News Feeds

A mention of a national forest probably evokes images of pristine wilderness, mountain trails, fall foliage, wildlife habitat, untouched gorges, lakes and rivers. But behind those landscapes is a...

Chuvas intensas e rompimentos de barragens são as principais preocupações dos investidores e das comunidades atingidas pela Vale S.A.

Read this post in English.

As comunidades atingidas pela mineração no estado brasileiro de Minas Gerais e seus aliados da sociedade civil alertam sobre os riscos que as mudanças climáticas representam para as operações da gigante mineradora do Brasil, VALE S.A. As mudanças climáticas estão causando chuvas intensas cada vez mais frequentes no Brasil. Essas chuvas sobrecarregam ainda mais as instalações de contenção que a VALE S.A utiliza para gerenciar resíduos tóxicos da mineração. As preocupações também alcançaram os investidores da empresa.

A mineração gera enormes quantidades de resíduos tóxicos, ou rejeitos. Esses resíduos tóxicos permanecem no sítio para sempre; portanto, sua contenção segura é uma parte importante de qualquer operação de mineração. As instalações de contenção de rejeitos devem ser capazes de resistir às mudanças nas condições climáticas, a fim de proteger as comunidades e o meio ambiente, incluindo as gerações futuras. Quando essas instalações falham, a água poluída ou a lama tóxica podem colocar em risco vidas, o abastecimento de água potável e os ecossistemas a jusante.

Tribunal suspende licença de mineração da VALE S.A. devido a preocupações climáticas

Com base em preocupações relacionadas às mudanças climáticas, em dezembro de 2025, um tribunal federal determinou a suspensão da licença ambiental para a ampliação do complexo Germano na mina da Samarco, uma joint venture entre a VALE S.A. e a BHP, no município de Mariana, Minas Gerais.

Mariana foi o local do rompimento da barragem de rejeitos, considerada o pior desastre ecológico registrado no país. Em 3 de novembro de 2015, uma onda de 40 milhões de metros cúbicos de rejeitos de mineração matou 19 pessoas e contaminou 668 km de rios e bacias hidrográficas antes de finalmente chegar ao Oceano Atlântico. Os rejeitos se espalharam por 39 municípios, desalojaram 500 famílias e, no total, afetaram 3 milhões de pessoas que viviam nas bacias hidrográficas que foram contaminadas.

A VALE S.A e a BHP propuseram a expansão das operações de mineração no local, o que incluiria novas barragens de rejeitos. Uma ação popular movida por moradores da comunidade de Bento Rodrígues, uma das cidades destruídas pelo rompimento de 2015, alegou que a empresa de mineração não levou em consideração de forma adequada a probabilidade de que chuvas futuras excedam os níveis históricos devido às mudanças climáticas. O Instituto Cordilheira, uma organização brasileira que trabalha com comunidades impactadas pela mineração, afirma que esta é a primeira vez que uma decisão judicial suspende atividades de mineração no estado de Minas Gerais com base na falta de estudos a respeito das mudanças climáticas.

A licença de expansão da mina da Samarco foi revogada devido a preocupações relacionadas às mudanças climáticas. Duas instalações de mineração da VALE S.A. sofrem vazamentos

As preocupações em torno dos impactos das mudanças climáticas nas operações da VALE S.A. se intensificaram em janeiro de 2026, quando duas estruturas de mineração vazaram e inundaram a Mina de Fábrica e a Mina de Viga da VALE S.A., nos municípios de Congonhas e Ouro Preto, Minas Gerais. Essa enchente começou exatamente seis anos depois da catastrófica ruptura da barragem de rejeitos na mina da VALE S.A. em Brumadinho (MG), que matou 272 pessoas. Em Congonhas (MG), 262,000 metros cúbicos de sedimentos e água fluíram para a área ao redor. Esses vazamentos inundaram outra mina, propriedade da CSN, a jusante e se espalharam por rios e córregos. A empresa foi multada pelo governo estadual de Minas Gerais e pela prefeitura de Congonhas.

Prédio destruído em Bento Rodrigues Especialistas e investidores questionam a segurança à medida que as chuvas aumentam

Organizações que monitoram as operações da VALE S.A. têm receio de que a empresa não esteja preparada para eventos climáticos associados ao aumento das chuvas. Daniela Campolina, do Grupo de Ensino, Pesquisa e Extensão: Educação, Mineração e Território (EduMiTe), afirmou “É imprescindível que a VALE S.A. revise suas estruturas de contenção de rejeitos considerando as mudanças climáticas e cumpra rigorosamente a legislação de enquadramento— condição básica para a gestão de riscos e a transparência. Os eventos de 25 de janeiro de 2026  ocorreram mesmo sem a caracterização de chuvas extremas, o que indica uma insuficiência dos parâmetros de segurança adotados e amplia a sensação de insegurança nos territórios. Muitas das barragens são antigas, construídas antes mesmo de políticas nacionais de meio ambiente e de segurança de barragens. Padrões de segurança deficientes geram riscos para longas extensões de rios estratégicos para regiões densamente povoadas de Minas Gerais e do Brasil.” O EduMiTe catalogou o número de barragens de rejeitos e os riscos associados a elas no Estado de Minas Gerais.

A resiliência às mudanças climáticas também é uma grande preocupação para os investidores da VALE S.A. O Local Area Pension Fund (LAPFF), um grupo de investidores sediado no Reino Unido que representa governos locais e cujos membros possuem ativos que ultrapassam 425 bilhões de libra esterlinas, questionou a preparação da VALE S.A. para lidar com os impactos dos padrões climáticos imprevisíveis decorrentes das mudanças climáticas em suas operações de mineração. 

Segundo o vereador Doug McMurdo, presidente da LAPFF, “Os vazamentos de água ocorridos em janeiro de 2026 nas instalações da VALE S.A. em Fábrica e Viga, em Minas Gerais, que de acordo com as autoridades causaram danos ambientais após atingirem o rio Maranhão, foram motivo de grande preocupação. O momento, que coincidiu com o aniversário do desastre de Brumadinho em 2019, foi particularmente difícil. Além do recente escrutínio jurídico e regulatório sobre a proposta de expansão do Complexo Germano da Samarco na região de Mariana (MG), esses eventos levantam sérias questões sobre como a adaptação climática e os riscos físicos estão sendo governados e gerenciados nas operações da VALE S.A. Como investidores de longo prazo, o LAPFF espera que a VALE S.A. demonstre claramente como está fortalecendo a resiliência climática de seus ativos e infraestrutura, incorporando riscos relacionados ao clima e à água nas aprovações de projetos e decisões de expansão, e garantindo que esses riscos — e, principalmente, suas implicações para as comunidades, o meio ambiente e os direitos humanos — sejam sujeitos a uma supervisão robusta, transparente e responsável por parte do Conselho de Administração.”

As minas da VALE S.A representam um risco contínuo e contribuem às mudanças climáticas

Um relatório publicado pela Earthworks em 2025 destacou os riscos contínuos para o meio ambiente, as comunidades e os trabalhadores associados às operações da VALE S.A. em Minas Gerais. O relatório também apontou que as operações da VALE S.A. contribuem para agravar as mudanças climáticas. A VALE S.A. está na lista das 20 maiores empresas emissoras de gases de efeito estufa do mundo, de acordo com o MSCI Sustainability Institute Net-Zero Tracker — a única empresa brasileira na lista.

The post Mudanças climáticas e riscos aumentados nas minas da VALE S.A. appeared first on Earthworks.

The plans governing U.S. public land use usually develop slowly, the product of years—or even decades—of deliberation and input from ranchers, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, Tribes...

Sixteen Big Tech CEOs will be joining President Trump on his upcoming summit with president Xi Jinping in China this week, according to media reports. The Big Tech executives in attendance are expected to include Elon Musk and Apple’s Tim Cook.

In response, Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman issued the following statement:

“It’s telling that when Donald Trump wants to put technology on the agenda for discussion with China, he turns to the Big Tech executives who are his donors, flatterers and enablers, rather than policy experts who might represent the national interest instead of corporate interests.

“Big Tech companies have spent at least $653 million cozying up to President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress – including donations to Trump’s inauguration, his gaudy ballroom and his political committees, pricey settlements of bad-faith lawsuits filed by Trump, and Amazon’s sponsorship of the Melania documentary. Big Tech executives’ participation in Trump’s China visit is yet another example of how they are getting back far more than they ever paid in.“

Today, the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) accepted a rulemaking petition filed by an oil and gas industry-led organization that would begin the process to create a rule allowing oil and gas wastewater—called “produced water”—to be discharged to New Mexico surface and ground waters and used in agriculture. Produced water is a toxic soup of chemicals that the WQCC concluded less than a year ago in a prior rulemaking could not be treated to levels safe to discharge into the state’s waters. The existing rule banning produced water discharge went into effect 10 months ago and is available here. As written, the new industry-proposed rule would be one of the most permissive rules on oil and gas wastewater discharge nationwide.

Accepting the rulemaking petition and scheduling a hearing is the first step in a long rulemaking process. Technical testimony and arguments on the merits of the proposed rule will be heard in a multi-day hearing to be scheduled at a later date.

The Western Environmental Law Center, representing Amigos Bravos, Sierra Club, and Citizens Caring for the Future, argued two motions in opposition to the petition at last month’s WQCC meeting. Despite almost four hours of public testimony at last month’s meeting, the vast majority of which in opposition, and multiple motions and arguments against the petition from groups that have officially entered as parties in the matter, the WQCC voted 7-4 to move forward with the rulemaking.

“I’m disappointed the commission voted today to consider allowing discharge of oil and gas’ wastewater and threatening New Mexico rivers, streams, and ground water,” said Tannis Fox, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “The protective rule adopted less than one year ago underwent a rigorous debate, spanning 18 months and hundreds of pages of expert testimony. But the oil and gas industry won’t take no for an answer and the New Mexico Environment Department is sitting on the sidelines while industry proposes to undo the rule NMED proposed and its scientists supported with expert testimony during the first rulemaking.”

