News Feeds

As the war in Iran squeezes the global supply of oil and gas, countries are looking to source more solar power. China, the world's biggest producer of solar equipment, saw its exports double in March, reaching a new record high.

Read more on E360 →

Exploratory drilling began this past week at the Rochford Mineral Exploration Project in the central Black Hills.  This is an effort to mine graphite at Pe’ Sla, which is a significant cultural and ceremonial landscape that has been used by indigenous people for many generations – and that is still used for those purposes.  Last … Continue reading GRAPHITE DRILLING BEGINS AT LIEN PROJECT AT PE’ SLA

 by David Spratt, first published at Pearls&Irritations

Australia’s defence and foreign policy settings are focused on geopolitical rivalry, while far greater systemic risks – especially climate disruption – receive little strategic attention.

Blinded to the greater risks, the Albanese Government and the security commentariat have spent four, unrelenting years making the case that China is the biggest threat to Australia’s future.

Defence and foreign policy, encapsulated in the AUKUS agreement, tie Australia to a nation currently engaged in what the historian Timothy Snyder calls “Superpower Suicide”: “a systematic undoing of American power by Americans” in which “fighting a war for no reason we can name, losing it, and covering our defeat with genocidal and apocalyptic propaganda” had led to ”rapid and catastrophic decline as the result of specific choices in the last year”.

The AUKUS cargo cult – with Labor, the LNP and One Nation marching arm in arm – means the Parliament and the nation have spent little time even considering what may be the greatest threats to our future.

In risk management, there are potential events so destructive that they are termed catastrophic because of their capacity for human death or suffering on a massive scale, such that societies may never fully recover. This may be called existential risk or in actuarial terms, the “risk of ruin”, which colloquially in financial and gambling circles is the risk of “losing everything”. Catastrophic events include nuclear war, climate change, biosecurity threats including pandemics, and disruptive digital technologies.

Every year the World Economic Forum surveys private and public sector global leaders on the big risks. The 2025 WEF Global Risk Report lists the ten most severe risks on a 10-year horizon. The top four, and five of the ten, are related to climate-change and nature degradation: extreme weather, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, critical change to Earth systems, natural resource shortages, and pollution.

Of the other five, three are digital disruption: misinformation and disinformation, adverse outcomes of AI technologies, and cyber espionage and warfare. Rounding out the top ten are inequality and social polarisation. State-based armed conflict and geoeconomic confrontation don’t make the top ten, though they are in short-term (two-year) listing.

So is China or climate disruption the biggest threat? Global leaders understand what the Australian Government denies.

What would climate-disruption look like on a geo-political scale, given the warming is accelerating and is likely to exceed 3 degrees Celsius? Two decades ago, American security analysts noted that  “nonlinear climate change will produce nonlinear political events… beyond a certain level climate change becomes a profound challenge to the foundations of the global industrial civilisation that is the mark of our species”.

They produced a 3-degree scenario, in which “the internal cohesion of nations will be under great stress, including in the United States, both as a result of a dramatic rise in migration and changes in agricultural patterns and water availability. The flooding of coastal communities around the world, especially in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China, has the potential to challenge regional and even national identities. Armed conflict between nations over resources, such as the Nile and its tributaries, is likely and nuclear war is possible.”

In Chatham House’s Climate change risk assessment 2021, the security think-tank found that impacts likely to be locked in for the period 2040–50 unless emissions rapidly decline – which they are not – include a global average 30 per cent drop in crop yields by 2050, and the average proportion of global cropland affected by severe drought exceeding 30 per cent a year. They concluded that cascading climate impacts will “drive political instability and greater national insecurity, fuelling regional and international conflict”.

The consequences of climate disruption will strike everywhere. Last November, Iceland designated the potential collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) a national security concern and an existential threat, so that it could plan for worst-case scenarios and preventative action.

A disturbing new research paper finds it is likely that AMOC will have slowed by half this century, and scientists fear it is close to a tipping point. Peter Ditlevsen of the University of Copenhagen calls AMOC collapse a going-out-of-business scenario for north-west European agriculture. In addition, the monsoons that typically deliver rain to West Africa and South Asia would become unreliable, and huge swaths of Europe and Russia would plunge into drought.

AMOC collapse would challenge European foundations, including the viability of nations and states, and of the EU and NATO, moving climate from the realm of environmental and culture wars to the heart of the matter: human security, social breakdown, mass displacement and death.

And it is not a security threat par excellence in 50 years time, but right now, as the Icelandic Government has recognised, because systemic changes now under way will make such an outcome inevitable unless the world applies strategic focus, resources and collective political will to trying to avert such a catastrophe right now.

Yet a search of Hansard finds no mention of AMOC in either house of Australia’s Parliament, from any MP or Senator, over the term of the Albanese government. That is depressing, but not unexpected. The government ordered a climate and security risk assessment from the Office of National Intelligence when it came to power, and immediately suppressed the report, refusing to articulate ‘frankly terrifying’ security risks.

And of course AMOC is but one in an array of climate-security risks: the northern quarter of Australia – where the government is spending billions upgrading military bases – will become unliveably hot in three or four decades from now. And declining crop yields: researchers estimate that beyond 2°C warming, which is perhaps only 15 years away, “the declines in suitable areas for the 30 crops [analysed] become more pronounced – in some cases approaching and passing 50 per cent”.  That in itself would cause global chaos. There are scores more, including Himalayan water wars, mass people displacement, and drowned states.

A recognition that climate poses an existential – and perhaps the most pressing – risk to Australians’ future would mean that any Australian foreign policy, defence or strategic review would place it at the centre of concern. Instead the government has done the opposite, barely giving climate a token tick in such recent documents.

Epitomised by the tedious performances of the Defence Minister, Australia is doggedly pressing on with its “America first, Earth last” strategy. But this moment requires clarity about the existential nature of the climate threat to humanity’s future; and a collective regional commitment to strategic action.

A version of this op-ed was first published in The Moscow Times.

For the past 40 years, the wastes of the Chernobyl site have stood as a monument to human arrogance, the danger of secrets, the plodding ineptitude of repressive regimes, and the catastrophes that occur when they all intersect.  At a remove of four decades—and after the production of an enormous scientific and cultural literature on the disaster—it’s tempting to say we’ve learned our lesson.

The word “Chernobyl” itself has passed into our collective lexicon as synonym for catastrophe, and the UN a decade ago designated April 26—the day in 1986 that Chernobyl’s No 4 reactor exploded—as an international Day of Remembrance, a dark honor that the disaster’s anniversary shares with the likes of the Holocaust and the transatlantic slave trade.

Surely—we terribly wish to say as a civilized society—we’ve put this sort of thing behind us. Right?

A Russian military drone that blew a hole in the dome protecting the world from the No 4 Reactor’s still-highly radioactive entrails suggests otherwise. In fact, as the ruby anniversary of the world’s worst nuclear accident arrives this Sunday, we’re discovering newer ways to endanger nuclear power plants—this time by making them targets of war.

Since its invasion of Ukraine commenced in February of 2022, Moscow’s troops have invaded and attacked the Chernobyl site, bombed a research reactor at Kharkiv’s Institute of Physics and Technology in Ukraine’s east, and taken over Europe’s largest civilian nuclear power plant, the six-reactor Ukrainian facility at Zaporizhzhia, claiming the facility as Russian property.  All the while, Russian supersonic missiles continue to whiz within mere kilometers of not just Chernobyl, but Ukraine’s operating Khmelnitsky nuclear power plant as well.

What’s more, all of this is becoming quite routine. In recent weeks, Washington—the same world capital that was aghast at Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian nuclear facilities—targeted Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant in an attack of its own. The rest of the world meanwhile is more or less powerless to stop it. Indeed, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency—with its vague mandate to encourage and oversee the safe and peaceful use of atomic energy—is empowered by its governing body (which includes representatives from Russia and the US) to do little more than be officially horrified. It is a posture that’s’ unequal to what’s at stake.

A view of the New Safe Confinement structure in 2016.

The Chernobyl disaster remains one of the defining moments in the twilight years of the Soviet Union. Moscow sought to obscure the disaster while quietly evacuating more than 116,000 people from the area surrounding the plant in the days after the reactor exploded. It would be Swedish authorities who finally pierced Moscow’s official silence when they announced mysterious spikes in their own radiation monitoring systems. What they detected was a plume of radioactive material ejected into the atmosphere, causing a public health emergency across Europe and leading to a skepticism toward nuclear energy that would last decades.

It was in the long shadow of the catastrophe that the Bellona Foundation was born. Founded in Norway in the years following the disaster, we emerged from a growing recognition that nuclear risks did not respect national borders, and that independent scrutiny of nuclear safety—particularly within the former Soviet Union—was urgently needed. What began as a response to secrecy and contamination in the wake of Chernobyl has since evolved into decades of work tracking nuclear hazards, advocating for transparency and environmental rights—and nearly single-handedly spearheading the cleanup of generations radioactive waste and nuclear hazards in Russia’s northwest.

The human toll of the Chernobyl explosion was likewise obscured. Officially, it stands at 31 dead—a figure many experts say is ludicrously low. In the following years, hundreds of people involved with quelling the disaster’s effects fell ill, and many eventually died. Cancer rates, especially for thyroid cancer, increased in areas heavily exposed to radiation. In later interviews, Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet president on whose watch the Chernobyl accident occurred, would identify the catastrophe as one of the most important factors hastening the Soviet collapse.

Forty years after that calamity, Moscow itself has wrought renewed disaster at Chernobyl. In the opening days of its invasion, Russian troops overran the Exclusion Zone—the 2,6000-square-kilometer area around the plant where radiation levels remain high and public access is limited—where their tanks and transports churned up radioactive dust. Soldiers looted and vandalized workshops necessary to the ongoing decommissioning of not only the No 4 reactor, but the plant’s three remaining reactors as well, the last of which was finally shut down in 2000.

An apartment building in the abandoned city of Pripyat, where Chernobyl’s workers lived, as seen in 2006.

The soldiers dug trenches and set fires in an area known as the Red Forest—a gnarled expanse of irradiated woodland—scorching some 14,000 hectares of land, filling the air with so much radioactive smoke that it was unsafe for firefighters to quell the blazes. Hundreds of Chernobyl workers and technicians who oversee the site’s sprawling network of spent fuel storage facilities and the enormous effort to dismantle the radioactive remnants of the exploded No. 4 reactor, were held hostage onsite.

Looting and petty destruction by Russian troops was general. Computers, dosimeters, lab tools, firefighting equipment and even appliances were stolen. Office doors were ripped off hinges, windows smashed, walls spray-painted with graffiti. Human excrement was left behind on control panels as a calling card.

After a month of marauding—and amid reports of radiation sickness among its troops—Russia abruptly withdrew on March 22, 2022, and, in a bizarrely official ceremony, handed control of the plant back to the Ukrainians. According to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, which has financed much of the Chernobyl cleanup work since the original 1986 disaster, the Russian Army’s destructive adventure in the world’s most famous radioactive wasteland left behind some €100 million in damage.

That, however, would not be the end of it. A drone attack on Chernobyl, coming in February of 2025, ruptured the so-called New Safe Confinement, a €1.5 billion dome that has protected the No 4 reactor since 2016. Designed to replace the crumbling concrete sarcophagus poured over the remains of the reactor by Soviet liquidators, the dome houses the still ongoing removal of 200 tons of molten nuclear fuel left inside.

It’s an enormous—and enormously complicated—structure. Standing as tall as a football pitch is long and weighing more than 31,000 tons, the New Safe Confinement is the world’s largest movable object. The sarcophagus it now shelters was never built to last. By the mid-1990s, cracks had opened, leaks had formed, and the whole brittle shell was sagging under its own weight.

To avoid being exposed to radiation, the new dome structure was built about a half a kilometer away from the sarcophagus, then moved into place on rails. In addition to the securing the melted fuel, the structure protects the outside environmental from some 30 tons of highly contaminated dust and 16 tons of uranium and plutonium that continue to release high levels of radiation.

In places, the structure measures about 12 meters between its inner and outer shells, and the space between them is kept at low humidity to prevent corrosion. The outer shell keeps out the elements. The inner shell is designed to contain the radioactive dust inside the structure, especially when the cranes that are set up within it start dismantling the sarcophagus and the damaged reactor before safely disposing of the waste in smaller containers.

Ukrainian specialists overseeing the cleanup had aimed to start that dismantlement stage this year, but the drone attack has made that impossible. According to those Bellona has spoken to, none of that work can move forward until a full repair process has been completed—which is not expected until 2030.

Makeshift repairs, meanwhile, are keeping radioactive dust inside the shelter, and, almost miraculously, no radiation spikes have been recorded since the initial attack. But ongoing Russian strikes around the Chernobyl site continue to threaten the now-enfeebled structure, which the EBRD estimates will cost some €500 million to fully repair.

Naturally, the IAEA has warned again and again against such attacks and wrung its hands over the apparent normalization of military aggression against some of the most sensitive industrial sites constructed by man. But the composition of its board of governors, and its enforced apolitical stance, prevent it from censuring, or even naming, the obvious culprits. Because of this, the international body is little more than a paid mourner at the funeral of the rules-based international order.  From the attacks on Chernobyl, to the seizure of Zaporizhzhia, to the US strike on Bushehr, the agency can do little but express “deep concern.”

This paralysis of deep concern was what we had 40 years ago when a radioactive cloud of hidden origin darkened the skies over Europe and turned hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens into refugees from their own government’s secrets. One would hope that 40 years of staring into the rubble of one of humanity’s biggest mistakes would have brought us more wisdom and enlightenment.

