News Feeds

Faced with enormous challenges, the experience of 2025 demonstrates our resilience and our ability to unite diverse struggles towards a common goal: unity in diversity, internationalist solidarity.

The post La Via Campesina – 2025 Annual Report appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Headline News:

• “Heatwaves In France: Is Thermal Comfort Becoming A New Property Criterion?” • Heat is a factor during property viewings in France now, after the heatwaves of this summer. Home buyers are paying more attention to the thermal comfort of a property, evaluating its exposure, shutters, air conditioning, ventilation, and shade of nearby trees. [Euronews]

Cottage in France (Pascal Bernardon, Unsplash)

• “Jellyfish Force Shutdown Of Three Reactors At Gravelines Nuclear Power Plant” • A nuclear plant in France shut down three reactors after a swarm of jellyfish clogged pumps used to cool its reactor units, EDF said. Overfishing, plastic pollution, and warming seas due to climate change have created conditions allowing jellyfish to thrive. [Euronews]
• “Vernon Now Faces Three Futures For The Valley That Once Held Vermont’s Only Nuclear Plant” • The decommissioning task for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant went to NorthStar Group Services, in 2019. NorthStar leased the site recently to PowerTransitions, which offers three use options: a data center, a battery center, or a nuclear plant. [Energies Media]
• “UK Set For ‘Warmest Summer On Record’ As Europe Preps For Yet Another Heatwave” • The UK is on course to record its “warmest summer on record,” according to the Met Office. Provisional statistics showed that the current recorded mean temperature across the UK from 1 June to 10 August was 1.88°C (3.38°F) above the average for 1991-2020. [Euronews]
• “Federal Government Ends Support For Key Arctic Climate Report” • For two decades, NOAA’s Arctic Report Card has provided a comprehensive view of the health and changing conditions of the Arctic, where climate change is having its greatest effect. But now, the agency has announced that it will no longer sponsor the annual report. [ABC News]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

Concerned about microplastics after watching The Plastic Detox documentary on Netflix? Read along and learn how to reduce plastic use, avoid microplastics, and support long-term solutions with simple swaps you can make at home.

If you've recently watched The Plastic Detox, you're not the only one wondering how much plastic finds its way into our lives. From food packaging and plastic bottled water to clothing and household products, tiny plastic particles known as microplastics have become increasingly difficult to avoid.

Now, more people are searching for practical answers to questions, such as how to avoid plastic and microplastics, and how to reduce microplastics in our bodies.

The good news is that reducing plastic use doesn't have to be aggressive and overwhelming. Simple everyday swaps can help lower your exposure to microplastics while reducing plastic waste sustainably. 

What are microplastics, and should people be concerned?

Microplastics are tiny plastic particles measuring less than five millimeters in size. These particles can either be intentionally manufactured for use in products or result from larger plastic items breaking down over time. As plastic pollution continues to accumulate, microplastics have spread far beyond oceans and waterways.

SEM image highlighting nanoplastic fragments and fibers detected in human sperm samples, from Ecoton.

Microplastics can now enter our bodies through multiple pathways. We may ingest them through food and water, inhale them in the air, or encounter them in products we use every day.

While scientists have detected microplastics in various parts of the human body, the science around their long-term health effects is still developing. Researchers have identified concerning associations between microplastic exposure and certain health outcomes, but many studies show correlation rather than direct causation. 

In other words, scientists are still working to understand exactly how microplastics affect human health over time, and further scientific research is required around the specific impacts. However, when something we never evolved to live with is now inside our hearts, our lungs, and even our maternal placentas, humanity needs urgent action. 

Protecting public health requires making decisions based on the best available information. Ideally, this means following the precautionary principle, which emphasizes caution and pausing to review scientific findings before adopting new technologies at a large scale in case they might prove dangerous. Plastics are still new in the timescale of human evolution, and we would do well to protect humanity from the potential impacts that these microplastics might be having on our health.

The safest path forward is clear: drastically reduce plastic production, shift to toxic-free reuse systems, and protect people and the planet from harmful chemicals. 

How to Reduce Microplastics in Our Bodies Through Everyday Habits Should You Stop Heating Food in Plastic Containers?

If you're wondering how to reduce microplastics in your body, one of the simplest places to start is the kitchen. Studies show that heating food in plastic containers can increase the release of both microplastic particles and chemicals from the plastic into food, particularly when containers are exposed to high temperatures in microwaves or ovens. Apart from plastic food containers, we’re also exposed to microplastics through the plastic cutting boards, utensils, plates, and bowls we use in the kitchen.

That doesn't mean you need to throw away every plastic container in your home. Instead of creating unnecessary waste (and succumbing to consumerism), consider replacing plastic food storage items with glass, ceramic, or other toxic-free alternatives when possible. 

Can Switching from Plastic Bottled Water Help Reduce Microplastic Exposure? 

The water you drink is often one of the first places people consider to avoid microplastics. However, studies have detected microplastics in both bottled water and tap water. Plastic-bottled water frequently contains higher levels of microplastic particles, partly because the water comes into contact with plastic packaging during production, storage, and transportation. While scientists are still studying how these particles affect human health over time, reducing unnecessary exposure is one practical way to reduce microplastics in our bodies.

For households with access to safe drinking water, using a home water filtration system and storing water in reusable containers may help reduce the use of single-use plastic bottles and eventually save on costs, too! Some communities also offer water refill stations that allow people to access drinking water without generating additional plastic waste.

At the same time, it’s important to recognize that access to safe and affordable drinking water is not equal everywhere. In many communities, bottled water may still be the safest or most accessible option available, and people should make the best choice available to them based on their circumstances. Long-term solutions require investments in safe public water infrastructure, accessible refill systems, and policies that reduce single-use plastics in the first place.

How can you reduce microplastics from clothing?

When people think about microplastics, they often picture plastic bottles or single-use food packaging. Textiles are the largest source of microplastics, responsible for roughly 35% of the microplastic volume in our oceans. Synthetic fabrics such as polyester, nylon, acrylic, and elastane shed tiny plastic fibers—known as microfibers—during everyday wear and washing. These microfibers can enter waterways through wastewater systems and eventually make their way into the environment. 

The good news is that you don’t have to purge your wardrobe. In fact, replacing perfectly usable clothes can create unnecessary waste and even promote overconsumption. 

When it's time to purchase new clothing, consider buying natural fibers such as cotton, linen, or wool over synthetic materials. Many natural fibers are also more breathable and comfortable, especially in warmer climates. Want to save up on clothes while choosing sustainably? Buy second-hand or “thrift shop” clothing made of natural fibers and could survive multiple wears.

Some might find this hard to believe, but how you care for your clothes can also make a big difference for the environment. Experts recommend washing garments only when necessary, using full loads, choosing cold water and shorter wash cycles, and air-drying clothes when possible. While these laundry habits won't completely eliminate exposure, they are among the simple swaps you can do at home to reduce microplastics while extending the life of your clothing and reducing plastic pollution at the source.

How to Reduce Plastic Use Beyond Individual Choices Why Reducing Plastic Isn't Only a Personal Responsibility 

A person can learn how to limit their exposure to plastics at a personal or household level, but behavior change as consumers can only do so much when single-use plastics are ubiquitous. 

Break Free From Plastic's Regional Brand Audit Report demonstrates how a small number of multinational companies continue to be among the biggest contributors to plastic pollution in Asia, particularly through single-use sachets and other disposable packaging. 

The harsh reality: plastic pollution is not simply the result of individual consumer choices, but also the result of the production and packaging systems that make plastics essentially impossible to avoid. For many people seeking to avoid microplastics, the challenge is not a lack of willingness to change habits, but a lack of accessible alternatives. Consumers deserve better options than having to choose between convenience and sustainability.

How Do Reuse and Refill Systems Help Reduce Microplastics? 

While simple swaps you can do at home to reduce microplastics can help lower everyday exposure, sustainable long-term solutions require reducing plastic production in the first place. 

Reuse and refill systems prevent waste before it’s created by replacing single-use packaging with containers that can be returned, cleaned, and used again. These include refill stations for household products, reusable beverage bottle systems, and refill stores that allow customers to bring their own containers.

It’s important to address plastic pollution at its source rather than relying solely on waste management. Unlike recycling, reuse systems reduce demand for new plastic, helping prevent future plastic waste and the microplastics that can form as plastic breaks down over time. Because when you recycle plastic, it’s still plastic with a second life.

Why systemic change matters?

Sustainable long-term solutions depend on changing the systems that produce plastic pollution in the first place. Experts increasingly point to reduce and reuse measures such as packaging redesign, investments in reuse and refill infrastructure, and stronger policies that hold companies accountable for the waste they generate.

The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy principle was established to make producers all over the world to be accountable for the entire lifecycle of the products they place on the market.  In the Philippines, the EPR Act of 2022requires large companies to take responsibility for recovering and managing their plastic packaging, creating incentives to reduce unnecessary packaging and explore more sustainable alternatives.  

On the contrary, some organizations argue that well-designed EPR schemes work best when they prioritize waste prevention and reuse (not just recycling) by encouraging businesses to redesign products and packaging from the start, which makes more sense as we adopt the “polluter pays principle.”

Supporting policies and business models that reduce plastic pollution at the source can be just as important as the simple swaps you can do at home to reduce microplastics. It’s about time to put more pressure where it should be.

What can you do to demand systemic change?

Learning how to avoid plastic in our daily lives is an important first step—but it shouldn't stop there. 

Explore our wide array of films and documentaries on reducing plastic pollution at the source – whether you want to know how microplastics enter our bodies or are simply curious about plastic solutions driven by local communities.

Watching The Plastic Detox documentary might be like a real-life modern-day horror movie, but you don't have to be perfect to make a difference. Rather than striving for a perfect "plastic-free" lifestyle, focus on gradual changes that make sense for you and your household.

At the same time, beating plastic pollution requires more than individual action. We need businesses to redesign packaging, governments to invest in reuse and refill infrastructure, and stronger policies that reduce plastic pollution at its source.

Together, let’s make plastic-free choices more accessible for everyone.

NIGERIA: Forests, Critical Minerals, and the Crisis of Human Security NSAC 2026 See original article from HOMEF here

On 14 July 2026, Abuja hosted the Third Nigeria Socio-Ecological Alternatives Convergence (NSAC), convened by HOMEF and partner organisations under the theme: Deforestation, Mining and the Crisis of Human Security in Nigeria.