“I can’t believe we are back here,” said Rachel Conn, deputy director of Amigos Bravos. “How many times do we as New Mexicans who care about clean water have to stand up to defeat this ill-advised effort to discharge toxic oil and gas wastewater into our rivers, streams and groundwater? The rule passed last year, after an 18-month process with days of technical testimony, protects our water by prohibiting discharge while encouraging the development of science and treatment technology through pilot projects. We have entered as a party in this new rulemaking and will be presenting a technical case in opposition to discharge of this toxic wastewater.”

“For more than 50 years, the Water Quality Control Commission has based its decisions on science to ensure we protect our ground and surface waters from contaminants that can harm humans as well as animal and plant life,” said Dale Doremus, a former state hydrologist now with the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter. “It is critical that we have science-based water quality standards, promulgated by the commission, for all possible contaminants in produced water before any discharge to ground and surface water is considered. For a rule this important to New Mexico’s water quality future, it should be the Environment Department bringing forward a proposed rule, not the industry that will be regulated.”

“Many of my neighbors here in southern New Mexico have told me they are worried that the risk of contaminating the clean water they use for irrigation and watering their animals with the chemicals in oil and gas waste is not worth the small water quantity produced water would provide,” said Haley Jones, organizer for Citizens Caring for the Future. “Clean water is extremely precious down here, and we can not afford to risk spoiling this resource that is so critical to our southern New Mexico communities.”

As seen in previous meetings and hearings on produced water, New Mexicans showed up in force at last month’s meeting to give public comment in opposition to the proposed industry rule that, if adopted, would allow discharge of produced water into New Mexico’s ground and surface waters. Additional opportunities for public comment will be provided during the hearing on the petition.

Background
In the Permian Basin of southeastern New Mexico and Texas, oil and gas extraction brings to the surface an average of about four barrels of “produced water” per barrel of oil, and as much as 12 barrels. Produced water contains hundreds of known and unknown chemicals, many of which are toxic to human health and the environment. Some of those chemicals are industry “trade secret” fracking chemicals undisclosed to the public. The industry has historically injected this waste back underground, which is expensive and can cause earthquakes and water contamination. The oil and gas industry has a very expensive problem of what to do with this waste.

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) petitioned the WQCC in December 2023 to adopt a rule to prohibit all discharges of produced water to ground and surface waters. NMED based its petition on the best available science, which shows that produced water contains toxic chemicals harmful to human health and the environment, and that technologies to effectively treat produced water so it is safe are not available at scale. NMED supported its petition with the expert testimony from five of its scientists with expertise in protecting the state’s ground and surface water.

Amigos Bravos and Sierra Club, represented by Western Environmental Law Center, supported the prohibition with expert testimony, demonstrating based on peer-reviewed literature that we don’t know all the chemicals in produced water, a mixture of fracking fluids and underground water for which there is no effective treatment. Moreover, the state of New Mexico does not have surface water quality standards for at least 180 potentially toxic chemicals in produced water. While the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, New Mexico’s most powerful industry lobbying behemoth, opposed the ban on discharge, one of its primary experts testified that discharge of treated produced water at scale is premature.

In May 2025, the WQCC adopted a rule completely banning produced water discharge to ground and surface waters effective from July 12, 2025 through December 31, 2030. The existing rule also allows non-discharging pilot projects for further research on treatment.

Before the rule entered into force, an oil and gas industry group filed a new rulemaking petition that would be plagued with controversy. After Gov. Lujan Grisham’s office ordered department heads to get the industry-written rule “over the finished line” [sic], public outcry forced the WQCC to reverse its decision to undertake a new rulemaking. Today, the WQCC decided to undertake a rulemaking hearing for yet another industry-proposed rule less than a year after adopting the five-year ban on produced water discharge.

Contacts:

Tannis Fox, Western Environmental Law Center, 505-629-0732, fox@westernlaw.org

Rachel Conn, Amigos Bravos, 575-770-8327, rconn@amigosbravos.org

Dale Doremus, Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter, 505-795-5987, doremuswater@gmail.com

The post NM Water Commission caves to industry, will make rule reversing 11-month-old fracking wastewater discharge ban appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

In this issue:

May Day / 350PDX needs a new home / May 21 action night: candidate meet & greet! / Support PCEF / Oppose federal bill to give immunity to Big Oil / Forest Defense team news / Arts team news / Volunteer spotlight / Book Club /Join the team & support 350PDX / Washington County team / SW team

Today is May Day! Join 350PDX and over 80 other organizations across Portland in a tremendous day of community power to show our unity.

When billionaires break every rule, it’s going to take more than a rally to stop them. Meet at the South Park Blocks at 12:00pm for a community tabling fair, rally at 1:00pm, and then we march at 3:30pm! Join the “Environmental Contingent” by meeting up at 2:45pm in front of the Portland Art Museum!! Look for the big banner that says “looters and polluters.” Sign up here for May Day event updates.

We’re looking for a new home! Our incredible workshop space in the Rebuilding Center is being sold and we have to be out by June. We’re continuing to search for new space in inner/central Portland (near transit) for office co-working, Action Nights, art builds, and a roost for our puppets and community gatherings. We’re on a nonprofit budget and love sharing space with aligned groups. Have a lead? We’d love to hear from you. Reply to this email or reach out to us at Jessicavaughan@350PDX.org.

May 21: Candidate Meet + Greet

We’re kicking off our 2026 Vote for Climate Justice campaign with an opportunity to meet District 3 and 4 candidates for City Council. At least a dozen candidates will be present. Show up to share how important climate justice issues are to voters!

Enjoy finger food and drinks, get to know candidates, ask about their climate priorities, and communicate your concerns and hopes. We’ll host a brief program where each candidate can share their climate policy ideas.

When: Thursday, May 21, 6:30–8:30pm

Where: First Unitarian, 1211 SW Main St

RSVP (helpful but not required)

Support PCEF, Trees, & a Healthy Climate in the City Budget

Mayor Wilson released a proposed budget last week and City Council is working on amendments.

Good news: thanks in part to your advocacy, the proposed budget includes two new staff members for the Sustainability Office, and does not currently include using PCEF for Moda Center renovations!

Bad news: the proposal suggests using Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) for things unrelated to climate, equity, and clean energy—such as crime prevention and houseless camp sweeps. The proposal also cuts PCEF-funded jobs that would develop an equitable tree canopy.

Now that we have the proposed budget, it’s time to speak up! Talking points and prewritten email for City Council here!

Oppose federal bill: immunity to big oil companies

After months of fossil fuel industry lobbying, federal legislation was introduced in April to give fossil fuel companies total legal immunity from laws or lawsuits that could hold them accountable for fueling the climate crisis and lying about it. This means we couldn’t pass bills like the Make Polluters Pay legislation, which we worked on this past year. Write your members of Congress today demanding that they reject efforts to shield the fossil fuel industry, and make them accountable for their role in the climate crisis. Learn more here. You can also sign this petition.

Forest Defense Team

Stop by the Forest Defense Team’s latest art installation at Costello’s Cafe and Bakery! Members will be there to connect on Saturday, May 9th at 2PM. 2222 NE Broadway.

Join Forest Defense Team members in writing to keep more than 2 million acres of Oregon’s National Forest lands wild. The Trump Administration is proposing to open ecologically intact areas to road-building and logging. Learn more about the Roadless Rule and submit your own comment here.

Our team meets every other Monday, alternating between in-person and online meetings. Please contact tyler@350pdx.org for more information.

Arts Team Thank you for joining us at Sunnyside Environmental School for the 5th Annual Earth Day Celebration! We had a wonderful, joyous time with you all.
Making its first appearance—and the last puppet to emerge from our already missed wonderful work space—is Crow. Crow strutted through SE Portland, and gave voice to silent animals needing humans to give them more respect. For Crow that means a clean environment, more urban trees, and shade equity. More Earth Day photos and video here! No Artbuild for May! We’re worn out, plus our Second Sunday spot is on the Mothers Day for Peace, named by Julia Ward Howe, so we’ll be home celebrating. We’re all moving soon, and we hope to see more Art Teamsters with more ideas in June, in a workshop yet to be determined! See you then!

Donna, Lauren, Dannika, Allison

 

Volunteer Spotlight Arthi Vijaykumar

Arthi came to 350PDX in 2024, looking to combat their climate anxiety with action. They were a semiconductor engineer and felt that working on corporate sustainability interventions alone could not address the severity of the climate crisis today. They were drawn to the Fossil Fuel Resistance team because they wanted to stand up directly to the corporations that got us all into this mess.

Over the past couple years, Arthi has been active in the Stop Zenith and CEI Hub campaigns. They have also been representing 350PDX in a larger state-level campaign to stop data centers. They appreciate how 350PDX gives volunteer organizers ample opportunities and support to follow their passions. Working with 350PDX has taught them so much about movement building, local policy and the environment, and they are grateful to be able to share this space with like-minded community members.

Outside of 350PDX, Arthi loves doing anything outdoorsy, reading books and cooking vegan food. They will be moving to Vancouver, B.C. in August to pursue a graduate research program in interdisciplinary resource and environmental studies. This career change was undoubtedly spurred by their experience organizing with 350PDX.

Book Club

The 350PDX Book Club meets every month on the first Wednesday of the month at 6:30pm. Every other month is in person and the others are virtual. Reach out to books@350PDX.org with any questions or to join our list, and please RSVP so we can inform you of any meeting changes.

Join us on Wednesday, June 3 at 6:30pm for our next non-fiction in-person meeting. We’ll discuss Eight Bears: Mythic Past and Imperiled Future by Gloria Dickie, a global exploration of the eight remaining species of bears―and the dangers they face. We are still picking a location for this gathering, so be sure to RSVP at books@350PDX.org so we can keep you updated!

