G1. Progressive Green

This is a guest blog by Peter Crisp of Fossil Free Football, a fan campaign aiming to kick big polluters out of the world’s favourite sport.  

The ongoing 2026 FIFA World Cup will likely be the hottest ever, produce more pollution than any event in history, and promote the world’s biggest oil company to billions of viewers. Yet it could also be a turning point. As football’s vulnerability to the climate crisis becomes impossible to ignore, more and more fans and players are calling for sporting authorities to do better.

The Heat Threat 

The climate crisis is fuelling extreme heat across the planet, driven by decades of burning coal, oil and gas. And the 2026 World Cup is not immune. Researchers predict that 14 out of 16 match venues this year will exceed dangerous temperatures with one in four matches expected to be played in hazardous heat conditions. Just last year, a June heat wave hit multiple World Cup host cities at once. A repeat this year could put attendees at real risk. On June 24 2025, it was 102F/39C  in Boston. This year, on June 23, England will play Ghana in that same city  in a stadium without shade (see below) at 4PM…

Gillette Stadium, Boston, which will be used during the tournament, offers little heat protection to fans and players. Source: Nathan Macoul, Unsplash

The heat threatens safety and changes the game itself. Extreme heat means slower tempo, less pressing and earlier substitutions. 97 of 104 scheduled matches face a higher probability of performance-impairing conditions due to climate change — meaning fans paying record prices are increasingly likely to watch a less intense game. And while players have medical teams and cooling breaks, fans are often left to fend for themselves. While 3 of the 16 venues are air-conditioned, fans in queues, fan zones and on transport routes can be exposed to dangerous heat for hours — often far longer than the players on the pitch.

The International Federation of Association Football or FIFA (which is the governing body of world football), has done little to keep fans and players safe from obvious heat risks during World Cups. We’ve already seen the consequences when it doesn’t: In June 2024, an assistant referee collapsed during a Copa America match, while last year’s Club World Cup saw players and fans sheltering inside as heat again became a major point of concern. Despite this, FIFA has selected many stadiums without any shade, in locations that are not typically used for summer sports. 

A group of experts recently told FIFA that it should do more to keep players and fans safe. They called for it to lower the temperature threshold at which matches are delayed. Currently, FIFA will only consider pausing play at 32°C (measured in Wet Bulb Globe Temperature or WBGT, a scale that accounts for heat, humidity and sun exposure together). That bar is so high that it wouldn’t be triggered at 45°C with 20% humidity, or 35°C with 80% humidity — conditions that would be dangerous for anyone, let alone athletes playing at full intensity. Seventy professional players have also publicly backed those calls. FIFA has added water breaks to all matches regardless of temperature — fundamentally altering the experience of the game — but experts say those breaks should be doubled to six minutes to properly protect players. Many fans have pointedly noted that FIFA may be equally motivated by the advertising slots these breaks create.

FIFA’s unserious attitude on heat risks extends to its broader engagement with the climate crisis. Despite holding a “green card for the planet” and committing to net-zero by 2040, FIFA President Gianni Infantino has massively expanded the tournament, and the pollution it will produce as a consequence. He has added an extra 16 teams and 60 matches, and spread the World Cup across North America so that huge amounts of flying are required. Researchers estimate the whole tournament will generate over 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent worth of pollution. 

FIFA President Gianni Infantino once held a ‘green card for the planet’ to show his commitment to sustainability. Source: FIFA

Promoting Fossil Fuels to Billions

FIFA’s massive emissions are worsened by its sponsorship choices. It is reportedly earning about $100m per year to advertise the world’s largest oil company, Aramco. Billions of fans are therefore now receiving pro-oil messaging, just as we must urgently move away from fossil fuels. 

Aramco is 98.5% owned by the Saudi state and is a dominant source of the regime’s funding, earning $33.6bn in the first quarter of this year. These profits have bankrolled Saudi Arabia’s recent push into world sport including football –  often framed as part of its post-oil ‘Vision 2030’ diversification strategy. But the fact that Aramco is being globally promoted, (instead of any other non-oil enterprise) makes clear these sports investments are about protecting fossil fuel profits, not moving away from them. Sponsorships have helped promote Saudi Arabia and shielded it from criticism of its commitment to fossil fuels. It’s clear that the Aramco deal too is part of a broader pro-oil strategy that includes blocking climate talks and ‘hooking’ poorer countries on its oil. 

SoFi stadium, Los Angeles, USA vs. Paraguay, June 13. Source: image supplied

Aramco has been given top billing, with its brand splashed around stadiums at kick off, including at the tournament opener. Notably, the fixture was a repeat of the 2010 World Cup, but nostalgic fans looking back to iconic images from that year might have noticed a surprising (and disturbing) difference. While the 2010 tournament was sponsored by solar energy, this one is promoting Big Oil. Aramco’s World Cup advertising centres around its supposed “innovation” ,but there is nothing innovative about drilling, extracting and burning fossil fuels. The real breakthroughs are in solar, battery storage and electric vehicles — technologies that are cleaner, cheaper and faster-growing than oil has ever been. 

Opening match of 2010 World Cup, featuring solar sponsorship.

The Bigger Picture: Global Access to Sport Under Threat 

This summer, the heat impacts felt by football’s elite will be impossible to miss. But if the climate crisis is reaching its most well resourced event, then grassroots football,  the foundation the whole game is built on,  is surely being hit much harder. For every high-profile match affected by heat, there are thousands more unseen players around the world that are harmed by heat or flooding rain. FIFA profits billions from an ever-expanding tournament and big oil sponsorship — but it is ordinary fans and players who bear the cost, in dangerous heat and a worsening climate, without seeing any of the cash.

Credit: Sadhin Mahmud, Unsplash

Climate Damage: the Ultimate Fan Ripoff  

Many football fans feel our loyalty is being exploited. FIFA’s incessant focus on profit is stripping away the essence of our beloved game — and we must use this discontent, linked to the climate crisis, as a powerful opportunity for change.

The pattern of FIFA’s constant prioritisation of revenue over tradition and affordability is consistent. Unprecedented prices for match tickets, public transport and fan zones. Commercial “hydration” breaks inserted into matches. Fans banned from bringing their own water. Big oil on the stadium hoardings. Everything FIFA does turns up the heat for supporters while lining its own pockets. Its response to obvious heat risks at the next two World Cups hosted by Morocco, Spain and Portugal, and then Saudi Arabia, has been to float moving the tournament to winter, discarding decades of tradition rather than addressing the cause.

Hundreds of millions of fans have every reason to demand better. As heat impacts worsen and the costs of fossil fuels become impossible to ignore, football lovers have real power to push for a fundamental reset that puts players and fans before FIFA’s bottom line.

Source: Quang Nguyen Vinh, Pexels

What Could Serious FIFA Climate Policy Look Like?

FIFA claims its core mission is to “unite the world” by making football accessible to all. Delivering on that mission means putting the climate first, because we can’t play in dangerous heat or on a flooded field. Here’s what that looks like in practice:

• End the expansionist mentality. More teams, more matches, more flights means more pollution. Growth cannot come at the planet’s expense.
• Revise heat guidelines. Current thresholds don’t protect players or fans. FIFA must lower the bar for match delays and take welfare seriously.
• Ease the fixture calendar. An oversaturated schedule drives player burnout and unsafe conditions. Less is more.
• Drop the polluters. Sponsorship deals with oil companies like Aramco must give way to partnerships with clean, innovative industries.
• Put climate at the centre. Every decision FIFA makes should be guided by one question: does this make extreme weather worse?

The most popular sport on the planet needs to stop scoring ‘own goals’, and start playing for the right team.

If you’re a fan who is ready to take this message to your club or national association, connect with us at Fossil Free Football on social media and join our next online campaign session! 

The post 2026 FIFA World Cup & Extreme Heat appeared first on 350.

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

Abstract

The Cultural Landscape of Rouyn-Noranda

Horne 5 – A Sword of Damocles

Timeline of Resistance

The turning point

Portraits of the activists

The systemic oppression of extraction

And to what end?

Endnotes

Download

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

Abstract

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Cultural Landscape of Rouyn-Noranda

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

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

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

Horne 5 – A Sword of Damocles

Image: Falco Resources Ltée. (4)

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

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

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

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

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

5. Air Quality: The industrial activities carried out by Glencore’s Horne Smelter in the city of Rouyn-Noranda generate alarming levels of heavy metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, nickel, and lead). The company’s unacceptable levels of air pollution from the smelter and the government’s complicity in allowing it are one the most persistent and controversial environmental scandals in Quebec. The literature shows that the population of Rouyn-Noranda is exposed to an increased incidence of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neurological problems, and intra-uterine growth retardation. The Horne Smelter is still authorized to operate by smelting waste from all over the world to extract copper, provided that arsenic levels in the air in Rouyn-Noranda remain below 45 ng/m³. The company was granted an extension until 2030 to meet an interim threshold of 15 ng/m³, notwithstanding the Quebec standard of 3 ng/m³, and may maintain this threshold until 2033. However, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec stated in 2022 that while the 15 ng/m³ threshold protects vulnerable groups (such as children) from certain effects, the only target to be considered safe remains the 3 ng/m³ standard. The Horne 5 project thus seeks to operate in an environment where standards are already being exceeded, violating the enforcement regime of Section 197 of the Clean Air Regulation. Authorizing a new mining project would therefore only exacerbate an illegal situation that has been tolerated for far too long.

Credit: Guillaume Proulx, 2019, Rouyn-Noranda.

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

Timeline of Resistance

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

• May 17, 2024 | Call for citizen mobilization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image : BAPE in the works, café-bar L’Abstracto, Rouyn-Noranda. Credit: Guy Leclerc 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The turning point

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

Image: Large demonstration in Rouyn-Noranda organized by Mères au front and their allies, October 13, 2024, on 9th Street | Enough is enough. Credit: Williams Nourry

Portraits of the activists

First Nations

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

 Environmental Groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health, Social Justice, and Community Solidarity

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

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

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

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

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

The systemic oppression of extraction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image: Large demonstration in Rouyn-Noranda organized by Mères au front and their allies, October 13, 2024| Enough is enough | NO TO HORNE 5 ! Credit: Williams Nourry

And to what end?

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

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

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

Endnotes 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

How we say YES to LIFE YLNM Position Paper (July 2026)

Image: Covas do Barroso Credit: Salva La Selva

 

1. Introduction: Saying Yes to Life

 

Yes to Life, No to Mining (YLNM) is a global solidarity network of and for Indigenous Peoples, impacted communities, local organisations, and networks who are standing up for their right to say No to Mining and to advance life sustaining and post-extractive futures.

 

In one of our earlier position papers, we laid out the reasons why we say “No to Mining.” These include the widespread and often unregulated destructive impacts of mining on environments and communities; and the pressures from companies and governments upon communities to accept projects often in the absence of people’s rights to free, prior and informed consent. 

All communities have the right to self-determination of livelihoods and futures, and to defend their territories, livelihoods and the wellbeing of the people and the earth. All communities have the right to say no to mining. 

At the same time, across the world, communities resisting mining are not only saying no to destruction, but yes to life. This paper is an articulation of how communities protect their territories and build lives of connection and thriving – for both present and future generations.

2. Defending Life: The Context of Extractivism 

Extractivism is a term which describes the logic of large-scale resource extraction to serve national and transnational corporate and economic interests, at the expense of local territories and communities. 

“(Extractivism) is a logic of violence that includes abuses to life, health, land, food, and water; displacement of people; violations of Indigenous Peoples rights; gender-based violence and discrimination against women; criminalisation of workers and human rights and environmental defenders; and the use of military and security forces to protect natural resources and corporate interests.” Nat Lowrey and Anisa Rogers writing for Chain Reaction (Friends of the Earth Australia), 2021.

Dron Alliansi Sulawesi – Toxic Tour 2023. Credit: Alliansi Sulawesi

Mining is one of the world’s most destructive forms of extractivism because of its scale and the wide range of impacts caused by its processes, not to mention the ever-increasing expansions for critical minerals under the banners of green energy transition, energy security, the “digital transformation” and defence. 

Expansions in the name of the “green transition” are not driven by care for people and environment, but by market factors – the economic values of key minerals and the geopolitical competition to control supply chains. The underlying logics of most “sustainable” or “green” mining enterprises are extractivism, capitalism, colonialism and imperialism. Saying yes to life means breaking free from these long-binding blights on our world and not falling for their new guises.

Another underpinning and prevailing myth is that of  “development as progress”. This has governed the agendas of the Global North over the Global South for decades. It is tied to the categorization of countries into developed and developing, the imperative of economic growth, and the false idea that transnational investment in resource extraction is the solution for poverty – an idea that not even its authors truly believe. 

It is time to take back the narrative. We assert that people and communities affected by mining and extractivism should have the right to define their own well-being, livelihoods and development pathways.  

The many justifications invented for mining expansions are creating a global profusion of “sacrifice zones”. These are geographical areas where the rights and health of people, lands, water and biodiversity are prioritised below capitalist interests. All over the world, mining frontiers are hotspots for human rights abuses, land grabbing and violence. 

Meanwhile these are often the very same areas where people are practicing sustainable and life-giving alternatives to extractivism, and are stewarding and safeguarding some of the most important ecosystems on the planet. 

In our previously published paper, “Towards Just Transitions for People and Planet”, we articulate the following:  “A truly just transition must be popular, inclusive, and grounded in the Right to Say No, and a right to choose non-extractive ways of life … This includes the amplification of alternatives to mining and extractivism, and empowering new paradigms of global justice that restore balance between peoples and the Earth.” In other words – a just transition is about defending life. 

3. What does “Yes to Life” Mean?

 

In a world where all futures are at stake, and where we cannot rely on top-down, capitalist and market-driven solutions to our intersected crises, it is essential to bring forth stories from the grassroots and extractive frontlines which help us to collectively imagine post-extractive futures. 

These are our “Yes to Life” stories: examples of surviving, thriving, growing and celebrating which demonstrate pathways and possibilities for pursuing a life-sustaining future at local and global levels.

Yes to life means centering land, water, forests and oceans as living systems with their own intrinsic rights to exist, persist and thrive, as well as to be healthy habitats for all living beings, including people who call these places home and depend on them for survival. 

Yes to Life means understanding communities as being Stewards of Life. It recognises the authority of Indigenous and community governance, and centres life-ways which are based on reciprocal relationships with nature.

Yes to Life means nurturing and supporting systems of Interdependence and Care, centred on the wellbeing of people and ecosystems and on our collective futures – human and other-than-human.

Yes to Life means protecting old ways and innovating new ways of living, which are regenerative and sustainable for generations into the future. It means imagining and bringing about a post-extractive future in which “many worlds fit” – a pluriverse, rather than a hegemony. 

“To say yes to life …

To create in order to reconnect” is, at its core, a collective affirmation:

Yes to autonomy.

Yes to caring for territory.

Yes to creativity as a form of resistance.

Because to create is also a way to resist.”

Claudia Alavez, coordinator of UNIR – Haiti

4. Principles for Saying Yes to Life

 

4.1 Territorial sovereignty and Indigenous self-determination

Globally, mining expansions disproportionately impact on Indigenous lands. In 2020, according to a report by the World Resources Institute, industrial and illegal mining together affected 450,000 hectares (over 20%) of Indigenous lands in the Amazon region. In Australia, a 2024 study found that 57.8% of critical mineral projects lay within formally recognised Indigenous lands. This went up to 79.2% when including land subject to undetermined native title claims. 

Indigenous stewardship is recognised to be one of the most important ways of preserving critical ecosystems and mitigating global warming. This is because the lands of Indigenous peoples largely contain critical ecosystems and carbon sinks; because many Indigenous traditional practices offer effective climate solutions, such as sustainable agriculture and water management systems; and because Indigenous peoples are custodians of unique knowledge and worldviews that emphasise deep kinship between humans and nature. 

Therefore, Indigenous self-determination over their lands and the extractive activities that affect them are fundamental to the principles and practice of Yes to Life.

4.2 The Right to Say No

The “Right to say No” is an essential balance of “Yes to Life” – one cannot exist without the other. In order to thrive, communities must be able to self-determine and set their own boundaries with regards to extractive projects that affect them. 

When unable to do so, communities are locked into uneven power dynamics with interests whose primary goal is to pursue projects in order to maximize investment returns for shareholders. This power dynamic makes the pursuit of life-sustaining economies and activities challenging, and sometimes even impossible – because when local energies and resources get sucked into survival efforts (firefighting), they are made less available for life-sustaining pursuits (growing green shoots). 

On the other hand, where possible, engagement in local actions that are positive and oriented towards thriving is one of the most important strategies used by communities to assert their sovereignty and to reject projects and influences that are not in their best interests.

4.3 The Rights of Nature and Earth Jurisprudence

Rights of Nature and Earth Jurisprudence movements are founded upon the recognition (understood by many Indigenous cultures) that Nature is a living community of interrelated and interdependent beings with inherent rights. 

As a legal tool for defending not only ecosystems but the communities which depend on them, Rights of Nature gained global attention in 2008 when Ecuador defined nature in its constitution as a living being (Pacha Mama) with rights to “exist, persist and thrive”. These revolutionary laws have become increasingly useful in supporting Ecuador’s grassroots struggles against state-backed oil and mining exploitation. The Los Cedros case, where the inherent rights of a cloud forest were successfully defended against a transnational mining company, is an emblematic example of how local and international networks can work together to bring forth the permanent protection of a biosphere.

Rights of Nature and Earth Jurisprudence movements and initiatives now spread around the world. They champion visions and strategies which challenge the colonial extractive power hegemony in both the Global South and North. The Rights of Nature has recently been recognised as an essential element of a “Just Transition” to a life-sustaining future – see our position paper for a slightly deeper dive on this topic. This is a powerful assertion of the principle of “Yes to Life” – not just for humans, but all species who share planet Earth with us.