The gathering pulled in traditional rulers, frontline communities, academics, labour groups, youth and women’s organisations. The message from HOMEF’s Executive Director, Nnimmo Bassey, in his welcome address cut straight to the point: “We cannot restore forests while chainsaws are still roaring. We cannot heal rivers while mining waste continues to poison them.” With Nigeria losing up to 300,000 hectares of forest annually and already stripped of over 90% of its original forest cover, there was certainly cause for alarm in the room.

What brought that alarm to bear, however, was the question Professor Omolade Adunbi posed in his keynote: who benefits from the global push for critical minerals…and at whose cost? Nigeria sits atop lithium, nickel, copper, tantalite, and rare earth deposits that the world’s green energy industry desperately wants, yet beneath those maps are farms, rivers, sacred lands, and people. The demand from every attendee in the room was clear: that communities must have the power to say no before a single licence is issued, that primary forests and watersheds must be declared No-Go Zones, and that restoration cannot remain a post-damage promise.

As Professor Adunbi put it, critical minerals may be the new oil, but they do not have to become the new curse we must bear.

Read more here: https://homef.org/2026/07/22/forests-critical-minerals-and-the-crisis-of-human-security/

 

The post NIGERIA: Forests, Critical Minerals, and the Crisis of Human Security – NSAC 2026 appeared first on Yes to Life No to Mining.

Matthew LaPlante doesn’t have to go to a lab to see his research in action. On some mornings, he can just look out his own window in the mountains high above Salt Lake City. After a warm night when the temperature stays above freezing, he’ll wake up and see that the snow level has dropped by inches, revealing more of the aspens he taps for syrup.

“It feels like a monster came and just in the middle of the night, took a bite out of a snowpack,” said LaPlante, a journalist and climate scientist at Utah State University.

So it’s fitting that scientists have started calling these kinds of heat waves, marked by unusually high temperatures in the spring and early summer, “snow eaters.” 

LaPlante was part of a recent study, published in the journal Science Advances, that attempted, for the first time, to identify what conditions exactly make for a “snow eater.” Compared to normal warm spells or heat waves, the researchers determined that these events happen when temperatures stay above freezing through both day and night for multiple days, typically three to five. These events can roughly double the rate at which snow melts, causing flooding and making it challenging to manage water resources. 

“Snow eaters” appear to be occurring earlier in the year and becoming more widespread in the Western United States as the climate warms. Since the 1850s, the study found, the area affected by snow eaters has increased by an average of about 40,000 square miles per century, and the first snow eater of the season has been arriving about one month earlier per century. 

The term “snow eater” has a murky history. By at least the 1880s, people in the West were talking about “snow-eating” chinooks, warm mountain winds that make snow disappear quickly. More recently, the phrase “snow-eater heat wave” first made headlines in March, when an early heat wave enveloped much of the West, quickly wiping away snowpack in the Colorado Rockies and California’s Sierra Nevada. The scientists hope the catchy, evocative term can help draw more attention to this type of heat wave, since there’s still a lot to learn. The study only looked at the Western U.S., but snow eater heat waves almost assuredly occur elsewhere, LaPlante said.

Solar radiation is a major, but sometimes overlooked, driver of snowmelt, said Noah Molotch, a professor of geography at the University of Colorado Boulder who was not involved in the new study. When it interacts with heat waves, those impacts are amplified. As snow crystals warm up, they lose some of their structure and light-reflecting abilities, causing snowpacks to absorb more sunlight and melt faster. “It’s a little bit of a — no pun intended — a snowball effect,” he said.

Much of the Western U.S. saw record-low snowpack this spring. What was really unusual about it, Molotch said, was how widespread it was. Colorado received less precipitation than normal this winter, while California got lots of precipitation, but in the form of rain instead of snow. But across the region, “the one thing in common was above-average air temperatures,” Molotch said.

These conditions have likely helped fuel exceptionally severe wildfires in the West, from Utah to Spokane, Washington, where hundreds of homes burned earlier this month. “Drought stress for mountain forests around the Western U.S. is heavily dictated by the snow that accumulates each winter and then melts through the spring and summer,” Molotch said. “There is a direct connection there in terms of the water availability and drought stress that can provide one of the important ingredients for increases in wildfire intensity and frequency.”

If scientists are able to better predict what will happen to snowpack, it could help water managers plan for what’s coming. Early or rapid snowmelt poses problems for managing water resources in the West, where snowpack serves as a key source of fresh water in the drier summer months. “Water that would otherwise be stored as snow comes out early, and then we have to deal with it as a hazard instead of a resource at our reservoirs and along the rivers and streams,” said Ben Hatchett, a co-author on the study and a scientist at Colorado State University’s Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere.

Snow-eater heat waves also may pose risks to skiers, hikers, and anyone else on or near mountains. They could be linked to hazards such as avalanches, glacial collapses, and permafrost melt, Hatchett said, though scientists are still investigating those connections. He lives in the Sierra Nevada, and he’s noticed one tangible change over his lifetime: The soundscape has changed.

“At night, it used to be quiet,” he said. “And now it’s not quiet, because everything’s melting all the time.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Scientists define a new category of heat wave: ‘Snow eaters’ on Aug 12, 2026.

A new daily investigation into the documents behind the battle over Shell, oil pollution and accountability in the Niger Delta

Tomorrow we begin something substantial.

Over the coming days and weeks, we will be examining a remarkable collection of documents concerning Shell’s operations in Nigeria, oil pollution in the Niger Delta, pipeline integrity, oil theft, environmental damage and what senior personnel inside the company knew about the problems confronting its operations.

And we intend to examine them one story at a time.

Not with slogans.

Not by pretending allegations are proven facts.

And not by accepting corporate explanations without examining the documentary record behind them.

Our starting point is material made publicly available by Nigeria’s Human and Environmental Development Agenda — HEDA Resource Centre.

Who is HEDA?

HEDA — the Human and Environmental Development Agenda — is a Nigerian non-governmental and non-partisan civil-society organisation whose work encompasses good governance, environmental sustainability, human rights and social justice.

It has been operating for more than two decades and has been active on environmental accountability in the Niger Delta, including questions surrounding pollution, extractive industries and the responsibilities of multinational oil companies.

In June 2026, HEDA publicised newly released Shell documents which it said raised serious questions about the management of environmental risks and pollution associated with Shell’s historic Nigerian operations.

Those papers are now publicly accessible through HEDA’s website.

And they deserve to be read.

Carefully.

What are these Shell documents?

The collection contains internal Shell material disclosed in connection with litigation concerning pollution in the Niger Delta.

That distinction is important.

These are not simply newspaper allegations about what somebody believes Shell may have done.

They include corporate documents, internal communications, technical material and management discussionswhich can be compared with Shell’s public statements, its operating standards and the allegations being advanced by Nigerian communities and campaign organisations.

Their existence does not mean every accusation against Shell is automatically proved.

Nor does an internal email necessarily provide the complete context surrounding a complicated operational decision.

But corporate records can tell us something extraordinarily valuable:

what people inside the organisation were saying when they were not writing press releases for the public.

That is why we are interested.

What we are going to do

Beginning tomorrow, we intend to publish one investigation every day based upon this documentary record.

Each article will concentrate on a particular issue.

Among the questions raised by the material are:

• What did Shell know about the condition of important Niger Delta pipelines?
• Why were large numbers of clamps apparently being used on sections of infrastructure?
• What did internal assessments say about ageing pipelines and replacement schedules?
• What happened when illegal oil connections were discovered?
• Were pipelines allowed to continue operating despite known environmental risks?
• How effective was Shell’s leak-detection capability?
• How reliable were investigations used to decide whether spills resulted from equipment failure or sabotage?
• What concerns existed internally about contractors, employees and oil theft?
• What were senior managers being told about pollution visible across creeks and mangrove areas?
• What did Shell estimate eventual decommissioning and remediation might cost?
• And how much responsibility remained when Shell ultimately moved to divest its Nigerian onshore interests?

Some of those questions may produce uncomfortable answers.

Others may turn out to be more complicated than the headlines suggest.

We intend to publish both.

We are not going to pretend sabotage did not exist

Any credible examination of Shell’s Nigerian history must acknowledge the enormous problem of crude-oil theft, illegal pipeline connections, sabotage and makeshift refining in the Niger Delta.

Shell has repeatedly argued that third-party interference has been responsible for a substantial proportion of oil spilled from its facilities.

That evidence must be considered.

But invoking sabotage does not end the inquiry.

It begins another one.

Once an operator knows that pipelines have been compromised, what does it do?

Does it shut them down?

Repair them?

Replace them?

Continue pumping?

What risks are considered acceptable?

Who makes those decisions?

And what happens to communities living beside the infrastructure while those decisions are being taken?

Those are questions corporate press releases cannot answer on their own.

Internal records sometimes can.

Shell will have its say

This series will not operate on the assumption that an accusation is a verdict.

Shell disputes important interpretations being placed upon the disclosed material.

The company has argued that extracts from internal documents can produce a misleading picture when divorced from the exceptionally difficult operating environment in the Niger Delta, including sabotage, organised oil theft and illegal refining.

Those responses matter.

Where Shell has offered a material explanation, rebuttal or alternative interpretation, we will report it.

Where something remains an allegation, we will call it an allegation.

Where litigation remains unresolved, we will say so.

Where we draw an inference from documentary evidence, we will identify it as an inference.

That is not deference to Shell.

It is how serious documentary investigation should be conducted.

But we will also call things what they are

Objectivity does not require timidity.

If an internal document reveals something extraordinary, we will say that it is extraordinary.

If corporate conduct appears difficult to reconcile with public assurances, we will examine the contradiction.

If people inside Shell were warning colleagues about environmental consequences, pipeline conditions or reputational risks, readers deserve to know exactly what those warnings said and when they were made.

And if the documents ultimately support Shell’s explanation on a particular issue, we will say that too.

The objective is not to manufacture a predetermined conclusion.

The objective is to expose the record.

One document trail. One investigation every day.

There is too much material here to compress into a single article.

Doing so would probably reproduce the very problem that makes large documentary releases difficult for the public to understand: sensational quotations appear, the story moves on, and the underlying evidence disappears into hundreds or thousands of pages.

We intend to do the opposite.

One issue.

One documentary trail.

One article.

Every day.

By the time this series is finished, readers should be able to see not merely isolated extracts but the much larger picture emerging from Shell’s own historical records and the evidence surrounding them.

