G1. Progressive Green

August brought signs of growing pressure on several fronts for Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom, from questions surrounding major construction projects abroad to the first decline in its foreign revenue in a decade.

Meanwhile, at the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine, repeated attacks, losses of external power and difficulties securing diesel fuel underscored the precarious conditions surrounding Europe’s largest nuclear station.

Paks II faces a political — and environmental — rethink

In Hungary, the future of the Russian-built Paks II nuclear power plant has come under renewed scrutiny from the new government of Prime Minister Peter Magyar.

Magyar said in August that experts considered the existing permit for the project untenable and that the government was conducting a comprehensive review that would determine, among other things, whether Rosatom could continue building the plant.

Rosatom chief Alexey Likhachev insisted work was continuing according to plan. But Magyar pointed to the project’s long delays: under the original contract Paks II was supposed to be operating by 2024, while Hungary has already spent around 1 trillion forints (€2.8 billion) on the project. At the same time, Budapest is proposing to more than double its 2026 budget financing for Paks II, suggesting that abandonment of the project is not currently on the table.

Bellona nuclear expert Dmitry Gorchakov argues that the review should extend beyond the project’s finances. Extreme heat and exceptionally low water levels in the Danube forced the existing Paks plant to sharply reduce output this summer, raising questions about the cooling system planned for two additional reactors.

“At the same time, judging by Hungary’s continued financing of the project, a complete abandonment of Paks II does not appear to be under consideration,” Gorchakov said. “Under these circumstances, in addition to the financial questions already raised about the project’s cost, the problems facing the existing Paks plant due to extreme heat and low water levels in the Danube also raise the question of whether the project’s environmental parameters should be reconsidered — in particular, its cooling system.”

The existing plant already imposes a substantial thermal load on the Danube, while Paks II would add another 9.5 GW of thermal capacity. Gorchakov argues that increasingly frequent heat and drought could make the present cooling design difficult to sustain.

Rosatom’s foreign revenue falls

Those uncertainties come as Rosatom has acknowledged an unusual reversal in its international business. Its newly released 2025 annual report shows foreign revenue falling 4.1 percent to about $17.2 billion, even as overall revenue rose 7.9 percent to 3.33 trillion rubles. Its lifetime foreign project portfolio nevertheless increased to $206.2 billion.

Gorchakov called the decline significant because it follows 10 consecutive years of growth, with foreign revenue increasing by more than 20 percent annually during the previous five years.

Importantly, the decline does not appear to come from Rosatom’s nuclear fuel business. Bellona estimates that nuclear fuel-cycle deliveries increased substantially to the United States and China, and likewise rose in the European Union.

Instead, Rosatom’s report attributes the decline to lower revenues from nuclear plant construction. Gorchakov says this could partly reflect projects such as Bangladesh’s Rooppur plant and Turkey’s Akkuyu reaching later construction stages, but may also reflect “difficulties and additional costs associated with sanctions pressure, the search for alternative ways to transfer funds abroad, and changing suppliers.”

Egypt illustrates the ambiguity. Leaked documents concerning the Rosatom-built El Dabaa plant reportedly described construction defects, nuclear safety culture problems and a possible 18-month delay to the first reactor. Egyptian authorities disputed the characterization. Yet only days later Cairo and Rosatom began discussing adding two more Russian reactors to the four already under construction. See our article from August for more detail.

Zaporizhzhia survives on an increasingly thin margin

The situation at Zaporizhzhia is considerably more immediate. The plant lost its sole remaining external power connection four times during August. After the fourth outage, on August 20, it remained disconnected for roughly three weeks and depended on emergency diesel generators.

That exposed another vulnerability: Russian officials told IAEA inspectors that the last delivery to the plant’s diesel storage facility had occurred in March. A planned May delivery had been prevented by fighting, leaving fuel for approximately 10 days of emergency-generator operation. Operators progressively reduced the number of running generators from seven to four and eventually two, while cooling pumps were operated intermittently to conserve electricity.

The crisis unfolded amid repeated drone incidents around the station and tentative discussion of a possible Russian-Ukrainian energy ceasefire. Bellona nuclear expert Alexander Nikitin sees a larger issue emerging from those developments: ZNPP is no longer simply a civilian nuclear facility endangered by war, but has itself acquired military and political value.

‘Despite the military value of the territory around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, judging by their actions, both sides are trying to prevent the plant from permanently losing its potential energy and political value,” Nikitin writes. “This suggests that ZNPP is viewed not only as a source of nuclear risks, but also as a potential asset in future negotiations.’

That possibility makes preserving the plant important for reasons extending beyond nuclear safety. As Nikitin notes, a destroyed plant has little negotiating value; an intact one retains both political and economic importance.

But the August outages also demonstrate why any future agreement concerning nuclear facilities would have to extend beyond simply prohibiting direct attacks on reactors. Transmission lines, substations and other external infrastructure are essential to keeping a nuclear plant safe.

As Nikitin argues, the war has blurred a boundary nuclear regulation traditionally assumed was clear: a civilian nuclear facility can remain civilian in formal terms while simultaneously becoming an element of military strategy.

The post Rosatom faces pressure abroad as Zaporizhzhia’s nuclear risks deepen appeared first on Bellona.org.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has suspended one of its most senior Russian officials — but for reasons largely unrelated to the questions about Russian influence at the agency that have surrounded him since Moscow seized Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.

Mikhail Chudakov, an IAEA deputy director general and head of its Department of Nuclear Energy since 2015, was placed on administrative leave this month pending an internal ethics investigation, according to Bloomberg.

The investigation concerns a 76-page book, Treatise on Life, which Chudakov published under the pseudonym Valentin Voyutin in 2025. The book contains disparaging descriptions of feminists and LGBT people and expresses support for authoritarian government.

According to Bloomberg, the book came to the IAEA’s attention after Chudakov promoted it among members of Vienna’s young nuclear community. Members of the group subsequently brought it to the agency’s ethics office. The IAEA, Chudakov and Director General Rafael Grossi have not publicly commented on the case.

But Chudakov’s suspension has reopened a different question that predates the book by years: whether a former senior official of Russia’s state nuclear industry should have remained in one of the IAEA’s most influential positions after Russia invaded Ukraine and Rosatom became directly involved in the occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant.

Greenpeace International raised precisely that issue in March 2022, less than two weeks after Russian forces seized Zaporizhzhia. In a letter, the organization called on Grossi to suspend Chudakov, citing his decades-long career in Russia’s nuclear establishment and requesting disclosure of any communications between him and Rosatom officials following the invasion.

Greenpeace argued that Chudakov’s presence could undermine Ukrainian confidence in the confidentiality of information shared with the IAEA during the nuclear crisis. No public evidence has emerged showing that Chudakov provided confidential information to Rosatom. Chudakov nevertheless remained in his position for another four years.

The significance of that position extends well beyond the IAEA’s response to Zaporizhzhia. The Department of Nuclear Energy works with countries planning new nuclear programs and oversees areas including reactor technology, small modular reactors, the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear infrastructure and training.

Chudakov has also headed the IAEA’s International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles, or INPRO, and chaired the steering committee of its Platform on Small Modular Reactors and their Applications.

Mikhail Chudakov

At the same time, cooperation between the IAEA and Russian nuclear institutions continued after the invasion.

In October 2024, the agency renewed and expanded the status of Rosatom’s Technical Academy as an IAEA Collaborating Center. Joint programs have continued to bring nuclear specialists from other countries to Russian facilities.

In September 2025, Chudakov personally led an IAEA delegation to Rosatom’s Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear power plant in Chukotka. The visit was hosted by Rosenergoatom, where Chudakov previously held senior positions, at a time when Rosatom was increasingly promoting floating and land-based small reactors to potential foreign customers.

For Bellona nuclear expert Alexander Nikitin, such relationships point to a broader problem confronting the IAEA since Russia’s invasion. The war, he says, has divided nuclear countries into aggressors, victims of aggression and relatively neutral states, while the international nuclear industry continues to operate largely under rules created before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

“The international nuclear sector continues to function without a referee and under the international regulatory framework that existed before the war,” Nikitin said.

That makes the individuals making decisions within the IAEA particularly important, he argues, including decisions about supporting nuclear projects in countries seeking to develop nuclear power.

But determining when ordinary IAEA cooperation crosses the line into advancing Rosatom’s interests is considerably more difficult.

According to Bellona nuclear expert Dmitry Gorchakov, Ukraine’s desire to remove Chudakov following the invasion was understandable, but attempting to do so simply because of his Rosatom background and continuing contacts with the Russian nuclear industry had little prospect of succeeding under IAEA rules.

“It is extremely difficult to prove that he is working specifically in Rosatom’s interests rather than those of the IAEA — which could indeed provide grounds for his removal,” Gorchakov said.

The problem, he says, is the unusually close overlap between their interests. The IAEA promotes the development of nuclear energy internationally. Rosatom also develops nuclear energy internationally, albeit for its own commercial and political purposes.

None of Chudakov’s contacts with Russian nuclear organizations therefore necessarily demonstrates improper conduct. Other major nuclear countries also host IAEA training and technical programs, while the agency necessarily works with the nuclear industries of its member states.

And although the IAEA Board of Governors and General Conference have repeatedly adopted resolutions condemning Russian actions in Ukraine, Gorchakov notes that they have never instructed the IAEA Secretariat — Grossi and the staff working beneath him — to cease cooperation with Russia or Rosatom.

“Many of Chudakov’s contacts and actions in his position at the IAEA can have perfectly understandable explanations arising from his official responsibilities and, at least formally, do not contradict them,” Gorchakov said.

Even Ukraine’s membership on the IAEA Board of Governors from 2023 to 2025 failed to change that situation.

Yet days after Chudakov’s suspension, Ukrainian military intelligence added a new allegation. It claimed on September 16 that Chudakov helped secure the depiction of Russian-occupied Crimea as Russian territory in the IAEA’s Power Reactor Information System, or PRIS, and that Russian representatives were seeking the use of Russified names including “Rovno,” “Khmelnitski” and “Zaporozhye” for Ukrainian nuclear locations.

Those allegations have not been independently confirmed by the IAEA.

For Gorchakov, the irony is that after years of controversy over Chudakov’s Russian connections, none of those issues ultimately caused his suspension. Instead, Chudakov appears to have created the grounds himself.

“It was only when Chudakov himself created a problem through his book — which apparently contains numerous clear conflicts with the Agency’s ethical standards — that it became possible to accomplish, at least partially, what had previously proved impossible to achieve or demonstrate through other means,” Gorchakov said.

His suspension may remove one controversial official. But the larger question — how an international nuclear organization should work with the nuclear industry of a member state waging war and occupying another country’s nuclear power plant — remains unresolved.

The post IAEA suspends senior Russian official — but not over the questions surrounding his Rosatom ties appeared first on Bellona.org.