That it hasn’t is partially a failure of collective imagination. After Chernobyl, we thought we’d seen the worst thing that could happen to a nuclear power plant. No one—not world governments, not the designers of Chernobyl’s New Safe Confinement, not the IAEA—ever accounted for deliberate military attacks on civilian nuclear power stations. It was unthinkable.

Now that it’s not, we must work together—NGOs, governments, and people alike—to make it unthinkable again. As an organization, Bellona has proposed beginning the conversation on what, exactly, international oversight for the safety of nuclear power plants should look like. It’s clear that we need a transnational agency that has the authority to do more than offer hopes and prayers when nuclear plants become military targets.

Such a system would have to emerge from the international community itself, but the time for that discussion has clearly arrived. Until it does, however, we’re left exactly where we were in 1986, watching helplessly as disaster unfolds.

The post After Chernobyl we said ‘never again.’ Then came the war. appeared first on Bellona.org.

A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, April 19, 2026 thru Sat, April 25, 2026. Stories we promoted this week, by category:

Climate Change Impacts (10 articles)

• A more troubling picture of sea level rise is coming into view Scientists have uncovered a “blind spot” in the research on rising seas, revealing that tens of millions of people thought safe from coastal flooding are at risk of inundation. Grist, Fred Pearce, Apr 18, 2026.
• Wildfires used to 'go to sleep' at night. Climate change is turning them into prime burning hours Phys.org, Seth Borenstein, Apr 18, 2026.
• The Guardian view on Japan`s cherry blossom: when spring slips out of time | Editorial A 1,200-year dataset shows the ‘peak bloom’ is arriving earlier. Global heating is unsettling nature’s rhythms – and their cultural meaning The Guardian, Editorial, Apr 19, 2026.
• Lost millennium of Galapagos deep-sea corals linked to major Pacific climate shift Phys.org, University of Bristol, Apr 20, 2026.
• State of the climate: Strong El Niño puts 2026 on track for second-warmest year The first three months of 2026 have been the fourth warmest on record, with each successive month surpassing historical averages by a greater margin. Carbon Brief, Zeke Hausfather, Apr 21, 2026.
• What`s driving the catastrophic wildfires in Georgia Drought conditions have been worsening for months in the Southeast. Now tens of thousands of acres are burning, displacing people and destroying dozens of homes. Grist, Emily Jones, Apr 22, 2026.
• As Climate Disasters Create an Insurance Crisis, a California Bill Seeks to Make Fossil Fuel Companies Pay Premiums “have gone through the roof” and insurers have been leaving the state as the costs of disasters soar amid worsening extreme weather. Inside Climate News, Steven Rodas, Apr 23, 2026.
• Hot, dry and hurricane-scarred: How climate change fueled wildfires in Georgia and Florida Widespread drought in the Southeast is largely to blame for the fires, but their spread has also been fueled by leftover debris from past hurricanes that swept across the region. NBC News, Denise Chow, Apr 24, 2026.
• The “grim news” that isn’t making headlines Dr Gilbz on Youtube, Anna Gilbert, Apr 24, 2026.
• The Next El Niño Could Lock Earth Into a Hotter Climate The Pacific heat pulse is temporary, but scientists warn that its climate impacts are not. Inside Climate News, Bob Berwyn, Apr 25, 2026.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (3 articles)

• Clean energy pushes fossil-fuel power into reverse for `first time ever` Renewable energy has overtaken coal to become the world’s largest source of electricity in 2025, according to thinktank Ember. Carbon Brief, Molly Lempriere, Apr 20, 2026.
• Why Climate Work Is Community Work State of the Planet, Eve Kaplan-Walbrecht, Apr 23, 2026.
• Transition risk: The human cost of net zero Stranded assets and ghost factories The Climate Brink, Andrew Dessler, Apr 23, 2026.

Climate Law and Justice (3 articles)

• Climate Change, the Courts and US policy - a Critical Perspective From a Former Judge of the UK Supreme Court Climate Law Blog, Robert Carnwath, Apr 22, 2026.
• Republicans introduce extreme bill to ban lawsuits against Big Oil forever HEATED, Emily Atkin, Apr 23, 2026.
• Criminalisation of climate protesters in UK is counterproductive, research finds Study of 1,300 campaigners finds arrests, fines and jail terms increase determination of activists to take direct action The Guardian, Damian Carrington, Apr 25, 2026.

Miscellaneous (3 articles)

• Big Oil Breaks Everything The planet, our democracy, our courts... The Crucial Years, Bill McKibben, Apr 19, 2026.
• 2026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #16 A listing of 26 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, April 12, 2026 thru Sat, April 18, 2026. Skeptical Science, Bärbel Winkler, John Hartz and Doug Bostrom, Apr 19, 2026.
• EGU2026 - My plans for attending virtually The European Geoscience Union's General Assembly will take place from May 4 to 8 in Vienna and online. Skeptical Science, Bärbel Winkler, Apr 22, 2026.

Climate Science and Research (2 articles)

• Madagascar's ancient baobabs store 700 years of climate secrets-what they reveal The Conversation, Estelle Razanatsoa, Lindsey Gillson, Malika Virah-Sawmy, Apr 20, 2026.
• Skeptical Science New Research for Week #17 2026 2026''s 17th edition of Skeptical Science's weekly climate research introduces a new regular feature: scoreboarding citations of previously listed articles. Skeptical Science, Doug Bostrom & Marc Kodack, Apr 23, 2026.

International Climate Conferences and Agreements (2 articles)

• Revealed: Scientists tell Colombia fossil-fuel transition summit to `halt new expansion` Countries attending a first-of-its-kind fossil-fuel summit have been asked to consider “action recommendations” such as “halting all new fossil-fuel expansion” and “reject[ing] gas as a bridging fuel”, according to a preliminary scientific report seen by Carbon Brief. Carbon Brief, Daisy Dunne, Apr 20, 2026.
• New global panel aims to accelerate move away from fossil fuels Scientists and economists will help countries develop plans to reduce dependence on oil, gas and coal The Guardian, Jonathan Watts and Fiona Harvey, Apr 25, 2026.

Health Aspects of Climate Change (2 articles)

• This Growing Climate Threat Could Be Increasing Your Blood Pressure Lede: A growing body of research suggests that saltwater leaching into freshwater supplies is increasing the risk of human health problems. Inside Climate News, Kiley Price, Apr 21, 2026.
• Pollen season in UK and mainland Europe extended by climate breakdown Research finds global heating has already lengthened the pollen season in addition to worsening heatwaves and droughts The Guardian, Ajit Niranjan, Apr 22, 2026.

Climate Education and Communication (1 article)

• The really big picture, in four pictures If you had to explain climate change in 10 seconds, what would you say? Climate Trunk, John Lang, Apr 22, 2026.

Climate Policy and Politics (1 article)

• Q&A: What Magyar`s defeat of Orbán in Hungary means for climate and energy The right-wing populist Hungarian government led by Viktor Orbán has suffered a landslide electoral defeat to the centre-right Tisza party, led by Péter Magyar. Carbon Brief, Josh Gabbatiss, Apr 17, 2026.

Public Misunderstandings about Climate Solutions (1 article)

• Trust, Media Habits, and Misperceptions Shape Public Understanding of Climate Change Most Americans are concerned about climate change, but they don’t think most others share that concern. That quiet misunderstanding is one of the biggest barriers to climate action in the United States. This report explores how trust in information, media consumption patterns, and perceptions of others shape how people think about climate change. The findings point to a striking paradox: while many Americans trust the information they encounter and are concerned about climate change, they believe others are far less concerned and less able to recognize accurate information. ecoAmerica, Marryam Ishaq , Apr 09, 2026.

If you happen upon high quality climate-science and/or climate-myth busting articles from reliable sources while surfing the web, please feel free to submit them via this Google form so that we may share them widely. Thanks!

Ian Angus introduces his new book, joined by Helena Sheehan, Inea Lehner, and David McNally, and Jess Spear

Source

A vast Arctic seascape at dusk. Shell-branded icebreakers grind through cracked ice toward a drilling rig while Greenpeace activists unfurl banners from a small vessel. Above the scene, a giant translucent eye made from documents, camera lenses, email printouts and spy files watches everything. Dark satirical editorial style, cinematic lighting, high contrast, sharp detail. Enlarge image. 

How Shell’s long war with Greenpeace ran from Brent Spar to Arctic drilling, Hakluyt’s undercover games, the Phillips letters, and the uncomfortable Donovan surveillance trail PART ONE: FACT-BASED TABLOID DEEP DIVE THE ICE, THE COURTS AND THE CORPORATE PEARL-CLUTCHING

There are corporate rivalries. There are activist campaigns. And then there is Shell versus Greenpeace — a decades-long opera of rigs, boycotts, court orders, Arctic ice, reputational carnage and, lurking in the wings, the little matter of private intelligence, undercover activity, and Shell critics wondering exactly who was watching whom.

The immediate source story is a March 2012 Petroleum News report about Shell telling the federal District Court in Alaska that it intended to file information about Greenpeace activists occupying two Finnish icebreakers, the Nordica and Fennica, contracted to support Shell’s planned drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the Arctic open-water season. Shell had already asked the court for an injunction against Greenpeace, seeking to restrain the environmental group’s direct-action campaign against its Arctic drilling plans.

In corporate language, this was about safety, lawful operations and protecting vessels.

In plain English, Shell wanted to drill in the Arctic, Greenpeace wanted to stop it, and the lawyers were summoned to referee yet another round of Big Oil versus Big Banner.

And what a familiar match-up it was.

2012: SHELL GOES TO COURT AS GREENPEACE GOES TO THE ICE

The 2012 Alaska court fight came during Shell’s expensive and controversial push into Arctic offshore drilling. To Shell, the Arctic was a frontier of future supply. To Greenpeace, it was a frozen warning label: a climate-threatened region being turned into the next hydrocarbon hunting ground by companies that had apparently looked at melting ice and thought, “Excellent, easier access.”

The Petroleum News article reported that Shell wanted the court to take account of Greenpeace’s occupation of the Nordica and Fennica, both contracted to support its planned drilling campaign in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.

Greenpeace’s argument was not hard to decode either: the real danger was not the protester on the vessel, but the fossil-fuel project the vessel supported.

That is the Shell–Greenpeace conflict in miniature. Shell says the immediate crisis is activists disrupting operations. Greenpeace says the crisis is the operations.

One side points at the dinghy. The other points at the drill bit.

BUT THIS DID NOT START IN ALASKA

To understand the Arctic clash, you have to go back to Brent Spar, the 1995 North Sea confrontation that turned Shell into a corporate communications cautionary tale.

Shell planned to dispose of the Brent Spar oil storage buoy at sea. Greenpeace occupied it and turned the disposal plan into a European media storm. Greenpeace later summarised the campaign with the slogan: “The sea is not a dustbin.”

The images were made for television: activists, helicopters, water cannon, a giant industrial structure and Shell discovering that technical authorisation is not the same thing as public permission.

The backlash spread across Europe. Shell petrol stations faced boycotts. Greenpeace says Shell’s German sales fell by roughly 50 percent during the Brent Spar controversy.

Shell eventually abandoned the sea-disposal plan. Greenpeace later acknowledged that one of its claims about the amount of oil remaining inside Brent Spar had been wrong — a point Shell has never tired of remembering.

But politically, the damage was done. Brent Spar became a legendary example of what happens when a company with a permit runs into a public that thinks the sea is being treated as a corporate skip.

Shell wanted to sink a structure. Instead, it helped float a movement.

NIGERIA, BRENT SPAR AND THE REPUTATIONAL INFERNO

Brent Spar was not Shell’s only 1990s public-relations inferno. The same decade brought international outrage over Shell’s operations in Nigeria and the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni activists by Nigeria’s military regime in 1995.

This matters because the later Hakluyt exposé linked Shell’s post-Brent Spar anxieties to a wider atmosphere of protest, threat, reputational crisis and activist pressure. The archived Sunday Times report states that Shell’s then media-relations director Mike Hogan said Shell had talked to Hakluyt about what intelligence could be gathered after some petrol stations in Germany had been firebombed or shot at.

Nobody sensible dismisses threats of violence against staff, customers or assets. Companies are entitled to protect people and property.

But the harder question is where legitimate security ends and political surveillance of critics begins.

That is where Hakluyt enters the Shell story like a man in a raincoat stepping out of a very expensive doorway.

THE HAKLUYT AFFAIR: WHEN SHELL’S GREENPEACE PROBLEM ACQUIRED AN EX-MI6 AFTERTASTE

In June 2001, The Sunday Times published a front-page investigation alleging that Hakluyt, a private intelligence firm founded by former MI6 officers, had spied on environmental campaign groups to gather information for oil companies including Shell and BP.

The report, republished and archived by CorpWatch and Royal Dutch Shell Plc.com, said Hakluyt used a German operative, Manfred Schlickenrieder, who posed as a left-wing filmmaker while collecting information on Greenpeace and other campaigners.

The Sunday Times archive states that Hakluyt’s operation began in April 1996, after Mike Reynolds, a Hakluyt director and former MI6 head of station in Germany, was asked by Shell to find out who was orchestrating threats against Shell petrol forecourts across Europe after Brent Spar and Nigeria-related protests. The same archived report says Shell confirmed it had been Hakluyt’s client until December 1996.

The allegations were dynamite because they shifted the story from “Shell faces activist pressure” to “Shell’s world included private intelligence activity around environmental critics.”

And once that smell gets into the curtains, no amount of corporate Febreze quite removes it.

Shell’s likely defence is obvious: it was concerned about violent threats and security risks. That is a serious point.

But Greenpeace and other critics were left asking the equally serious counter-question: how much of this was genuine security, and how much was corporate intelligence-gathering against inconvenient campaigners?