The extraordinary biodiversity of Los Cedros Reserve in Ecuador, protected in 2021 by constitutional laws for Rights of Nature. Photo Credit: Liz Downes

 

4.4 Protection and regeneration of ecosystems

Mining expansions pose an ever greater threat to the world’s most vulnerable and biodiverse ecosystems. A 2026 analysis has revealed that more than 3,267 active mining operations are located within biodiversity hotspots – these operations account for almost 5% of the global mining industry’s total footprint. 

Mining is a key cause of deforestation – a 2024 study indicated that mining resulted in 1.4 million hectares of tree cover loss between 2001 and 2020. This only included extraction operations for five minerals (bauxite, iron ore, copper, gold and silver) and did not include the flow-on deforestation from pollution and infrastructure. Of this forest loss, 260,000 hectares were in Indigenous lands and areas around communities. 

More recently, the devastating impacts of massive industrial and illegal mining expansions can be seen across primary tropical rainforests and Indigenous lands in the Amazon, African, Asia and Pacific regions. Mining also impacts on ocean ecosystems: by pollution from land-based mines, dumping of toxic wastes, and the expansion of experimental explorations for metals in the deep sea. The protection and regeneration of ecosystems are vital to protecting what is left and rebuilding what is lost for a world where ecosystems and communities can thrive.

 

4.5 Community wellbeing over profit

Industries pushing “socially responsible mining” can never realistically prioritise community wellbeing over, or indeed as well as, investment. Even where companies claim they respect the needs of communities they operate in, there is a dynamic of corporate greed which is inherent to the practice of business under the capitalist model. The bottom line is always profit. 

For this reason, voluntary “environmental, social and governance” standards and schemes claiming to improve the due diligence of mining companies (such as certification schemes) fail by default to protect communities from harm. For communities to be able to ensure their own life-sustaining futures, their rights and wellbeing must be centred first and foremost over those of corporations. This means autonomy, sovereignty, the right to say no, and democratic decision-making power over any project that affects them. 

 

4.6 Solidarity and collective responsibility

It is difficult for projects building towards life-sustaining futures to be scaled up from the grassroots without global support and networks. Communities fighting mining are often living and working under direct threats of persecution, as well as struggling with food insecurity, threats to livelihoods, destruction of their lands and possibly poverty and other social injustices. 

To make our struggles visible is a call to action: it is to say that extractive frontlines cannot sustain themselves alone. People cannot survive and thrive and defend life against threats when they are isolated. We have a collective responsibility to support and advocate for those who are living under systems of oppression.

 

4.7 Intergenerational justice

The adverse impacts of extractivism are often intergenerational. In the case of mining projects, operations may last decades – which means decades of tailings accumulation, toxic runoff, land degradation, and soil, water and air contamination. Impacts may continue for decades, centuries or millennia after a mine is closed; and sometimes the damage is irreversible – as in the case of species extinctions, destruction of ecosystems, or the permanent displacement of communities.

So in terms of intergenerational justice, “Yes to Life” means creating and defending the conditions that make it possible for life to continue into the future. It means protecting lands, water, biospheres, and the communities which depend on them for the sake of all generations.

5. Pathways: How Communities Say Yes to Life 

We stand in solidarity with local communities resisting extractivism and uphold their right to decide in respect of all decisions that affect their lands, waters, and futures. This includes autonomy, self-determination, and territorial sovereignty of Indigenous peoples everywhere, and affirm the right of all communities to protect and care for their territories according to their own values and knowledge systems. And we stand for the rights of communities to forge alternatives to the industrial extractive model which help them not just survive, but thrive on their own terms. 

This section, the core of our paper, presents a tapestry of alternatives: ways in which communities are saying yes to life and sowing and tending the seeds of a future without mining in their lands.

 

5.1 Defending Territories and the Right to Say No

Private property sign expressing no to mining interests, Intag, Ecuador. Photo Credit: Liz Downes

Almost all struggles against extractivism start, and are sustained, at the local level. Mapping tools like the Environmental Justice Atlas paint a sobering picture of the sheer number of communities fighting for their lands across the globe, particularly in the Global South. At time of writing the EJ Atlas contains 4524 cases centred around mining, water justice, land clearance and waste disposal issues; and of course, many cases are not mapped. 

As the intensification of mining puts pressure on ever more local frontiers, communities are defending their Right to Say No in every possible way available to them – through organising, assemblies, solidarity networks, legal struggles, direct action, and much more. These struggles often involve long and gruelling campaigns which, sadly, are ultimately unsuccessful in stopping projects or preventing damage. 

However, whatever the outcome, the act of protecting life does not lose its value. And there are cases around the world where resistance has succeeded in defending life. It is vitally important to make these wins visible and celebrate them in the spirit of “Yes to Life.” 

Sulawesi, Indonesia, hosts the world’s largest nickel mining industry. Enormous, open-pit Chinese, Brazilian and Australian-owned mines funnel ore into a “hellscape” expanse of processing plants and smelters – the Morowali Industrial Park – which stretches along the coast of Central Sulawesi. The environmental and social impacts of this industry are nothing short of catastrophic. And recent expansions further threaten the livelihoods of rice and pepper farmers, who provide thousands of jobs in their regions and protect large tracts of biodiverse rainforest.

Some communities have responded by forming female-led resistance collectives – such as the Loeha Raya Women Fighters of Lake Towuti. These women are organising a campaign to protect their air, water and land from a new mining concession owned by Brazilian company, Vale. Despite intimidation and threats from both company and state, they continue to push back against Vale with a strength that defies the scale of what they are up against – a strength rooted in their conviction that no mining “jobs” can replace the loss of their homes. 

Image: Loeha Raya Women Fighters with YLNM and Rainforest Rescue, 2024, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Photo credit: YLNM

In Colombia in 2017, the citizens of the mountain district of Cajamarca voted with a 98% majority to ban a huge gold mining project owned by South African company AngloGold Ashanti. The popular consultation was led by grassroots youth activists and small-scale farmers. The victory helped inspire a movement of similar democratic consultations across the country, all soundly rejecting planned mining, oil and gas projects.

“By saying ‘no’ to mining, communities are not saying no to development. They’re saying we need to transition to new forms of development that are not based on exploiting non-renewable resources. People in Colombia are calling for a new paradigm and a new development model that includes alternatives that are rooted in and serve the well-being of the planet and the people.”

YLNM coordinator Mariana Gomez, quoted in The Gaia Foundation.

For over 14 years, communities in Cajamarca, in the highlands of Peru, have fought to hold back the Minas Conga gold project – a planned expansion of Newmont’s massive Yanacocha open-pit mine. The Yanacocha mine itself has an appalling record of air, soil and water contamination and water depletion; the Minas Conga project is projected to be three times the size and threatens to dump its waste in the source lands of five major rivers. Despite being met with violent oppression by the state, civil society groups have remained defiant and have fought several legal battles against the company’s attempts to manufacture environmental and social licence. To date, the multi-billion-dollar project remains stalled.    

Large-scale popular resistance can galvanise the voice for “No to mining” and achieve the blocking of projects that would otherwise devastate lands and livelihoods. In Serbia, a national people’s movement has to date prevented Rio Tinto from developing the huge Jadar lithium project in a historic district. In the Solomon Islands in 2020, the remote community of Wagina Island won a seven year legal battle to stop a Chinese-owned bauxite mining project which would have affected the livelihoods of up to 60% of the population. 

 

5.2 Practising Indigenous Sovereignty 

Indigenous communities, as prior mentioned, suffer the brunt of contemporary mining expansions for so-called critical minerals. “Yes to Life” for most Indigenous communities is deeply grounded in connection to land, sacred sites, and place-based cultural heritage.

In Ontario, Canada, the Eagle’s Nest nickel project – owned by Australian company Wyloo Metals – is a huge mining operation proposed on Treaty 9 territory on what local First Nations call ‘the breathing lands’. The area covers wetland and peatland ecosystems which form one of the world’s most important carbon storage sinks. In 2021 several First Nations declared a moratorium against mining on these territories: 

“This MORATORIUM is urgently required because, as the caretakers of this part of the Earth where the Creator put us, we have a profound and sacred duty to ensure that this part of the Earth is not so wounded from Ring of Fire development that it can longer support our relations and ways of life, or help protect the world from catastrophic climate change; as the James Bay lowlands stand as one of the last and most important bastions of defence against climate collapse.”

At the end of 2025 an access road was  approved to go ahead by the Government of Ontario, which is pushing the project as a multi-billion-dollar investment in renewable energy resources. Despite this setback, First Nations remain firm in defense of their lands, alongside allies such as the Friends of the Attawapiskat River, the Land Defense Alliance, and the Mining Injustice Solidarity Network. 

In the Philippines, indigenous communities have asserted their rights to defend territories against mining for decades – often while facing serious persecution from the government, corporations and private interests. In the province of Palawan, nickel mining expansions are threatening a once-pristine UNESCO biosphere reserve and the lands of the Pala’wan, Tagbanuwa and Batak peoples. The Coalition Against Land Grabbing (CALG), a coalition of indigenous campaigners, are urging a moratorium on mining based on damage already done to ecologically sensitive areas and agricultural lands, and on the “illegitimacy” of the Free Prior and Informed Consent process employed by the mining company.

On 18th February 2023, to save Brooke’s Point biocultural diversity paradise from ruthless incursion of mining development in the island of Palawan (Philippines) indigenous peoples and local residents put up barricades. People perceive these as one of their last remedies to halt ongoing destruction. Photo credit: Coalition Against Land Grabbing CALG

Indigenous peoples often have to resort to protracted legal battles to defend sacred sites and territories. Occasionally there are wins or milestones worth celebrating – with the caveat that there is often a long fight to continue. In May 2025, nine tribes of the Lakota Sioux of Black Hills, South Dakota, won a lawsuit which cancelled the permit of a graphite drilling project threatening their sacred grounds of Pe’Sla. 

During the same week, Yindjibarndi traditional owners were awarded $150 million in the latest iteration of their twenty-year legal fight against an iron ore mine owned by Australia’s second richest person, Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest. For the Yindjibarndi, this is nowhere near a “win”, or the end of their struggle: the amount represents a fraction of the $1.8 billion they asked for, and more importantly will never make up for the destruction of up to 250 cultural sites by mining operations. Nevertheless, the result highlights the urgent need for accountability for mining companies who operate with near impunity when it comes to Native Title laws in Australia.

In Sweden, Saami reindeer herders filed a petition to the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, complaining that three metals mining concessions had been granted on their land, in violation of their Free, Prior and Informed Consent and of national laws protecting their territory and traditional way of life. After five years of legal process, in 2025 the UN finally ruled in favour of the Saami. 

 

5.3 Protecting and Regenerating Ecosystems 

Around the world mining-impacted communities are engaged in ecosystem protection and regeneration activities, in order to restore damaged environments, defend territories, and develop and protect local livelihoods as a preventative measure against mining incursions. 

In the Finnish Boreal, the small community of Selkie has not only stopped decades of destructive peat mining through a spirited campaign, but has undertaken to restore the fragile river catchments and wetlands which had been polluted by the mine. Through a restoration programme bringing together traditional knowledge and science, this wetland has enjoyed a dramatic return to health, with many key species of birds and fish reviving their populations. Read their incredible story, Landscapes of Renewal, here.

In Myanmar, Indigenous Karen people created the Salween Peace Park – an initiative to protect their land, livelihoods and extraordinary biodiversity, and to assert their right to self-determination. During over 70 years of armed conflict, hundreds of thousands of Karen people have experienced genocide, torture, sexual violence, and displacement at the hands of the state armed forces. Karen lands are threatened by logging, private agribusiness, infrastructure projects and gold mining. Karen communities have resisted these threats  through public celebration of their culture, identity and nature stewardship. And so the Salween Peace Park came into being. 

 

“The Salween Peace Park empowers our indigenous Karen communities to guide local development and conservation in line with traditional knowledge and cultural practices. By basing local governance in the hands of the community, the Salween Peace Park enables the conservation of nature and Karen culture, and the pursuit of a peaceful and stable life for local communities, something that is denied to them by Myanmar government laws and military ambitions.” 

 

These hopes and dreams have been challenged by ever-increasing militarisation – in 2021 after the coup, and again in 2023, state military-led airstrikes bombarded villages. These assaults have forced hundreds of people to flee and live deeper in the forest, terrified of the next attack. Despite this, conservation and territorial defence activities continue. In 2024, Karen people embarked on a new campaign of self-determination – to register their own land titles without government approval. This process has involved an intensive mapping and documenting of ancestral lands, registering the data in a database, and handing out titles to locals. 

 

5.4 Defending Food Sovereignty and Land-Based Livelihoods

The term ‘food sovereignty’ was first coined in 1996 by the global peasant movement, La Vía Campesina. This is the right of communities to define their own food and agriculture systems, and to produce healthy and culturally appropriate food through ecologically sustainable methods. 

Food sovereignty is not just food security – it is a much broader political concept which asserts food as a human right rather than a commodity. It centres justice and solidarity over profit. It puts the needs and aspirations of those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies, rather than market demands. It defends the interests and inclusion of future generations. It offers strategies to resist and dismantle the current corporate trade and food regime, and directions for food, farming, pastoral and fisheries systems determined by local producers and users. Defending food sovereignty is a powerful way for communities to say “no to mining” and “yes to life”. 

Covas do Barroso is a mountainous rural region in Portugal famous for its traditional agro-silvo-pastoral food production, which has been recognised as a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. Local communities have very strong ties to the land, which is administered as a system of communal lands covering approximately 2000 hectares, called baldios. 

Unfortunately the region also contains lithium resources. In 2023, after years of aggressive encroachments to conduct explorations, UK-based company Savannah Resources was given the green light by the Portuguese government to develop its mining project. Most of the mining area covers the baldios. Local communities have reacted by conducting vigils, blockades, filing lawsuits, hosting international protest camps, creating street theatre, among other tactics. They argue that economic value cannot be assigned to communal lands; and furthermore, the mountains themselves are alive and cannot be quantified:

“When we allow ourselves to be truly present in the mountains, with all our senses immersed in it, listening to its sounds and its silences, seeing its colours, its shapes, its species; when we allow ourselves to feel its soil; when we quench our thirst in its waters or eat its fruits; when we feel the heat of its wood or the breeze of its breath on our skin; when it makes us feel fear or joy; we realise once again that the mountain is alive, that the mountain is part of us and we are part of the mountain.”

From New Tales of the Barroso Mountains, published by YLNM.

In Cajamarca, Colombia, food sovereignty is at the core of “Yes to Life” initiatives and non-extractive livelihoods being developed since civil society resistance stopped AngloGold Ashanti’s huge proposed gold mining operation in 2017. Communities and their local environmental youth collective, COSAJUCA, have built partnerships with local agronomists to teach people pathways towards developing their own sustainable businesses. Cooperative agribusiness has flourished. But the most inspiring story of all is that of the arracacha – a native Andean parsnip of which the Cajamarca region is the world’s biggest producer.  

In 2017, soon after the victory against the mining project, a local arracacha producing association, APROSAN, formed a partnership with the socially and environmentally conscious Colombian restaurant chain, Crepes&Waffles. The partnership assured a stable, generous market price for APROSAN’s products and supported the association to develop less chemical-intensive and more ecologically friendly farming systems. Crepes&Waffles has since expanded its buying of products from Cajamarca to some fruits and raw sugar. APROSAN has also moved into upscaling the processing of arracacha with new cooperatives and selling the raw vegetable as well as products like arracacha chips all over the country, transforming the vegetable from a “peasant food” to the real gold of Cajamarca.

Arracacha: The “real gold” of Cajamarca, Colombia. Photo: Federico Pardo for We Feed The World, The Gaia Foundation, 2019.

Farming communities in northwestern Haiti have collectivised to generate creative solutions to poverty, environmental degradation, and other pressures brought on partly by threats of gold mining in the northern territories of the country. While Haiti currently does not have a visible government and there is no mining legislation, transnational companies are expressing interest, and people are speculating that processes are occurring behind closed doors to allow projects to progress with no consultation. They are preparing.  

A grassroots collective, UNIR, runs workshops and educates affected rural communities in a participatory way, using games, flash cards and trivia to make people aware of the mining being proposed. Their campaign, “Create to Reconnect” has four highly successful initiatives in environmental education and action: Reducing plastic use and designing eco-friendly sanitary towels for women (led by a young woman from the north of the country); installing composters in northern Haiti to revive the use of natural fertilizers in planting; home gardens, integrating more than 15 crops in a single space; and school programs making “eco-bricks”.

“It is a very significant process for us, because we are supporting four community initiatives which promote something special: to create, imagine and inhabit our territory from our own solutions which come from our daily life and the real needs of our communities.”

Claudia Alavez, coordinator of UNIR and member of Yes to Life No to Mining

Ecological restoration and the strengthening of food sovereignty through collective reforestation and food production initiatives in southeast and north Haiti. Photo credit: UNIR Haiti, 2026

5.5  Water sovereignty

Water is essential for all life. But humans and many other species can only survive on fresh water, which makes up less than 2% of the water on earth. Of this, only 0.5% is immediately available to us, the rest being locked up in ice caps, groundwater systems and soil. Yet we are witnessing uncontrolled expansions of an industry which uses vast amounts – not just at the extraction stage, but to an even greater extent in ore processing and refining.

Some of the world’s biggest mining operations are located in arid lands where water is either scarce or exists in finite quantities, such as BHP’s operations in the Atacama desert of Chile, and Glencore’s huge nickel plant near Kalgoorlie in Western Australia. Mining also contaminates water supplies depended on by people and ecosystems. Hence, struggles against mining are often themed around water, its defence and its protection.

Through the Andes region, spanning Chile, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia, communities have used campaign slogans like “Water is Life” and “Water is worth more than lithium, gold, copper” to push back against mining expansions. In the highlands of Ecuador, the resistance against mining expansions have been largely built around the defense and sacredness of water. In 2018, a national “March for Water” involved hundreds of Indigenous people marching 600 kilometres from the country’s south to the capital, Quito, carrying swathes of blue material representing their sacred rivers.

