News Feeds

Across cultures, practices that limit ego and hierarchy help sustain cooperation and trust. In an era of cascading crises, rediscovering these “social technologies” could strengthen community resilience and collective action.

In New Zealand, forest gardening is being reshaped to fit local climates, ecosystems and cultural contexts. Drawing on years of research and practice, this work shows how place-based adaptation can support more resilient, regenerative food systems.

For the past couple of decades, we at Post Carbon Institute have been pointing out that a transition to alternative energy sources will necessarily be slow and incomplete. Given that oil is a depleting, polluting, non-renewable resource, industrial society is due for a reckoning. We are all in an extended Wile E. Coyote moment.

Europe’s climate movement is often portrayed as the domain of younger generations. Yet from landmark legal victories to everyday practices of sustainability, a different picture is emerging: older Europeans are proving to be among the most committed and effective climate actors. As the continent continues to age, could this overlooked demographic reshape how climate action is understood and mobilised across Europe?

In April 2024, a group of Swiss women, most of them in their 70s and 80s, stood on the steps of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, surrounded by a wall of microphones and cameras from around the world. They had just heard the verdict in one of the most significant climate cases in European legal history. The KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz had won.

The ruling found Switzerland in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights for failing to adequately protect its citizens from the effects of climate change. The judgment, formally known as Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland, now sets binding legal precedent across all 46 Council of Europe member states. Switzerland has since pushed hard for the case to be closed, but the Committee of Ministers, which monitors its implementation, has refused the request twice.

The story of how about 3,000 Swiss women forced their country to one of the highest courts in Europe is striking in its own right. Yet it also points to something broader: a growing, largely invisible force within the climate movement that Europe’s ageing democracies might not be able to overlook for much longer.

Beyond the generational divide

The climate movement’s most visible faces – such as activists Greta Thunberg in Sweden or Féris Barkat in France – tend to be on the younger (if not much younger) side, and it has become common to identify Gen Z as its most fervent defender. But researchers who study the intersection of ageing and environmental engagement argue that the mainstream perception of generations within the climate movement may be flawed.

“There is a slight tendency for younger generations to have opinions that are more favourable towards climate policy,” said Jan Rosset, a sociologist at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland who has studied climate engagement across age groups in Switzerland alongside political scientist Jasmine Lorenzini. “But all generations are very favourable to climate policies. There is no real generational divide.”

That finding echoes the conclusions of a 2025 study published by Parlons Climat, a French research organisation, which found that older adults take climate change and environmental degradation just as seriously as the rest of the population. The myth of a disengaged older generation does not seem to hold up to scrutiny.

What differs across generations, Rosset and Lorenzini found, is not the level of concern but the form that engagement takes. Older adults are significantly more likely to buy local and seasonal produce for environmental reasons, to renounce air travel on ecological grounds, and to practice unglamorous household sustainability: buying second-hand, reducing electricity use, cooking from scratch. Younger people, on the other hand, might be more likely to adopt plant-based diets and participate in public protests. It should, however, be noted that the data is mixed.

Researchers who study the intersection of ageing and environmental engagement argue that the mainstream perception of generations within the climate movement may be flawed.

“On almost every indicator, it is people in mid-life, those between roughly 35 and 60, who engage the least,” Rosset says. “But that is not an ideological position. It’s a question of time and capacity; they have demanding jobs and family responsibilities. It is a life-cycle issue, not a generational one.”

Rosset and Lorenzini also found a consistent gender gap: across all age groups, but especially among older adults, women showed significantly more favourable attitudes toward climate action and higher levels of engagement than men.

“This gap was almost stronger than other socioeconomic factors, like income or education level,” Rosset said.

The case that set a precedent

When Greenpeace Switzerland began exploring the possibility of legal climate action in the mid-2010s, it ran into an obstacle: Swiss law does not allow class actions. Any case would need to be brought by individuals who could demonstrate they were personally and particularly affected. The research pointed to one group. Studies following the 2003 European heatwave – which killed an estimated 70,000 people across the continent, with the elderly among the hardest hit – had shown that older women died in disproportionate numbers. More recent research has confirmed this vulnerability: a 2024 study by Penn State researchers found that older women reach dangerous heat thresholds at lower temperature and humidity levels than older men and that middle-aged women are as heat-vulnerable as men over 65.

Heatwaves increase illnesses, causing heat stroke, heart and lung problems, diabetes complications, mental health issues, and trouble with daily activities. The vulnerability of older generations is not just physical: many live alone, have limited mobility, or cannot easily access emergency services. People in cities face “heat island” effects, where concrete and asphalt trap heat, while rural residents often have fewer cooling centres or medical resources. Climate change also worsens air quality, raising levels of ozone, fine particulate matter, and other pollutants, which worsen respiratory and heart conditions. These combined factors make ageing populations especially vulnerable to the health impacts of climate change.

One senior activist who committed herself to the Swiss climate fight is Elisabeth Stern, a cultural anthropologist and board member of KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz. “It was clear that when I got retired, I would use my time in a climate group,” she said. “I tried a few that were not the right fit for me until I found the KlimaSeniorinnen, who I sort of met on the same eye level.”

Stern’s fellow activist, Anne Mahrer, KlimaSeniorinnen’s co-president, had spent years watching climate policy stall in parliament as a member of the Swiss National Council. When a colleague reminded her of the Urgenda case in the Netherlands, where a court had ordered the Dutch government in 2015 to cut emissions, the question became: could something similar be done in Switzerland? In August 2016, KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz was formally established to achieve that goal.

The Swiss courts, however, were not moved. At every level, the association was told it lacked standing. One court noted that the women were concerned not only about Swiss emissions but wanted to reduce them worldwide. Another placed winter tourism in the same category of climate-affected interests as the health of women threatened by heatwaves. The most striking argument, Stern recounts, was that the women might not still be alive by the time global warming reached 1.5 degrees and therefore could not complain. “If you follow their reasoning, climate action in court would only be possible when it’s already too late,” Mahrer said.

The European Court of Human Rights took a different view. It declared the application a priority case, engaged seriously with reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and referred the case to its Grand Chamber of 17 judges. “Unlike politicians, who do not listen to scientists, the judges listened to the scientists, and they took into account the third-party interventions in support of the case,” Mahrer explained.

The court delivered its verdict on 9 April, 2024. It found Switzerland in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to respect for private and family life – which the court ruled encompasses a right to effective state protection against the severe effects of climate change on life, health, wellbeing, and quality of life. Switzerland was also found to have violated Article 6 – the right to a fair trial – for its domestic courts’ refusal to hear the case on its merits.

The ripple effects spread quickly and travelled farther than anyone had anticipated. The ruling is now cited in climate litigation across Europe. In South Korea, groups of young activists successfully pursued a similar case. In the Netherlands, residents of the island of Bonaire have taken legal action against the Dutch state, drawing on the KlimaSeniorinnen precedent. The International Court of Justice, prompted by the small island nation of Vanuatu, issued an advisory opinion in July 2025 stating that governments which fail to protect their populations from climate harm are acting unlawfully, reinforcing the Strasbourg ruling and opening new avenues for litigation worldwide.

Across Europe, a generation of older activists has been following a similar model. European Grandparents for Climate, active in Belgium and Norway, and Omas for Future in Germany and Austria, are building on the same instinct: that people who have watched the world change across six or seven decades have both a particular stake in the future and a special capacity to act.