Save the date for our other upcoming discussions:

• Wednesday, May 6 at 6:30pm (Google Meet) – Hospicing Modernity: Facing Humanity’s Wrongs and the Implications for Social Activism by Vanessa Machado De Oliveira

• Wednesday, July 1 at 6:30pm (Google Meet) – Book to be selected in June

• Wednesday, August 5 at 6:30pm (In Person) – Book to be selected soon

Do you like to talk about books and climate justice? We are seeking volunteers to help facilitate! Contact books@350PDX.org to learn more.

Join the team & support 350PDX

Don’t miss out: there’s still time to get one of our coveted “another world is possible” tote bags and win cool prizes by becoming a 350PDX Monthly Donor(or increasing your current monthly donation)! You get a tote bag by setting up (or increasing) a monthly donation of any amount. Monthly, ongoing gifts from members of our community are the most important ways to support our local climate justice work. Please consider joining us by becoming a monthly donor this spring – we are so grateful!

Hungry for another great way to support 350PDX? You’re in luck – your favorite cornmeal crust pizza, Dove Vivi, is partnering with 350PDX again this year. Every Tuesday in May you can dine in or get take out from Dove Vivi and 10% of their proceeds will go towards our work. A true win-win! 

Washington County Team

Our next gathering will be our regular monthly online meetup at 6:30pm on Tuesday, May 12. In April we hosted Robin Straughn, Sustainability & Resiliency Manager for the City of Hillsboro. She walked attendees through the recently approved Climate Action Plan for Hillsboro and answered questions. We are partnering with the City of Hillsboro to plan a second Electrification and Sustainability Fair in downtown Hillsboro on Saturday July 18, so please mark your calendars now!

We always welcome newcomers to our events and to our monthly online meetings (6:30pm on the second Tuesday of the month). For the link, join us here or contact us at 350washco@gmail.com.

Southwest Neighborhood Team Sign up to volunteer at our kiosk at SW Sunday Parkways on Sunday, May 17. We have two hour shifts during this all day event (11:00am to 4:00pm). Come out and talk with your neighbors, and help distribute our Climate Action Now yard signs. Volunteer sign up here. Our street corner demonstrations continue weekly in May, every Friday from 3:00-4:00 pm at SW Garden Home & SW Oleson Rd. Street parking is available or reach us via bus or bike. We have extra signs to share! Join our monthly Zoom meeting on Monday, May 18th, from 6:30-7:30 pm. To get involved, please contact Pat Kaczmarek at patk5@msn.com.

Note, in last month’s newsletter, we shared video of our puppets at No Kings. We want to clarify that the giant Trump and Stephen Miller puppets in that video were made by the wonderful Indivisible Oregon Arts Team-Puppet Brigade!

Thank you for reading our monthly newsletter. We hope to see you soon!

With gratitude,

Cherice, Dineen, Irene, Jessica, and Noelle

The post 2026 May Newsletter! appeared first on 350PDX: Climate Justice.

Cover Reveal

WE, THE DROWNING by Lindz McLeod
hopeful dystopian climate fiction
Coming September 29, 2026 from Android Press
Pre-order now

ARE YOU PARCHED OR DROWNING?

In a world divided between drought and drowning, one young man must decide what it truly means to live—and what humanity owes the Earth that sustains it.

Cole has spent his entire life among the Parched, a desert community clinging to survival in a world torn by climate disaster and collapse. The Parched conserve every drop, mend what can be saved, and believe humanity’s only hope is resisting extinction.

Then a girl washes ashore… alive.

She belongs to the Flooded, a religious movement where members believe humanity must drown to give the planet a second chance, and so sacrifice themselves to the sea. For some unknown reason, the Flooded have been kidnapping people of the Parched tribes.

When the leader of Cole’s tribe asks him to question the girl, he learns things that turn his life upside down. Now, whispers of war ripple through the Parched villages, and leaders speak of wiping out the Flooded entirely.

With his world fractured and desperate for answers, Cole sets out alone across hostile territory toward the Flooded lands. What he finds there will force him to question everything he’s ever known.

What if humanity can’t be saved?

What if the Flooded aren’t a dangerous cult? What if survival isn’t the same as salvation?

Solarpunk Magazine Issue #27

Issue #27 is now available and features:

Cover Art
“In My Hands” by Paula Hammond

Short Stories
“Radio Free Luna, Signing Off” by Sylvie Althoff
“Between Mortar and Magic” by Alex Vossler
“What the Sea Remembers” by Dennis Mombauer

Poetry
“Pulsar, Phlox” by Devan Barlow
“The Prayer Shrub” by Zoleikha Baloch

Essay
“Occupation of Palestine” by Aya Al-Hattab

Book Review
“Repair is Not a Gadget: A Review of The Wildcraft Drones by T.K. Rex” by Justine Norton-Kertson

Get Issue #27 Demand Utopia: A Solarpunk Podcast

Our podcast is back and has dropped five new episodes so far! You can listen on our website, on YouTube (with subtitles), or wherever you prefer to get your podcasts!

Conceptualizing Security in a Time of Deep Civilizational Crisis Date and time * Date: June 4th, 2026 * Time: 1pm GMT * Registration Link: Here * Speakers: Manuel Rozental (Colombia), Deepa Sinha (India) and (TBC) * Moderation: Introduction alternativesalternativesalternatives

The future of the Greater Sage-Grouse, and the health of the broader sagebrush ecosystem, has long been shaped by land-use decisions spread across millions of acres of the American West. In January...

Events Upcoming events Conceptualizing security in a time of deep civilizational crisis - June 4th The first webinar will open the series with a conceptual discussion on security in a time of deep civilizational crisis. It will examine how security has traditionally been framed through the international order, the nation-state, sovereignty, militarization, and the management of threats, while asking how communities and movements are challenging this paradigm today.AlternativesalternativesTa…

Stop the nuclear gravy train!

The post A huge corporate welfare handout for Bruce Power appeared first on Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

6 reasons why the toxic weedkiller paraquat must be banned now Anthony Lacey May 12, 2026

The agricultural chemical paraquat – potentially fatal, if ingested – stands out as one of the pesticides that are most urgent to ban.

California regulators are weighing whether to prohibit paraquat, a toxic weedkiller linked to a greater risk of developing Parkinson’s disease and other health harms. A recent paraquat spill in the state, leading to shelter-in-place orders, shows a ban is long overdue.

Beyond California, 13 states have introduced legislative efforts to prohibit paraquat. At least 70 countries have banned paraquat due to its health concerns, including China, which manufactures the bulk of the world’s supply of the toxic pesticide.

But at the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency has a long history of delay. Since the EPA is not acting to protect us, states are poised to take the lead. 

Here are six reasons why paraquat is uniquely terrible, and why a ban is long overdue.

1. The most notorious Parkinson’s pesticide

Paraquat stands out among the handful of agricultural chemicals linked to Parkinson’s disease. Chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing the disease by reducing the number of neurons in dopamine-producing parts of the brain. 

Researchers have used paraquat exposure in animals to study Parkinson’s disease.  

A study using data from the National Institutes of Health found people who sprayed paraquat were more than twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s as those who applied other pesticides. And a meta-analysis of 13 studies found a 64% increase in the likelihood of paraquat exposure leading to the disease.

2. Other serious health harms

Exposure to paraquat is linked to greater risk of several other serious health problems, not only Parkinson’s disease.

Some other pesticides, when they cause health harms, can affect one organ in particular. Paraquat’s toxicity is more pernicious, since its effect is broader, damaging the lungs, kidneys and brain simultaneously.

Other health problems linked to paraquat include thyroid disease and cancer, childhood leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

3. Potential harm to farmers and farmworkers

Paraquat is mostly used to clear fields before farmers plant corn, soybeans, cotton, almonds, peanuts, wine grapes and other crops. And the farmworkers applying the weedkiller are exposed to its health threats, largely by inhaling paraquat vapor.

An EWG investigation found growers and spray companies often permit farmworkers to use the harmful chemical in ways that could endanger themselves and those around them. 

The investigation shows companies fail to provide emergency supplies for their workers, allow application without the correct equipment, and even permit spraying by untrained and underprepared employees. 

EWG’s findings align with studies showing off-label use is common – further highlighting  why existing restrictions on paraquat aren’t enough. The only way to ensure safety is to stop using it. 

4. Risks to the public from vapor

It’s not just farmers and farmworkers who face health risks. Most recently, findings from UCLA researchers show that people living or working within 500 meters, or about 1,640 feet, of paraquat application could more than double their odds of developing Parkinson’s.

Paraquat doesn’t stay where it’s applied. While much of it ends up in the soil for years, the chemical can also travel through the air.

An EPA review of new test data indicates that paraquat can volatilize more than previously measured and the screening model indicates the potential for exposure to people up to and over 2.7 miles away, much farther than previously thought. 

The EPA has requested additional testing data to measure how far paraquat can travel as a vapor volatilization – but action is years away. 

5. Danger of accidental spills

In March, a large container of paraquat fell from a truck in the northern California town of Dorris, spilling roughly 60 gallons of the chemical onto a major roadway and into the surrounding community. 

Citing the threat of exposure to airborne paraquat releases, officials ordered a lockdown affecting about 600 residents, including those at a local elementary school. 

The local sheriff’s department noted paraquat is “a highly toxic herbicide that can be fatal if inhaled or ingested. This chemical can be an airborne risk.”

In 2024, paraquat from a Louisiana farm spilled into a rural water system, prompting a “do not use” warning for the water for about 200 people living nearby.

Communities near farm fields shouldn’t have to worry whether an accidental spill of paraquat will force them to stay in their homes if they want to avoid the chemical’s health risks. 

State bans on paraquat could eliminate the danger of spills. 

6. Threat of accidental or deliberate ingestion

“One sip can kill” – that’s the EPA’s message about paraquat, which dedicates a site to warning against accidentally or deliberately ingesting the chemical. 

Data from 1998-2008 in California found more than 1,400 cases of accidental poisoning because of improper paraquat storage in unmarked bottles, cups and other containers. These poisonings caused at least 50 deaths, with 12 definitively linked to improper storage. 