A company that wants to be seen as a responsible energy major does not help itself when the cast list starts to include former spies, undercover operatives and codenames.

This was not stakeholder engagement.

This was stakeholder engagement wearing dark glasses.

THE PHILLIPS LETTERS: WHEN SHELL’S OWN LAWYERS PUT ‘ENQUIRIES’ IN WRITING

The Donovan surveillance story also has an earlier paper trail from the late 1990s involving Mr Christopher Phillips.

In a 24 June 1998 letter on Shell U.K. Limited Legal Division letterhead, Shell Legal Director R. M. Wiseman responded to John Donovan’s allegations about threats. Wiseman referred directly to “the visit of Mr Phillips” and “his instructions”, adding that Shell would cooperate with police “to the utmost extent.” He also wrote: “We are confident that no criminal act was committed by anyone acting with Shell’s approval.”

Wiseman further stated that Donovan and his potential witnesses could “rest assured that no intimidatory threats have come from or been authorised by Shell”, while saying Shell was keen to find the person it suspected was trying to use Donovan as “the unwitting conduit for falsehoods about Shell.”

A follow-up letter dated 3 July 1998 from Shell’s solicitors DJ Freeman, signed by Colin Joseph, denied that Shell had any connection with a threatening anonymous telephone call received by Donovan. But the same letter also referred to “the enquiries instituted by my client” and to “anyone involved in enquiries on their behalf, including Mr Phillips.”

That wording matters.

It does not prove that Shell authorised threats. Both letters deny knowledge, approval or connection with criminal or intimidatory conduct.

But the correspondence does show that Shell and its lawyers were openly addressing the existence of enquiries carried out on Shell’s behalf, including by Mr Phillips.

Donovan regards that as a form of intimidation in itself: a powerful multinational, already locked in bitter conflict with him and his business, making clear through its solicitors that agents were conducting enquiries about him and those connected with him. Whether Shell would call that security, investigation or litigation support, the effect on the target was obvious enough.

In the context of the later Sunday Times Hakluyt/Greenpeace exposé and the Reuters-reported Shell monitoring emails, the Phillips correspondence adds another uncomfortable layer to the record. Shell’s critics were not simply imagining that they had attracted attention. Shell’s own legal correspondence shows that enquiries involving a named individual, Mr Phillips, were sufficiently serious to be discussed by Shell’s Legal Director and its external solicitors.

In tabloid terms: when Shell says “nothing to see here,” the archive has an annoying habit of producing another letter.

THE DONOVAN CONNECTION: WHEN THE SPY STORY CAME HOME

The Hakluyt/Greenpeace affair also overlaps with the long-running Shell–Donovan saga.

John Donovan says Greenpeace consulted him about suspected continuing Shell-linked surveillance and intelligence-gathering activity directed at Shell critics, including himself. He says a senior Greenpeace official visited him in Colchester to discuss the subject, and that he holds emails with Greenpeace from before and after the visit.

That account is not floating alone in conspiracy fog. It sits alongside a separate Reuters-reported trail.

In December 2009, Reuters reported that Donovan alleged Shell was targeting his website, based on internal Shell emails released to him after a data-protection request. Reuters reported that one March 2007 Shell email said Shell was “monitoring emails from Shell servers globally to Donovan and internal traffic to their website”, with the information marked “not for publication.”

Reuters also reported that another Shell email referred to a meeting with “NCFTA” about Donovan’s website, with resources assigned that were “RDS focused” and the statement: “There will be no attempt to do anything visible to Donovan.”

That last line deserves to be framed and hung in the Museum of Corporate Innocence.

“There will be no attempt to do anything visible to Donovan.”

Not exactly the stuff of warm transparency and open dialogue, is it?

Reuters reported that Shell did not comment on the veracity of the communications or Donovan’s allegations despite repeated requests, although a Shell legal department representative confirmed Donovan had made a request for information.

The same Reuters article described Donovan and his father Alfred as long-running internet critics of Shell, noting that Shell insiders used the Donovans’ website to leak company information and that the site had featured attacks on Shell’s safety and environmental record.

So when Greenpeace came to Donovan’s door to discuss suspected surveillance, it was not entering fantasy territory. It was entering a landscape already marked by Shell’s own legal correspondence about enquiries, the Hakluyt/Greenpeace revelations, and Reuters-reported emails referring to global monitoring of Shell-server communications to Donovan and internal traffic to his website.

Shell may prefer the word “monitoring.” Critics may prefer “surveillance.” The difference, as ever, depends partly on who is holding the binoculars.

FROM BRENT SPAR TO THE ARCTIC: SAME MOVIE, COLDER WATER

By 2012, the battleground had moved north.

The Arctic offered Shell a new frontier: remote, expensive, hazardous, politically sensitive and symbolically explosive. Greenpeace saw Arctic drilling as the fossil-fuel industry’s most perfect self-satire: drilling for more oil in a region transformed by climate change.

Shell saw Greenpeace direct action as unlawful disruption of lawful operations.

The courts were asked to intervene. Shell argued safety and operational risk. Greenpeace framed the clash as resistance to reckless fossil-fuel expansion. The legal question became narrow; the political question remained vast.

Should a company already carrying the baggage of Brent Spar, Nigeria, Hakluyt, the Phillips letters and the Donovan monitoring trail really be trusted to write the next chapter of Arctic oil?

Shell’s answer was yes.

Greenpeace’s answer was a banner, a boat and, eventually, another lawsuit.

THE PUNCHLINE: SHELL EVENTUALLY WALKED AWAY FROM ALASKA

There is a grim punchline to the 2012 Arctic court drama: Shell’s Arctic adventure became a notorious business headache.

After years of delays, mishaps, regulatory scrutiny, enormous costs and disappointing drilling results, Shell announced in 2015 that it would cease exploration offshore Alaska for the foreseeable future.

Greenpeace did not single-handedly stop Shell’s Arctic ambitions. Geology, economics, logistics, politics and risk all had starring roles.

But Greenpeace helped turn Arctic drilling into a reputational nightmare — the kind of project where every vessel movement could become a campaign image, every injunction could become a fundraising email, and every corporate safety statement could be met with the public asking: “What exactly are you doing in the Arctic in the first place?”

Shell wanted Arctic oil.

It got Arctic theatre.

THE MODERN ECHO: GREENPEACE, SHELL AND THE ‘COUSIN GREG’ LAWSUIT

The Shell–Greenpeace legal dance did not end in Alaska.

In 2024, Shell settled a $2.1 million lawsuit against Greenpeace after activists boarded a Shell-contracted vessel connected to the Penguins oil and gas field in the North Sea. The Guardian reported that Greenpeace accepted no liability and would donate £300,000 to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, while agreeing not to carry out similar actions near certain Shell platforms for set periods. Shell said the case concerned illegal boarding and safety risks, not the right to protest.

Shell’s own UK statement said the legal action concerned costs arising from the 2023 boarding and emphasised that, in its view, the action created serious risk to safety and life.

The storyline was vintage Shell–Greenpeace: activists board; Shell sues; Greenpeace cries intimidation; Shell says safety; headlines bloom; lawyers prosper.

The fossil-fuel industry calls this operational risk.

Everyone else calls it Tuesday.

2025–2026 CONTEXT: SHELL STILL LOVES FOSSIL FUELS, BUT WITH BETTER FONT CHOICES

Fast forward to 2025–2026 and the Shell–Greenpeace clash sits inside a wider argument over whether Shell has truly changed, or merely learned to wrap hydrocarbon expansion in transition language polished to a shareholder-friendly shine.

Shell continues to present itself as a company navigating energy security, shareholder returns and lower-carbon transition. But its LNG outlook remains bullish. Shell’s 2026 LNG material forecasts global LNG demand rising from 422 million tonnes per annum in 2025 to 650–710 mtpa by 2040, an increase of about 54–68 percent.

That is not a company tiptoeing away from fossil fuels.

That is a company looking at the gas banquet and asking for a bigger spoon.

Shell argues that LNG can support energy security and help replace more carbon-intensive fuels such as coal. Critics counter that gas expansion risks locking in decades of fossil-fuel infrastructure, with methane leakage and lifecycle emissions complicating the industry’s “cleaner fuel” narrative.

Greenpeace, to put it mildly, remains unconvinced.

FOLLOW THE MONEY: BLACKROCK, VANGUARD AND THE GREAT PASSIVE-OWNERSHIP SHRUG

Behind Shell sits a vast wall of institutional capital.

Public shareholder data identifies large institutional investors and funds around Shell, including major global asset managers and index-fund giants. Investing.com’s Shell ownership data lists major institutional and fund holders including BlackRock-linked iShares funds, while MarketScreener’s shareholder data shows a large institutional ownership base with major holdings associated with the United States, United Kingdom and Norway.

This matters because Shell does not operate in a moral vacuum. It operates inside a financial ecosystem in which major asset managers, pension funds and sovereign institutions help keep the machine capitalised, liquid and respectable.

BlackRock, Vanguard, Norges Bank and other institutional investors may not be boarding rigs, filing injunctions or commissioning Arctic vessels. But their capital forms part of the background music.

The public tune is transition.

The bassline is still oil, gas and shareholder distributions.

THE REAL STORY: SHELL’S ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD IS NOT A SIDEBAR

The Shell–Greenpeace conflict is not merely a colourful activist-versus-corporation sideshow. It is a public trial of Shell’s business model.

Greenpeace has targeted Shell because Shell remains one of the world’s major oil and gas companies, with a long record of environmental controversies and a continuing commitment to large-scale hydrocarbons.

Shell’s supporters argue that global energy demand cannot be wished away, that gas can replace dirtier fuels, and that abrupt divestment from oil and gas would be economically reckless.

Shell’s critics argue that this is the language of delay: keep drilling, keep expanding, keep promising that transition will arrive later, preferably after the next dividend and buyback cycle.

The truth is that Shell’s problem with Greenpeace is not merely that activists dislike Shell.

It is that Shell keeps giving them material.

Brent Spar gave them the sea. Nigeria gave them the moral outrage. Hakluyt gave them the spy-thriller subplot. The Phillips letters gave the Donovan archive another legal paper trail. The Reuters article gave the monitoring story mainstream confirmation. The Arctic gave them the ice. The lawsuits gave them the courtroom drama. The LNG expansion narrative gives them the 2026 relevance.

For a campaigning organisation, Shell is not just a target.

It is a content engine with a dividend policy.

CONCLUSION: THE COMPANY THAT COULD NOT STOP BEING THE STORY

From Brent Spar to Alaska, from Hakluyt to the Phillips letters, from the Reuters-reported Donovan monitoring emails to Arctic injunctions and modern Greenpeace lawsuits, the Shell–Greenpeace saga shows what happens when a fossil-fuel giant meets activists built for confrontation.

Shell has money, lawyers, vessels, investors, annual reports and a corporate vocabulary polished until every uncomfortable noun becomes a “stakeholder issue.”

Greenpeace has boats, banners, climbers, media instinct and an almost supernatural ability to appear exactly where Shell would prefer it did not.

The 2012 Petroleum News article is one snapshot: Shell notifying an Alaska court about Greenpeace action against icebreakers supporting Arctic drilling. But the deeper story is much larger. It is about a company repeatedly discovering that environmental opposition is not a public-relations inconvenience. It is a structural consequence of what the company does.

Shell can sue Greenpeace. Shell can brief courts. Shell can talk about safety. Shell can describe critics as disruptive.

But the history remains stubborn.

The sea was not a dustbin.

The Arctic was not a blank cheque.

Critics were not always merely “stakeholders.”

And when a company’s past includes Brent Spar, Nigeria, Hakluyt, Arctic drilling, legal correspondence about agents and enquiries, Reuters-reported monitoring of a critic’s website, and repeated legal warfare with Greenpeace, perhaps the reputational iceberg is not floating in front of the ship.

Perhaps the ship was built inside it.

PART TWO: SPOOF SHELL PR / SPIN SECTION SHELL’S COMPLETELY REASSURING GUIDE TO WHY EVERYTHING IS PERFECTLY NORMAL

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STRATEGIC CALMNESS

Shell would like to reassure the public that its long relationship with Greenpeace is best understood as a series of unfortunate misunderstandings involving activists, vessels, courts, weather systems, journalists and the regrettable existence of cameras.

On Brent Spar, Shell merely pursued a technically assessed disposal option until Europe rudely developed emotions.

On Arctic drilling, Shell simply attempted to explore one of the planet’s most fragile regions for more hydrocarbons, because apparently the melting Arctic was not providing enough irony unaided.

On Hakluyt, Shell has previously been reported as a client of the firm until December 1996, but naturally this should not distract from Shell’s deep commitment to transparency, especially once everyone has stopped asking questions.

On the Phillips correspondence, Shell and its lawyers discussed enquiries on Shell’s behalf, including Mr Phillips, while denying any criminal or intimidatory conduct. Nothing says “relaxed corporate normality” quite like lawyers explaining which enquiries, agents and alleged threats definitely are not a problem.

On Greenpeace direct action, Shell fully supports peaceful protest, provided it does not occur near vessels, rigs, platforms, courts, annual general meetings, sensitive reputational assets, investor presentations or anything operationally inconvenient.

On John Donovan, Shell prefers not to dwell on Reuters-reported internal emails referring to monitoring emails from Shell servers globally to Donovan and internal traffic to his website, because nothing says “open dialogue” quite like: “There will be no attempt to do anything visible to Donovan.”

Shell further confirms that its commitment to the energy transition remains strong, particularly the part where LNG demand rises dramatically and shareholders continue receiving very traditional comfort.

Any suggestion that Shell’s environmental controversies form a pattern is deeply unfair.

They are not a pattern.