The Republican-controlled Senate will soon formally announce a legislative “permitting reform” deal to speed the development of AI data centers and energy infrastructure. We expect the Senate will then rush through a vote in the lame duck session immediately after the midterm elections, sending the bill to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives before a new Congress is seated in January 2027. While the text of the bill has not yet been released, credible intelligence suggests that the bill, if passed, would prove to be the largest rollback of environmental and public health protections in U.S. history, weakening the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and more.

The bill would erode state and Tribal authority provided by the Clean Water Act to review and certify federal permits to protect that state or Tribe’s water resources. The bill would also hand developers new exemptions from Clean Water Act permitting for natural gas pipelines and other infrastructure. These provisions would compound the Trump administration’s own deregulatory attacks on the fundamental law  and the Supreme Court’s disastrous 2023 Sackett v. EPA decision, which radically scaled back the Clean Water Act’s jurisdictional scope. In New Mexico, this resulted in the loss of federal protections to upward of 96% of the state’s rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands.

The deal would also weaken Americans’ right to participate in federal planning and decision-making processes, setting the pace of permitting based on developer interests, rather than those of the community. Worse, the deal would weaken the public’s ability to seek justice in federal court when their interests are threatened or harmed, tilting the scales in favor of development interests. Adding salt to the wound, the bill would even create a new cause of action for AI hyperscalers, fossil fuels, and other development interests to challenge legal, regulatory, and other requirements that they deem treat them “unfairly.”

While proponents justify the deal on the basis it will prevent the Trump administration’s obstruction of renewable energy projects, the legislation would do no such thing. Instead, it is predicated on a promise by President Trump that he will merely “ease” his obstruction, based on reporting, of only 30 out of 300 renewables projects. Given the administration’s chronic pattern of lies, deceptions, and broken promises, that so-called “win” is illusory.

Interests promoting the bill also claim it will set the stage for future presidents, once Trump is removed from office or his term ends, to accelerate the buildout of renewable energy infrastructure by providing developers with permitting “certainty” and “parity.” A close read of relevant “certainty” and “parity”  legislation introduced into Congress over the past year demonstrates that this is not the case and that the deal would instead hobble future presidents, handing the keys for the country’s energy future over to developers and erecting barriers in the way of climate, conservation, and environmental justice action that seeks to address the harms caused by AI data centers and fossil fuel infrastructure.

The permitting deal’s provisions risk grave, irreparable harm to the western U.S., and not just relative to clean water. More than 45 million acres of pristine roadless lands in national forests across 36 states and Puerto Rico, the entire 245 million acre public lands system managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and beloved landscapes such as Greater Chaco in New Mexico are all at risk. In all three cases, the Trump administration is actively rescinding critical conservation and community protections, again with the intent to commodify and exploit these public lands for fossil fuel and other resource extraction and again, for AI data centers. Once these protections are rescinded by the Trump administration, the permitting deal would drastically accelerate the exploitation of these public lands.

The plague of data centers across the U.S. is of particular concern, with more than 2,000 planned that would consume more than 387,000 megawatts of electricity. Critically, the Trump administration is now actively siting AI data centers on public lands in multiple states, including Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Wyoming, and these efforts will only intensify in the coming months.

“The permitting deal is a betrayal of public lands, water and wildlife, and environmental justice values that Westerners depend on for clean air and water, places to hike, hunt, and fish, and the inestimable sense of freedom the West provides us all,” said Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center based in New Mexico. “Sen. Heinrich has built a name for himself as a champion of these values, but credible intelligence indicates he is poised to hand the Trump administration a major political win that erases that legacy in service of AI hyperscaler, energy, and finance lobbyists. We hope this is not the case. But there is an acute risk he is making a strategic mistake that will hobble the ability of future administrations to enact an ambitious climate and conservation agenda. We desperately need action that opens new doors to a thriving, prosperous world that respects Westerners’ values, not bills like this that bulldoze us and our way of life.”

In this full context, the Western Environmental Law Center urges Congress to do the following:

• Do not betray progressive climate, conservation, and environmental justice values essential to Westerners.
• Build policy ideas that respect people and place and transparently assess, rather than bulldoze over, the tradeoffs between climate and conservation action and infrastructure development.
• Move a standalone grid modernization, transmission bill in the 120th Congress.
• Support state-level climate action action and embrace federal-level strategic patience.
• Develop policy reforms that will create strong, mission-driven federal agencies that serve the public interest—not corporate technology, energy, and finance interests.

“Congress cannot legislate its way out of the multiple crises we face and serve the public by surrendering to AI hyperscaler, fossil fuel, and finance interests,” said Schlenker-Goodrich. “But it can exhibit strategic patience and methodically build power for change with people and communities that can be leveraged once a new Congress is seated in January 2027. That empowers us to fight our way out of the ruins of the Trump administration, together. Making a deal with the devil fails the American people here.”

Contact:

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, Western Environmental Law Center, 575-751-0351, eriksg@westernlaw.org

The post Five-alarm fire: Radical Senate ‘permitting reform’ bill threatens to eviscerate environmental, wildlife, water, climate laws appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

We invite you to watch these videos 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.

Surging rates of high blood pressure in pregnancy – does chemical exposure play a role? Anthony Lacey September 30, 2026

• Rates of high blood pressure in pregnancy rose 73% between 2016 and 2024, building on a trend of rates more than doubling between 1989 and 2016.
• The increases are not limited to people with established risk factors and span all age, weight and racial/ethnic groups.
• A growing body of research links exposure to environmental chemicals with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.
• To reduce exposure to chemicals, consumers can check product labels, choose glass over plastic and consider using a water filter.

Rates of high blood pressure during pregnancy have risen sharply, up 73% between 2016 and 2024, according to a report from the Centers for Disease and Control Prevention. 

The 2026 report, finding the rate of gestational hypertension jumped from 6% in 2016 to 10.4% in 2024, draws on data from U.S. birth certificates collected during this period.

The increase during this period extends an upward trend observed in previous years – rates more than doubled between 1989 and 2016. 

True rates of gestational hypertension could be even higher: the CDC notes it may be underreported on birth certificates.

Disorders affecting many

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, usually referred to as HDP, affect roughly 10% to 15% of pregnancies in the U.S.  

HDP is an umbrella term covering several related but distinct conditions, each with their own health risks. The CDC report focuses on one of these disorders – gestational hypertension – but any of them can pose major threats to the health of the mothers giving birth and the developing fetus:

• Chronic hypertension. High blood pressure present before pregnancy or diagnosed before 20 weeks of gestation.
• Gestational hypertension. High blood pressure that develops after 20 weeks of pregnancy, without signs of organ damage or protein in the urine.
• Preeclampsia or eclampsia. High blood pressure after 20 weeks of gestation, with the presence of protein in the urine or signs of other organ dysfunction, such as liver or kidney issues. Preeclampsia becomes eclampsia with the onset of seizures.
• Superimposed preeclampsia. New or worsening symptoms or organ dysfunction in a person with chronic hypertension diagnosed before the pregnancy. 

Long-term harms

These common pregnancy disorders are among the leading causes of illness and mortality among pregnant people in the U.S. 

Adverse health outcomes of any of these disorders have been linked to placental abruption, organ damage or failure, maternal mortality, and cardiovascular disease later in life. They can also contribute to poor birth outcomes, such as stillbirth, neonatal mortality, restricted fetal growth, preterm birth and low birthweight. 

Some of these birth outcomes, like preterm birth, are known to be associated with worse health outcomes, such as developing chronic respiratory or renal problems, later in life. 

Known HDP risk factors

A person is more likely to develop HDP if they have any of the following: 

• Pre-existing health conditions, like chronic high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney disease
• An autoimmune disease such as lupus
• Certain characteristics and types of pregnancy, such as a pregnancy of multiples, a first pregnancy, conception through IVF, or a previous history of HDP. 

Demographic factors, including being 35 or older, having obesity, income status, and race and ethnicity, have also been associated with increased risk. 

The CDC report showed that the increased rates spanned all racial and ethnic groups, though not equally. Black and Native American women had the highest overall rates, up to 12.3% for Black women and 13.2% for Native American women. 

Although the overall rate among Asian pregnant people is lower than the average, they also have experienced the steepest percentage increase, with rates more than doubling from 3.5% to 7.1% during the study period. 

Consistent with prior research, the CDC report found gestational hypertension rates were higher among people with known risks, such as obesity and pregnancy at an age over 40. 

Rates also rose across all age groups and in every body mass index category, not just among those already considered high risk. 

This finding suggests existing risk factors alone do not account for the increase, though the exact degree to which any single factor contributes to this trend remains unclear.

Could environmental chemical exposure increase the risk?

While the CDC report cites other studies on HDP risk factors, those references do not examine environmental exposures. But regular exposure to harmful chemicals in personal care products, food and water, and household items could be contributing to this rise in HDP.

Pregnancy is a period of heightened biological sensitivity to environmental chemicals. Exposure to a specific chemical can affect a pregnant person differently than it would affect someone who is not pregnant, partly because of rapid physiological changes in the body and the developing placenta.  

For instance, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, or EDCs, such as phthalates, lead and cadmium, and the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, can interfere with hormone signaling and have been linked to worse maternal cardiometabolic health, including HDP. Research suggests that this link holds independent of established risk factors like obesity and age. 

Harmful chemical exposure may also increase risk of other conditions associated with HDP. This is because chemicals affect the same hormones and body systems. For example, EDC exposure has been linked to insulin resistance and Type 2 diabetes and metabolic disorders like obesity. 

EDC exposure may not just be a unique risk associated with HDP, but may also be a reason why certain risk factors, like obesity and diabetes, develop in the first place. 

Reducing chemical exposure may offer a way to also reduce risk of some of these established factors before they fully develop, along with managing HDP risk after these risks are already present.

Evidence of an HDP-environmental chemical exposure connection

A growing number of scientific studies show evidence of the connection between HDP and exposure to specific environmental chemicals. The chemicals are widely used in consumer products, detected in drinking water and used in industrial applications.

.dn { display: none !important; } .flipped-vert { transform: rotateX(180deg); } .table-wrapper { margin-bottom: 10px; } .table-cat { border-bottom: 1px solid #000; border-top: 1px solid #000; cursor: pointer; display: flex; font-family: niveau-grotesk, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; justify-content: space-between; padding: 20px 0; } .toggle-wrapper { align-items: center; display: flex; } .toggle { width: 20px; } .drop-content { padding: 20px 0 10px; } .drop-content p { line-height: 1.5; max-width: 700px; } PFAS

PFAS are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances widely used in personal care products, food packaging, children’s toys and household cleaners. They are known as “forever chemicals” because they can persist in the body and do not break down in the environment.

Studies have linked exposure to some PFAS and increased risk of HDP. A 2026 study of women in Puerto Rico found a mixture of six PFAS was associated with more than double the odds of developing gestational hypertension.