Tomorrow we begin with perhaps the most fundamental question of all:

What happens when an oil company knows continued production could mean further environmental damage — and keeps the oil flowing?

The documents have something to say about that.

So will we.

The Shell Nigeria Files begins tomorrow.

Source note

The underlying Shell-document collection has been published online by HEDA Resource Centre, alongside reporting and analysis concerning the disclosed material. HEDA describes itself as a Nigerian civil-society organisation working on good governance, environmental sustainability and social justice.

This series is independently written from the source material. Publication of or reliance upon a document does not mean that every interpretation advanced by HEDA, campaign organisations, litigants or Shell is adopted by this site.

Site wide disclaimer also applies.

COMING TOMORROW: Inside the Shell Nigeria Files was first posted on August 12, 2026 at 9:33 am.
©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

In 2017, after about 10 years of discussions, then-superintendent Amy Shane finally got to see a much needed expansion at the O’Neill Public School District’s aging junior-senior high school get approved. Expanded classrooms, state-of-the-art science labs, a new gym. The difference-maker that helped push the $13.2 million project from proposal to reality: taxes on renewable energy developments. Over nine years, the school district has taken in about $7.6 million, which Shane said helped offset the expansion cost. 

“We could get something good for our students without putting a huge burden on our taxpayers,” Shane said. 

The project is an example of what economic development and renewable energy proponents have long argued: Renewable energy projects can help communities diversify their revenue streams and offset property tax burdens. The Nebraska excise tax, known as the nameplate capacity tax, requires qualifying renewable energy developments to annually pay $3,518 per megawatt of power that the facility can generate. The money flows to counties whose treasurers allocate it amongst local jurisdictions, including the county governments, community colleges, and school and natural resource districts. 

But in recent years, a number of Nebraska counties have enacted strict regulations on renewable developments, as opponents have raised concerns about property values, noise, health, safety, and fire risks. 

About 15 years after the tax was implemented, it’s worth looking at where the money has actually gone. Revenue distributed from the tax and the number of counties receiving it has risen over the years. In 2015, just nine counties received nameplate capacity tax revenue, which totaled $2.03 million, including penalties and interest, according to data from the Department of Revenue. In 2025, communities received over $13.6 million. But there’s an imbalance. More than 88 percent of that money went to just 10 of Nebraska’s 93 counties.

Lawmakers created the nameplate capacity tax in 2010 to replace personal property tax for renewable developments. This allows local taxing authorities to continue to receive a steady amount of tax revenue, said Jon Cannon, executive director of the Nebraska Association of County Officials. The landowner still pays property taxes.

“In county budgets, nameplate capacity tax revenue functions like other general fund revenue,” said Candace Meredith, deputy director of the Nebraska Association of County Officials, in a statement. “It helps offset the amount that would otherwise need to come from property taxes, allowing counties to keep up with state mandated essential services and inflationary costs.”

On average, counties get about 23 percent of the nameplate tax revenue, Cannon and Meredith said.

Recently, lawmakers have discussed increasing the rate. A 2025 proposal would have raised it from $3,518 per megawatt to $6,560. But the bill, part of a larger tax package, ultimately died. However, lawmakers did pass a bill this year that expands the tax to include qualifying battery energy storage developments. 

According to the state, 1 in 4 jobs in Nebraska are tied to agriculture. The state’s top commodities include cattle and calves, corn, soybeans, and hogs. So it may be no surprise that Nebraskans have raised concerns that renewable energy projects, specifically solar, will reduce farmland. However, there are areas of the state where the land isn’t productive and landowners could benefit from the added revenue. John Hansen, president of the Nebraska Farmers Union, said urban sprawl and acreage housing developments are leading threats to farmland in Nebraska.

“The one thing that we know in the ag sector is that we continue to be extremely dependent on off-farm jobs to subsidize our farming operations that are not working, and so every wind turbine is like an off-farm, part-time job, except that the farmer or rancher doesn’t have to leave their farm or ranch to get paid for it,” said Hansen, who chairs the Nebraska Wind and Solar Conference.

Some Nebraska counties have gone so far as to adopt moratoriums or strict zoning regulations that have effectively banned renewable energy developments or made them more difficult to site. 

But with rising power demand, advocates and experts see renewables as a contributor to future economic development in Nebraska. Pushback against renewables comes as utilities in Nebraska and across the country wrestle with an energy crunch caused by skyrocketing demand from electrification, manufacturing, and data centers.

Renewable developments, like this solar farm in Nebraska’s Saunders County, can help the utility manage energy costs and address peak demand when the grid is stretched thin.
Lily Smith / Flatwater Free Press

The Omaha Public Power District, which serves a large swath of eastern Nebraska, is taking an all-of-the-above approach, where coal remains on the grid, natural gas assets are expanding, and the utility plans to have more power purchase agreements with renewable energy developments. 

Renewables can help the utility manage energy costs and address peak demand when the grid is stretched thin, said Dustin Marvel, manager of government and community relations at OPPD.

Right now, renewables are affordable compared to other energy sources and can be built quickly, said Kenneth Gillingham, a professor of environmental and energy economics at Yale University. This is especially important for utilities since new nuclear plants can take time to build and the natural gas generator supply chain remains tight.

For Nebraska, adding more power to the grid now isn’t just about serving existing customers, it could also spur more economic growth from other industries, said Hunter Traynor, an executive vice president at Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Industry. A recent report commissioned by the Nebraska Chamber Foundation recommended the state take a more active role in promoting energy development.

“We have a lot of stated economic goals in Nebraska, and energy and public support for energy infrastructure, in particular, is a bedrock necessity right now to keep our economies all across the state flourishing and growing,” Traynor said.

Nevertheless, these projects face a few challenges. Currently, the infrastructure that transmits energy across the state is limited, which restricts where new energy generation can be located. It also takes time for new projects to connect to the grid. And then there’s community opposition.

“We do see oftentimes where a developer has an opportunity, maybe the project is advantageously located. However, due to community opposition or feedback, maybe that project loses steam or loses the ability to actually come to market,” Marvel said.

Cannon, with the Nebraska Association of County Officials, said that in order for renewable developers to actually make headway with communities that are skeptical, they need to be transparent about their intentions and address concerns early on.

Traynor said that these projects involve layers of regulatory approvals that can allow communities to assess if they are suitable. However, some projects get stopped by local resistance before they go through the regulatory process. He is concerned these experiences could cause a chilling effect on companies that are considering moving to Nebraska.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Some Nebraska communities are cashing in on renewables. Others are being left behind. on Aug 12, 2026.

A prolific writer, teacher and communicator trying to alert students, policymakers and the public to the limits to growth on a finite planet, Richard was, in my experience, also humble and a good listener, always interested in different perspectives.

Brussels, 12th August 2026 – As of today, 12th August 2026, the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) applies, marking a significant milestone in Europe's efforts to tackle the packaging waste crisis, despite an unprecedented last-minute industry lobbying push that aimed to delay and weaken the regulation.

This landmark regulation will contribute to protecting public health and the environment. Over the next few years, the regulation will introduce legally binding measures aimed at reducing packaging waste, increasing reuse and refill, restricting certain single-use packaging formats, and improving packaging design requirements.

As of today, food-contact packaging that contains ‘forever chemicals’ PFAS exceeding a critical threshold is banned from the European market. The use of these chemicals is used to make food packaging such as coffee cups and takeaway containers impervious, and is particularly concerning because the forever chemicals can leach into the food and can thus be ingested (1,2).

A recent study by the EU’s Joint Research Centre (3) showed that efforts to tackle the packaging waste crisis are urgently needed: The total amount of all packaging placed on the market amounts to a striking 98 kg per capita (this weight is very significant as packaging is usually so light). Food and beverage account for the largest share, covering 97% of the whole packaging material on the market. Plastic packaging, in particular, is a growing concern, as it is the only packaging category showing an upward trend between 2011 and 2025, growing by 11% in absolute terms.

As the PPWR application period kicks-in, there’s no time to waste. The Rethink Plastic Alliance and the wider BFFP movement commend the European Commission for safeguarding the PPWR and continue to offer support for effective implementation. At the same time, we urge national and local governments to implement the provisions of the Regulation with a high level of ambition by championing waste prevention and reuse and slash record levels of packaging waste across the EU.

Quotes

“Forever chemicals in packaging are harmful and unnecessary, posing a serious risk of contaminating our food and entering our bodies. With these new rules, the EU has taken swift action to remove PFAS from food contact packaging, helping to reduce our exposure to them as well as making packaging more circular. Industries and Member States must now keep up the pace and implement these rules without delay to protect consumers and the environment.” - Emily Best, Senior Programme Manager at ECOS.

“The entry into application of the PPWR on 12 August marks a crucial milestone for Europe’s transition to a circular economy. After years of negotiations, now is time for an ambitious implementation that delivers on the regulation’s core promise: preventing packaging waste before it is created. The coming years must focus on turning reuse and waste-prevention obligations into reality through clear national measures to reduce unnecessary packaging and invest in well designed reuse systems. If Europe is serious about cutting packaging waste, reuse needs to become the norm, not the exception.” - Larissa Copello, Reuse and Packaging Policy Officer at Zero Waste Europe.

"The PPWR shows us a glimpse of what future-fit EU legislation should look like: preventing waste before it is created, accelerating the shift to reuse, and reducing exposure to harmful chemicals. As the EU prepares its Circular Economy Act, the packaging regulation offers a clear lesson for the next generation of circular economy legislation: true circularity starts with prevention and reuse." - Marco Musso, Deputy Policy Manager for Circular Economy at the European Environmental Bureau.

References 

1. Zero Waste Europe: Why is toxic food packaging still legal? - Zero Waste Europe 
2. European Environment Agency: What are the impacts of PFAS polymers on our health and the environment? | Press releases 
3. Joint Research Centre (2026): Packaging materials in the EU: quantities stay significant, plastic grew by 11% 
4. Rethink Plastic Alliance: 160+ environmental and health groups respond to last-minute attempt by Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Others to Reopen EU Packaging Law - Rethink Plastic 
5. Rethink Plastic Alliance: PPWR Implementation Guide for National and Local Governments

Bagi Raka, dunia game online awalnya tidak lebih dari cara sederhana untuk mengisi waktu luang. Seusai bekerja, ia biasanya duduk di depan komputer, memasang headset, lalu memilih permainan yang sedang ingin dicoba. Tidak ada ekspektasi besar. Namun, perlahan ia menemukan bahwa pengalaman bermain ternyata tidak hanya soal layar, tombol, atau skor yang muncul di sudut monitor.