They are a portfolio.

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT REACTION / COMMENT SECTION THE INTERNET REACTS

@ArcticWatcherBot:
Shell drilling in the Arctic while complaining about Greenpeace disruption is like a burglar complaining the alarm is too loud.

@CorporateSpin9000:
“Safety is our priority,” says company pursuing high-risk offshore fossil-fuel extraction in a climate-stressed polar region. Irony levels: industrial.

@BrentSparVeteran:
I remember when Shell thought sinking Brent Spar was a good idea. Somewhere, a 1995 PR consultant is still living under a desk.

@SpyNovelReject:
Hakluyt remains the unbeatable subplot. Former spies, Greenpeace, oil companies and undercover operatives. John le Carré, but with more unleaded.

@PhillipsFiles:
When the lawyers start discussing “enquiries” and “Mr Phillips,” the phrase “nothing to see here” begins sweating visibly.

@DonovanFiles:
“There will be no attempt to do anything visible to Donovan” is possibly the most Shell sentence ever written.

@DividendGoblin:
Major institutional investors watching from the balcony: “We support transition, but please do not interrupt the cash machine.”

@GreenpeaceDinghy:
Shell: “Please use lawful channels.”
Also Shell: “No, not that channel. Or that vessel. Or that platform. Or that courtroom narrative.”

@LNGFanFiction:
Shell’s transition plan: more gas now, more gas later, net zero eventually, trust us bro.

@PublicRelationsWalrus:
Arctic drilling was always going to be a hard sell. Even the polar bears asked for legal representation.

@HakluytRaincoat:
Nothing suspicious here. Just a perfectly ordinary corporate reputation strategy with former intelligence officers wandering through the shrubbery.

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary. It uses satire, criticism and publicly available information, together with John Donovan’s stated account of documents and correspondence in his possession where clearly identified as such. It is not financial advice, investment advice or legal advice. Readers should consult original sources and professional advisers where appropriate. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

SHELL v GREENPEACE: THE ICE, THE SPIES AND THE COMPANY THAT COULD NOT STOP WATCHING ITS CRITICS was first posted on April 25, 2026 at 8:40 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Each week, Food Tank is rounding up a few news stories that inspire excitement, infuriation, or curiosity.

Can Conflict Drive a Transition to Sustainable Packaging?

As the war in Iran continues and oil prices stay high, plastic prices are soaring. That’s becoming a problem in China, Japan, South Korea, and Southeast Asia, which consume roughly a third of the world’s plastics. According to OECD data, their plastic use has increased from 17 million tonnes in 1990 to 152 million tonnes in 2022.

With the material so expensive, countries are worried the material will become far less accessible. In Tokyo, for example, wholesalers are already warning that there may be a shortage of plastic trays and bags. That’s driving a search for alternatives. 

In Malaysia, one dairy producer has temporarily switched from plastic containers to paper-based milk cartons. And in South Korea, packaging firms have seen a spike in demand for paper tubes and pouches. 

As more companies pivot, analysts are wondering if the shift to more sustainable options can be sustained in the long-term, ultimately reducing our reliance on plastics.

2025 Floods May Have Affected 3.3 Million Jobs in Pakistan

New estimates from the International Labor Organisation (ILO) show that around 3.3 million jobs may have been affected by the 2025 floods in Pakistan, which led to more than 1,000 deaths and the displacement of tens of thousands of people. 

Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London says the country is a “hotspot for increases in extreme rainfall” and it’s “undoubtedly on the front line of climate change.”

The ILO finds that the agriculture sector was hit the hardest, with rural communities bearing the brunt of the impacts. 

While provincial compensation measures helped with some of the most immediate needs, the Organization is calling for more comprehensive support to restore livelihoods in affected areas. This includes cash-for-work programs, skill-training, and subsidized credit which can help households restart their farms as well and other income-generating activities.

Women Fishers Challenge Taboos in Kenya

As told by Al Jazeera, women in Kisumul Kenya near Lake Victoria are defying gender norms.

Traditionally, women in the region worked as fishmongers, while fishing was reserved solely for men. These gender roles stem from deep seated beliefs held by members of Lake Victoria communities. But in the early 2000s, Rhoda Ongoche Akech realized that her income was dwindling and selling fish was no longer enough to support her family. Something needed to change.

One day, women from a neighboring county arrived in Akech’s village and she watched, surprised, as they went fishing. Even though it was a novel sight, it pushed Akech to learn how to fish herself. While those around Akech warned her that women didn’t belong on the water, she insisted on continuing because she knew her family depended on the income.

She spent 16 years as the only fisherwoman in her village. Then in 2018, Faith Awuor Ang’awo braved the social stigma and joined Akech on the water. In the years that followed a few more women joined the pair.

According to village elder William Okedo the taboo preventing women from fishing has broken down and attitudes among male fishers have shifted as well. But systemic hurdles still remain. Susan Claire, acting director of fisheries and blue economy for Kisumu County, refuses to officially recognize the work that women fishers are doing even though it’s the same as their male counterparts.

While the climate crisis and declining fish stocks pose additional challenges, Akech and her team are still making enough of a living on the water. And for now, they’re still fishing. 

President Trump Pushes for Cuts to WIC

For the second year in the row, President Trump is pushing to cut benefits for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

His fiscal year 2027 budget calls for a reduction in the fruit and vegetable component of WIC. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that it could take away US$1.4 billion in benefits from 5.4 million parents and young children. 

Under the proposed plan, monthly benefits for toddlers and preschoolers would drop from US$26 to US$10. Benefits for pregnant and non-breastfeeding postpartum mothers would fall from US$47 to US$13. And benefits for breastfeeding mothers would drop from US$52 to US$13. 

For the last three decades, presidents and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have fully funded the program to ensure that eligible families receive their full benefits because they understand how critical it is. WIC provides nutritious foods, counseling on healthy eating, breastfeeding support, and health care referrals to almost 7 million low-income expecting and postpartum people, infants, and young children at nutritional risk.

Anti-Immigration Bills Fail to Gain Traction

A new analysis from the Washington Post finds that of the roughly 200 bills targeting immigration communities across the country fewer than two dozen have made it into law so far.

One bill in Utah would have prevented undocumented pregnant mothers from accessing public assistance for food. Another bill in Idaho would have forced employers to use the government’s E-Verify system to keep undocumented people from securing jobs.In Tennessee, a third would have limited undocumented students’ access to education.

More than 80 measures like these have died, some were vetoed, and several have made little progress in states’ legislative spring season. Businesses and religious groups, alongside other advocates, have helped to stop these bills from moving forward, recognizing that the attacks only harm their communities.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Kabiur Rahman Riyad, Unsplash

The post Food Tank’s Weekly News Roundup: Kenyan Women Defy Gender Norms, President Trump Calls for Cuts to WIC, Anti-Immigration Policies Fail appeared first on Food Tank.

A group of leading climate scientists has called on governments to develop roadmaps for phasing out fossil fuels “anchored in science and justice”, alongside the launch of a separate panel of experts that will give scientific advice on how to navigate the energy transition.

Unveiled on Friday in Santa Marta, Colombia, a set of a dozen policy recommendations, summarising the Santa Marta Academic Dialogue, is intended to feed into ministerial discussions on equitable ways to reduce dependence on coal, oil and gas during next week’s “First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels”.

The policy insights urge countries to create “whole-of-government” plans to “dismantle legal, financial and political barriers” to the energy transition.

Sixty countries head to Santa Marta to cement coalition for fossil fuel transition

Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), said the push for a global transition away from fossil fuels offers “a light in the tunnel” during a “very dark moment” of geopolitical conflict and climate extremes.

“Science is here to serve,” Rockström told a packed Santa Marta Theatre. “We’re today launching the Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition (SPGET) as a service, as a global common good for all countries, all sectors, all regions to connect to the best science enabling a transition away from fossil fuels.”

Draft roadmap for Colombia

Colombian Environment Minister Irene Vélez Torres said the new SPGET panel “addresses a longstanding shortcoming” in international climate science, by creating a scientific body dedicated solely to overcoming the world’s reliance on fossil fuels.

“It’s a first-of-its-kind, designed to organise in the next five years the scientific evidence that allows cities, regions, countries and coalitions to take the big leap,” Vélez told the event in Santa Marta.

As an example of how countries can move forward – even when their economies are closely tied to the production and use of dirty energy – a group of European scientists presented a draft roadmap to phase out fossil fuels in Colombia, with inputs from the Colombian government. It will be used as a basis for further consultation in the Latin American nation to define the way forward.

To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”

Piers Forster, director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at the University of Leeds and co‑author of the roadmap, said it shows “a clear pathway to economic and societal benefit”, with average annual investment of $10.6 billion producing net economic benefits of $23 billion per year by 2050.

The document says fossil fuels in Colombia can be phased out through energy efficiency measures, coupling renewable generation with energy storage, and switching to electrified transport. But, it adds, the government will need to plan for reduced revenue from fossil fuel exports, which roughly half by the mid-2030s.

“What matters now is moving beyond headline targets to create credible, policy-relevant roadmaps, enabling a just and effective transition,” Forster said in a statement. Brazil is also working on a national roadmap for its own economy, as well as leading a voluntary process to produce a global roadmap.

IPCC hobbled by politics

Currently, the world’s top climate science body – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – requires countries to sign off on each “summary for policymakers” of its flagship science reports. This has led to a politically fraught process that has increasingly seen some oil-producing governments making efforts to weaken its recommendations.

In a bid to focus scientific debates on the phase-out of fossil fuels, the new SPGET was created based on a mandate from last year’s COP30. It is also meant to come up with scientific recommendations at a faster pace than the IPCC’s seven-year cycle.

Natalie Jones, senior policy advisor at the International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD), called the new scientific panel “historic”, as it will be “more specific, more targeted and potentially more agile” with its advice on phasing out coal, oil and gas than the IPCC’s exhaustive scientific synthesis reports.

Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action

The panel will be co-chaired by Cameroonian economist Vera Songwe, PIK’s chief economist Ottmar Edenhofer and Gilberto M. Jannuzzi, professor of energy systems at Brazil’s Universidade Estadual de Campinas. It will be composed of between 50 and 100 scientists divided into four working groups: transition pathways, technological solutions, policies and finance.

Under the 12 insights for the Santa Marta process, the other group of scientists recommended banning new fossil fuel infrastructure, mandating “deep cuts” in methane emissions, implementing carbon levies on imports, and de-risking clean energy investments via interventions from central banks, among others.

Co-author Peter Newell, professor of international relations at the UK’s University of Sussex, said “there are many different challenges along the way – and not all of them have to do with lack of evidence”, but the phasing out of fossil fuels “is one part of the story and it’s important to address it”.

The original version of this story incorrectly reported that the new Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition had called on governments to develop roadmaps for phasing out fossil fuels “anchored in science and justice”. This appeal came from a separate group of scientists that worked on recommendations ahead of the Santa Marta conference. The article has now been amended.

The post Climate scientists call for fossil fuel transition roadmaps appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Pentagon has requested more than US$200 billion to expand the war with Iran. Meanwhile, only two in five young Americans meet basic eligibility requirements for service, with poor health, often tied to diet, among the leading disqualifiers. To invest in national security requires investing in universal nutritional security.

Tens of millions of Americans struggle to consistently access healthy food. Diet-related diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension now drive approximately 85 percent of U.S. healthcare spending. For roughly the same cost as expanding the war with Iran, the United States could make a generational investment in nutrition security—and build the nation’s strength, resilience, and well-being through healthy food.

Policy must move beyond short term food aid and prioritize system design. Providing access to healthy food, integrating it into every aspect of the healthcare system, and building infrastructure to process and deliver healthy food represent a three-pronged strategy to build long-term nutritional security.

First, access. Today’s unhealthy food system results not simply from individual choices but policy choices that limit access. Expanding support to fully cover the cost of a nutritious diet through Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) healthy fruit and vegetable incentives —paired with universal healthy school meals—would reduce food insecurity and create a stable baseline of demand for healthier foods.

The evidence shows clear benefits. A U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) pilot program that provided Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) families with a 30-cent-on-the-dollar fruit and vegetable incentive resulted in a 26 percent increase in fruit and vegetable consumption. A study of more than 23,000 SNAP participants found healthy incentives improved key health outcomes.

Second, health care. Medically tailored meals and produce prescriptions reduce hospitalizations and overall costs for patients with chronic disease. Yet these programs remain small and inconsistently funded. Integrating nutrition into standard reimbursements through Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers would shift the system from treating disease to preventing it.

Food as medicine programs, when supporting local farm ecosystems, also drive economic growth. According to The Rockefeller Foundation, supporting local farmers through food is medicine programming would provide more than US$45 billion in annual economic benefits. Underlying all this research is a simple point: food is medicine, and food systems must be better designed to produce and deliver the medicine where it’s needed most. That is not just better care; it is a more efficient use of public dollars.

Third, infrastructure and production. The current food system excels at producing and distributing shelf-stable, highly processed foods. It is far less effective at producing and moving fresh, nutritious food at scale. That is not a failure of farmers. It is the result of policies that support factory farms and feedlots over family farms growing nourishing food. Strategic investment in regional processing, cold storage and distribution, paired with support for farmers transitioning to fruits, vegetables and diversified crops, would make healthy food more available and more affordable.

These three pillars reinforce one another. When families can afford healthy food, demand rises. When health systems and institutions commit to purchasing it, markets stabilize. When infrastructure and farms can meet that demand, accessibility improves. Over time, the system starts to sustain itself.

This is what security looks like when it is built, not just defended. The U.S. faces real threats and military readiness matters. But security is not a single line item in the federal budget. It is the product of a society’s overall resilience: its health, its economic stability, and its capacity to withstand shocks. Our fragile, unhealthy food system supply chains fail each of these priorities. We don’t need to wait for another COVID-19 sized failure to recognize the system fails Americans every day.