European Grandparents for Climate participates in demonstrations, writes letters to ministers, and monitors parliamentary votes on climate at both the Belgian and European levels. In Germany, Omas for Future joins Fridays for Future strikes, runs climate workshops in schools, and has organised nationwide campaigns such as the “Klimabänder” initiative, in which thousands of handwritten climate messages were bicycled to Berlin ahead of the 2021 federal election.

Sustainability by habit

Beyond courts and campaigns, there is a quieter dimension to older adults’ climate engagement, rooted not in ideology but in force of habit and the practical knowledge of generations who lived before the age of mass consumption.

Serge Guérin, a French sociologist and author of Et si les vieux aussi sauvaient la planète? (“And what if the Elderly Also Saved the Planet?”), points to a kind of practical sustainability that older generations carry without naming it as such. They grew up returning glass bottles for a deposit, cooking whatever was in season, and mending rather than replacing. A startup working on bottle recycling, he recalls, found it far easier to explain the concept to older people because “When they were young, they used to return the milk bottle, the wine bottle, and get a few cents back. For them, it was totally normal,” he says.

Helene Blasquiet-Revol, a geographer whose research examines civic engagement among seniors in rural France, describes what she calls “ordinary” forms of climate engagement: practices so ingrained they are not even labelled as activism. For instance, she found that community gardens established by older residents in the Allier region gradually opened up to schools and youth workshops, transmitting practical knowledge in ways that were rarely planned or publicised.

There is a quieter dimension to older adults’ climate engagement, rooted not in ideology but in force of habit and the practical knowledge of generations who lived before the age of mass consumption.

Researchers are increasingly identifying the potential for a form of intergenerational knowledge transfer that is already happening informally, and which could be deliberately cultivated. Rosset, for instance, found that among older climate activists, there was no statistically significant relationship between having children or grandchildren and the propensity to get involved, meaning people were not fighting for their own descendants. “It is really universal,” Rosset said. “It is a solidarity expressed towards future generations, towards all of humanity. We did not expect that result at all.”

Renewal needs the old

Europe is ageing fast. According to projections from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, the share of older adults across EU member states is growing steadily and will continue to do so for decades, driven by declining fertility rates and rising life expectancy. This demographic shift also increases the need for climate-adapted healthcare, adequate urban planning, and social support systems for vulnerable seniors.

“There is a widespread idea that with generational renewal, the problem will be solved, that new generations will be more environmentally conscious,” Rosset said. “Our research shows this is not the case. And in addition, there will be more and more older people.”

Guérin also notes that designing urban environments, housing, and transport for ageing populations often produces outcomes that are better for both people and the planet. Accessible public transport means more people leave their cars behind. Shared housing models reduce per-capita energy consumption. Local services cut down the need for long-distance travel. And when older people are less isolated, they are in better health.

“When you reduce isolation, people use fewer resources, they are less at risk and share more,” Guérin said, adding that these shifts can lower both land use and carbon footprints. “When you take vulnerability into account, you very often improve things for everyone. And it’s really when people feel their capacity to act, especially at the local level, that things begin to move.”

Stern sees the perception gap playing out in real time in media coverage. “There are certain media and certain politicians who want us to believe that interest in the climate has vanished,” she says. “It is in their interest to tell people: ‘It has vanished anyway, so you don’t have to get involved, just enjoy life.’ But the truth is, when you ask people what concerns them a lot, the climate crisis comes up either first or second.”

The KlimaSeniorinnen continue to monitor Switzerland’s compliance with the Strasbourg judgment, sending observations to the Committee of Ministers, lobbying ambassadors, and speaking at universities across the country. For Stern, meaningful compliance means confronting Switzerland’s financial sector, which through continued investment in fossil fuels generates emissions many times greater than those in the country itself. A documentary about the association’s decade-long legal journey recently toured cinemas.

Whatever the future of the climate movement and its coverage, it is clear that the generational conflict narrative is not accurate. The evidence from researchers points to something more complicated and more hopeful: a Europe where different generations, engaged in different ways, with different tools and different knowledge, are already working on the same problem.

By Jeremy Brecher,
Senior Strategic Advisor, LNS Co-Founder

Listen to the audio version >>

Radical, unanticipated developments in electrification, storage, distribution, and other technologies are transforming not only the way energy is produced but also the way it is used. Like the transformation in energy production, these advances in energy consumption are transforming economies and creating new opportunities to protect the climate and improve our lives.

Nissan LEAF charging at the Freedom Station in Houston, TX. This is an eVgo Network station with both Level 2 and DC fast chargers. Photo credit: evgonetwork (eVgo Network). Original image was trimmed and retouched (lighting and color tones) by User:Mariordo, Wikemedia Commons, CC BY 2.0.

In the previous commentary we examined the impact of the Greentech revolution on the production of energy. But energy production is only one side of the Greentech revolution. The other is providing that energy where it is needed when it is needed, shifting energy consumption from fossil fuels to electricity, and using that energy more efficiently so less of it is required. As the FT wrote in “The Reshaping of Energy Consumption,” “Just as important as the development of new wind and solar farms to generate electricity without carbon dioxide emissions” is “the overhauling of vehicles, heating systems, and factories.”

Energy Storage

After energy has been produced it often must be stored until it is needed. Enter the Greentech revolution in energy storage. Over the past 15 years the cost of energy storage has dropped 95%. In 2025, Chinese batteries appeared headed for a further 30% decline. In 2025, the world was expected to add eighty gigawatts of grid-scale storage, eight times as much as in 2021.

More change is at hand. For example, sodium-ion batteries are safer than lithium batteries and do not require destructive extraction of materials like lithium, cobalt, phosphorus, and copper. Materials for sodium batteries are far cheaper those for lithium batteries. BYD opened a sodium-ion battery factory in 2024, and is producing a large sodium-ion battery energy storage system (BESS) called MC Cube-T. Sodium-ion storage is likely to make it possible to replace fossil fuels with electricity in such until-now intractable areas as heavy trucks and long-distance shipping.

This is only one of several impending battery breakthroughs. For example, long duration energy storage is increasing today’s typical storage time of about 4 hours to many times as long. Google recently announced investment in long duration energy storage (LDES). “Through a new long-term partnership with Energy Dome, we plan to support multiple commercial projects globally to deploy their LDES technology.” Toyota has developed an all-solid-state battery that provides EVs with smaller, more durable batteries that charge in minutes and deliver longer ranges between charges.

Energy Distribution

Construction workers build the frame for a one-megawatt solar microgrid project at Fort Hunter Liggett, Calif., Dec. 22, 2011. Photo credit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District Licensing, Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain.

After energy has been produced it needs to get to where it is needed. Led by China, there is a revolution in long-distance power transmission. One ultrahigh-voltage Chinese power line stretches more than 2,000 miles from the sparsely populated far northwest to the populous, industrialized southeast — the equivalent of sending electricity from Idaho to New York City. This is one of 42 long-distance power lines, each able to carry more electricity than any utility transmission line in the United States. China’s transmission technology is far more efficient than others. And China plans systematically; it is now building the world’s first nationwide grid of ultrahigh-voltage power transmission lines. By 2050, China plans to have three times more ultrahigh-voltage routes in operation.