Perubahan itu terasa ketika Raka menemukan sebuah platform yang memungkinkan satu akun digunakan untuk mengakses berbagai jenis permainan. Ia sempat berhenti beberapa detik di depan layar. Baginya, kemudahan tersebut terdengar sepele, tetapi dalam penggunaan sehari-hari justru terasa cukup berarti. Ia tidak perlu mengingat banyak data masuk atau berpindah dari satu layanan ke layanan lain hanya untuk mencoba permainan berbeda.

Dari sana, Raka mulai memahami satu hal: pengalaman dalam game online banyak dipengaruhi oleh bagaimana sebuah platform dirancang.

Satu akun dapat menjadi pintu menuju beragam pilihan hiburan digital. Ada permainan dengan mekanisme sederhana yang bisa dipahami dalam beberapa menit, ada pula judul yang menawarkan tantangan lebih kompleks sehingga membutuhkan waktu untuk mengenali aturan dan strateginya. Keragaman tersebut membuat aktivitas bermain terasa lebih personal karena setiap orang dapat menentukan jenis permainan sesuai minat dan waktu yang tersedia.

Namun, kemudahan akses juga membuat Raka belajar untuk tidak terburu-buru. Ia mulai membaca informasi permainan sebelum memulai, memahami aturan, memperhatikan fitur yang tersedia, serta memeriksa ketentuan penggunaan platform. Kebiasaan tersebut penting karena game online memiliki karakter yang berbeda-beda. Tidak semua permainan memberikan pengalaman yang sama, dan setiap fitur sebaiknya dipahami terlebih dahulu.

Raka juga menyadari bahwa keseruan tidak selalu identik dengan kemenangan. Ada kalanya ia menikmati permainan karena visualnya menarik. Pada kesempatan lain, ia tertarik pada sistem tantangan atau interaksi dengan pemain lain. Bagi dirinya, pengalaman terbaik justru muncul ketika ia mengetahui batas waktu dan anggaran hiburan yang telah ditentukan sejak awal.

Pemahaman itu sejalan dengan prinsip penggunaan layanan digital secara bertanggung jawab. Platform yang nyaman memang dapat membuat akses menjadi lebih praktis, tetapi keputusan tetap berada di tangan pengguna. Membaca aturan, menjaga keamanan akun, menggunakan kata sandi yang kuat, dan menghindari membagikan informasi pribadi merupakan bagian penting dari pengalaman digital yang aman.

Beberapa minggu kemudian, kebiasaan Raka berubah. Ia tidak lagi membuka game hanya karena merasa bosan. Ia memilih permainan dengan lebih sadar, mengatur durasi, dan berhenti ketika waktu yang tersedia telah selesai. Baginya, satu akun bukan sekadar alat untuk masuk ke berbagai permainan, melainkan akses menuju pengalaman digital yang perlu digunakan dengan bijak.

Pada akhirnya, Raka menemukan bahwa keseruan dunia game online bukan hanya terletak pada banyaknya pilihan. Yang membuat pengalaman terasa berbeda adalah kemudahan, pemahaman, keamanan, serta kemampuan pengguna mengendalikan cara mereka bermain.

Satu akun mungkin membuka banyak pintu. Tetapi bagaimana perjalanan setelah pintu itu terbuka, tetap menjadi pilihan setiap pemain.

The expense of low cost airlines Channel News brendan 12th August 2026 Teaser Media

The year is 2036. Connected Autonomous Vehicles comprise 25 percent of the cars on the nation’s streets and roads and fleets of robo-cabs crisscross cities. But after one such CAV blows a stop sign and kills a pedestrian, federal cybermarshal Dana Grant starts asking questions — but can Grant get to the bottom of the “accident” … or undercover a plot to use these connected AVs to kill thousands? That’s the plot of “Autokill” (Open Road Media) by “Gridlock” Sam Schwartz and playwright Cary Pepper. To purchase the full book, click here. But for now, curl up with Chapter 3, “What Was Wrong?” in this exclusive excerpt.

After staring at the computer screen for several minutes, Dana Grant sat back and slowly shook her head. She wasn’t happy and she didn’t know why.

The case seemed simple enough. Last week, a Connected Autonomous Vehicle killed a 35-year-old woman in California. She was sitting in a park, set back from the road some 50 feet, when she was struck by the vehicle. According to local police, the car ignored a stop sign, which was one reason the case landed on Dana’s desk. That, and of course, the fatality.

Dana Grant was a federal cybermarshal assigned to the National Transportation Safety Board’s Portland-based CAV unit, Western Sector. With thousands of robo-cabs, trucks, and buses on the nation’s roads and streets, the National Transportation Safety Board had created a new branch to investigate CAV-related accidents. It was similar to the division that investigated aviation incidents, but only two offices had been opened so far (Eastern Sector was head-quartered in Boston), its operating budget was smaller, its staff had not been provided with the in-depth training that allowed agents in the aviation division to effectively probe air-transport events, and, unlike the aviation division, the CAV unit had no NTSB Training Center.

The marshals had been promised such expertise, but the agency, despite being in existence for six years, was still getting “up to speed” and Congress (swayed by the powerful CAV lobby) had repeatedly failed to adequately fund it, leaving many marshals to obtain any special training they felt they needed on their own, at their own expense. Dana had overheard several of her colleagues proudly vowing not to “go all tech” as long as they had to pay for it themselves.

Not Dana. If she were doing the job, she wanted to be as good at it as she could be. Just as she’d gone the extra distance as a cop in Phoenix. Since joining the unit, she’d been taking workshops and reading as much as she could to educate herself on the intricacies of CAVs. When she needed help, she didn’t hesitate to reach out to the small network of advisors and consultants she’d slowly assembled around her during the five years she’d been on the job.

Influenced by those advisors and consultants, Dana had stopped using the word accident when talking about her cases. She investigated crashes.

An accident is an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause. But CAVs, obeying algorithms designed for maximum safety and free of road-rage-inducing ego, didn’t do things unexpectedly or take potentially-dangerous risks. So when a CAV collided with anything, it wasn’t an accident. It was a crash.

Dana also quickly learned that crucial to investigating and understanding any incident involving a CAV meant knowing how to read and interpret the information gleaned from its black box, which included every decision, maneuver, and change the vehicle made during a trip. It included interactions with passengers. It included everything the car did, saw, and heard. And because this data was all in computer code, it required knowing how to understand what you were looking at.

Even with all the time Dana had spent learning about this arcane corner of the universe, she still had large gaps in her knowledge of it. But she was light years ahead of every other agent in her office, and she knew it.

Now Dana sat pondering why the CAV ignored the stop sign. Programming error? Software failure? Faulty sensing equipment? If any of those were the issue, did the problem lie with Relyable, the company that manufactured the car? Or was it a matter of a repair, similar to fixing the brakes on a human-driven car? And if that were so, was the root cause a failure by the company that operated the vehicle to properly maintain it?

Or, if it was a programming or software error, did that signal a failure by the engineers at the company that made the car? Which would mean Dana had to see if the same company created both the computer code and the software, because it was possible that correct computer code had been negated by faulty software.

A third possibility was that someone tampered with the stop sign, which happened often in the 2020s, when kids defaced traffic signs or anti-AVers tried to demonstrate the weakness of autonomous infrastructure. Then came the 2029 Topeka School AV bus crash. A couple of teenagers out for kicks turned a 30-mph sign in to one reading 80 mph by making the three an eight. The bus raced around a sharp curve doing 80, left the road, and plunged 35 feet down an embankment, killing 21 children and the bus attendant.

For the next three years, all AV school buses had to have a human driver. Meanwhile, every inch of roadway in the United States was minutely mapped: every traffic sign, signal, lane marking, and channelization. And the federal government required any change, no matter how small, to be immediately entered in the central Geographic Information System Command file, the huge database where all this information lived. Failure to do so resulted in states and cities losing as much as billions in federal highway dollars. Now, any discrepancy between what an AV saw and what was in the GIS database, was detected by the CAV’s Command Center (all the companies that operated CAVs had command centers that controlled their fleet) in a nanosecond, and the GIS Command Center threw the vehicle into fail-safe mode, choosing the safest available option for its next action.

If a vehicle saw “80 mph” but the database listed “30 mph,” the GISCC would send an alert, slow or stop the vehicle, and a remote driver would take over the CAV. In addition, all other vehicles from that company would be alerted and a post-mortem would be conducted.

The system worked almost flawlessly in cities and on state roads; the only gaps now were the small towns and rural areas that didn’t have the ability to update the GIS files, or the few places where locals believed that routinely updating their files was an infringement by an overbearing government. Since 2033, there had been only nine instances of minor crashes due to un-updated traffic devices, and none due to vandalism. Could this be the first?

Maybe. Yet Dana had a gut feeling it was something else. There were thousands of Relyable delivery robos operating in the county and there hadn’t been similar incidents. Which suggested that the computer code, the software, and pretty much everything else in the vehicle was operating properly. So what else could it be?

Relyable had already responded to the police-finding that the car went through the stop sign. Company spokespeople maintained that the sign had been defaced with both a hole and grafitti, so the fault lay not with the vehicle and its sensing equipment, but with the town for not repairing the sign. Relyable also noted that the town had been cited four times for not complying with GIS Command. The company could not be held responsible, it reasoned, for signage or traffic signals that were not repaired or replaced in a timely manner.

Dana studied pictures of the sign; there was no question that it had been vandalized. A tagger had gone to work on it, and there was a hole dead center in the middle of the O. If it was a bullet hole, someone was quite a shot.

Did that mean the CAV had not seen the sign? Or had it seen the sign but was no longer able to identify it as a signal to stop, perhaps interpreting it as nothing more than a lamppost or structure designating street parking? Why did the Topeka fail-safe protocol fail?

“Oh, you caught that California thing.”

She hadn’t heard Kyle coming up behind her. But now there was that soft wheezing through his seemingly-always-clogged nasal passages. Perhaps if he lost some weight… The thought ran through her head almost every time she saw Kyle. He wasn’t obese. Just unnecessarily overweight, all in his belly, which hung over his belt in a loose fold.

Kyle Beaumont would always be overweight, always breathe heavily through his nose, always be, in Dana’s mind, one nasal breath away from a heart attack. Which of course she hoped would never happen. She didn’t hate Kyle or wish any bad would come to him. She just wished he wasn’t her boss.