Similar associations between eight PFAS and gestational hypertension were also observed in a 2022 study of pregnant people in the Boston metro area. This is consistent with an older study, where researchers used data from the C8 health studies, a large court-mandated public health investigation of the forever chemical PFOA. They reported links between PFOA exposure and several health outcomes.

The Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes, or ECHO, cohort reported in a 2026 study that PFAS levels in the body were linked to higher odds of preeclampsia. ECHO is a National Institutes of Health-supported research program designed to enhance the health of children by combining data across multiple U.S. geographical sites. 

They also reported a suggestive association between PFOA and gestational hypertension risk, but the findings were not consistent among all study sites.

Phthalates

Based on EWG data, the average adult uses 12 personal care products a day. These products can expose people to hundreds of chemicals, including some, like phthalates, associated with health harms.

Phthalates are used to soften plastic or stabilize scents and are found in consumer products, including in personal care products, such as nail polish. Studies report associations between phthalates and HDP, but findings differ based on when during pregnancy exposure is measured and by the specific phthalate.

In a longitudinal cohort collecting data of women in Boston between 2016 and 2020, mixtures of phthalate concentrations detected in urine samples were associated with increased blood pressure during pregnancy.

A 2026 nested case-control study in China noted similar findings: Increased levels of phthalate mixtures in urine were associated with 1.49 times the odds of having had gestational hypertension.

A 2025 study of 291 pregnant people in Texas and Virginia found a replacement phthalate, diisononyl phthalate, was linked to higher odds of HDP – but only when exposure was measured during early pregnancy, not later.

Replacement phthalates are chemicals that became more popular in use after others were phased out due to concerns about their toxicity.

In a 2024 ECHO study of 3,430 pregnant participants across eight U.S. cohorts, researchers found that two-fold higher levels of certain phthalates in urine were associated with higher odds of preeclampsia/eclampsia and other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Exposure to a mixture of individual phthalates was also linked to higher odds of preeclampsia/eclampsia.

Flame retardants

Flame retardants are chemicals added to electronics, furniture and building materials to slow down or stop fires. These chemicals leach off into household air and dust over time, because they are not chemically bound to the products they are added to.

Only a few studies have examined whether there is a relationship between exposure to flame retardants and HDP.

A 2023 review identified just two studies that examined the link between polybrominated flame retardants, or PBDEs, and hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. The first, a case-control study in the U.S., reported increased odds of gestational hypertension for two PBDEs, BDE-66 and BDE-47. The other, a case-control study based in Iran, reported higher levels of all PBDEs were associated with 2.19 times the odds of having preeclampsia.

PBDEs were phased out of furniture, mattresses and baby products in the mid-2000s due to concerns about their toxicity. Now companies mostly use organophosphate ester flame retardants, or OPEs, as replacements. OPEs also help make plastic more flexible and are used in vinyl flooring, children’s toys and in personal care products, like nail polish.

Evidence of an association between OPEs and HDP is mixed. A small 2021 prospective cohort study of 346 pregnant women in Cincinnati found modest associations between some OPE flame retardants in urine and higher diastolic blood pressure later in pregnancy.

A more recent 2025 study of 900 pregnant women in Boston found no link to preeclampsia, though it did find some increases in continuous blood pressure measurements.

Given how few studies exist and how inconsistent their findings are, this evidence should be considered preliminary.

Bisphenols

Bisphenol A, or BPA, has been phased out of many consumer products. But it remains in epoxy resins used to line water pipes and metal food cans, and in printed thermal receipt paper. Evidence linking BPA exposure to HDP is limited to a few studies and overall is inconclusive.

A 2016 study of 481 pregnant women living in the Boston metro area found that urinary concentrations of BPA and several phthalate metabolites were associated with increased risk of preeclampsia. But this association was not observed at all doctor visits during the study period and differed by child sex.

A 2017 nested case-control study of 173 pregnancies in China found a similar link. BPA, measured in urine samples, was associated with risk of preeclampsia.

When the European Food Safety Authority reviewed this evidence in 2023, it concluded the link between BPA and preeclampsia was “as likely as not,” meaning the evidence was not strong enough to confirm a link but also not weak enough to rule one out.

Heavy metals

People can be exposed to heavy metals like lead, cadmium and mercury through drinking contaminated water, ingestion of certain foods, particularly fish, polluted air and contaminated personal care products. Several heavy metals, including lead and cadmium, are recognized endocrine disruptors.

A 2022 review noted that heavy metals like cadmium and lead have been linked to HDP. Globally, evidence linked cadmium exposure to preeclampsia, the review found. One well-known source of cadmium is cigarette smoke.

A 2026 review linked lead exposure to gestational hypertension, and a 2018 meta-analysis identified lead exposure as a significant risk factor for preeclampsia.

It’s worth noting that heavy metal levels are present at very low levels in most everyday consumer products, and U.S. regulations set limits for lead, cadmium and other heavy metals in a range of products.

document.querySelectorAll('.table-cat').forEach(item => { var toggle = item.querySelector('.toggle'); item.addEventListener('click', event => { toggle.classList.toggle('flipped-vert'); item.nextElementSibling.classList.toggle('dn'); }); }); The problem of ‘regrettable substitutions’

Biomonitoring data show that levels of several once-common chemicals, like brominated flame retardants, BPA, some PFAS, and certain phthalates, have declined in the U.S. population since bans and phase-outs began, in the mid-2000s and 2010s. 

But that decline was offset by rising exposure to newer replacement chemicals with similar chemical structures, and in some cases, similar health effects. This pattern is called a “regrettable substitution.”

For example, U.S. biomonitoring data showed median BPA levels fell 15% nationwide from 2013 to 2016, but levels of its replacement bisphenol S rose 20% over the same period. 

European biomonitoring data documents the same pattern – as BPA levels fell, its replacements bisphenol S and bisphenol F rose. 

The phthalate substitute diisononyl cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylat showed a similar rising trend. And OPE flame retardants, which largely replaced PBDEs, are now detected in urine samples from over 95% of the U.S. population. 

Image

Not every chemical class follows this substitution pattern. Blood lead levels have fallen substantially since leaded gasoline and paint were phased out, without a comparable replacement taking its place. 

Concentrations of the forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS have also declined continuously since regulatory restrictions began in the early 2000s. 

Whether a chemical has been substituted or has truly declined, research continues to link even lower exposure levels to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. 

This may point to the absence of a clearly safe exposure threshold for these endocrine-disrupting chemicals. 

Or it may reflect the fact that people are rarely exposed to one chemical at a time, and the combined effect of many low-level chemical exposures may matter more than any single compound.

Research designed to study these combined, real-world mixtures, rather than one chemical at a time, is still developing and is an important direction for future work.

How to reduce exposure to concerning chemicals

Collectively, these studies suggest that exposure to environmental chemicals during pregnancy may be one contributor to the risk of developing hypertensive disorders.  

People who want to reduce their exposure don’t have to try replacing all their belongings at once. Small changes, such as swapping out one product for a safer alternative or filtering your water, can help reduce exposure to harmful chemicals.

Here are some tips:

• Find safer personal care products free from chemicals of concern by searching EWG’s Skin Deep® database or using EWG’s Healthy Living™ app. 
• Avoid products whose labels do not disclose their fragrance. Phthalates used in personal care products might not always show up on the label if they are part of a fragrance blend. The umbrella term “fragrance” or “parfum” can contain up to 100 ingredients, some of which may be chemicals associated with health harms. 
• Consult EWG’s Tap Water Database to find which contaminants are detected in drinking water around the country. EWG’s water filter guide can help consumers match a filter to the specific contaminants in a particular location’s water and individual budget. Not every filter removes every harmful chemical.
• Choose glass, porcelain or stainless steel containers, particularly for hot food or liquids, and avoid reheating foods in plastic.
• If avoiding flame retardants in mattresses is a priority, consumers should look for a mattress or crib mattress made by a company that’s transparent about how it meets fire-safety requirements and what materials it uses in products. Or look for EWG Verified® mattresses for the highest level of confidence.

 

Areas of Focus Women's Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals BPA Flame Retardants PFAS Chemicals Phthalates Authors Alexa Friedman, Ph.D. Guest Authors Eunice Daudu September 30, 2026

The Stay Grounded network has launched a new project called ‘Red Lines for Airports’. It seeks to unite and support groups campaigning against airport expansion projects and build power for a reduction of air traffic. As part of it we’re running a European Tour, visiting members, and supporting with workshops and skill-shares. In September 2026, we joined local groups campaigning against the…

Source

This is a guest blog by Tom Ellison, Deputy Director, Center for Climate and Security (CCS), a research institute tackling systemic climate and ecological security risks, and Phil Newell, Communications co-chair, Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD), a global coalition of over 50 leading climate and anti-disinformation organizations dealing with climate misinformation and disinformation.

This past summer’s extreme weather has brought home the intensity of the climate crisis for many of us around the world: from the catastrophic floods in Nepal, to the lethal heatwaves across Europe and India, to the choking wildfires in North America, France, and Spain. 

As if that isn’t enough, we are seeing these extreme weather crises going hand-in-hand with information crises. The danger of heatwaves is being downplayed. Flooding is getting blamed on foreign neighbors. Wildfires are being attributed to a land-clearing conspiracy. As fossil-fueled extreme weather continues, it is also fueling an information crisis, bringing climate denial, AI slop content, political propaganda, extremism, and online rage bait. This has ramifications that endanger lives, divide societies, and undermine climate action. 

We must protect ourselves and those around us not only from the physical impacts of extreme weather but also from the disinformation that comes with it. The good news is, we can keep ourselves safe by anticipating and short-circuiting lies and distortions.  A new toolkit ‘Weathering Extremes,’  by Jennie King  from CCS lays out some practical steps forward:  

 

A Spanish military unit battles wildfires in August 2026, which displaced more than 300,000 people across Spain and France. (Military Emergencies Unit, Spanish Ministry of Defense)

 

Understanding the Threat

Wildfires, floods, and other extreme events bring a host of problematic claims and narratives. Experts sometimes talk about false information that is spread knowingly (disinformation), or  false information spread unknowingly (misinformation), or even  cherry-picked facts that are spread to manipulate (malinformation). But the most important thing is the impact this kind of information has, not the mindset of the person clicking “share.” 

In the wild, we might encounter three main categories of deception around extreme weather. These can look different from traditional denialism in climate debates. But they have a variety of harmful impacts.

• The first category is environmental, which attacks science or cherry picks facts to separate a disaster from its climate-related causes. To use wildfires as an example, this could mean saying this wildfire was started by an arsonist, not climate change. That may be true, but it obscures the fact that climate change is making wildfires more likely and intense, regardless of how they start. Over time, this can weaken our understanding of climate change, and slow down climate action. 
• The second category is political, which attacks disaster response efforts, often to grind an unrelated partisan or geopolitical axe. For example, Russia falsely claimed the wildfire wouldn’t have been so bad if the US hadn’t wasted resources supporting Ukraine, or the US President misleadingly argued that the LA wildfires are the fault of his political rival’s water policies. These claims can polarize governance, undermine disaster relief or recovery, or empower authoritarian leaders.
• The third category is hateful and extremist, which blames disasters on minorities or promotes conspiracy theories. These deceptions might look like the wildfires were caused by Jewish weather control or that foreigners are stealing all the disaster aid. Such falsehoods can divide societies or endanger the safety of vulnerable people. 