It’s long past time to ban paraquat

The EPA is reviewing the risks of paraquat use. But a final decision by the agency about whether to restrict it, and how, is likely years away. 

And the EPA has a long history of failing to act. No wonder eight former EPA pesticide officials recently urged states to ban paraquat.

Even major countries where paraquat is made have banned it. But not the U.S. Waiting for the EPA to act leaves Americans unnecessarily exposed to the toxic herbicide. 

That’s why California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation should act swiftly to prohibit paraquat use in the state, and why the 13 states considering legislative bans must push ahead. 

The reasons for banning paraquat are clear. Now it’s time to act.

Areas of Focus Paraquat Authors Anthony Lacey May 12, 2026

UNISON shows the way!

Image by John Blower on flickr.com/photos/10332960@N03/

At UNISON conference in June, Motion 83, 2026 Year of Green Activity (YoGA) – Turning Activity into Activism, the UNISON NEC puts a number of key points on the way forward for climate activism through and by trade unions.

Unlike most unions, UNISON motions are unshackled by word limits, which allows breadth and depth – veritable manifestos – to supplement the shorter, sharper motions that come from elsewhere and go to the TUC.

The core insights in this one are to recognise:

• the scale of concern among members; 93% worried, 50% very worried and 20% detailing impacts already being felt, and 67% wanting more not less action
• that immediate climate impacts in workplaces on the health of members and the ability to deliver services and the pitfalls involved in ad hoc and improvised responses and that many UNISON members’ jobs are bound up with current policies to respond to the increasing pressure of climate breakdown, with limited resources
• that the slower the response the greater the cost
• that the transition is a whole society issue, not one confined to workers in the energy sector and that UNISON’s embeddedness in communities gives it a crucial role in mobilsing for it
• that adaptation to the damage already being done has to run alongside building resilience to climate breakdown, and this requires more coordination across government departments and, in that planning, workers, and communities, must be central to the decision-making process.

This tees up the core demands to campaign for.

1. A UK wide Just Transition Commission with full union representation
2. Adaptation measures to be on a footing with mitigation
3. A National Climate Service to coordinate government departments
4. A full review of all necessary climate jobs and skills, not just in the energy sector

As well as mandatory extreme weather planning across public services and local communities; statutory facility time for Green Reps; maximum workplace temperatures; greater investment in public transport; the urgent introduction of the Business, Human Rights and Environment Act to tackle global supply chain abuses; increased financial support and environmental regulations for people to make the necessary changes recommended by the climate change committee and a full environmental impact assessment on the introduction of new AI data centres across the UK.

And to facilitate this through union structures by

• supporting the new Branch Environment Officer role as a growth area of union activism;
• actively promote the work of the Green UNISON campaign, the new branch Environment Officer position, regional networks and national newsletter.
• Work with other unions, TUC, ITUC on joint work in workplaces, national and international campaigning.

If this sort of framework were to be adopted across the movement, every year would be a year of union climate action; which is what the crisis demands as it deepens.

Paul Atkin Ed

 

Read on for the full motion

UNISON is proudly at the forefront of UK worker-led climate activism.

We were one of the first trade unions to recognise climate change as an important issue that affects every member, their families, and the communities they live in.

We recognise that Climate change impacts many core trade union, and UNISON specific, issues like: public finances and resources; job security; workplace safety and all the services our members deliver.

And we know that it is an increasingly important issue for our members. Our recent survey showed that 93 percent of our members were concerned about climate change with 50 percent saying they were very concerned and one in five reported ways in which their job was already being negatively impacted by climate change.

Even while Reform UK gains new ground by peddling serious disinformation on everything including climate change, 67 percent of their own members want more, not less, action on climate change.

Rising workplace temperatures and extreme weather are not distant threats. They are happening now. From schools and hospitals to offices and outdoor work, many working environments are becoming less safe and more uncomfortable.

Our members are reporting personal health impacts and disruption from extreme weather events and real impacts on their ability to deliver a service safely for themselves and others.

And the adaptations aimed to support a green transition to a more sustainable work environment often come with unforeseen consequences. Members are adapting to new ways of running buildings, delivering services, and using energy, frequently without adequate training or preparation.

Many of our members are in roles that are all about dealing with the climate crisis in their day-to-day job, drawing up the necessary transformation plans, cleaning up our waterways and coastlines, responding to floods, heatwaves, wildfires and other emergencies, often with limited resources in the face of increasing demand.

UNISON is uniquely positioned to campaign for a just transition across all our services and for all our communities. We must demand climate resilient infrastructure and ensure our members are not left behind in the shift to a greener economy.

The costs of doing nothing, both in human and financial terms, vastly outweigh the costs of acting now. We cannot delay action until a more convenient time. Failing to act only intensifies those costs and physical pressures on essential services and place greater demand on already stretched resources. Some of the necessary changes, if adopted in good time, will save money that is vital for investing in the other changes necessary.

It is our members in public services that are picking up the pieces and who are relied on to manage the consequences of climate change, playing a vital role in protecting communities and maintaining public wellbeing.

However, while the government is finally starting to tackle the important issue of just transition in energy production there is so much more to be done across every other aspect of industry and in the communities we live in. New, good, energy jobs are not the only good jobs we will need to face this emergency.

Adaptation and resilience is essential to combat current and increasing impacts of climate change. Yet it is not being discussed or invested in to the same degree as decarbonisation. Both are equally important and both will require increased training and jobs to meet new demands.

We need to build climate resilience into everything we do:

1) Health and Safety: Protecting vulnerable populations from extreme heat (like the 2022 heatwave) and ensuring essential services (like prisons) function;

2) Economic Stability: Reducing damages from extreme weather and ensuring food/water security, which also creates opportunities for new finance and green growth;

3) Environmental Resilience: Protecting ecosystems and biodiversity while creating nature-based solutions (e.g., wetlands) for cooling and flood control;

4) Infrastructure Protection: Building stronger infrastructure (flood barriers, cooling systems) to withstand future climate impacts, as highlighted by reports from the Climate Change Committee (CCC);

5) Buildings & Homes: Retrofitting homes and ensuring new designs can handle heat and flooding, especially for low income households;

6) Water & Food Systems: Managing drought risks and ensuring resilient food supplies;

7) Urban Planning: Creating more green spaces for cooling and flood management.

The UK’s current adaptation planning is considered insufficient by independent bodies like the Climate Change Committee (CCC).

There is a need for better government integration, funding, and policy to support widespread, effective action across all sectors and regions.

Government departments need to talk to each other about the impact of their plans on climate change. We cannot resolve climate change by only looking at energy use and production. Every area of government has a huge role to play in fighting, and preparing to mitigate and adapt to, the climate emergency. Public transport, health resources, environmental regulations, food production, skills and education, security and whichever department deals with new technology regulations (particularly AI use and impact) all need to work together.

Public services, our members, need to be recognised and invested in, as the vital social infrastructure preventing, preparing for and protecting against the impacts of climate change all of which will be an expanding area of demand even if we manage to reach the 2050 net zero carbon emissions.

Change is necessary and workers, and communities, must be central to the decision-making process.

Conference therefore calls on the National Executive Council to:

1. a) Lobby governments across the UK and in campaign in workplaces where appropriate for:
2. i) A Just Transition, overseen by a UK wide just transition commission (with devolved powers and commissions essential) ensuring our members and communities are represented throughout;
3. ii) Urgent focus and investment on adaptation measures on an equal footing to decarbonisation measures;

iii) A national Climate Service (or equivalent) responsible for ensuring all departments co-ordinate their contributions to the necessary climate emergency mitigation and adaptations;

1. iv) An urgent discussion on the new and increased skills and jobs required to meet the impacts of the climate emergency beyond the (vital) energy sector;
2. v) Mandatory extreme weather planning across public services and local communities;
3. vi) Statutory facility time in line with Union Learning Reps, Health & Safety Reps and Equalities Reps (coming in 2026);

vii) Maximum workplace temperatures;

viii) Greater investment in public transport;

1. ix) The urgent introduction of the Business, Human Rights and Environment Act to tackle global supply chain abuses;
2. x) Increased financial support and environmental regulations for people to make the necessary changes recommended by the climate change committee;
3. xi) A full environmental impact assessment on the introduction of new AI data centres across the UK;
4. b) Progress previous national delegate conference motions on supporting the new Branch Environment Officer role and this expanding area of organising and bargaining, recognising this as a growth area of union activism;
5. c) Continue to actively promote the work of the Green UNISON campaign, the new branch Environment Officer position, the regional networks and national newsletter widely throughout the union to current and prospective members;
6. d) Work with the TUC, STUC, TUC Cymru and ICTU and sister unions on joint work in workplaces, national campaigning and also internationally.

Join Us

Get in the loop! Sign up to receive future GJA Newsletters and Blogs here.

SIGN UP Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post UNISON shows the way! first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

Financial institutions are under growing pressure to assess whether companies are truly prepared for the energy transition — but today’s tools fall short. Most transition assessments rely on global 1.5°C benchmarks that measure ambition but reveal little about whether a strategy is feasible in a given region or market.

What we learned from mapping Southeast Asia’s power pathways

A critical component of a decision-useful transition assessment is a multi-pathway approach that makes use of region- and sector-specific pathways wherever possible. This enables an assessment to go beyond just evaluating ambition against a global benchmark, and evaluates ambition based on regional context and constraints, determines alignment to different policy and market conditions, and infers the associated transition risks and opportunities of different strategies in the region.

A commonly cited challenge in adopting a multi-pathway approach is the lack of relevant and credible transition pathways, particularly in regions where pathway coverage is limited or fragmented. To address this challenge, RMI is developing the Transition Pathways Repository. The goal of this tool is to make the broad array of existing transition pathways readily accessible and interpretable. The repository is currently being piloted for the Southeast Asia power sector, with expansion to new sectors and regions planned this year.