At the opposite end of the scale, microgrids are providing new ways of distributing energy locally. According to the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a microgrid is a group of “interconnected loads and distributed energy resources that acts as a single controllable entity with respect to the grid.” It can connect and disconnect from the grid to operate in grid-connected or island mode. It can therefore keep a local grid running even when the wider grid fails. Microgrids allow coordination and synergism among small-scale, local energy infrastructure like generators, renewables, and batteries. That allows them to save costs, reduce the need for energy, and make money by selling excess electricity.

Microgrids are now being used in hospitals, universities, neighborhoods, and many other venues. In Petaluma, CA for example, the newly constructed 131-unit Meridian at Petaluma North Station affordable apartment complex includes a solar and energy storage microgrid. The net-zero project will generate and manage all its energy onsite. Its microgrid includes a 1-MW solar array consisting of rooftop-mounted panels and solar canopies in the parking lot. A 4.3 MWh battery is designed to support the complex for three to four days during a power outage. Parking spaces with bidirectional EV chargers directly wired into the microgrid will allow EVs to charge from the solar array — and provide electricity back to the building when needed.

Transportation

The largest shift so far from fossil fuel burning to electricity is the replacement of gas guzzlers with electric vehicles (EVs). Not only do EVs use electrons rather than gasoline; they use 2-4 times less energy than their fossil fuel counterparts. Sales of EVs have been rapidly growing globally, increasing by over 33 times, from 0.5 million (1% of all car sales) in 2015 to over 17 million (more than 20% of all car sales) in 2024. EVs now account for almost half of all car sales in China, 20% in Europe, and more than 10% in the USA. EV sales in Asia and Latin America increased by over 60% in 2024 to almost 600,000. Electric vehicles made up 80% of Norway’s new car sales last year. Electric car sales in 2025 were expected to exceed 20 million worldwide, more than a quarter of all cars sold.

EVs are only part of the Greentech transformation of transportation. Electrification and system reorganization have the potential to transform rail transportation: In the English town of Aldershot, solar collectors are directly delivering electricity to drive trains; the developer says, “If you are a railway, this is the cheapest electricity you can buy.” In China, 30,000 miles of high-speed rail lines run on electricity. Buses, subways, light rail, and other public transit can now be provided at far less than the cost of auto transportation due to electrification and technological improvements. Due to emerging battery technologies, ships and planes may be electrified at competitive cost. At the other end of the scale, electric bikes providing “micromobility” are already a rapidly expanding transportation niche. One recent example is a four-wheeled bike for individual and commercial cargo haulers.

Agriculture

Solar is growing in Alaska, ACEP is helping the industry and communities. Video credit: Alaska Center for Energy and Power | UAF

Agricultural techniques are turning farms from producers to reducers of greenhouse gases. For example, regenerative agriculture provides farming and grazing practices that withdraw carbon from the atmosphere by restoring degraded soil biodiversity. New technologies are allowing farmers to grow crops underneath solar panels. The New York Times recently featured an “agrivoltaics” installation in Houston, Alaska, adapted to the farm’s extreme northern location. “The rows of panels on the 45-acre site are set 50 feet apart, much wider than at lower latitudes, and they collect solar power on both front and back in order to capture the maximum amount of summer sunlight as the sun dances across the horizon all day and all night.” The electricity produced from such agrivoltaics can run farm equipment and be sold to provide an extra source of income for farmers; the food produced can help meet local food shortages.

As in so much Greentech, China is creating radical advances in agrivoltaics. For example, the Chinese company GCL says it has combined four new agrivoltaic technologies: Bifacial solar panels harvest sunlight from both sides, enabling them to assume a space-saving vertical position when needed. Tunable solar panels that enable more or less light to pass onto crops can be adjusted to a range of 15-40% light pass-through. Elevated racks can be raised to 9 feet with tracking capability to optimize the sun-collecting angle. Advanced system management integrates meteorological data, crop growth sensors, inverter analytics, and AI algorithms to optimize module tilt and irrigation schedules.

Greentech Unlimited

There are thousands of Greentech goods, services, and systems that have been introduced or are in development around the world that will increase efficiency and reduce GHG emissions – far too numerous and diverse to review here. For a knowledgeable review, see Mark Jacobson’s Still No Miracles Needed. A few of the most important additional sectors of Greentech advance:

• Climate-safe factories are now being built around the world. For example, Ford has opened a carbon neutral assembly plant in Cologne, Germany, to produce EVs for the European market. According to Ford, the plant uses “digital advancements that connect machines, vehicles and workers” including “self-learning machines, autonomous transport systems, and big data management.” New technologies are even reducing the carbon released in steelmaking, one of the most intense greenhouse gas producers on earth.
• Circular reuse and recycling include the upcycling of waste materials into new products, promoting a cycle of continuous use, and GHG-reducing waste management practices like composting. It can include air and water filtration systems, waste-to-energy technologies, and methods for safely disposing of or repurposing industrial waste.
• Public transit may well be the most cost-effective single way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• Green construction is substituting low-carbon materials like hempcrete and recycled steel for more climate-destructive materials.
• Greentech building decarbonization is creating carbon-neutral buildings.It includes insulation, electrification, and on-site renewable energy. Improved heat pumps can produce three or more units of heat for every unit of electricity they use.
• Protecting and restoring ecosystems can rebuild degraded lands, preserve endangered species, and support sustainable agriculture practices.

These are only a few of the many examples of Greentech transformations of consumption. More are being implemented every day.

Infographic: Who has pledged an INDC so far, and what percentage of the world’s emissions are covered. Credit: Rosamund Pearce, Carbon Brief, based on EU data. Only UN parties have been included in the emissions total. Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark, not covered by the EU’s INDC. It is not a UN party. Taiwan is also not a UN party. Source: Carbonbrief.org

Reducing energy consumption can make an important contribution to the transition to climate-safe energy. For example, the IEA’s modelling of a world on track to meet the Paris agreement targets for GHG reduction shows final energy consumption falling by as much as 15 percent compared with current levels by 2035, even as GDP continues to grow. That’s because of electrification and other energy efficiency measures such as better insulation.

As shown in this and the previous commentary, Greentech production and consumption are now far more efficient and therefore far less costly and more competitive than fossil fuel-based systems. This Greentech revolution will have profound effects on the future of the US as well as the rest of the world.

Donald Trump and his MAGA allies are determined to reverse the Greentech revolution. Their success would mean catastrophe for the US economy and the American people. Conversely, the Greentech revolution has enormous potential benefits for the US economy and for the American people. Subsequent commentaries in this series will explore what the Greentech revolution means for the American people – and how we can take advantage of it.

Get “Strike!” via EmailGet “Strike!” via Substack DONATE ONLINE

The post Greentech Revolution: Energy Consumption first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Read and subscribe to our monthly newsletter and support our work.

The post Latest Newsletter first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Carlos Torrealba currently is the Network and Formations Manager at Taproot Earth, where he’s helping build the Gulf South to Appalachia Formation, a powerful 17-state network of over 100 frontline organizations.

For the past decade, Carlos has been building the new while fighting the bad; from creating community-led disaster response systems to deepening and building labor and climate justice solidarity across local, regional, and national movements. His work leans heavily on not only building local alternatives but also linking them to regional, national and international movements of decolonization, anti-neoliberalism, and anti-imperialism. His political roots were shaped in undergrad while engaged in pipeline fights and Palestinian Solidarity work in Vermont. Carlos is also deeply engaged in Latin American solidarity and food sovereignty efforts. Outside movement work, Carlos enjoys travelling, early French Modernist Literature, and vinyl collecting.