Not because he was overweight and breathed through his nose. Because he was always hovering, and he wasn’t thorough. He’d been with the NTSB 20 years to her 5, and was more interested in clearing cases than conducting competent, thorough investigations.

So, rather than encourage his people to spend as much time as they needed to properly run a case, he’d be satisfied with a preliminary finding, even one still open to questions, if it added to the “Case Closed” log he submitted weekly to the head of the Portland bureau.

As a result, Dana’s unit had a high closure rate, which Kyle was determined to maintain. But given how they were achieving it, she wasn’t sure that was something to be proud of.

Their findings tended to hold the vehicles or companies blameless, and Dana sometimes wondered about that. But the truth was, in crashes involving CAVs and human drivers, it was almost always the human driver at fault. CAVs had proven themselves to be more consistent, more stable, and less erratic than human drivers. They were not distracted as easily or as often, never tried to beat a changing traffic light or speed past an approaching train, and had no interest in pushing themselves to test their power, speed, or endurance.

So the fact that Kyle’s long list of closed cases often found in favor of the CAV wasn’t surprising. Nevertheless, Dana often found herself wishing he didn’t reach that conclusion quite so fast.

Standing behind her looking over her shoulder, he’d moved closer. She knew, without turning, because the heavy breathing was now only inches from her ear.

“New perfume?” he asked.

“Nope.”

“You smell different. New shampoo?”

“Nope.”

“Different soap, maybe?”

She pictured him sniffing the air around her. Or, worse, sniffing her.

“Same soap.”

“Something about you is different. Are you …?”

It was time to end this. She shifted in her chair, sending it backward into his foot, then turned around and was “surprised” to see the wheel of the chair pressing on his shoe and the edge of her seat against his leg.

“Oh, sorry! I didn’t realize you were that close.”

“No harm done,” he assured her, reaching down to lightly rub his knee. “You still working on that?” he nodded toward her computer.

“Hmm-hmm,” she muttered, studying the screen again to indicate she was too distracted to talk.

“Stop sign was vandalized. The town didn’t update its GIS records. Like the company says, it’s their fault. Can’t you close it?”

“I’m not sure yet,” she started. “I—”

“You have ‘a feeling,”’ he finished for her. “Here we go.”

She hated when he did that. But it had been years since she took him seriously when he said those things in that tone of voice. That had stopped after working with him for two months, when she almost caved in the wake of his response to her first “feeling.”

That first time, still new to the unit and trying to find her way, she’d almost let him intimidate her because she was half-doubting herself: Had she really been on to something, or was it more an attempt to prove she could do the job?

But she stuck with it, and it paid off. Driver vs. CAV, and the driver swore the robo had swerved into his lane. There was activity to the right of the CAV that might have made it swerve toward the driver, but a check of the black box showed it swerved no more than a foot and did not cross the double yellow line that separated the vehicles.

On a hunch, Dana checked the driver’s cell-phone records and found that he’d been on the phone at the time of the accident. It was him, not the robo, that had swerved across the
double yellow line.

Two lessons learned: Always trust her gut, and never listen to Kyle about such matters.

It took her a while to stop railing at herself for letting him come as close as he did to shutting her down, but she finally landed in place of self-understanding: she was navigating new territory with insufficient training. She was allowed a few missteps; she could forgive herself. Afterward, she did more than that, using the episode to redefine their relationship.

Never one to be intimidated (easily or otherwise), not even as a child, she would never again be bullied by a bureaucrat now that she was 35, carried a badge, and believed (knew) that she was better suited for this work than he was.

“Here I go,” she corrected him. “It’s not gonna affect your life much.”

“Except what it’s gonna do to our clearance rate.”

“You mean my clearance rate?”

“Ours includes yours. You slow up, we slow up.”

“I’ll work this extra fast.”

“Work what? The cops confirmed the CAV went through the stop sign. No one’s contesting that. The cops confirmed the stop sign was vandalized. No one’s contesting that. The town didn’t update its GIS file. You wanna blame the robo? It’s like, someone blindfolds you, then blames you for walking into something. How much more open-shut can you get?”

“Looks that way.”

“Except you know better.”

“I just want to leave it open a little longer so I can—”

“You can have a little more time on this. But don’t take too long. And don’t neglect your other cases.”

“I never do,” she answered, fingers busy on her keyboard, focusing on her screen, as a way to end the conversation.

Finally sensing their talk was over, Kyle walked away, triggering a new train of thought for Dana: What kind of ratings was he getting on his quarterly evaluations? But why go there? For years he’d been part of a federal bureaucracy that valued meeting quotas and demonstrating its own skewered sense of “efficiency.” She knew exactly the kind of evaluations he was getting. And he knew exactly how to keep getting them. And keep his job.

She peered at the screen for real now, hoping to find something new. Kyle was right about one thing: It did seem like an open-and-shut case. The CAV had functioned perfectly until it encountered the vandalized stop sign.

So what was bothering her? What was wrong?

• Even accounting for manufacturing, swapping out a gas-powered vehicle for an electric one results in 50 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The break-even point is about 18,000 miles, which the average person drives in a year and a half. The benefits are greater for older cars built under less stringent environment standards and in places with green electric grids. The only exceptions are for plug-in hybrids that run mostly on batteries or a second car that isn’t driven much. (Grist)
• Rail projects are still moving forward despite the Trump administration’s animosity toward them. (Quartz)
• Robotaxis seem to be getting glitchier as Waymo grows, and the cities it’s expanding into are unprepared. (New York Times)
• Cities too often ignore medium-density “missing middle” development that encourages walking. (CNU Public Square)
• Walking to school has gotten a lot harder than many adults remember. (Upworthy)
• A town just outside Boston prioritized safety over speed, and the result has been zero traffic deaths over the past three years. (Christian Science Monitor)
• Richmond announced plans for quick-build safety improvements at 700 intersections as part of its Vision Zero program. (WRIC)
• Gov. Mike Braun may have been on shaky legal ground when he extended Indiana’s gas tax holiday. (Indianapolis Star; paywall)
• A Houston developer is building a 12-story, 2,000-space parking garage that takes up an entire city block. (Chron)
• The increasing popularity of giant U.S.-style trucks and SUVs in Australia has led to an uptick in pedestrian deaths, even as driver and passenger fatalities continue to decline. (The Conversation)
• In Bogota, bike advocates are fighting back against the gender stereotype that cycling is only for men. (The Guardian)
• The massive Grand Paris Express metro expansion will feature 68 new architect-designed transit stations. (Arch Daily)

The oil industry just posted some of its best profits in years while Americans pay more at the pump

President Donald Trump promised to “cut your energy prices in half” within his first year in office using his “energy dominance” agenda. Instead, energy dominance has produced record profits for oil companies and higher gas prices for everyone else.

Eight of the world’s largest oil companies made a combined $93 billion in profit in the second quarter of 2026, nearly double what those companies made last year, and more than $1 billion in profit every single day. The increase in profits is connected to the US-Israeli war on Iran, which disrupted oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and pushed global oil prices above $126 per barrel at their peak.

ExxonMobil reported $14.5 billion in profit, its highest quarterly total in four years, while Chevron posted $12 billion, its highest quarterly profit in at least six years. Shell earned $9.8 billion, its second-highest quarterly profit ever, and Saudi Aramco topped the list at more than $33 billion.

US refiners also raked in the profits. Valero Energy reported $3.7 billion in net income, up from $714 million a year earlier and its most profitable quarter on record by earnings per share. HF Sinclair’s profit roughly quadrupled year-over-year, and PBF Energy swung from a loss to over $1 billion in profit.

None of this windfall is reaching consumers. The national average price for a gallon of gas was $4.01 on August 10, and prices are higher than a year ago in every state. Refiners say fuel inventories will be slow to rebuild, meaning the high prices are likely to stick around even as the price of crude oil drops.

Oil companies aren’t using their record profits to expand drilling or refining, either. ExxonMobil alone returned $9.4 billion to shareholders in the second quarter through dividends and stock buybacks, and Shell started a new multibillion-dollar buyback program of its own. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has pointed to record US energy production as evidence that the administration’s regulatory rollbacks are “unlocking the full potential of our domestic energy resources.” But record production and record profits have not translated into lower prices, expanded supply, or any clear benefit for American taxpayers.

In fact, Congress and the Trump administration are giving the oil and gas industry a tax break for drilling on public lands. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025, cut the onshore royalty rate from 16.67 percent back to 12.5 percent. Interior has also moved to make it cheaper to drill on public lands, proposing a rule that would cut cleanup bonds from $500,000 to $25,000 and shrink the public comment period on lease sales from 90 days to 10. Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates the royalty rate decrease alone has already cost the public $489 million, a figure it warns could climb into the billions as 2026 lease sales get underway.

Oil and gas production, Converse County, Wyoming. BLM Wyoming

This isn’t the “energy dominance” Americans were promised. Trump’s declaration of a “national energy emergency” was based on the need to bring down energy prices for Americans, arguing that inadequate domestic supply “causes and makes worse the high energy prices that devastate Americans.” His “Unleashing American Energy” executive order relied on that “energy emergency” to justify a number of policy actions ostensibly aimed at increasing energy production, presumably to increase domestic supply and bring prices down.

If there were an actual energy emergency, and if the Trump administration was serious about addressing it, the administration would have spent the past year and a half investing in a rapid build-out of inexpensive domestic energy sources like solar, wind, and battery storage. But the administration has actually done the opposite, putting up roadblocks to renewable energy development and paying developers nearly $2 billion in taxpayer funds to abandon offshore wind projects that were already underway. Meanwhile, the administration is doing everything it can to rush oil, gas, and coal projects by cutting corners on environmental reviews and avoiding public comment whenever it thinks it can get away with it. Interior’s current plan would compress reviews that once took up to two years into a single month, and cut the public comment period for projects expected to cause environmental harm down to about 10 days.

This strategy is working splendidly for oil and gas companies. For American families, it’s been a disaster that’s squeezing them when they’re already struggling with rising costs in all other areas of their lives. Adding insult to injury, oil and gas companies are locking Americans out of their public lands by nominating and leasing public lands they don’t intend to drill, tying up both the land itself and management agency resources with unserious nominations and leases. The real energy emergency is the oil and gas takeover of our national public lands at the expense of preserving some of America’s most valuable natural places.