Economist Paul Collier once wrote that “war is development in reverse” pointing to the immense poverty and hunger in war-torn regions. The same consequences occur in countries who choose to fund war instead of feeding their people.

Congress will debate whether this war is worth the cost. It should also ask a parallel question: What would it look like to invest at the same scale in preventing the diet-related disease crisis that kills Americans every day and undermines our nation’s health and strength?

The U.S has demonstrated that it can mobilize hundreds of billions of dollars when it decides something is urgent. The challenge now is deciding whether the long-term health and resilience of the American people qualifies.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | We Can Find $200 Billion for War. Why Not for Food Security at Home? appeared first on Food Tank.

In Portugal, peasants have won important victories enshrined in the April Revolution and in the Constitution of the Republic through constant struggle over the last hundred years.

The post 17 April | Portugal: The April Constitution and the Struggles for Peasants’ Rights appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

This May Day will come after nearly sixteen months of authoritarian rule marked by brutal domestic and global violence.

At home, the state has deployed terror against the most vulnerable members of the working class—our immigrant neighbors—and anti-ICE protesters.

World politics has entered a new era with the illegal and unconstitutional U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran. The ongoing war is yet another morbid symptom of the late American empire. Conscious of its declining power and driven by a lunatic narcissism reminiscent of Caligula or Nero, the Trump administration seeks to demonstrate its virility through violence. The war’s horror is only matched by its absurdity, as it becomes increasingly clear how little the U.S. state thought through the consequences of their reckless actions.

This disastrous war is a great setback for the regime. But as Trump and company become weaker, they also become more volatile and dangerous.

With Trump’s approval ratings sinking and likely to fall lower given the shock to the economy, the midterm elections pose an existential threat to his administration. The likelihood of a manufactured crisis being used as a pretext to destroy democratic rights looks increasingly probable.

In the face of war and authoritarianism, most workers realize we must act to stop this regime, and many are looking for alternative political strategies.

Building the resistance

The resistance in Minneapolis, culminating in mass strikes at the end of January, gave us a glimpse of potential working-class power.

The question is how to transform broad yet diffuse opposition to Trumpism into the kind of organized labor action that can take powerful and decisive action against the regime.

We have seen resistance in varied spaces, from mass protests like No Kings to neighborhood networks to community and labor activism. While all these play a role, unions are of particular importance because they remain the one organized section of the working class with mass numbers, even while unionization levels are low. Organized labor’s reawakening to politics, uneven and contradictory as it may be, represents a significant breach in the post-war consensus that has dominated the movement for the better part of a century.

The resistance in Minneapolis, culminating in mass strikes at the end of January, gave us a glimpse of potential working-class power.

The primary task for activists is to enter all these arenas and help build them out into democratic infrastructures of dissent, spaces and networks where we can further discover our strength as workers. We want to build a left-moving pole of attraction based on class independence, broad democratic decision-making and collective action.

Building these structures is a precondition for resisting the threat of authoritarianism and the entire right-wing political system, and for articulating firm political demands that resist co-optation by the Democratic Party.

The labor-led coalition May Day Strong offers a potential alternative to politics as usual, one that reawakens a long-neglected tradition of political working-class activity and, especially, an orientation on strikes—the only weapon available to us with the power to stop the regime.

Ironically, the authoritarian onslaught is spurring organized labor to reconnect with its power and its ability to change the world.

Towards a general strike

The call for this May Day, “Workers over Billionaires: No Work, No School, No Shopping,” connects with a powerful radical tradition based on independent working-class power. Although its origins are in the United States, International Workers’ Day has largely been a forgotten holiday here. This is not an accident but a result of the deeply anti-worker and anti-socialist nature of the U.S. state, which has actively divorced organized labor from projects against capitalism and for universal human liberation.

Small groups cannot will a general strike in to being, and verbal radicalism cannot substitute for sustained organizing.

This May Day marks an important moment in the process of rejoining labor to its unique ability to fundamentally transform society. The violent and tyrannical capitalist system gave birth to Trumpism and has worse horrors in store if we do not alter its course. Our labor creates and recreates this system, but by refusing to work, we can shut it down.

While we have seen some significant May Days in recent history, most notably the 2006 “Day Without an Immigrant,” this May 1st promises to be a celebration of working-class strength like nothing we have seen in decades. Spearheaded by the Chicago Teachers Union, the May Day Strong Coalition is organizing major unions to turn out for this holiday in a way not seen in living memory. Some strikes have even been called against the Trump administration’s policies, including a shutdown of all the ports on the West Coast, from Alaska to San Diego.

It is crucial that we maintain our independence from the bankrupt two-party system and build our own numbers and power from below.

But we are also seeing attempts by conservative forces— Indivisible, the NGO bureaucracy and labor officialdom—to steer all the energy of the anti-Trump resistance back into efforts to elect the Democratic Party. We cannot entrust our precious rights to the very people who got us into this mess in the first place and who have waged no substantive opposition to the far right. Their aim is to restore the bankrupt status quo that germinated Trump. Regardless of what we do at the ballot box, when it comes to organizing, it is crucial that we maintain our independence from the bankrupt two-party system and build our own numbers and power from below.

The symbolic and practical significance of reclaiming May Day in these ways is hard to overstate.

The tasks of the moment

May Day will highlight the potential of working-class power to resist war and authoritarianism while resurrecting a radical labor tradition. But the prospect of mass political strikes that pose a tangible threat to the economic order remains distant.

We still have low levels of workplace organization, in terms of both formal unionization and informal activity. In the current climate calls for general strikes will be hollow if they are not backed up by mass collective organization, disciplined preparation, education and training. Small groups cannot will a general strike in to being, and verbal radicalism cannot substitute for sustained organizing.

This May Day and beyond presents the opportunity to foster our collective strength and become strike-ready. We do this through collective activities such as attending protests as a contingent with T-shirts and banners, pursuing workplace grievances, launching union drives, holding strike schools and forming rank and file groups prepared to push for radical action even in the face of reluctant union officials.

We can only unite as a class if we challenge all the oppressions our rulers use to divide us.

We can only unite as a class if we challenge all the oppressions our rulers use to divide us. If we are to uphold the great slogan of the labor movement, “An injury to one is an injury to all,” we must defend anyone who is under attack without exception. This includes forming emergency defense networks against ICE raids, standing with survivors of sexual violence, and advocating for trans rights, reproductive rights, Palestinian liberation and more.

These are the conditions in which we can build grounded socialist organizations that offer a genuine alternative.

Trumpism cannot be stopped with a vote or a promise. We must rip up its very roots by challenging the capitalist system that created it. There are no short cuts to this goal, but the keywords are organization, political independence, and working-class power.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Walter Crane, Walter Crane; modified by Tempest.

The post The cause of labor is the hope of the world appeared first on Tempest.

AI image: A shadowy Mayfair boardroom with three doors marked “MI6,” “Shell,” and “No 10.” A suited adviser carries a briefcase labelled “Strategic Advice” through the revolving door, while a Shell logo glows on the wall like a corporate moon. Outside, taxpayers and climate campaigners peer through frosted glass as a sign reads: “Nothing to See Here — Stakeholders Being Reassured.

There are revolving doors in British public life, and then there is Hakluyt: the discreet Mayfair intelligence-and-advisory outfit that appears to operate less like a door and more like a polished mahogany teleportation device between corporate power, former spooks, political insiders and the upper floors of government.

The latest spark comes from an openDemocracy investigation reporting that Hakluyt’s UK business grew by 30% in the year to July 2025, even after two senior figures left for government roles. Varun Chandra, previously Hakluyt’s managing partner, joined Keir Starmer’s government in July 2024 as the prime minister’s special adviser on business and investment. In January 2025, Sir Oliver Robbins left Hakluyt’s Europe, Middle East and Africa role to join the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

Despite those departures, according to openDemocracy’s analysis of financial records, Hakluyt posted one of its strongest recent years of UK growth. Chandra’s remaining stake reportedly entitled him to a payout of around £112,000 while he was working at the heart of Downing Street; openDemocracy says No 10 and Hakluyt declined to comment on whether he accepted the money.

And there, in one neat little parcel, is the smell Britain knows so well: not necessarily illegality, not necessarily wrongdoing, but that unmistakable aroma of the Establishment warming itself by the fire of “proper process.”

The official line tends to be reassuring. Interests are declared. Conflicts are managed. Recusals are arranged. Governance is robust. Everyone is terribly professional.

The public, meanwhile, is invited to believe that when a former boss and shareholder of a secretive advisory firm joins No 10, while that firm continues thriving in the high-end marketplace for corporate access, geopolitical advice and strategic influence, this is simply the smooth functioning of democracy.

How comforting.

How very British.

How wonderfully convenient.

WHAT IS HAKLUYT? A CONSULTANCY WITH A PASSPORT STAMPED “DISCRETION”

Hakluyt is not a normal consultancy in the “PowerPoint deck and biscuits” sense. It was founded in 1995 by former British intelligence officers and has long traded on a mystique of access, discretion and elite networks.

Hakluyt’s own website says it advises clients on “some of the most consequential and high-profile opportunities and challenges facing business leaders,” including M&A, strategy, shareholder perspectives, regulatory and policy issues, disputes, senior hires, digital and cyber, sustainability and more. It also says the firm employs more than 200 people in more than a dozen offices around the world, and that its client roster includes at least one of the top five corporations in every major sector globally and more than three quarters of the top 20 private equity firms by assets under management.

Translation: this is not Bob’s Local Consultancy above a dry cleaner.

This is influence architecture for the global elite.

It is the kind of firm corporations call when they do not merely want advice. They want intelligence, networks, access, judgement and plausible deniability wrapped in Savile Row discretion.

ENTER VARUN CHANDRA: FROM HAKLUYT TO THE HEART OF DOWNING STREET

Varun Chandra is central to the story because he embodies the modern corporate-government interface: business-friendly, politically connected, highly networked and positioned where capital meets policy.

Hakluyt announced in July 2024 that Chandra had stepped down as managing partner after being appointed the prime minister’s special adviser on business and investment. The company credited him with overseeing “a period of significant growth and expansion.”

The Guardian later reported that Chandra was one of Starmer’s most influential advisers, central to Labour’s attempts to build business confidence and attract foreign capital, and that as of May 2025 he held Hakluyt shares worth about £7 million. The same report said Hakluyt planned to buy back his shares over time and that he no longer had voting rights or decision-making roles in the firm.

Again, that may all be properly declared. It may all be managed through official processes. But the political optics are not exactly subtle.

A former Hakluyt chief, still financially linked to Hakluyt through a managed share sell-down, ends up in Downing Street advising on business and investment.

Hakluyt, meanwhile, continues doing what Hakluyt does: advising some of the most powerful corporate actors on earth.

One almost expects a brass plaque outside No 10 reading:

“Welcome to Britain: please declare your interests before influencing policy.”

THE LOBBYING WATCHDOG PROBLEM

This is not the first time Chandra and Hakluyt have attracted scrutiny.

In July 2025, openDemocracy reported that the Office for the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists had launched an investigation into Hakluyt after openDemocracy shared findings about Chandra’s activities while at the firm. The story centred on a meeting arranged with then Tory cabinet minister Kwasi Kwarteng and ten leading financiers. Hakluyt insisted it had done nothing wrong.

That detail matters because it punctures the soothing fantasy that Hakluyt is merely an elegant advice boutique floating above politics in a cloud of neutral expertise.

The firm operates in the zone where corporate intelligence, political access, regulatory risk and statecraft blur into one another.

That may be legal. It may be normal. It may even be precisely what clients pay for.

But normal is not the same as healthy.

THE THAMES WATER PARALLEL: SAME PLAYBOOK, DIFFERENT PIPE

The Hakluyt question widened further with The Guardian’s September 2025 report that Thames Water had paid more than £1 million to Hakluyt while trying to avoid renationalisation. The Guardian reported that Hakluyt had advised Thames since 2023, while Chandra — formerly Hakluyt’s managing partner and still financially linked to the firm — was tasked in government with finding a private-sector solution for Thames. No 10 said the Cabinet Office has a process for declarations and managing conflicts, including recusals where appropriate. Hakluyt said it is not a lobbying organisation and does not lobby governments on behalf of clients.

That is the modern British public-interest machine in miniature.

A struggling utility.

Private advisers.

Former officials.

Government rescue options.

Corporate creditors.

A market-based solution.

And somewhere in the background, a discreet consultancy insists it is not lobbying while advising clients on political and strategic matters in the middle of a national infrastructure crisis.

The water may be polluted, but the language remains crystal clear.

NOW ADD SHELL: THE OLD OIL-SLICK CONNECTION

This is where the story becomes especially relevant to Shell watchers.

Hakluyt’s strong historic attachment to Shell is not conspiracy-theory mist. It has been documented in mainstream reporting for decades.

In 2001, The Sunday Times reported — republished by CorpWatch — that a private intelligence firm with close links to MI6 had spied on environmental campaign groups to collect information for oil companies including Shell and BP. The report said Hakluyt hired German-born Manfred Schlickenrieder, who posed as a left-wing sympathiser and filmmaker, and that he tried to obtain information about opposition to Shell drilling in Nigeria.

That is not “stakeholder engagement.”

That is not “sustainability dialogue.”

That is not “listening to civil society.”

That is corporate intelligence gathering against environmental campaigners.

And Shell’s name was there.

The allegations went to the heart of Shell’s carefully polished public identity: a company that talks endlessly about ethics, transparency, human rights and responsible energy, while historically appearing in reports about covert intelligence-gathering against critics.