The post May LNS Spotlight: Carlos Torrealba first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

What does a Black climate activist say when interviewed by someone who describes themselves as a “Redneck Gone Green”? Here’s how LNS executive director started his rap:

“I appreciate as a black Southerner the idea of starting with joy. In my old church tradition they’ll say, “Out of all the things I’ve been through, I still have joy.” And I think that joy and love are still the key attributes of what is to be done. This radical notion of love, love that calls you to a responsibility of taking care of yourself and the ones around you. The responsibility of this moment, of this political moment, this socioeconomic moment, this rise of authoritarianism. And if we don’t start practicing that love and moving our boots and moving our asses, then we just may be in the dystopian future that we fear.”

Watch Joshua’s “Same Boss, Same Enemy” interview on “Redneck Gone Green” here.

The post Same Boss, Same Enemy first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Photo credit:Yasmin Gabriel, LNS Development Manager

My kids are climate justice leaders in our household, always looking for ways of reducing our carbon footprints. They see themselves as stewards of the planet and I am aware that it is crucial for us to alleviate disproportionate energy burdens and reduce exposure to environmental hazards. According to ScienceDirect.com, Black families emit 20% less CO2 than average households but we suffer higher energy costs and poorer health outcomes, making sustainable action a key strategy for health and financial equity.

As a family, we chose a solution that would reduce our financial obligations and carbon footprint. Over the winter break, I researched how to safely get around with two kids. We settled on a cargo bike, allowing me to transport multiple kids, pets, and plants, all at the same time. According to the Guardian, bike riding reduces your carbon emissions by 90%, compared with electric vans that reduce by one-third. We are able to demonstrate to our community what reducing a family’s carbon footprint actually could look like – choosing to ride a bike around town instead of driving.

I know the cargo bike saved us money, but what about the impact it has on our family joy? Our bike recently broke, devastating to me, but my 4-year-old daughter offered to ride her bike to school and my 8-year-old son offered to walk the 2 miles to school, so we could continue to spend time with each other and do our part for the planet. The impact on our family’s quality of life is immeasurable, and yet so clear! If you are interested in talking or learning more about cargo bike journeys, feel free to reach out to me via email at yasmin@labor4sustainability.org.

Happy working to ensure everyone has a livable wage on a livable planet,

The Gabriel Family

The post Stewards of the Planet first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

LNS invites you to a national webinar on May 5 at 4 PM ET, co-hosted by Taproot Earth and the Hotel & Gaming Trades Council (HTC), in partnership with U.S. Climate Action Network, Labor Network for Sustainability, and Just Transition Alliance.

As Climate Week NYC approaches, we’re deepening solidarity between the climate justice and labor movements. With the NYC hotel workers’ union contract set to expire this summer, this moment offers a powerful opportunity to align our values and actions. This session is designed for decision-makers and operations leads at climate organizations participating in Climate Week NYC. We’ll explore how to show up in solidarity and support workers in their fight for a fair contract.

Click here to register.

The post Solidarity in Action: Mobilizing Labor & Climate Justice at NYC Climate Week and Beyond first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

LNS and our partners were happy to have had a successful Transit Equity Week 2026. We are excited to continue growing our transit equity work and organizing riders and workers everywhere towards a just and sustainable future.

For a brief video report on Transit Equity Week 2026: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWpBnPQiOA4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA%3D%3D.

The post Transit Equity Rolls On first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

The Labor Network for Sustainability has joined many other organizations around the country to support the campaign to close the county-owned HERC (Hennepin Energy Recovery Center) incinerator in Minneapolis. Shutting down the incinerator, which burns toxic trash in the center of a Black and working-class community, has been the goal of a long-running local campaign. Shutting the incinerator was one of the demands of the first union-authorized strike on climate issues in the US by janitor members of Service Employees International Union Local 26.

In 2023, Hennepin County Commissioners unanimously approved a resolution to create a closure plan — but it does not actually require HERC to close. The Zero Burn Coalition, an alliance of environmental and labor groups, wants the board to hold a public vote this year to close the HERC by 2028. Local environmental justice advocates held a hunger strike calling on Hennepin County Commissioners to close their incinerator; at press time they had fasted for nearly two weeks.

Local labor organizations that are part of the campaign include:

• MAPE – Minnesota Association of Professional Employees
• MNA – Minnesota Nurses Association
• MFE – Minneapolis Federation of teachers
• SPFE – Saint Paul Federation of Teachers
• AFSCME – Local 2822
• AFSCME – Hennepin Healthcare Local 2474
• CTUL – Centro de Trabajadores Unidos en la Lucha

The post Hungering for Environmental Justice first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

More than 8 million people joined more than 3,300 organized events across the country on March 28 for No Kings Day to protest the Trump administration’s growing authoritarianism, attacks on immigrants, and war in the Middle East. It was the largest single-day protest in American history.

Major unions with millions of members including SEIU, AFT, and NEA supported the day of action, and local unions around the country played a major role in organizing local events. Endorsing the mobilization, Liz Shuler, President of the AFL-CIO, said:

Since Inauguration Day, the radical pages of Project 2025 and the fever dreams of America’s corporate billionaires have come to life with a relentless assault on America’s workers. The Trump administration has committed the single biggest act of union-busting in history, attacked good jobs across the country, launched a brutal assault on immigrants, ripped health care from millions, jeopardized the essential services that working families rely on and threatened our fundamental freedoms. But America’s labor unions have been leading in our courts, on Capitol Hill, and in our streets to fight back– and our movement will be there on No Kings Day to peacefully and powerfully say that our government doesn’t answer to a king. It answers to working people.

The post 8 Million People—And Labor—Say “NO KINGS” first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

By Yasmin Gabriel, LNS Development Manager

As a 6th generation Louisianian, I am always in awe when I see different members of my community serving as change agents. In mid-April, I was able to witness the combined organizing power of Earthworks, St. James Rising, Healthy Gulf, Concerned Citizens of St. John, Green Army, Louisiana Against False Solutions, Sierra Club-Delta Chapter, and Lake Maurepas Preservation Society as they challenged a proposed carbon capture project.

As storms, heat waves, fires, floods, and other devastating effects of global warming have grown, more and more people in Louisiana have become convinced of the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere. “Carbon capture” is proposed as a solution, but it is unproven, costly, problematic for health and the environment, not a job producer, and ineffective for climate protection. The Air Products company has proposed a 38-mile carbon dioxide pipeline — running from Ascension Parish to Lake Maurepas — as part of a carbon capture project. It is dangerous for so many reasons. Here are two major reasons: Sorrento Primary School and the Orange Grove subdivision situated within ½ mile of the proposed pipeline.

There is something special that happens in a community when people pull together across fault lines and work for a common goal. There is often a level of social connection that can provide a sense of support for families, even during the toughest of times. The changemakers in parishes of south Louisiana are working to stop the project from being built because of pollution, noise, traffic, and other unjust impacts.

Follow this link for more information about the Blue Hydrogen Project and how you can support the fight.

The post “Carbon Capture Does Not Belong in the Boot” first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

For years, advertising executives have largely escaped criticism for glossing the images of major polluters.

But as climate protestors turn up at ad agency offices and dozens of U.S. states file lawsuits accusing oil companies of deliberately spreading disinformation, the industry is coming under increasing scrutiny. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres has called ad execs working with the fossil fuel industry “Mad Men fuelling the madness.”