“Water is Life” National March, Ecuador, 2018. Photo provided by Carlos Zorrilla

The arid region of Puna de Atacama spans parts of Chile, Argentina and Bolivia. It is erroneously known as the ‘Lithium Triangle’ because of its perceived richness in resources for the “green energy transition”. In reality it is a sacrifice zone where mining expansions for lithium brine in high-altitude salt lakes (salares) are having dire impacts on water, fragile ecosystems, and Indigenous livelihoods. Communities are fiercely resisting, because any more damage to water systems will mean death for their cultures and the entire landscape.

“Friends and farmers, with whom I shared a transcendental part of my life, generously explained to me how the collective use of water makes the existence of farming lands, forests, and wetlands possible amid the desert. The presence of farmers and shepherds, I understood, not only depends on these hydro-agro-ecosystems but also produces the conditions for their very existence … Mining stories are, when all is said and done, water stories.”  Ramón Balcázar, OPSAL (Plurinational Observatory for Andean Salares)

 

5.5 Building Community, Solidarity Economies and Intergenerational Justice

Local communities are strengthened in their resistance against extractivism when they share identities grounded in place. In Covas do Barroso, Portugal, communities are knitted together by their connection to the baldios – their traditional system of land stewardship. In Ireland, people have been resisting gold mining threats by Canadian company, Dalradian Resources, to the ecologically significant Sperrin Mountains for over ten years – as well as other mining concessions covering 25% of the land mass of Northern Ireland and 27% of the Republic of Ireland. Local groups are empowered and united by the spirit of duchás – the Irish concept for belonging or connection to land which is communal, ecological, and points to an identity shaped by place.

2024: Knitting community. During the camps in Covas do Barroso, a range of activities were organised, such as this crochet workshop led by one of the local residents. Photo: Guadalupe Rodríguez/ Salva la Selva

5.6 Protecting Defenders and Strengthening Collective Resistance 

Environmental defenders around the world get disproportionately targeted and persecuted by governments and corporations protective of their investments. According to Global Witness (2024) most assassinations each year are related to mining. Some statistics from recent years are covered in our paper “Why we say No to Mining.”

From 2012, the Philippines has been ranked as the deadliest country in Asia for people protecting land and the environment. More than 120 environmental campaigners have been murdered over the past 15 years, according to the grassroots organisation Coalition Against Land Grabbing (CALG) – with mining linked to a third of all killings. Through the years of persecution has emerged a tapestry of support for environmental defenders comprising grassroots organisations, Indigenous and rural communities. In the Asia Pacific region, these include Kalikasan, a network of environmental organisations advocating for persecuted defenders; and APNED (Asia Pacific Network for Environmental Defenders). 

In Ecuador, the numbers of environmental defenders being persecuted by corporations and government has increased sharply since 2016, when the country changed its mining investment laws and invited dozens of transnational companies to snap up mining leases across two million hectares of land – mainly Indigenous territories, biodiversity hotspots, and farmlands. As explorations and projects got underway with next to no environmental oversight and zero consultation, new local resistance groups sprang up everywhere. In 2021 several of these groups formed the National Anti-Mining Front, which continues to support a broad swathe of struggles, often with limited resources at their disposal. 

The Intag region of the northwest of Ecuador has a decades-long history of struggle against mining – the longest continuous resistance in Latin America. As a result the region has developed a tightly-linked network of civil society groups, which have collaborated in recent years to declare Intag a “Mining Free Zone”. Citizens have defended their lands in a wide variety of ways – from setting up chain blockades across roads to stop mining companies entering, to community assemblies, to conservation, reforestation and environmental education projects, to legal interventions against criminalisation of defenders, to court battles, and even a national referendum. Emblematic outcomes such as the court wins for the rights of nature in Los Cedros and Llurimagua would not have been successful without these strong civil society alliances. 

 

5.7 Collective decision-making, governances and convergences 

Strong local collective decision-making and community governance systems are critical in building up the power of civil society resistance and expanding solidarity networks.

The Karen people in Myanmar have constructed a regional coordination of governance to present a strong, united front in defense of their lands. This is grounded in local, grassroots governance bodies and a charter of principles; these local voices are then added together and channelled into a regional General Assembly. In this way, community voices are strengthened in relation to those of neighbouring stakeholders. Members of the General Assembly, in turn, work consistently with representatives of each community. 

“The Salween Peace Park empowers our indigenous Karen communities to guide local development and conservation in line with traditional knowledge and cultural practices. By basing local governance in the hands of the community, the Salween Peace Park enables the conservation of nature and Karen culture, and the pursuit of a peaceful and stable life for local communities, something that is denied to them by Myanmar government laws and military ambitions.”

Popular referendums have in many areas proved to be a powerful and decisive way to galvanise community resistance. In northwestern Ecuador, a campaign called “Quito Sin Minería” brought together rural communities in a campaign calling for a national referendum on mining in the mega-biodiverse Chocó Andino region. In 2023 over 60% of Ecuadorians voted to ban mining in that area. Just a couple of years earlier, the city of Cuenca similarly achieved a referendum at the provincial level, in which over 80% of voters said “no” to mining in the region’s highland watersheds. This win continues to bolster the resistance movements of Cuenca today, even in the face of increasing pressures from the state and corporations to advance grand-scale mining. 

Regional and global networks and convergences are a key way to articulate and solidify collective action, reflection and strategy. The Foro Social Panamazónico (FOSPA) is a biannual regional platform bringing together Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant communities, social movements, and civil society from across the Amazon basin. Similarly, in the Asia-Pacific region, the Asia Pacific Research Network (APRN) provides a collective space for civil society organisations to tackle shared social and environmental concerns and elevate the voices of frontlines. 

The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN) is a rapidly growing network now with members in 40 countries. GARN’s organisational structure is grounded in and centres the authority of Indigenous peoples and stands for transforming systems in vision of a regenerative society for all beings on planet Earth. La Via Campesina is an international movement of peasants defending and building food sovereignty across the Global South and North. The Thematic Social Forum on Mining and Extractivism is a solidarity network of people from mining-affected communities which has so far held three global assemblies – Johannesburg (2018), Indonesia (2023) and Brazil (2025). While the Global Tapestry of Alternatives weaves anti-capitalist, post-capitalist, localised democracy groups committed to transformative alternatives.

Bringing people face to face in international convergences around official events like the United Nations COP climate summits has helped to forge cross-sectoral alliances of civil society groups working in different thematic areas of the “just transition.” In November 2025 tens of thousands, including YLNM, converged around the COP30 in Belém, Brazil, in a huge show of unity for a liveable future:

“Our process brought together more than 70,000 people who make up local, national, and international movements of indigenous and traditional peoples, peasants, Indigenous Peoples, quilombolas, fisherfolk, traditional peoples who live from sustainable forest extraction, shellfish gatherers, urban workers, trade unionists, homeless people, babassu coconut breakers, terreiro peoples, women, the LGBTQIAPN+ community, young people, Afro-descendants, the elderly, and peoples from the forest, the countryside, the peripheries, the seas, rivers, lakes, and mangroves.”

People’s Summit March in Belém do Pará, Brazil, November 2025. Photo: Liz Downes

5.8  Celebration of Life

Yes to Life involves the celebration of life in all its diversity – creating movements and resistance that cannot be stamped out. 

The struggle in Tolima, Colombia against mining giant Anglogold Ashanti has gradually evolved, and since 2011 has brought together diverse parts of civil society to flourish into an annual celebration: a protest of art, music and political-environmental education in the city of Ibagué. The colourful Marcha-Carnaval, held on World Environment Day, draws thousands of people together in defense of Life, Water and Land and in opposition to state extractive policies in the name of the “green energy transition”. With national and even international participation, this event makes resistance against mining both attractive and joyful – a flame that cannot be easily put out. 

In Toronto, Canada, a bi-annual event called the River Run is held by the Grassy Narrows First Nation and allies in protest against the diverse extractive industries which impact their lands. The Grassy Narrows community has suffered many traumas including forced displacement, destruction of sacred sites through hydro damming, mercury contamination, logging, and mining expansions. They have also held a long-running blockade against extraction that functions as a language school and cultural center. Mercury poisoning in particular has a multi-generational impact on health within the community. Hence this family-friendly event is both about political action and celebrating survival. 

In Western Australia, a powerful initiative called “Reclaim the Void” was launched in 2022 by elders of Ngalia communities near Leonora – a town in the infamous “Goldfields” region where mining has occurred for over 150 years and which currently hosts over 60 operating open pit mines, some among the largest in the world. The region is riddled with the scars of old mines. The project brought people together in crafting “camps” in town and on Country (Ngurra) to weave huge brightly coloured rugs from discarded fabrics which were then exhibited in significant cultural and meeting places as a celebration of survival and reconnection to Ngurra and Tjukurrpa (law). 

 6. Transforming the Global System

Thematic Social Forum convergence in Indonesia, 2023. Photo: Guadalupe Rodriguez

Making local alternatives possible requires global structural change. As we have said in another position paper on the Just(ice) Transition, “we can’t mine our way out of the climate crisis — but we can build post-extractive futures that sustain life with dignity for all, and the inherent rights of Nature to exist, thrive and regenerate everywhere.” 

This means changing the entire way we conceptualise our political and economic systems at a global level, as well as supporting democratically owned energy transition initiatives at the grassroots level. At the very least we must decentralise the production of renewable energy, demand the reduction of consumption by the world’s richest and most industrialised countries, and centre the imperative to stop creating sacrifice zones in the name of climate action, energy security, national security or AI. 

 

6.1 Degrowth: Reducing Demand for Extraction

The demand for extraction is created by production for the sake of profit, not need, and for the manufactured consumption patterns of the Global North and its industrial imperialism. This occurs at a relentless cost to the Global South and the marginalised communities within richer countries. 

Degrowth is an increasingly accepted umbrella term for one movement that posits scalable alternatives to the hegemonic global economic system. In a previous position paper we state: “the concept of degrowth is based on an internationalist justice-based perspective, and sheds special light on the necessity for the world’s most affluent regions and classes to reduce their (over)consumption and to tackle the unequal ecological exchange (extraction) of materials and labour from the poorer regions of the world.” 

Degrowth is rooted in anarchism. While propagated to some extent in academia, the concept is rarely mentioned in top-down, hierarchical climate mitigation discourse. It has largely (and rightly) fallen on grassroots groups to do the cutting-edge work of developing degrowth models and practices which have real social benefits.

Often these same groups are also doing justice work supporting the frontlines of extractive sacrifice zones. For example, the Australian Degrowth Network – which has emerged over the past few years in one of the world’s biggest mining jurisdictions – works in alliance with First Nations and anti-extractive networks while supporting community-building and local economic initiatives.

 

6.2 Just(ice) Energy Transitions 

What does a Just Transition mean to us? As we expressed in our previous paper on this topic: 

“A Just Transition means a transition shaped by peoples and communities, not imposed on them. It must centre the right to say no to destructive projects and the right to self-determination over territories, livelihoods, and ways of life. A just transition must also honour the Rights of Nature, recognising that ecosystems are not resource banks for human use, but living relatives whose well-being determines our own.” 

Farming communities in the “food basket” of southeastern Nigeria have for decades been fighting unscrupulous, mostly state-owned coal mining companies. In 2022, a prolonged action by women of the community of Owukpa resulted in the closing down of the coal mine operating right on their back door. However, by this time the mine and other regional operations had caused years of accumulated damage, particularly air and water pollution, which continues to impact on people’s health. 

Despite this, and despite a serious regional conflict which has made the area unsafe to live in for many and caused significant displacement, farming people are resilient and determined to resurrect their livelihoods. In January 2025, YLNM, in partnership with the Health of Mother Earth Foundation, distributed multifunctional solar power systems to 40 women in Owukpa. The beneficiaries noted that these systems would help improve their homes and businesses.

“We advocate for an energy transition that is both ecologically and socially just. Harnessing Nigeria’s vast solar and wind potential would provide clean, renewable alternatives to coal, offering communities like Owukpa a way forward without the environmental and health hazards associated with coal mining.” 

 

6.3 Corporate Accountability

We live in an age of economic imperialism and global corporate hegemony. Both must be dismantled in order for a life-sustaining future to be possible. Most attempts at regulation of transnational corporations come from within the power structures that maintain corporate hegemony (eg. so-called certification schemes). However, from the grassroots it is possible to address the impunity of companies and call out, or even directly disrupt, supply chains that cause harm. 

Since genocides such as that in Gaza and Congo and the increasing geopolitical and military tensions around the world, organisations such as YLNM have worked hard to draw attention to the money flows and mines-to-weapons pipelines which make these wars and conflicts so lucrative, as well as the impacts of mining expansions at all stages of the supply chain. Once these patterns are identified, strategic activism can bring accountability to the supply chain. This may include boycotts and sanctions, targeted protests and actions, market and shareholder actions, and legal cases. 

Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is a highly problematic international system of secretive tribunals that allows corporations to sue states outside of domestic and international law. The grassroots is gaining traction in challenging this system. In April 2026, over 340 civil society organizations called for a “global coalition to break free from ISDS” ahead of the Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia. 

The international food sovereignty network La Via Campesina says: “People’s sovereignty, dignity, and justice cannot coexist with corporate impunity. The challenge before us is not just to document violations but also to interrupt the systems that make them profitable. To do that, we must reclaim the language of law, the tools of economics, and the principles of international solidarity—not as abstractions, but as weapons in the struggle for liberation.”

7. The Importance of Global Solidarity

Local mining and extractive frontlines often find themselves facing a perfect storm of challenges – corporate bullying and divide/conquer tactics, greenwashing and corruption, aggressive state-driven economic campaigns, environmental and social impacts, and – last but not least – violence and militarisation, which may be associated with any of these other factors.  

Communities struggling against violent conflict often find themselves isolated from outside resources and wider advocacy and support networks. This may be because areas are considered too volatile or dangerous; because state or corporate powers actively try to prevent anyone supporting frontlines; or because whole regions are impacted by violence and political conflict, causing overwhelm among human rights and environmental defence networks. Grassroots networks may be too stretched or under too much threat of persecution themselves to be able to support all the frontlines in crisis. 

Bigger NGOs often have comparatively more resources, but their hierarchical structures, competitive business models, funding conditions and self-censorship often create restrictions on the kinds of struggles they can or are willing to support. Without strong local connections, international NGO resources risk being detached from reality, or channelled simply to the most “charismatic” struggles which can attract media and donors – leaving less visible communities struggling on their own. 

For these reasons, when frontline communities are in crisis, it is the grassroots civil society organisations with strong global partnerships who are often best placed to connect struggles, amplify voices and enact timely responses. Global solidarity networks play a key role in making struggles visible, channeling resources to the frontlines that need them the most, supporting life-sustaining local economies, and celebrating alternatives to extractivism. 

Global networks are also well placed to amplify local issues of human rights abuses and environmental impacts, and connect these issues to activist groups who are working to dismantle the root problems and create alternatives at the systemic level. This means tying local struggles to the wider picture of growth-based economies, the imperialist ambitions of the Global North, and the global military-industrial complex. Local voices and stories no longer remain contained, isolated or unheard – they help to focus the energies of those with the most resources to act, and to create a world where extractivism, war, violence and militarisation are alien.

This is exactly why YLNM started twelve years ago from solidarity connections between Latin America and Africa. Now, we are a network of communities and organisations that span the globe.

8. Conclusion: A Future Rooted in Life!

 

As we have seen through this weaving of stories, “Yes to life” means a diverse range of concrete things that communities around the world are demonstrating and implementing in order to ensure a liveable future. 

 

Yes to life means … 

 

• Yes to post-extractive, local economies and livelihoods; 

• Yes to grassroots- and Indigenous-led solutions to the climate crisis;
• Yes to a truly just transition for people and planet; 
• Yes to protecting and restoring environments on which livelihoods depend;
• Yes to protecting and restoring biodiversity and waterways for the sake of the rights of all life to exist, persist and thrive;

and

• Yes to empowering economic models and practices based on kinship, collaboration and reciprocity with nature! 

 

We know that a fully just and sustainable transformation towards a better future cannot emerge from the same extractivist system that caused the collective crisis we’re in. Such a transformation must dismantle corporate power, challenge neocolonial dependencies, and redefine our relationship with nature based on care, solidarity, and ecological balance. 

 

As YLNM, we stand for and strive towards the nurturing of a global, systemic socio-ecological transformation which is empowered and led by the grassroots. 

 

We work together across the Global South and North to envision and forge the conditions for a human society that:

• Upholds the right of local communities and Indigenous peoples to say NO to mining and other destructive projects, on the basis of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent;
• Ensures protection for environmental and human rights defenders (EHRDs); 
• Advances post-extractivist and decolonial alternatives which are guided by planetary limits, peoples’ sovereignty and ecological justice;
• Promotes degrowth and reduced production within industries and sectors which are driving our planetary ecological and social crises;
• Promotes limits on over-consumption, particularly in the Global North;
• Dismantles imperialism;

and

• Recognizes and enforces the Rights of Nature and Earth Jurisprudence as foundational models for sustainable and democratic life on Earth.

Wildfires are becoming a familiar part of the European summer, from the hills of Wales to the forests of Spain and southern France. And whenever they make the news, the counter argument tends to follow: wildfires aren’t really a climate story, because most of them are started by people.  More often, it’s a dropped cigarette. A barbecue left unattended. Arson. A spark from machinery, or even broken glass catching the sun just right.

It’s true. Almost all wildfires are triggered by human activity in one way or another, accidental or deliberate. But using that fact to wave away the climate connection misses the point entirely.

Fires need three things to get going, the fire triangle,  fuel, oxygen, and a source of ignition. Humans have always provided plenty of that third ingredient, and always will; cigarettes, barbecues, campfires and careless machinery aren’t going anywhere, in Britain or anywhere else. What’s changed is the first ingredient: fuel.

The hotter and drier the weather, the drier the scrub, grass and woodland become. Dry vegetation doesn’t just burn more easily, it burns faster, spreads further, and is far harder to bring under control once it’s alight. A spark that would once have fizzled out on damp ground can now, in tinder-dry conditions, become a fire that spreads across dozens or hundreds of hectares before crews can contain it.

