now worth $2.7 trillion, their combined wealth quadrupling since 2020. And while your average school teacher (or bank worker) pays around 25% of their income in taxes, Jeff Bezos pays a true tax rate of 1%.

This level of inequality is poisoning our politics. In 2024, just 300 billionaires and their families were responsible for $3 billion in political spending, making up nearly 20% of all political spending in federal elections. 

This is what oligarchy looks like: a small number of billionaires buying politicians and reaping the rewards. It’s why we got Musk’s DOGE, which literally killed hundreds of thousands of people and stole the data of every living American. It’s why Trump’s budget bill cut taxes for billionaires while spiking healthcare premiums for everyday Americans. 

And it’s, in part, why tackling the climate crisis is so damn hard. Many of MAGAs largest donors are billionaires from the oil and gas industry. In 2024 alone, the fossil fuel industry contributed $445 million to support Trump and his climate denier buddies.

Which brings me back to why a climate group is supporting a labor union struggle like the Wells Fargo Workers United campaign: we can’t tackle the climate crisis without taking on the billionaire class and the wealth inequality poisoning our political system. 

And you know what the single greatest antidote to extreme wealth inequality is? It’s labor unions.

So, yes, we’re supporting the union fight at Wells Fargo because we think it’s a good strategy to win on climate in the long run. 

But more broadly, building a fighting labor movement is perhaps the greatest antidote to the power of the billionaire class that’s undermining our democracy and our ability to tackle the climate crisis. 

So, if you know anyone who works at Wells Fargo, pass it on: they can get in touch with a union organizer here. 

In Solidarity
– Alec Connon, Stop the Money Pipeline coalition director

 

News & Updates from the Coalition

–  Stop the Money Pipeline celebration and online gala: you’re invited!

On Thursday, May 21st, we’re hosting Brighter Futures: An online celebration and fundraising gala for Stop the Money Pipeline! It’s gonna be great!

RSVP here and join us Brighter Futures. Together, we’ll celebrate our progress, build community, and help fund a fighting climate movement.  

– Holding Elon Accountable

On April 14th we launched the Investigate DOGE campaign with our partners at Communications Workers of America and Tesla Takedown. 

DOGE destroyed vital government agencies, left 300,000 dedicated public servants jobless, exposed the personal data of nearly every American, and resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. But accountability is coming. Sign the petition to call on Congress to investigate Elon Musk and the DOGE Bros, and receive all the updates about the campaign. 

–  Big update from the Insure our Communities New York campaign

Very big update in the Insure our Communities New York campaign: Senate Insurance Committee Chair, Jamal Bailey, has signed on as the new lead sponsor of the Insure our Communities Act.

This is a huge deal. Not only is Senator Bailey the Chair of the Insurance Committee and therefore a critical vote, but he is also widely considered a frontrunner for the Senate Majority Leader position. We’re very excited to build on this progress and work with Senator Bailey’s office to advance this landmark bill. 

– And progress in Connecticut, too!

For 3+ years now, our partner, Connecticut Citizens Action Group (CCAG) has been campaigning for a bill called Insuring Connecticut’s Resiliency. The bill would place a surcharge on  insurance premiums paid by fossil fuel companies, and use the money to pay for climate programs.  On March 13, when the bill was introduced into the Environmental Committee, we joined many others in voicing support of the bill. 

Despite the short legislative session, CCAG and allies secured a huge win: the bill passed out of the Environmental Committee and the Appropriations Committee with an overwhelming majority vote. Next year will hopefully be the year the bill gets pushed over the finish line.

– Now that’s a lotta emails

The Spanish bank, Santander, is the world’s largest funder of fossil fuel expansion in Latin America. So, after Santander ignored European and Latin American campaigners’ requests for a meeting, we organized a coalition of groups to flood their top executives’ email inboxes with messages. So far, 33,000 people have sent more than 530,000 emails. I reached out to their Global Head of Sustainability, Lara de Mesa, to request a meeting yesterday – I’ll let you know what we hear back. 

– No immunity for Big Oil

Big Oil companies have knowingly fueled catastrophic climate damages for decades — but they lied about the danger to protect their profits. Now, as communities are taking action to make polluters pay, Congress has introduced a bill that would give the fossil fuel industry blanket immunity from any laws or lawsuits that could hold them accountable.

Call your Member of Congress here to demand No Immunity for Big Oil.

– How your pension votes matters

In the world of campaigning against the financial industry, spring is what we call shareholder season. That’s because this is the time of year major companies hold annual meetings to vote on critical issues, including hundreds of climate-related proposals that shape their sustainability practices. One of the best ways we can push them to act is through public pension funds, which invest trillions of our tax dollars and have a significant voice in these shareholder meetings.

Our partners at the Sierra Club have done great work flagging critical climate votes for pension funds – and you can sign their petition to pension managers here. 