Now, a new DeSmog report reveals which advertising companies have helped oil giants ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell spend a collective $1.5 billion on buying U.S. ad space since the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change in 2015.

Below we’ve ranked their CEOs — the real life “Mad Men” — according to the estimated amount of oil company ad spend serviced by their company on their watch. (Click on the portraits to read a profile of their firm).

Note: Two of these companies — IPG and Omnicom — merged in November but have been considered separately as they were individual entities throughout the analysis period.

Mark Read, who stepped down last year amid nosediving profits, was one of the more outspoken ad industry leaders on climate change, despite WPP consistently having the most fossil fuel clients of any advertising company in the world under his leadership. In 2022, Read argued against a burgeoning industry movement to divest from fossil fuel clients, telling an audience of financial analysts: “We are there to support them on [their energy] transition.” Since then, an ad made by WPP agency VML has been banned by the UK advertising regulator for misrepresenting Shell’s business as greener than it actually is; a U.S. Congressional committee report cited a series of ExxonMobil ads made by WPP agency Group SJR as examples of greenwashing; and campaigners lodged a complaint (yet to be ruled upon) with the OECD alleging WPP had broken guidelines on climate and human rights. At the time, a WPP spokesperson said, “Contrary to the claims being made, we adhere to the highest regulatory standards in our work for clients.”

The longest serving CEO in this list, John Wren has overseen Omnicom’s lucrative longstanding relationship with ExxonMobil — which has a long history of funding climate science denial. Most notably, a group of Omnicom ad agencies developed ExxonMobil’s long-running algae-fuel ads. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on advertising a “climate solution” that few experts believed would ever leave the lab. Omnicom’s acquisition of IPG in November means Wren’s combined oil and gas client list is now the longest of any advertising CEO in the world. Although Omnicom has made some promises to reduce its operational emissions, the firm has never made any public move under Wren to restrict the nature of its work for the fossil fuel industry.

An accountant by trade, Michael I. Roth’s 15 years at IPG saw the company sign with ExxonMobil in 2011. Since then, a group of IPG media-buying agencies have managed hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of ad space for the oil giant to help it reach its desired target audiences. Roth’s reign also saw IPG become the go-to advertising partner for Saudi Aramco, the world’s biggest oil company — although those ad dollars are not included in this analysis. Roth left IPG in 2020, having earned nearly $200 million across 15 years, according to executive intelligence firm Equilar. When inducting him into the American Advertising Federation Hall of Fame, the federation described him as “a champion-level voice for what is good and right.”

Arguably the most famous (and richest) man in the ad industry. WPP’s founder Sir Martin Sorrell turned wire basket maker Wire & Plastic Products into the biggest advertising company in the world — and until recently the biggest provider of communications services to the fossil fuel industry. Sorrell was knighted in 2000 for his contributions to the business world. By 2015, his annual salary was over $90 million. He eventually left WPP in a cloud of controversy over allegations of personal and financial misconduct. A Financial Times investigation at the time said anonymous interviews with WPP staff painted “a picture of routine verbal abuse of underlings and a blending of Sir Martin’s corporate and private life”. Sorrell denied all the allegations against him.  

“I strongly believe that a brand that [does] not invest into this [clean energy] transition will be out of business in 10 years,” declared Yannick Bolloré in August 2023. The following month, Havas won a multimillion-dollar contract to handle Shell’s global ad placement strategy. Shell had U-turned on its renewable energy targets in favour of maintaining oil and gas production just months earlier. Insiders told DeSmog at the time that employees were taken aback, having watched Bolloré cultivate a personal brand of caring about the climate (though the deal was less surprising if you knew the Bolloré family’s business empire is partly built on transporting oil). Facing Extinction Rebellion die-ins at the Havas offices and the loss of a climate-focused client, the youngest “Mad Man” on this list has dug in, repeating in various interviews that “the most effective change comes from within.” In the end, four Havas agencies ended up losing their B-Corp certifications for ethical businesses over the Shell deal, and Havas had to warn investors the reputational damage could impact its financial performance.

Dentsu’s CEOs have tended not to make personal statements in the media on advertising’s relationship with the fossil fuel industry. Nevertheless, under Hiroshi Igarashi’s leadership, Dentsu took a significant step when it decided to quietly publish its “advertised emissions” in an investor risk report — representing the amount of carbon pollution associated with the uplift in sales resulting from its advertising campaigns, such as an airline ad leading to greater demand for flights. Dentsu found these were 32 times higher than the emissions from its core operations, such as powering its offices. Igarashi has shown no sign of moving Dentsu on from its lucrative contracts with Chevron and Shell — two of 18 fossil fuel clients Dentsu currently serves, according to research by industry campaign group Clean Creatives.

Toshihiro Yamamoto started his career with Dentsu back in 1981. A full 26 years later, the Dentsu veteran replaced the outgoing Tadashi Ishii as CEO, tasked with steadying the ship after Ishii left in a cloud of controversy. Yamamoto’s five years in charge saw the Japanese ad giant add Shell to its client roster, when its business-to-business ad agency Merkle gained control of a share of the hundreds of millions the oil giant spends on advertising each year. By the time Yamamoto departed in 2021, Dentsu had upped its fossil fuel contracts from five when he started his tenure to at least 11, according to DeSmog research.

In September 2022, Philippe Krakowsky announced an “industry first” climate policy that would restrict its work with fossil fuel companies. The new policy didn’t apply to existing clients. In an internal memo at the time, Krakowsky — like Read and Bolloré — told staff, “it is important to be in the room” with clients such as ExxonMobil to “positively impact their business transformation journeys.” Since Krakowsky sent this email, ExxonMobil has said it plans to increase production by more than a million barrels a day by 2030 and build four new gas projects. In August, a DeSmog investigation published with the Financial Times revealed allegations from staff that IPG was in breach of Krakowsky’s climate policy, after leaked documents showed it was helping Saudi Aramco — the world’s biggest oil company — target government policymakers. IPG and Krakowsky did not respond to the allegations. Krakowsky became the Chief Operating Officer at Omnicom in November after IPG was bought by its New York rival, a deal which earned Krakowsky a $48.6 million payout.

Under Tadashi Ishii, Dentsu led Chevron’s advertising strategy in the U.S., making ads that painted the oil giant as a steward of the environment and promoted speculative climate solutions like carbon capture. One ad from 2012 said “protecting people and the environment is a core value” at Chevron. In 2013, Ishii oversaw the $3.2 billion purchase of UK ad agency Aegis.  The Aegis acquisition saw Dentsu inherit major fossil fuel contracts not included in the analysis, such as French oil giant TotalEnergies.

Note: Big Oil ad spend figures for each CEO only cover the years they were in charge from the 2015 Paris Agreement onwards, even if they were in the job prior to this.

Art by Sabrina Bedford. Design by Sari Williams.

The post ‘Mad Men Fuelling the Madness’: Meet the Advertising CEOs Boosting Big Oil appeared first on DeSmog.

British advertising conglomerate WPP has helped oil companies ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP spend an estimated $1 billion on ads in the United States since the 2015 Paris Agreement to tackle climate change, a new report shows. 

The figure is nearly twice the respective amounts linked to U.S. rivals Omnicom and Interpublic Group (IPG), which merged in November. London-based WPP was the leading advertising group serving America’s oil industry over the past decade, according to the analysis by DeSmog. 

