G1. Progressive Green

Between 2021 and 2024, I had the honor of being the co-director of Stop the Money Pipeline alongside Jackie Fielder. In July 2024, with the full-throated support of all of us here, Jackie left Stop the Money Pipeline to run for a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Four months later, Jackie not only won her election, she crushed it ― winning a whopping 59.7% of the vote in San Francisco’s District 9.

Now, I’m so excited to share that Supervisor Fielder is planning to introduce a ballot measure that would tax some of San Francisco’s largest financial institutions to create a municipal public bank in the city.

A San Francisco public bank would be great for San Francisco. By providing low or no cost loans for affordable housing, public transportation, and small businesses, a public bank would help the city hit its climate goals and become a more sustainable, affordable, and thriving city.

As Jackie put it in this video announcing the next stage of the SF public bank campaign:

“Right now, Wall Street is in charge of our billions and billions of dollars. But if the public bank were our own bank, we can be in charge of our own money and where it’s being invested. Then, our money wouldn’t be going to industries like fossil fuels, weapons of war, and ICE detention centers. Instead, it’d be going into our own economy and things we actually need like affordable housing and small businesses.”

Creating a public bank, however, is no small feat. First, the State of California had to pass legislation legalizing the creation of municipal public banks. After years of advocacy, that happened in 2019, when the state passed the California Public Banking Act of 2019.

Even with this law on the books, however, the process remains complex. As this article in Mission Local, Jackie’s local paper, explains, setting up a San Francisco public bank will require $400 million in seed funding – that’s where the ballot initiative and the tax on large financial institutions come in.

If the November ballot measure passes, the money raised from the tax, which will be leveraged on credit card companies and other large financial institutions, will be used to set up what’s known as a “municipal financial corporation,” a kind of midway point to a full public bank that can issue loans but cannot take deposits.

All being well, this “municipal financial corporation” will start getting loans out the door in 2029. Only after it’s operated successfully for a few years, will the “municipal financial corporation” be able to apply to regulators to become a fully-fledged public bank in 2032.

Before any of that though, in order to pass in November, the public bank ballot initiative must win two-thirds of the vote.

In short, winning a public bank is no quick solution, or easy organizing effort. But ever since I first worked with Jackie, back in 2016, when we were fighting the financiers of the Dakota Access pipeline, that’s what I’ve admired about her: her ambition, and commitment to bringing about long-term change on a systems level.

And if San Francisco is successful in winning a public bank, it could be nationally important, too.

Globally, there are 586 public banks, managing some $35 trillion in assets. In many parts of the world, public banks play a key role in driving the energy transition, by providing low or no cost loans for projects that benefit people and the planet, such as affordable housing and large-scale renewable energy and public transportation projects.

However, there’s only one public bank in the United States, the Bank of North Dakota which was founded in 1919. There hasn’t been a single new public bank created in the United States in the one hundred and eight years since then.

But a public bank in San Francisco would change that. And who’s to say that what starts in San Francisco will stay there? The Bay Area is known, after all, for exporting its innovation around the world.

Often what’s exported around the world from the Bay Area is of dubious value to society―whether it’s social media disinformation or AI slop―but if the Bay Area’s next big export to the rest of the country is a model for how to set up and run a successful public bank, that will be an unalloyed good.

So, if you’re in the San Francisco Bay Area you’ll be hearing more about this from us in the coming months. But if you want to make sure you don’t miss a thing, and if you’re in the Bay Area: sign up here for updates & opportunities to plug into the campaign.

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

News & Updates from the Coalition

– No War, No Kings

 

As the Trump Administration launches a reckless, illegal, and deeply immoral war on Iran, it’s more important than ever that we demonstrate – to the country and the rest of the world – just how deeply unpopular Trump and the MAGA agenda truly is.

Our next big opportunity to do that is on March 28th for No Kings Day #3. The first two No Kings Days were two of the largest single-day mobilizations in American history.

Let’s make the next one even larger. Join a No Kings Day event near you on March 28th.

 

– Costco Has No Excuse Now

In February, we released the Better Options report, a first-of-its-kind report assessing the climate performance of the 20 largest credit card issuers in the United States.

The key findings? Eight of the financial institutions analyzed did not provide large-scale financing to the fossil fuel industry in the time period analyzed. This means that companies like Costco have no excuse now: they need to find a better partner for their co-branded credit card than Citigroup, the world’s second-largest funder of fossil fuel expansion.

Join the campaign here. And read about the campaign in the news: “New climate-finance campaign targets Costco’s partnership with Citibank.”

– Shifting Politics Means Shifting Strategy

In 2024, our bank campaigns saw real progress. That year, Citigroup – our primary target – committed to end financing for new oil and gas projects in the Amazon and implemented a goal of reducing their oil and gas financing by 29% by 2030.

But when Trump was elected, major banks started backtracking on their climate commitments. That meant we had to change our strategy.

In a recent headline article in Bloomberg, I talked about what some of those strategy changes have and should look like. Read the full article here, “Wall Street’s Oil Deals Have Climate Activists Resorting to New Tactics.”

– Insure our Communities campaign gallops along

The Insure Our Communities Act is gaining momentum in New York.

After the bill’s prime sponsor left the legislature, we’re stoked that Senator Nathalia Fernandez has agreed to become the bill’s new prime sponsor in the Senate! As a member of the Senate Insurance Committee, Senator Fernandez is well-placed to help the bill advance.

If this bill passes, it would prohibit New York-licensed insurers from providing insurance to new coal, oil, and gas projects anywhere – an impact that would be felt globally.

So, if you’re in New York, check out the campaign website and get involved:

 www.InsureOurCommunitiesNY.com 

 

– Confronting Big Oil in Houston, TX.

 

Every year, fossil fuel corporations, Wall Street financiers, and government officials convene in Houston for CERA Week, where they plot out how they can keep profiting from fossil fuels, even as frontline communities face toxic air and the brunt of climate chaos.

This year, dozens of organizations are coming together for “Confronting CERA Week”. Over three days, there will be workshops and skillshares, art builds, community events, and actions.

Plug into the Confronting CERA Week organizing in Houston this March 21 – 23.

– Gulf South Communities file Human Right Grievance Against Major Insurer

Last week, frontline communities in Louisiana and Japan joined our partners at Rainforest Action Network and filed an official human rights grievance with the insurance company, Tokio Marine, regarding its coverage for Venture Global’s risky LNG operations. This is a major move to expose the human rights abuses that follow in the wake of the LNG buildout in the Gulf South, and elsewhere.

Read more about the Human Rights Grievance filed with Tokio Marine.

– First-of-its-kind Climate Risk Lawsuit Filed

This week, a landmark new class action lawsuit was filed against one of the world’s largest real estate corporations, Cushman & Wakefield, alleging that its retirement plan managers failed to properly manage climate risks to workers’ hard-earned savings. The legal challenge, filed by ClientEarth and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, is the first of its kind and, if successful, could set an important precedent for addressing climate risks to millions of American workers’ deferred wages.

Read about it in the Financial Times (if you hit a paywall, view the article here), or amplify the news using this toolkit from our partner at Stand.earth. Wanna learn more? Register for the legal briefing on March 25th.

– Federal Court Strikes Down Texas’ Anti-Climate Attacks on Banks

Good news out of Texas, where a judge has struck down Texas’s 2021 “anti-ESG” law that directed the state government to boycott financial institutions that took common sense steps to address the climate crisis.

The Texas law was the high-point of the so-called “anti-ESG movement” that punished banks and investors for taking action on fossil fuels. The court’s findings are a win for the climate, and for commonsense.

– Several Ways To Make Fossil Fuel Companies Pay

To kick off the state legislative session, our friends at the Make Polluters Pay coalition held a week of action. In all, there were 37 events across 14 states, advocating for bills to make the fossil fuel industry pay for the mess they have created, based on Vermont and New York’s climate superfund bills, which were passed in 2024.

Across the country, a second creative way to put the fossil fuel industry on the hook for paying for climate programs is also gaining steam. In California, New York, and Hawaii there are bills in play that would authorize state attorneys generals to sue fossil fuel companies on behalf of residents whose insurance premiums have soared amid climate disasters. The Guardian had an excellent piece about this strategy here.

– Pushing Democrats to Hold Firm on ICE Accountability

We’re now nearly three weeks into the government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. A shutdown like this is not something to take lightly. It means thousands of workers furloughed, including workers from critical agencies like FEMA.

But this is also the Democrats only leverage to win real changes from ICE, an increasingly paramilitary force accountable only to Donald Trump. Democrats must use this leverage.

Already, 6,000 of you on this list have sent emails to your Senators, and hundreds of you have made calls. If you haven’t done so yet, contact your Senator here and urge them: Hold the line and hold ICE accountable.

– Epstein and the World’s Largest Funder of Fossil Fuels

One thing I am pretty sure we haven’t talked about enough is the deep ties between sex trafficker and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and JPMorgan Chase, the world’s largest funder of fossil fuels.

In 2023, JPMorgan CEO, Jamie Dimon, testified under oath that he’d never heard of Jeffrey Epstein until 2019. But one of his top lieutenants later claimed that he’d talked to Dimon years earlier about Epstein. And we now know that a top executive at the bank, Mary Erdoes, who is often touted as potential next CEO, was deeply involved in Epstein’s account, and long knew about his conviction for soliciting sex from fourteen-year-old girls.

In the UK, members of the Royal Family and senior politicians have been arrested in the wake of the release of the Epstein Files. In the US? Not so much. Read more about how the world’s largest funder of fossil fuels also enabled Epstein’s crimes in the Guardian, the New York Times, and Anand Giridharadas’s The Ink.

– and to close, a WIN in Davis, CA

After a months-long campaign waged by the intrepid Cath Posehn, the City of Davis, CA, voted to sever the city’s engagement with the Musk Empire — committing to do no business with Tesla, SpaceX, X, Neuralink, xAI, The Boring Company, and Tesla Robotaxis. No new contracts. No new purchases. No Musk platforms in official city communications.

We’ve been honored to support Cath in her work to achieve this win, and you can read all about how she did it here: One protestor got her city to divest from Elon Musk – here’s what she can teach the rest of us.

And to finish us off, here’s a photo of Cath, turning away from the lectern at Davis City Council, moments before the council voted to pass the resolution she wrote and spent months fighting for. This is what democracy looks like.

The post March Newsletter: Public banks? Oh yes. appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

UTRECHT | March 6, 2026 – The Dominican courts must urgently overturn the amparo decision issued by the Superior Administrative Court (TSA) ordering the reduction of protected areas in Jaragua National Park in the Dominican Republic, which is part of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, to make way for private tourism development projects, the Global Forest Coalition said today. The ruling was issued on 20 November 2025, but was only made public in February 2026. 

The decision, which favors a private infrastructure development and real estate investment consortium, violates the Dominican Constitution (articles 16 and 6), the General Environmental Law, and the Sectoral Law on Protected Areas. It also jeopardizes the National System of Protected Areas. Based on these violations, as well as anomalies and a lack of transparency in the process, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic must overturn the ruling. This demand for annulment is supported by the country’s environmental movement and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. 

“Jaragua National Park is one of the largest protected areas in the Caribbean and is home to forests with high levels of biodiversity, much of which is endangered or threatened. More than 70,000 hectares of forest would be impacted for the benefit of predatory tourism,” said Darío Solano, coordinator of Red Afros and member of the Board of Directors of the Global Forest Coalition (GFC). “This ruling, in addition to being unconstitutional, violates international commitments to protect biodiversity and fight climate change. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework clearly sets a target to effectively conserve forest ecosystems, waters, and coastal and marine areas. We have also made commitments to achieve greater coherence in climate action, so this decision is a serious setback.” 