– Seattle’s First Peoples’ Climate Fund

In Seattle, STMP Steering Committee member and Mazaksa Talks co-founder Matt Remle, played a key role in winning the First Peoples’ Climate Fund, a new funding source to fund Indigenous-led climate adaptation and mitigation efforts in the region.  

– And to finish: a goofy photo…

Finally, to close out this month’s newsletter, here’s a goofy photo of me and my buddy, Tushar, outside a Wells Fargo branch. Remember, if you know anyone who works at Wells Fargo, let them know: they can get in touch with a union organizer here.

The post May Newsletter: Unions, inequality, and the climate crisis. appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

Russia continues to present its nuclear sector as a pillar of strength—at home, abroad, and even in war. But a closer look at developments in our March Nuclear Digest tell a different story: one of political improvisation, slipping timelines, and growing constraints. 

Three cases from our latest digest—Ukraine, Turkey, and the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant II—show a strategy that is still moving forward, but increasingly under strain. 

Ukraine: Licensing reality into existence 

Nowhere is that strain more visible than at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, occupied by Russian troops since early in the invasion. Earlier this year, Russia’s nuclear regulator announced it had issued long-term licenses for two reactors at the besieged plant. On paper, Rosatom wishes to indicate progress. In practice, it’s something else entirely. 

There is no real license today that would allow these units to be put into operation—let alone operated for 10 years, writes Bellona expert Alexander Nikitin. 

Under normal conditions, reactor licenses are the final step in a long process of construction, testing, and safety validation. None of that has happened at Zaporizhzhia. The reactors remain in cold shutdown, dependent on fragile external power lines that continue to be disrupted by nearby fighting.  

So what are these licenses for? According to Nikitin, they are less about engineering than optics: “a forced step taken under pressure to legitimize Russian control over the station.”  

That effort may already be working. Subtle changes in how international organizations refer to the plant—dropping explicit mention of Ukraine—suggest that language is beginning to shift alongside reality. But the risks to the plant remain unchanged. Military activity continues near nuclear facilities, power supply remains unstable, and safety margins are thin. 

Even beyond Zaporizhzhia, the long shadow of war is growing. Repairs to the damaged confinement structure at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant—which was struck by a Russian drone—are expected to cost €500 million. But for now, those plans may be more aspirational than practical. 

“There is no real threat from these facilities today—and no resources to carry out such work during the war,” Nikitin notes. In other words: even nuclear safety is being triaged. 

Turkey: The Limits of Export Power 

If Ukraine shows how Russia uses nuclear tools politically, Turkey shows where the limits of that strategy begin. The Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant—Rosatom’s flagship export project—is now years behind schedule. Its first reactor was supposed to be running by 2025, but it’s not. 

Rosatom blames sanctions. Its CEO, Alexey Likhachev, has described the project as stuck in a “sanctions meat grinder.” But the consequences go deeper than delays. 

The delays are not just technical—they have legal and economic implications, writes Bellona analyst Dmitry Gorchakov.  

Akkuyu is built under a model that leaves Rosatom carrying most of the financial risk while relying on long-term electricity purchase agreements to make the numbers work. The longer the delays, the weaker Rosatom’s bargaining position becomes. 

Turkey is clearly taking note. In March, Ankara moved forward with talks on alternative nuclear technologies, including a deal with Canada’s Candu Energy. Negotiations are also ongoing with South Korea and China. What was once expected to be Rosatom’s next big win in Turkey—the Sinop project—is no longer a given. 

As Gorchakov puts it, “Sinop is now effectively an open project, without any obligations toward Rosatom.”  

Kursk II: When Dates Don’t Line Up 

Back in Russia, the story is less about geopolitics and more about transparency. 

At the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant II, the first unit has reached full power—a milestone the industry likes to highlight. At the same time, international databases list the start of construction on Unit 3 as January 31, 2026. 

But Bellona’s analysis suggests that date may not be accurate. Evidence from regional sources and site imagery indicates the “first concrete” milestone likely occurred weeks earlier, in late December 2025. That discrepancy may seem minor. But in nuclear construction, it’s not. 

“This case shows that information about the construction of Kursk-II units is being deliberately concealed,” Gorchakov writes. 

The start of construction is one of the most closely tracked benchmarks in the nuclear industry. Moving it—even by a few weeks—can obscure delays, reshape narratives, and complicate oversight. And it raises a broader question: if even basic milestones are unclear, what else is? 

Read our full article on the strange data from Kursk II here.  

The Bigger Picture 

Taken together, these cases point to a nuclear strategy that is still active—but increasingly reactive. In Ukraine, Russia is trying to regulate its way into legitimacy. In Turkey, it is losing ground in a market it once seemed to dominate. And at home, it is struggling to maintain transparency even on its own projects. 