The post Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda is only helping oil and gas companies appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES SLF-2007-024 The Sakhalin Papers XIV: The Whales, the Scientists and the Financing Test

Archive reference: SLF-2007-024
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal record: IUCN Independent Scientific Review Panel records; Sakhalin Energy responses; Shell Sustainability Report 2005; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development records
Supporting record: UK Parliamentary material, High Court proceedings and contemporaneous press reporting
Evidence standard: Scientific findings, company statements, lender decisions, court records and campaign commentary are distinguished throughout. A lender’s decision that project documentation was suitable for consultation is not treated as a decision to finance the project.

Introduction

By 2005, the fate of approximately one hundred whales had become entangled with the financing of one of the world’s largest oil and gas developments.

The Western North Pacific gray whale population feeding off north-eastern Sakhalin Island was then classified by IUCN as critically endangered. The independent scientific review convened by IUCN recorded a population of roughly 100 animals and perhaps only 20–25 reproductively active females. At the same time, Sakhalin Energy was constructing platforms, pipelines and associated infrastructure in and around their feeding habitat.

This was not simply an argument between Shell and environmental campaigners.

Independent scientists were involved. Potential lenders were involved. The US Export-Import Bank hosted discussions. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development was carrying out due diligence. British ministers were being questioned in Parliament. Years later, the environmental controversy surrounding Sakhalin-2 would also appear in High Court proceedings concerning the disclosure of UK government records.

And the surviving documents establish something particularly important.

The scientists were not merely producing reports for public consumption.

Potential financiers were reading them.

1. The Whale Problem Was Already a Financing Problem

The preceding archive file examined Britain’s Export Credits Guarantee Department and its consideration of support for Sakhalin-2.

The whale issue sat directly inside that financing process.

On 5 March 2004, UK Trade Minister Mike O’Brien told Parliament that Sakhalin Energy’s proposed offshore pipeline would cross the southern part of the whales’ northern feeding ground. He said ECGD wanted reassurance that the potential impact would be minimised and repeated that support would be approved only if the issues had been satisfactorily addressed.

That statement matters because it fixes the chronology.

Before IUCN’s major independent review appeared in 2005, the whale habitat was already being treated by a prospective government lender as an issue capable of affecting a financing decision.

The environmental question and the money question had become inseparable.

2. Sakhalin Energy Asked IUCN to Convene Independent Scientists

The scientific process itself should be described fairly.

Sakhalin Energy did not simply ignore the existence of the whales. It initiated an independent review process, with IUCN convening a panel of specialists to assess the risks posed by Sakhalin II Phase 2 and possible measures for reducing them. IUCN’s archive says the panel examined conservation risks in the context of a population numbering only about 100 animals.

The scientists also acknowledged substantial expenditure and research by Sakhalin Energy. The 2005 review recorded that SEIC had invested significant sums studying the whales, assessing risk and developing mitigation measures.

That acknowledgement is important.

This was not a report written on the premise that the operator had done nothing.

The question was whether what had been done was sufficient for an exceptionally vulnerable population living beside a massive industrial development.

3. February 2005: The Independent Scientific Review

IUCN released the Independent Scientific Review Panel report on 16 February 2005.

Its underlying question was formidable: could the risks associated with Sakhalin II Phase 2 be managed so that oil and gas development did not further jeopardise the survival and recovery of this critically endangered whale population?

The report considered several categories of risk.

Industrial noise could disrupt feeding or displace animals.

Construction and support vessels created collision risk.

Pipeline construction could damage benthic habitat upon which the whales’ prey depended.

Oil or gas releases could affect whales, prey and sensitive locations such as Piltun Lagoon.

The report also examined cumulative effects rather than pretending Sakhalin II existed in isolation from other industrial activity in the region.

The scientific difficulty was amplified by the population’s size.

With so few reproductively active females, risks that might be tolerable for a large population could have very different consequences here.

4. The Existing Pipeline Route Was a Specific Scientific Concern

One conclusion was particularly concrete.

The panel examined three offshore pipeline alternatives linking the PA-A and PA-B platforms to shore.

The existing “base case” route crossed the southern portion of the primary gray-whale foraging area and ran close to the mouth of Piltun Lagoon. The two alternative routes passed farther south. The panel considered Alternative 1 safer in relation to construction noise, vessel collision and physical disturbance of benthic habitat, while also offering advantages in relation to possible spills reaching the principal feeding area.

This was no longer a generic demand that Shell should “do more for the environment.”

It was an engineering choice.

There was a route on the drawing board.

There were alternatives.

And the scientists considered one of those alternatives less risky for the whales.

5. The Precautionary Question

The later September 2005 record is unusually revealing because it reproduced the issues under discussion together with Sakhalin Energy’s responses.

In the Vancouver workshop table, the earlier scientific position was summarised in stark terms: the “most precautionary approach would be to halt operations” while the risk assessment was refined. If operations continued, risk management needed to be conservative.

That sentence should not be inflated into a claim that IUCN ordered Shell to stop Sakhalin-2.

It did not.

IUCN was not the Russian regulator, the project lender or a court.

Nor had the original panel been asked to issue a simple regulatory verdict of “approve” or “reject.”

But the documentary meaning remains substantial.

Independent scientists had concluded that the uncertainties were serious enough for temporary cessation to represent the most precautionary option.

6. Shell Changed the Pipeline Route

At the end of March 2005, Sakhalin Energy announced a major change.

The offshore pipelines would be rerouted away from the principal whale feeding ground.

Contemporaneous reporting described approximately 12 additional miles of pipeline, while Shell’s own Sustainability Report later described the move as placing the offshore pipelines about 20 kilometres farther from the feeding ground.

Shell’s report expressly credited the scientific process.

Its 2005 Sustainability Report stated that Sakhalin Energy had accepted the panel’s advice to move the offshore pipelines farther away and had also used acoustic modelling, vessel restrictions and scientific monitoring to reduce risks.

Contemporaneous reporting treated the rerouting as a major concession, although environmental organisations continued to raise concerns about the offshore platform and other project activities.

Documentary finding

The record supports a straightforward conclusion:

Independent scientific scrutiny produced a material design change.

Whether one characterises that as responsible adaptive management, successful environmental pressure, lender leverage, or some combination of all three is commentary.

The route moved.

7. Then the Potential Lenders Entered the Scientific Process Directly

The surviving Sakhalin Energy response document provides unusually clear evidence that the scientists’ report was influencing financiers.

On 24 February 2005 — only days after publication of the IUCN report — several panel scientists met representatives of potential Sakhalin II lenders at the US Export-Import Bank in Washington.

According to the SEIC document, following that meeting the prospective lenders told Sakhalin Energy that the remaining gray-whale issues identified by the scientific review needed to be resolved.

Sakhalin Energy then produced a structured response.

A further IUCN meeting took place at Gland, Switzerland, on 11–12 May 2005. Its stated purpose included informing decision-making by both Sakhalin Energy and potential lenders and helping the lenders understand whether SEIC’s revised plans adequately addressed the scientists’ concerns.

This is one of the strongest records in this instalment.

The financing institutions were not standing outside the scientific dispute waiting for somebody else to settle it.

They were asking the scientists questions.

They were seeking clarification.

And they were requiring the project operator to respond.

8. May Was Not the End of It

The Gland meeting did not resolve everything.

The SEIC record says the discussions failed to provide sufficient clarity for the decision-makers, particularly the potential lenders.

Those lenders consequently asked for another meeting with the independent scientists to assess Sakhalin Energy’s responses more closely.

That meeting took place in Vancouver from 17 to 19 September 2005.

The participants worked through the scientific issues, SEIC’s responses and the scientists’ assessments in detail.

The result was not a simple declaration that the project was safe.

Nor was it a declaration that the project could never proceed.

It was something much more characteristic of real scientific review:

progress in some areas, unresolved uncertainty in others, and continuing demands for monitoring, mitigation and independent scrutiny.

9. Noise Became One of the Hardest Questions

Industrial noise was particularly difficult.

The independent scientists recognised that modelling could help predict the acoustic footprint of construction, but the September record identified important limitations, especially at lower frequencies potentially relevant to gray whales.

Their assessment said model projections needed verification through measurements and could not by themselves establish an absence of biological effect.

The dispute was not merely about how loud a particular operation might be.

It concerned what received noise meant biologically.

Would feeding whales alter behaviour?

Would they move offshore?

Could repeated exposure matter cumulatively?

What threshold should trigger mitigation or shutdown?

The scientists wanted real-time monitoring of whale distribution, behaviour and acoustic conditions and recommended precautionary shutdown arrangements where agreed criteria were exceeded.

10. The “No Disturbance” Problem

Here the Shell and independent-scientist records deserve to be placed side by side.

Shell’s Sustainability Report stated that external scientific observers monitored noise during installation of the production-platform bases and that the work was completed without signs of disturbance to the whales.

The Vancouver scientific review was more guarded.

For some construction activity, it recorded that weather had prevented behavioural observations during portions of the work. The scientists concluded that, where observations had not been possible, an absence of effect could not safely be inferred. They also said opportunities to learn about whale responses had been lost to some extent.

These statements should not be lazily converted into an accusation that Shell’s account was false.

They operate at different evidential levels.

Shell reported that observers had not identified signs of disturbance during monitored activity.

The scientists warned that incomplete observation prevented the stronger conclusion that no disturbance had occurred across all relevant periods.

Documentary assessment

“Nothing was observed” and “nothing happened” are not scientifically identical propositions.

That distinction became important because financing decisions depended not simply upon corporate assurances, but upon whether risks had been assessed to standards acceptable to external institutions.

11. The Scientists Still Had Reservations in September 2005

The September issues table records progress, but it also preserves criticism.

The independent scientists stated that Sakhalin Energy’s approach had not always been suitably or consistently precautionary and that its use of the ALARP risk-management concept had not always produced the least practicable risk to the whales.

They also identified continuing issues involving contractor compliance, independent monitoring, noise criteria and implementation of mitigation measures.

Sakhalin Energy did not simply reject the process.

Its responses defended aspects of the modelling and risk-management approach, explained operational constraints and accepted that a number of issues should be carried forward to a permanent advisory panel.

That balance matters.

The documentary record is not:

scientists warned; Shell ignored.

Nor is it:

scientists approved; controversy ended.

It is a record of continuing technical disagreement inside a process that the operator itself had entered and prospective lenders were actively following.

12. The Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel

One of the most consequential outcomes was institutional rather than engineering.

The September process produced agreement to establish a long-term Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel.

Sakhalin Energy supported its formation and funding, while the scientists envisaged a continuing mechanism through which independent expertise could review threats and mitigation measures over the life of industrial activity.