In the Dominican Republic, changing the size of a national park requires the approval of an organic law by two-thirds of the National Congress. “This ruling could set a terrible precedent for further land grabbing, rights violations, and the degradation of marine areas and natural ecosystems. At a time of profound climate crisis and record global warming temperatures, this ruling is an attack on life,” warned Solano. 

“We view this court ruling with great concern. Mass and elite tourism, often promoted as a catalyst for economic development and environmental conservation, can have irreversible impacts on Indigenous Peoples, local communities, Afrodescendant communities, women, youth, and ecosystems,” said Kwami Kpondzo, coordinator of GFC’s Extractive Industries, Tourism, and Infrastructure Campaign. 

 “Protected areas, as a conservation model that emerged under colonialist and patriarchal logic, can already lead to forced displacement and theft of ancestral lands, but this decision shows that even the legal framework can be vulnerable when it comes to defending corporate interests. We must decolonize conservation, confront corporate elites, and prioritize Indigenous and community sovereignty.” The GFC urges the Superior Administrative Court (TSA) and all competent bodies in the Dominican Republic to act expeditiously to suspend this ruling, guarantee environmental protection, promote climate justice, and respect national laws, international commitments, and community rights.

It has been three months since Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith signed their memorandum of understanding (MOU) for a new bitumen oil pipeline to the west coast. With an April 1 deadline for a final deal with the oil industry only a month away, how are negotiations for this “grand bargain” going?

Private sector investors are still nowhere in sight. If a pipeline and associated Pathways Alliance carbon capture and storage (CCS) project goes ahead, Canadian taxpayers will be unsurprisingly footing most of the bill. The signing deadline will almost certainly be missed, and most major stakeholders are in open conflict.

In other words, not great.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is already demanding major concessions to water down industrial carbon pricing meant to finance the Pathways project. Environmental groups fault the federal government for giving up a laundry list of important climate policies including a proposed emissions cap, clean energy regulations, and the greenwashing provisions in the Competition Act.

Ottawa committed to waiving the oil tanker ban on the north British Columbia coast, enraging local First Nations whose Traditional Territories would be decimated by an oil spill. The feds also caved on contentious tax credits for enhanced oil recovery from CCS and further delayed methane reduction targets. Despite such sweeping capitulations, no private pipeline proponent has come forward, and it is now obvious that none will.

Former Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage said that industry still expects taxpayers to open their wallets for this latest oil patch boondoggle. Enbridge spilled the same tea on an earnings call with investors. When asked if his company would be the mythical pipeline proponent, CEO Greg Ebel said, “that’s not the type of risk that we’re looking to take on at this time. We don’t need to with all the other opportunities.”

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

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

Oil industry grievance has become a commodity perhaps more valuable than oil itself. Cultivating a narrative of meddlesome political interference previously netted bitumen producers the $34 billion Trans Mountain pipeline paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Threats of another contentious pipeline corralled the BC government into supporting an increase in capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline by up to 400,000 barrels per day. An industry hit list of important climate policies has finally been killed off after years of patient spin machine effort.

With that stunning record of success, why would the oil patch dial down the rhetoric now? Following the Carney- Smith MOU smiling photo op on November 27, all the main stakeholders are either genuinely or performatively pissed off and the clock is ticking.

The root of this impasse is an endemic sense of entitlement of Canada’s most coddled industry. The non-profit Pembina Institute points out that if Alberta gets a bespoke policy carve-out for methane reductions, it would be grossly unfair to other industrial emitters across the country putting in the hard work and investments required to lower climate destabilizing emissions. Despite the federal government being on the hook for up to half of the Pathways project and billions more in subsidies from Alberta, the largest bitumen producers still refuse to pony up any of their own money.

If the MOU was intended to lower the rhetorical temperature with the Alberta government, it has so far been an utter failure. The ink was barely dry on the agreement when premier Smith reneged on Alberta’s commitment to raise provincial industrial carbon pricing to meaningful levels.

The current price has been frozen at $95  per tonne and was supposed to raise to $130 when the agreement is finalized. Just one week after the much-lauded agreement, the Alberta government flooded the market with additional tradeable carbon credits crashing the actual price to below $20. “Expect Alberta to continuously test the federal government for weakness, using moves like this to inform their approach at the negotiating table,” warned Dan Woynillowicz ofPolaris Strategy.

Smith conjured up additional headaches for Ottawa by enacting sweeping changes to electoral law just before Christmas, paving the way for separatists to move forward with a referendum question previously deemed unconstitutional by the courts. MAGA-aligned interests now openly conspire to assist in the breakup of Canada, while Alberta extremists brag about multiple meetings with the hostile Trump Administration.

As this constitutional fire smoulders, Smith is busy igniting several others. The premier recently took to the airwaves to announce a new divisive referendum this fall demanding jurisdiction over immigration, the ability to appoint federal judges and opt out of federal education and health programs while still receiving funding from Ottawa.

It should now be obvious that continuing to shovel concessions at Danielle Smith or her overlords in the oil industry will only lead to additional demands. If there is one winner in the MOU debacle, it is cagey Mark Carney. Sacrificing Indigenous relations and climate policy in favour of a pipeline without a business case or proponent seems to play well in Alberta.

The Liberal Party of Canada – typically despised in the province – is now polling neck and neck with the Conservatives. A new bitumen pipeline is neither needed nor profitable, but perhaps that is not the point. In politics, popularity is the only outcome that matters.

The post Mark Carney’s Pipeline MOU With Danielle Smith Has Been A Disaster appeared first on DeSmog.

Every year the ITB tourism trade fair takes place in Berlin. The world’s largest tourism and trade fair it brings together destructive companies operating at the intersection of aviation and tourism. This year, from 3rd-5th March 2026, the ITB takes place again but this time, German organisation Recherche AG are collaborating with the Indigenous Mayan group, the Maya Community Centre U kúuchil k…

Source

The Daily Mail’s parent company (DMGT), which is attempting to buy The Telegraph newspaper, makes a quarter of its money hosting events in Middle East petrostates.

DMGT has made a £500 million bid to purchase the Telegraph Media Group. A previous offer backed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was blocked by the UK government in 2024 over fears of foreign state influence in the British press.

The sale was also opposed by Telegraph staff including former editor Charles Moore, who said it would be “unforgivable” for the paper to be “controlled by a foreign power”, calling the UAE “a country which does not have press freedom”.

However, DMGT also has a significant financial stake in the UAE.

The latest DMGT accounts published on 17 February show the company made £259 million in the year to September 2025 from its events and exhibition business, which has its headquarters in the UAE.

Most of this revenue came from running high-profile energy and construction industry events in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, including several with ties to host governments.

This amounted to 24 percent of DMGT’s total revenue – more than it makes from print and digital advertising (23 percent), or from selling newspapers (22 percent). 

Geoff Dickinson, the CEO of DMG Events, is also on the advisory board of the Dubai International Chamber – a trade body representing the Emirate. Dickinson was appointed to the position by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Prime Minister of the UAE and ruler of Dubai, in 2021.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

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

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has referred DMGT’s Telegraph bid to the Competition and Markets Authority, and media regulator Ofcom, which will advise the government on whether the deal should go ahead.

A DMGT spokesperson told The Guardian in December: “DMGT reiterates that the acquisition will be completely free from any prohibited foreign state influence, and that The Telegraph will remain editorially independent, while benefiting from significant investment to accelerate its international growth.”

However, DMGT’s Middle East events business is growing, while its newspaper revenues are in decline. Its latest accounts state that while consumer media revenues fell by two percent in the year to September 2025, its events business “continued to grow, benefitting from increases in exhibitor demand and visitor attendance.” 

DMGT’s total events revenue has increased by 59 percent since 2023, and by 160 percent since 2022.

“If DMGT’s takeover bid for the Telegraph goes through, it’ll be like one Death Star swallowing another,” said Mic Wright, author of Breaking: How the Media Works, When it Doesn’t and Why it Matters. “And the fact that oil and gas events are as profitable to DMGT as its entire advertising business suggests to me that it will be rather inclined to go gently on Gulf petrostates in the long term.” 

The Telegraph and the Daily Mail consistently publish editorials hostile to climate action and the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Oil and Gas Events

DMGT describes the “core business” of its events arm as the hosting of five large annual exhibitions in the Middle East.

These are the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition (ADIPEC) energy show, reportedly the world’s largest energy exhibition; the EGYPES energy event in Egypt; two ‘Big 5’ construction sector events in Dubai and Riyadh; and the Saudi Food Show.

Several of these events have ties to the host country governments. ADIPEC is hosted by Adnoc, the UAE’s state oil company. EGYPES is “held under the patronage” of Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. And the Big 5 events are backed by the UAE Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, and the Saudi Ministry for Municipal, Rural Affairs and Housing.

The new DMGT accounts note another significant earner, Gastech, an annual energy trade show that focuses on “natural gas, LNG and hydrogen”, held last year in Milan, Italy.

On top of these five big events, DMGT also ran events “on behalf of third parties”, including the official Blue Zone at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai in December 2023, and the Green Zone at the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan – also a petrostate – in 2024.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia derive most of their wealth from oil production. Saudi Arabia is the world’s second biggest oil producer after the United States as of 2023. Oil and gas dominate Egypt’s exports and imports.

The UAE doesn’t hold popular elections. There are no political parties, critics of the government are often jailed, women face unequal treatment, and its penal code allows for the arrest of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) campaigners.

Daily Mail owner Jonathan Rothermere accompanied U.S. President Donald Trump on a visit to Doha, Qatar, another Gulf petrostate, in May 2025.

Rothermere’s previous bid for The Telegraph in 2023 reportedly involved backers from Qatar.

As DeSmog has reported, Nigel Farage’s pro-fossil fuel party Reform UK – which is leading polls at 29 percent ahead of May’s elections – is also building ties to the UAE through business deals, funded trips, and meetings with government ministers.

Claudia Rothermere, wife of Jonathan Rothermere, donated £50,000 to Reform UK in September.

DMGT and DCMS were approached for comment.

A version of this article was published by Private Eye.

The post Telegraph Bidder Daily Mail Cashing in from Oil Industry Events appeared first on DeSmog.