Exploring the Southeast Asia power pathway landscape has taught us useful lessons about scenario data availability, remaining gaps in the scenario landscape, and the challenges to deploying a multi-pathway approach. This article describes four of those lessons:

1. The power pathway landscape in emerging markets is richer than expected.
2. Pathway developers output consistent and granular data points for most power sector indicators.
3. Access to underlying pathway data is still limited.
4. By focusing on generation, transition pathways can miss other dependencies

These lessons are useful both to FIs adopting a broader range of transition pathways, and to the pathway developers creating them. With more alignment between these actors, adoption of transition pathways can scale to equip FIs with the information needed to support their clients through the energy transition.

1. The power pathway landscape in emerging markets is richer than expected

Backward-looking metrics based on global benchmarks can inadvertently penalize jurisdictions with high emissions. This is particularly the case for emerging markets with a strong development mandate and young fossil fuel assets. However, these regions need more access to transition capital to deliver clean energy development goals, not less. One way to address this is with region-specific benchmarks that account for local realities. However, a commonly cited challenge by FIs is the perceived lack of ambitious and credible region-specific pathways in emerging markets, including Southeast Asia.

RMI’s systematic review of the pathways available in Southeast Asia revealed a much richer landscape of options than initially expected. There are almost 60 pathways currently available on the Repository from 17 different publications and 11 different institutions. This suite of pathways provides global, regional, and country-level pathways over a range of policy and climate outcomes from business-as-usual to net-zero and 1.5°C. This diversity and granularity gives FIs the tools they need to understand the potential operating environments that companies will need to navigate, and helps them assess companies’ plans and ambition in context.

Gaps do remain in the Southeast Asia power pathway universe; not every combination of regional granularity and policy or market assumptions is available on the repository. But those that are available can be more easily identified, compared, and applied by FIs than ever.

Takeaway:
Financial institutions should continue to expand their transition assessment processes to integrate more region-specific pathways, with the knowledge that the pathway landscape is improving and tools like the Transition Pathways Repository and UNEP-FI’s Climate Pathways Navigator are making them easier to find.

2. Pathway developers output consistent and granular data points for most power sector indicators

Transition assessment methodologies show a high degree of convergence around a core set of power-sector indicators, including absolute emissions, installed capacity mix, generation mix, and emissions intensity. Among the pathways included in the Transition Pathways Repository, 54 out of 56 provide capacity projections by technology, and 55 out of 56 include generation by technology. This consistency enables technology trends to be compared and benchmarked in a consistent way across different regions and assumption sets, ensuring transition assessments are repeatable and scalable.

This set of indicators further enables an understanding of not only how emissions might evolve, but also the underlying technology shifts that will drive changes in emissions. This means transition assessments can move beyond benchmarking emissions intensity and assess which technologies companies would need to deploy at what rate in order to align with different scenarios. Identifying these key transition technologies and their deployment timeframes informs richer engagement with clients.

Finally, the available technology granularity enables analysis of the dependencies of the transition. If a pathway shows that emissions reductions are driven by carbon capture and storage (CCS), CCS infrastructure needs to be deployed alongside power generation infrastructure. Likewise, if emissions reductions are driven by increasing renewables, grid storage and stability infrastructure will be needed alongside renewables deployment. Additionally, pathway users can then make their own judgements about the viability of these dependencies achieving the necessary scale to facilitate the rate of transition modeled in a pathway.

Takeaway:
Financial institutions should expand their transition assessment processes beyond a focus on emissions. Metrics focused on technology deployment can provide a more tangible indicator of how clients are aligning with the energy transition and what kinds of investments are in the pipeline.

3. Access to underlying pathway data is still limited

Despite the core metrics above being modeled in most of the available transition pathways, the underlying data for these results is often confined to high-level reports and not readily available publicly. These reports provide the core drivers of change underlying the pathway narrative, describing the modeling approach and charting the key output results described in lesson 2. However, they often do not provide the actual pathway dataset that financial institutions need to put these pathways to use in transition plan quantitative assessments.

In developing the Transition Pathways Repository pilot, we reviewed 17 publications and engaged with 9 pathway providers to obtain the underlying data. In 2 cases, this data was made available to us so that it could be accessible for download in the Repository.

In many cases, the data is neither confidential nor behind a paywall; it is simply not being made available in a usable format. This adds an additional layer of effort and friction for FIs, preventing the use of additional pathways in transition assessments. For pathway developers, it likewise reduces the uptake of their analysis. Greater standardization and transparency in pathway outputs would benefit both pathway developers by increasing uptake, and FIs by lowering barriers to their use.

Takeaway:
Pathway developers should make their underlying pathway data available in an easy-to-use format so that FIs can plug into their existing systems with minimal friction. 4. By focusing on generation, transition pathways can miss other dependencies

Almost all the available transition pathways in the pilot focus solely on power capacity and generation. Assumptions or modeling related to grid infrastructure, demand flexibility, interconnection, and investment needs are frequently simplified, lack granularity, or are absent. Accounting for and including all these factors into power system models would add significant complexity. However, those additional parameters are important as they help illustrate how the electricity sector, as a whole, needs to evolve in order to achieve its most ambitious goals. For FIs, this can reveal whether new power investments depend on network upgrades that may not yet be planned or financed.

For example, different technology choices will change the requirements for transmission and distribution improvements based on location of power generation relative to demand centers. Likewise, different technology mixes will require different levels of investment in demand flexibility and energy storage to account for intermittent renewables.

Takeaway:
Pathway developers should expand their analyses to consider the broader impacts and dependencies of a given capacity and generation mix. This will increase the value of pathways by giving users greater insight on their feasibility and showing the investments needed to make a pathway a reality. Next steps for the Transition Pathway Repository

These lessons reinforced some of the barriers identified by FIs to implement multi-pathway analyses in their transition assessments. However, we also found that there is a rich and diverse landscape of pathways already available, and the Transition Pathways Repository can help remove the barriers to their use by centralizing pathway data in a standardized and easy-to-use format. Looking ahead, the repository will continue to evolve and expand. Planned developments in 2026 include:

• Expanding to the steel and aviation sectors with global coverage.
• Expanding power sector coverage to new regions outside Southeast Asia.
• Improving usability and navigation to make it easier to identify the right pathway for a given use case.

The repository will remain a living resource that can improve through collaboration. We welcome the opportunity to work with financial institutions to gather feedback on usability and ensure the tool effectively supports real-world decision-making. We also invite pathway developers to help strengthen the repository by flagging pathways we may have missed, and by providing more transparent, standardized outputs that enable broader and more consistent uptake.

To learn more, contact Tom White at tomwhite@rmi.org.

The authors would like to thank Jacob Kastl, Nicky Halterman, and Hannah Barton who performed the analysis on these pathways to inform the insights here. 

The post Improving Energy Transition Assessments with Regional Pathways appeared first on RMI.

Regenerative California is working to build a regenerative economy that uplifts communities, advances sustainability, and strengthens the state of California’s food and agriculture system. Through their demonstration farm, the nonprofit is hoping to highlight the potential of regenerative organic farming practices.

California “has always been this incredible leader in terms of social, economic, and ecological progress,” Kristin Coates, Co-Founder and CEO of Regenerative California, tells Food Tank. “And yet, as the fourth largest economy in the world, it’s still quite extractive.” But she wondered what the future could look like if the state prioritized regenerative systems.

To pilot this vision, Coates and her team looked to Monterey County. “At the time, it was considered California’s most wealthy and also poorest county in the state,” she explains. It’s also home to the Salinas Valley, nicknamed the salad bowl of the world.

The Regenerative California team began by interviewing community members to understand the challenges and opportunities they face in creating a more regenerative economy in the region. From these conversations, Coates says that two main themes emerged: the transition to regenerative organic agriculture and the revitalization of the blue economy.

As their priority issues came into focus, they developed a 70-acre demonstration farm, called Regenerate 68! Farm. “Obviously, 70 acres is not going to change the entire system of agriculture in California,” Coates tells Food Tank, “but we’re really using it as sort of a Petri dish.”

Located just off Highway 68 in Monterey County, the farm is a demonstration site for regenerative organic agriculture training, where they can grow nutrient-rich crops. The land is also part of a much larger ranch to be stewarded by the Big Sur Land Trust. Coates says this is an opportunity to prove that their approach to farming can be integrated into broader conservation efforts.

2026 marks the first year that Regenerative California will begin monitoring the farm’s environmental progress. They’re also considering the social and economic benefits that they can offer to farmers and institutional buyers in the area.

Coates recognizes that what’s successful on one farm may not yield the same results on another, but there are ways to translate the lessons they’re learning to scale impact. “We can create a flywheel,” she says. “And we really, genuinely believe that California can lead that work.”

And Regenerative California is capturing the attention of others interested in this transformation. “A dozen other regions want to join in this movement. They want to be the next area where we apply this process of listening, engaging, creating community momentum,” Coates tells Food Tank. “That really excites us.”

This article was written with the support of Katherine Albertson

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 Regenerative California

The post From Soil Health to Economic Growth: Regenerative California’s Vision for Transformation appeared first on Food Tank.

Cuarenta años después de la catástrofe nuclear de Chernóbil, Bulgaria sigue profundamente marcada por el suceso. Al ser el único país del bloque socialista que no tomó ninguna medida de protección, lo pagó muy caro. La lluvia radiactiva sacó a la luz el cinismo del régimen comunista y marcó profundamente el despertar ecológico y democrático del país.

A la 01:23 del 26 de abril de 1986, el reactor n.º 4 de la central nuclear de Chernóbil, entonces en la URSS, sufrió una avería catastrófica antes de explotar y hacer volar por los aires parte de las instalaciones, dejando el emplazamiento destrozado. El núcleo del reactor quedó al descubierto y liberó grandes cantidades de sustancias radiactivas a la atmósfera. En los meses siguientes, más de 200 000 personas fueron evacuadas de las zonas circundantes.

Impulsada por los vientos, la nube radiactiva contaminó vastas regiones de Europa, con lluvias radiactivas especialmente importantes en Ucrania, Bielorrusia y Rusia. Las emisiones, formadas por nubes de cesio-137 y otros isótopos, continuaron hasta el 5 de mayo. Si bien es cierto que su concentración iba disminuyendo con la distancia, afectaron a territorios muy extensos. La nube llegó a los Balcanes el 1 de mayo.