That’s the shift climate change is driving, it’s turning the landscape into fuel. By early July 2026, wildfires had already burned around 170,000 hectares across the EU, well above the long-term average, following the hottest June ever recorded for Western Europe. France recorded its hottest day since national records began in 1947. In southern Spain, temperatures hit as high as 45°C. Scientists have linked the intensity of that heat directly to human-caused climate change.

The human cost has been severe. In Spain’s Andalusia region, a wildfire near Almería and Bédar became the deadliest the country has seen in roughly two decades, killing at least a dozen people, many caught trying to flee. Across the continent, wildfires have killed more than a dozen people this year alone, while the heat itself, separate from the flames, has been linked to thousands of excess deaths. Portugal, Greece and Turkey have also battled major blazes, and Europe has mounted its largest firefighting mobilisation yet in response.

So, who struck the match is’nt really the  question, It’s about why the ground around it is so ready to burn. And that’s a question with a clear answer: a hotter, drier climate, driven by the continued burning of fossil fuels, is loading the dice for every spark that was always going to happen anyway, whether that spark falls in Wales, Andalusia, or the Var.

If we want fewer, smaller, less destructive wildfires, tackling the ignition source is only ever going to be half the job. The rest means tackling the reason our landscapes are drying out in the first place, and holding the industry driving that heat accountable for the damage it’s causing.

The post Beyond the spark: Why wildfires across Europe are getting worse appeared first on 350.

Today, conservation groups and a fishing guide filed suit in federal court in San Francisco to challenge the Trump administration’s new interpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that “harm” to species does not include destroying their habitat. The new decision reverses 50 years of bipartisan agreement that protecting species’ habitat is at the heart of the ESA and, without it, many species will go extinct.

The conservationists assert that no matter how the administration contorts the legal term “harm,” its plain meaning, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Babbitt v. Sweet Home, includes destroying species’ habitat. Indeed, the ESA itself states its first purpose is “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.”

“This is war on the forests and rivers of the West,” said Pete Frost, attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center in Eugene. “No longer protecting where grizzlies, salmon, and owls live will make them extinct. We’re hopeful the court will clarify what the ESA has always meant.”

Chris Daughters, a licensed fishing guide on the McKenzie River in Oregon, decided to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff, because “my business depends on cold, clean water in which salmon thrive. Without good habitat, we won’t have salmon, and I won’t have customers.”

“Marbled murrelets depend on coastal old-growth forests,” said Tom Wheeler of EPIC. “The administration’s twisted interpretation of the ESA means ancient forests could be logged—and the murrelet doomed to extinction. Not only does that wrongly fully interpret the ESA, it’s reprehensible position for the administration to forward.”

“Removing habitat protections for spotted owls would not only mean a death sentence for spotted owls, but a death sentence to old-growth forest ecosystems of the Northwest as we know them. What’s at stake isn’t just one species, but the web of life that countless other wildlife depend on,” says Sydney Wilkins, conservation attorney for KS Wild.

Lost habitat is the very reason most species are listed under the ESA. And habitat loss causes more species to go extinct than any other single factor. To illustrate, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, which is now 90% gone, is nearing extinction due to its alpine lake habitat being destroyed, not because people are stomping on frogs. Similarly, spotted owls and murrelets are not directly harmed by logging – these birds are not crushed by logging equipment. Rather, logging removes viable habitat for vital life activities such as nesting and foraging, leading to the slow unraveling of entire populations as breeding and nesting areas disappear, prey becomes scarce, and the ecosystem balance they depend on quietly collapses.

Likewise, the four recent dam removals in the Klamath River Basin are for the first time in decades allowing wild salmon to swim hundreds of miles upstream to reach historic habitat. But this may not have been possible without the prior longstanding, sensible interpretation of the ESA: habitat matters.

The idea that burning down a person’s house does not ‘harm’ that person defies all logic,” said Bethany Cotton, conservation director with Cascadia Wildlands. “The Trump administration’s interpretation that destroying an imperiled species’ habitat is not harmful is absurd and will not stand.

The conservationists ask the court to set aside the administration’s new rule and require it to first evaluate what this radical change will mean for protected species analysis, which they illegally failed to do for this major change in interpreting and applying the ESA.

Cascadia Wildlands, KS Wild, EPIC, Friends of the Shasta River, and Mr. Daughters are represented by attorneys at the Western Environmental Law Center.

Contacts: 

Pete Frost, Western Environmental Law Center, 541-543-0018, frost@westernlaw.org

Tom Wheeler, EPIC, 206-356-8689, tom@wildcalifornia.org

Sydney Wilkins, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, 541-488-5789, sydney@kswild.org

Bethany Cotton, Cascadia Wildlands, 503-327-4923, bethany@cascwild.org

The post Lawsuit challenges Trump’s decision to stop protecting species’ habitat appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

EWG testimony to the California Senate Committee on Agriculture on AB1603 to increase the transparency and reporting of PFAS pesticides usage rcoleman July 9, 2026

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is David Andrews and I am the Chief Science Officer for the Environmental Working Group.

I hold a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Northwestern University and have been a co-author on ten peer-reviewed publications on PFAS, including a paper on PFAS pesticides.

PFAS—or "forever chemicals"—pose serious health risks, including cancer, reproductive problems, harm to the thyroid and immune system, liver and kidney disease and more. 

2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are used each year in California.

40% of non-organic produce grown in California had at least one PFAS pesticide, some with many. 

PFAS pesticides are widespread in water and soil in California.

PFAS should be regulated as a class - we do not want one problematic chemical substituted for another. 

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control has stated that all PFAS share the core hazard trait of extreme environmental persistence. 

PFAS pesticides fall into a regulatory blind spot.

The US EPA’s and the California Department of Pesticide Regulations’ current have been inadequate with respect to immune system harm, or the cumulative impacts of the very small PFAS.

TFA, or trifluoroacetic acid, is one of the small PFAS contaminants that result from PFAS pesticide usage and levels are increasing in our water, food and environment.

North Carolina ground water testing found TFA in nearly all of their samples, and it is estimated that PFAS pesticide use in California creates up to 600,000 pounds of TFA.

Earlier this month, ECHA's scientific committee concluded TFA should be classified as toxic to reproduction, and also very persistent and very mobile.

With the increasing evidence of harm from PFAS we are disappointed that the legislature is not acting more decisively on PFAS pesticides but we support this step to catalogue usage.

Thank you.

Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. June 30, 2026

EWG testimony to the California Senate Committee on Environmental Quality on AB1603 to restrict and ban the use of PFAS pesticides rcoleman July 9, 2026

Good morning,

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Varun Subramaniam and I am a Science Analyst at the Environmental Working Group.

I hold a graduate degree in health data science as well as a degree in environmental health.

I coauthored recent reports which found that, each year, millions of pounds of PFAS pesticides are being applied to, and detected in high frequencies on, fruits and vegetables grown in California. 

PFAS pesticides are also often found in surface water and soil near agricultural areas.

PFAS in any form pose serious, well-documented health and environmental risks that warrant strict limitations of their use and regulation as a class. 

Exposure to PFAS is linked to liver and kidney disease, reproductive problems, child development delays, cancer, weakened thyroid function, and reduced vaccine effectiveness in children. 

Additionally, all PFAS share the core characteristic of a carbon-fluorine bond that results in extreme environmental persistence; they do not fully break down in the environment.3

This drastically increases the timeframe of exposure, with today’s contamination potentially harming health for decades.

These PFAS pesticides fall into a regulatory blind spot.

Current regulatory evaluations of PFAS pesticides do NOT adequately account for potential immune system harm or the impacts of very small forms of PFAS that form from many PFAS pesticides, including trifluoroacetic acid or TFA.

Immunotoxicity is one of the most critical health effects for PFAS risk assessments, so we are overlooking key, not fringe, information by not considering studies of immune effects.4,5

In addition, TFA, which is linked to reproductive harm, has been detected in nearly all water and human serum samples, where tested.

Fortunately, farmers have options that are not PFAS. 

Of the roughly 1,000 active pesticide ingredients currently approved for use in California, 95% are not PFAS. And other states, like Maine and Minnesota, have already announced planned phase-outs for these chemicals.

The health and environmental risks of PFAS exposure are significant. 

Scientists across the world agree that we must act swiftly to halt this multigenerational cycle of contamination.

Thank you.

Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Authors Varun Subramaniam, M.S. June 24, 2026

EWG testimony to California Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials on AB1603 to restrict and ban the use of PFAS pesticides rcoleman July 9, 2026

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is David Andrews, and I am the Acting Chief Science Officer at the Environmental Working Group. I hold a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Northwestern University and have been a co-author on ten peer-reviewed publications on PFAS, including a 2024 paper that identified EPA-approved PFAS pesticides.

PFAS—often called "forever chemicals"—pose serious, well-documented health risks. 

Exposure to this class of chemicals is linked to altered immune and thyroid function, liver and kidney disease, reproductive problems, child development delays, cancer and more. 

The Department of Toxic Substances Control has stated that all PFAS share the core hazard trait of extreme environmental persistence.

And what may surprise you is that our food is a primary, under regulated route of exposure.

PFAS pesticides fall into a regulatory blind spot.

The EPA’s and the California Department of Pesticide Regulations’ current regulatory evaluation of PFAS pesticides have NOT adequately evaluated the pesticides’ potential for immune system harm, or fully assessed the impacts of the very small PFAS, including trifluoroacetic acid or TFA, that form from PFAS pesticides. 

Levels of these small PFAS are increasing in our water, food and environment and exposure to them is linked to reproductive and immune toxicity.

North Carolina ground water testing found TFA in 95% of their samples, and it is estimated that PFAS pesticide use in California creates up to 600,000 pounds of TFA each year. These findings should alarm California, which will likely find similar contamination when official tests are done.

In regard to food, EWG recently found that nearly 40% of all non-organic produce grown right here in California contains traces of at least one PFAS pesticide. For some agricultural staples such as peaches, plums and nectarines, the numbers are even higher.

Fortunately, farmers have options that are not PFAS. Of the roughly 1,000 active pesticide ingredients currently approved for use in California, only 53 are PFAS. 

Thank you.

Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. April 14, 2026

EWG testimony to Vermont House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry on H.911 to prohibit PFAS in pesticides and packaging rcoleman July 9, 2026

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. 

My name is Varun Subramaniam, and I am a Science Analyst at the Environmental Working Group. 

I hold a master's degree in health data science from the George Washington University’s Milken Institute School of Public Health and a degree in environmental health science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Gillings School of Global Public Health.

My professional work involves applying data science techniques to issues of environmental health, with attention to chemical exposures. 

EWG is a national environmental organization that has, for several decades, investigated the impacts of PFAS on public health and tracked PFAS detections in tap water. 

EWG has published multiple peer-reviewed studies on PFAS exposure sources, including a 2024 peer-reviewed paper on PFAS pesticides. 

Last month, we published a new analysis on the presence of PFAS on fruits and vegetables in the United States.

The growing threat of PFAS

PFAS pose serious health risks to the public.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, PFAS exposure may lead to increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, developmental harm including low birth-weight, interference with the body’s natural hormones and harm to the immune system.

The agency also reports that PFAS have been linked to an increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers. 

PFAS exposure for children is particularly concerning due to increased sensitivity to the harmful effects of chemicals such as PFAS.

PFAS overexposure

We know from recent research that everyone is overexposed to PFAS. 

In 2022, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine assessed PFAS concentrations in human blood samples.

They found that 98% of samples had PFAS levels that warranted exposure reduction and screenings for various health disorders, including hypertension during pregnancy and breast cancer.

PFAS are frequently found in our tap water. 

Food as a Primary Route of Exposure

What may surprise you is that our food, not our water, might be an even bigger source of PFAS exposure. 

The general scientific consensus is that our food is a significant, if not primary, route of exposure.

A 2020 study in Environment International concluded that dietary exposure from the ingestion of food and drinks was the “predominant exposure pathway” to PFAS.

How PFAS enters our diets

PFAS contaminates our food in many, overlapping ways. 

First, PFAS that is used in food packaging can migrate into our food. 

Second, sewage sludge that is contaminated with PFAS and used as a fertilizer can contaminate our food and the farm animals who are fed contaminated feed. 

Third, irrigation water that is contaminated with PFAS can also be absorbed by crops and contaminate our food. 

Fourth, and perhaps most directly, pesticides either made with PFAS as an ingredient or stored in containers that are lined with PFAS can contaminate our food. 

PFAS pesticides on produce

The presence of PFAS pesticides on our food is widespread.

Last month, EWG released a new study of PFAS residues on produce. 

We analyzed testing data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and found 31 different PFAS pesticides were detected on 30% of non-organic U.S. fruit and vegetables.

The most commonly detected pesticide on U.S. produce was fludioxonil–a PFAS fungicide.

Fludioxonil was found on 14% of all produce samples and on nearly 90% of peach and plum samples.

Peer-reviewed literature has linked fludioxonil exposure to hormonal disruption and has found evidence of reproductive toxicity.

Why are PFAS used in pesticides?

You might ask: why is PFAS used in pesticides?

PFAS can modify the attributes of pesticides, mainly conferring increased molecular stability on the chemical. This means that the pesticides can’t be broken down easily and are highly heat-resistant.

PFAS are also known to increase membrane permeability, meaning that pests absorb the chemical faster and can be immobilized more efficiently11.

Alternatives to PFAS pesticides

Farmers have alternatives to pesticides made with PFAS. 

There are effective options available to manage insects and weeds without relying on PFAS pesticides.

Biological controls, such as biopesticides or those derived from entirely biological sources, are popular alternatives to PFAS pesticides.

The menu of pesticides available to farmers is large and ever-growing, with new pesticide active ingredients and products coming to the market each year. 

There are more than 90,000 pesticide products registered with the EPA, comprising over 800 active ingredients. Of these, about 350 active ingredients are approved for use on food crops.

Just 66 of these active ingredients are PFAS. 

According to U.S. Geological Survey, less than 1% of all the pesticides, by volume, used in the state of Vermont are pesticides that include PFAS as an ingredient.

The Hidden PFAS around us

Another concerning characteristic of these chemicals is that most PFAS pesticides ultimately break down into other PFAS like trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA. 

TFA can persist in the environment for hundreds of years and levels are increasing in soil, water, plants, plant based foods, and human bodies.

It’s not just the PFAS pesticides that can last for years and harm health – they are also precursors to other chemicals that will outlast us by centuries.

Conclusion

In summary, we are all exposed to PFAS. Many of us have levels of PFAS in our blood that pose serious health risks. 

Our food is a significant source of our exposure to PFAS. 

The food we eat is contaminated through: PFAS used in food packaging, PFAS in sewage sludge used as fertilizer, contaminated irrigation water, and pesticides either made with PFAS or stored in containers lined with PFAS. 

Most pesticides are made without PFAS, and new, better-studied pesticides are routinely approved for use by the EPA.

Less than 1% of the pesticides, by volume, used in Vermont are pesticides made with PFAS. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today about PFAS pesticides.

I am happy to answer any questions.

Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Authors Varun Subramaniam, M.S. April 9, 2026

Job Opening Announcement: Wildlands and Wildlife Program Staff Attorney
Reports to: Wildlands and Wildlife Program Director
Location: Portland, Oregon strongly preferred. Other WELC office locations may be considered for an exceptional candidate in the right situation.
Timeline: Job opening posted July 9, 2026; we will review applications and interview candidates on a rolling basis and encourage early applications. The position is open until filled.
Salary: $76,000 – $106,000 annually
To Apply: ApplicantPro portal

About the Western Environmental Law Center:
The Western Environmental Law Center is a leading nonprofit, public-interest environmental law firm rooted in the landscapes and communities of the western U.S. Founded in 1993, WELC has been celebrated as an Outside Magazine Best Place to Work for the final six years of the contest (it ended in 2024), Oregon Business Magazine Best Nonprofit, Law360 Environmental Group of the Year, and Better Business Bureau Torch Award winner for ethics.

We envision a thriving western U.S., abundant with protected and interconnected ecosystems, powered by renewable energy, and cared for by communities brought together in an ecology of kinship. We embrace a collaborative, team-based approach to foster the trust, belonging, and dignity essential to a healthy organization and to relationship-based advocacy that builds power for transformative change.

We seek to retain a Staff Attorney (2+ years of experience) to join our team. We strongly encourage people of color, persons with disabilities, women, LGBTQ+ applicants, and people of diverse lived experience to apply.

Position Summary:
The Wildlands & Wildlife Program Staff Attorney is an exempt, full-time position. The central focus of this position is strategic legal advocacy centered on public lands, waters, wildlife, and communities in the western U.S. The position’s responsibilities will be allocated among the following core areas:

• Litigation and administrative engagement protecting federal public lands, wildlife habitat, species, and water.
• Engagement in federal and potentially state-level legislation, rulemaking, and policymaking to protect public lands, water, and species. This may include defense of existing laws and regulations as well as efforts to improve the same.

Given the dynamic moment in which we find ourselves, this litigation position’s focus and time allocations will necessarily evolve in response to changing political, scientific, social, and economic circumstances and opportunities consistent with specific organizational strategies. Further, the position may be somewhat flexible to accommodate a successful candidate’s distinctive skills, experiences, and interests to further and complement WELC’s strategic Wildlands and Wildlife focus. WELC’s organizational and strategic direction is not “top down,” but is informed precisely by the individual qualities of its staff. Moreover, the location of the successful candidate will play a role in their precise docket of work.

Accordingly, over time, the Staff Attorney will be encouraged and supported to identify and advance opportunities to shape WELC’s organizational and strategic direction, to share perspectives, and to become a trusted and respected leader in their field and within their scope of work. The Staff Attorney will support and coordinate with WELC leadership, development, communications, and finance staff, as well as represent WELC in public and private settings. The Staff Attorney will also participate in retreats, trainings, and other organizational events.