31 Years of Insatiable Greed and Plunder, The Continuous Fight Towards People’s Sovereignty over National Patrimony

 31 Years of Insatiable Greed and Plunder, The Continuous Fight Towards People’s Sovereignty over National Patrimony

Thirty-one years after the passage of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, or Republic Act No. 7942, the Filipino people continue to confront the consequences of a policy framework that entrenched neoliberal and imperialist control over the country’s mineral wealth – an unimaginable plunder driven by the greed of Marcos Jr. regime. Enacted at a time when the state sought to attract foreign capital into high-risk, capital-intensive extractive industries, the law institutionalized mechanisms that entrench imperial take over our national patrimony. Mechanisms like the Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAAs), allowing up to 100% foreign ownership and control of large-scale mining operations. Under the PMA ‘95, mining corporations may control up to 81,000 hectares for 25 years, renewable for another 25. They are guaranteed generous incentives like the six-year tax holidays, export tax exemptions, and income tax breaks, advantages that ripen the ground for intensive extraction and profit accumulation, allowing the convenient entry of foreign capital in the country. Yet the promised development of mining remains illusory in the country after 31 years of the implementation of PMA 1995. Mining’s contribution to national employment has remained below 1%, and government revenues from taxes and fees have been disproportionately small compared to the immense value of extracted minerals. The Philippines’ estimated mineral potential is between US$850 billion and US$1 trillion, valued at around 10 times the country’s annual GDP and 15 times its total foreign debt. Only Php 16 went to the gov’t for every 100 pesos of minerals extracted. What has prospered instead are environmental destruction and community displacement. From the 1996 Boac River disaster linked to Marcopper Mining Corporation and Placer Dome in Marinduque, widely called the “mother of all mining disasters”, to the 2012 Philex Padcal tailings spill in Benguet, and the deadly 2024 landslide in Masara, Davao de Oro involving Apex Mining Co. Inc., mining operations have repeatedly resulted in loss of life, poisoned rivers, and devastated communities. These are tragedies resulting from an extractivist regime that hungers insatiably for profit, while completely negligent to the welfare of the people and ecosystems. In recent years, the state and mining corporations have also aggressively greenwashed large-scale extraction, portraying it as indispensable to the so-called “green economy.” Government agencies and corporate actors frame expanded mining as a contribution to climate solutions, obscuring the massive ecological damage, deforestation, water contamination, and displacement of communities that accompany extraction. In reality, the push for “critical” minerals has only intensified the pressure on mineral-rich territories like the Philippines, further legitimizing the same extractivist model that has permanently damaged ecosystems and communities in the name of profit. There are also series of human rights violations that have likewise marked the industry’s expansion. Paramilitary forces, the military, and CAFGU units have been linked to harassment and abuses in mining-affected areas. Extrajudicial killings of anti-mining activists intensified when state security forces were mobilized to protect mining investments. Even more alarmingly, around 60% of mining concessions in the country overlap with ancestral lands of indigenous peoples, placing them at the forefront of dispossession and violence as they defend their collective rights. Yet people’s resistance lives on against persecution and deterioration of communities. Across the archipelago, alliances of environmental advocates, church groups, local governments, academic institutions, and grassroots communities continue to demand the repeal of the Mining Act. People across the country are leading several community resistance against destructive projects that pose imminent threat to the biodiversity and socio-economy of the community. Recently, in Nueva Vizcaya, residents of Dupax del Norte continue the legacy of the people’s struggle against encroachment of large-scale mining. They have erected people’s barricades to block destructive operations of the British-owned Woggle Corporation. Supported by environmental advocate organizations, communities have secured temporary suspensions of permits. This triumph demonstrates that organized, collective action can compel accountability. On this 31st anniversary, the call is even more dire, urgent, and militant. We have to dismantle the structural architecture of plunder, feeding off from the destruction of nature and lives in the community. We have to relentlessly fight for the rights of our peasants and indigenous peoples most affected by the wreckage of inconceivable social and environmental destruction of mining. We must continuously and tirelessly struggle to advance a development path anchored on ecological sustainability, national industrialization, and genuine national sovereignty. Pass the People’s Mining Bill that institutionalizes mining for the development of national industry complemented with sustainable ecological and community protection. Hold the Marcos Jr. regime, along with his corporate cronies, responsible for the systemic and permanent destruction and displacement in different communities of peasants, indigenous peoples, and fisherfolks. We must courageously take on different forms of struggle that forward the genuine interest of the people. The struggle continues, not only against destructive mining projects, but against the systemic forces that enable them. Junk PMA 1995! Pass the People’s Mining Bill! People and nature over profit! #phminingactibasura #marcospanagutinminingpalayasin

.

 

This story is published in partnership with The Guardian.

As Donald Trump assaults the legal foundation of America’s ability to regulate global warming emissions, climate deniers have been privately celebrating what they claim is the “silent” acquiescence of billionaires, Democrats, climate activists and even reporters to the president’s aggressive pro-fossil fuel agenda.
 
“In my 26 years of being focused on climate, I’ve never seen anything like this. Trump is gutting everything they ever stood for,” Marc Morano, a long-time climate denier, said in January at the “World Prosperity Forum,” a five-day event in Zurich, Switzerland, billed as a right-wing alternative to the World Economic Forum in Davos.

The event’s sponsor was The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank that has been at the forefront of spreading climate disinformation for decades, and was also a contributor to Project 2025, the policy blueprint for President Trump’s second administration.

“Billionaires are silent. Democrats in Congress have been silent. Climate activists. There has been no push-back on this,” Morano said — and he may have a point, according to some experts who research the climate denial movement.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

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

“The Trump administration just marched in and destroyed the crown jewel of climate science in the United States,” said Robert Brulle, a professor of environment and society at Brown University, referring to the Trump administration’s dismantling of the country’s premier climate research center, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in December.

“And nothing happened. There wasn’t even a whimper. I never thought I’d ever say this: Marc Morano is correct.”

Last month, the Trump administration repealed the 2009 “endangerment finding” establishing that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health. It was a determination that undergirded the federal government’s authority to limit climate-heating pollution from automobiles and power plants.

Elimination of the endangerment finding had long been a core goal of the climate denial movement.

Its repeal is just the latest in a long line of President Trump’s climate-related destruction. Since taking office in January 2025, his administration has significantly curtailed the country’s weather forecasting organizations and climate science research facilities, published reports denying established climate science, and made deep cuts to funding for climate-related energy and community projects.

Under the leadership of Trump appointee Chris Wright, the Department of Energy last year all but banned its key renewable energy department from using terminology like “climate change,” “green,” and “sustainability.”
 
 ”Trump overturned Biden’s climate agenda at breakneck speed,” Morano said at the Heartland Institute’s Zurich forum. 

Instead of pushing back on this blitz, many Democratic Party representatives have retreated from talking directly about climate change across social media, podcasts, speeches, and in Congress. The party is now embroiled in a debate about whether affordability is a better message than climate action, despite polling suggesting that 63 percent of the American public believes the president and Congress should prioritize clean energy.

This trend hasn’t gone without resistance in the party, however. “Anyone who cares about what fossil fuel pollution is doing to Earth’s natural systems needs to ignore these so-called ‘climate hushers’ — people who think Dems should stop talking about climate,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) posted on social media in January.
 
Genevieve Guenther, a climate communications expert and founding director of the advocacy group End Climate Silence, largely agrees. “The Democrats’ climate hushing is politically foolish,” she said in an email. “It only benefits the Trump regime’s agenda.”

At the Heartland Institute event, Morano expressed delighted “shock” over the “flips on climate” of tech moguls Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, the founders of Amazon and Microsoft respectively, whose companies have abandoned once-ambitious climate promises as they confront the skyrocketing energy demands of their AI businesses.

Gates, whose foundation has donated millions of dollars to a think tank run by climate crisis denier Bjorn Lomborg, published a controversial memo in October arguing that climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” and advocating for ending climate funding in favor of direct humanitarian aid.

Microsoft and Amazon, which have donated large sums to Trump, have both recently embraced fossil-fuel powered AI data centers alongside Trump energy officials and fossil fuel industry players. 
 
 In early February, Bezos, who is also the owner of the Washington Post, slashed at least 14 reporters from the venerated paper’s climate desk. Just weeks later, the Post published an editorial board opinion, “EPA is right to reverse Obama overreach,” praising Trump’s repeal of the endangerment finding.

Morano noted that overall, journalists have been reporting less aggressively about Trump’s fossil fuel agenda. “When you have Lee Zeldin, the EPA chief, calling climate a cult, a scam, religion, he doesn’t even get push-back from reporters,” Morano said.

During Trump’s first term, by contrast, environmental officials like Scott Pruitt, who led the Environmental Protection Agency from February 2017 to July 2018, “would have to be very careful on climate,” Morano said. Otherwise “they would be beaten and browed by the media.” 

The growing “climate hush” is not limited to the U.S. — a hushed silence about climate change has expanded across the globe.
 
At Davos in January, world leaders across business and government talked noticeably less about addressing climate change than in previous years.
 
Why? “In today’s deeply polarizing U.S. political stance, climate discussion has come to feel so radioactive that many leaders would rather avoid it,” Anjali Chaudhry, a business sustainability researcher at Dominican University, wrote about the silence in Forbes.
 
Even Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who once served as a United Nations Secretary-General Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, limited his mentions of climate change at Davos to a quiet reference to the COP climate summit and a simple “Canadians remain committed to sustainability.”

Despite all this quiet, the vast majority of people worldwide, 89 percent, support climate action, even if they underestimate how much others care — a misperception that has added fuel to a “spiral of science.”
 
What can be done to counteract the trend towards silence? “In this time of ‘climate hushing,’ having conversations about climate change is more important than ever,” Katherine Hayhoe, a climate scientist and climate communications expert, advised in her influential blog.
 
For environmental sociologist Brulle, addressing the growing hush around climate must go beyond talking.

“I think the climate movement in the United States has failed. It has flat failed, and that means we need to rebuild this movement in a completely different manner,” he said.
 
Environmentalist Bill McKibben is more optimistic. “I think [the Trump administration] is whistling past the graveyard of their fossil-fueled dreams,” he said in an email. “The real story of the last year is how politicians, movements, entire nations are moving fast towards clean energy. They’re not all doing it in the name of ‘climate,’ but we’re making faster climate progress than we have at any point in the last 40 years.”
 
McKibben added a caveat: “Fast enough? Of course not. The deniers have delayed change and that continues. But it’s going far faster than they want it to — hence their resort to political gamesmanship.”

The post Climate Deniers Expected More Resistance to Trump’s Fossil Fuel Blitz appeared first on DeSmog.

In a Prince Rupert board room in mid-January, the British Columbia-based Indigenous alliance Coastal First Nations-Great Bear Initiative (CFN), Lax Kw’alaams and the Haisla Nation met with Prime Minister Mark Carney and reaffirmed their opposition to a new oil pipeline to the northwest coast of the province. 

“It’s loud and clear. That’s a no, and our interest isn’t about money in this situation. It’s about the responsibility of looking after our territories and nurturing the sustainable economies that we currently have here,” CFN President Marilyn Slett said at the time.

The alliance includes nearly all First Nations within the Great Bear Rainforest on B.C.’s central and north coast, meaning that its opposition could be a powerful obstacle to building new oil export infrastructure. Despite that, Carney only met with CFN after he had already signed a pro-pipeline Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith last November. The MOU aims to create the conditions needed to build an oil pipeline to B.C.’s northwest coast, including potentially adjusting a ban on oil tankers through the region.

In late February, Premier Smith told Albertans in an address that she expects “approval from the federal government for a million barrel a day pipeline to our west coast” with no mention of Indigenous consent or rights.

That could prove to be overly optimistic, given that one of the most pro-industry First Nations on the coast also opposes a new oil pipeline.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

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

The Haisla Nation, no longer a CFN member but whose traditional lands encompass the Douglas Channel and the delta of the Kitimat River, have in recent years invested heavily in Liquefied Natural Gas. The Nation is currently developing the Cedar LNG project on its territory, which promises to be a major economic boost for the small coastal community. Despite this, they too have long opposed any oil transportation on the coast.

Chief Councillor Nyce explained to DeSmog in an interview that projects which involve new oil tankers navigating the coastal waters represent a line that the Haisla will never cross, because the potential damage to local fishing livelihoods and access to ocean sustenance, which many in her community still rely on, is too great a risk.

“We are very disappointed that the government of Canada has committed with Alberta to explore the feasibility of an oil pipeline to the north,” said Chief Councillor Nyce. “Basically, they declared that this project is of national interest and without any engagement whatsoever with Indigenous people across the province or along the coast.”

The logic of their opposition isn’t hard to understand. To Nyce, an LNG tanker sinking in the Douglas Channel would be terrible, but wouldn’t be an existential threat to the community. The same can’t be said of an oil tanker sinking and wiping out the Haisla Nation’s ability to fish and feed itself. That, says Nyce, “would be catastrophic for us.”

Around the same time Carney was meeting with CFN, his former Chief Of Staff Marco Mendicino stated that a key goal for the federal Liberals is “to grow our oil production, as complicated as that may be when it comes to our relationship with the climate and First Nations groups.” 

But as DeSmog’s interview with Nyce makes clear, the Haisla are standing firm.

“We’ve Been Down This Road Before”

As the sun set on the town of Kitimat in Northwest, B.C. in April 2014, dozens of people gathered outside town hall to hear the results of a plebiscite that would signal the community’s support or opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway oil pipeline and supertanker project along the Douglas Channel on the north coast of B.C.