En aquella época, Dimitar Vatsov era un estudiante de secundaria de 15 años en Sofía. “Justo después de las lluvias radiactivas, el Komsomol [las juventudes del Partido Comunista Soviético] envió a mi clase a trabajar al campo”, recuerda. “Cada mañana, un autobús venía a recogernos para recolectar espinacas y cebollino”. 

Las autoridades búlgaras no informaron públicamente sobre la catástrofe hasta el 7 de mayo. Las declaraciones oficiales posteriores afirmaban que la contaminación ambiental era mínima y no requería ninguna medida especial. Cuatro compañeros de clase de Vatsov murieron de cáncer en los años siguientes.

Esta experiencia lo marcó profundamente. El ahora filósofo y profesor de la Nueva Universidad Búlgara de Sofía puso en marcha el pasado otoño un seminario dedicado exclusivamente a las consecuencias de la catástrofe de Chernóbil en Bulgaria, que reunió a historiadores, periodistas y físicos nucleares.

El ahora filósofo y profesor de la Nueva Universidad Búlgara de Sofía organizó el pasado otoño un seminario que reunió a historiadores, periodistas y físicos nucleares dedicado exclusivamente a las consecuencias de la catástrofe de Chernóbil en Bulgaria.

“Bulgaria fue el único país del bloque socialista que no tomó ninguna medida tras la catástrofe”, explica. Aunque el país solo ocupa el octavo puesto entre los más expuestos a la radiación según un informe de la ONU, registró la tasa más alta de cáncer de tiroides infantil fuera de la antigua URSS. “Como filósofo, esta singularidad me llevó a reflexionar sobre la verdad, la ética del discurso político y, en un sentido más amplio, el cinismo del régimen comunista de la época”.

El bloqueo informativo búlgaro

Tras el accidente de Chernóbil, en los países del bloque del Este se filtró la información con rigurosidad con el fin de minimizar los riesgos de contaminación y preservar al mismo tiempo el prestigio de la URSS. Por ejemplo, en Checoslovaquia, la palabra katastrofa se evitó cuidadosamente en las primeras fases, mientras que el término havárie (”accidente”) se utilizaba sin calificativos.

Los informes oficiales destacaban la pericia y el heroísmo soviéticos, el rápido control del incidente y la supuesta exageración de los hechos por parte de los “medios imperialistas occidentales”. Sin embargo, Bulgaria fue el país donde se produjo la censura más estricta y donde no se emprendió ninguna acción significativa.

“Ceaușescu (uno de los dictadores más autoritarios de la época) advirtió a los rumanos del riesgo de contaminación el 2 de mayo. En Yugoslavia, se pidió a las mujeres embarazadas y a los niños que permanecieran en interiores y se recomendaron precauciones básicas, como lavar los alimentos frescos. En Bulgaria, el bloqueo informativo fue total”, cuenta Vatsov.

“No nos decían nada, simplemente teníamos que obedecer. No fue hasta años más tarde cuando comprendí la verdadera magnitud de la catástrofe” – Petko Kovachev

El físico nuclear Georgi Kaschiev, que entonces trabajaba en la central de Kozloduy, en el noroeste de Bulgaria, recuerda muy bien aquellos días: “La única información que recibimos fue que se había producido un incendio en Chernóbil y que había sido extinguido”. Sin embargo, gracias a una gran antena instalada en su edificio, Kaschiev captaba la televisión yugoslava.

“Las noticias procedentes de Suecia y Finlandia permitieron comprender rápidamente que el incidente era mucho más grave de lo que se reconocía oficialmente. Los medios occidentales difundían imágenes de satélites estadounidenses que mostraban el reactor destruido, mapas que trazaban la nube radiactiva y reportajes que indicaban que Yugoslavia había enviado aviones para evacuar a los nacionales que estudiaban en Kiev”.

A finales de abril, Kaschiev y sus colegas comprendieron que la nube se dirigía hacia Bulgaria. Entre el 1 y el 2 de mayo, los niveles de radiación alcanzaron hasta diez veces los niveles naturales, especialmente tras las lluvias. Ante el mutismo de las autoridades, la información se difundió en privado: los ingenieros pidieron a sus familiares que tomaran precauciones básicas, unas advertencias que a menudo fueron recibidas con incredulidad. Varios análisis de muestras de alimentos posteriores, en particular de leche procedente de granjas búlgaras, confirmaron una contaminación extrema.

Los documentos de archivo a los que se pueden acceder actualmente muestran que el Gobierno búlgaro seguía de cerca la evolución de la catástrofe y el alcance de la contaminación en Europa y en Bulgaria. Para ello, analizaron la prensa extranjera, los informes de inteligencia y las mediciones diarias de radiación en todo el territorio. Según Vatsov, el Politburó del Partido Comunista Búlgaro temía que revelar la verdadera magnitud de la contaminación sembrara el pánico y provocara disturbios políticos, como había ocurrido en Polonia: “Aparte de eso, tan solo puedo calificar esta actitud como una forma de flaqueza moral por parte de las élites gobernantes, que demostraron un profundo desprecio hacia el resto de la población.”

Petko Kovachev, activista medioambiental que entonces cumplía el servicio militar obligatorio, recuerda que el ejército reaccionó rápidamente: “De la noche a la mañana, dejamos de consumir productos frescos y solo comíamos conservas en el comedor. Se cancelaron las actividades al aire libre y se nos ordenó medir los niveles de radiación alrededor de la base con contadores Geiger”.

Sin embargo, las medidas no vinieron acompañadas de ninguna explicación. “No nos decían nada, simplemente teníamos que obedecer. No fue hasta años más tarde cuando comprendí la verdadera magnitud de la catástrofe”.

El cinismo de la nomenklatura

La gestión de las repercusiones de Chernóbil en Bulgaria puso de manifiesto flagrantes desigualdades en el acceso a la información y a la protección sanitaria. En la cúspide se encontraba la nomenklatura: altos cargos del partido, policía política, directivos administrativos y oficiales militares. Durante la crisis, disfrutaron de un acceso privilegiado a comidas y provisiones distribuidas a través del hotel estatal Rila, situado en el centro de Sofía. El Politburó recibía agua mineral procedente de manantiales profundos y alimentos importados (cordero australiano, verduras de Egipto e Israel) para evitar cualquier contaminación.

Según Vatsov, la élite de esta nomenklatura —unas 300 personas— nunca estuvo en peligro, ya que se tomaron medidas especiales para garantizar su seguridad y bienestar: “El ejército adoptó medidas menos estrictas, pero suficientes para reducir la exposición. Al resto de la población, en cambio, permaneció en la ignorancia absoluta”.

Un símbolo de este cinismo fue la decisión de mantener el desfile del 1 de mayo de 1986, en el que numerosos niños desfilaron por Sofía a pesar del riesgo de lluvia radiactiva. Por suerte, la manifestación comenzó a las 11:00, mientras que la nube radiactiva no llegó al territorio búlgaro hasta la tarde, como muy pronto hacia las 14:00.

También se organizaron numerosos eventos deportivos de propaganda en todo el país, así como trabajos forzados supervisados por brigadas juveniles, compuestas principalmente por jóvenes de entre 15 y 25 años. Estos “voluntarios” estaban obligados a realizar tareas físicamente exigentes, como trabajos agrícolas o de construcción al menos dos veces al año. Se estima que unos 365 000 jóvenes se vieron expuestos de esta manera.

El 10 de mayo, tras una reunión en el Ministerio de Energía en Sofía, Kaschiev visitó a su cuñada. Los niños jugaban fuera, delante del edificio, mientras los adultos charlaban tranquilamente. Cuando les instó a que no les dejasen salir ni jugar en el arenero, desoyeron su advertencia. “Me acusaron de querer sembrar el pánico”, cuenta. “Alguien incluso insinuó que seguramente era un agente occidental y amenazó con denunciarme a las autoridades.”

A pesar de unas medidas a menudo insuficientes, se mantuvieron los desfiles del 1 de mayo en todos los países del bloque del Este. Incluso en Polonia, las celebraciones tuvieron lugar según lo previsto, mientras el Gobierno negaba públicamente cualquier riesgo sanitario. Mientras tanto, las autoridades polacas distribuían yodo y limitaban la venta de leche.

La rápida distribución de yodo, que comenzó la tarde del 29 de abril, se cita a menudo como una respuesta ejemplar ante una emergencia radiactiva: en tres días, 18,5 millones de personas (adultos y niños) recibieron una pastilla de yodo.

Científicos y activismo medioambiental

Justo después de la caída del régimen, Kovachev conoció más a fondo la catástrofe de Chernóbil y sus consecuencias gracias a una exposición organizada por físicos de la Universidad de Sofía. Ya en la época del comunismo, algunos de ellos formaban parte de redes ecologistas informales que más tarde se convertirían en Ecoglasnost, organización a la que Kovachev se unió cuando era estudiante.

Fundada en la primavera de 1989, unos meses antes de la caída del comunismo, Ecoglasnost era un movimiento cívico centrado en la protección del medioambiente, nacido del clima de liberalización política inspirado por la glasnost soviética. En otoño, Ecoglasnost organizó peticiones y manifestaciones públicas, entre ellas la concentración del 3 de noviembre en Sofía, considerada una de las primeras movilizaciones cívicas abiertamente contra el régimen comunista.

El movimiento amplió rápidamente sus reivindicaciones a las libertades civiles y las reformas democráticas. En diciembre de 1989, Ecoglasnost se convirtió en la primera organización política no comunista reconocida oficialmente en Bulgaria y desempeñó posteriormente un papel esencial en la estructuración de la oposición democrática al unirse a la Unión de Fuerzas Democráticas (un partido político que unía varias organizaciones opuestas al Gobierno comunista). También inició las primeras inspecciones de la central de Kozloduy.