 

The Perpetrators and Motives

These claims are mostly about directing blame, whether to “natural” causes, to conspiracies, to minorities, to political rivals or foreign enemies–basically, anything but climate change. So what is really behind the lies? It comes down to money and power that vested interests have on the line during chaotic, viral climate disasters.

Big Oil & Big Tech

Private interests have a great deal of money to protect or gain from high-profile extreme weather events. Most obviously, oil, gas, coal, animal agriculture, and other polluting sectors don’t want disasters to motivate climate action that threatens their profits. The role of corporate lobbying, advertising, and PR in climate disinformation and on climate  obstruction, i.e. creating doubt on the severity of the climate crisis has been documented for decades. But more recently, the interests of Big Oil are increasingly aligned with those of Big Tech. 

Social Media Algorithms

Once upon a time, social media promised an open shortcut for connecting with other people, be they friends, family, or strangers. But along the way, social media became a stew of addictive algorithms, with users forever scrolling in circles, where attention is sold to advertisers rather than browsing an open web. Now, online conversation around disasters favors whatever earns clicks and cash– whether it’s rumors, rage bait, AI slop, propaganda, or hate speech. As a result, the social media channel for public engagement has been hijacked by dishonest influencers, polluters, and bots. That leaves policymakers and the public struggling to find reliable information during disasters, right when they need it most.

Political Ideology

Besides money, disinformation about extreme weather is also motivated by ideology and politics. Authoritarian governments see extreme weather as a chance to attach their message to a major news event and to undermine opponents and critics. Political extremists, especially the far right, have started treating climate change not just as an energy debate but as an enemy cultural identity. These actors are not the cause of our toxic information environment, but exploit and shape it to serve their goals.

Often, all these motives are mixed. For example, Russia has covertly sponsored far-right climate ‘disinfluencers’ in the United States, and the state-owned gas company owns Russia’s largest media conglomerate, showing how directly fossil fuel interests, social media, and global politics are intertwined.

During Hurricane Helene in 2024, the far right, online provocateurs, and Russian media spread climate denial, partisan attacks, and xenophobic messages, fueling security threats to public officials and FEMA relief workers (FEMA).

 

What Can We Do?

There are ways we can protect ourselves and our communities from these threats:  

1. We as communities and climate concerned citizens should expect disinformation during extreme weather as the rule, not the exception. Unfortunately, these information crises can happen anywhere, as local events are co-opted into viral narratives. By reading this and the resources here, you are already ahead of the curve. 
2. Second, we need to sidestep the algorithm and not rely only on social media. It’s tempting to focus all our energy online, but social media tends to reward lies and nonsense over truth. As Jennie King writes in Weathering Extremes, “information resilience is built on networks, not newsfeeds.” That means real-world connections matter – personal relationships, ties with local governments, or simple tools like email lists, phone trees, and group texts – that we can build before a disaster strikes. And it’s worth remembering: as Yale’s Climate Maps show, most people in the U.S, for example, support key climate actions – even if you’d never guess that from social media.
3. Third, we can build defenses ahead of time, rather than scrambling to counter or fact-check every rumor and lie during a crisis. One way is “pre-bunking”– warning people in advance about certain narratives, messengers, or tactics they are likely to run into. In fact, the disinformation examples earlier in this piece are themselves a form of pre-bunking. Another tool is the “truth sandwich” – leading with the truth, then knocking down a false claim or bad source, before reiterating the facts again. We can also work to get accurate information into the data AI chatbots learn and draw from – also called “generative engine optimization”. This is increasingly important as AI use grows, and because cunning governments and companies are already trying to feed their own messages into chatbots.

   A resource on prebunking and generative engine optimization, from Weathering Extremes: A Toolkit for Information Resilience Amid Disaster (CCS).

4. Finally, as citizens and civil society, we can push for the global, systematic reforms needed to make our online environment more trustworthy. Reforms that call for improved safety, transparency, privacy, and accountability standards for tech platforms endorsed by CAAD are a great starting point, and at will  unwind some of the toxic incentives that give lies and outrage the upper hand. 

 

Toward Information Resilience

Climate change and disinformation are two of the systemic challenges of our time, and they are colliding in harmful ways. Neither will be solved easily. But more people and institutions globally are tackling the challenge, from the UN to researchers to certain governments. Ultimately, reliable information is just as much a part of necessary climate infrastructure as is solar and wind power or flood defences. And everyone has a part to play from newsrooms to social algorithms and even family group chats. 

References and resources: 

• Weathering Extremes: A Toolkit for Information Resilience Amid Disaster
• Climate Action Against Disinformation coalition

 

The post Keeping Safe from Fires and Liars appeared first on 350.

For António Guterres, it was his final UNGA as UN Secretary-General. And he used the moment to make the case, repeatedly and forcefully, for international cooperation at precisely the moment when it is under greatest strain. In his final General Assembly address, Guterres called on governments to adopt national plans to transition away from fossil fuels, aligned with 1.5°C, and to protect workers and communities through that transition. And then, in words that will resonate far beyond the UN chamber, he landed on three words: “Polluters must pay.” 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by 350.org (@350org)

For us here at 350, that matters. For years, movements around the world have been demanding that those who have profited most from fossil fuels contribute to addressing the damage caused by their pollution. This week, that demand was articulated from the highest level of the UN.

And it wasn’t Guterres alone. The call for greater accountability from major polluters was echoed by political leaders, including the Spanish minister for ecological transition, Sara Aagesen Muñoz

Perhaps one of the most powerful interventions came from Nepal. Prime Minister Balendra Shah addressed the General Assembly following the devastating Bhotekoshi-Trishuli floods, which killed more than 1,400 people and left thousands unaccounted for, according to Nepalese authorities. He spoke not in abstract terms about climate risk, but about families waiting for loved ones who may never come home; communities searching through mud, rocks and floodwater; and homes, schools, roads and livelihoods swept away. 

His message was simple: Nepal heard the warnings. But global political action did not move at the speed required.

“The Bhotekoshi-Trishuli disaster was not just a local tragedy, it was a warning to the world.”

Shah also made the injustice explicit. Nepal contributes less than 0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet is facing profound consequences from a warming climate. He called for greater climate finance, including grant-based support rather than repeatedly pushing vulnerable countries further into debt.  This is what climate injustice looks like in practice: countries that have contributed least to the crisis are being forced to spend scarce resources responding to its consequences.

THE AWKWARD SILENCE

Scientists, frontline communities and climate movements have been saying for decades that climate breakdown will amplify existing vulnerabilities, undermine livelihoods, drive displacement and interact with conflict and instability. The intelligence assessment adds another powerful voice to that evidence base. But the fundamental problem isn’t a lack of warnings. It is the gap between what governments know and what they are prepared to do.

This brings us to one of the most concerning contradictions at play now: the leaders who will preside over the next stage of the climate negotiations, Australia and Türkiye, both used UNGA and New York Climate Week to talk about energy, electrification and climate action. But they were awfully silent about the elephant in the room: the urgent need to phase-out fossil fuels. It’s not like we’re living the worst energy crisis ever, emphasizing how crucial it is to break our toxic dependency towards oil, coal and gas.

Coal mine in Hunter Valley, Australia. Photo credit: Max Phillips

 

On the positive side, Türkiye launched its 35-by-35 Global Electrification Pledge, calling for electricity to account for 35% of global final energy consumption by 2035, alongside initiatives covering grids, buildings, transport, industry and AI. Electrification is important. But there is a fundamental question that cannot be avoided: electrifying with what, and for who?

ELECTRIFY NOW, BUT IN THE RIGHT WAY

As 350 and partners argued this week, electrification needs to go hand in hand with rapidly scaling renewables and phasing out coal, oil and gas – and with making climate finance available for developing countries to achieve this. 92+ organizations published this open letter saying that the electrification target counts only if the power is renewable, if it reaches the people who have no electricity today, if the money follows, and if it comes alongside progress in the negotiations on the Just Transition mechanism, finance, and adaptation, and other existing commitments

Otherwise, we risk increasing electricity demand while leaving the fossil-fuel system at the center of the energy system.

That contradiction was particularly visible in the speeches and policies surrounding COP31. Australia is talking about climate action while its government recently approved an expansion of BHP’s Saraji coal mine. Türkiye is promoting electrification while planning further fossil-fuel power capacity. The issue isn’t whether electrification is necessary. It is. The issue is whether governments are prepared to phase out fossil fuels and support a just transition.

AMBITION CANNOT WAIT

Street view of the wildfires in Türkiye’s Antalya province, which will host the COP31 summit. (Photo credit: 350.org Türkiye)

 

As COP32 hosts, Ethiopia showed its hand with President Atske’s UN address demonstrating the leadership East Africa has been waiting for. Inviting world leaders to Ethiopia in November 2027 in order to find solutions to the climate crisis, one of the defining imperatives of our era.At a time when other world leaders are backsliding on climate action, Ethiopia carried the torch of climate ambition high. As the next host of the Conference of Parties (COP32), this is exactly the kind of ambitious agenda-setting Africa needs, one that prioritizes a people-centered transition away from fossil fuels. 

However, with the world on the verge of overshooting 1.5C, every fraction of a degree we can avoid heating matters – and so does every political meeting. The World Bank. The IMF. The UN. The climate finance negotiations. The UN Tax Convention. COP31. Each is another opportunity to close the gap between what governments know and what they do. We cannot wait until COP32 to see the fossil fuels phase out in the agenda. We need it now.

UNGA ends. The diplomats leave New York. The speeches disappear from the headlines. But the crises don’t. The world has experienced devastating wildfires, catastrophic floods, extreme heat and a rapidly intensifying El Niño. The impacts are already being felt by people and communities around the world.

Next week, the climate season moves to Fiji for the COP31 pre-COP. All eyes will increasingly turn towards the negotiations in Türkiye and Australia. The question for COP31 should be straightforward:

Will governments finally put a date on the end of fossil fuels,  and put the money behind a just transition?

Because after this week in New York, there is little excuse for pretending we don’t know where the world is heading. We know the risks. We know the solutions. We know who has profited. And, who is paying the price.

Now the question is whether governments are prepared to act. Polluters must pay. And the fossil-fuel era must end.

The post UNGA: A week that laid bare the world’s fault lines, climate crisis all over it appeared first on 350.

From the forests of the Amazon to the streets of Puyo, FOSPA brought together Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants, local communities, and social movements to confront extractivism and build alternatives.

By: Andrea Echeverri Sierra

For six days in August, thousands of people from across the Amazon and beyond gathered in Puyo, Ecuador, to share experiences, strategies and hopes for the future of the region. Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant communities, social movements, youth, women, academics and civil society organisations came together through assemblies, workshops, ceremonies, cultural activities and a powerful march through the streets of the city.