As the results were read out, 60-40 in opposition of the project, the crowed erupted with cheers and sighs of relief. Members of the Haisla Nation, from Kitimaat Village, just across the bay at the top of the Douglas Channel, were not included in the vote. They showed up anyway, pounding thunderous drums in support of their neighbours’ efforts to keep the channel oil free. 

“Enbridge and the government really don’t understand what happened here tonight, not just here in Kitimat but the entire Northwest,” said Gerald Amos, a former Chief Councillor of the Haisla Nation. “What we witnessed was a community building exercises that should scare the shit out of them.” 

More than 10 years on that sentiment hasn’t wavered. 

In a call with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith the day before she signed the MOU with Mark Carney, Haisla Chief Councillor and Mayor of Kitimat Phil Germuth reiterated their determination to never support oil transportation through the Douglas Channel. 

“We’ve been down this road before,” Nyce said in an interview. “We’ll go down this road again to ensure that we are heard and understood about what we value on the coast and why we just aren’t ever going to accept a pipeline to our shore. We take all our food from the Douglas Channel and…a spill on our waterway would be catastrophic for us.”

Federal and provincial leaders appear to now be better at appreciating the Haisla’s concerns. Premier Smith announced in late January that Kitimat, part of the community home to the Haisla, is no longer an option for the proposed pipeline. The shipping route, she explained, would be “too complex.”

Roots Of The Oil Tanker Ban

For more than 50 years, oil export on B.C.’s North Coast has been debated ad nauseam. In the 1970s, an oil ports inquiry determined that the waters off the North and Central Coast were too unpredictable for oil transportation and too ecologically sensitive to the risks from an oil spill. 

Since then, a voluntary exclusion zone has been in place, supported by every First Nation on the coast, including the Haisla.

The Haisla’s opposition to oil transportation deepened during the Northern Gateway era. When Enbridge proposed twin pipelines to bring bitumen to Kitimat for shipment across the Pacific, Haisla leaders joined a broad Indigenous and environmental coalition that opposed tanker traffic and pipeline corridors through Northern B.C. The nation filed legal challenges, participated in public hearings, and mobilized local opposition. 

In 2010, Coastal First Nations formally banned oil tankers through their territories, but since the late 1970s, there has been a voluntary oil tanker exclusion zone, which governments and companies have long adhered to.

The Northern Gateway project was eventually abandoned, after a Federal Court of Appeal overturned the project’s approval due to the government’s failure to adequately consult with First Nations. Since then, the Haisla’s position hasn’t changed, as they have repeatedly signaled that oil-by-tanker is not acceptable in their territory.

In 2019 the federal Liberal government of Justin Trudeau enacted the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which formalized the ban on oil tankers through northern waters.

Why Haisla Sees Oil as a Bigger Threat Than LNG

Chief Councilor Nyce, who took office in 2025, has been one of the Haisla’s most visible spokespeople during this most recent wave of proposals. In a joint statement issued with the District of Kitimat following the call with Premier Danielle Smith, she highlighted the community’s long-standing rejection of an oil pipeline and supertanker port through Haisla territory. Chief Councillor Nyce says this position reflects the lived memory of how oil and marine accidents can devastate subsistence, livelihoods, and culture that the Haisla still depend on.

In 2016, for example, the Nathan E. Stewart, a tugboat, ran aground near Bella Bella on the traditional territory of the Heiltsuk, a CFN member. Over 110,000 liters of diesel were spilled, which has had a lasting impact on clam beds there that haven’t been harvested since.

But Chief Councillor Nyce says the Haisla are not against development, citing the nation’s support for LNG Canada and the construction of its own Cedar LNG project. 

“We have found that with the development of LNG facilities on our shores, we feel that is a fit that works with our values,” said Chief Nyce. “The transportation of LNG on our waterways doesn’t pose a high risk to our food source so we’re supportive of that.”

As pressure mounts on the federal government to support Alberta’s efforts to build a new oil pipeline to the west, one stipulation may throw a wrench in their plans— First Nations consent—which the Haisla, and several other First Nations say they will never give.

“They’re hoping that Indigenous people will buy into the pipeline as equity owners along the way,” said Chief Councillor Nyce. “But we weren’t included in that conversation between the premier [of Alberta] and our prime minister at all. We were not engaged in any way shape or form. And I feel like that was a huge signal of disrespect from both of them to not include the leaders who will be affected along the coast that they’re proposing.”

In early December, the Conservative Party put forward a motion in the House of Commons to force the governing Liberals to vote on building an oil pipeline to the north coast. The motion outlined part of the MOU brokered by Carney with Alberta, but excluded language regarding Alberta’s commitment to lowering methane emissions, industrial carbon pricing, and respecting Indigenous rights.

However, one notable vote in support of an oil pipeline to the north coast came from Conservative MP for Skeena-Bulkley Valley, Ellis Ross. 

Ross, a rookie MP, is also a former Haisla Chief Councillor who opposed Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project more than a decade ago, citing concerns about remediation if an oil spill occurred in Haisla territory. “There’s no real way to pick this product up out of a marine environment,” Ross said in 2013. 
 
 Although Ross voted in favor of the Conservative motion supporting the pipeline, he is still facing criticism from First Nations and constituencies about his lack of clarity on the issue. 
 
 Despite Ross’s apparent support for an oil pipeline to the North Coast, First Nations are digging in and preparing to fight a potential proposal at all costs. And after years of building consensus among First Nations and communities along the North Coast to support LNG development, Nyce points out that the notion of forcing through an oil pipeline has already damaged government relations with First Nations. This could impact future negotiations of developments that require First Nations consent. 
 
 “They’ve taken a major step back, in my opinion, in terms of the relationship with First Nations with this announcement,” said Chief Councillor Nyce. “It makes no reference in the MOU to the need for Indigenous consent for the pipeline to go ahead, and that is completely unacceptable.”

The post Why the Haisla Nation Is Fine With LNG But Not Mark Carney’s New Oil Pipeline appeared first on DeSmog.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Mining Injustice Solidarity Network (MISN), info@mininginjustice.org Photos and videos of the protest available here (added live throughout the afternoon). TORONTO/TKARONTO, March 1, 2026 – Representatives from communities impacted by mining projects from Anishnaabe territory in Northern Ontario, Wet’suwet’en, the Congo, and the Philippines came together alongside hundreds of Torontonians to protest the […]

Claiming passivity while financing fossil fuel expansion puts its customers’ futures at risk

February 27, 2026

Contact: Eve Gutman, Communications and Research Manager, Earth Quaker Action Team, eve@eqat.org, 973-747-5644

In response to Thursday’s settlement in the case between Vanguard and a group of Republican state attorneys general, Earth Quaker Action Team has released the following statement: 

“No matter where we’re from, what we look like, or how we pray, we all want to build a life in a safe climate and trust that we will be able to support our loved ones. But, a small group of state attorneys general are playing with our futures by attacking investors doing any crumb of sustainable investing, just to score political points in their next elections. And the recent settlement in their lawsuit against Vanguard is just one in a series of examples of how Vanguard is succumbing to their political ploys.  

However, no matter what some politicians say, they cannot change the reality that climate change is a profound and systemic economic risk. And by funneling billions of dollars into fossil fuel expansion projects, Vanguard is directly threatening its customers’ savings – not to mention all of our wellbeing. As concerned citizens inspired by our Quaker values, we cannot accept this blatant throwing away of our futures. 

Vanguard’s claims that what matters most is “giving our investors the best chance for investment success” will ring hollow until it actually invests for a stable and prosperous future. As a start, Vanguard should offer a fossil fuel-free target date fund, give its sustainable investment products more competitive and accessible expense ratios, and meet with representatives of the Vanguard S.O.S. campaign. CEO Salim Ramji, CIO Greg Davis, and other corporate leaders have the responsibility to rise to the moment and steer the asset manager towards investing for a safe and healthy future.

For all Vanguard customers, Thursday’s settlement underscores Vanguard’s huge chasm between what it says about investing for their best interests and what it actually does. More and more customers are seeing that Vanguard is on a reckless course and moving their money out of the asset manager. Former customers concerned about Vanguard’s inaction on climate change have moved more than $57 million out of the asset manager and that number will keep growing. Customers can join money moving efforts at eqat.org/never-vanguard.

We will continue to push back with spirit-led direct action and highlight how Vanguard needs to change, alongside partners including American Friends Service Committee and Stop the Money Pipeline, among others.”

Nancy Treviño, Investors Campaign Manager at Stop the Money Pipeline, adds “In a moment when we need the largest investors and funders of fossil fuels to take climate action, this news shows us once again how Vanguard will cave to political pressure. Vanguard could choose to be a leader in providing their customers with more sustainable investment options, but instead chooses to settle politically motivated lawsuits that seek to protect fossil fuel interests over our planet’s wellbeing.” 

For more of the economic argument for why investors must treat fossil-fueled climate change as an economy-wide threat, see The Long Term Will Be Decided Now, published by the Sierra Club. 

EQAT was founded in 2010 by Delaware Valley Quakers who felt a moral imperative to address the climate crisis through nonviolent direct action, including tactics like civil disobedience. It now includes people of diverse beliefs, united in a commitment to creating a just and sustainable economy for all. For over four years, EQAT has been an active member of the international Vanguard S.O.S. campaign, calling on the world’s largest investor in fossil fuels to invest sustainably.

xxx

The post Press Release: Recent Vanguard Settlement Underscores Chasm Between Asset Manager’s Values and Actions appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

Absolute rejection of the United States-Mexico Action Plan on Critical Minerals in our territories

 

On 4 February, it was announced that the governments of the United States and Mexico had agreed to work on a joint action plan on ‘critical’ minerals. Through this instrument, the Mexican government commits to taking action to ‘develop a new paradigm for preferential trade in critical minerals, backed by minimum prices and other measures’.

At REMA, we believe that this Plan deepens Mexico’s subordination to the geostrategic policy of the United States. This agreement is part of a long-standing asymmetrical relationship between the two countries and, as various analysts have pointed out, is an example of the interventionist diplomatic agreements that the United States imposes on Mexico and other countries it considers within its sphere of influence. The official document itself explains that the agreement responds to the US government’s concern to maintain its global hegemony in the face of competition from China, ensuring access to and control of strategic resources such as minerals, gas and oil.

 

This Plan is an example of the interventionist diplomatic agreements that the United States imposes on Mexico and other countries it considers within its sphere of influence, such as Australia and Canada. These agreements occur in a context of explicit threats of military interventionism, which has already been carried out recently in Iran, Venezuela and Ukraine, and has escalated in other cases such as Greenland, in addition to the United States’ active efforts to suffocate the peoples of Cuba and Gaza.

One of the central themes of our analysis in this plan is our criticism of the concept of “critical minerals”. We argue that this is a political and discursive construct that legitimises a supposed collective urgency to promote mining extractivism. The definition of these minerals is based on political rather than technical criteria: in the United States, the most recent list includes 60 minerals, while in Mexico there is not even a defined list. This ambiguity allows for the creation of an exceptional scenario that justifies the streamlining of procedures, the relaxation of regulations and the prioritisation of projects considered strategic.

The Plan establishes that both governments will identify specific mining and manufacturing projects “of mutual interest” to prioritise their financing and public policy support. We consider this point to be particularly worrying, as it may involve the deployment of the economic and political apparatus to impose priority projects over the affected communities. This will undoubtedly lead to increased dispossession, forced displacement and militarisation, formalising US interference (disguised as binational cooperation) and increasing criminalisation and violence in disputed territories.