None of this means Rosatom is in retreat. Its global footprint remains large, and its projects continue to move forward. But the corporation’s narrative of steady expansion is becoming harder to sustain. Read this and more in the new digest.  

The post Questionable licenses, delays, and obscured construction data and more in Bellona’s new nuclear digest  appeared first on Bellona.org.

The UAE’s ruling royal family is benefiting from tens of millions in EU subsidies to grow crops destined for the Gulf, it can be revealed.

A new cross-border investigation, shared with The Guardian, found that subsidiaries controlled by the Al Nahyans collected over €71 million (£61 million) in just six years for farmland it controls in Romania, Italy and Spain.

The Al Nahyan family is the second richest in the world, with an estimated wealth of more than $320 billion (£235 billion), mostly derived from the emirates’ vast oil reserves. 

Subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) make up a third of the EU’s entire budget, paying out around €54 billion (£46.6 billion) each year to farmers and rural areas across the bloc. But an unknown proportion of this ends up in the hands of foreign investors — including those controlled by autocratic states.

This story was published in partnership with The Guardian, eldiario, and G4media.

DeSmog, in partnership with El Diario and G4Media, reviewed data for thousands of CAP beneficiaries between 2019 and 2024, tracing 110 European subsidy payments to a network of companies and subsidiaries controlled by the UAE’s Al Nahyan family and one of its sovereign wealth funds, ADQ.

The largest of these payments came through the Romanian agricultural company Agricost, which owns the EU’s single largest farm, measuring 57,000 hectares, five times the size of Paris.

EU farm subsidies disproportionately benefit large landowners. In 2024 alone, Agricost received €10.5 (£9 million) in direct payments — more than 1,600 times the amount collected by the average EU farm.

Campaigners have expressed alarm that the UAE, which has been widely condemned for jailing activists, criminalising homosexuality and multiple allegations of torture – repeatedly denied by the UAE – benefits from regular EU farm payouts.

The Al Nahyans and companies named in this article did not respond to multiple requests for comment. ADQ declined to respond. 

The findings come as policymakers debate the future of the subsidy scheme. In July, the European Commission published a proposal for the next round of CAP payments for 2028 to 2034 — which could cap land-based payments to €100,000 per farmer each year. The proposal has been met with fierce opposition from European ministers, some MEPs, and industry lobby groups.

A spokesperson for the European Commission told DeSmog via email that it believed income support through CAP payments “should be better targeted including by reducing and capping payments for the bigger farms”, and is calling on the European Parliament and Council to support its proposed changes to the subsidy system.

“The CAP is not helping EU farmers; it continues to enrich the wealthiest landowners,” said Faustine Bas-Defossez, director for nature, health and environment at the Brussels-based advocacy group the European Environment Bureau. “And now, even worse, it is fuelling autocratic regimes.”

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

Agricultural Acquisitions

The Al Nahyans are the most powerful monarchy in the United Arab Emirates, which is made up of seven federated states, each with its own royal family. At the helm is Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, leader of Abu Dhabi and president of the UAE.

In just over 15 years, the Emirati dynasty has established itself as a major global agricultural player, acquiring swathes of land and agribusiness companies across Africa, South America and Europe. The UAE now controls around 960,000 hectares of farmland worldwide.

This expansion forms part of the Emirates’ wider food security strategy, aimed at securing supplies for a country where high temperatures, water scarcity, and sandy soil make growing crops a major challenge. The UAE currently imports up to 90 percent of its food.

The investigation found that in the EU, the expansion has been channelled through three main companies — in Spain, Italy and Romania. 

Agricost, Romania’s vast farm, was bought by the Al Nahyans in 2018 for an estimated €230 million (£198 million) through Al Dahra, the UAE agribusiness group. Al Dahra was founded by the president’s brother Sheikh Hamdan bin Zayed Al Nahyan, before Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund, ADQ, purchased 50 percent of the firm in 2020.

No information on Al Dahra’s current ownership structure is publicly available, but DeSmog understands that it remains linked to individuals on the board, which is chaired by Sheikh Hamdan Bin Zayed, and his son, Sheikh Zayed Bin Hamdan Al Nahyan, who is married to the UAE president’s daughter.

Since 2012, Al Dahra has also acquired multiple farm companies in Spain, responsible for over 8,000 hectares of land. Together, these received more than €5 million (£4.3 million) in CAP subsidies between 2015 and 2024, DeSmog found.

The UAE’s Spanish and Romanian farms both cultivate alfalfa and other crops for animal feed, with the majority of produce designed for export, including to the Gulf. Al Dahra holds a long-term contract with the UAE government to supply animal feed for the country, partly used for its rapidly growing dairy sector.