During this period, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP had employed “deceptive and misleading” communications strategies designed to thwart policies to tackle the climate crisis by curbing the use of fossil fuels, a congressional investigation concluded in April 2024.

WPP’s services — from developing ideas for ads and designing logos, to securing ad space and analysing target audiences — were “crucial” to maintaining the oil industry’s public image, current and former WPP employees said. WPP is estimated to have earned millions of dollars a year from this work.

“The UK prides itself on climate leadership, and yet WPP, the supposed jewel of the British advertising industry, is facilitating dangerously misleading advertising in the U.S.,” said Victoria Harvey, holder of a PhD in the ad industry’s response to the climate crisis from the University of East Anglia, who reviewed DeSmog’s methodology.

“By creatively articulating the deception from big oil and gas, WPP has set the climate agenda back and continues to do so,” Harvey said.

ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP spent an estimated combined total of $1.5 billion on buying U.S. ad space such as TV slots and social media feeds since the Paris Agreement, according to the analysis. That’s roughly equivalent to running ads on every billboard in New York’s advertising hotspot Times Square every day for the last decade.

WPP’s global network of subsidiary advertising agencies made an estimated two-thirds’ worth of those ads, the analysis found. WPP, which is one of Britain’s biggest companies by revenue and also works with clients such as Coca-Cola and Unilever, was the only major ad company to partner with all four oil giants on advertising projects during this time.

This work may have breached a policy WPP adopted in 2022 not to accept projects that may “frustrate” the goals of the Paris Agreement, the current and former employees said, since the oil majors were committed to increasing oil and gas production and promoting speculative climate solutions.

A version of this article has been published by the Guardian.

WPP agencies Ogilvy and Wavemaker have both worked on U.S. campaigns for BP and Chevron respectively which received misleading advertising complaints, for taglines such as “We see possibilities in planes that fly on garbage.” Neither complaint was taken forward, although BP voluntarily withdrew its ads.

A 2022 U.S. Congressional committee report cited several ExxonMobil ads made by WPP’s Group SJR as examples of greenwashing, including one that compared fossil gas paired with renewable energy to “a peanut butter and jelly sandwich”.

An ExxonMobil ad featuring peanut butter and jelly made by WPP agency Group SJR, shown on Twitter (now X). (Credit: University of Oxford Climate Litigation Lab)

Staff who raised concerns about this work have been told by seniors that they are helping clients communicate about their shift to cleaner business models, the WPP employees said. But many who have worked on these projects fear they serve primarily to deflect criticism from polluters.

WPP clients BP and Shell have both weakened their own climate targets in the past three years. At the same time, their advertising output has pivoted to promoting the necessity of fossil fuels, a report published in March by industry campaign group Clean Creatives found.

BP’s 2023 campaign “And, not or” suggested that renewables should exist alongside oil and gas rather than replace them. The campaign included ads saying BP was reducing the climate impact of oil by running wells on electricity in Texas’ Permian Basin.

In a Shell YouTube ad run in October, a drone inspector identified as Tori describes how she is “helping provide American energy security” by carrying out safety checks on a drilling platform.

“We heard that a lot internally, that we were influencing them in the right direction,” said a former employee who worked on projects for BP at WPP branding agency Landor. “In reality, whatever BP decides to do, we would just deliver it.”

WPP and the other ad agencies mentioned did not respond to requests for comment.

Shell declined to comment. BP, ExxonMobil and Chevron did not respond to a request for comment.

Piece of the Pie

Advertising companies do not publish details about how much their clients spend on ad space, and increasingly avoid publicising their fossil fuel contracts.

To generate its estimates, DeSmog mapped the dozens of ad agencies that have worked for the four oil companies, using public sources such as staff social media profiles and industry award listings, confidential information shared by employees, and previous research by DeSmog and Clean Creatives. These contracts were then cross-referenced with ad spend estimates obtained from market research platform MediaRadar by the University of Oxford’s Climate Litigation Lab.

Most of the oil majors’ U.S. ad spend was channelled via subsidiaries of the handful of advertising holding companies that dominate the industry globally. After WPP, Omnicom and IPG, Tokyo-based holding company Dentsu ranked fourth in terms of its exposure to this ad spend ($255 million) and Paris-based rival Havas ranked fifth ($230 million).

(Credit: Sari Williams/DeSmog)

The analysis did not seek to capture the millions of dollars the fossil fuel industry spends every year advertising in countries outside the U.S., as well as on lobbying, branding, public relations, and other marketing activities.

Advertising industry insiders say momentum around climate initiatives has slowed over the past few years as competition from big technology companies and artificial intelligence (AI) has squeezed margins.

New WPP CEO Cindy Rose is due to present her strategy to reverse declining profits at the company’s annual general meeting on May 8. A preview in February did not mention sustainability.

Under previous CEO Mark Read, WPP committed to reduce carbon emissions and prevent greenwashing, including via the policy adopted in 2022 “not to take on any client work…designed to frustrate the objectives of the Paris Agreement.”

But employees claim these moves have changed little. 

There are concerns that WPP’s ongoing work with Shell, BP, and Chevron may breach the policy because many of these clients’ ads have distracted from or justified fossil fuel expansion, according to six current and former employees, who spoke to DeSmog anonymously for fear of professional repercussions.

New fossil fuel projects planned by the companies are incompatible with the Paris goal to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees and prevent catastrophic climate change, scientific assessments have found.

“I don’t think there’s anything that WPP could possibly be saying for BP or Shell that would adhere to the policy,” said a former director at two WPP agencies in New York.

In total, WPP has held at least 82 contracts with the fossil fuel industry around the world since the start of 2025, according to industry campaign group Clean Creatives. More than a quarter of those contracts relate to work wholly or partially targeted at U.S. audiences.

Experts say that the impact of WPP’s moves to lower carbon emissions by reducing employee travel and powering buildings with green energy is outweighed by its work for polluters.

“By shaping public narratives, increasing consumption, and normalising fossil fuel use, agencies like WPP can significantly influence emissions far beyond their operational footprint,” said Alexis McGivern, a researcher on corporate climate policy at Oxford Net Zero, a research group at the University of Oxford.

WPP ad agencies Ogilvy and VML have led BP and Shell’s respective advertising strategies since at least 2000, DeSmog found.

Ogilvy devised BP’s “Beyond Petroleum” campaign in 2000. It also popularised the concept of the “carbon footprint” through a series of BP ads in 2004 which sought to emphasise individual responsibility for reducing emissions. 

Screenshot from a Shell YouTube ad featuring a drone inspector identified as Tori, 19 October, 2025. (Credit: University of Oxford Climate Litigation Lab)

Today, WPP agencies such as Ogilvy are still “deeply embedded” in BP’s advertising process and have some staff dedicated solely to working on BP projects, according to the former Landor employee.

In 2020, BP briefed seven WPP agencies — including Ogilvy, Landor, and VML — to create a new brand strategy to tackle the company’s image as “the bad guys,” according to a WPP document obtained by investigative outlet Drilled.

Subsequent U.S. ad campaigns launched by BP repeatedly promoted the company’s “#netzero” goals and said it supported regulation to limit methane emissions, despite BP having successfully lobbied the U.S. government to roll back such rules, an investigation by Unearthed found.

“WPP has had oil clients for decades, whether they were promising to go green or not,” said one former partner at a WPP agency, who has worked on Shell campaigns. “That tells you everything you need to know about whether we are actually trying to change things.”