Another important aspect is what is known as “geological transparency,” which involves the sharing of technical information between the United States Geological Survey and the Mexican Geological Survey. This would mean greater financial and technical capabilities for mining prospecting and exploration in Mexico, allowing for the expansion of the extractive model into new territories and encouraging speculative processes associated with these activities. In addition, the mention of “coordinated stockpiling of reserves” heralds the advancement of exploration work throughout the national territory.

The Plan also mentions “regulatory cooperation,” which implies greater harmonisation of the regulatory framework between Mexico and the United States to facilitate trade. It should be clear that regulatory cooperation means greater collaboration between regulators for the sole purpose of promoting trade, a demand that has been pushed for many years by transnational companies with supply chains located in two or more countries, as highlighted by researcher Stuart Trew of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The concept of “regulatory cooperation” already exists in Chapter 28 of the USMCA, but now, by applying this concept specifically to “critical minerals,” this plan jeopardises the application of the precautionary principle to protect watersheds, forests, health, and social property in the face of this extractivist onslaught.

 

In the context of the announcement of the Action Plan, it is essential to question the statements made by President C. Sheinbaum during the morning conference on 9 February, where she stated that “nothing has been signed” and that “no new mines will be opened”. The data shows a different reality: in 2025, 16 Environmental Impact Statements for mining exploration work were approved and only three were denied. At the same time, the annual report of the Mexican Mining Chamber (CAMIMEX) reports expansions and new projects in gold, silver and copper, while more than 22,000 mining concessions remain in force. These elements show that the extractive framework continues to operate with broad institutional support.

We reiterate that minerals are neither critical nor strategic in themselves. They are inputs to sustain a deeply unequal energy and industrial model that reproduces colonial structures and capital accumulation. What is truly critical is the country’s water situation, the increase in systemic violence linked to macro-criminal networks, and the strengthening of anti-rights policies.

For all these reasons, we affirm that this Plan deepens Mexico’s dependence on and expansion of extractivism, with direct consequences for the territories, common goods, and the peoples who inhabit them. Faced with this scenario, we reaffirm our defence of the hills, subsoil, rivers, and territories as an integral part of life and the exercise of our rights to self-determination.

 

REMA declara:

El 4 de febrero se anunció que los gobiernos de Estados Unidos y México acordaron
trabajar en un Plan de acción conjunta sobre minerales “críticos”. A través de este
instrumento, el gobierno mexicano se compromete a realizar acciones para “desarrollar un
nuevo paradigma para el comercio preferencial de minerales críticos, respaldado por
precios mínimos y otras medidas”.

Desde la REMA consideramos que este Plan profundiza la subordinación de México a la
política geoestratégica de Estados Unidos. Este acuerdo se inserta en una relación
asimétrica de larga data entre ambos países y, como han señalado distintos analistas, es
un ejemplo de los acuerdos diplomáticos intervencionistas que impone Estados Unidos a
México y a otros países que considera dentro de su órbita de poder. El propio documento
oficial explica que el acuerdo responde a la preocupación del gobierno estadounidense
por mantener su hegemonía global frente a la competencia con China, asegurando el
acceso y control de recursos estratégicos como minerales, gas y petróleo.

Este Plan es un ejemplo de los acuerdos diplomáticos intervencionistas que impone
Estados Unidos a México y a otros países que considera dentro de su órbita de poder,
como Australia o Canadá. Estos acuerdos ocurren en un contexto de amenaza explícita
de intervencionismo bélico, que ya ha sido llevado adelante recientemente en Irán,
Venezuela y Ucrania, y que ha llegado a escalar en otros casos como Groenlandia,
además de en medio de los esfuerzos activos de Estados Unidos para ahogar a los
pueblos de Cuba y Gaza.

Uno de los ejes centrales de nuestro análisis en este plan es la crítica al concepto de
“minerales críticos”. Sostenemos que se trata de una construcción política y discursiva
que legitima una supuesta urgencia colectiva para potenciar el extractivismo minero. La
definición de estos minerales responde a criterios políticos y no técnicos: en Estados
Unidos la lista más reciente abarca 60 minerales, mientras que en México ni siquiera
existe una lista definida. Esta ambigüedad permite construir un escenario de excepción
que justifica la agilización de trámites, la flexibilización normativa y la priorización de
proyectos considerados estratégicos.

El Plan establece que ambos gobiernos identificarán proyectos específicos de minería y
manufactura “de interés mutuo” para priorizar su financiamiento y apoyo de política
pública. Consideramos que este punto es particularmente preocupante, ya que puede
implicar el despliegue del aparato económico y político para imponer proyectos prioritarios
por encima de los pueblos afectados. Esto, con toda seguridad, se traduce en una
profundización del despojo, el desplazamiento forzado y de la militarización, formalizando
la injerencia estadounidense (disfrazada de cooperación binacional) y aumentando así
como la criminalización y la violencia en territorios en disputa.

Otro eje relevante es la llamada “transparencia geológica”, que contempla la compartición
de información técnica entre el Servicio Geológico de Estados Unidos y el Servicio
Geológico Mexicano. Esto significaría mayores capacidades financieras y técnicas para la

prospección y exploración minera en México, permitiendo la expansión del modelo
extractivo hacia nuevos territorios y fomentando procesos especulativos asociados a
estas actividades. Además, la mención de un “acopio coordinado de reservas” anuncia el
avance de trabajos de exploración a lo largo del territorio nacional.

El Plan también menciona la “cooperación regulatoria”, lo que implica una mayor
homogeneización del marco normativo entre México y Estados Unidos para facilitar el
comercio. Hay que tener claro que la cooperación regulatoria significa una mayor
colaboración entre reguladores con el único propósito de favorecer el comercio una
demanda que, desde hace muchos años, han impulsado empresas transnacionales con
cadenas de suministro emplazadas en dos o más países, tal como destaca el investigador
Stuart Trew del Centro Canadiense para Políticas Alternativas. El concepto de
“cooperación regulatoria” ya existe en el Capítulo 28 del T-MEC pero ahora, al aplicar este
concepto específicamente a los “minerales críticos”, este plan pone en riesgo la aplicación
del principio precautorio para proteger cuencas hidrográficas, bosques, la salud, y la
propiedad social ante esta embestida extractivista.

En el marco del anuncio del Plan de Acción resulta indispensable cuestionar las
declaraciones realizadas por la presidenta C. Sheinbaum durante la conferencia matutina
el 9 de febrero, en donde señaló: “no hay nada firmado” y que “no se abrirán nuevas
minas”, los datos muestran otra realidad: en 2025 se aprobaron 16 Manifestaciones de
Impacto Ambiental para trabajos de exploración minera y sólo se negaron tres.
Paralelamente, el informe anual de la Cámara Minera de México (CAMIMEX) reporta
expansiones y nuevos proyectos en oro, plata y cobre, mientras siguen vigentes más de
22 mil concesiones mineras. Estos elementos evidencian que el marco extractivo continúa
operando con amplio respaldo institucional.

Reiteramos que los minerales no son ni críticos ni estratégicos en sí mismos. Son
insumos para sostener un modelo energético e industrial profundamente desigual, que
reproduce estructuras coloniales y de acumulación de capital. Lo verdaderamente crítico
es la situación hídrica del país, el aumento de la violencia sistémica vinculada a redes de
macrocriminalidad y el fortalecimiento de políticas anti derechos.

Por todo ello afirmamos que este Plan profundiza la dependencia y la expansión del
extractivismo en México, con consecuencias directas para los territorios, los bienes
comunes y los pueblos que los habitan. Frente a este escenario, reafirmamos nuestra
defensa de los cerros, subsuelos, ríos y territorios como parte integral de la vida y del
ejercicio de nuestros derechos de autodeterminación.

 

The post One Protester Got Her City to Divest from Elon Musk — Here’s What She Can Teach the Rest of Us appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

West Virginia bill to ban harmful food chemicals from schools clears key vote Iris Myers February 27, 2026

CHARLESTON, W.V. – Today the West Virginia Senate passed a bill, introduced by West Virginia Sen. Brian Helton (R-District 9), to protect school children in the state from harmful food chemicals. 

The Environmental Working Group supports the bill, S.B. 745. If enacted, it would ban West Virginia public schools from serving food containing 23 additives.

The additives are: titanium dioxide, butylated hydroxytoluene, butylated hydroxyanisole, tert-butylhydroquinone, sodium benzoate, propyl gallate, azodicarbonamide, aloe vera, propylparaben, potassium bromate, butylparaben, acetaldehyde, propylene oxide, ethoxyquin, acrolein, aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame K, diacetyl, octyl gallate, dodecyl gallate, calcium bromate and calcium sorbate.

All 23 chemicals listed in the bill are linked to health problems, including harm to the reproductive and hormone systems and even cancer.

The following is a statement from Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president for government affairs:

Food served to children shouldn’t contain chemicals that can harm their health or make it harder for them to learn. 

Yet decades of broken federal oversight have left thousands of food chemicals on grocery store shelves and in school meals without thorough safety reviews. Some have not been reviewed in more than 40 years. 

The Food and Drug Administration has no plan to fix that. In the absence of federal leadership, West Virginia’s Senate Bill 745 is a commonsense step toward protecting kids by removing harmful additives from school foods. 

This is practical and doable: The vast majority of the substances S.B. 745 addresses aren’t widely used in school meals today, and food companies have shown they can reformulate quickly when required.

Faber testified on Feb. 17 in support of S.B. 745 in front of the West Virginia Senate Health and Human Resources Committee.

The legislation is the most recent in a series of state-led efforts to regulate harmful food chemicals. In 2025, eight states passed laws banning or restricting use of various food chemicals in public schools, and others, including Utah, Virginia and West Virginia, have passed statewide bans.

S.B. 745 will next be heard in the West Virginia House.

###

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 Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 February 27, 2026

If Trump won’t ban glyphosate, he can at least reduce kids’ exposure to it JR Culpepper February 27, 2026

Last week, President Donald Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to boost the American supply of glyphosate-based herbicides, declaring the controversial weedkiller essential to national security. 

For many in the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, the grassroots army of health-conscience voters who helped propel him back into office, it was an utter betrayal.

On the campaign trail in 2024, Trump promised to crack down on pesticides in food. He embraced Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s long-running crusade against toxic chemicals like glyphosate and pledged to put him in charge of cleaning up the nation’s food supply.

Kennedy, now secretary of Health and Human Services, has repeatedly warned that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, can cause cancer. As a plaintiffs’ attorney, he was part of the legal team that helped secure multimillion dollar verdicts against Roundup maker Bayer-Monsanto for failing to warn consumers about glyphosate’s dangers.

Who dictates pesticide policy?

Although Kennedy frequently promised to curtail pesticide use when he was supporting Trump’s presidential campaign, he does not control U.S. pesticide policy. That authority rests with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, who is also a member of President Trump’s MAHA commission, which Kennedy chairs. If Kennedy is to deliver on his promises, the administration must take action on pesticides soon or risk revealing his campaign promises as a cynical ploy to convince people to support Trump. 

In December 2025, Zeldin promised the EPA would soon unveil its own MAHA agenda.

But months later, that agenda has yet to materialize. 

Now many MAHA leaders are openly calling for Zeldin’s removal, saying his policy actions run counter to the movement’s mission. Those actions include rolling back or weakening protections targeting air and water pollution and toxic chemicals, greenlighting at least five pesticides that contain the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, and renewing approval of the herbicide dicamba.

But there is a concrete step that Zeldin – and Kennedy – could take in response to something that’s been moldering in the EPA’s inbox since Trump’s first term. 

In 2019, EWG and nearly 20 companies formally petitioned the EPA to drastically lower the allowable “tolerance” – the amount that may remain in food – for glyphosate residues in one particular food: oats. Oat-based foods, from breakfast cereals to granola bars and snack products heavily marketed to children, are among the leading sources of dietary glyphosate exposure in the U.S. 