In 2022, sovereign wealth fund ADQ also purchased Unifrutti, a fruit producer with an estimated worth of $830 million (£610 million). According to DeSmog’s analysis, Unifrutti’s Italian farms received at least €186,000 in CAP subsidies in the three years following the sale. 

The size of payouts to the UAE reflects major issues with the way CAP subsidies are calculated, which are largely based on the area of land farmed. The European Commission’s proposal to cap direct payments would impact only a fraction (0.5 percent) of the EU’s top landowners, who currently capture 16 percent of the entire CAP budget. The UAE’s receipt of EU subsidies is “a scandal hiding in plain sight”, says Thomas Waitz, an Austrian Green Party MEP and party coordinator for the agriculture committee.

“Ninety-nine percent of real European farmers receive less than €100,000 in subsidies. That money was never meant for fossil fuel dynasties, it’s meant to strengthen real European farmers.”

Credit: eldiario.es Al Nahyan Control

The subsidised farms make up just one strand of Al Dahra and ADQ’s agricultural push in Europe — an expansion which includes grain mills in Greece and Bulgaria, as well as massive dairy farms in Serbia.

Despite technically being state-owned, ADQ is closely controlled by the UAE’s ruling royal family, experts say. 

“There is no clear boundary between the state and family coffers,” Marc Valeri, associate professor in political economy of the Middle East at the University of Exeter, told DeSmog. “This is a very authoritarian and centralised regime, and the difference between state budgets and family budgets is completely blurred.”

The UAE has some of the largest sovereign assets in the world — as of 2025 its seven wealth funds hold almost $2.5 trillion (£1.84 trillion). 

These assets are largely managed by close relatives of the president. Between 2023 and January 2026, ADQ was chaired by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the president’s brother and the country’s national security advisor. Tahnoon is known as the “spy sheikh” over accusations that he has orchestrated cyberwarfare against dissidents, and individuals and institutions overseas, including in the UK. Tahnoon has never publicly addressed these claims.

Since January, ADQ has become part of Abu Dhabi’s newest sovereign wealth fund L’imad Holding, which is chaired by the Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan — the president’s eldest son and likely successor. 

‘Monopoly’

The subsidies traced by DeSmog may provide just a snapshot of the total EU payments benefiting Gulf royals, due to patchy official data and a lack of transparency by UAE corporations. 

All EU countries are required to publish information on the farms and farm owners receiving CAP subsidies. However, the entries only name the direct recipient — making it difficult or sometimes impossible to identify the ultimate owners and investors benefiting from the funds. Unifrutti, for example, owns farms in Sicily and the Almeria region of Spain, but no information about the subsidies received by these companies could be found. 

Experts say that these kinds of large-scale foreign investments have contributed to major shifts in the EU’s farming landscape. 

Official figures show that the EU lost 5.6 million farms between 2005 and 2023, the vast majority of which were small-scale, with many bought out by larger producers. Romania saw the greatest decline of all member states.

In Spain, farmers selling alfalfa to be processed by Al Dahra said that the company’s control over the region poses major risks for their income. 

“Here in the village they have a lot of power; we all end up having to go through Al Dahra. They set the price, and that’s that,” Josep Ripoll, a farmer in Fondarella, Catalonia, home to Al Dahra Europe’s headquarters, told El Diario. 

“It’s a monopoly — [we have to] take it or leave it. I was much better off before they arrived.”

Christian Henderson, lecturer in modern Middle East studies at the University of Leiden, says that these kinds of large-scale foreign investments in land can also pose major challenges for countries like Romania, which has been hit by a major cost of living crisis in recent years, with soaring food prices.

“What does it mean for a society when [agricultural] resources are turned over to foreign investors? Most of the commodities are immediately exported.”

Morgan Ody, general coordinator of the smallholder union La Via Campesina and a vegetable farmer in Brittany, France, describes the flow of subsidies to the UAE as “a waste of public money”.

“This is not how European citizens want their money to be spent — these farms aren’t even producing food for them,” she told DeSmog.

“This kind of scandalous spending of EU money shows the failure of the current CAP system, where payments are based on the farm area. We need to refocus CAP on land workers, on those who work the land and produce food.”

This investigation was published in partnership with The Guardian, eldiario.es and G4Media.

Fact-checking and additional reporting by Brigitte Wear
Editing by Phoebe Cooke

The post Gulf Royal Family Banks Over €70 Million in EU Farming Funds appeared first on DeSmog.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has banked more than £2 million in earnings and gifts since becoming an MP, DeSmog can reveal.

Farage has come under fire in recent days for failing to declare a £5 million gift from major Reform donor Christopher Harborne prior to the 2024 general election, potentially in violation of parliamentary rules.

Despite this tax-free handout, Farage has used his time in Parliament to earn millions from second jobs, speaking events, and trips abroad.