To fulfill this position’s responsibilities, the Staff Attorney may provide a full range of legal services on behalf of WELC, including primarily litigation, but also policy advocacy, and administrative action. To excel in these efforts, the Staff Attorney will stay apprised of relevant law, policy, social, and other developments. The Staff Attorney will work collaboratively with staff across the organization, as well as with partner organizations and clients.

The Staff Attorney is a normal 40-hour week position based out of WELC’S Portland office or, potentially for an exceptional candidate, another of WELC’s office, primarily working during Monday to Friday business hours, though some night and weekend hours may be required at times, depending on organizational and advocacy needs. Limited travel is required, averaging a total of 2-3 weeks per year, including some overnight and weekend travel. The position also involves standard office physical demands. WELC will provide all reasonable accommodations to the extent possible or required pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Qualifications:
We are keenly interested in considering a range of applicants with diverse lived experiences who approach the world with kindness, empathy, imagination, and vision. We will happily consider applicants who offer an equivalent or alternative set of qualifications to fulfill this position’s responsibilities, apart from the first two qualifications set forth below, which are mandatory.

• Law degree from an accredited law school.
• Admission to and good standing with the state bar in Oregon, and/or one of the states where we practice and willingness and ability to obtain membership to the Oregon state bar at the earliest opportunity.
• Lived experience within or past work experience in partnership with people and communities of diverse backgrounds and experience, particularly in the western U.S.
• Two or more years relevant attorney experience.
• Excellent research, writing, and oral advocacy skills.
• Experience with and knowledge of public lands, waters, species, and community challenges and opportunities in the western U.S.
• Experience with and knowledge of the relevant agencies, laws, and regulations employed in litigation to protect public lands, waters, and species.
• Ability and willingness to use a complete set of legal advocacy tools including litigation, policy, and administrative advocacy.
• A commitment to conceptualizing and implementing legal strategies that further equity, inclusion, and justice, including through the just treatment and meaningful involvement of clients, partners, and frontline community groups and individuals.
• Dynamic and empathetic skills to foster relationships with partners, clients, agency staff, and community members. Demonstrated ability to work in complex, potentially high-conflict, multi- dimensional arenas involving a broad array of organizations and interests.
• Eagerness to mentor, support, and help develop newer attorneys and a self-awareness, motivation, and desire to seek opportunities for your own growth and development.
• An interest in and understanding of science and other technical fields and their interplay with public interest environmental law.
• Ability to work independently and proactively, including a willingness to be flexible and adaptive when needed.
• Desire to work on and contribute to a team. This includes learning from others, giving and receiving support and feedback, and active, constructive engagement in organizational discussions to advance the organization’s mission and contribute to its cohesion.
• Highly organized and intellectually curious.
• Demonstrated commitment to WELC’s mission and strategies and the public interest, as well as a love for the land, waters, species, and communities of the western U.S.

Benefits and Compensation:
Western Environmental Law Center is an equal opportunity employer. We offer a flexible, friendly, team-based environment with immediate opportunities to shape organizational strategies, and competitive, transparent, and equity-based salaries as follows:

• Staff Attorney, range based on years of legal experience: $76,000 (2 years) – $106,000 (10 years) with commensurate increases for an attorney with greater experience.
• WELC offers an excellent benefits package, including health, vision, dental, life, and disability coverage (with 100% employer paid premiums), a 401(k) retirement plan with a 4% employer match, 22 days combined of paid annual vacation and personal leave, 13 days of paid holiday leave, paid sick leave, and a paid long-term leave policy (3 months sabbatical leave for every 5 years of employment).

To Apply:
Please submit the following as PDF attachments through our ApplicantPro portal.

• 1-2 page cover letter addressed to Sarah McMillan, Wildlands & Wildlife Program Director
• Resume;
• 3 professional references; and
• 1-2 concise writing samples, with at least 1 writing sample involving a legal memorandum, brief, or filing. An additional, non-legal writing sample is also welcomed to illustrate the candidate’s background, views, or

Cover letters should communicate applicants’ commitment to WELC’s mission and advocacy and their motivation to work in this position and in public interest environmental law generally. In your cover letter, please do not repeat information apparent from a review of your resume. Instead, applicants are very strongly encouraged to tell us who they are as human beings, why they care about this work, and why they want to work for WELC specifically.

The post Career Opportunity: Wildlands and Wildlife Program Staff Attorney (Portland, others considered) appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

Statement on FDA’s delay of GRAS amendment proposal Iris Myers July 9, 2026

WASHINGTON – The Food and Drug Administration’s plan to amend the “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, regulatory loophole for food chemicals is slipping to December.

The agency originally planned to propose the amendment in October 2025. In December, it sent a draft rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for pre-publication review, where it’s still pending. The administration then last week released its updated regulatory plan with timelines for upcoming agency rules, including the GRAS delay.

GRAS is a loophole that for years has allowed companies to add new, potentially harmful chemicals and other substances to snacks, drinks and more without undergoing the FDA’s safety review. 

When Congress created the GRAS loophole, in 1958, the exemption was intended to apply largely to ingredients widely recognized as safe, such as salt, water, yeast and vinegar.

But in the intervening years, GRAS has expanded to apply to much more. Since 2000, nearly 99% of food chemicals were introduced into the market as a result of  the GRAS loophole, according to a 2025 analysis from the Environmental Working Group. This allows scores of food chemicals to be approved for use with little government oversight.

The threat of preemption

A draft House bill would, if enacted, further hobble the already broken food safety review process. 

The bill is known as the FDA Review and Evaluation for Safe, Healthy and Affordable Foods, or FRESH and Affordable Foods Act. It would gut rules on the information companies must provide the FDA when submitting a notice that a food chemical is GRAS.

The following is a statement from Melanie Benesh, EWG vice president for government affairs: 

The federal government’s decision to push back its timeline for proposing changes to the broken GRAS system is yet another reminder that consumers cannot afford to wait for Washington to act.

For years, the FDA has failed to adequately oversee food chemicals, leaving states to fill the void by passing commonsense protections against harmful food chemicals linked to serious health risks. 

A delay in this long-promised rulemaking only reinforces why states must continue leading the way.

Congress should not respond by tying states’ hands. 

Lawmakers should reject misguided preemption proposals like the FRESH Act, which would strip states of their ability to protect families while weakening, not strengthening, federal oversight of food chemicals.

The federal government is taking longer to close the GRAS loophole. But the last thing Congress should do is block the states that are already taking action. Americans deserve stronger protections from harmful food chemicals, not more delays and fewer safeguards.

###

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

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 July 9, 2026

The Toxic Legacy of Eighty Years of U.S. Military Occupation

Part 2 of a 3-part series.  Part 1 examined PFAS at Pituffik Space Base; while Part 3 will survey the appeals U.S. veterans have filed with the U.S. Veterans Administration, claiming cancers and disease as a result of their exposure to toxins in Greenland.

By Pat Elder
July 9, 2026

“Greenland doesn’t really help Denmark. Denmark doesn’t spend money to really help Greenland, but it’s important for the United States... It should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark.” — U.S. President Donald Trump, speaking in Ankara, Türkiye, July 7, 2026, Photo CNBC

Introduction

President Donald Trump's July 2026 remarks criticizing Denmark's relationship with Greenland provide an unexpected backdrop for this report. Although the President did not specify what he meant by Denmark "not spending money to really help Greenland," his comments invite a broader examination of the responsibilities that accompany the American military presence and strategic interest on the world's largest island.

The geopolitical tensions have been extraordinary. Following President Trump's repeated suggestions earlier this year that he might use military force to acquire Greenland, Danish military planners reportedly developed highly classified contingency plans that included destroying key Greenlandic airfields if the United States attempted an invasion, according to the BBC.

On April 1, 2026, The New York Times reported that the Trump administration was negotiating with Denmark for access to three additional military installations in Greenland. According to the newspaper, two of the proposed sites were former American bases abandoned following the Cold War. The report underscored Greenland's renewed strategic importance at a moment when many of the environmental consequences of earlier U.S. military operations remain unresolved.

For more than eighty years, the United States has maintained an extensive network of military installations across Greenland. Those bases left behind nuclear radiation, fuel spills, abandoned infrastructure, military waste, contaminated landfills, PCB-containing materials, asbestos, unexploded ordnance, and, at several locations, documented PFAS contamination associated with firefighting activities.

Successive Danish and Greenlandic governments have invested substantial public resources investigating former American installations, documenting contamination, and, in some rare cases, undertaking cleanup projects. The United States has strongly maintained that it bears no legal obligation to restore former facilities to their original condition, relying on provisions contained in Article XI of the 1951 Defense Agreement: “It is understood that any areas or facilities made available to the  Government of the United States of America under this Agreement need not be left in the condition in which they were at the time they were thus made available.”

As a result, almost all of the financial burden for assessing and addressing contamination has fallen on Denmark and Greenland rather than on the guilty party that established and operated the installations.

When the U.S. upgraded its radar systems in 2004, Greenland attempted to compel  the United States to clean up former U.S. bases on the island.  U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that the legal responsibility for cleaning up older, abandoned bases had already transferred to local/Danish authorities and would remain there.  Because the U.S. maintained this legal stance, the Danish government ultimately agreed to pay for the cleanup.

In 2018 the Danish government relented by investing around 24 million Euro to “clean-up” the abandoned bases. It is a paltry sum. By 2024, progress on the clean-up had been slow. Only around 5.3 million Euro has been spent. That figure is almost irrelevant when measured against the scale of cleaning up the horror at Camp Century alone.

No public authority has produced a comprehensive cleanup estimate for Camp Century. Given the scale of the buried infrastructure, the Arctic environment, and the costs associated with excavating, transporting, and disposing of radioactive and hazardous materials, the eventual cost could reasonably reach into the billions of euros.

This report provides a consolidated overview of former United States military installations in Greenland and their documented environmental legacy. It is based primarily on the groundbreaking investigative reporting and field research published by the Danish newspaper Politiken supplemented by publicly available reports from the Government of Greenland, the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), NIRAS, U.S. government agencies, scientific literature, and historical records.

Military Poisons is indebted to the journalists, editors, photographers, and researchers at Politiken for their exceptional work documenting the environmental legacy of former U.S. military activities in Greenland. Their reporting has significantly advanced public understanding of these historically important sites and provided an invaluable foundation for further research.

The individual descriptions of each installation have been substantially condensed from the original source material to provide readers with a concise reference to the history, environmental conditions, and current status of each site. While every effort has been made to accurately reflect the available public record, this report is intended as a summary and research aid rather than a substitute for the original investigations and technical reports.

Taken together, these installations reveal a remarkably consistent pattern spanning more than eight decades of American military operations in Greenland. Facilities ranging from major air bases to isolated weather stations and LORAN navigation sites were frequently abandoned with fuel drums, vehicles, construction materials, electrical equipment, batteries, hazardous building materials, and waste disposal areas left in place. Environmental investigations have repeatedly documented petroleum contamination, Polychlorinated biphenyls PCBs, asbestos, mercury, lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals, while many sites remain only partially characterized because comprehensive environmental assessments have never been completed.  Camp Century occupies a category of its own. Unlike the conventional military installations scattered across Greenland, the underground nuclear-powered base left behind highly toxic radioactive waste, diesel fuel, sewage, and thousands of tons of construction materials beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet.

One of the more striking findings is how unevenly these sites have been investigated. A few former bases have undergone detailed engineering studies involving soil, water, sediment, and waste characterization. Others have received only scant historical inventories documenting visible structures and debris. Several installations—including Camp Tuto, Camp Fistclench, the Ice Cap Sites, and a number of protected-area weather stations—have never undergone comprehensive environmental assessments.

Cleanup efforts have likewise been inconsistent. Denmark initiated a political agreement in 2018 to begin addressing contamination at selected former American installations, but remediation has progressed slowly. Several major sites remain only partially cleaned despite years of planning. Other installations, including Pituffik Space Base and several research camps within the active military reservation, are excluded from testing and remediation because they remain operational. Somehow, sharing environmental secrets involving levels of PCB’s, PFAS, Radiation, and Mercury are matters of national security. The same holds true from Weisbaden, Germany to Yokosuka, Japan to Honolulu, Hawaii. Victims in these locations cry out for data and justice.

As Greenland assumes greater strategic importance and climate change accelerates the exposure of long-buried Cold War infrastructure, the environmental legacy of former U.S. military installations is likely to receive increasing international attention. This report seeks to provide a concise, evidence-based reference to what is presently known about these sites, where significant uncertainties remain, and where additional investigation is long overdue.

What’s in a drum?

Throughout Greenland, former American military installations are littered with hundreds of thousands of abandoned steel fuel drums. Many reportedly contained residual gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, or other petroleum products when they were discarded. As these drums corrode over time, residual fuels and additives leach into surrounding soils and surface waters. Among the contaminants of greatest concern are petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds, particularly the BTEX chemicals—benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes—along with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and other fuel constituents, like PCB’s. See our rundown on the 36 contaminated sites below. First, please consider helping us financially.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Before reading on, Please support our testing in Fort Ord, California.

The distance from Fort Ord, California, to Nuuk, Greenland is only about 3,300 miles. Most people are surprised to learn that.

This fall, I will travel to Fort Ord to meet with a dozen local environmental advocates, scientists, and Army veterans who are deeply concerned about the rapid redevelopment of the former Army base. New apartments, homes, schools, parks, and retail centers continue to be built over land that contains some of the military's deadliest legacy contamination.

‍Over the years, almost 2,000 local residents, former service members, and civilian workers have told us about cancers and other illnesses they believe are connected to their exposure at Fort Ord.

‍We are especially concerned about large groundwater plumes containing trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and carbon tetrachloride (CT). These chemicals can migrate into buildings as vapor, potentially affecting the air people breathe inside their homes and workplaces. We are also concerned about the possible presence and movement of PFAS ("forever chemicals") and other toxic contaminants in groundwater, soil, surface water, and indoor dust.

‍Our goal is to collect independent environmental samples, work with qualified experts, and make the results available to the public. We believe communities deserve reliable information about the environment where they live, work, and raise their families. We need your help. We need to pay for airfare for three of us (from Maryland, Ohio, and Michigan). We must pay for lodging for four nights. (two stars..) And then, we have to pay for the testing. We already have the Cyclopure test kits for PFAS. We still need to pay for testing of soil, air, and water at different locations. $10,000 is our goal.
See who “we” are.

If you have supported Military Poisons in the past, we hope you will consider helping us again. If you didn’t receive a personal thank you, I apologize. Every donation helps us bring greater transparency to this community living with the environmental legacy of military contamination.

‍ Thank you for standing with us.   Go here, to the bottom of the page to contribute. https://www.fortordcontamination.org/ Now, back to Greenland.

‍ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ ‍

Part I — The Bluie West Installations

Bluie West 1 (Narsarsuaq) U.S. Operation:1942–1958

The largest American air base in Greenland during World War II, Bluie West 1 served as a major refueling stop for thousands of aircraft enroute to Europe. When the United States departed in 1958, it left behind extensive debris, including aircraft wreckage, oil drums, batteries, cables, machinery, buried scrap metal, and asbestos from the former military hospital. Local officials report that waste was buried in multiple layers beneath the site. Although asbestos hazards have been documented for years, the installation is not included in Denmark's current cleanup program.

Note: Bluie West Two  was a planned World War II United States military site in southwest Greenland that proved unusable and was ultimately rejected.

Bluie West 3 (Simiutaq) U.S. Operation:1942–1958

Established as a weather and radio station supporting aircraft operations at Narsarsuaq, Bluie West 3 now contains approximately 4,400 metric tons of abandoned military waste. The site includes rusting oil drums, construction materials, battery components, shipwreck debris, pipelines, and large abandoned fuel tanks. Environmental investigations have documented severe petroleum contamination, including mobile free-phase oil capable of migrating through soil. Elevated PCB concentrations, lead contamination, and petroleum impacts to nearby marine sediments and mussels make Simiutaq one of Greenland's most extensively documented contaminated military sites.

Bluie West 4 (Marraq / Teague Airfield) U.S. Operation: 1942–1948

Built as an emergency landing field and weather station south of Nuuk, Marraq was abandoned with thousands of oil drums, diesel generators, vehicles, radio equipment, barges, and buried scrap metal. Investigators estimated that at least 120,000 liters of diesel fuel contaminated the site, with petroleum odors still evident decades after abandonment. Surveys also identified asbestos, PCBs, and mercury contamination. Officials concluded that pollutants posed potential risks to freshwater ecosystems, marine organisms, and shellfish inhabiting the adjacent fjord. Cleanup operations began in 2019 but remain unfinished.

Bluie West 5 (Aasiaat) U.S. Operation:1942–1958

Bluie West 5 functioned as a weather station near present-day Aasiaat during World War II. Although the site has been used for other purposes over the years, environmental investigations have clearly identified American military debris, including deteriorating buildings and stockpiles of rusted oil drums. More than five metric tons of hazardous or contaminated waste remain. Soil testing has documented elevated concentrations of lead and cadmium associated with the former U.S. installation. Questions regarding present ownership have complicated decisions concerning remediation.

Bluie West 6 (Pituffik / Thule Air Base / Pituffik Space Base) U.S. Operation:1942–Present

Originally established as the Bluie West 6 weather station during World War II, the installation expanded dramatically under the secret Project Blue Jay and became Thule Air Base in 1952, now known as Pituffik Space Base. The installation remains the only active U.S. military base in Greenland. Historic investigations have identified at least fifty waste disposal areas surrounding the base, including former missile silos converted into landfills. Long-term PCB contamination has been documented in nearby marine environments, but because the base remains operational, it has largely been excluded from Denmark's national cleanup program.

Bluie West 7 / Navy 26 / Grønnedal

U.S. Operation:1943–1951 (later operated by Denmark until 2012)

Established near Ivigtut during World War II, Bluie West 7 was accompanied by the adjacent U.S. Navy 26 installation, later transferred to Denmark and renamed Grønnedal. Investigations have documented extensive petroleum and groundwater contamination migrating toward Arsuk Fjord. Large American dump sites contain vehicles, hazardous wastes, and an estimated 20,000 cubic meters of discarded material. Underwater surveys have identified additional debris in the fjord, including a tanker truck, crane, tracked vehicle, and other equipment. Cleanup costs are now estimated at between DKK 100 and 200 million.