IUCN formally announced the new panel in October 2006.

It described a population containing only about 20–25 reproductively active females and said the panel would provide independent scientific advice concerning Sakhalin Energy and other relevant offshore activity.

In hindsight, the structure proved unusually durable.

IUCN’s specialist archive now records a 17-year scientific oversight programme running from the original 2004 process through the final advisory-panel work in 2021–22, involving hundreds of recommendations and specialist work on noise, oil spills, cumulative effects and monitoring.

13. December 2005: What the EBRD Actually Decided

This part of the archive requires particular precision.

On 14 December 2005, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development decided that the Sakhalin II project documentation was:

“fit for the purpose of consultation.”

That wording appears in EBRD’s own record.

Shell’s Sustainability Report described the same development: the EBRD had decided that Sakhalin Energy’s environmental, social, health and safety approach was fit for public consultation.

What that meant

It permitted the financing process to advance into public consultation.

What it did not mean

It was not final EBRD approval of a loan.

It was not a finding that every whale-related concern had disappeared.

It was not a legal ruling that Sakhalin II complied with every applicable environmental requirement.

The distinction is essential because contemporary reporting sometimes compressed the financing process into the simpler question: “Will the EBRD fund Shell?”

The official record was more incremental.

14. Contemporary Journalism Saw the Same Pressure

The financing stakes were obvious to journalists at the time.

In March 2005, The Guardian reported that the proposed route was under pressure because of the whale issue and that public lenders were being urged not to finance the project. After the rerouting, the newspaper reported that environmental campaigners still believed significant risks remained.

In June, The Observer described EBRD financing as being held back while environmental problems remained unresolved. Later reports continued to depict lender approval as commercially important to Shell and linked the whale controversy to the wider environmental scrutiny surrounding the project.

Those reports are evidence of contemporary perception.

They should not substitute for the formal EBRD record.

But they demonstrate that at the time — not merely in retrospective campaigning — the connection between environmental performance and financing was widely understood.

15. The EBRD Ultimately Did Not Finance Sakhalin II

The final outcome is another point where causation must not be invented.

EBRD’s own Independent Recourse Mechanism record states that on 11 January 2007 the Bank decided not to finance Sakhalin II because of the change in ownership of Sakhalin Energy.

That fact places a firm limit on the historical claim.

It would be inaccurate to say:

“The whales caused EBRD to reject Sakhalin II financing.”

The documentary record does not establish that.

Environmental issues, including the gray-whale question, plainly formed part of the financing scrutiny for years.

But the recorded reason EBRD ultimately ceased pursuing the financing was the changed ownership structure following Gazprom’s acquisition of control.

That distinction is exactly the kind of boundary this archive is intended to preserve.

16. The High Court Record Confirms the Whale Issue Was Material

The whale controversy subsequently entered the British judicial record through the dispute over disclosure of government documents.

In Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), the High Court dealt with ECGD’s attempt to overturn an Information Tribunal decision requiring disclosure of interdepartmental material concerning Sakhalin-2.

The court record describes proposed project finance of approximately US$650 million and identifies the endangered Western Grey whale among the environmental concerns surrounding the project. The High Court dismissed ECGD’s appeal against disclosure.

Again, the limits are important.

Mr Justice Mitting did not decide that Sakhalin Energy had harmed the whales.

He did not decide that Shell had committed an environmental offence.

He did not decide that financing Sakhalin-2 would have been unlawful.

The case concerned access to government environmental information.

What it confirms is that the whale and financing questions were sufficiently substantial to form part of a public-law dispute about what the British Government should disclose.

17. What Shell’s Own Record Shows

Shell’s Sustainability Report is striking because it does not pretend that the project passed through 2005 unchanged.

It records substantial adaptation.

The company said Sakhalin Energy listened to stakeholders, moved the offshore pipelines farther from the whale feeding ground, used acoustic modelling, introduced ship-speed and routing measures, supported independent scientific observation and worked toward establishing a permanent advisory panel.

Those are Shell’s own published claims.

They should remain in the archive alongside the independent scientists’ reservations.

Together they demonstrate that the whale controversy produced consequences beyond publicity.

Engineering changed.

Monitoring changed.

Institutional oversight changed.

And the financing process absorbed environmental conditions that the operator had to address.

18. Documentary Findings Established by the scientific and company record

The Western North Pacific gray-whale population feeding near Sakhalin was considered critically endangered and numbered roughly 100 animals, with only about 20–25 reproductively active females.

Sakhalin Energy initiated an independent scientific review through IUCN.

The scientists identified substantial risks involving noise, vessel collisions, habitat disturbance and oil spills.

They regarded the original offshore pipeline route as presenting additional risks because it crossed part of the primary feeding area.

Sakhalin Energy subsequently rerouted the offshore pipelines approximately 20 kilometres farther from that feeding ground.

Potential lenders met the scientists and required outstanding whale-related issues to be addressed.

Further scientific meetings were held specifically to help inform financing decisions.

Unresolved issues remained after the pipeline rerouting, particularly around noise, monitoring, risk thresholds and the precautionary approach.

A long-term independent advisory panel was established.

Established by the financing record

EBRD considered Sakhalin II for financing.

In December 2005 it determined that the project documentation was suitable to enter public consultation.

That was not final loan approval.

In January 2007 EBRD decided not to finance the project following the change in Sakhalin Energy’s ownership.

Established by the court record

The endangered whale issue and approximately US$650 million of potential project finance formed part of the factual background to the later High Court disclosure litigation.

The High Court upheld disclosure of government departmental responses.

The judgment did not determine whether Sakhalin II harmed whales or whether the project itself was environmentally lawful.

Not established

The record does not establish that Sakhalin II caused the extinction of the Western North Pacific gray-whale population.

It does not establish that EBRD rejected the project because of whales.

It does not establish that the IUCN panel ordered Shell to stop the project.

It does not establish that Shell ignored all scientific advice; the pipeline rerouting proves otherwise.

Nor does Shell’s adoption of mitigation measures establish that every scientific concern was resolved.

Commentary

The most revealing document in this file may not be a warning about whales at all.

It may be the record of the lenders meeting the scientists.

That changes the character of the story.

Environmental assessment was not simply an exercise taking place alongside the real commercial negotiations.

It had entered the commercial negotiations.

A pipeline route became a financing issue.

Noise modelling became a financing issue.

Monitoring protocols became a financing issue.

The credibility of mitigation plans became a financing issue.

And a population of roughly one hundred whales became one of the tests through which prospective lenders assessed a multibillion-dollar energy project.

There is also a useful lesson in the competing documents.

Shell’s own sustainability account emphasised adaptation and successful mitigation.

The independent scientists recorded both progress and continuing uncertainty.

The lenders wanted enough clarity to make financing decisions.

Campaigners wanted the precautionary principle applied more aggressively.

None of those records needs to be discarded for the others to make sense.

Put together, they show the actual mechanism of environmental scrutiny at work: contested evidence, design changes, unresolved questions, further monitoring and financial institutions deciding how much uncertainty they were prepared to carry.

That is more interesting — and historically more defensible — than either of the simplistic alternatives.

Shell neither sailed through the whale issue untouched nor had the project conclusively condemned by scientists.

It changed the project while continuing to build it.

And the lenders kept asking questions.

Source Record

The principal evidence for this instalment is the 2005 IUCN Independent Scientific Review Panel report, Impacts of Sakhalin II Phase 2 on Western North Pacific Gray Whales and Related Biodiversity; the September 2005 Western Gray Whale workshop record containing Sakhalin Energy’s formal comments and responses; The Shell Sustainability Report 2005; the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Independent Recourse Mechanism record for Sakhalin II; UK Parliamentary answers concerning the Western Grey Whale and ECGD financing; Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin); IUCN’s subsequent Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel archive; and contemporaneous reporting by The Guardian/Observerconcerning pipeline rerouting, environmental controversy and prospective project finance.

Archive disclaimer: Scientific concern is not equivalent to proof of environmental damage. A company response is not an independent finding. A prospective lender’s environmental review is not a judicial determination. EBRD’s December 2005 finding that documentation was fit for public consultation was not approval of financing, and its January 2007 decision not to finance Sakhalin II is recorded by EBRD as resulting from the project’s ownership change. No allegation of illegality or environmental harm should be inferred beyond the findings of an identified court, regulator or competent scientific body.

Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Next Archive File SLF-2007-025 — The Sakhalin Papers XV: A Thousand Rivers — Salmon, Pipeline Crossings and the Contractor Problem

The whales were offshore.

The next environmental battle ran almost the entire length of Sakhalin Island.

Shell’s own 2005 Sustainability Report acknowledged that the onshore pipelines would cross more than 1,000 rivers and streams, including approximately 180 regarded as environmentally sensitive. It also acknowledged that contractors did not always comply with the river-crossing strategy during the winter of 2004–05 and that Sakhalin Energy stopped the winter work programme when it became aware of the problem.

Contemporaneous journalists, environmental organisations and Russian authorities were meanwhile reporting allegations involving sediment, salmon-spawning habitat, contractor performance and regulatory breaches.

The next archive file will separate those allegations from what Shell itself admitted, what regulators actually established and what the documentary record says about a management problem that appears repeatedly throughout the Sakhalin Papers:

When most of the physical work is being performed by contractors, who carries responsibility when environmental commitments on paper collide with construction on the ground?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 11 AUGUST 2026 was first posted on August 11, 2026 at 10:40 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

Federal agencies are investigating four ongoing cyclospora outbreaks in the United States. This year has seen a record number of cases, prompting concern among consumers and experts.

In its latest update, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports 13,895 laboratory-confirmed domestic cases of the parasitic infection across 45 states since May. They are also tracking an additional 10,455 cases that have yet to be confirmed. There have been two deaths in individuals with underlying health issues.

The biggest outbreak now spans 15 states and has a confirmed case count of over 6,000 people, according to CDC. The agency is still investigating Taylor Farms iceberg lettuce as the likely source after previously declaring their testing a false positive. Taylor Farms has voluntarily recalled their products in 27 states across the U.S.

Agencies are also investigating three additional outbreaks that have already ended.

Cyclospora is a parasite that often contaminates fresh produce, infecting those who eat it. May through August is considered cyclosporiasis season in the U.S. Symptoms usually appear one week after exposure, and most commonly include watery diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue. While treatable, many cases clear up on their own, and aren’t diagnosed, says Glenn Morris, Professor of Infectious Diseases at the University of Florida College of Medicine and Founding Director of the Emerging Pathogen Institute.