Risks Rising for Protecting Polluters

Pressure is building on advertising companies to acknowledge their role in delaying climate action by protecting the reputations of polluters.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres has urged ad agencies to drop fossil fuel clients, calling ad executives “Mad Men fuelling the madness.”

The OECD, an intergovernmental economic organisation, is considering a complaint against WPP filed by climate and human rights campaigners in February last year. At the time, a WPP spokesperson said, “Contrary to the claims being made, we adhere to the highest regulatory standards in our work for clients.” Protesters have since targeted WPP’s Thames-front offices in London with banners reading “climate criminals”.

The “increased reputational risk associated with working on client briefs perceived to be environmentally detrimental” could affect revenue, WPP said in its 2025 sustainability report.

Climate activists from Extinction Rebellion protest outside WPP’s offices in London, June 25, 2025. (Credit: Extinction Rebellion)

Legal risks are rising, too.

In a first-of-its-kind ruling in October, a Paris court found French oil giant TotalEnergies misled consumers by saying it had put “climate at the heart of its strategy” during a 2021 rebrand, despite continuing to heavily invest in new oil and gas projects.

WPP agency Wavemaker advised TotalEnergies on where to buy ad space for the rebrand campaign but was not named in the case.

In January, Michigan state filed the latest of dozens of U.S. lawsuits being brought by local and federal governments against ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, and other oil companies accusing the companies of climate deception and disinformation.

So far, a U.S. court is yet to find against an oil company in such a case. The companies deny any wrongdoing, arguing that the courts are the wrong venue to determine climate policy.

“In the context of increasing litigation to recover substantial damages for the escalating costs of climate change on the basis of oil majors’ deceptive activities, doing large amounts of the same companies’ advertising work does not seem legally advisable,” said Johnny White, a lawyer at environmental law firm Client Earth, which advised on the TotalEnergies case.

Additional reporting by Kathryn Clare and Ellen Ormesher

The post Revealed: British Ad Giant’s Billion-Dollar Greenwash of U.S. Oil Industry appeared first on DeSmog.

Registered nurses, community members, labor advocates, and local supporters will hold a press conference on Friday, May 1 outside Bakersfield Memorial Hospital to demand hospital leadership reverse plans to close the hospital’s burn unit.

Two months ago, everyone was still wondering whether the First Conference for Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels would carry the relevance it promised in Brazil. Would governments around the world care enough to show up after the excitement of COP30 had faded? In a world that seemed to be sinking into new wars with global consequences?

Paradoxically, the escalating aggressions by the United States and Israel in Southwest Asia (Middle East) have shown the world exactly why we need to leave behind our dependence on fossil fuels. Entire communities have been destroyed, families buried under rubble, children killed, livelihoods erased, all in a region whose political fate has been shaped for over a century by the control of oil and gas. People in Palestine, Lebanon, and across the region are paying with their own lives for the world’s thirst for fossil fuels.

These are not abstract arguments. They are the bombs that fall, the blockades that starve, the occupations that endure, all because fossil fuel wealth concentrates power in the hands of those willing to use violence to protect it. Not only do fossil fuels poison our planet, they fuel instability, deepen inequality, and tie our futures to volatile and unjust energy systems. Moving beyond fossil fuels is no longer a distant goal. It is a shared necessity.

The response? Fifty-seven countries representing roughly a third of the global economy came together, signaling that the transition is not only possible but already underway.

But what truly defined this conference was not just who showed up at the governmental level. It was who was finally let in.

Indigenous peoples from around the world, trade unions, youth groups, academics, Afro-descendant communities, peasant associations, women and diverse identities, activists and NGOs, among others, engaged for the first time in a participation mechanism that actually listens to their voices and puts their demands on the table.

And beyond the high-level spaces, communities were building, not just speaking. During both days of the Peoples Summit, 350.org with 32 organizations across Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and the Caribbean Islands a Fair of Alternatives, showing that futures beyond fossil fuels are already here. Community leaders hosted a panel within the Peoples Summit space, and their voices fed into the final declaration.

Frontline communities from all around the world had a voice on the Santa Marta conference

 

It was no small thing to see Indigenous women leaders from Putumayo and Bolivia connecting over their shared concern about an energy transition being carried out without consultation in their territories, one that threatens to bring extractive models for copper and lithium that would gravely affect their environments and communities. But ready, too, to share models of community energy generation through biodigesters they have built themselves. Because communities around the world have not sat around waiting for their governments to act. They have thought of solutions and carried them out.

That same spirit drove the Popular Assemblies we co-organized in three territories in Colombia and Ecuador, where affected communities named the crisis in their own terms. Two of the communities that led these Assemblies — Cesar sin Fracking and Alianza Libre de Fracking — attended the high-level Conference, including Yuvelis Morales Blanco, now a winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize. 350.org also held an organizing space toward a common Latin American campaign against fracking and LNG with leaders from Colombia, Argentina and Mexico.

These connections between communities were perhaps the most powerful thread running through the conference. Activists from across the world linked militarization and the climate crisis in a country with more than 60 years of armed conflict, where multinationals like Glencore and Drummond have used armed groups to displace and kill local communities, seize their lands and waters, and leave surrounding populations in misery and fear. The Climate Justice Flotilla traveled across Caribbean islands still under Dutch colonial rule to bring their voices to this space — possibly the first time Aruba and Curacao had representation at a conference like this, even as the Netherlands, their colonial power, co-hosted while opposing a fossil fuel transition treaty.

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

 

It was also no small thing to see these same activists blockade one of the largest coal ports in Latin America with solar panels — Drummond’s port in Ciénaga. The action put the demands of affected communities front and centre: making polluters pay for the loss of land, biodiversity and life, and the need for a just transition. For local communities, doing something like this would mean enormous security risks — just weeks earlier, armed groups had kidnapped 25 fishermen from the community most affected by Drummond. But these young people from around the world used their foreign origins as a kind of shield, standing in solidarity with the communities of Ciénaga, Santa Marta, and all of Colombia affected by this multinational. Those same solar panels used in this action will now go to the communities most harmed by that coal port.

So what did governments actually deliver?

Let’s be clear: they could have been far more ambitious. The world is on fire, sometimes literally, and the political outcomes of this conference reflect cautious, small steps that do not match the urgency communities are living every day.

Governments from 57 countries meet at the First Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels Conference, in Colombia

 

That said, the fact that this conference happened at all, that it finally named fossil fuels as the root cause of climate chaos and created a dedicated space to address them outside of the pressures of formal COP negotiations, is itself a significant victory. Five concrete outcomes came out of the high-level segment:

1. Continuity. A second conference has been announced for 2027, co-hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland, with the main event taking place in Tuvalu. And who better than our brothers and sisters from the Pacific nations, on the frontlines of climate chaos, to carry forward what started in Santa Marta and remind the world of the urgency?
2. A coordination group has been established to ensure continuity between conferences, bringing together countries leading different alliances and initiatives on the fossil fuel transition, including the co-hosts of the first and second conferences.
3. The outcomes will be handed over to the COP30 Presidency, shared ahead of the intersessional meetings in Bonn this June and formally presented at London Climate Action Week, with plans to bring them to the UN Secretary-General during New York Climate Week. The intention is to feed these results into the second Global Stocktake, making sure this process does not live in isolation from the UNFCCC.
4. Three workstreams have been launched to identify concrete opportunities for cooperation: one focused on national roadmaps guided by the Science Panel, another on economic dependencies and financial architecture, and a third on aligning fossil fuel producers and consumers toward trade systems free of fossil fuels. These workstreams will remain open for countries to join or lead.
5. A Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition will anchor the entire process in evidence rather than politics. Academics and scientists from around the world joined forces to ensure that science guides the process of leaving fossil fuels behind, and to help countries develop roadmaps aligned with the 1.5°C trajectory and to dismantle the legal, financial, and political barriers standing in the way.