The current federal tolerance stands at 30 parts per million, or ppm. EWG asked the agency to drastically reduce that limit, to 0.1 ppm, arguing that the higher threshold fails to account for the pesticide’s association with cancer risk and the especially high dietary exposure faced by children.

Why oats? 

Lowering the tolerance could in turn lead to less glyphosate on food, kids’ exposure and associated health risks.

EWG has found high levels of glyphosate in these foods, compared to other foods, such as bread. Glyphosate is typically applied pre-harvest to control weeds. It’s also applied as a desiccant, a way to dry out the crop more quickly and make it easier to harvest. 

Although use of glyphosate as a desiccant for oats isn’t common in the U.S., it is permitted in Canada, a major supplier of oats to American food manufacturers. 

That means glyphosate residues can make their way into food sold to U.S. families, with children facing disproportionate exposure. 

The petition submitted to the EPA by EWG and other groups calls on the agency to close this loophole and explicitly lower the allowable level of glyphosate in oats grown for the U.S. market.

EPA has the power to act

EWG’s petition lays out in painstaking detail the toxicological data, dietary exposure assessments and cancer risk calculations. Yet it has languished for years at the EPA without resolution, even while the agency received more than 100,000 public comments urging action.

If Zeldin is serious about aligning the EPA with MAHA principles, he could dust off that petition and make it a centerpiece of his long-promised agenda. Lowering the glyphosate tolerance in oats wouldn’t ban the weedkiller, though that’s what Kennedy promised and many in the MAHA movement demanded. 

But it would signal that the administration is at least willing to consider risks where the scientific evidence and exposure routes intersect most acutely: foods marketed to children.  

Kennedy does not need legal authority over pesticides to wield influence. As a cabinet member and the most prominent face of MAHA, he could publicly urge Zeldin and the EPA to act on the petition’s recommendations. 

He could frame it as a targeted, “gold standard” science-based measure to reduce childhood exposure to the herbicide he has long criticized. It’s a golden opportunity to set themselves apart from the Biden administration, which also failed to act on our petition. 

Lowering weedkiller levels

An EPA (or HHS) response to EWG’s glyphosate petition might not satisfy every MAHA activist angry over Trump’s action to spur glyphosate production and hand Bayer-Monsanto immunity from litigation. But it would lower the levels of the weedkiller in many popular foods millions of children eat every day.

The petition is already submitted. The science is solid. The real question now is, did MAHA leaders in the administration ever mean to protect public health? Or was it always just a scam to con health-conscience voters into supporting Trump?  

Zeldin and Kennedy, here is the glyphosate petition for your review and approval.

Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Glyphosate Pesticides Authors Alex Formuzis JR Culpepper February 27, 2026

Senate proposal would gut key provisions of chemical safety law Monica Amarelo February 26, 2026

WASHINGTON – In a coordinated assault on public health, the Senate introduced a proposal to dismantle the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, the nation’s primary defense against hazardous chemicals. 

The draft legislation, along with a House bill released in January, would effectively strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to keep cancer-causing substances out of cleaning supplies, toys, furniture and other products.

If signed into law, either proposal would undercut core protections against toxic chemicals in consumer products and drinking water. They would open the marketplace to new substances that have not been reviewed for links to reproductive harms, learning disabilities and chronic disease, with no proof they’re safe for children, pregnant people or workers.

By forcing the EPA to speed up chemical approvals and weaken safety requirements, even when corporations provide zero safety data, the legislation would transform the agency into a rubber-stamp office for the chemical industry.

The proposals would: 

• Fast-track approval of untested chemicals. Forces the EPA to clear new industrial chemicals within rigid, shortened deadlines, even when manufacturers provide incomplete safety data on cancer risk, reproductive harm or developmental toxicity.
• Leave people and workers exposed. Allows the chemical industry to override independent science and health protections for families, workers and communities.

The chemical industry has spent millions lobbying for weaker regulations. These proposals deliver their wish list: faster approvals, lower safety standards and weakening of the EPA’s power to demand health data before dangerous substances reach consumers.

The Environmental Working Group joins the Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals in calling on Congress to reject these harmful proposals. Instead, lawmakers should fully implement the bipartisan chemical safety reforms enacted in 2016, ensuring public health protections come before corporate profits.

The Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals brings together leading organizations and networks in a coordinated effort to defend TSCA from rollbacks and fight for strong health protections from toxic chemicals. The passage of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act in 2016 with overwhelming bipartisan support modernized TSCA to ensure that new chemicals are reviewed for safety before entering the marketplace and that the EPA can act on dangerous chemicals that harm the health of children, workers and communities. 

Since then, the EPA has used this authority to ban deadly asbestos and methylene chloride, restrict cancer-causing chemicals like trichloroethylene, and block certain “forever chemicals” known as PFAS from entering commerce.

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

This is a gift for the chemical industry and will not make America healthier.

Members of Congress are working to dismantle a decade of bipartisan progress on public health. 

If enacted, this legislation would substantially reduce the EPA’s authority to keep hazardous chemicals out of stores, schools and homes, effectively making American families “lab rats” for industry experiments with substances of unknown toxicity. If Congress moves forward with this legislation, it will abandon the bipartisan commitment to chemical safety grounded in science. 

Rolling back safeguards that protect the developing brain and reproductive health and prevent disease in the long-term is not reform. It is a step backward.

###

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 Water Household & Consumer Products Toxic Chemicals Chemical Policy Bill would fast-track untested substances into American homes and workplaces Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 February 26, 2026

New proposal in Congress would gut key provisions of landmark chemical safety law, putting families’ health at risk Monica Amarelo February 26, 2026

WASHINGTON – A new Senate draft bill would dismantle core protections of the nation’s main chemical safety law and make it easier for toxic chemicals to enter homes, schools and workplaces, according to the Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals, a national coalition of organizations and networks. 

The group issued an urgent warning following the release of draft legislation to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, the bipartisan law Congress overhauled in 2016. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has announced a March 4 hearing on the discussion draft.

A House proposal that would gut TSCA surfaced in January, signaling a coordinated effort to roll back protections against toxic chemicals and undermine the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect public health. 

The new proposals would: 

• Allow more dangerous chemicals onto the market without meaningful EPA review and approval.
• Give the chemical industry more power to override independent science and health protections for families, workers, and communities.
• Allow loopholes for toxic chemicals.
• Undermine the ability of states to protect their residents, drinking water, and food from toxic chemicals.

“Children’s health must come first, yet the chemical industry is now lobbying to weaken the chemical law that protects our families,” said the Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals in a joint statement. 

“Rolling back chemical safety protections will make it harder to keep out of our lives toxic chemicals linked to cancer, learning disabilities and infertility. Americans should be able to trust that any chemicals in their homes, schools, workplaces and communities won't make them sick,’’ the statement added.

Public support for chemical safety protections remains strong across party lines, with overwhelming bipartisan backing for the EPA’s authority to review and restrict dangerous chemicals. The alliance noted that rolling back TSCA would not only increase health risks but also create uncertainty for businesses that have already adapted to the law’s requirements.

The Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals brings together leading organizations and networks in a coordinated effort to defend TSCA from rollbacks and fight for strong health protections from toxic chemicals. 

Passage of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, in 2016, with overwhelming bipartisan support modernized TSCA to ensure that new chemicals are reviewed for safety before entering the marketplace and that the EPA can act on dangerous chemicals that harm the health of children, workers and communities. 

Since then, the EPA has used this authority to ban deadly asbestos and methylene chloride, restrict cancer-causing chemicals like trichloroethylene and block certain PFAS from entering commerce.

Additional quotes from alliance members

“Northern and Arctic Indigenous Peoples suffer some of the highest exposures to persistent toxic chemicals and disease burdens of any population on earth. Weakening TSCA will strip the law of its provisions to prevent harmful and cumulative exposures to persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals,’’ said Pamela Miller, executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics.

“With breast cancer rates unacceptably high in the U.S. and rising among younger women, we cannot weaken federal safeguards against cancer-causing and hormone-disrupting chemicals in our products and environment,” said Nancy Buermeyer, director of program and policy at Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. “Preventing toxic exposures is essential to protecting women’s health and reducing breast cancer risk.”

“Reopening TSCA will lead to the increased proliferation of chemical recycling, which has an abysmal track record, does nothing to solve the plastic crisis, and in fact puts even more toxic chemicals into our environment,” said Judith Enck, former EPA regional administrator and president of Beyond Plastics. 

“Every community is harmed by toxic chemicals. But communities living near the facilities where these chemicals are manufactured have some of the highest rates of cancer, asthma and COPD in the nation,” said Dr. Jamala Djinn, science and policy advisor at Break Free From Plastic. “Since the 2016 amendments to TSCA, EPA has taken concrete steps to begin to protect these communities from the thousands of different chemicals they’re simultaneously being exposed to. If this proposal were to become law, it would eliminate any progress made and further endanger these communities.”

“Regardless of political party, the American public has been clear: It does not want to be poisoned by toxic chemicals,” said Raúl García, Earthjustice Action vice president of policy and legislation. “Still, Republican congressional leadership insists on weakening the most significant tool we have to protect our families from toxics. This bill would unravel the EPA’s authority to review new and existing chemicals and assess their risks to human health while undermining science’s role in federal decision-making. It’s a wishlist for the chemical industry that would lead to a more toxic environment and more poisoned children. We urge Congress to reject it.” 

“Americans across party lines oppose weakening our bedrock chemical safety protections,” said Joanna Slaney, Environmental Defense Fund vice president for political and government affairs. “The Toxic Substances Control Act helps keep the worst toxic chemicals out of our homes and communities, and it was passed with bipartisan support. The only voices calling for Congress to roll back these essential public health standards are coming from industry.”

“This proposal is a dangerous giveaway that lets the chemical industry fast-track new chemicals into everyday products without requiring companies to prove they’re safe,” said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. “It hands manufacturers a free pass while consumers and families shoulder the risk. Americans shouldn’t be unwitting test subjects for chemicals in their food, water, homes and workplaces.”

"Cancer. Infertility. Developmental delays in children. All three are linked to exposure to toxic chemicals, and this proposal would make it easier to put these harmful chemicals into our food, products, water and air, regardless of the damage to the health of people. Instead of creating a glide path for increased toxic pollution, the Senate should be rejecting the chemical industry’s bid to make America more contaminated so it can further line its pockets,” said Avi Kar, director of Toxics at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). 

“For years, states have acted to protect residents from toxic chemicals when federal safeguards fell short,” said Gretchen Salter, policy director for Safer States. “Weakening TSCA ignores the public’s demand for stronger protections. Lawmakers should reinforce and strengthen national health protections, not undermine them. Families deserve consistent, science-based safeguards no matter where they live.”

“The Senate draft turns back the clock on protecting the health of our families and communities from toxic chemicals,” said Liz Hitchcock, director of federal policy at Toxic-Free Future. “Congress should stop dangerous chemicals before they contaminate our food, our homes and our children’s bodies. Instead they are proposing to weaken protections so there are even more toxic chemicals that can increase cancer, infertility, and other serious health harms.”

About the Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals

The Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals is a national coalition of organizations and networks united around the principle: put people’s health first. The alliance fights for national protections to prevent harm from toxic chemicals that contribute to cancer, infertility, learning disabilities and other health challenges. We work for justice and health for all, wherever you live, work and play.

The Alliance is a growing coalition of nearly 40 local, state and national organizations including: Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Sustainable Business Network, Beyond Plastics, Break Free From Plastics, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, CASE Citizens Alliance for a Sustainable Englewood, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Public Environmental Oversight, Cherokee Concerned Citizens, Clean+Healthy, Clean Air Council, Clean Beauty for Black Girls, Clean Cape Fear, Clean Water Action, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Earthjustice, Ecology Center, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Working Group, Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, Green Science Policy Institute, League of Conservation Voters, Merrimack Citizens for Clean Water, Moms Clean Air Force, Move Past Plastic (MPPP), Newburgh Clean Water Project, NRDC, Oregon Environmental Council, PFOAProjectNY, Puget Soundkeeper, Safer States, Save Our Water S.O.H2O, Toxic-Free Future, Vermont Conservation Voters, Vermont Natural Resources Council, Waterspirit, and Zero Waste Ithaca.