The gathering took place against a stark reality. The Amazon is approaching a dangerous tipping point. Once imagined as an almost infinite forest, the region is increasingly threatened by deforestation, degradation, fires and global warming, with potentially devastating consequences for people, biodiversity and the climate system.

Yet FOSPA was not a gathering defined by despair. Again and again, what emerged from conversations, meals, ceremonies, a joint action plan and collective action was a sense that resistance is already happening, and that another future remains possible when people organise together.

The Amazon Under Threat

The Amazon bioregion— larger than the European Union and shared across nine countries—once felt infinite to its ancestral guardians. Today, however, it stands at the precipice of a dangerous tipping point, one that seems straight out of a post-apocalyptic film, the rainforest is rapidly shifting toward savannization. This impending ecological collapse threatens not only the Amazonian web of life, but the entire planetary stability. The consequences are catastrophic: a global climate feedback loop that would render international climate targets entirely unattainable; the disruption of atmospheric circulation, triggering widespread droughts across South America and altering weather patterns as far away as the Asian monsoons and Antarctic ice systems; and a catastrophic loss of socio-agrobiodiversity across ecological, cultural, pharmaceutical, and economic dimensions.

Although there are localized tipping points, such as the savannization in specific regions of Bolivia and Brazil, and the loss of ecological connectivity between the Andes and the Amazon, we find ourselves at a critical and extremely fragile moment in which we must act to prevent the Amazon region from reaching a critical threshold. With scientific models warning that this tipping point could be reached between 2040 and 2050 if current trends of deforestation, degradation, fires, and global warming persist, immediate and transformative action is imperative. Amidst this urgency, grassroots hope and resistance shine through numerous regional and local initiatives.

The Pan-Amazonian Social Forum (FOSPA)

The Global Forest Coalition (GFC) has joined the Pan-Amazonian Social Forum (FOSPA) at different times. FOSPA is a regional, autonomous, and pluralistic platform that brings together Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants, social movements, civil society, and academia from the nine countries of the Amazon basin. Formed in 2002 within the framework of the World Social Forum, it has become a key space for political coordination and action to defend life, territories, and justice in the face of the climate crisis and extractivism.

FOSPA 2026. GFC

Although FOSPA is an ongoing process, its most visible milestones to date are reflected in its twelve editions held in various countries of the Amazon basin. In 2026, GFC participated in the 12th edition of FOSPA in Puyo (Ecuadorian Amazon) from August 16 to 21, with the participation of thousands of people from 32 countries, primarily from countries within the basin. The gathering was rich and diverse, including field trips to identify impacts and celebrate alternatives, a market and food fair, a youth camp, cultural and artistic activities, workshops, working groups, plenary sessions, ceremonies and spiritual guidance, Indigenous People´s and women’s gatherings, self-organized events, a large march; and many shared experiences during dinners and meetings to harmonize our feelings about life into new plans and strategies.

The vibrant convergence of ancestral wisdom, daily resistance, and unwavering solidarity through walking the territories, sharing meals, listening to Indigenous elders, youth, and women in spirited assemblies, and participating in spiritual ceremonies is striking, it leaves an indelible mark. Hearing firsthand accounts from defenders whose very cosmogonies, rivers, and bodies are targeted by corporate extractivism shifts our understanding from a conceptual awareness of crisis to a visceral, embodied recognition of interconnected struggles. FOSPA reinforced the conviction that defending the Amazon is not merely an environmental task; it is an urgent defense of plural ways of living, feeling, knowing, and being.

It is deeply moving to witness unity literally in motion, with everyone working tirelessly for a living Amazon and honoring its diverse peoples and cultures. It became clear that no one saves anyone else, nor does anyone save themselves alone; we truly need each other. We need a committed academia, radical church movements standing firm for the transformation of a model that exploits bodies and territories, and civil society organizations that vibrate with life, embracing their role of support rather than usurping the voices of those who dwell there. We need organized women and youth grounding their agendas, Indigenous Peoples constantly demonstrating dignity and a deep, harmonious kinship with Mother Earth, and resilient, joyful Quilombolas and afrodescendents communities bringing a stubborn hope through their words and actions. We need Amazonian city dwellers, artistic collectives, environmental organizations, producer associations… In moments like these, we know that by coming together, we can save the Amazon.

Faced with the multiple problems confronting the peoples and ecosystems of the region—and the world—we require diverse and coordinated struggles from different perspectives. In particular, our emphasis on this occasion, together with members and allies of our coalition, was focused on strengthening alliances and joint actions to curb the impact of industrial agribusiness and livestock production, as well as on promoting alternatives to these practices.

The conversion of forests and jungles to make way for new cattle grazing areas and crops such as soy, corn, and oil palm is the main cause of the accelerated loss of vegetation cover. Evidence is alarming; according to a 2023 report from the Amazon Georeferenced Socio-Environmental Information Network (RAISG) and the MapBiomas network, three out of every four hectares deforested in the Amazon over the last four decades have been used for cattle ranching, which accounts for 75% of accumulated deforestation. This figure becomes even more significant when we consider that, of the approximately 86 million hectares (Mha) of natural vegetation deforested between 1985 and 2022 in the Amazon region, 66.5 Mha were converted into pastureland, while of the additional 19.4 million hectares used for agricultural purposes, a large proportion is used for the production of soy or corn, inputs which are then used to feed the same livestock industry.

Unsustainable Livestock Production is Extractivism

During a self-organized event, co-convened by GFC, our members CEDENMA, Brighter Green, and CIPCA, together with Acción Ecológica and GRAIN, we were able to hear diverse perspectives on these impacts in Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia,Brazil and throughout Latin America. Among the key issues were: the serious harm caused by industrial livestock and soy production to Indigenous and peasant communities, which jeopardizes entire worldviews by affecting rivers, soils, and spiritual practices, and which generates sick, sad, displaced bodies and corporate memories; the links between industrial livestock and paramilitarism and drug trafficking in countries like Colombia; the strategies of persecution, harassment, and co-optation deployed by companies and governments against land defenders; the foreign ownership of land and water; the persistent dependence on an export-oriented extractive model; and, in short, the predatory practices of the livestock industry. All of this led us to recognize,along with around 24 organizations participating in this and other activities convened by this same group, that unsustainable livestock is in essence a core form of extractivism, placed on the exact same predatory footing as oil drilling and large mining.

This statement was ratified in the FOSPA Action Plan, which must guide coordinated actions until the holding of its XIII version in Colombia in 2028: “Industrial animal production is one of the main drivers of deforestation, pollution, and land grabbing, as well as human rights violations, and it is a form of extractivism that threatens our territories and ecosystems.” 

Just as there are vehement struggles against oil exploitation and mining extraction, if we want to make the future possible again in the world and in the Amazon, we must add to these necessary battles those aimed at containing the expansion of agribusiness, largely concentrated around industrial livestock farming. These insights from FOSPA directly reinforce our core campaigns and policy positions. GFC has long advocated against false solutions to climate change and exposed the devastating drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. The lessons learned in Puyo validate our strategic focus on challenging corporate-led industrial livestock and agro-industrial models as central pillars of our work on just transitions.

FOSPA 2026. GFC

Environmental justice cannot be achieved while trade agreements, international financing, and corporate supply chains continue to reward land grabbing and ecosystem destruction under the guise of “feed security” or “green growth.” We take away from FOSPA a reinforced mandate to strengthen internationalist solidarity, bridge local community resistance with global policy advocacy, and amplify the voices of women, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities who champion genuine, rights-based alternatives such as agroecology, food sovereignty, and community forest management.

The challenges facing the Amazon and our global climate are immense, but FOSPA did not leave us paralyzed by the prospect of ecological collapse. Instead, it filled us with a deep sense of agency, hope, and concrete collective action.

“¡Si nos juntamos, los atajamos!” (If we band together, we stop them!)

The path forward lies in our unity. As the inspiring rallying cry echoed through the streets of Puyo. We are not the generations destined to watch the Amazon die in a slow, agonizing collapse. We are the generations choosing to stand together, bridging local resistance with global solidarity, to heal our relationship with the Earth and secure a vibrant, living future for all.

PRESS CONTACTS: NICE, France – Scores of billionaire private jet owners are flying into Nice this week to shop for new super- and mega-yachts at the Monaco Yacht Show, an annual event in the Principality of Monaco on the French Riviera. Tax Private Jets is tracking private jet flights – and the carbon emissions attached to these flights – into Nice, where many attendees will board…

Source

The Deep Geothermal Roadmap consultative session has now begun, and the Canadian Deep Geothermal Coalition is meeting and working with representatives of industry, government, and Indigenous groups to develop a strategy for launching geothermal energy in Canada.

The Canadian Deep Geothermal Coalition, with the Cascade Institute acting as Secretariat, is developing this first-ever roadmap for geothermal development in Canada with funding support from Natural Resources Canada.

The Coalition seeks to create the conditions for Canada to develop geothermal projects at home and compete in a rapidly growing global market. To realize this, the Coalition will conduct an in-depth analysis of the most pressing challenges and opportunities. To do this, four working groups will address the following areas:

• Technology: Working group members will provide an overview of technology available to optimize geothermal energy extraction, and identify priorities for R&D, including drilling innovation, surface technologies, and reservoir characterization.
• Finance: This working group will assess how to improve the bankability of projects, reducing financial risks for both private and public investors. The working group will assess existing Canadian financing structures and risk-sharing mechanisms as well as successful international examples.
• Communities: This working group will identify how geothermal projects can earn social support and deliver direct-use benefits for Canadian communities. It will lead Indigenous engagement, co-ownership, and benefit-sharing approaches, and address environmental risks—including water use and induced seismicity—that affect social license.
• Competitiveness: Participants in this working group will identify the market segments and regional strengths Canadian companies should prioritize, including opportunities for Indigenous collaboration. It will also address intellectual property considerations and assess Canada’s regulatory readiness for geothermal development.

The Canadian Deep Geothermal Coalition is grateful to all the industry experts, company leaders, geothermal advocates, and Indigenous leaders who have generously volunteered their time to help shape this document, and shape the future of geothermal in Canada.

Alongside this project, the Canadian Deep Geothermal Coalition will be working with outside organizations to undertake:

• A Global Market Assessment that will estimate the total emerging geothermal market. This market is rapidly expanding as firms and nations rush to electrify the supply of clean, reliable power needed to electrify existing industries and support new industries, such as AI.
• A Canadian Deployment Study will assess the role of geothermal energy in Canada’s energy future. By simulating how geothermal is adopted in Canada’s energy systems, we can understand how it can help to reduce energy prices, boost GDP and productivity, and mitigate climate change.
• A Supply Chain Analysis will assess Canada’s readiness to lead in geothermal development and expertise. The study will develop a detailed inventory of Canada’s globally competitive oil and gas sector to identify where Canada is best positioned to leverage those strengths to lead in rapidly growing geothermal markets.