DeSmog’s analysis shows that Farage has registered more than £2 million in financial interests since July 2024, when he was elected as the MP for Clacton.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

His principal employer has been the right-wing broadcaster GB News, which has now paid Farage £700,000 since July 2024. The Reform leader – who presents a show on GB News – registered another £40,662 from the outlet last week.

This income has been received on top of Farage’s £94,000-a-year public salary.

He also listed a new gift from South African businessman Avi Lasarow, who gave the Reform leader three tickets to a boxing match on 4 April worth £1,749.

“Nigel Farage is a multi-millionaire who is out for himself and working for the interests of his super-rich friends,” a Green Party spokesperson said. “His whole career has been focused on personal gain and public division. He is failing his constituents and has no positive plan to help ordinary people with the cost of living crisis, housing or improving public services.”

Since becoming an MP, Farage has accepted £272,000 in gifts, including several private jet flights to the United States, and F1 tickets provided by the Abu Dhabi government.

“That Farage has amassed £2 million from personal earnings and gifts while a sitting member of Parliament should concern anyone who thinks an MP’s job is to represent their constituents,” said Kamila Kingstone, a senior campaign lead at Spotlight on Corruption.

“It’s a systemic issue and highlights a wider failure of the rules that are supposed to ensure integrity in public life. It risks blurring the lines between public service and private interests, creating the perception – and in some cases a reality – that some politicians are in it for themselves.”

DeSmog revealed in April that over 70 percent of Farage’s patrons are based abroad – including Harborne, the Thailand-based crypto investor who has gifted flights and accommodation to Farage worth £85,453 since July 2024.

Harborne, who owns a jet fuel supplier, has donated £22 million to Reform on top of the £5 million that he gifted to Farage before the 2024 general election.

His contributions to the party are now in jeopardy after Labour introduced new rules that cap political donations from overseas residents to £100,000 a year. In response, Harborne has committed to finding a loophole through which he can donate even larger sums to Reform.

“Where there’s a will, there’s a way,” he told The Telegraph – adding: “I don’t believe the government has a right to stop me, and they won’t.”

Reform UK is the UK’s leading anti-climate party, with several of its senior figures – including Farage – having denied basic climate science. The Reform leader has claimed it’s “absolutely nuts” for CO2 to be considered a pollutant, while his deputy Richard Tice has called it “plant food”.

“The government urgently needs to impose tougher limits on MPs’ second jobs,” Kingstone added, “so that the public can be confident that their representatives are working in the public interest rather than to line their own pockets.”

Reform and Farage were approached for comment.

A version of this article was published by The Guardian.

The post Nigel Farage Has Accepted £2 Million Since Becoming an MP appeared first on DeSmog.

Russia’s Arctic energy ambitions depend on a delicate balance: stable production, predictable shipping routes, and a logistics network that can withstand both harsh conditions and geopolitical pressure. Developments in March suggest that balance is becoming harder to maintain.

Two events highlighted in Bellona’s latest Arctic Digest—the disabling of the LNG tanker Arctic Metagas and a series of tanker detentions in European waters—underscore growing vulnerabilities in how Russia moves its Arctic oil and gas to market.

Explosion on the Arctic Metagas shadow tanker

On March 3, the LNG carrier Arctic Metagas was disabled by an explosion in the Mediterranean Sea, leaving it adrift with liquefied natural gas and heavy fuel on board. While the immediate impact was logistical, the incident also exposed a serious risk: the environmental fragility of Russia’s Arctic energy model.

A drifting LNG tanker is not just a shipping problem—it is a potential environmental emergency. Although no major spill was reported, the presence of fuel oil and LNG aboard a disabled vessel highlights what could happen if a similar incident occurred closer to Arctic waters. In such conditions, containment and cleanup operations would be far more difficult, if not impossible.

Bellona analysts have repeatedly warned that Russia lacks the capacity to respond effectively to oil spills in harsh, ice-covered environments. The Arctic Metagas incident serves as a reminder that accidents involving Arctic energy shipments are not hypothetical—they are already happening.

At the same time, the disruption triggered a chain reaction across the Northern Sea Route. Tankers rerouted away from the Mediterranean, cargo accumulated in Arctic storage, and vessels idled at sea waiting to unload.

For Bellona, this combination of logistical fragility and environmental risk is telling.

“This highlights the vulnerability of logistics for sanctioned Russian gas,” our analysts note. “Any incident involving a shadow LNG tanker can significantly slow down or halt shipments.”

But beyond logistics, the implication is broader: the expansion of Arctic LNG exports is happening in a context where both infrastructure and emergency response systems remain inadequate. In a region already under pressure from climate change, even a single accident could have outsized and long-lasting consequences.

Tanker Detentions: Pressure at Sea

At the same time, Russia’s oil exports are facing growing friction in international waters. In March, France detained the tanker Deyna, which was carrying Arctic oil from Murmansk under what authorities suspect was a falsified flag. The vessel is now under investigation, marking the second such case in recent months.