Bluie West 8 (Kangerlussuaq / Søndre Strømfjord) U.S. Operation:1941–1992‍ ‍

Built before the United States entered World War II, Kangerlussuaq became one of Greenland's most important military airfields and later served Cold War radar operations before transitioning into Greenland's principal civilian airport. The United States left behind oil drum dumps, unexploded ammunition, scrap metal, and abandoned military structures. Local residents have criticized the burning of open landfills containing American military waste. Greenlandic officials have also alleged that diesel fuel was intentionally dumped into nearby lakes for mosquito control, with reports that some waters still exhibit petroleum odors decades later.

Bluie West 9 (Cruncher Island) U.S. Operation:1942–1986

Constructed to support weather observations and aviation operations associated with Kangerlussuaq, Bluie West 9 remained active for more than four decades. The abandoned installation contains building ruins, generators, vehicles, cables, pipes, waste dumps, and approximately 1.5 metric tons of discarded batteries. Environmental investigations documented elevated concentrations of petroleum, lead, cadmium, copper, zinc, and mercury in soils. Approximately eleven metric tons of hazardous or contaminated waste remain. Danish and Greenlandic authorities have identified the site as a priority for future cleanup.

Part II — The Bluie East Installations

Bluie East 1 (Ikerasassuaq / Prince Christian Sound) U.S. Operation:1942–1945 (later operated by the Danish Meteorological Institute) No Photo

Established as a weather and radio station near Cape Farewell, Bluie East 1 played an important role in Allied North Atlantic weather forecasting during World War II. The installation consisted of a harbor, power plant, radio facilities, living quarters, and support buildings connected by a long wooden staircase. Unlike many other American installations in Greenland, little is known about what environmental contamination remains. Danish authorities report that no formal environmental assessment has been conducted, leaving uncertainty about whether hazardous materials from the wartime occupation persist beneath or around the site. 

Bluie East 2 (Ikkatteq) U.S. Operation:1942–1947

Ikkatteq was one of the largest American airfields on Greenland's east coast, serving as both a refueling stop and radio surveillance station with a wartime population approaching 600 personnel. When abandoned, the base contained more than 100,000 oil drums scattered across the landscape, dozens of military vehicles, batteries, collapsed buildings, and structures containing asbestos. Environmental investigations documented extensive petroleum contamination together with PCBs, lead, and cadmium. Authorities concluded that contamination posed direct risks to both wildlife and people. Although cleanup began years ago, significant remediation remains unfinished.

Bluie East 3 (Walrus Bay) U.S. Operation: 1942–1945

This small weather and radio station on Greenland's east coast supported Allied operations with a complement of approximately fourteen personnel. Although relatively modest in size, environmental investigators classified the site's overall environmental impact as significant. Abandoned structures, fuel drum storage areas, and military debris remained after the American withdrawal. Scrap metal was removed in 2022, but no comprehensive environmental investigation has been completed, leaving unanswered questions regarding remaining soil and groundwater contamination. 

Bluie East 4 (Ella Island) U.S. Operation: 1942–1945 No Photo

Located within what is now Northeast Greenland National Park, Bluie East 4 served as a wartime weather and radio station. Limited information survives regarding the installation, although investigators have identified abandoned building foundations likely containing petroleum residues and mercury. Engineering studies characterize the site's environmental impact as moderate, but its protected status has limited investigation and cleanup activities. Consequently, the full extent of contamination remains unknown.

Bluie East 5 (Eskimonæs) U.S. Operation: 1942–1943 No photo

Bluie East 5 was the northernmost American installation on Greenland's east coast. The original station was destroyed during a German raid in 1943, after which operations were relocated elsewhere. Environmental investigations suggest that mercury contamination and petroleum residues remain at the original location. Because the site lies within a protected national park, it has been excluded from Denmark's post-2018 cleanup initiative. No comprehensive environmental assessment has yet been completed, leaving the extent of contamination uncertain.

Cape Cort Adelaer U.S. Operation: Approximately 1943–1945

Cape Cort Adelaer served as a small weather and radio station supporting Allied operations along Greenland's eastern coast. Investigators have identified abandoned fuel storage tanks and numerous building foundations remaining from the American occupation. Engineering assessments conclude that the site likely contains mercury, petroleum contamination, asbestos, and heavy metals, resulting in an overall environmental impact classified as significant. Although historical research has begun, no comprehensive environmental investigation has yet been completed.

Skjoldungen (Louis Boplads) U.S. Operation: 1943–Approximately 1948

Constructed as a weather station during World War II, Skjoldungen appears to have been abandoned largely intact. Engineering investigations describe large quantities of scattered waste, including chemicals, broken glass, discarded clothing, medication residues, and other debris left where they were originally discarded. Environmental assessments conclude that mercury, petroleum contamination, heavy metals, and asbestos are likely present, resulting in a significant environmental impact. Historical investigations are underway, although no comprehensive field assessment has yet been completed.

Atterbery Dome (Comanche Bay) U.S. Operation: Approximately 1943–1945

Atterbery Dome was a small radio and rescue station established during World War II along Greenland's east coast. Although modest in size, engineering investigations classify its environmental impact as significant. Remaining contamination is believed to include petroleum residues, mercury, asbestos, and heavy metals associated with deteriorating military infrastructure. Authorities have commissioned historical research to better document the installation before determining whether a full environmental investigation or cleanup should proceed.

Part III — Camp Century, the Pituffik Research Camps, Ice Cap Sites, and DYE Stations

Camp Century U.S. Operation:1959–1966(dangerous nuclear reactor operated 1960–1964)

Constructed beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet approximately 150 miles east of Thule Air Base, Camp Century was the most ambitious American military installation ever built in the Arctic. Although presented publicly as a scientific research station, it also served as a testbed for Project Iceworm, a classified proposal to deploy nuclear missiles beneath the ice.

Politiken reports: "When the camp was abandoned, the nuclear reactor had been removed, but an estimated 24 million liters of radioactive cooling wastewater, 200,000 liters of diesel fuel, sewage, and roughly 9,000 metric tons of construction debris were left entombed beneath the ice. As climate warming accelerates ice loss, researchers warn these materials could eventually re-enter the environment."

Military Poisons note: NASA’s summary of the underlying scientific research describes the waste inventory somewhat differently. According to NASA, Camp Century contains approximately 200,000 liters of diesel fuel, 24 million liters of wastewater, including sewage, an unknown quantity of low-level radioactive waste, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). NASA's description does not characterize the entire 24 million liters of wastewater as "radioactive cooling wastewater."

Camp Nuto (Nunatarssuaq Take Off / Camp Red Rock) U.S. Operation:Approximately 1953–1960s   No Photo

‍Camp Nuto was one of several research facilities established near Thule Air Base to study the engineering properties of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Researchers conducted experiments on ice ramps and vehicle operations under Arctic conditions that supported later military construction projects. Environmental investigations indicate petroleum contamination remains at the site, although the overall environmental impact has been classified as moderate. Because Camp Nuto lies within the active Pituffik military complex, it has not been included in Denmark's national cleanup program and has received only limited environmental evaluation.

Camp Tuto (Thule Take Off) U.S. Operation:1954–Early 1960s‍ ‍

Located roughly 25 kilometers southeast of Thule Air Base, Camp Tuto became one of the Army's principal Arctic engineering laboratories. Approximately 450 personnel were stationed there to study tunnel construction beneath glaciers and excavation through frozen permafrost. Engineers built a 400-meter tunnel within the ice to evaluate the feasibility of large underground military facilities. Little public information exists concerning waste left behind, and no comprehensive environmental investigation has been reported. Because the camp remains within the broader Pituffik military area, it has not been scheduled for cleanup.

Camp Fistclench U.S. Operation:Mid-1950s–1959 No Photo

Camp Fistclench served as the direct predecessor to Camp Century. Constructed beneath the ice using covered trenches, the installation allowed Army engineers to test construction techniques later employed for the much larger Camp Century project. Scientific work focused on snow mechanics, ice behavior, and the effects of explosives on glacial ice. Following completion of Camp Century, Camp Fistclench was abandoned. Little documentation exists concerning remaining debris or contamination, and no comprehensive environmental assessment has been reported.

Ice Cap Site I U.S. Operation:1953–1954 to late 1950s No Photo

Ice Cap Site I formed part of an experimental network of radar stations constructed on the Greenland Ice Sheet to provide early warning of potential Soviet air attacks against Thule Air Base. Harsh environmental conditions and the logistical difficulty of maintaining the station limited its operational life. Publicly available information does not identify what equipment or waste remains beneath the ice, and no formal environmental assessment has been conducted.

Ice Cap Site II  U.S. Operation:1953–1954 to late 1950s No Photo

Constructed alongside Ice Cap Site I, this radar installation supported the defense of Thule Air Base during the early years of the Cold War. The station was abandoned after only a few years because maintaining remote facilities on the moving ice sheet proved impractical. Little information is available regarding remaining infrastructure or environmental contamination, and no comprehensive environmental investigation has been completed.

DYE-1 (Red River)   U.S. Operation:1950s–1988

.

DYE-1 was one of four massive radar stations comprising Greenland's portion of the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line, established to detect Soviet bombers approaching North America across the Arctic. The mountaintop installation featured a large radar dome and extensive support facilities. Following closure in 1988, the Greenland Self-Government reportedly undertook cleanup activities, burying waste dumps and storage areas. Unlike many former U.S. installations, DYE-1 is generally considered to have undergone substantial remediation, although little environmental data has been published.

 

DYE-2 (Sea Bass) U.S. Operation: Late 1950s–1980s

Built directly on the Greenland Ice Sheet, DYE-2 monitored Arctic airspace around the clock as part of the DEW Line. Fuel tanks and heavy infrastructure were embedded within the ice. The station was abandoned rapidly at the end of its operational life, leaving large quantities of equipment behind with the expectation that the ice sheet would permanently entomb the facility.

DYE-3 (Sob Story) U.S. Operation: Late 1950s–1980s

Like DYE-2, DYE-3 operated as an elevated radar station supported by ski-equipped aircraft that delivered personnel and supplies onto the Greenland Ice Sheet. In 1972, a U.S. Air Force C-130 transport crash-landed near the station. After useful equipment was removed, much of the aircraft was buried within the ice. The station itself was abandoned with substantial infrastructure remaining.  

Politiken reports that the United States contributed funds for cleanup at DYE-2 and DYE-3, but publicly available records I reviewed do not substantiate that claim.

The documented cleanup agreement appears to have been financed by Denmark and Greenland, not the United States.

DYE-4 (Big Gun) U.S. Operation:1950s–1991

Perched atop a mountain near Kulusuk, DYE-4 was the easternmost radar station in Greenland's DEW Line. The installation contained massive rotating radar antennas housed within a large radome that monitored northern airspace throughout the Cold War. After closure in 1991, the station was dismantled by Greenland authorities in 1994, and much of the material was buried in local landfills. Only foundations remain visible today. No formal environmental assessment has been reported following the demolition.

This section highlights a striking contrast. Many of the World War II installations were abandoned with visible debris—oil drums, vehicles, buildings, and dumps. The Cold War facilities often left a different legacy: buried infrastructure, petroleum products, and, in the case of Camp Century, radioactive wastewater and diesel fuel sealed beneath the ice. As the Greenland Ice Sheet continues to thin, these hidden legacies may become increasingly important to environmental monitoring and international policy.

Part IV — LORAN Stations, Radio Stations, Artillery Sites, and Other Installations

Gamatron U.S. Operation:1942–1958

Established near present-day Qaqortoq, Gamatron served as a weather station, radio station, and submarine observation post supporting Allied operations in the North Atlantic. After the Americans departed, they left 34 buildings, six storage areas containing hundreds of oil drums, multiple waste dumps, and an estimated 175–185 metric tons of abandoned military waste. Environmental investigations found contamination severe enough that water from a nearby lake was declared unsuitable for drinking because of pollution originating from an abandoned dump.

 

Qutdleq U.S. Operation: 1960–1978

Qutdleq was constructed as a LORAN (Long Range Navigation) station on a small island in southeastern Greenland. Following its closure, numerous deteriorating buildings, communications masts, and large fuel storage tanks remained on the site. While the abandoned infrastructure is well documented, no comprehensive environmental investigation has yet been completed, leaving uncertainty regarding possible petroleum contamination or hazardous materials associated with the former installation.

Orssuiagssuaq U.S. Operation:1960–1977

Built as another LORAN navigation station, Orssuiagssuaq was abandoned with communications towers, storage tanks, ruined buildings, and deteriorating barracks still standing decades after closure. Although the physical remains have been documented photographically, authorities have not yet completed an environmental assessment. Historical investigations are expected before decisions are made regarding cleanup or remediation of the site.

Sabine Island U.S. Operation:1959–Early 1960s

Sabine Island housed a small unmanned radio beacon located within a protected bird sanctuary. Although the station itself was modest, approximately thirty-five discarded industrial batteries remain near the antenna building, many with exposed lead cores. Authorities have concluded that the battery dump presents a potential source of heavy metal contamination. Because the installation lies within a protected wildlife area, no formal environmental assessment or cleanup has been scheduled.

 

Nipisat U.S. Operation: 1954–1975

Nipisat served as a LORAN navigation station on Greenland's west coast. Environmental investigations documented multiple oil and gasoline storage tanks together with at least three confirmed petroleum spills. Engineers concluded that the site also contains PCBs, pesticides, mercury, heavy metals, and asbestos. One municipal official described the abandoned station as "something of a disaster," noting that extensive vandalism had left the once-important military installation in a severely deteriorated condition despite its location in an area of exceptional natural value.

 Angissoq U.S. Operation: 1963–1994 No Photo

One of Greenland's last LORAN navigation stations, Angissoq remained in operation until satellite navigation rendered the system obsolete. The abandoned installation includes remnants of twenty-three buildings, a power plant, fuel storage facilities, and coastal waste dumps. Environmental investigators documented petroleum contamination near former fuel tanks and observed that coastal erosion is gradually exposing buried waste to the sea. A comprehensive environmental investigation has not yet been completed.

Cape Atholl U.S. Operation: 1954–1972

Located near Thule Air Base, Cape Atholl operated as a U.S. Coast Guard LORAN navigation station. Environmental investigations documented severe petroleum contamination, including free-phase oil, PCB-contaminated building materials, batteries, cable scrap, burned refuse, and mixed waste buried in coastal bluffs. Investigators observed erosion exposing buried debris directly onto the shoreline, creating potential pathways into the marine environment. The site also presents possible risks to wildlife, including walruses using nearby beaches. Danish and Greenlandic authorities are planning cleanup operations.

Artillery Point U.S. Operation: 1941–1946

Artillery Point defended the strategically important Narsarsuaq airfield with two 155-mm coastal guns during World War II. Following the war, approximately seventeen metric tons of military waste remained, including abandoned buildings, construction materials, and a small landfill. Environmental investigations identified petroleum contamination together with low concentrations of lead and cadmium. Because the contamination is relatively limited and the site possesses historical significance, the National Museum of Greenland has recommended that the area remain largely undisturbed.

 

Camp Corbett U.S. Operation: 1942–1958

Camp Corbett functioned as a communications station supporting the nearby Narsarsuaq air base. The installation contained emergency generators, fuel tanks, hundreds of utility poles, multiple dumps, and buried waste disposal areas. Investigators estimate that at least 377 metric tons of military waste remain, including approximately 314 metric tons classified as hazardous or contaminated. Contaminants include PCBs, asbestos, heavy metals, and tar residues. Cleanup has begun, but officials report that massive reinforced concrete foundations will require extensive excavation and blasting before remediation can be completed.

Conclusion

While the Trump administration is “negotiating” with Denmark for access to three additional military installations in Greenland, and President Trump is making threatening remarks about U.S. intentions, the talks between Washington, Copenhagen, and Nuuk remain fixated on sovereignty and strategic positioning. Consequently, a critical geopolitical blind spot persists: the massive environmental liabilities scattered across dozens of legacy American military installations. These sites contain a hazardous catalog of contaminated soils, abandoned landfills, deteriorating fuel infrastructure, PCBs, petroleum, unexploded ordnance, and PFAS. Most critically, Camp Century holds radioactive and toxic waste entombed beneath the rapidly melting Greenland Ice Sheet.

Although President Trump’s critique of Danish spending in Greenland was likely unmoored from these specific ecological realities, it inadvertently highlighted a profound structural failure. The paltry sums Copenhagen has allocated to investigate and remediate this contamination pale in comparison to the actual scale of the crisis. Remediation at Camp Century alone could soar into billions of euros.

How, then, in the face of this catastrophic reality, can the Danish government continue to hide behind passive diplomatic platitudes?

While the Danish Foreign Minister publicly insists that Denmark will protect Greenland’s independence from political takeover, why are they not screaming from the rooftops about eighty years of toxic American negligence?

The environmental criminality cannot be overstated while Copenhagen treats this assault as a footnote. As Danish officials sit at the negotiating table to grant the U.S. military even more access to Greenlandic soil, why are they not aggressively demanding full, immediate remediation as a non-negotiable prerequisite? How can Copenhagen claim to stand for Greenlandic sovereignty while letting the United States get away with a multi-billion-dollar ecological crime?

Please see the Greenland Appendix containing a spreadsheet that displays the kinds of information shown here on all 36 abandoned sites in Greenland.

Back in April, we launched the Great Power Shift, our flagship global campaign to end fossil fuel dependence and ensure affordable clean energy for all. We are calling on governments to shift public money away from fossil fuels and into renewables, make polluters pay their fair share through a permanent windfall tax, and invest in energy systems that work for everyone, not just the highest bidder.

Months on, our campaign is gaining real momentum across the world, shifting power away from polluters and back to people.