El compromiso de la comunidad científica con las luchas medioambientales contribuyó al debilitamiento del régimen en sus últimos años. Ya se había manifestado en Ruse, en el norte del país, donde la contaminación atmosférica procedente de una fábrica química situada al otro lado de la frontera rumana desencadenó amplias protestas en 1987. De este movimiento surgió el Consejo Público para la Protección del Medioambiente de Ruse, la primera organización informal tolerada bajo el comunismo, que desempeñó un papel decisivo en las primeras movilizaciones nacionales y en la transición democrática.

En esa misma época, el descubrimiento de materiales radiactivos en forma de “partículas calientes” en Bulgaria (una prueba de la magnitud de la catástrofe de Chernóbil) incitó a varios físicos a seguir de cerca la crisis y a estudiar sus consecuencias. La exposición de la Universidad de Sofía que visitó Kovachev en diciembre de 1989 fue fruto de ese trabajo.

En otros países del bloque socialista, como Hungría o Checoslovaquia, surgieron algunos movimientos similares que combinaban el compromiso científico con la toma de conciencia ecológica y democrática.

Las preocupaciones medioambientales se convirtieron en el motor que expresaba las reivindicaciones de responsabilidad y transparencia. Este fenómeno alimentó las redes reformistas que posteriormente contribuyeron a configurar la transición de Hungría hacia la democracia

Mientras los niveles de radiación aumentaban a finales de abril y principios de mayo de 1986, los científicos y profesionales sanitarios húngaros documentaron la contaminación e intercambiaron información de manera informal, mientras que la comunicación oficial seguía siendo limitada y con ánimos tranquilizadores.

La creciente brecha entre el conocimiento de los expertos y el discurso público creó una disonancia moral en estos profesionales, divididos entre su integridad científica y su lealtad al Estado. En este contexto, las preocupaciones medioambientales se convirtieron en el motor que expresaba las reivindicaciones de responsabilidad y transparencia. Este fenómeno alimentó las redes reformistas que posteriormente contribuyeron a configurar la transición de Hungría hacia la democracia.

En la antigua Checoslovaquia, la catástrofe de Chernóbil también contribuyó a galvanizar los movimientos ecologistas, que posteriormente se convirtieron en actores clave de la Revolución de Terciopelo de 1989. Aunque el régimen era uno de los más represivos del bloque del Este, toleraba más el activismo medioambiental que la disidencia política abierta, pues consideraba que las preocupaciones relacionadas con la contaminación atmosférica e hídrica o la degradación del paisaje eran relativamente inofensivas y difíciles de censurar.

Los disidentes de Chernóbil

Según Vatsov, en Bulgaria no había disidentes antes del accidente de Chernóbil. “Saber que habían sido engañados por las autoridades y expuestos a graves riesgos para la salud marcó el compromiso político de toda una generación, especialmente dentro de la comunidad científica.”

Kaschiev es un ejemplo emblemático. La catástrofe de Chernóbil determinó tanto su compromiso político como su trayectoria profesional. Su indignación ante las deficiencias morales y políticas del régimen le llevó a especializarse en seguridad nuclear. A finales de la década de 1980, pasó de la física de reactores a la evaluación de riesgos, primero como empleado dentro de la central, y luego como profesor universitario e inspector nuclear. En 1997, fue nombrado director del laboratorio nacional de regulación nuclear de Bulgaria.

En otros países socialistas, la catástrofe de Chernóbil también se convirtió en un catalizador de la oposición al régimen. En Polonia, dio lugar a un poderoso movimiento antinuclear. Los temores relacionados con la catástrofe se transformaron rápidamente en oposición al proyecto de la central nuclear de Żarnowiec, y desencadenaron protestas a nivel nacional en las que participaron grupos ecologistas, activistas locales y disidentes como Lech Wałęsa, futuro primer presidente del país elegido democráticamente.

En un referéndum organizado en 1990, coincidiendo con las elecciones locales, más del 86 % de los votantes rechazó el proyecto de Żarnowiec, lo que provocó su abandono definitivo. Como señala el politólogo Kacper Szulecki, estas movilizaciones reflejaron y aceleraron profundas transformaciones sociales y generacionales, al tiempo que socavaron aún más la legitimidad de Moscú en Polonia.

Si bien dejó una huella duradera en la sociedad búlgara, la catástrofe no dio lugar a un movimiento antinuclear amplio. La central de Kozloduy, modernizada y aún en funcionamiento, es considerada en gran medida una fuente de orgullo nacional y una garantía de independencia energética. La catastrófica gestión de Chernóbil puso sobre todo de manifiesto la indecencia y el cinismo del régimen comunista, así como la irracionalidad de su ideología.

La catastrófica gestión de Chernóbil puso sobre todo de manifiesto la indecencia y el cinismo del régimen comunista, así como la irracionalidad de su ideología

En diciembre de 1991, tras la caída del régimen, el Tribunal Supremo de Sofía condenó al exministro de Sanidad Lyubomir Shindarov y al ex viceprimer ministro Grigor Stoichkov por negligencia criminal, por haber engañado deliberadamente a la población. Tras un largo proceso de apelación, sus penas se redujeron a dos y tres años de prisión, respectivamente. Siguen siendo los únicos altos cargos del régimen búlgaro que realmente fueron procesados y condenados por la gestión de la catástrofe de Chernóbil.

El físico nuclear Atanas Krastanov, joven investigador en la década de 1980 y testigo de la mala gestión de la catástrofe por parte de las autoridades, considera que la energía nuclear en sí misma no es el problema.

Subraya que “el accidente de Chernóbil fue ante todo el resultado de un error humano” y precisa “que en un principio no se trató de una explosión nuclear, sino de una explosión térmica debida a una acumulación de presión”. En la actualidad, Krastanov trabaja como experto en el Centro de Prevención de Catástrofes, Accidentes y Crisis del Ayuntamiento de Sofía. Recientemente participó en la realización de un documental sobre el tema, cuyo estreno está previsto para otoño. 

Este artículo se ha realizado dentro de una Thematic Network de PULSE, una iniciativa europea que apoya las colaboraciones periodísticas transnacionales. En su elaboración han colaborado Andrea Braschayko, Martin Vrba y Daniel Harper.

Translated by Raquel Alonso | Voxeurop

Oltre a provocare gravi problemi sanitari, la catastrofe di Černobyl’ contribuì alla nascita di movimenti ambientalisti e alla delegittimazione dei regimi nei paesi socialisti. Quarant’anni dopo l’incidente, la Bulgaria resta il paese più segnato dal disastro, l’unico del blocco socialista a non adottare alcuna misura di protezione, Sofia pagò un prezzo altissimo che mise a nudo il cinismo del regime comunista.

All’1:23 del 26 aprile 1986, il nocciolo del reattore numero quattro della centrale nucleare di Černobyl’ – nei pressi del confine tra le repubbliche sovietiche di Ucraina e Bielorussia – si fuse ed esplose, distruggendo parte dell’impianto. Enormi quantità di sostanze radioattive furono liberate nell’atmosfera, e oltre 200mila persone dovettero essere evacuate dalle aree circostanti. Trasportata dal vento, la nube radioattiva contaminò vaste zone d’Europa, con le ricadute più pesanti in Ucraina, Bielorussia e Russia. Nelle popolazioni esposte si registrarono aumenti di malattie tiroidee e tumori; altri effetti sanitari a lungo termine restano difficili da quantificare.

Il silenzio delle autorità bulgare

“Mi sono interessato alle conseguenze dell’incidente di Černobyl’ in Bulgaria per una questione personale. All’inizio di maggio 1986 avevo quindici anni ed ero studente di liceo a Sofia. Subito dopo le piogge radioattive, la mia classe venne mandata a lavorare nei campi. Ogni mattina un autobus ci portava a raccogliere spinaci ed erba cipollina. Quattro miei compagni sono poi morti di cancro”, racconta Dimitar Vatsov. 

Vatsov insegna alla New Bulgarian University di Sofia, e sostiene che “la Bulgaria fu l’unico paese del blocco socialista a non adottare misure dopo il disastro. Per questo, sebbene un rapporto Onu la classifichi all’ottavo posto tra gli stati più colpiti dalle radiazioni, la Bulgaria registra il più alto tasso di tumori alla tiroide tra i bambini al di fuori dell’ex Urss”.

La nube radioattiva raggiunse i Balcani già il 1° maggio, ma fino al 7 maggio le autorità bulgare non fecero alcun annuncio. Nelle successive comunicazioni ufficiali si sostenne che la contaminazione ambientale era minima e non richiedeva misure speciali.

“Per fare un confronto, Ceaușescu avvertì i romeni del rischio di contaminazione già il 2 maggio. Lo stesso accadde in Jugoslavia, dove alle donne incinte e ai bambini fu chiesto di restare in casa e furono raccomandate precauzioni di base, come lavare il cibo fresco. In Bulgaria, invece, si verificò un blackout informativo totale”, commenta Vatsov.

Nel 1986 il fisico nucleare Georgi Kascev lavorava alla centrale di Kozloduj, nel nord-ovest della Bulgaria, tuttora l’unico impianto nucleare del paese. Ricorda bene quel giorno: “L’unico comunicato che ricevemmo diceva che c’era stato un incendio a Černobyl’, ma era stato spento”. Grazie a un’antenna installata al nono piano del suo palazzo, però, Kascev riceveva la televisione jugoslava: “Le notizie suggerivano che l’incidente era molto più grave. Si vedevano immagini del reattore distrutto e mappe della nube radioattiva, e si diceva che la Jugoslavia aveva inviato aerei per evacuare i propri studenti da Kiev”. Mentre il silenzio ufficiale continuava, in privato gli ingegneri invitavano i parenti a prendere precauzioni di base, spesso senza essere creduti.