The UK has gone further, authorizing its military to inspect and detain Russian shadow fleet vessels passing through its waters, effectively raising the risks for any tanker attempting to transit key maritime chokepoints.

Bellona analysts see this as a turning point.

“There were signs of real progress toward countering the Russian shadow fleet,” we note. “If this practice becomes established and scaled up, it could significantly hinder the illegal transportation of Russian oil.”

The mechanism is simple but effective. Many of these tankers operate with questionable documentation—unclear ownership, false flags, or manipulated tracking data. Inspections and detentions introduce delays, and delays undermine the economics of Russian oil.

“Any delay disrupts deliveries, making the supplier significantly less attractive to buyers,” we point out, even when prices are low.

There is also an environmental dimension. Rather than targeting oil infrastructure directly—risking spills in fragile Arctic ecosystems—detaining vessels at sea offers a lower-risk way to constrain exports.

A System Under Strain

Taken together, the disruption of Arctic Metagas and the tightening net around shadow tankers point to a common theme: Russia’s Arctic energy model is increasingly exposed at the level of logistics.

Production continues. Icebreakers still escort vessels. Cargo still moves. But the system is becoming less predictable, less efficient, and more vulnerable to disruption—whether from a single strike in the Mediterranean or a document check in European waters.

The post Arctic gas disrupted and tankers detained: new risks for Russia’s northern energy strategy—the new Arctic Digest is out appeared first on Bellona.org.

For years, Canadian officials and oil industry backers have pitched carbon capture and storage (CCS) as the solution that would allow Alberta’s oil sands — and the nation’s proposed west coast pipeline — to proceed with a lower climate impact. Now, in a speech at this year’s Canada Strong and Free Network (CSFN) conference in Vancouver, keynote speaker and former British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell warned the costly, troubled technology has failed to deliver, undercutting a central justification for billions in public subsidies and new oil infrastructure.

This reporter was there in person at the April 24 CSFN gathering. Formerly the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, the CSFN self-describes as supporting “conservative and libertarian activists and ideas in Canada”. Imagine a MAGA-adjacent gabfest featuring speakers mostly cheerleading extractive industries or fear-mongering about First Nations rights. My already low expectations were not exceeded. 

However, there was an unexpected utterance of truth from Campbell, who was the first elected leader in North America to bring in a carbon tax. And what does he think about the technology being touted to clean up ballooning emissions from the Alberta oil sands and justifying a new pipeline to the BC coast? 

“It’s time to take off the blinders. Carbon capture and storage is something we’ve talked about in Canada for more than a generation, more than 25 years,” he told the conference. “We’ve invested billions of dollars trying to convince ourselves that carbon capture and storage will work. It doesn’t work. It costs money. And that money is money that we take out of other potential productive resources that we could have for Canadians.”

Campbell was certainly not suggesting that fossil fuel extraction be scaled back. His comments instead pointed out that pretending to solve emissions problems with expensive and ineffective carbon capture and storage is an unwise waste of scarce public resources. This unusual truth-bomb from a public figure stands in stark contrast to the theater playing out in Alberta and Ottawa, where CCS is being heavily promoted and backed by billions in public money as a panacea for oil sands climate costs. 

Even a Pathways Alliance co-founder is now publicly coming out against the CCS project in a recent Globe and Mail op-ed, equating long-delayed efforts by the oil patch to limit its massive carbon emissions with a cash-strapped household wasting money on a vacation or meal deliveries. Is Big Oil now pivoting away from a marquee carbon capture project it never intended to build?

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

Meanwhile the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney claims that the $20 billion CCS project  being promoted by the Pathways Alliance will make “Alberta oil among the lowest carbon intensity-produced barrels of oil in the world.” This multi-billion-dollar boondoggle has been offered as a “grand bargain” between Ottawa and Alberta to facilitate a new bitumen pipeline outlined in their now-overdue memorandum of understanding.

This confident public posturing was made despite internal briefing notes accessed by DeSmog showing Pathways had “…few front end engineering (FEED) studies done and initial cost estimates based on very limited project information”.

DeSmog previously reviewed 12 large scale CCS projects around the world and found “a litany of cost-overruns and missed targets, with a net increase in emissions.” Only 50MT of CO2 are sequestered each year by CCS, representing a mere 0.1 percent of global greenhouse gases. 

A recent study published in the prestigious journal Nature showed that a shortage of suitable geological formations worldwide limit CCS to mitigating only a puny portion of dangerous emissions. And even if injecting all production emissions underground was somehow perfectly effective, it would do nothing to alleviate the other 80-90 percent of downstream tailpipe greenhouse gases.