Are these outcomes enough? No. Are they the kind of bold, binding commitments that the scale of the crisis demands? Not even close. But in a world where the largest historical emitter has abandoned climate action entirely, where wars rage over the very resources we need to leave behind, the fact that 57 countries sat down, opened the doors to movements and communities, and committed to a sustained process is not nothing. It is the floor, not the ceiling, and it is up to all of us to push it higher.

Communities everywhere will keep building the solutions their governments have been too slow to deliver. And the rest of us? We stay loud, stay connected, and keep showing up, because the transition has already begun, and it was never going to be led from the top.

Because if this conference showed anything, it is that the transition is not only about energy systems. It is about power. The power of who gets to decide. Who benefits. Who is heard. And for perhaps the first time at this scale, the answer is beginning to shift.

The Great Power Shift has started. Join us!

The post Santa Marta was just the beginning appeared first on 350.

Anne Jellema is Executive Director of 350.org.

The war on Iran and Lebanon is a deeply unjust and devastating conflict, killing civilians at home, destroying lives, and at the same time sending shockwaves through the global economy. We, at 350.org, have calculated, drawing on price forecasts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Goldman Sachs, just how much that volatility is costing us. 

Even under the IMF’s baseline scenario – a de facto “best case” scenario with a near-term end to the war and related supply chain disruptions – oil and gas price spikes are projected to cost households and businesses globally more than $600 billion by the end of the year. Under the IMF’s “adverse scenario”, with prolonged conflict and sustained price pressures, we estimate those additional costs could exceed $1 trillion, even after accounting for reduced demand.

Which is why we urgently need a power shift. Governments are under growing pressure to respond to rising fuel and food costs and deepening energy poverty. And it’s becoming clearer to both voters and elected officials that fossil dependence is not only expensive and risky, but unnecessary. 

People who can are voting with their wallets: sales of solar panels and electric vehicles are increasing sharply in many countries. But the working people who have nothing to spare, ironically, are the ones stuck with using oil and gas that is either exorbitantly expensive or simply impossible to get. 

Drain on households and economies

In India, street food vendors can’t get cooking gas and in the Philippines, fishermen can’t afford to take their boats to sea. A quarter of British people say that rising energy tariffs will leave them completely unable to pay their bills. This is the moment for a global push to bring abundant and affordable clean energy to all.

In April, we released Out of Pocket, our new research report on how fossil fuels are draining households and economies. We were surprised by the scale of what we found. For decades, governments have reassured people that energy price spikes are unfortunate but unavoidable – the result of distant conflicts, market forces or geopolitical shocks beyond anyone’s control. But the numbers tell a different story. 

• Apr 28, 2026 News Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out Around 60 governments that want to make progress on transitioning away from coal, oil and gas are meeting in Colombia to work out how they can do it an equitable way Read more
• Apr 24, 2026 Comment Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action Cities will help identify concrete pathways for an equitable shift to clean energy at the Santa Marta conference, with C40 members aiming to halve their fossil fuel use by 2030 Read more

What we are living through today is not an energy crisis. It is a fossil fuel crisis. In just the first 50 days of the Middle East conflict, soaring oil and gas prices have siphoned an estimated $158 billion–$166 billion from households and businesses worldwide. That is money extracted directly from people’s pockets and transferred, almost instantly, into fossil fuel company balance sheets. And this figure only captures the immediate impact of price spikes, not the permanent economic drain of fossil dependence. Fossil fuels don’t just cost us once, they cost us over and over again. 

First, through our bills. Every time there is a war, an embargo or a supply disruption, fossil fuel prices surge. For ordinary people, this means higher costs for energy, transport and food. Many Global South countries have little or no fiscal space to buffer the shock; instead, workers and families pay the price.

Second, through our taxes. Governments around the world continue to pour vast sums of public money into fossil fuel subsidies. These are often justified as a way to protect the most vulnerable at the petrol pump or in their homes. But in reality, the benefits are overwhelmingly captured by wealthier households and corporations. The poorest 20% receive just a fraction of this support, while public finances are drained.

Third, through climate impacts. New research across more than 24,000 global locations gives a granular account of the true costs of extreme heat, sea level rise and falling agricultural yields. Using this data to update IMF modelling of the social cost of carbon, we found that fossil fuel impacts on health and livelihoods amount to over $9 trillion a year. This is the biggest subsidy of all, because these massive and mounting costs are not charged to Big Oil – they are paid for by governments and households, with the poorest shouldering the lion’s share. 

Massive transfer of wealth to fossil fuel industry

Adding up direct subsidies, tax breaks and the unpaid bill for climate damages, the total transfer of wealth from the public to the fossil fuel industry amounts to $12 trillion even in a “normal” year without a global oil shock. That’s more than 50% higher than the IMF has previously estimated, and equivalent to a staggering $23 million a minute.

The fossil fuel industry has become extraordinarily adept at profiting from instability. When conflict drives up prices, companies do not lose, they gain. In the current crisis, oil producers and commodity traders are on track to secure tens of billions of dollars in additional windfall profits, even as households face rising bills and governments struggle to manage the fallout. 

Fossil fuel crisis offers chance to speed up energy transition, ministers say

This growing disconnect is impossible to ignore. Investors are advised to buy into fossil fuel firms precisely because of their ability to generate profits in times of crisis. Meanwhile, ordinary people are told to tighten their belts.

In 2026, unlike during the oil shocks of the 1970s, clean energy is no longer a distant alternative. Now, even more than when gas prices spiked due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, renewables are often the cheapest option available. Solar and wind can be deployed quickly, at scale, and without the volatility that defines fossil fuel markets.

How to transition from dirty to clean energy

The solutions are clear. Governments must implement permanent windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies to ensure that extraordinary profits generated during crises are redirected to support households. These revenues can be used to reduce energy bills, invest in public services, and accelerate the rollout of clean energy.

Second, we must shift subsidies away from fossil fuels and towards renewable solutions, particularly those that can be deployed quickly and equitably, such as rooftop and community solar. This is not just about cutting emissions. It is about building a more stable, fair and resilient energy system.

Finally, we need binding plans to phase out fossil fuels altogether, replacing them with homegrown renewable energy that can shield economies from future shocks. Because what the current crisis has made clear is this: as long as we remain dependent on fossil fuels, we remain vulnerable – to conflict, to price volatility and to the escalating impacts of climate change.

The true price of fossil fuels is no longer hidden. It is visible in rising bills, strained public finances and communities pushed to the brink. And it is being paid, every day, by ordinary people around the world.

It’s time for the great power shift. 

Full details on the methodology used for this report are available here.

The Great Power Shift is a new campaign by 350.org to pressure governments to bring down energy bills for good by ending fossil fuel dependence and investing in clean, affordable energy for all.

Logo of 350.org campaign on “The Great Power Shift” Logo of 350.org campaign on “The Great Power Shift”

The post What fossil fuels really cost us in a world at war appeared first on Climate Home News.

The next great hunger Channel News brendan 30th April 2026 Teaser Media