###

MEDIA CONTACTS

For the Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals: Stephanie Stohler, sstohler@toxicfreefuture.org

For ACAT: Pamela Miller, pamela@akaction.org 

For BCPP: Erika Wilhelm, erika@bcpp.org 

For Beyond Plastics: Melissa Valliant, melissavalliant@bennington.edu 

For BFFP: Brett Nadrich, brett@breakfreefromplastic.org 

For Earthjustice: Geoffrey Nolan, gnolan@earthjustice.org 

For EDF: Lexi Ambrogi, lambrogi@edf.org 

For EWG: Monica Amarelo, monica@ewg.org          

For NRDC: Margie Kelly, mkelly@nrdc.org

For Toxic-Free Future and Safer States: Stephanie Stohler, sstohler@toxicfreefuture.org

###

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 Toxic Chemicals Chemical Policy Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals warns proposals would fast-track approvals of potentially toxic chemicals, weaken protections and hand industry new power over EPA decisions Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 February 26, 2026

Nigel Farage is preparing to fly more than 3,000 miles from his UK constituency to address an anti-climate U.S. think tank with close ties to Donald Trump, DeSmog can report.

For an estimated 12 hours’ work on Saturday (7 March), the Reform UK leader will collect £27,856.88 from Club for Growth, a conservative anti-tax lobby group based in Washington D.C. that has vowed “to work closely with President Trump and his team in advance of the 2026 mid-term elections”.

Farage’s latest transatlantic trip, published this week in the register of financial interests, comes days after Reform goes up against Labour and the Green Party at Thursday’s Gorton and Denton by-election, and two months ahead of UK local elections in May. 

He will be addressing a powerful U.S. group that in the 2024 election helped raise $163 million (£120 million) for Republican candidates. 

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

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

The Club for Growth’s president told Fox News in November that as the country looks toward the mid-terms, his group “is very aligned with President Trump, and we’re especially in these contested races, we’re going to help him win”.

Farage has repeatedly been criticised for spending minimal time in Clacton, Essex, where he was elected as an MP in July 2024. As DeSmog has reported, he mentioned his constituency in parliament just four times during his first year in the role.

The former Brexit Party leader has also come under fire for his lucrative trips abroad — often to give speeches to right-wing groups close to Trump. DeSmog revealed last month that since his election, Farage had made at least seven trips to cheerlead for Trump or attend events associated with the U.S. president, paid for by wealthy donors.

These trips are on top of Farage’s base MP salary of £93,000. He also receives £4,000 a-month for his column with the Daily Telegraph, and more than £300,000 a year as a presenter at GB News.

“Farage’s world tour goes on and on,” said Charlene Pink, campaigns manager at legal advocacy group the Good Law Project. “If you really want to represent Clacton, shouldn’t you actually spend some time there?”

Farage and Club for Growth did not respond to DeSmog’s request for comment.

Green Party MP Siân Berry said the trip “sheds a harsh light on where Nigel Farage’s priorities truly lie”.

“Not in Clacton with his constituents facing poverty and cuts, but in Washington DC with think tanks which support tax cuts for the mega rich, and will pay him the same as many people’s yearly salary for one speech.”
 
 Farage’s Clacton constituency is one of the most deprived in England, and has one of the highest risks of flooding, which has been made worse by climate change. 

Anti-Climate Views

Farage’s latest U.S. host, Club for Growth, focuses its lobbying on promoting free-market policies, lower taxes and deregulation. 

As Reform leader, Farage has promised to cut taxes and regulation for business if elected to government, including net zero policies.

Club for Growth has previously sought to undermine climate policies, and in 2018, called on Trump to exit the Paris Climate Agreement.
 
In a 2020 letter to the editor of the Washington Post, Scott Parkinson, vice president of government affairs for the Club for Growth, argued against attempts to make the Republicans more climate-friendly.   
 
The party should not succumb to a “Green New Deal Light”, Parkinson said, but instead “continue to work with principled conservatives who reject climate alarmism and fight for energy and environmental policies based on sound economic principles”.

Last year, Club for Growth released an advert — which aired on Fox News — targeting Republican Senator Kevin Cramerafter he stated he would oppose President Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” because he supported Biden era green energy subsidies. 

According to analysis, Trump’s legislation would add an extra seven billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere between 2025 and 2030.

Additional reporting by Geoff Dembicki

The post Nigel Farage Paid £27,000 to Speak at Pro-Trump U.S. Think Tank appeared first on DeSmog.

How a new House bill could gut state protections from harmful chemicals Anthony Lacey February 26, 2026

State bans on toxic chemicals – including cancer-causing formaldehyde in children’s products and the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS in clothing and other consumer products  – are under threat from a House bill.

The legislation, recently introduced by Republicans, would overhaul the nation's chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. The changes could allow federal officials to override stronger state protections by reviewing and regulating chemicals themselves. If the officials claim a chemical poses less risk than some states claim, state rules could be quashed. 

If this bill becomes law, it would effectively gut Congress’ bipartisan compromise from 2016 that strengthened TSCA to better protect families and workers from hazardous substances. In place of those reforms, undertested chemicals could then be clear to flood American homes, schools and workplaces.

These sweeping changes to TSCA would undermine federal regulation of the toxic chemicals used in consumer and industrial products and could restrict states from taking action. 

Because the Environmental Protection Agency is already moving quickly to slash chemical protections, these state protections are more important than ever.

At a time when states are leading the charge to protect communities from harmful exposures, the proposal could halt that momentum and hand the chemical industry new tools to challenge state laws.

States and the federal government share power when it comes to regulating the toxic chemicals in our products. Often states are able to move more quickly than the federal government.

Sometimes a federal law takes precedence over a state law, blocking states from enacting their own rules or even overturning existing state rules – known as preemption.

It’s true the 2016 TSCA reform law gave the EPA the power to preempt states under some circumstances. But the new proposal could make it much more likely that hard-won state chemical protections may be wiped out, because of the ways that the legislation would significantly weaken the agency’s powers.

Weakening the EPA means weakening states

The proposal would fundamentally alter how the EPA evaluates and regulates chemicals. Among other changes, it would:

• Force the EPA to quickly approve new chemicals even when safety data is missing
• Require the EPA to ignore certain risks when assessing chemical safety like the cumulative risks from exposure to multiple similar chemicals
• Make it harder for the EPA to consider all uses of a chemical when determining a safe level of exposure for people
• Make it harder for the EPA to restrict all potentially harmful uses of chemicals
• Limit the EPA’s ability to address foreseeable but unintended uses of a chemical
• Prevent the EPA from protecting workers, who often face the highest risks
• Restrict EPA authority to require companies to provide safety data
• Require the EPA to give greater weight to industry costs when choosing restrictions

Together, these provisions would weaken federal oversight of harmful chemicals. In some cases, the EPA could be obligated to declare chemicals safe, even where data gaps or ignored potential exposures suggest otherwise. That could open the door to federal actions threatening state laws targeting the same substances.

How federal action can block state laws

Under current law, certain EPA actions can prevent states from enacting or enforcing their own protections for the same chemicals and uses. The House Republican proposal does not change TSCA’s current preemption rules, but by pushing the EPA toward narrower, weaker determinations, it increases the likelihood that federal actions will block stronger state rules.

Some EPA actions that could trigger preemption include:

• Requiring companies to test a chemical’s safety
• Determining through a post-market assessment that a chemical or specific use is safe
• Issuing a rule limiting a chemical’s use after a safety assessment
• Requiring notice to the EPA before a chemical can be used in a new way

Preemption is specific to individual chemicals and their uses. But when the EPA addresses a particular use of a substance, states can be blocked from regulating that same use, even if the agency's analysis was flawed or incomplete.

Here are a few hypothetical examples of how this might play out:

PFAS in textiles

PFAS are a family of toxic forever chemicals linked to cancer, reproductive and developmental harms, and immune system harms. For decades, they have been widely used in textiles like outdoor apparel, furniture and carpets for their water-, oil-, and stain-resistant qualities. 

The EPA could decide to evaluate some PFAS used in textiles but not all the thousands of different forever chemicals that exist. As it assesses the safety of these chemicals, the EPA could ignore the cumulative risks from the other PFAS that people are likely exposed to. The EPA could also ignore potential risks from combined exposures to PFAS through food, air, water and thousands of other consumer and industrial uses. 

By looking only at a narrow set of uses of only some PFAS, the EPA may see those chemicals and uses as being safer. 

For example, if the EPA cannot show that these PFAS in textiles are “more likely than not” to cause harm – an extremely high bar for regulation created by the proposed bill – it will not be able to limit PFAS in textiles. This could lead to overturning bans on PFAS in textiles such as apparel, carpeting and furniture. California, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington have banned the use of PFAS in textiles.

PFAS in firefighting foam

PFAS have also been used in firefighting foam at airports and military bases for decades, despite the availability of effective alternatives. 

The EPA could choose to reevaluate PFAS use in firefighting foam and again ignore total exposures from other sources or cumulative exposures from PFAS not used in foam. 

The EPA could assume that firefighting foam will be contained after release and accept industry arguments that containing the foam limits environmental and health impacts.

Under the new bill, the EPA could ignore the “reasonably foreseeable” scenario in which the foam is not contained and leads to more exposure. After consulting with the Department of Defense, as the proposal requires, the EPA could decide the foam with PFAS is a “critical use” essential to national security and too costly to replace. 

Taking into consideration all of the above, the EPA could find the PFAS in foam do not pose an “unreasonable risk” under the law. It could then overturn state bans on PFAS in firefighting foam in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, Vermont and Washington. 

Formaldehyde in children’s products

The EPA finalized a risk evaluation on formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, in January 2025 and found the chemical posed an “unreasonable risk” for all uses considered by the agency, including textiles and home furnishings. 

But in December of the same year, the EPA updated its method for calculating risk. The new method nearly doubles the amount the agency considers safe to inhale. 

The EPA could revise its formaldehyde safety assessment under the new method. Then that combined with the proposal’s weakened scientific standards for review could lead the agency to a new understanding of this chemical’s risk. The agency could decide that some amount of formaldehyde in textiles, furniture and other children’s products is not “more likely than not” to cause harm. 

A rule based on that finding could force New York to scrap its ban on formaldehyde in children’s products, and other states would be blocked from enacting similar bans.

Emerging contaminants with missing data

Imagine the EPA evaluates a chemical used in consumer products but lacks information on reproductive or immune toxicity. The agency suspects harm based on data that similar chemicals have evidence of these harms. But it can’t prove it’s “more likely than not” that the new chemical will also contribute to these harms, therefore posing an unreasonable risk. 

Under current law, in this scenario the EPA could require the companies manufacturing the chemical to generate this data. 

Under the House Republican proposal, the EPA would not have to show the risk is more likely than not. Without the information it needs to evaluate the chemical properly, the agency determines the chemical is safe. With that decision, the EPA prevents states from restricting it.