Learn more about how fossil fuels and the cost of living crises are interconnected. Credit: Kathleen Lei Limayo/350.org

From local actions to national campaigns, people across the world are demanding a better future where clean, affordable energy is within reach for everyone.

Together, here’s what we’ve achieved so far:

More than 30,000 people called on G7 leaders to make polluters pay

Ahead of the G7 Summit in France, we made our demand to the world’s richest countries loud and clear: stop letting fossil fuel companies rake in obscene profits while ordinary people pay the price through higher bills and climate disasters.

More than 30,000 people signed our petition, while campaigners in France took the message directly to decision-makers through creative public actions and a wave of online pressure ahead of the summit.

Although G7 leaders stopped short of taxing the windfall profits of oil and gas companies, they couldn’t ignore the growing public demand for a fairer energy system.

The pressure doesn’t stop here.

Thousands helped deliver the ‘Out of Pocket’ Report to decision-makers

Supporters from around the world sent our Out of Pocket report directly to political leaders, highlighting how dependence on imported fossil fuels drives up household energy costs.

The report highlights how fossil fuels are taking money from ordinary people and governments.

And it got noticed. We received a response from the European Commission – proof that people speaking up together can reach the halls of power. We also hand delivered copies to the European Parliament last week.

Communities are already building the alternatives

Across our network, people aren’t waiting for politicians to act.

In the Pacific, community leaders gathered for a Solar Scholars training programme, learning how to bring renewable energy projects to their communities.

Pacific solar scholars program.

In Türkiye, our organisers are building a virtual solar cooperative. In South Africa, our campaigners continue pushing for free basic electricity. In Canada, we’ve joined more than 60 organisations calling for governments to tax fossil fuel companies’ excess profits.

More and more communities are building energy systems that put people first.

A global week of action to #StopEACOP

Communities around the world also stood in solidarity with people resisting the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), a project threatening livelihoods, ecosystems and communities across Uganda and Tanzania.

Residents of Kijumba District, Uganda, stage a peaceful road blockade during the #KickPollutersOut Global Week of Action

Together with partners, campaigners organized more than 60 actions across 19 countries as part of #KickPollutersOut Global Week of Action, from marches and community meetings to creative protests and digital actions, sending a clear message that fossil fuel expansion has no place in our future.

The week showed something powerful: communities separated by thousands of kilometres are standing together against the same system that puts corporate profits before people and the planet.

Taking our demands to global leaders

Momentum continued well beyond the G7.

In Santa Marta, Colombia, representatives from 57 countries came together for the first-ever global conference focused on transitioning away from fossil fuels. For the first time, Indigenous Peoples, frontline communities, trade unions, youth activists and civil society weren’t just watching from the sidelines – they had a seat at the table, shaping the conversation alongside governments.

During the Santa Marta conference, activists and local communities blocked the entrance of one of the main coal ports in Latin America.

Outside the official meetings, communities showed that the transition is already happening. From community energy projects to a peaceful action at one of Latin America’s largest coal ports, people demonstrated that renewable alternatives aren’t ideas for the future – they’re already being built today.

Just weeks later at the UN Climate Talks in Bonn, governments signalled growing momentum behind the global commitment to transition away from fossil fuels. But once again, wealthy countries failed to deliver the finance that climate-vulnerable communities urgently need to adapt to worsening floods, droughts and extreme heat.

The message from both meetings was clear: progress is possible, but governments still need much more public pressure to match their promises with action.

That’s why our movement continues to grow. Around the world, people are facing a cost of living crisis, rising energy bills and worsening climate impacts. Meanwhile, oil and gas companies continue making enormous profits while ordinary households bear the costs.

350.org campaigners in France and Africa call for a permanent windfall tax on fossil fuel profit. Photo: Remy El Sibaïe

Enough is enough. It’s time governments made polluters pay and invested that money in affordable renewable energy and climate solutions that put people first.

When we come together to speak out, organize and build solutions in our own communities, change becomes possible.

Ready to be part of the movement?

Join the Great Power Shift and help push for a fair, fossil-free future.

Join the Great Power Shift

The post The Great Power Shift is underway! appeared first on 350.

‘City slicker’ payments swell to $2.6B with Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill and farm bailouts Anthony Lacey July 8, 2026

More than 92,000 “city slickers” living in some of the biggest metropolitan areas in the U.S. took in over $2.6 billion in farm subsidies between 2020 and 2025, even though many of these people don’t live or work on farms, a new EWG analysis finds.

The soaring payouts went to 13,000 more city slickers compared to last year’s analysis, that looked at payments through 2024, EWG found. At the same time, farm bankruptcies have recently reached new heights.

EWG analyzed Department of Agriculture data and found that between 2020 and 2025, $2.6 billion in farm subsidies went to 92,766 residents of Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York and 197 other major metro areas – with many never setting foot on farmland.

These payments averaged more than $28,000 per person between 2020 and 2025, or just over $4,700 each per year, EWG’s analysis found.

Even more taxpayer funds are going to city recipients this year after Republicans in Congress pushed through President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The law enlarged loopholes that make it easier to qualify for the payouts and get more money.

It hiked payment limits from $125,000 to $155,000 per person, letting every member of some farms collect up to $155,000 a year each, even if they don’t live or work on a farm, as long as it is organized as a pass-through entity, such as a joint venture, S corporation or limited liability corporation.

EWG compiled a list of the 200 biggest metro areas, along with the number of urban recipients and the total farm subsidies they received between 2020 and 2025, including many new recipients in those areas possibly benefiting from the expanded loopholes:

200 largest metro areas with city slicker subsidy recipients

Image Record subsidy amounts

The U.S. is reaching record levels of agricultural industry bailouts, exceeding $25 billion since early 2025, with even more taxpayer-funded handouts still being requested. And these latest bailouts follow payouts from multiple disaster programs in the first and second Trump administrations.

The subsidy increases were paid for with cuts to Medicaid totaling nearly $1 trillion and $187 billion in cuts to hunger assistance programs. These reductions have led to hospital closings and the loss of hunger assistance for over 4 million Americans, including more than 800,000 children. 

As more and more funding is made available for farm subsidies, many recipients benefit from rules that allow people not involved in day-to-day life on the farm to collect payments.

Farm subsidy recipients must be “actively engaged” in farming. 

But it’s very easy to qualify as “actively engaged,” even for someone who never lives or works on a farm. The farm bill’s loopholes allow urban residents to get farm subsidies, even if they do not live or work on a farm. The Government Accountability Office in 2018 found that roughly one-fourth of farm subsidy recipients do not contribute any personal labor to farms.

Another GAO report, issued last month, examined improper payments made to the agriculture industry. It found that a tariff relief program from Trump’s first term had an improper payment rate of 19.3%. A USDA disaster program made improper payments at a rate of 45.2%.

The White House recently requested $11 billion to once again bail out the agricultural industry over the rising costs of fertilizer and fuel from Trump’s war with Iran. This would drive up total farm safety net spending to over $55 billion in 2026 alone.

The proposed “Farm Bill 2.0” making its way through the Senate this month will do nothing to fix these problems. Instead it will maintain the status quo and send billions of dollars in subsidies to city slickers who have nothing to do with farming.

Locating city slickers

For the analysis, EWG identified city slickers living in ZIP codes in the 200 most populous metro areas. Using existing datasets, EWG identified city slicker subsidy recipients as those living in areas with a population density greater than 3,000 people per square mile within census-designated metro areas. 

To rule out non-urban areas, the methodology looked at places the USDA doesn’t consider rural as well as ZIP codes that are outside a distance to a city center dictated by the city’s population size. The methodology also looked at other metrics to determine an area's rural status.

This analysis updates and builds on previous EWG estimates of city slickers, which included only recipients who lived within city limits. The updated methodology seeks to capture urban sprawl, which has changed how certain areas are defined, and to foster a better understanding of how many subsidy recipients live in urban areas.

Areas of Focus Farm Subsidies Over 13,000 more urban-area residents took in farm subsidies in 2025 than in 2024 Authors Jared Hayes July 9, 2026

Even as the war grinds on, Ukraine continues to expand its civilian nuclear ambitions. Britain has tightened sanctions on Russia’s nuclear sector, while Western dependence on Rosatom remains stubbornly difficult to unwind. Meanwhile, Russia is deepening its strategic nuclear partnership with China as sanctions steadily narrow its options elsewhere. These are among the trends highlighted in Bellona’s May 2026 Nuclear Digest.

Ukraine builds for the future, even under fire

Despite the ongoing war and the continued occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Ukraine is pressing ahead with an ambitious program to strengthen its nuclear sector.

In May, Energoatom launched domestic production of Westinghouse fuel components, another step toward ending its dependence on Russian nuclear fuel. Ukraine also secured an operating license for its centralized spent nuclear fuel storage facility, allowing it to permanently end shipments of spent fuel to Russia for storage. At the same time, discussions continue over construction of additional nuclear generating capacity.

Yet these advances come amid persistent military threats and renewed concerns over governance.

Throughout May, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported increased military activity around Ukrainian nuclear facilities, particularly the occupied Zaporizhzhia plant. Drone strikes, damage to infrastructure, repeated losses of external power, and competing narratives from Moscow and Kyiv continued to underscore the vulnerability of Europe’s largest nuclear station.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s anti-corruption authorities launched new investigations involving Energoatom officials, prompting corporate reforms and another reshuffling of the company’s supervisory board.

Bellona nuclear expert Alexander Nikitin argues that both realities must be considered together.

“Despite the ongoing war and the situation surrounding the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and Ukraine’s other nuclear facilities, Energoatom—with the support of the country’s leadership—continues implementing projects aimed at supporting and developing nuclear energy,” he writes. Such efforts, he says, deserve international backing. But at the same time, “support should be accompanied by a careful assessment of their strategic necessity, economic justification, timeliness, and transparency in the use of allocated funds.”

Britain sanctions Russian uranium—but Western contradictions remain

Britain took another step toward reducing its reliance on Russia’s nuclear industry in May, introducing sanctions that prohibit imports of Russian uranium as well as related financial and technical services. The move expands London’s effort to eliminate Russian nuclear fuel from Britain’s energy system by 2028. Yet the practical impact is likely to be modest.

“Britain’s dependence on Russian uranium supplies is relatively small,” Bellona nuclear analyst Dmitry Gorchakov writes. Only one British reactor—Sizewell B—currently uses fuel incorporating Russian nuclear material, and Britain already possesses ample enrichment capacity through Urenco to replace those imports.

The sanctions nevertheless represent another symbolic tightening of Western pressure on Rosatom. At almost the same moment, however, Washington illustrated just how complicated disentangling from Russia’s nuclear supply chain remains.

Earlier in May, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved licenses allowing American companies to export natural uranium to Russia for enrichment before the material is returned for use in U.S. nuclear reactors. The approvals fall under exemptions included in last year’s U.S. ban on Russian enriched uranium imports, which allows waivers when alternative supplies are unavailable or national interests require them.

Taken together, the British sanctions and the U.S. licenses illustrate the contradictory position facing Western governments. Political pressure continues to increase, but decades of integration with Russia’s nuclear fuel cycle continue to make for a difficult divorce.

China becomes Rosatom’s indispensable partner

If sanctions are gradually shrinking Rosatom’s opportunities in Europe and North America, they appear to be pushing the Russian nuclear giant closer toward China.

During President Vladimir Putin’s May state visit to Beijing, Rosatom signed three new memoranda covering workforce development, fusion research, and broader scientific cooperation. The two governments also pledged to deepen cooperation on fast reactors, closed fuel cycles, and future nuclear construction projects.

For our experts, perhaps the most notable element was language calling for joint work on future nuclear power plant construction.

“The provision concerning joint work on nuclear power plant construction deserves particular attention,” Gorchakov writes. “We have repeatedly noted, including in our recently published report on Rosatom in 2025, that Rosatom’s relationship with China’s nuclear industry is strengthening.”

The reasons are clear.

“Given Rosatom’s increasingly difficult position on international markets due to Western sanctions, financial restrictions and the refusal of a number of Western suppliers to provide equipment, Rosatom is being forced to cooperate more closely with China,” Gorchakov concludes.

That cooperation is already extending beyond research. Chinese firms are supplying major components for Russia’s planned floating nuclear power plants, while discussions continue over using Chinese equipment in projects both inside Russia and abroad.

Taken together, the developments illustrate a nuclear industry increasingly shaped less by engineering than by geopolitics. Ukraine is trying to build an independent nuclear future while fighting a war. Western governments continue searching for ways to reduce their dependence on Rosatom without disrupting their own fuel supplies. And Russia, finding many traditional markets more difficult to navigate, is steadily deepening a strategic partnership with China that could reshape the global nuclear landscape for years to come.

The post Ukraine Pushes Ahead, the West Sends Mixed Signals, and China Draws Closer: Rosatom’s Uneasy Month appeared first on Bellona.org.

This is a guest blog written by Ziada Kassimu, Executive Director at Green Conservers. Green Conservers (GC) is a youth-led movement working at the vital intersection of climate action and social equity. Recognizing that environmental degradation disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations, GC advocates for structural climate justice while deploying real-world solutions. Their  work centers on two transformative pillars: advancing decentralized Renewable Energy to end fossil-fuel dependency, and pioneering Agroecology to replace extractive agricultural systems for resilient, biodiverse, and community-governed food systems.

The sun had barely risen over the dusty plains when women in Diloda began their daily journeys. Some walked long distances in search of water. Others headed to small farms that once provided food for their families. A few sat outside their homes, reflecting on a life that looked very different before the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project arrived in their communities.

For many women, land was more than a piece of property. From the soil came maize, beans, sunflowers, and vegetables that fed families and generated income. The land paid school fees, covered medical expenses, and offered hope during difficult seasons. Today, many women say that hope has become increasingly difficult to find.

During community discussions, women described how the acquisition of land for the EACOP project disrupted livelihoods that had sustained families for generations. While compensation and livelihood restoration programs were presented as solutions, many community members believe these initiatives have fallen short of restoring what was lost. “We were told our lives would improve,” one woman explained. “Instead, we are struggling to rebuild what we already had.” Her words hung in the air like a cloud before a storm.

 Ziada Kassimu Executive Director at Green Conservers and Savio Carvalho (Managing Director at 350.org) Credit: Ziadah

Across affected communities, women continue to carry the heaviest burden. As primary caregivers, food producers, and managers of household welfare, they often absorb the impacts of economic disruption first and most intensely. The consequences stretch far beyond income.

When productive farmland is lost, women must work harder to feed their families. Household expenses rise while economic opportunities shrink. Food security becomes uncertain. Children become vulnerable. The entire social fabric of a community begins to strain.

In Diloda, women also spoke about another challenge that rarely appears in project reports: the growing tensions between farmers and pastoralists. Before the project, communities already faced occasional disputes over land and natural resources. However, as available land becomes increasingly limited, many residents believe tensions have intensified. The result is a growing atmosphere of uncertainty.

Communities that once shared resources are now competing for shrinking spaces. Women, often responsible for maintaining household stability, find themselves navigating conflicts they neither created nor control.

Meanwhile, many of the development promises associated with EACOP remain largely invisible to residents. Community members recall hearing about improved roads, better schools, healthcare facilities, and economic opportunities. These promises generated excitement and optimism.

Yet years later, many residents still travel on poor roads that become difficult to navigate during rainy seasons.Children continue to face challenges accessing education. Families still struggle to obtain clean and safe water. The promised dispensaries and social services remain absent from daily life.

For women carrying water containers under the scorching sun, development is not measured by project announcements or corporate presentations. It is measured by whether water flows from a nearby tap. It is measured by whether a sick child can receive treatment at a local health facility. It is measured by whether a mother can harvest enough food to feed her family. It is measured by whether livelihoods are truly restored. It is measured by energy access and affordability. 

Women in Diloda walking to the market: Credit: Ziadah

Community members repeatedly raised concerns about the effectiveness of livelihood restoration programs. While training and support activities have been implemented in some areas, many women argue that these interventions have not fully replaced the stability and independence that their land once provided. A small business cannot always replace fertile farmland. A short-term training cannot easily restore generations of agricultural knowledge and economic security. And a promise cannot fill an empty plate.

The story unfolding in communities affected by EACOP is not only about infrastructure or energy development. It is about people. It is about women whose daily lives have been transformed by decisions made far from their villages. It is about mothers searching for ways to support their children. It is about communities asking whether development can truly be called development when those most affected feel left behind.

As global conversations continue about energy, climate, and economic growth, the voices of women from Diloda offer an important reminder. Development should never be measured solely in kilometers of pipeline constructed or profits generated. It should be measured in stronger livelihoods, improved well-being, energy access, social harmony, and opportunities created for future generations. Until women can confidently say their lives are better than before, the question remains: Who truly benefits from development, and who is left carrying its costs? For the women of Diloda, the answer is written not in project reports but in the realities they face every day.

The post The Women Left Behind appeared first on 350.

What if we treated the earth we walk on with the respect it deserves? There is an opportunity to value soil, grow food and support human communities in a way that gives more than it takes. How we respond is up to us. But so long as we remain hooked on fossil fuels, nothing will change.

The post Nebraska soil, Mid-east oil appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

The barrier to renewable energy was never the technology. It’s power: who holds it, who benefits, and what it takes to shift that. The ICONIC Renewable Energy Zones Toolkit is built to help close that gap. It’s a practical resource for NGOs, campaigners, and community partners who want renewable energy to do more than exist — to turn projects into campaigns, and consultation into co-ownership.

Solar and wind are already proven, affordable, and scalable. What usually stands in the way isn’t the technology — it’s the grid operator who won’t connect, the bank that won’t lend, the regulator whose rules haven’t caught up, or the developer who shows up to “consult” once the deal is already done. This toolkit is built for that fight.

It’s organized as a set of modules you can use standalone or as a full campaign workflow — starting with the case for organising around power, not just projects, and moving through strategy, community rights and consent, policy barriers, and finance. It draws on lessons from campaigners already doing this work, from La Guajira to East Africa to the Amazon.