“This Roadmap will be a geothermal strategy—built for Canada, by Canadians,” said Emily Smejkal, Policy Lead with the Cascade Institute. “It will centre Canadian expertise and challenges, with participation from industry, government, and Indigenous Peoples.”

The Canadian Deep Geothermal Coalition aims to deliver the full roadmap by the end of 2027.

The Canadian Deep Geothermal Coalition, launched in 2025, includes industry, Indigenous organizations, communities, academia, government, and other stakeholders. The Canadian Deep Geothermal Coalition, with the Cascade Institute acting as Secretariat, will lead the development of the roadmap.

For more information on the Roadmap or Cascade’s work in support of it or to arrange interviews, please contact Jax Jacobsen at jax@cascadeinstitute.org.

The post Working groups begin drafting Deep Geothermal Roadmap appeared first on Cascade Institute.

Newsom signs landmark bill to track and disclose PFAS pesticide use in California Monica Amarelo September 22, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Gov. Gavin Newsom today signed groundbreaking legislation that takes a first step in addressing the widespread use of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” pesticides on California produce. 

The new law, AB 1603, authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), requires the state to monitor and disclose PFAS pesticide use. State agencies do not track the concerning use of toxic PFAS on crops – but that will change now that the Environmental Working Group has raised concerns.

EWG found that more than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied to Golden State crops each year, contaminating produce – in addition to soil and water – sold in the state and throughout the U.S. 

EWG’s research also found PFAS pesticides on nine in 10 California-grown samples of non-organic peaches, nectarines and plums tested by the state, as well as in local waterways and sediment.

“I want to thank Gov. Newsom for recognizing that families deserve to know what’s being sprayed on their food,” said Schultz.

“Signing AB 1603 into law is a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation. Tracking and monitoring is the crucial first step. You can’t fix what you can’t see,” he added.

“We’re grateful to Gov. Newsom for highlighting PFAS pesticide use and signing this bill into law,” said Susan Little, EWG California legislative director. 

“Now, for the first time, we’ll have a comprehensive picture of where these chemicals are being sprayed and in what quantities.

“We need to help our farmers transition away from these persistent chemicals so California can be a global leader in food safety,” Little said.

Along with EWG, other sponsors of the new law include Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.

Defining PFAS pesticides

The new law establishes a class-based definition of PFAS pesticides, consistent with other California laws and regulations already addressing these chemicals. That definition matters: It ensures tracking and disclosure requirements can’t be sidestepped with chemical-by-chemical loopholes.

The definition would also lay the groundwork for action that avoids “regrettable substitutions” – PFAS replacements that can also have health concerns.

Though thousands of PFAS are used today, comprehensive toxicity data is available about very few. But what is known is alarming: The health harms linked to the most well-studied PFAS, including cancer, suppression of the immune system and reproductive and developmental harm, show up at doses far lower than regulators once considered safe.

The tracking and disclosure law Newsom signed is narrower than what Schultz first proposed, following almost $900,000 in agricultural and chemical industry lobbying. 

That included roughly $179,000 from the American Chemistry Council and more than $20,000 from PFAS pesticide maker Syngenta, both targeting AB 1603 specifically. The spending also paid for meals and gift baskets for lawmakers, according to state campaign finance disclosures reviewed by Inside Climate News.  

Why tracking and monitoring matter

Despite the narrowing, the law still requires first-time Department of Pesticide Regulation systematic tracking and public disclosure of PFAS pesticides use in the state.

“Because of their chemical structures, all PFAS share the core characteristics of extreme environmental persistence and potential harm to immune and reproductive systems,” said Varun Subramaniam, EWG science analyst. “That raises serious concerns about the long-term health risks of using PFAS pesticides on food crops.

“Thanks to Gov. Newsom, we’re finally telling it like it is, so farmers, regulators and the public alike can be aware of the extent of this hidden PFAS use. This kind of tracking and monitoring has to come first, before we can talk about what comes next,” said Subramaniam. 

Collecting reliable, ongoing tracking data will end the long-running gap in data about PFAS pesticide use in the state. Access to this data will help build a foundation for action that could include use restrictions, farmer transition support, water monitoring and more. 

“The United States depends on California for its fruits and vegetables, but right now that produce is being seasoned with chemicals that never break down,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. 

“We cannot claim to lead the world in public health while allowing millions of pounds of toxic PFAS to be deliberately sprayed on our most iconic crops. Getting a handle on where and how much is being used is the essential first step,” she said.

States leading on regulation

The federal Environmental Protection Agency regulates and approves pesticides for national use, but states aren’t required to follow suit. 

California operates its own approval system: Its Department of Pesticide Regulation must independently evaluate and authorize each chemical before farmers can use it. That gives the state the power to protect its residents – authority Newsom has now put to greater use with this new tracking and disclosure requirement.

That authority matters more than ever because of federal developments. The EPA has continued to approve new PFAS pesticides at an accelerating pace, greenlighting three more in July. Many carry documented health harms, including links to cancer and reproductive toxicity.

With the EPA fast-tracking approvals, it’s necessary for California to take the lead in informing the public and local officials about the pesticides that do contain PFAS, while monitoring the pesticide use.

Banning PFAS pesticides

While California remains one of the world’s largest users of PFAS pesticides, other jurisdictions have moved to restrict or ban them. In 2023, Maine enacted the nation’s first ban on PFAS pesticides, starting in 2030. In the same year, Minnesota banned nonessential PFAS uses, including pesticides, phasing them out by 2032.

Other countries are also acting. The European Union has prohibited 23 of the PFAS pesticides heavily used in California, including bifenthrin, trifluralin and flufenacet.

With AB 1603 now law, California joins these other states and jurisdictions in laying the groundwork for the nation’s salad bowl to once again be a public health leader. 

“California has been a public health bellwether for decades, from car emissions to chemical safety,” said Del Chiaro. “This new law is the least we can do for families and communities struggling to contain widespread PFAS contamination in our soil, air, water and food.

“It’s the foundation for everything,” she added.

###

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. 

Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) is a diverse, statewide coalition of 200+ member groups working to strengthen pesticide policies in California to protect public health and the environment. Member groups include public and children’s health advocates, clean air and water groups, health practitioners, environmental justice groups, labor, education, farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates from across the state.

The Center for Environmental Health believes everything people consume, from the water they drink to the toys their children handle, should put health first. We insist on laws and policies that protect the public from harm, work to make communities more aware of risks, and push to transform corporate behavior. CEH advances environmental health and justice for the greater good, from the courtroom to the boardroom.

Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN) North America, is the North America Regional Center for the international PAN network. We work with those on the frontlines to tackle the pesticide problem and reclaim the future of food and farming from the pesticide and biotech corporations that have, for far too long, dictated how we grow food, placing the health and economic burdens of pesticide use on farmers, farmworkers and rural communities.

Areas of Focus Food Farming & Agriculture Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California New transparency law will reveal ‘forever chemicals’ sprayed on the state’s produce Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 September 28, 2026

A panel of judges today sided with the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (Yakama Nation) and Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Western Environmental Law Center, ordering the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to rewrite a portion of a controversial water quality certification, effectively delaying construction of the proposed Goldendale Energy Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project at Pushpum, a sacred site known to the Yakama Nation as “mother of all roots.”

Rye Development, backed by Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, proposes to permanently destroy Pushpum, part of the Columbia Hills located along the Columbia River near the John Day Dam, by building the Goldendale Pumped Storage development, the largest such development proposal in the Pacific Northwest.

“As the court found, the Washington Department of Ecology failed to protect the Columbia River,“ said Andrew Hawley, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “Now the agency has a second chance to right not only that wrong, but to also use its authority under the law to address the significant impacts this ill-conceived project will impose on the Columbia River, its tributaries, groundwater, the Yakama Nation, and other Tribes impacted by the development.”

The Goldendale Pumped Storage development threatens the sacred land, medicines, and traditions of Pushpum, a Yakama Nation sacred site for ceremonies, legends, and gathering of traditional roots and medicines. As a natural seed bank, this site contains rich biodiversity in plant and animal life that can never be fully restored once removed.

The project area is within ceded lands of Yakama Nation, and the area has historically been used by the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation, and the Nez Perce Tribe for hunting, traditional gathering, fishing, camping, and traditional ceremonies.

“Clean, renewable energy is essential to protecting our planet,” said Columbia Riverkeeper Senior Attorney Simone Anter. “Yet, state and federal governments are violating Treaty-reserved rights and ignoring Tribal sovereignty in order to license projects aimed at supporting energy-hungry data centers—not a just transition from fossil fuels.”

Opposition to the Goldendale Pumped Storage development has steadily increased since the project was proposed in 2017, with a growing coalition of climate and environmental groups and community activists voicing serious concerns. In Washington, 18 federally recognized Tribes have come out against this development. Both the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) have issued resolutions opposing the destruction of Pushpum.

Today’s ruling is a step toward correcting course and protecting Pushpum, and challenges to the project continue to mount. Despite the lack of comprehensive consultation and the trivialization of cultural resource destruction through inadequate proposed mitigation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the final hydroelectric license for the development in January 2026. Columbia Riverkeeper and Yakama Nation both filed petitions for judicial review at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Resources:

• Photos from May 8, 2026 Protect Pushpum Encampment event
• Columbia Riverkeeper’s backgrounder
• Yakama Nation’s public-facing site with written and video materials on the Yakama Nation Perspective on the pump storage development
• FERC Issues Decision to Permanently Destroy Sacred Tribal Cultural Properties, January 23, 2026
• Questions & Answers : Goldendale Pumped Storage, May 5, 2025
• Opposition to the Goldendale Pumped Storage Development Continues to Grow, August 15, 2024
• FERC Ignores Tribal, Environmental Concerns, February 8, 2024
• Ecology’s Previous 401 Denial, June 2021

Background:
In January, the State of Washington’s Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) issued an order upholding Ecology’s water quality certification for the project. Columbia Riverkeeper, represented by Western Environmental Law Center, quickly challenged the order at the Washington State Court of Appeals. Oral arguments took place in February.

Despite receiving a license from FERC, the project still needs a final signed Historic Properties Management Plan and several permits, including from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, before it can break ground.

Contacts: 

Andrew Hawley, Western Environmental Law Center, 406-324-7569, hawley@westernlaw.org

Simone Anter, Columbia Riverkeeper, 541-399-5312, simone@columbiariverkeeper.org

The post Court orders changes to controversial water quality certification, delaying destruction of sacred Tribal resources appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

Within six weeks this summer, three competing visions for governing artificial intelligence took concrete shape: the U.S. State Department hosted its second Pax Silica Summit, the United Nations convened its Global Dialogue on AI Governance, and 29 countries signed an agreement in Shanghai establishing the Chinese-led World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO).