Such shaky fundamentals have apparently had little impact on government enthusiasm for throwing billions in public money towards dubious CSS schemes. The federal government has committed to covering half of the $20 billion estimated cost of the Pathways CCS project in tax credits, and the Alberta government is pledging to shovel billions more towards the highly profitable members of the Pathways Alliance. 

Pathways Alliance companies — recently renamed as the Oil Sands Alliance —  include Canada Natural Resources Ltd, Cenovus, ConocoPhillips, Imperial Oil, MEG Energy, and Suncor, representing 95 percent of Alberta’s bitumen production. These giants enjoyed $37 billion in combined profit in 2023 and will reap billions more in windfall profits with oil above $100 per barrel due to Trump’s war on Iran. 

A ‘Generous Transfer Provision’

A good yardstick of whether the Pathways project is credible is revealed in action, not words. Despite years of public spin and lobbying by Pathways members, the largest bitumen producers still stubbornly refuse to pony up any of their own money towards beginning construction even as Canadians struggle with historically high prices at the gas pump. 

If carbon capture is so safe, why has the oil patch lobbied to wash its hands of long-term CCS liabilities? In a system unique to Alberta, the province assumes the long-term risks associated with CO2 storage once a closure certificate has been issued, a concession to the oil industry described as one of the most “generous transfer provisions” of any CCS scheme in the world. 

Documents obtained by the Narwhal also revealed that Pathways Alliance president Kendall Dilling asked Ottawa for “assurance that the Pathways pipeline, hub and capture projects would not require a federal review under the Impact Assessment Act.” 

In Alberta, regulators allowed the largest CCS project in the world to be broken into over 120 separate proposals to avoid triggering a provincial environmental assessment. Does this kind of maneuvering inspire confidence? 

Not for local residents facing risks of a potentially deadly CO2 leak from a pipeline rupture, as occurred in Sataria, Mississippi where 49 people were hospitalized in 2020. Rural Albertans living close to the proposed 600 kilometre CO2 pipeline from the oil sands to Cold Lake have recently come together in an unlikely alliance of farmers and Indigenous leaders opposed to the Pathways project called “No CO2 Pipelines.” 

“Thousands of Albertans like me live directly in this project’s ‘hazard zone’”, said Penny Fox, No CO2 Pipelines co-founder, in a press release.  “In an explosion, people in our communities are facing anything from breathing issues to brain damage to instant death. So I have one question for the Prime Minister: if you wouldn’t live next to this pipeline, why should we?” 

“We’re talking about hundreds of kilometers of pipeline that pass directly through areas where we live, hunt, fish and exercise our treaty rights”, Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation has said. “This project endangers our people, our land, our water and wildlife. And yet there has been no consultation, no information sharing, and no formal environmental assessment.”

Gordon Campbell makes a good point. The Pathways project will cost the taxpayers billions and do nothing to contain the vast majority of ultimate oil sands emissions. Other Canadian industries have managed to cut greenhouse gases by one quarter since 2005, while bitumen producers have seen their emissions explode by 143 percent over the same period. 

Why should highly profitable oil industry laggards still expect public handouts before cleaning up their own mess? 

The post Former BC Premier Gordon Campbell: Carbon Capture ‘Doesn’t Work’ appeared first on DeSmog.

FDA finds toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in baby formula but won’t set enforceable limits Monica Amarelo May 5, 2026

WASHINGTON – The toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS were found in baby formula sold across the U.S., according to test data recently released by the Food and Drug Administration. 

The findings underscore an urgent and long-overdue need for legal limits on PFAS in food. One year ago, the Environmental Working Group urged the FDA to develop action levels for PFAS in food. 

Monitoring without action does not protect children. A PFAS action level would let the FDA take legal action to remove products from the market if they exceed that limit.

The FDA tested 312 infant formula samples from 16 brands for 30 PFAS compounds as part of its Operation Stork Speed initiative. Five PFAS compounds were detected. 

PFOS was most commonly detected, found in half of all samples at concentrations ranging from 0.51 to 6.0 parts per trillion. PFOS is one of the most toxic and well-studied PFAS and the Environmental Protection Agency says it’s likely to be carcinogenic to humans.

The FDA characterizes these levels as low and concludes the infant formula supply is safe.

“No safe level of PFAS exposure has been established, and that is especially true for infants,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., EWG chief science officer. 

“PFOS bioaccumulates in the body and it damages the immune system, including reducing the effectiveness of vaccines in babies and children. Detecting it in half of all formula samples and characterizing these findings as a proof of safety is not a conclusion the science supports,” said Andrews.

“Formula is the sole nutrition source for millions of American infants and toddlers. The FDA’s safety claim is not acceptable, given these detections of a known cancer-causing chemical. The agency must set enforceable PFAS action levels for food, as other nations already have done."