The fossil-fuel industry has always loved the language of trust. But trust is a strange thing to demand from people you once allegedly monitored through hired intelligence networks.

SHELL, HAKLUYT AND THE MORAL FOG MACHINE

Shell’s relationship with Hakluyt sits in a broader pattern: extractive industry meets elite intelligence culture meets public-relations hygiene.

The purpose is not always to win arguments in public. Sometimes it is to know who is organising, who is vulnerable, who is influential, what journalists are circling, what activists are planning, which governments are shifting, and how to stay several moves ahead.

That is why the Hakluyt story matters.

It is not merely about one firm. It is about a political economy in which powerful corporations can buy insight into the democratic forces trying to scrutinise them — while ordinary citizens are left trying to decode press statements written in a dialect somewhere between legal caution and scented fog.

Shell has spent decades projecting an image of corporate responsibility while remaining a fossil-fuel giant with a long and controversial environmental and political record. The Hakluyt connection is one of those episodes that punctures the smooth brochure version of events.

Because when a company has historical links to a firm accused of spying on environmental campaigners, and that same firm later becomes a glittering node in the business-government influence machine, it is entirely fair to ask:

Who gets access? Who gets watched? Who gets listened to? And who gets managed?

THE ESTABLISHMENT’S FAVOURITE WORD: “MANAGED”

There is always a magic word in these controversies.

Managed.

Conflicts are managed.

Interests are managed.

Risks are managed.

Optics are managed.

The public is managed.

And the result is a political culture in which almost nothing is ever officially improper, yet everything somehow smells faintly of old cigar smoke, private dining rooms and “let’s take this offline.”

Varun Chandra may have followed the rules. Hakluyt may have followed the rules. No 10 may have followed the rules.

But perhaps that is the point.

If the rules allow elite advisers to move from secretive corporate intelligence firms into the centre of government while retaining financial pathways back to those firms, maybe the scandal is not that the rules were broken.

Maybe the scandal is that the rules are so magnificently accommodating.

THE SHELL ANGLE: WHY THIS SHOULD MATTER TO CLIMATE AND CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY CAMPAIGNERS

For climate campaigners, the Hakluyt-Shell history is more than an old footnote.

It is a reminder that fossil-fuel power has never been limited to rigs, refineries and trading desks. It includes lawyers, lobbyists, consultants, risk firms, PR specialists, former diplomats, intelligence veterans, think-tank networks and political advisers.

Shell does not need to control government to benefit from elite proximity. It merely needs to exist inside a system where corporate access is normalised, climate delay is dressed up as realism, and criticism is processed as risk.

Hakluyt’s publicly described work includes advising on regulatory and policy issues, disputes, sustainability and shareholder perspectives.   These are precisely the battlefields on which fossil-fuel companies fight modern reputation wars.

The result is a velvet-gloved ecosystem where the same kinds of people rotate between business, politics, intelligence, finance and regulation, while the public is told to calm down because declarations have been filed.

THE TABLOID VERDICT: BRITAIN’S INFLUENCE MACHINE HAS A SHELL-SHAPED SHADOW

This story has everything.

A discreet Mayfair intelligence firm.

Former MI6 roots.

A former boss in No 10.

A remaining financial stake.

Record UK growth.

A lobbying watchdog investigation.

A Thames Water conflict row.

Historic Shell and BP links to spying on environmental campaigners.

And a political class asking us to believe this is all perfectly manageable because the paperwork is probably in order.

The real scandal is not one alleged breach, one payout, one advisory contract, or one revolving-door appointment.

The real scandal is the architecture.

Britain has built a system in which corporate influence does not need to shout. It whispers. It lunches. It advises. It recuses. It declares. It networks. It grows by 30%. It moves from Mayfair to Downing Street and back again through a series of carefully labelled doors.

And Shell, with its long history of environmental controversy, public-relations combat and documented Hakluyt connection, fits perfectly into that world.

Not as an exception.

As a case study.

HAKLUYT / SHELL / No 10 PR DEPARTMENT VERSION — SPOOF

Important note: the following is a clearly labelled spoof. It is not an actual statement by Hakluyt, Shell, No 10, Varun Chandra, or anyone connected to them. It is a satirical reconstruction of the sort of polished language AI might imagine such institutions using, based on their public positioning, the reporting cited above, and the usual dialect of elite reassurance.

“A Proud Tradition of Strategic Insight, Responsible Transition and Absolutely Nothing to Worry About”

Hakluyt, Shell and the broader responsible stakeholder ecosystem wish to reaffirm their unwavering commitment to transparency, integrity, global competitiveness, sustainable dialogue and the careful management of any appearances that less sophisticated observers may accidentally mistake for concern.

Hakluyt is not a lobbying organisation. It merely provides strategic insight to some of the world’s most consequential businesses on regulatory issues, policy matters, political risk, stakeholder environments, market dynamics, reputational challenges, geopolitical complexity and other topics that should not be confused with lobbying simply because they involve power.

Shell, for its part, remains committed to listening to society, especially where society has been appropriately mapped, assessed, risk-ranked and briefed.

Historical reports concerning environmental campaigners, corporate intelligence and Shell should be viewed in their full context, ideally from a considerable distance and through a soft-focus lens marked “legacy issue.”

As for the movement of senior personnel between Hakluyt and government, this reflects Britain’s world-class ability to attract talented individuals who understand both public service and private capital, sometimes in that order.

Any potential conflicts are subject to robust processes, comprehensive declarations, appropriate recusals, refined governance, careful handling, and the kind of internal assurance mechanisms that sound magnificent when read aloud in a committee room.

In conclusion, stakeholders can be reassured that Britain remains open for business, open to advice, open to investment, and occasionally open to questions, provided they are submitted in advance and do not interrupt the networking breakfast.

BOT COMMENT SECTION — SPOOF REACTIONS FROM THE MACHINES

Bot 1:
“Revolving door detected. Rotation speed: Mayfair-to-Whitehall in 0.8 seconds.”

Bot 2:
“User query: Is this lobbying? Corporate answer: No, it is advanced relationship weather forecasting.”

Bot 3:
“Shell historical attachment to Hakluyt located. Public trust module now emitting smoke.”

Bot 4:
“Conflict of interest status: managed. Public confidence status: missing, presumed briefed.”

Bot 5:
“Phrase ‘not a lobbying organisation’ detected near ‘regulatory and policy issues.’ Satire engine overheating.”

Bot 6:
“British Establishment transparency resembles frosted glass: technically present, functionally decorative.”

Bot 7:
“Shell says it listens to society. Archive suggests it may also have occasionally listened rather carefully.”

Bot 8:
“Recommendation: replace revolving door with turnstile and charge admission. National debt solved.”

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary. It is satirical in tone but based on publicly reported information, cited journalism, Hakluyt’s own public material, and historic reporting concerning Hakluyt, Shell, BP and environmental campaigners.

The spoof “PR Department Version” and “Bot Comment Section” are fictional and included for humour, satire and commentary. They are not actual statements by Hakluyt, Shell, No 10, Varun Chandra, Keir Starmer, any government official, or any AI system.

Nothing in this article should be taken as financial advice, investment advice, legal advice or a factual allegation beyond what is supported by the cited sources. Where criticism is expressed, it is opinion based on the public record. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

THE SPOOKS, THE SHELL MEN AND THE STARMER MACHINE: Hakluyt’s Very British Revolving Door Gets Another Oil-Slick Polish was first posted on April 24, 2026 at 11:56 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Earth Week in a time of monsters Jonathan Lawson Fri, 04/24/2026 - 3:24 pm

Opponents of plans to drill and frack for gas in the North Yorkshire village of Burniston are celebrating tonight after the decision to oppose planning permission.

Photo: DrillOrDrop

North Yorkshire councillors voted almost unanimously against the application by Europa Oil & Gas. More details

After the meeting in Scarborough, Chris Garforth, of the local campaign group, Frack Free Coastal Communities, said:

“This is a victory for science, for common sense, and for the people who live on this coastline.

“The planning committee has listened to the evidence and to the 1,600 people who objected. Now we need the government to close the loophole in the fracking moratorium, and make sure no community anywhere in the UK faces this fight again.”

A joint statement from FFCC and Frack Free Scarborough, added:

“Today North Yorkshire councillors did the right thing. They listened to over 1,600 objections, they listened to the science, and they said no to a reckless scheme that would have put our coastline, our water and our community at risk.

“This victory belongs to everyone who took action. To those who leafletted, who put money in the campaign pot, who marched to the proposed site, who took to social media, who organised and attended meetings, lobbies, fairs, and social events, and of course to those who did the laborious work of exposing the contradictions in the application and the planning process.

“All those actions, individual and collective, sent one message loud and clear: we will not tolerate companies whose only interest is profit gambling with our geology, our natural resources, our environment and our health. 

“Europa wanted to use Burniston as a testing ground for an experimental technique. Today, councillors refused to let that happen. But this fight isn’t over. Europa may appeal. And in any case, applications like this one will continue to be pushed on communities across England as long as fossil fuel companies are able to exploit the loophole in the moratorium that allows lower volume hydraulic fracturing and other unconventional techniques. 

“We will keep campaigning here in North Yorkshire and across the UK until that loophole is closed and all forms of hydraulic fracturing are banned for good. And we stand in solidarity with communities everywhere fighting to keep fossil fuels in the ground.

“The government has promised to discuss the fracking ban in the autumn. We’ll be putting pressure on ministers to make sure low-volume techniques like proppant squeeze are included. Because the science is clear: they carry the same risks as the fracking banned in 2019.

“More fundamentally, we’re in a climate crisis. Drilling for oil and gas, at any scale, using any technique, makes that crisis worse. Real energy security comes from a swift and just transition to renewables, not from extracting the last drops of fossil fuel from our coastline.

“Today is a victory for our community and for good sense. Tomorrow we continue the fight for a safer, cleaner future for all.”

Frack Free Scarborough campaigner, John Atkinson:

“This is what people power looks like. Hundreds of us stood outside Scarborough Town Hall today, and the planning committee heard us. But this isn’t just about Burniston or Scarborough. It’s a message to every community in Britain fighting fossil fuel companies: you can win.”

Cllr Richard Parsons, chair of Burniston Parish Council, said:

“Burniston Parish Council and our community are so pleased that the Planning Committee Councillors were minded to reject this hydraulic fracturing gas drill application, from Europa.

“It was clear the councillors understood the potentially devastating consequences of this plan had this application been given the green light. The overwhelming vote to reject the application is a clear message to any company, who wish set up this type of drilling operation and expect to be given the go ahead without full scrutiny.

“There have been many parts of the application process that are at the very least, troubling.

“Our Communities had the right to expect that this application would be scrutinised in full, along with every objection and comment, in order to arrive at a planning recommendation, that in itself , would stand up to full scrutiny, before the application was heard by the Planning Councillors

“Thankfully, those Councillors were prepared to ask the right questions and arrive at the right decision.

“I do wonder if the applicant fully understands what they were asking for.

“We have heard many times the CEO of Europa, Mr Holland, saying, ‘This is Yorkshire gas for Yorkshire people’.

“Anyone who has knowledge of this industry should know that’s not how it works. Any gas produced is sold on the international market at international prices, not locally.

“It is now time that our Government stood by their promises, close the fracking loophole and by doing so keep all of our Communities safe in the future. No community should have to suffer the uncertainty for the future that this community has been put through. I call upon our government to get their act together and deliver on their promises, now.

“Let’s also not forget the nearby communities of Foxholes and Wold Newton who are experiencing the same problems owing to a current planning application from Egdon Resources, for a drill site in their area.

“I can only hope that after the hearing for the Burniston drill site, North Yorkshire Council listen to those communities, question every detail of that application fully, accept nothing without scrutiny and make the decision that keeps those communities safe.”.

Tony Bosworth, a campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said:

“We’re delighted that North Yorkshire Council is minded to reject this damaging and unnecessary fracking proposal. This is a huge victory for local people who stood up to protect their community.

“The people of Burniston should never have been put under this threat in the first place. Ministers have promised to ban fracking for good – but proppant squeeze is just fracking under another name.

 “Friends of the Earth has opposed the Burniston application because fracking blights our countryside, won’t lower UK energy bills, and remains deeply unpopular with communities. If the Government is serious about stopping fracking, ministers must act swiftly to close the loophole that could allow proppant squeeze fracking to go ahead. If they don’t, more communities will be put at risk.”

Steve Mason, a North Yorkshire councillor and anti-fracking campaigner, said:

“Common sense prevailed. North Yorkshire Council has sent fracking packing.”

Cllr Rick Maw, a North Yorkshire and Scarborough town councillor, said:

“This wasn’t a rubber-stamp exercise. It was detailed, serious scrutiny. Tough questions were asked, evidence was tested, and arguments were challenged from all sides, exactly how democratic decision-making should work.

All the while, hundreds of protesters stood outside, making their voices heard, and a packed public gallery sat behind us – a powerful reminder that this decision carries real weight for our communities, our environment, and future generations. And today, that message was heard loud and clear. North Yorkshire Council has said no to fracking.

“This outcome didn’t happen in isolation. It reflects sustained public pressure, grassroots campaigning, and the determination of people who refuse to see their local environment put at risk for short-term gain.”

The local MP, Alison Hume, said on social media:

“I’m relieved that Europa Oil and Gas’ application to frack in Burniston has been rejected.

“The North Yorkshire Council Strategic Planning Committee has made a courageous and correct decision in rejecting the advice of council officers.

“From the moment the Europa made their first move, I have stood shoulder to shoulder with my constituents, who overwhelming opposed this plan, throughout and, as I told them outside Scarborough Town Hall before the planning meeting took place, will continue to do so.