In a new report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Cascade Institute fellow Christopher Collins and Aalok Mehta, director of the CSIS Wadhwani AI Center, argue that the United States is now in an institutional race to lead global AI governance — and that China’s offer to middle powers is an attractive one. Ahead of the September 24 U.S.-China talks on AI safety, they urge U.S. policymakers to pursue a focused safety agenda, treat verification as a technical program rather than a diplomatic issue, and build a domestic model of AI governance worth exporting.

Collins is a fellow with the Polycrisis Program at the Cascade Institute and a senior associate (non-resident) with the Wadhwani AI Center at CSIS.

Read the full report at CSIS.

The post The State of AI Global Governance and Its Implications for the U.S.-China Summit appeared first on Cascade Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

Instead, they walked away from California entirely. 

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

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

Failing to turn over safety data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paraquat health risks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why this matters regardless of your state’s regulatory tools 

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

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

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

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

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

What you can do

• Contact your state lawmakers to urge them to ban paraquat 

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

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

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

Português abaixo

New report documents decades of land dispossession, water depletion, Cerrado destruction and conflict as Aperam receives €250 million financing package

21 September, 2026 — A new, in-depth investigation published today exposes the devastating social and environmental costs of Aperam BioEnergia’s monoculture eucalyptus plantations in Minas Gerais, Brazil, which it uses to produce charcoal, biochar and “green steel”. The co-authors of the investigation have issued an urgent call for all investment in the company to be halted.

The report, Dry Streams in an Ocean of Eucalyptus: Aperam BioEnergia’s Green Steel and Carbon Removal Illusion, based on extensive field research and interviews with traditional and Quilombola communities and public officials, reveals that Aperam’s business model—promoted as a climate and sustainability solution—has been imposed through large-scale deforestation, leading to the loss of biodiversity and the depletion of water resources in the Jequitinhonha Valley. The report documents a drastic drop in water tables, drying of springs and rivers and the collapse of traditional agricultural and pastoral livelihoods.

Local communities recount decades of land dispossession, intimidation and health risks linked to pesticide use and air pollution from Aperam’s operations. Many now face food insecurity, economic hardship and a worrying increase in health problems, including cancer. The investigation also highlights the severe shortcomings of voluntary certification schemes and international financiers, such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC), whose recent €250-million financing package is enabling Aperam’s continued expansion despite clear evidence of harm.

“Aperam’s operations are being presented as part of the green transition, but what is being ‘greened’ is a polluting, extractive industrial model.” said Jana Uemura, coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition’s Climate Justice and Forests Campaign and the Biomass Action Network’s Latin America Working Group. “Eucalyptus plantations, charcoal and biochar are being sold as climate solutions, backed by international finance and carbon markets, while communities and ecosystems bear the costs.”

The investigation’s key demand is unequivocal: all financial support, investment and sourcing relationships with Aperam must be suspended immediately. The report calls on the IFC, World Bank Group and all other financiers to cancel contractual arrangements and commit to no future support for Aperam. Certification schemes such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Puro.earth are urged to suspend Aperam’s certifications pending full investigations of community complaints.

“Justice for affected communities and the protection of the Cerrado’s unique biodiversity must take precedence over corporate profit and greenwashing,” the report concludes. It calls for a redirection of investment toward community-led restoration, agroecology and water security initiatives in the Jequitinhonha Valley, and a transition away from all carbon fuel-based energy.

The full report, published by the Global Forest Coalition with support from Biofuelwatch, the EPN’s Biomass Action Network and the Hands Off Mother Earth (HOME) Alliance, is available in English and Portuguese.

Media Contacts: 

Jana Uemera (Eng/Por): jana.uemura@globalforestcoalition.org

Ismail Wolff (Eng): ismail.wolff@globalforestcoalition.org

About the Investigation: This report centers the experiences and demands of the Jequitinhonha Valley’s traditional and Quilombola communities. It exposes the urgent need for a paradigm shift in climate and development finance, away from harmful monocultures and false climate solutions, and toward justice, community rights and ecological restoration.

“Aço verde” construído sobre secas e terras roubadas: sociedade civil pede a suspensão da expansão da Aperam

Novo relatório documenta décadas de expropriação de terras, esgotamento hídrico, destruição do Cerrado e conflitos, enquanto a Aperam recebe um pacote de financiamento de € 250 milhões

21 de setembro de 2026 — Uma nova pesquisa aprofundada, publicada hoje, expõe os custos sociais e ambientais devastadores das plantações de eucalipto em monocultura da Aperam BioEnergia em Minas Gerais, Brasil, utilizadas para produzir carvão vegetal, biochar e “aço verde”. Os coautores da investigação fizeram um apelo urgente para que todo investimento na empresa seja interrompido.

O relatório, intitulado Córregos secos em um oceano de eucalipto: Aço verde e a ilusão da remoção de carbono da Aperam BioEnergia, baseia-se em extensa pesquisa de campo e entrevistas com integrantes de comunidades tradicionais e quilombolas e representantes do poder público. O documento revela que o modelo de negócios da Aperam — promovido como uma solução climática e de sustentabilidade — foi imposto por meio de desmatamento em larga escala, levando à perda de biodiversidade e ao esgotamento dos recursos hídricos no Vale do Jequitinhonha. O relatório documenta uma queda drástica nos níveis do lençol freático, a secagem de nascentes e rios e o colapso dos meios de subsistência tradicionais ligados à agricultura e à pecuária tradicionais.

Comunidades locais relatam décadas de expropriação de terras, intimidação e riscos à saúde, especialmente de mulheres e crianças, associados ao uso de agrotóxicos e à poluição do ar decorrente das operações da Aperam. Muitas pessoas agora enfrentam insegurança alimentar, dificuldades econômicas e um aumento preocupante de problemas de saúde, incluindo casos de câncer. A investigação também destaca as graves falhas dos sistemas de certificação voluntária e dos financiadores internacionais, como a International Finance Corporation (IFC), cujo recente pacote de financiamento de € 250 milhões está viabilizando a continuidade da expansão da Aperam, apesar de evidências claras de danos.

“As operações da Aperam estão sendo apresentadas como parte da transição verde, mas o que está sendo ‘pintado de verde’ é um modelo industrial poluente e extrativista”, disse Janaina Uemura, coordenadora da campanha de Justiça Climática e Florestas da GFC e do Grupo de Trabalho Latinoamericano e do Caribe da Rede de Ação Contra a Biomassa Industrial. “Plantações de eucalipto, carvão vegetal e biochar estão sendo vendidos como soluções climáticas, sustentados pelo financiamento internacional e pelos mercados de carbono, enquanto comunidades e ecossistemas arcam com os custos.”

A principal exigência da investigação é inequívoca: todo apoio financeiro, bem como todos os investimentos e as relações de fornecimento com a Aperam devem ser suspensos imediatamente. O relatório insta a IFC, o Grupo Banco Mundial e todos os demais financiadores a encerrarem seus vínculos contratuais e a se comprometerem a não oferecer apoio futuro à Aperam. Sistemas de certificação, como o Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) e a Puro.earth, são instados a suspender as certificações da Aperam até que as denúncias das comunidades sejam plenamente investigadas.

“A justiça para as comunidades afetadas e a proteção da biodiversidade única do Cerrado devem prevalecer sobre o lucro corporativo e o greenwashing“, conclui o relatório. O documento defende o redirecionamento de investimentos para iniciativas de restauração lideradas pelas comunidades, de agroecologia e de segurança hídrica no Vale do Jequitinhonha, bem como para uma transição para abandonar todas as fontes de energia baseadas em combustíveis de carbono.

O relatório completo, publicado pela Global Forest Coalition com o apoio da Rede de Ação contra a Biomassa (da EPN), da Biofuelwatch e da aliança Hands Off Mother Earth (HOME), está disponível em inglês e português.

Contatos para a imprensa:

Sobre a investigação: Este relatório coloca no centro as experiências e reivindicações das comunidades tradicionais e quilombolas do Vale do Jequitinhonha. Expõe a necessidade urgente de uma mudança de paradigma no financiamento climático e para o desenvolvimento, afastando-se de monoculturas prejudiciais e falsas soluções climáticas e voltando-se para a justiça, os direitos das comunidades e a restauração ecológica

Newsom signs landmark California transparency bill, creating ‘non-ultraprocessed’ label for food Anthony Lacey September 19, 2026

SACRAMENTO – In a historic victory for consumers, California Gov. Gavin Newsom today signed a trailblazing law that gives shoppers in the grocery store an easy way to spot less harmful processed foods.

Assembly Bill 2244, introduced by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), received bipartisan support from legislators in the state Assembly and Senate.

The Environmental Working Group co-sponsored the bill.

“While Washington D.C. is paralyzed by inaction, Republicans and Democrats in California are joining forces to empower consumers to avoid harmful ultra-processed foods,” said Gabriel. 

“Like the USDA Organic label, this new seal will provide consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to locate healthier foods that are free from harmful additives. Parents shouldn't need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they’re feeding their kids.

“California began this movement three years ago by banning the most dangerous food additives, and with Governor Newsom’s continued leadership we are taking another big step forward today,”  he added.

The new law directs the state to create a standardized label bearing the phrase “non-ultra-processed certified.” Products will not be permitted to carry the new label if California law classifies them as ultra-processed food, or UPF. 

Only products that meet these requirements can display the seal. A food will not qualify for the label if it contains substances or additives, including dyes, flavor enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners or processing aids, used to manipulate the taste or quality of foods, making them hyperpalatable or irresistible.

Raising the bar

AB 2244 builds on AB 1264, a 2025 landmark law, also authored by Gabriel. AB 1264 created the first U.S. legal definition of UPF and banned the worst of the worst from K-12 public schools. 

The California Department of Public Health will oversee certification of products that meet the state’s non-UPF standard, approving and accrediting third-party certifiers to conduct product certifications. The products must be recertified at least every three years. The law directs the department to accredit these third-party certifiers no later than June 1, 2029.

“Today California raised the bar for what we consider healthy food,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California. “Consumers deserve labels they can trust, and with Gov.  Newsom’s signature, families now have a simple way to tell which foods are closer to what comes from a kitchen rather than a factory.”

“AB 2244 creates a state-verified seal for foods free from the additives, emulsifiers, food dyes and flavors that have come to define the modern American diet,” she added. 

“California is once again leading where Washington has stalled – and this new law gives millions of families a fighting chance to shop with confidence.”

Transparency and accountability for the food system

The law includes these strong oversight and transparency measures:

• Certification agents must register with the state 
• The state can audit certification records at any time
• The state must maintain a public, online list of certified products 
• Misuse of the label will be illegal and subject to enforcement

These provisions are designed to ensure the label’s credibility.

Making healthier choices easier in stores

In addition to creating the label, the law requires large food retailers to display certified products so consumers can easily identify them, for instance,  through special signage or physical separation within the store.

This requirement applies to grocery stores that sell more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified products  and brings in more than $10 million in annual sales. 