“Congress gave the FDA the authority to set limits on contaminants in infant formula. The agency has chosen not to use it,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at EWG. 

“Every day the FDA delays setting enforceable PFAS limits is another day American infants are exposed to toxic PFAS with zero legal protection. That is a policy choice, and it is the wrong one,” he said.

Not just trace contamination

PFOS was phased out of U.S. manufacturing under pressure from the EPA after evidence emerged of significant health hazards. It was used in 3M’s Scotchgard and widely deployed in firefighting foam at military bases and airports, contaminating groundwater systems across the country. 

EWG’s PFAS contamination map documents PFOS in the drinking water supply of nearly half the nation’s water systems. 

The EPA regulates PFOS in drinking water at a maximum contaminant level of just 4 parts per trillion, set because of PFOS’s classification as a carcinogen. 

The FDA has established no equivalent limit for infant formula, so infants and toddlers may continue to be exposed to PFOS in food, as well as in tap water.

“Most of the formula samples the FDA tested were powdered, and most parents mix powdered formula with tap water,” said Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG. “Depending on where you live, your tap water may be contaminated with PFAS.

“That means babies could be getting a double dose – PFAS already present in the formula powder, and additional PFAS from the water used to prepare it. That compounding exposure is exactly why we need enforceable limits, not just monitoring,” she added.

The FDA findings closely mirror Consumer Reports’ 2025 investigation, which found PFAS in almost all of the 41 popular baby formula brands it tested, including Enfamil, Similac and Bobbie. 

Consumer Reports also identified PFOS as the most concerning compound detected. 

Two independent investigations, the same alarming result – and still no enforceable federal standard for PFAS in food.

Food may be the primary route of PFAS exposure

For millions of Americans, food – not drinking water – is the main route of PFAS exposure. These chemicals enter the food supply through multiple pathways federal regulators have failed to close.

“PFAS are clearly infiltrating our entire food system as a direct result of regulatory failure,” said Andrews. 

“PFAS-containing pesticides are being applied to crops. Biosolids contaminated with PFAS are being spread on farm fields. Contaminated water is being sprayed on food crops. Every one of these pathways is preventable, and every one of them remains legal,” said Andrews.

“We need to ban all nonessential uses of PFAS, starting with these agricultural applications, before the contamination gets any worse,” he added.

Stakes are highest for the most vulnerable

PFAS exposure, with its health stakes, begins before birth. 

PFAS are toxic at extremely low levels. They are known as forever chemicals because once released into the environment, they do not break down and can build up in the body. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99% of Americans, including newborn babies. 

PFAS readily cross the placenta and have been detected in umbilical cord blood, confirming that the developing fetus faces direct prenatal exposure. 

When PFAS are detected in the infant formula that millions of American babies depend on as their sole source of nutrition, the exposure does not begin at the first feeding. For many infants, it has already been accumulating for months.

A recent study also links prenatal PFAS exposure to premature birth, low birth weight and infant mortality. The full range of documented harms extends further still: thyroid disruption, harm to the male reproductive system, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, reduced fertility and shorter duration of breastfeeding. 

Very low doses of PFAS have been linked to suppression of the immune system. Studies show exposure to PFAS can also increase the risk of cancer, harm fetal development and reduce vaccine effectiveness. 

The impact on infants and toddlers is especially pronounced. “Babies are not small adults when it comes to chemical exposure – they are categorically more vulnerable,” said Stoiber. 

“Babies’ bodies are smaller, their organs are still developing, and their immune systems are not yet fully formed. When PFAS accumulate in an infant’s body, the proportional impact is far greater than it would be in an adult exposed to the same amount.

“Parents are often limited in the type of formula that is available to them and the FDA’s testing did not disclose the brand names tested. The FDA must act to protect all children,” she added.

“The administration says it wants to make America healthy again,” said Faber. “Here is a straightforward way to start: Set enforceable limits on PFAS in baby formula today. 

“The science is clear, the authority exists and the harm has been documented. American families cannot wait any longer for the federal government to do its job,” he added.

What parents can do right now

No parent should have to navigate this alone. Until the FDA establishes enforceable PFAS standards in infant formula, here are practical steps to reduce your baby’s exposure:

• Use filtered water when preparing powdered formula. A reverse osmosis system provides the most effective PFAS filtration. Countertop pitcher filters have also shown meaningful effectiveness in EWG testing. 
• Check EWG’s PFAS contamination map to see whether your local water supply has documented PFOS or other PFAS contamination.
• Make your voice heard. Contact the FDA and your elected representatives and demand enforceable PFAS limits in infant formula. The FDA’s Operation Stork Speed is an ongoing testing program. Sustained public pressure from parents is one of the most effective ways to accelerate the regulatory action.

###

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 Food & Water Food Children’s Health PFAS Chemicals Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 5, 2026