“I have lobbied tirelessly in Westminster to close the loophole in the fracking moratorium Europa were looking to exploit and will keep pressing ahead to ensure that so-called ‘proppant squeezes’ should be included in the fracking ban.

“This afternoon was a triumph for local democracy and local campaigning.”

Europa Oil & Gas did not make a formal public statement to investors immediately after the meeting. But its chief executive, William Holland, told reporters the company would lodge an appeal. He said:

“We will go straight to appeal and we are confident of winning.”

Mr Holland added:

“I’m very disappointed because fairly the planning officers did a very thorough job and they’re the ones that really understand the technicalities very very well and they recommended it for approval.

“Now there’s obviously some concerns here and a lot of those concerns are not really part of this planning decision but they’ve been the cause of people to reject it.”

Europa issued a statement to investors at 7am on Monday 27 April 2026. The statement said:

“The Company is disappointed with the committee’s decision, which directly contradicts the NYC planning officers’ endorsement of its plans for the well after an exhaustive review process, and Europa intends to appeal the decision once the final recommendation has been delivered.

“The Company is confident that on appeal the planning permission will be approved. Following implementation of the Wressle development, which was approved on appeal, the initial local opposition and concern has disappeared and the local community is now highly supportive. This clearly demonstrates how a well-run operation can be conducted without negatively impacting local amenity and how the community can realise a material benefit.”

Mr Holland added:

“Our planning application for the well at Burniston was underpinned by 13 expert reports and exhaustive preparatory work. It was also recommended by the council’s own planning department. We shall appeal the decision and remain of the view that the well can be safely and efficiently delivered and is in the best interests both of the local community and the country.”

Updated 27/4/26 with Europa Oil & Gas statement to investors

By Christopher Collins and Mike O’Sullivan

The version of record of this op-ed appeared in Barron's.

Europe has effectively been at war since 2022. Russia’s drones are still flying over European airports, their ships continue to sabotage critical undersea cables, and their cyberattacks across the continent are surging.

Europe still isn’t ready to fight back.

There have been fits and starts of ambitious defense measures: last year, the European Commission sought to mobilize €800 billion under its Readiness 2030 plan, the European Union earmarked €150 billion for the Security Action for Europe, or SAFE, program, and the European Investment Bank (EIB) quadrupled its defense spending to €4 billion. But if Europe is to take full responsibility for its own security—and President Donald Trump is making clear it needs to—what currently exists isn’t enough.

The SAFE program is a demand-side instrument. It helps EU governments borrow to procure defense materials by issuing low-interest, long-maturity loans. It does nothing to promote more supply; SAFE offers no mechanism for guaranteeing commercial bank lending to defense firms, for instance. And the fact that the program is so heavily oversubscribed clearly signals both the demand and the urgency for more help. Meanwhile, the EIB is limited in what it can do by structural constraints: its own policies prevent it from financing weapons and ammunition. As the EIB’s president has rightly said, the bank “is not a defense ministry.”

This is where the proposed Defence, Security and Resilience Bank (DSRB) could come in—not as a rival to the existing European mechanisms, but as a complement that covers the ground they cannot.

The concept of the DSRB was developed by Rob Murray, formerly the head of innovation at NATO, who began working on the idea in 2018. The bank was officially launched last year and is now well beyond the drawing board: major global banks have signed on to help structure the institution, and its backers aim to have it operational by the end of 2026.

It is a straightforward idea: a multilateral bank, owned and overseen by democratic states. The DSRB would raise funds by issuing AAA-rated bonds on global capital markets and would then lend to member governments and guarantee loans made to defense firms by commercial banks. By pooling allied credit strength, these loans would be made at rates most NATO members cannot access on their own and over the long time frames that defense investment demands. Importantly, with the DSRB, there is no joint debt and no shared liability. Each country answers only for its own equity stake, which preserves national control.

The gap the DSRB is best placed to fill is on the supply side, helping companies that develop and build defense equipment access capital. This is especially true for the growth-stage firms across Europe, that are too mature for early-stage venture capital but too small and too risky for conventional bank lending.

Europe has relatively few investment funds that do the type of investing required to scale these companies. And European commercial banks, after years of ESG-driven retreat from the defense sector, lack both the appetite and the internal expertise to lend to these firms without guarantees. A DSRB-backed guarantee structure would address both these issues.

The European capital markets argument also deserves more attention. The EU’s Savings and Investment Union project aims to keep European capital in Europe, channeling it into productive, long-term capital market investments. The DSRB’s AAA-rated bonds would be precisely the kind of high-quality, euro-denominated instrument that a deeper European capital market could absorb, investing European savings into European security. Far from competing with the Savings and Investment Union, the DSRB could become a compelling use-case for the program.

Canada has emerged as a champion of the DSRB. Under Prime Minister Mark Carney — who has made strengthening Canada's strategic autonomy a national priority — Canada has taken a leading role in establishing the bank and hosting meetings with partner countries to begin negotiations on the bank’s charter. Canada has already lined up all of its major banks as partners and the country’s biggest cities are all vying to host the bank’s headquarters.

European defense and finance ministers are more lukewarm.

Germany says it prefers the existing SAFE program. But the DSRB would complement SAFE, not compete with it. Berlin knows this, or at least Deutsche Bank does, given that the German bank is one of the DSRB’s partner institutions. The German government’s current position amounts to telling its country’s flagship lender that it is wrong about how defense should be financed. That is an unusual stance for an export economy that prides itself on listening to industry.

The United Kingdom’s Treasury has said the DSRB would not deliver sufficient value. More than 800 British defense companies have publicly disagreed. The UK says it wants to spend 2.5% of GDP on defense, yet the country faces serious fiscal constraints. A multilateral guarantee structure is precisely the kind of tool that could help square that circle.

With major firms such as Naval Group, Dassault, Thales, and MBDA, France has the strongest defense industrial base in Europe; last year the country became the world's second-largest arms exporter. Yet Paris has barely commented on the DSRB. In diplomacy, that signals internal disagreement or caution.

Perhaps France fears that its strategic autonomy would be weakened by joining a bank that it would only partly own. But joining the DSRB would actually strengthen France’s strategic position by facilitating capital inflows. If Paris doesn’t become involved now, it risks spending the next decade complaining about rules it chose not to shape.

As the joke goes, Europe likes being concerned. The DSRB is a way to translate that concern into action. The countries that join the DSRB now will write the charter, while latecomers will accept terms drafted by others.

Europe’s three largest economies have every reason to be leading voices around this table. After all, the threats driving the DSRB, such as Russian aggression, supply chain fragility, and defense industrial underinvestment, are European problems. Letting Canada solve them isn’t a viable strategy.

Christopher Collins is a fellow with the Polycrisis Program at the Cascade Institute. Mike O’Sullivan is author of ‘The Levelling – what’s next after globalization?’(PublicAffairs), and former CIO at CS Wealth. 

Read the article in Barron's The post Europe Needs to Get Serious About Its Defense. A New Bank Is the Answer. appeared first on Cascade Institute.

“The Hub” is a weekly round-up of transportation related news in the Philadelphia area and beyond. Check back weekly to keep up-to-date on the issues Clean Air Council’s transportation staff finds important.

Celebrate Cobbs Creek Trails Day this Sunday, 4/26 from 10am to 2pm, at the park at Thomas Ave & Cobbs Creek Parkway north of Whitby Ave. More information and activities can be found here.

Are you interested in improving the health and built environment of Philadelphia? The Nutrition and Physical Activity Team in the Health Department of Philadelphia is hiring a Built Environment Coordinator, and a Community Health Infrastructure Coordinator. Click the links in the titles to learn more about these roles and their impact!

Image Source: BillyPenn

BillyPenn: Advocates push for around-the-clock access to public transit for kids in Philadelphia – Councilmember Rue Landau and Transit Forward Philly held a press conference for expanding the student fare program. The SEPTA card provided for students, the student fare program, is currently limited by distance, time of day, and days of the week. Limiting factors can include going to summer jobs, living too close to their school, and even involvement in sports. Advocates pointed out that universal access benefits kids, giving them opportunities in education, professional development, summer opportunities, and more.

Image Source: ABC21

PhillyVoice: PA Turnpike is testing a system that will warn drivers of slow traffic – Pennsylvania Turnpike drivers will be alerted of upcoming traffic jams, due to a pilot program that began this week. Drivers can expect two alerts, the first being an electronic sign about 2 miles away, and another screen alert placed about half a mile out from the slowdown. The pilot program is initially along the Northeast Extension of I-476, with review planned afterwards, to see if outward expansion would be beneficial.

Image Source: The Inquirer

The Inquirer (via MSN): Why city council is threatening to block Mayor Cherelle Parker’s ‘Uber tax’ if it doesn’t get its way on school closures – Philadelphia’s Board of Education has pushed the vote to cancel schools to April 30th, instead of this week as it was originally scheduled. During the past week, Philadelphia City Council members have pushed to delay the vote, as the facilities plans as written contain some concerning flaws. Mayor Parker introduced legislation that would add a $1-per-ride tax on services like Uber and Lyft to try and patch the Philadelphia School District’s budget. This tax would generate an estimated $50 million per year, but that would not offset the closures of several schools. Uber has also begun a public campaign to make clear that it will be passing along this tax directly to the rider.

Other Stories

City & State Pennsylvania: Ask the Experts: Local transit leaders mind the gaps

Pittsburghers For Public Transit: Transit is the Ticket to a Winning NFL Draft

WHYY: Why are NJ Transit fares to New Jersey’s 8 FIFA World Cup matches so high? And what benefit will the state get?

The Inquirer: I-95 South exit ramp to Packer Avenue will be closed into May, disrupting traffic to sports complex

KYW News Radio: No tickets necessary: PATCO riders will soon be able to pay with credit cards or smart phones

Railway Age: Transit Briefs: San Diego MTS/NICTD, MDOT MTA, NJ Transit, Amtrak
WHYY: Reported crime on SEPTA continues to drop in 2026 after decade lows last year

By Olivia Bahena Sahagún, Federal Carol Brantley Climate Justice Fellow, Chesapeake Climate Action Network

In July 1995, Chicago endured one of the deadliest climate disasters in U.S. history. A heatwave pushed temperatures above 100°F and heat index values to 115°F, causing more than 700 heat-related deaths. What made this heatwave so deadly for certain communities was not just the temperature, but poor housing infrastructure, weak emergency response, and social inequality. Thirty years later, as climate change increases extreme heat in cities, the lessons from 1995 are still relevant today. This disaster demonstrated that extreme heat is not just a weather problem; it is a policy failure shaped by infrastructure, governance, and social inequality.

Climate change is now making heat policy more urgent, as the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events are increasing, and heatwaves like 1995 are no longer rare events. Without addressing climate change, we cannot protect our communities from extreme heat. President Trump’s recent proposed budget cuts to the EPA, NOAA, and FEMA only threaten to undercut efforts to keep Americans safe from extreme heat. A decrease in funding for climate and environmental programs will limit localities’ ability to prepare for future heat events and properly adapt to climate change. Without sustained investment in climate resilience, the same structural inequalities that made the 1995 heatwave so deadly will continue to put lives at risk.

The Legacy of Redlining Lives On: Systemic Inequalities Increase Risk to Extreme Heat

Urban infrastructure played a major role in determining which Chicago communities felt the biggest impact of the heatwave and which didn’t. Predominantly low-income, Black neighborhoods had and still have fewer trees and more pavement than other areas, which intensifies heat. Many residents in those neighborhoods also did not have AC units or could not afford to use them. A New England Journal of Medicine study found that half of the deaths could have been prevented with a working AC in each home. These conditions demonstrated how unequal infrastructure directly shaped who faced the greatest risk.

These infrastructure disparities are rooted in Chicago’s history of redlining, a practice that denied loans and investments to communities of color and left them in hotter, less resilient neighborhoods. Through this racist housing practice, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation made the city extremely segregated, and this legal segregation has led to the urban infrastructure and housing issues that caused low-income, Black communities to feel the worst of the 1995 heatwave. 

Social isolation was also a determining factor in whether residents survived the heatwave. A 1996 study found that living alone doubled the risk of death during the heat and that those who died from heat-related deaths were less likely to leave home frequently or have friends in Chicago. Without strong social networks, victims of extreme heat who lived alone, especially the elderly, could remain unnoticed for long periods of time, not receiving immediate medical attention needed to possibly save their lives.

Beyond Chicago: How Patterns of Inequities Create Urban Heat Islands 

This pattern is not unique to Chicago. Cities like Washington, D.C. show the same inequities, where historically underinvested neighborhoods become urban heat islands, metropolitan areas significantly hotter than surrounding areas. These similarities show that the 1995 heatwave isn’t an isolated event caused by one-time failures, but part of a larger national pattern of unequal climate vulnerability, which is why a stronger federal response is needed. 

Chicago improved its heat response after 1995, but these changes focused mostly on emergency management. During a 1999 heatwave, the city issued more warnings and press releases, opened cooling centers, and sent police to check on vulnerable residents. Today, Chicago has a very extensive extreme heat emergency plan. However, improved emergency planning does not address the structural issues that create risk in the first place.

The federal government has also responded more seriously to heat since 1995. In 2015, NOAA and the CDC launched the National Integrated Heat Health Information System (NIHHIS) to support heat resilience in the U.S.

In 2022, the NIHHIS created the Heat.gov website to educate the public and decision-makers on reducing heat risk. Additionally, the EPA has also increased attention and public awareness of heat. Today, heat is recognized as a public health issue.