I documenti d’archivio oggi accessibili mostrano che il governo bulgaro monitorava in realtà con attenzione l’evoluzione del disastro e la contaminazione in corso in Europa e nel paese. “L’unica spiegazione plausibile [del silenzio] è che le autorità bulgare temevano che rivelare la reale portata della contaminazione avrebbe causato panico e possibili disordini politici. Oltre a questo, posso solo parlare di una forma di debolezza morale delle élite al potere, che mostrarono disprezzo per il resto della popolazione”, spiega Vatsov.

Nel 1986 l’attivista ambientale Petko Kascev stava svolgendo il servizio militare obbligatorio. Ricorda che l’esercito reagì con rapidità: “All’improvviso smettemmo di mangiare cibo fresco, in mensa ci servivano solo scatolette. Le attività all’aperto furono cancellate e ci ordinarono di misurare i livelli di radiazione attorno alla base, ma non ci spiegarono mai cosa stesse succedendo”.

Liliana Prodanova era invece una scienziata che lavorava presso l’Istituto di fisica dello stato solido: “Mio marito era prorettore dell’Università tecnica di Sofia. Anch’io ero fisica, quindi capivamo molto bene le implicazioni della contaminazione. Prendemmo precauzioni in silenzio, come lavare il cibo. Rimuovemmo anche il terreno contaminato attorno alla nostra casa di campagna. Quell’anno non piantammo nulla”.

Gli scienziati e l’attivismo ambientale

Secondo Dimitar Vatsov, “prima dell’incidente di Černobyl’ non c’erano veri dissidenti in Bulgaria. Ma la consapevolezza di essere stati ingannati dalle autorità e di essere stati esposti a gravi rischi sanitari ha plasmato l’impegno politico di un’intera generazione, soprattutto all’interno della comunità scientifica”.

In particolare, nel 1989 nacque Ecoglasnost, un movimento civico per la tutela dell’ambiente in Bulgaria. Organizzò petizioni e manifestazioni, tra cui un raduno a Sofia che è considerato una delle prime mobilitazioni civiche aperte contro il regime comunista. Il movimento ampliò presto le proprie richieste alle libertà civili e alle riforme democratiche e giocò poi un ruolo nella transizione.

Il coinvolgimento della comunità scientifica nelle lotte ambientali fu uno dei tratti distintivi degli ultimi anni del regime bulgaro. Si era già manifestato nella città di Ruse, dove l’inquinamento provocato da un impianto chimico aveva scatenato proteste diffuse e aveva portato alla nascita di un comitato per la protezione dell’ambiente, la prima organizzazione informale tollerata sotto il comunismo. Anche in altri Paesi del blocco sovietico, come l’Ungheria, l’impegno degli scienziati contro l’inquinamento e le devastazioni della natura contribuì a rendere la critica ambientale una forma legittima – seppur attentamente delimitata – di partecipazione pubblica nel tardo socialismo.

Reazioni in Polonia, Ungheria e Cecoslovacchia

In Polonia la catastrofe di Černobyl’ fece da catalizzatore per la mobilitazione politica e contribuì alla nascita di un movimento antinucleare di massa, in particolare contro il progetto della centrale di Żarnowiec, che avrebbe dovuto diventare nel 1990 il primo impianto nucleare del paese. A partire dal 1986 gruppi ecologisti locali e nazionali organizzarono manifestazioni, campagne di informazione, blocchi stradali e persino scioperi della fame, coinvolgendo ampi settori della società e figure pubbliche di primo piano come Lech Wałęsa, leader di Solidarność. Le autorità si trovarono costrette a indire un referendum, in cui oltre l’86 per cento dei votanti si espresse contro il progetto della nuova centrale, che nel 1990 fu effettivamente interrotto.

Come rileva lo studioso Kacper Szulecki nel libro The Chernobyl Effect (“L’effetto Černobyl’”), le lotte ambientaliste degli anni Ottanta riflettevano trasformazioni generazionali e culturali più profonde. La gestione sovietica dell’incidente di Černobyl’ delegittimò in modo definitivo il già fragile controllo di Mosca sulla Polonia, galvanizzando l’opposizione.

In Ungheria Černobyl’ invece non diede origine a un movimento antinucleare di massa, né mise in discussione il programma nucleare del paese. Mentre la comunicazione ufficiale riguardo all’incidente nucleare restava limitata e rassicurante, scienziati e professionisti della sanità iniziarono a registrare gli effetti della contaminazione e a scambiarsi informazioni in modo informale.

Questo scarto tra la consapevolezza degli esperti e le comunicazioni delle autorità accelerò l’erosione della legittimità del regime. Le tematiche ambientali divennero un canale per sollevare temi più ampi di responsabilità e trasparenza, e così entro la fine degli anni Ottanta emersero reti e iniziative ambientaliste che avrebbero poi intersecato la transizione alla democrazia.

Anche in Cecoslovacchia la catastrofe di Černobyl’ influenzò i movimenti ecologisti locali, che sarebbero diventati attori importanti nella rivoluzione del 1989. Poiché quei movimenti erano in larga parte concentrati su temi come l’impatto sanitario dell’inquinamento industriale, la contaminazione dell’acqua o i danni al paesaggio causati dall’attività mineraria, il regime li considerava relativamente innocui rispetto ad altri dissidenti. Dopo Černobyl’, però, quelle che prima erano preoccupazioni ecologiche locali si trasformarono in sfiducia sistemica.

Il cinismo della nomenklatura

La gestione delle conseguenze di Černobyl’ in Bulgaria mise in luce disuguaglianze profonde nell’accesso alle informazioni e alla protezione sanitaria. Secondo Dimitar Vatsov, “la fascia più alta della nomenklatura non fu mai in pericolo, perché furono adottate misure speciali. Il cibo veniva importato dall’estero e testato, e i suoi membri venivano riforniti con acqua minerale da falde profonde. L’esercito applicò misure meno rigorose, ma comunque tali da ridurre l’esposizione. Il resto della popolazione fu tenuto nella totale ignoranza”.

Un simbolo di questo cinismo fu la decisione di mantenere le tradizionali parate del 1° maggio anche nel 1986. A Sofia molti bambini marciarono sotto una pioggia radioattiva e in tutto il paese si svolsero numerosi eventi sportivi di propaganda, tra cui le cosiddette “maratone della salute”. Le brigate giovanili, composte da ragazzi tra i 15 e i 25 anni, erano obbligate a svolgere lavori fisici in campagna o nei cantieri almeno due volte l’anno: si stima che circa 365mila giovani siano stati esposti alle radiazioni in questo modo.

Anche in Polonia le autorità decisero di mantenere le celebrazioni del 1° maggio. Giornali e media di Stato invitarono i cittadini a partecipare, insistendo sull’assenza di pericoli per la salute pubblica. D’altronde, il primo riferimento ufficiale all’incidente di Černobyl’ era comparso solo tra il 29 e il 30 aprile, limitandosi ad affermare: “C’è stato un incidente nella centrale nucleare in Ucraina. Le vittime sono state assistite. Tutto è sotto controllo”. Allo stesso tempo, però, il governo polacco distribuì in silenzio milioni di dosi di iodio protettivo e limitò la vendita del latte, segno che i rischi di contaminazione erano ben noti.

Dieci anni dopo, un’indagine medica rivelò che circa il 22 per cento dei giovani polacchi soffriva di disturbi alla tiroide, con una percentuale vicina al 40 per cento nelle regioni nord-orientali.

Anche in Ungheria le autorità si mossero con cautela, privilegiando la tutela della calma pubblica e l’osservanza delle celebrazioni del 1° maggio. Non furono emessi comunicati pubblici, i media ufficiali ridimensionarono la portata dell’incidente, e le celebrazioni si svolsero come previsto. Dietro le quinte gli scienziati registravano valori di radioattività elevati e rilevavano l’arrivo di piogge radioattive, ma le misure protettive rimasero limitate e disomogenee. La Cecoslovacchia seguì inizialmente lo stesso schema.

Il nucleare in Bulgaria dopo il 1989

La gestione catastrofica di Černobyl’ mise a nudo l’indecenza del regime comunista. Nel dicembre 1991, dopo che il regime era caduto, la Corte suprema di Sofia condannò l’ex ministro della Sanità Ljubomir Scindarov e l’ex vice primo ministro Grigor Stoičkov per negligenza criminale, per aver ingannato l’opinione pubblica. Furono gli unici alti funzionari del regime a essere processati e condannati a pene detentive.

Benché l’incidente di Černobyl’ abbia avuto un serio impatto sulla società bulgara, non produsse un movimento anti nucleare su larga scala. La centrale di Kozloduj, ristrutturata e ancora operativa, è oggi percepita come una fonte di orgoglio nazionale. L’attivista ambientale Petko Kovačev, vicino all’Ong Za Zemiata e alle reti antinucleari, sostiene che il sostegno popolare al nucleare in Bulgaria è trainato dalle preoccupazioni per l’indipendenza energetica e per il basso costo dell’elettricità, più che da valutazioni scientifiche o etiche.

In questo contesto, sta procedendo il progetto per costruire una nuova centrale nucleare a Belene, approvato anche da un referendum nazionale. In aggiunta, sono previsti due nuovi reattori a Kozloduj. Entrata in funzione nel 1970, la centrale oggi opera solo con i due reattori più recenti; i più vecchi sono stati abbandonati sotto la pressione dell’Unione europea, che ne fece una condizione per l’adesione della Bulgaria. 

Un tempo descritta come la centrale più pericolosa del mondo, Kozloduj oggi rispetta tutti i requisiti di sicurezza fissati dall’Aiea, anche se gli attivisti denunciano una mancanza di trasparenza sulla governance e sugli incidenti che coinvolgono l’impianto.

Questo articolo fa parte del progetto collaborativo PULSE ed è stato pubblicato nell’ambito dei Thematic Networks. Hanno contribuito al progetto Andrea Braschayko, Martin Vrba e Daniel Harper.

Watch this CELDF live-streamed conversation from May 7th 2026, on colonization and nationalist U.S. propaganda with Anne Keala Kelly and Dina Gilio-Whitaker.

The post “What Revolution? Systemic Racism, Sexism, and Genocide from America’s Beginning” appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.