Addressing the rise of UPF

UPF are industrially manufactured, chemically modified products often made with additives widely used in cosmetics and used in food to enhance taste, texture, appearance and shelf life. 

In the U.S., these foods make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half the typical adult diet.

Experts say ultra-processed food and drinks are engineered to trick people into consuming more of them than they want, especially soda.

Scientific research has linked diets high in UPF to serious health harms, including cancer, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders (such as Crohn’s disease and fatty liver disease) and mental health issues.

Obesity is chief among the health problems linked to UPF. Rates of obesity in the U.S. and globally have skyrocketed in tandem with the rising UPF consumption.

Help for consumers

Despite these concerns, consumers have no clear, standard labeling system to help them identify foods that are not UPF.

With federal regulators slow to update oversight of food additives and processing, states are increasingly taking action to protect public health.

The new law builds on California’s leadership in addressing harmful food chemicals and improving transparency for consumers. 

“Because companies are not required to disclose an ingredient’s purpose, it can be really difficult even for experts, even for people like me who have a doctoral degree in nutrition, to look at a food package and determine whether a food is ultra-processed or not,” said Alyssa Moran, ScD, MPH. Moran is deputy director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

“And from a behavioral science perspective, we also know that people seldom use information on the back of food packages to make food decisions,” Moran said. “So that is exactly why clear, science-backed labels on the front of food packages can be so influential in helping people to make better choices.

“If we want to meaningfully curb disease, we need a suite of complementary policies that limit the availability of ultra-processed foods while promoting non-ultra-processed alternatives. I firmly believe this is the only way we’ll make progress,” she added.

Consumers can consult EWG’s Food Scores database to find products that are less processed. Food Scores also flags unhealthy ultra-processed food and drinks and can help identify alternatives.

###

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 Ultra-Processed Foods California Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 September 28, 2026

To celebrate the 20th anniversary of Rights of Nature in Tamaqua, CELDF is sharing an interview with Cathy Miorelli and CELDF’s Education Director Ben Price as the two recall some of the events and impacts that led to the historic ordinance adoption in 2006.

The post Press Release: 20th Anniversary of Rights of Nature  appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

To celebrate the 20th anniversary of Rights of Nature in Tamaqua, CELDF is sharing an interview with Cathy Miorelli and CELDF’s Education Director Ben Price as the two recall some of the events and impacts that led to the historic ordinance adoption in 2006.

The post 20th Anniversary of Rights of Nature appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

This is a first-hand account by Margaretha Winda, a journalist based in Pulang Pisau, Central Kalimantan, on Indonesia’s wildfires, which has produced hazardous smoke that chokes its people and wildlife, and has spread to neighbouring countries Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, and the Philippines. 

There is something ironic about forest and land fires. A blaze may start on a single plot of land. But the resulting smoke and haze do not recognize boundaries of ownership. They move past fences, roads, villages. They enter homes, schools, and the lungs of people who never lit a match. Those who never started the fire are the ones who end up paying for it — and that is as true a few kilometers from the fire as it is a few hundred.

What it’s like here

I remember one morning this season waking up to a sky already overcast, the sun reduced to a faint, sickly yellow smear behind the haze. The smell hits before anything else — burning peat, sharp and distinctive, the kind that settles into your chest until it’s hard to take a full breath. And yet life around me didn’t stop: women were still washing clothes at the riverbank with no protection at all, no masks, no thought given to a health check. Children rode their bicycles to school through thick smoke, unmasked, because no notice had come telling schools to close.

This year is worse than anything I remember from three years ago. Back then, fires happened too, but the smoke never got this thick, and it was brought under control quickly. This year’s fires spread everywhere, and the response never caught up.

Where I live, in Pulang Pisau, 1,503 hotspots and 38 fires have burned 334 hectares this season. Jabiren Raya alone accounts for 1,303 hotspots and 257 hectares — including peat near the Tumbang Nusa bridge up to 40 meters deep, among the deepest burning in the regency. It smolders underground and resists rain rather than burning out quickly.

A Forest and Land Fire Control Brigade worker tries to extinguish a fire in Pulang Pisau, Central Kalimantan province, on Aug 12, 2026. Photo: Reuters/Ajeng Dinar Ulfiana

I am not writing this from a distance. I’m a journalist, and this season my job has put me at the fire sites themselves, working right up against the smoke. The one thing that’s changed for me is that I now have to wear a mask more carefully than ever, just to avoid getting sick myself — though for most people around me, that choice doesn’t even exist. Work doesn’t stop for haze. There is no version of survival here that includes staying home.

It has reached my own family, too. I have two children, and both came down with acute respiratory infections during this haze season that simply wouldn’t clear — coughing, flu, and at one point diarrhea. They were not the only ones. Children and elderly people across my community have ended up in hospital, struggling to breathe.

Other impacts I’ve seen

Nationally, Indonesia’s health ministry recorded nearly 51,000 acute respiratory infection cases tied to the haze in July and August alone. Two volunteers fighting fires in Central Kalimantan died this month from breathing difficulties. An orangutan was found on a plantation in West Kalimantan and later died of suspected smoke inhalation; firefighters elsewhere have found snake and pangolin carcasses in burned areas.

I’ve seen versions of this closer to home too. In Pulang Pisau, in the early morning and evening, visibility here drops to about one meter. The wildlife I’ve seen displaced is mostly snakes, turtles, and monkeys — animals whose habitat simply burned out from under them. A duck farm near one of the fire sites was directly hit as well, its surroundings caught up in the same blaze. On schooling: some areas of Pulang Pisau have shifted to distance learning, but others are still holding regular in-person classes in the middle of all this smoke — there’s no consistent rule, just whatever each school decides on its own.

And the government’s presence has been strangely uneven. Even as fires grew large across the district, official attention stayed narrowly fixed on Desa Tumbang Nusa, while other areas burned with far less response. 

Smoke doesn’t stop at the borders

I’ve lived through enough dry seasons here to recognize the warning signs: the sky dimming to a dull yellow-grey before the smoke rolls in for good. The wind carries the smoke north toward Palangka Raya. This year, it even crossed the Java Sea and kept going — and by the first week of September, four other countries were living inside it too.

• Singapore. On September 4, residents woke up to a smoggy sky as the air quality index crossed into unhealthy territory. By late afternoon, IQAir’s global rankings placed the city with the third-worst air on the planet.
• Malaysia. In Sarawak state, the capital Kuching had already been ranked the world’s most polluted city for over a week straight, with a hazardous reading of 311. On September 4, its Air Pollutant Index in the town of Serian surged past 500 — a level that can halt nonessential work and outdoor activity — prompting Malaysia’s king to consent to a state of emergency there. A Serian resident told reporters, “Even when I turn on the air conditioner, I can still smell the smoke in my house.” Days earlier, the health ministry reported asthma cases up 259% and upper respiratory infections up 124% in a single week.
• The Philippines. Officials declared air quality “acutely unhealthy” across Manila’s metro area, the Visayas, and Mindanao — three separate island groups, hundreds of kilometers apart, choking on the same haze. The health department was telling people to mask up..
• Brunei. Hazy conditions have blanketed the sultanate since mid-August, with no clear end in sight as the fires behind it keep burning.

The city center blanketed in thick haze in Kuching, Sarawak state, Malaysia, on Sept. 4, 2026. Photo: AP Photo/Xpin Voon.

We may live in very different places, but our fears are starting to sound the same. Families in Sarawak are now doing what mine has done all season — watching their children for coughs, keeping them inside, waiting for the air to clear. Those who contributed least to causing this crisis are so often the first, and the hardest, hit by it. 

An estimated 10.67 million people are affected by this haze here in Indonesia alone.  Citizens have taken this to court before. In 2017, a group of Palangka Raya residents won a citizen lawsuit against the Indonesian government over its failure in handling forest and land fires and in preventing a haze disaster — a court found the state guilty of unlawful negligence, a ruling upheld on appeal and again by the Supreme Court in 2019, only to be dismissed again in a judicial review on 2022. But winning in court hasn’t meant winning in practice: judgments like this one have gone largely unenforced. 

So when people elsewhere start watching their children for coughs and keeping them indoors, waiting for the air to clear — I recognize that fear completely. It’s the one my family has lived inside all season, without the world watching.

Why this keeps happening

Landowners are responsible for safeguarding their land. Companies are responsible for ensuring their operations don’t create risk. Government is responsible for making sure all of this is actually enforced — not just showing up once a fire is already large.

And I want to be precise about who is actually burning, because this gets misunderstood constantly, both inside and outside Indonesia. Dayak communities here largely stopped clearing land by fire a long time ago. The fires happening now are not, in my experience, a story about traditional farming practices gone wrong. 

Part of why these fires catch and spread so easily  goes back decades, to how this land was managed. Much of Kalimantan’s peat has been drained for industrial agriculture, including oil palm, leaving it dry enough to burn like fuel instead of holding the water that once kept it from catching. Indonesian law requires companies operating on peatland to keep it wet, but those rules are widely ignored, and to make it worse the President dismantled the ad hoc government agency that tasked specifically for peat restoration last year, leaving accountability gap that no other institutions seem to prepared to fill.

Burnt peatland in Central Kalimantan province, Indonesia, in August 2026. Photo: Krismes Santo Haloho/Mongabay Indonesia.

What’s also changed is the climate in which we now live. Longer, hotter dry seasons — the kind scientists tie to the broader climate crisis – are setting the stage for fires to start faster and burn longer. Layered on top of this year’s own strong El Niño, fires can now burn underground indried-out peat for months.

The way forward

Communities here already practice gotong royong — mutual cooperation, neighbors carrying each other through hardship. I opened a volunteer relief post in the Kahayan Hilir subdistrict this season to supply logistics to Masyarakat Peduli Api — the volunteer firefighters actually on the ground putting these fires out. A lot of people have stepped up to donate food and drink for them. But those volunteers are still going out without basic equipment — hoses to fight the fire, fuel for the pumps that draw water. That gap shouldn’t be theirs to fill alone, and it shouldn’t have to substitute for a government or companies acting before the smoke crosses a border, rather than after.

This haze disaster isn’t new, and it isn’t only this year’s story — it comes back every long dry season, and every year the response arrives just as unprepared as the last. My ask, to the government and to anyone reading this far: don’t let this become an opportunity for a handful of elites remain unaccountable while residents’ rice fields burn, while elderly people, children, and pregnant women are hospitalized, while the actual cost gets absorbed by people who had no hand in causing it.  In the end, polluters are darkening our collective skies and must pay for the damage they’ve caused. From burning fossil fuels that heat up the planet to clearing forests for plantations, it’s the actions of big corporations, not small farmers, that are setting our forests on fire. 

These are the very forests and lands that have given life to our communities for generations that deserve better than to be reduced to smoke. Governments must step up and hold the polluters accountable, so that our forests, our country, and all of us who live here can finally breathe freely again.   

 

The post The Haze We All Breathe: A Letter from Kalimantan, Indonesia appeared first on 350.