Inside, you’ll find:

• Case studies from real campaigns
• A Theory of Change template and power-mapping worksheets
• A Strategy Menu and Tactics Library
• Tools for community engagement, FPIC, and benefit-sharing
• A plain-language finance module for engaging funders and investors
• Ready-to-use briefing templates for press, officials, and coalitions

Whether you’re building a campaign from scratch or sharpening one already underway, this toolkit meets you where you are.

Download the Toolkit

The post The ICONIC Renewable Energy Zones Toolkit appeared first on 350.

PFAS Results Raise More Questions Than Answers

Part 1 of a 3-part series. Part 2 will examine U.S.-caused contamination at each of the 36 individual facilities in Greenland. Part 3 will survey the appeals U.S. veterans have filed with the U.S. Veterans Administration, claiming cancers and disease as a result of their exposure to toxins in Greenland.

By Pat Elder
July 4, 2026

‍Pituffik Space Base is likely to be heavily contaminated with PFAS, but the U.S. Department of War refuses to divulge pertinent data.

‍When the Danish newspaper Politiken reported on July 1, 2026, that groundwater at the U.S. Pituffik Space Base in Greenland contained 1,100 parts per trillion (ng/L) of PFOS, the finding immediately attracted international attention. The concentration greatly exceeds current European drinking water standards and adds to growing alarm over PFAS contamination at former and active U.S. military installations worldwide.

1,100 parts per trillion of PFOS? What exactly does the reported number represent? Searching for the answer provides insight into the U.S. military’s sloppy culture of non-disclosure in Greenland and around the world.  

Based on the results, the public cannot determine:

• the exact sampling location,

• whether the sample came from a drinking water well or a monitoring well,

• the depth of the well,

• the screened interval,

• whether the water was collected before or after treatment,

‍ Without this information, we don’t have a clue.

‍This is not only an issue for Greenland. Communities living near active and  former U.S. military installations in England, Germany, Japan, and elsewhere are asking the same questions as they seek to understand how decades of military firefighting activities have poisoned their environment and what can be done to protect their health. They’re not getting much help from the Americans.

The U.S. military uses carcinogenic aqueouos film-forming foam ( AFFF ) in about 1,500 facilities and over 6,800 mobile assets worldwide. Release of AFFF into the environment, either through accidental releases, or for fire training and emergency use, has resulted in PFAS detections in drinking water and groundwater in and around DOD installations, according to the  U.S. General Accounting Office in 2024.  

Public resentment around the world is building because the American public knows a great deal more about the specifics of the contamination in the U.S. than “foreigners” do at any of these places. Individual states are taking actions, based on The PFAS data released by the Department of War, to protect the health of their citizens.  

‍The lack of accountability for U.S. military pollution in Greenland stems from Article XI of the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement. This clause freed the U.S. from any legal obligation to clean up or restore its military bases. The treaty states:

‍ It is understood that any areas or facilities made available to the  Government of the United States of America under this Agreement need not be left in the condition in which they were at the time they were thus made available.”

‍This sentence is extraordinarily broad. It contains no environmental standard, no restoration requirement, no cleanup obligation, and no obligation to compensate for environmental damage, so the U.S. can tell Denmark to go to hell when it complains of environmental tyranny. The same is largely true under the SOFA agreements (Status of Forces Agreements) that set the tone between the great Goliath of 1945 and its many subjects today.

‍Section 345 of the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, (NDAA)

‍When Congress mandated that the Department of Defense test off-base drinking water for PFAS contamination, it effectively left the Pentagon to police itself. By assigning the execution, reporting, and oversight of the PFAS program to the military's own internal PFAS Task Force, Congress created an inherent conflict of interest that complicates independent accountability.

‍The DOD is fundamentally stonewalling its statutory reporting requirements. Despite identifying 723 domestic bases  that utilized PFAS-containing firefighting foams, the Pentagon has only submitted data for 86 installations in response to Section 345 of the FY2022 NDAA. Even this minimal disclosure is functionally hollow, leaving major gaps where critical concentration metrics are omitted entirely.

‍A close examination of the records associated with Pituffik Space Base in Greenland raises serious questions about how the data have been organized and presented to the public.

What the Pentagon’s Website Says‍ ‍

Marketed as a sophisticated public transparency initiative, the Department of War’s PFAS database ostensibly delivers the final results of off-base drinking water testing mandated by Section 345 of the FY2022 NDAA. According to the Pentagon, these assessments are designed to determine whether military-related PFAS contamination has migrated beyond base boundaries into local drinking water supplies. However, a closer look at the data reveals that this transparency is largely performative.

The Unexpected Discovery of Pituffik’s PFAS data

The structural flaws of the DOD’s PFAS database are not limited to missing values; the platform’s underlying data architecture displays bizarre anomalies that further obscure transparency. For example, querying the database for Colorado’s Peterson Space Force Base (SFB) mistakenly returns data records for Pituffik Space Base in Greenland.

A broader examination of the eight primary U.S. Space Force installations reveals a stark institutional disparity: while six bases yield "no records found" and one returns just 11 rows, Pituffik SB accounts for a staggering 27,595 rows of data. This erratic indexing and massive data imbalance strongly suggest that the database is functionally compromised, undermining its statutory utility under Section 345 of the 2022 NDAA.

U.S. Dept. of Defense, Off-Base Drinking Water Information: PFAS Testing Database, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment, https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/eer/ecc/pfas/map/pfasmap.html (last visited July 3, 2026) (demonstrating indexing anomaly where a query for "Peterson SFB (CO)" returns records for "Pituffik SB (Greenland)" via the "Advanced Search" interface).

Looking Inside the Exported Spreadsheet

A granular look inside the exported spreadsheet reveals profound structural anomalies that challenge basic data integrity protocols. While the Pituffik dataset resembles a conventional laboratory database on the surface, a deeper audit reveals irreconcilable duplication errors.

A raw snapshot of the DOD’s exported Pituffik spreadsheet sorted by analyte concentration. A single physical water sample (ID: C256053) displays impossible redundancy, containing multiple, varying numeric results for identical compounds (like PFHxS and PFOS) taken on the exact same date.

When sorted by Laboratory Sample ID, individual identifiers contain numerous repeated measurements of identical compounds. For example, a single sample identifier—C256053—contains 252 analytical rows detailing eighteen unique PFAS analytes. Crucially, each analyte appears exactly fourteen distinct times under the same sampling date, analytical method (QSM_B15), and laboratory contract number. Even more perplexing is that these repeated records are simultaneously split across three conflicting treatment categories: No Treatment, Pre-Treatment, and Post-Treatment.

Ask the Artist Blue what he meant by this.

In standard environmental engineering and legal chain-of-custody protocols, a single Laboratory Sample ID isolates one physical sample. It cannot simultaneously represent pre-filtered and post-filtered water. The Pentagon’s platform offers zero documentation or methodology to explain why these contradictory treatment phases are compressed into single identifiers, rendering the data functionally uninterpretable. What were they thinking?

Putting the Pituffik Results into Context

To accurately assess the Pituffik database concentrations, it is critical to distinguish between different regulatory sampling methodologies. The Pentagon states that this portal tracks off-base drinking water under Section 345 of the FY2022 NDAA. This represents point-of-consumption monitoring, which is fundamentally distinct from the source-zone groundwater investigations that initially brought military PFAS contamination to national attention.

For context, the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) landmark 2019 report analyzed raw groundwater directly beneath or adjacent to 100 military installations.

Figure 2: Top 15 U.S. military installations ranked by maximum historical PFAS concentrations detected in groundwater (measured in parts per trillion / ppt). Data adapted from historic source-zone investigations.

Concentrated near historic fire-training areas where aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) was heavily discharged, those groundwater samples yielded extraordinary concentrations. Because these monitoring wells target undiluted source zones, their metrics are predictably orders of magnitude higher than finished drinking water supplies.

Groundwater monitoring wells located immediately adjacent to historic fire training areas are designed to locate contamination near its source. They examine highly contaminated groundwater before a great deal of dilution occurs. Establishing these historical baselines remains vital to understanding what is to be expected when examining military installations.

To illustrate the scale of these historical source-zone investigations, Figure 2 highlights the peak groundwater concentrations compiled from these landmark military assessments.

As documented above, raw groundwater adjacent to historic fire-training areas reached extraordinary levels. At the most impacted sites—such as England Air Force Base in Louisiana and Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake in California—total PFAS concentrations reached 20.7 million and 8 million parts per trillion (ppt), respectively.

These extreme values represent the raw, undiluted toxic footprint at the source of the discharge. They serve as an important baseline when evaluating the available data from the six U.S. Space Force bases, allowing us to determine if Pituffik's anomalies extend to its actual toxicological profile.

 Domestic Baselines: Space Force Groundwater Concentrations

To evaluate what might be expected within the hidden records of Pituffik Space Base, we can isolate historical source-zone groundwater data from six primary U.S. Space Force installations. Because these metrics target undiluted groundwater near historical fire-training zones, they illustrate the raw scale of baseline contamination prior to environmental migration or dilution.

Figure 3 compiles the peak total PFAS concentrations and specific compound counts reported across these domestic facilities.

Figure 3: Peak historical total PFAS concentrations (measured in parts per trillion / ppt) and corresponding compound distributions across six domestic U.S. Space Force installations.

The mathematical average across these six domestic installations sits at approximately 1,143,000 ppt of total PFAS. To put this into perspective, this historical groundwater baseline is more than a thousand times higher than the 1,100 ppt concentration  recently reported by the Danish newspaper Politiken regarding Pituffik.

Critically, this comparison represents a distinct methodological asymmetry. We are comparing apples to oranges. While the domestic Space Force data captures raw, undiluted source groundwater, the Pentagon’s Section 345 testing theoretically targets off-base drinking water supplies used by neighboring communities. These two testing frameworks evaluate entirely different phases of the human exposure pathway—moving from the heavily contaminated source zone to the finished public tap.

However, tracking this migration remains a profound regulatory challenge. By routinely omitting critical metadata—such as exact GPS coordinates and sample well depths—the Department of Defense leaves independent scientists, lawyers, and the public to guess how these toxic source zones physically connect to public drinking water supplies. and how the contamination impacts multiple environmental media.

Welcome to the U.S. Military’s International PFAS Testing Dog and Pony Show!

‍ ‍Playing a shell game with the depth of testing

Sometimes we will see results in a PFAS Site Inspection from a surficial aquifer near the surface at a fire training area and the levels may be surprisingly low because the carcinogens may have seeped deeper into the ground. We may also see data at the same location taken from 200 feet below the surface, showing low, or even non-existent levels. To get the real picture we would need to examine results from every ten feet down or so. This way, we might find concentrations of total PFAS exceeding hundreds of thousands of parts per trillion somewhere in between.

By withholding both geographic coordinates and depth metadata, the Pentagon leaves the world’s public with a spatial blackout.

The Politiken Disclosure: Unmasking a Fabricated Baseline

The recent investigation by the Danish newspaper Politiken drew vital international attention to a reported PFOS concentration of 1,100 nanograms per liter (ng/L or ppt) associated with Pituffik Space Base. While this reporting represents a critical contribution to public awareness—offering a stark glimpse into a broader legacy of environmental degradation left by decades of U.S. military operations in Greenland—the metric itself originates from a deeply flawed source.

While the Pentagon's exported spreadsheet does contain raw PFOS entries that match this1,100 ppt figure, the underlying architecture of the dataset severely undermines its credibility. Because individual Laboratory Sample IDs are structurally compromised, confounding the data with unexplained duplicate rows and overlapping treatment categories, the entire database lacks the baseline integrity required for scientific or legal validation.

Ultimately, these pervasive structural errors create an information vacuum. Because the data lacks fundamental reliability and the Department of War provides no public transparency channels, independent investigators are left with a chaotic dataset that raises far more questions than it answers, completely obscuring the true scale of the toxic footprint at Pituffik.

Regulatory Miscalculations: Disentangling Water Concentrations from Dietary Limits

The Politikenreport quotes an expert claiming that the 1,100 ppt PFOS finding at Pituffik represents “about 250 times the EU limit.” This assertion conflates two distinct toxicological metrics.

The European Union’s statutory framework handles these limits through separate mechanisms:

• EU Drinking Water Directive: Establishes a maximum contaminant level of 100 ng/L for the sum of 20 individual PFAS compounds (including PFOS).

• European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) : Sets a Tolerable Weekly Intake (TWI) of 4.4 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg) of body weight per week for the combined mass of PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, and PFHxS.

Dividing the reported 1,100 ng/L by the media's stated factor of 250 yields exactly 4.4 - confirming that the source material mistakenly swapped an ambient drinking water threshold with a physiological dietary intake ceiling.

Let’s make this real

Data from the Forever Pollution Project illustrates the staggering discrepancy between regulatory limits and dietary reality. Fish from the Damhussøen reservoir in Copenhagen have been recorded containing 311,000 ng/kg (311 ng/g) of PFOS. ‍ ‍

• A minuscule 0.08-gram fleck of this fish (portrayed here) contains 24.88 ng of PFOS. (.08 × 311 ng/g) This single crumb accounts for nearly 23% of the total weekly allowance (110 ng) for a 25-kilogram child under EFSA’s guidelines.

•  A typical 200-gram meal of this same catch delivers a massive 62,200 nanograms of PFOS. For that same child, this single meal represents 565 times the recommended weekly toxicological limit—and over 190 times the weekly ceiling for an average adult.

=========================

An expanding consensus among international toxicologists on both sides of the Atlantic maintains that no level of exposure to these bioaccumulative carcinogens is safe.

There’s so much more!

There are actually 40,000 types of PFAS. The Pentagon is providing compromised results for 40 compounds at Pituffik. That’s .1% of all the compounds potentially out there.  

40 PFAS compounds reported by the U.S. Military

Ask British, German, and Japanese scientists and environmentalists if they are frustrated by the lack of U.S. transparency. The dutiful corporate media is doing a lousy job reporting on the lack of data, the sobering science, and the world’s frustration.

Polar Bears and the Arctic Marine Food Web

PFAS contamination in the Arctic is not confined to military bases. Scientific reviews show that PFAS also reach the Arctic through long-range atmospheric and oceanic transport, also contaminating seawater, sediments, aquatic organisms, seabirds, marine mammals, and polar bears. In Arctic marine food webs, PFOS and related compounds can biomagnify, with the highest burdens often found in top predators such as polar bears and seabird eggs. Beyond accumulating in polar bears and other Arctic predators, PFAS have been linked to altered gene expression, immune suppression, reproductive impairment, and epigenetic changes that may affect future generations. 

Biologists, toxicologists, and geneticists are actively investigating whether the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) can survive the dual threat of climate change and genetic modification or if we are watching the final generations of the species as it has historically existed. The people who run this world just don’t give a damn. For them, if there’s no market-based solution or lucrative capitalist incentive for carrying it out, well then, there’s no solution.

And just one more parting shot, in U.S. military parlance.

In addition to PFAS, petroleum-related contaminants are commonly associated with military installations in Greenland. Releases from fuel storage areas, pipelines, refueling operations, vehicle maintenance facilities, and spills often result in contamination by benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), along with a wide range of petroleum hydrocarbons. We know that certain American bases in Greenland have been severely and permanently contaminated with nuclear radiation.

Other compounds that may be present include vinyl chloride, which can form as chlorinated solvents degrade in the environment, as well as metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and combustion byproducts associated with historical military activities. At Arctic bases such contaminants can become trapped in frozen soils and permafrost for decades, only to be mobilized as permafrost thaws, potentially creating long-term sources of contamination to groundwater, streams, wetlands, and the broader ecosystem.

Bummer.

How do we talk sense into these knuckleheads?

The Thematic Social Forum on Mining and Extractive Economy —TSF-Mining Latin America— invites you to take part in the webinar “Minerals and technologies for death and resistance for life: a geopolitics of peoples,” a space for reflection and dialogue on the geopolitics of critical minerals, false climate solutions, and the links between extractivism, digitalization, and militarization.

This gathering continues and deepens, at the Latin American level, the debates and proposals of the TSF-Mining Declaration, presented during the Peoples’ Summit at COP30 in Belém do Pará, Brazil. It is also part of a broader process of coordination, reflection, and mobilization on the way to COP31.

The webinar will deepen the debate on the geopolitics of critical minerals, false climate solutions, and the links between extractivism, digitalization, and militarization, while also sharing experiences of resistance and alternatives led by peoples and communities.

The activity will take place on July 9 at:

11:00 a.m. Central America
12:00 p.m. Colombia
1:00 p.m. Chile / New York
2:00 p.m. Brazil / Argentina
7:00 p.m. Madrid

Register here: https://forms.gle/RmdEmyLYzNCKAMcv5

Spanish-English interpretation will be provided.

ESPAÑOL – Webinar: Minerales y tecnologías para la muerte y resistencias por la vida: una geopolítica de los pueblos

El Foro Social Temático sobre Minería y Economía Extractivista —TSF-Mining América Latina— invita a participar en el webinar “Minerales y tecnologías para la muerte y resistencias por la vida: una geopolítica de los pueblos”, un espacio de reflexión y diálogo sobre la geopolítica de los minerales críticos, las falsas soluciones climáticas y los vínculos entre extractivismo, digitalización y militarización.

Este encuentro da continuidad y profundiza, a nivel latinoamericano, los debates y propuestas de la Declaración del TSF-Mining, presentada durante la Cumbre de los Pueblos en la COP30, en Belém do Pará, Brasil. Además, forma parte de un proceso de articulación, reflexión y movilización rumbo a la COP31.

El webinar buscará profundizar el debate sobre la geopolítica de los minerales críticos, las falsas soluciones climáticas y los vínculos entre extractivismo, digitalización y militarización, compartiendo también experiencias de resistencia y alternativas impulsadas por los pueblos.

La actividad se realizará el 9 de julio en los siguientes horarios:

11 h Centroamérica
12 h Colombia
13 h Chile / Nueva York
14 h Brasil / Argentina
19 h Madrid

Inscripción: https://forms.gle/RmdEmyLYzNCKAMcv5