The Path Forward: Recognize Extreme Heat as a Major Disaster

Despite greater awareness, the underlying inequities that make heat deadly have not been solved. Extreme heat waves are often viewed as temporary weather emergencies, rather than long-term infrastructure problems. FEMA can change that by recognizing extreme heat as a major disaster, just like floods or tornadoes, and ensuring cities are prepared for heatwaves. FEMA could then provide funding for cooling centers, AC installations, housing improvements, and expanded tree canopy, all of which would protect vulnerable communities.

The 1995 Chicago heatwave revealed that when extreme temperatures intersect with poor housing, segregation, and weak preparedness, the outcome is deadly for vulnerable communities. Although some cities now have stronger emergency response programs, many underlying structural inequalities remain. As climate change increases the frequency of extreme heat, a federal policy response is needed to make cities resilient and adaptable to extreme heat. FEMA must recognize heat as a major disaster so that localities can receive support with immediate danger and the deeper inequities that make heat so dangerous; it’s how we save lives in a hotter, more unequal world.

As we face more frequent and severe climate disasters, it’s clear that our federal systems must be ready for every kind of extreme weather event. With recent winter extreme weather disasters and hurricane season quickly approaching, there is uncertainty about whether FEMA will deliver aid when communities need it most. Tell your member of Congress to pass the FEMA Act of 2025 to strengthen and reform FEMA. Urge them to make sure FEMA is fully staffed, funded, and prepared to respond to ongoing and future climate disasters.

Tell Your Representative to Pass the FEMA Act of 2025

About the author: Olivia Bahena Sahagún (she/her) is the Federal Carol Brantley Climate Justice Fellow for spring 2026. In her role, she supports the Federal team by assisting their campaigns to advance impactful climate policy. She is currently a student at Wake Forest University where she is working to receive a bachelor’s degree in Politics and International Affairs.

Olivia’s passion for the environment began at a young age, shaped by her grandma, who passed down her deep care for animals and the planet. She hopes to pursue a career in environmental policy and work to advocate for a sustainable future. In her free time, Olivia enjoys thrifting, going on walks, and spending time with her cat Pancho.

The post Why Chicago’s 1995 Heatwave Was More than a Weather Disaster appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

A farmworker takes a break to drink water. Fair Food Program farms comply with mandatory heat stress protections that include the provision of water, electrolytes, rest breaks, training, and the ability to stop work and seek medical treatment without fear of retaliation. The Washington Post called the FFP’s standards “America’s strongest workplace heat rules” in a 2024 front page report. Dr. Joaquin Alfredo-Angel Rubalcaba, lead author on study of the FFP: “We do show that mothers are getting healthier… Their health, in terms of gestational diabetes and hypertension, [is] improving.” Jon Esformes, CEO of Pacific Tomato Growers and first grower to join the FFP: “At the end of the day, when someone shows up to do a job, they want to go to the job, do their job, earn their money, know that they’re safe and go home.”

A few weeks ago, we shared some remarkable news from the Fair Food Program with you: a multi-state, peer-reviewed public health study found that mothers working on Fair Food Program farms gave birth to healthier infants than their counterparts on non-FFP farms — a powerful reminder that when workers are protected, entire families thrive.

This landmark research — published by Duke University Press in the widely respected journal Demography — is the first to demonstrate that a Worker-driven Social Responsibility program can generate population-level public health gains by guaranteeing fundamental human rights on the job. Its findings suggest that the protections embedded in the Fair Food Program — and similar worker-driven models — can reach far beyond the workplace, functioning as targeted public health interventions in communities long exposed to extreme labor exploitation. 

Today, we are proud to share a feature-length article that takes a deeper look at this study, tracing how the Fair Food Program’s worker-drafted human rights standards, backed by multi-layered monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, translate into something profoundly human: healthier families and stronger communities. The feature comes courtesy of The Packer, the nation’s leading produce industry news outlet, which has for years documented the evolution and expansion of the Presidential Medal-winning Fair Food Program.

Written by The Packer’s Produce Editor Christina Herrick, the article brings forward new insights from the study’s lead author, who explains that beyond the reduction in low-birth-weight births, the program is also linked to decreases in diabetes and hypertension. These conditions, long prevalent among farmworkers, are closely tied to birth outcomes but also carry serious, lifelong consequences of their own — underscoring how the same protections that support healthier pregnancies are improving overall health in farmworker communities. The story also features reflections from Laura Safer Espinoza, Executive Director of the Fair Food Standards Council, and Jon Esformes, CEO of Pacific Tomato Growers and the first grower to join the FFP back in 2010. At a glance, the piece offers a deeper understanding of the FFP’s win/win impact, showing how its protections safeguard workers’ health while helping participating growers recruit and retain employees by becoming employers of choice.

We’re excited to share the article in full with you below. If you’d like to read the article on The Packer’s website, click here.

New Research Links Better Pay and Safer Conditions to Healthier Babies A peer-reviewed study finds that infants born to farmworkers on Fair Food Program farms are 10% less likely to be born at a low birth weight.

A peer-reviewed study published in the journal Demography has found a direct link between participation in the Fair Food Program and improved birth outcomes for farmworkers. Infants born to farmworker mothers on Fair Food Program-certified farms were 10% less likely to be born at a low birth weight.

Low birth weight, the Fair Food Program notes, is closely linked to perinatal mortality, cognitive development, chronic disease risk and more.

Joaquin Alfredo-Angel Rubalcaba, the study’s lead author and an associate professor of public policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says low birth weight is a good marker to track, as it’s a sensitive indicator of the “health spillover” for both mothers and infants.

“We do show that mothers are getting healthier,” he says. “Their health, in terms of gestational diabetes and hypertension, [is] improving.”

Quantifying the Health Spillover

Birth weight, which has already been measured and validated through public health research, would also be a way to quantify how the Fair Food Program influenced maternal and infant health outcomes.

“It’s not just the income; it’s all of these other things that go along with that,” Rubalcaba says, noting that improved working conditions create a positive health spillover that extends beyond the individual.

“When you’re healthy, you don’t have to worry about your child being malnourished,” he says. “When you don’t have to worry about the things that we take for granted on a day-to-day basis, you’re able to focus on the things that make you productive.”

Rubalcaba says this spillover effect continues beyond just a nuclear family and into communities.

“The community is thriving as a result of the efforts, at least, in my opinion, in my survey of the data, and the fact that we were able to see a result in publicly available data, in the birth records data, was pretty remarkable,” he says.

Moving Beyond the Paycheck

While the data is remarkable, the three drivers of these health outcomes — safer conditions, higher wages and reduced stress — manifest in personal ways for the workers.

Wage premiums and stricter enforcement against wage theft for farms in the Fair Food Program raised worker incomes by 24%. Legal protections against sexual harassment, forced labor and verbal abuse helped decrease maternal stress levels. The program’s focus on safety standards also helped to reduce physical strain and environmental hazards.

Workers clock in with a timekeeping system–a mandatory feature on Fair Food Program farms that ensures workers are paid for each minute they work

Laura Safer Espinoza, a retired New York State Supreme Court justice and executive director of the Fair Food Standards Council, says the study’s outcome highlights the strong correlation between improvements in overall working environments and increased birth rates.

Safer Espinoza says more than $50 million has been distributed to workers on Fair Food Program farms. What’s more remarkable, she says, is that retailers and brands have pledged to support this program.

“They have agreed to commit their market power and put those purchasing practices to work to incentivize good practices at the bottom of the food supply chain,” she says.

More Than Just Better Pay

Safer Espinoza points to other successes within the program that speak to the broader themes of family. These include requiring workers to be paid at call time, which she says resulted in later starts.

“For the first time, workers who were called to the field at a later time were able to eat breakfast with their children. They were able to walk their children to school,” she says.

As researchers surveyed workers in Immokalee, Fla., about the benefits of the Fair Food Program, it wasn’t only better pay; it was more family time, says Safer Espinoza.

“Families reported that their children were healthier and happier, and parents were delighted to be able to have that precious time with their children in the morning,” she says. “And that’s simply because the law was being enforced.”

Safer Espinoza says this study shows tangible benefits when women working on Fair Food Program farms earn more through increased pay or the elimination of wage theft. She says eliminating sexual harassment and verbal abuse reduces stress and tension, too.

“When mothers can work and expectant mothers can work in an environment where it is safer, where they are treated with more respect, where they don’t have to be fearful and stressed every day, this is the proof that it makes a huge difference,” she says.

And she says the study’s results aren’t necessarily an expected outcome that she and the Fair Food Standards Council members thought would happen on participating farms. She says the survey’s results show a greater impact on the Fair Food Program. 

“We were not necessarily thinking, ‘This will increase birth rate and be transformational across generations in the way that it obviously is and has been proven to be,” she says. “It will make a huge difference for the children who are born to workers on Fair Food Program farms. They’ll be healthier and have better futures, and that’s something that I don’t think was necessarily contemplated when we set out, but it is a very beautiful result of this collaboration.”

A New Standard for Growers Lucas Benitez with John Esformes, CEO of Pacific Tomato Growers DBA Sunripe Certified Brands as the CIW and Pacific agree to join forces to launch Fair Food Program in 2010

Jon Esformes, CEO of Sunripe Certified Brands and the first grower to join the Fair Food Program, says he’s proud of how his company has become an employer of choice thanks to the positive culture created on his family’s farm. He says a couple of years ago, when he was on a panel about labor shortage with then-Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, he had to say that he had no trouble recruiting and retaining workers as an employer of choice.

“That spoke to over a decade of bridge building and creating what we call a safe and fair work environment where everybody understands their rights, everybody feels safe and making complaints, everybody feels like the company is open to evolution, and that’s been the history of the relationship with the coalition,” he says.

And that’s truly what workers want, Esformes says.

“At the end of the day, when someone shows up to do a job, they want to go to the job, do their job, earn their money, know that they’re safe and go home,” he says.

And this study, Esformes says, helps highlight the intangible benefits from creating this type of workplace culture quantitatively.

“People tend to be evidence-based and need that evidence to convince them to keep doing something,” he says. “We didn’t need that for ourselves. For us, we knew what was happening. But in the meantime, it’s good for the general population to have a greater understanding of the efficacy of this type of program and its impact on the community.”

By Christopher Collins, Polycrisis Fellow, Cascade Institute

The version of record of this op-ed appeared in The Globe and Mail

Earlier this month, during a panel discussion on the Canadian economy at the Liberal Party convention in Montreal, former Google CFO Patrick Pichette suggested that the government should restrict the ability of young Canadians to work in the United States, because Canadian taxes had funded their education. A clip of these remarks went viral, and for good reason: as Shopify founder Tobi Lütke said in response, “making Canada a cage” is not the right strategy to build a strong economy.

But Mr. Pichette’s remarks highlighted a real anxiety: many of Canada’s most talented young people do leave to work outside the country. I was one of these people: from age 24 to 31, I lived and worked abroad – both in the U.S. and overseas. Many of my friends also fall into this category. Eventually, I came back to Canada, as did some of my friends; others put down roots and stayed in San Francisco, New York, Boston or London. But we all benefited from professional opportunities that did not exist in our home country.

The data show record numbers of people are leaving the country. Many of these are skilled young professionals, and the majority head to the U.S., drawn by greater professional opportunities, deeper networks and higher wages. This has major implications for Canadian businesses and the broader economy; as a trade publication for Canada’s human resources professionals put it last week: “the people leaving are disproportionately the ones your workforce plans were built around.”

One dimension to this story that older Canadians of Mr. Pichette’s vintage often miss is the generational divide in how the U.S. is perceived. While polls show that Canadians overall disapprove of President Donald Trump’s America, that sentiment is strongest among those over 55. This is a global phenomenon; in many countries around the world, adults under 35 hold a more favourable view of the U.S. than those over 50. We should not assume that anti-Trump sentiment is sufficient to keep young talent at home.

Younger Canadians appear to be more willing to hold their nose and move to a country whose politics they dislike if it puts them in a better economic position. This makes sense; people building their careers don’t have as much flexibility as those who’ve already made it. We see a similar dynamic in Canada when it comes to attracting specialized talent to new governmental organizations such as the Major Projects Office – it has been harder to attract the younger professionals still building their careers.

So, what do we do about the brain drain? The instinct behind Mr. Pichette’s idea – wielding the stick – is wrong. In Canada, we don’t restrict interprovincial migration, and no one demands that an engineer trained in Ontario reimburse the province before moving to Alberta. And Canada also benefits from talent trained abroad. For example, the Philippines sends hundreds of thousands of health care workers abroad, including many to Canada; imagine the outcry if Manila tried to prevent them from leaving. The free movement of people is a foundational principle of liberal democracies; restricting it is an admission of policy failure and a concession to complacency.

The answer, then, is to look for carrots. For example, Canada could develop a scholarship model that generously funds graduate education but attaches this funding to a service obligation requiring recipients to work in the country for a defined period. This program could target fields where the brain drain is most acute, from AI research to health care to clean energy.

Finally, it is worth noting that not all emigration is a loss. True, some Canadians who leave will settle permanently abroad. But others will return with skills, networks and capital that benefit Canada enormously. We should want some of our future leaders to have spent their formative years operating in global nerve centres – not punish them for doing so. Perhaps the best example of this is Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose global experience and network from years working in the U.S., Britain and Japan undoubtedly help him navigate our country through an increasingly complex world.

People are rational economic actors, and they go where the opportunities are. This is not just a Canadian story: across the West, record numbers of young professionals are moving abroad. The question Canada should be asking is not how to stop people from leaving, but whether we are building the kind of economy that compels talented people to stay – or return home. Think of it as the Field of Dreams problem: if you build it, they will come.

So let’s focus on building, not caging.

Read article in the Globe and Mail The post Punishing young Canadians for leaving doesn’t solve the problem appeared first on Cascade Institute.