State laws that could be at risk

States have enacted dozens of laws addressing toxic chemicals in recent years. Just some of the state laws that could be overturned include:

• A New York law banning children’s products containing heavy metals, phthalates, flame retardants, mercury, bisphenols and PFAS
• The Safer Products for Washington law, which recently banned five chemical classes in 10 product categories
• A California ban on fiberglass in children’s products, mattresses and upholstered furniture
• Laws in California, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island banning or restricting PFAS in firefighters’ turnout gear
• A Massachusetts ban on 12 flame retardants in bedding, carpeting, children’s products, upholstered furniture and window treatments
• A Rhode Island prohibition on flame retardants in residential upholstered bedding and furniture
• A Vermont law requiring manufacturers of certain hazardous household products to implement collection plans
• A Maryland restriction on playground materials such as artificial turf that contain lead or certain PFAS
• A Colorado law restricting PFAS in carpets, rugs, oil and gas products, fabric treatments, juvenile products and furniture
• A Nevada law banning certain flame retardants in upholstered furniture, children’s products, textiles and mattresses
• Maine and Minnesota bans on non-essential uses of PFAS

If the EPA addresses the same chemical in the same uses but reaches weaker conclusions, many of these protections could be gutted or rolled back.

When states might still be able to act

Under current TSCA exemptions, state laws may avoid preemption if they:

• were enacted before April 22, 2016
• regulate uses outside the scope of the EPA’s action
• create reporting, monitoring or disclosure requirements not required by the EPA
• are adopted under another federal law, such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act or Occupational Safety and Health Act
• are adopted under state water, air or waste laws under certain conditions
• are identical to federal requirements

But these pathways are limited and case specific. States are also able to apply for waivers, but these can be difficult to obtain. The threat of preemption may also deter state activity, leading some states to decide not to act on chemical risks when they otherwise would. 

The bottom line

The House Republican proposal doesn’t need to rewrite TSCA’s preemption clause to undermine state authority. While states might not be preempted immediately, their laws would become much more vulnerable.

By weakening the EPA’s ability to fully assess risks, fill data gaps and impose strong restrictions, the bill could lead to federal determinations that lock in weaker protections and block states from doing more.

At a time when states are driving progress on PFAS, flame retardants, formaldehyde and other chemicals of concern, this proposal could freeze that progress in place or reverse it.

Because the EPA is already moving quickly to slash existing chemical protections, these state protections are more important than ever. 

Areas of Focus Household & Consumer Products Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Authors Melanie Benesh February 26, 2026

The European Union’s package of major corporate environment and sustainability laws was years in the making — and has just been quietly gutted.

A debate that reshaped corporate Europe unfolded almost entirely within Brussels policy circles. Millions of Europeans who believe climate action should be prioritised and favour greater corporate accountability never realized the regulations were under threat. 

This should prompt serious reflection among those of us who believe that the climate and human rights focus of the regulations was deadly serious, but that support among politicians was not.

The so-called “Omnibus” rollback — a regulatory rationalisation ascribed to competitiveness concerns amid pressure from the United States – has exempted 90 percent of Europe’s companies from climate reporting. In parallel, supply chain reporting has been seriously watered down and postponed until the end of the decade.

The overturned rules included mandatory reporting by most EU companies of their impact on climate change, and how environmental dangers could affect their business. They also forced companies selling products on the continent to report on child and forced labour issues, as well as potentially dangerous working conditions in their international supply chains.

In today’s economy, corporate lobbyists seize moments of regulatory weakness to ram home anti-growth or relative competitiveness arguments that instantly gather financial and political support.

Indeed, the printer ink had barely dried on the official publication of the EU Omnibus — finalised this month — before companies started attacking the EU’s 20-year-old Emissions Trading System (ETS) carbon pricing regime on similar international competition grounds.

If we don’t quickly digest the lessons of the Omnibus debacle, sterner tests will come as populists challenge for power across the bloc. 

Why Was the Rollback Invisible?

Why was the European public largely unaware of such a huge regulatory rollback?

The reason is that it took place in a legacy media vacuum. No major polling organisation measured citizen awareness. The BBC, The Guardian, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel barely — if at all — covered the vote. 

Further, how can we support and defend policies when we hide them behind letter jumbles like CSRD, SFDR, CSDDD — acronyms that mean nothing to the public? (The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, Sustainability Finance Disclosure Regulation, and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, respectively.)

Fluency in Brussels acronyms becomes a political liability when success requires public mobilisation. 

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

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

Campaigns succeed with vivid phrases that citizens quickly understand. Surveys consistently show that large numbers of Europeans support corporate accountability when it’s described in plain language. Germany’s “Supply Chain Law” campaign gathered over 200,000 supporters by using a clear, native-language label.

No comparable EU-wide branding effort for the sustainable finance regulations emerged. Defenders of the EU sustainability rules never attempted an equivalent translation.

By contrast, industry lobbyists framed their arguments with accessible language such as “simplification” and “cutting red tape,” while pushing the convenient elements of the Draghi report on EU competitiveness.  Advocates countered with “transposition deadlines,” “ESRS requirements,” and “regulatory coherence.” The contrast was decisive.

Post-defeat reflection on this communications failure has been nearly non-existent.

Green Groups: Bureaucratised and Compromised? 

Typically, the rallying call to voters on environmental and rights regulations comes from non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In the case of the EU climate and sustainability Omnibus, more than 360 NGOs and other civil society organisations signed a coalition statement against the “disastrous” and “dangerous” deregulation.

Over the decades, many European climate and human rights groups have evolved into Brussels-based policy shops that are staffed by lawyers and technical experts fluent in EU procedure, but which seem to be relatively poorly equipped for mass public and political campaigning.

Their efforts produced no mass protests, no breakthrough petitions, and no broad public mobilisation. 

Some NGO funding structures appear to reinforce this limitation. Major foundations often restrict grants against “political or partisan activities,” while EU funding frameworks have introduced reputational-risk benchmarks that discourage confrontational advocacy. Funders also often seek short-term results to long-term problems that require deep, structural change, not “hope-for-the-best” strategy thinking. 

A coalition spanning 27 countries that relies on consensus decision-making could not move quickly. The NGOs deployed the only tools their structures supported: letters, technical briefings, and procedural complaints. The limitation was not a strategic choice; it was institutional. 

Big-spending corporate lobbyists, meanwhile, began organising months before public announcements on the Omnibus were made. In addition, the accelerated legislative timeline of the Omnibus compressed the opposition response time from multiple years to less than one, leaving opponents flat-footed. 

ExxonMobil alone is reported to have had more than 25 meetings with the European Commission to lobby against the CSDDD, and allegedly threatened to withhold $20bn in renewables spending in Europe if it was not rolled back.

We hear there have been reflections by major NGOs on what went wrong. To stop mistakes from recurring, the publication of these learnings is essential.

Why Doesn’t Capital Defend Itself?

Institutional investors representing €6.6 trillion in assets had strong financial incentives to oppose the Omnibus. Their risk analysis was clear: Stranding of major fossil-fuel assets would likely accelerate without transition planning; weakened disclosure rules would leave investors short of necessary climate information; regulatory uncertainty would stall long-term investment; and Europe would forfeit advantages in green technology. 

Citizens’ pensions and long-term savings could face potential portfolio-wide losses if systemic climate risks go unmanaged. 

Investors wrote detailed letters explaining these dangers. 

Then they watched the regulations collapse. 

They did not mobilize beneficiaries, fund public campaigns, or coordinate with the 362 NGOs in the field. The UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment, the huge investor environment, sustainability and governance (ESG) coalition, could only muster a hundred or so of its 5,000-plus investors to sign a letter warning against a serious unravelling of the regulations. Many of the heavyweight investors in its ranks weren’t there.

The failure reveals a deeper structural problem: Even when capital’s interests align with regulation, financial institutions often lack the political capacity and institutional mechanisms to defend those interests against coordinated opposition.

Why Didn’t Progressive Business and Labour Fight?

Allies with different tools and constituencies struggled to convert shared positions into effective action.

Eighty-eight companies — including Unilever, Mars, Nestlé, Ferrero, DP World, and Primark — signed letters opposing the rollback and acknowledged that customers demanded consistent sustainability standards.

Why didn’t they also launch consumer campaigns, threaten relocation, withdraw from trade associations backing deregulation, or apply coordinated market pressure?

Competitive dynamics discouraged unilateral action by business, and company executives feared appearing overtly political during an ESG backlash. Meanwhile, trade associations often lobbied in the opposite direction.

Trades unions showed similar restraint. Despite representing tens of millions of workers, major confederations limited their involvement largely to signing coalition letters.

Unions excel at domestic workplace negotiations but often struggle with international supply chain issues and EU-level regulatory processes. When industry framed the debate as “regulation kills jobs,” unions faced an apparent dilemma between global labour protections and local employment security. 

Did the Regulation Work?

Businesses and investors respond to clear regulatory signals. They rarely get out ahead of politics or the market without a strong policy or pricing foundation to lean on.

One of the overarching responses we’ve heard from business and finance professionals to the Omnibus policy rollback is that the EU regulatory approach in its Action Plan on green and sustainable finance suffered from a “first principles” problem, skewing heavily towards bureaucratic solutions for policy or incentives problems. 

Many told us, for example, that the EU was not prepared to put the budget stimulus alongside hard regulations to seize the future green technology opportunity. Instead, they opted for a lower cost, weaker, reporting-led investment approach (more data encourages more finance) where actual green output (business R&D, investment flows) may be slow or unclear.

This risks creating a sort of Potemkin Village of climate and sustainability progress, because reporting and compliance solutions cannot replace market drivers such as incentives, infrastructure, or price signals.  

Some of these issues are being addressed, but they have been long in the amendment, despite concerns being raised.

To work, reporting frameworks require a clear, gradual shift in rules or pricing that can surmount competition barriers by underpinning market shifts.

Without it, data collection and research are costly and lack an underlying economic “materiality” (policy push, pricing, time-horizon). They quickly become a comparative drag.

The addition of important but complicated regulations, like supply chain reporting, then gets scapegoated as a further cost to EU companies in globally competitive markets. Bureaucratic overreach is easily lobbied against on competitiveness grounds. Policy row-back then becomes itself highly disruptive, creating a cycle of negativity.

Rationalising data points for corporate reporting and focusing, for example, on the biggest corporate CO2 emitters, as the Omnibus proposes, are not in themselves problematic reforms.  

But it is vital to ensure that policy is smart, joined-up, backed by developments in the real economy, competitive, and road-tested for outcome. 

This will be key to embedding regulations that align with the capital spending decisions that companies are already taking (according to EU data) as a result of the EU’s green taxonomy for sustainable activities.

How Should We Understand the Authoritarian-Fossil Fuel Alliance? 

The Omnibus was not a result of routine corporate lobbying. It reflected a broader geopolitical alignment.

Corporate actors, political movements, and transnational advocacy networks converged around shared economic and ideological interests. Months before public announcement, extensive lobbying campaigns began, leveraging substantial financial resources to coordinate messaging across institutions.

This alignment shifted the terrain from a conventional policy dispute to a power asymmetry.

Civil society coalitions and institutional investors faced opponents with larger budgets and stronger political backing. Investor inaction and NGO limitations become more understandable in this context: The imbalance was structural, not incidental.

We need to reflect deeply on this and what it means for EU sustainability regulations. 

Europe’s Own Leverage: What Can Still Work?

The Omnibus outcome is not final. The EU rules can be improved and made to work with the right public and business support, political will, and technical know-how.

Member states can move ahead independently, setting stronger national standards like Germany’s Supply Chain Law, which companies must meet to access their markets. The EU can lean in to sustainability initiatives via issues of global security, energy transition, and justice.

The economic momentum favours transition: Renewable energy capacity continues to expand and market trends are rewarding low-carbon shifts.

Practical paths forward include coordinated member-state regulation, economic-sovereignty instruments tied to market access, judicial challenges, cross-sector coalitions among cities and businesses, and clearer public narratives that link sustainability to competitiveness and security.

Europe’s regulatory influence remains significant when it acts decisively. Large markets can still set de facto global standards. But to get there we need to start answering these hard questions.

The post How Europe’s Climate and Sustainability Rules Were Shredded While Citizens Remained in the Dark appeared first on DeSmog.