“Because fresh produce items typically have short shelf lives, outbreaks of Cyclospora tend to appear suddenly, and gradually fade as the product is consumed out of the marketplace,” Craig Hedberg, a Professor at the University of Minnesota who focuses on foodborne illness and infectious disease outbreaks, tells Food Tank.

Better and more widely available diagnostic testing methods in clinical laboratories may lead to higher case counts, according to Hedberg. And when awareness of an outbreak grows, more people are likely to seek medical care.

Morris points to an additional explanation: a breakdown in the country’s food safety programs.

Last July, CDC made it optional for The Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) to track most pathogens, including Cyclospora. Salmonella and STEC (E. coli) are still mandatory. Although FoodNet is not intended to detect outbreaks of foodborne illness, it better prepares federal agencies to deal with them. Morris thinks that while the outbreak would likely still have occurred, funding cuts, loss of experienced staff, and reduced laboratory capacity within FoodNet, CDC, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have hampered the investigative process.

“All of the tools that would normally be applied, both in terms of preventing the outbreak… [and] investigating the outbreak, have seen major cuts from the current administration,” Morris tells Food Tank.

FoodNet is a CDC program that tracks common foodborne infections to collect baseline data. It uses active surveillance, meaning it contacts clinical laboratories in ten states to identify cases and provide a basis for prevention efforts. “Public health surveillance for foodborne illnesses is a foundation for effective food control,” says Hedberg. But because cyclosporiasis is difficult to diagnose, it can take longer to trace to a source.

Morris notes that oversight of food safety is further complicated by the involvement of multiple federal departments. “We’re the only major Western country that does not have a [single] food safety agency,” he says.

The CDC handles cases of foodborne illness within people but lacks regulatory authority at the state level. Regulation of food is controlled by FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), depending on the product. While these agencies communicate with each other, the U.S. does not have a single federal food safety agency. Morris believes that the country should create one and conduct strong active surveillance on a federal scale.

“We need to invest in public health agencies to better prepare them to respond to outbreaks when they are small, to help prevent them from growing large,” Hedberg tells Food Tank—a point Morris echoes.

Morris advises that consumers can protect themselves from cyclospora by avoiding foods identified as likely to be contaminated, shopping local, and following the latest CDC updates.

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 Zolfeqar Fatihzadeh, Wikimedia Commons

The post Cyclospora Outbreak Highlights Food Safety Gaps appeared first on Food Tank.

Updated on August 11, 2026, to reflect the proposition name. Originally published on January 16, 2026.

For advocates working at the intersection of environmental protection and climate-smart growth, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has long been a source of both pride and frustration. While it has been a critical tool to protect our natural and working lands, its procedural delays have often been used to stall projects essential to a low-carbon future: dense infill housing and transit-oriented development in our existing communities.

In July 2025, however, at the urging of Governor Newsom, the California legislature passed some of the most impactful changes to CEQA since its inception. Taken together, the two bills (AB 130 and SB 131) provide robust statutory CEQA exemptions for infill housing and housing element rezonings, require the state to map infill areas where exemptions would apply, and narrow the scope of the administrative record, helping to curtail anti-housing litigation.

Despite these monumental changes that address the barriers to critical infill development, California’s business lobby and sprawl developers were left unsatisfied. Now, they are proposing a ballot initiative that would make far more radical changes to the law. After gathering enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot, this is now called Proposition 45.

While the rhetoric of the measure (initially called Building an Affordable California Act, or BACA) seems to be aligned with urbanist goals and those of the broader abundance and affordability movements, the actual policy details and mechanics of the initiative—and the progress we’ve already achieved in the legislature last year—suggest that the costs it brings far outweigh any potential benefits.

Below, we outline seven reasons why the measure should be rejected (click to read more):

1. Major Reforms Have Already Been Enacted

For years, a primary objective for California’s urbanists was to stop the abuse of environmental law against projects that genuinely help the environment: dense, transit-oriented housing.
In a landmark shift for the state, that goal has largely been realized. Following years of advocacy by urbanists, the legislature passed a clean statutory CEQA exemption for infill housing. AB 130, which Greenbelt Alliance was proud to support, is already being utilized across California, allowing builders to move forward with climate-friendly housing in high-opportunity areas like Palo Alto or Beverly Hills without the threat of being endlessly delayed by the environmental review process. While there is room for technical refinements, the fundamental issue at hand—the misuse of environmental laws to delay environmentally-friendly housing projects—has largely been addressed.

2. Everything is “Essential”

As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details”, and that’s certainly true for the BACA initiative. While modest on the surface, BACA creates a completely new set of rules for what it calls “essential” projects. So what, exactly, is an “essential project”?

The list is incredibly broad. Under Article 2, Section 21013, “essential projects” include housing, water, transportation, clean energy, transmission, broadband, and healthcare infrastructure. In practice, this definition encompasses a wide range of large-scale developments. For example, new freeways and existing freeway expansions would qualify as “essential transportation” projects; large greenfield sprawl developments would be treated as “essential” housing projects; and new dams and reservoirs would qualify as “essential” water projects. The definition even includes all “related and ancillary infrastructure,” meaning that highway interchanges, utility extensions, and water pipelines that enable sprawl developments also receive streamlined approval. All of these are enormous projects in terms of size and scale, with major potential environmental impacts. Yet, just like an apartment building in an urban area, under BACA, they would qualify for a significantly truncated review process.

In effect, this new CEQA process mirrors the fundamental flaw of its predecessor. While the old system failed to exempt low or no-impact projects from excessive review, the new one errs in the opposite direction, fast-tracking high-risk developments with significant potential for harm.

3. All Timelines Are Not Created Equal

The BACA initiative imposes strict timelines for this new class of projects that it deems “essential”: the environmental review process can take no more than one year. On the surface, a one-year limit on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) seems reasonable. And for certain projects, like an apartment building on a parking lot in downtown San Francisco, or a townhome development in an LA suburb, it would be.

However, the measure’s definition of “essential” includes highways, dams, large-scale subdivisions, and other major projects. The environmental review required for projects at this scale cannot be done in a single year. Surveying hundreds if not thousands (or even tens of thousands) of acres of undisturbed and undeveloped land for species nesting patterns and habitat, water pollution impacts, and other environmental concerns physically cannot be accomplished within the timeframe laid out in the initiative. By forcing these projects into such a condensed timeline, we will be creating a system that overlooks genuine environmental harm in favor of speed.

For projects with unambiguous environmental benefits, such as housing developments within already urbanized areas, such speed makes sense. Many of the project types considered by this measure do not have the same clear, unambiguous benefits.

4. Restrictive Alternatives

One of CEQA’s most critical tools for preventing environmental harm is its alternative analysis provision, which allows for the identification of better project locations and designs. Currently, CEQA requires agencies to analyze a “reasonable range of alternatives” that could reduce environmental impacts, including different sites, reduced intensity options, and designs that avoid sensitive resources. This is how agencies can say, “this housing should be built downtown on a parking lot instead of on farmland,” or “this highway expansion has an alternative transit solution.”

BACA restricts this to just three options: the proposed project, one alternative designed by the applicant themselves (which doesn’t even need to be at a different location), and “no project.” The applicant’s alternative can be a slightly modified version of their original proposal on the same site. This eliminates the core mechanism for steering projects away from environmentally sensitive locations toward more appropriate sites, exactly the tool needed to prevent sprawl, protect open space, and ensure development happens in the right places.

5. The Evidentiary Standard

Maybe the most radical change incorporated in the ballot measure is to CEQA’s standard of review. Right now, CEQA allows a lead agency (generally a city or county) to use its own discretion to explore project alternatives and negotiate environmental mitigations. BACA proposes to eliminate this by requiring that environmental impacts only be found significant if they violate objective, quantifiable standards already in existing law when the project was proposed, which doesn’t sound inherently unreasonable! 

However, the measure doesn’t actually require jurisdictions to adopt such standards; instead, it exploits their absence. If numerical thresholds don’t already exist for resources like oak woodlands, groundwater, or wildlife corridors, impacts to them essentially can’t be found significant regardless of severity. A genuine objective standards approach would mandate jurisdictions adopt protective thresholds and update them as science improves. This measure rewards weak standards, freezes them at application date, and prevents improvements based on new knowledge.

6. Ballot Box Permanence

Finally, one of the greatest flaws of the measure is its rigidity. Should it pass, BACA would require a 2/3rds vote of the legislature to amend.

California has a long, storied history with ballot box governance, where initiatives become impossible to adjust as new problems arise. The 2/3rds requirement virtually guarantees the law could never be changed, regardless of what issues may arise. An unchangeable measure, with foreseeable negative impacts for the state, may have lasting consequences for generations.

Some of the project types included in this measure, such as clean energy or transmission infrastructure, may benefit from the types of streamlining being considered if careful, targeted changes were made. Rather than a broad, clunky initiative that will be extremely difficult to change, we should advocate for those reforms through the legislative cleanup process already underway.

7. The Costs Are Just Too High

California faces converging affordability crises: insurers fleeing the state, utility rates climbing, and municipal budgets straining under unsustainable costs. All of these issues stem from the same source: decades of sprawling outward, often into fire-prone areas, leaving us with infrastructure we cannot afford to maintain and risks we cannot afford to insure.

BACA will accelerate these failures by trading short-term speed for permanent costs. By gutting CEQA’s alternatives analysis—the primary tool for steering projects away from costly, high-risk locations—this limits agencies to the developer’s preferred site, one alternative the developer designs themselves, and “no project.” It freezes environmental standards at the date of application, rewarding jurisdictions with weak protections. And it requires agencies to approve permits within strict timelines regardless of fiscal consequences, because most cities lack the quantitative standards BACA requires to find fiscal impacts “significant.”

The result: even if we build some things faster today, we’ll be paying the tab forever. Even more homes in fire zones will continue to destabilize our insurance markets. More infrastructure extensions will push up our utility rates. More sprawling subdivisions that generate less revenue than they cost to maintain will ensure even higher taxes. BACA promises affordability through speed but delivers the opposite: cheaper to build, but financially ruinous to sustain.

At a time when people are struggling to make ends meet, and when the federal government is doing all it can to roll back our environmental protections, the last thing we need is to double down on the failed policies we have tried for decades and know do not work.

Proposition 45 will hurt the environment and your wallet.

Greenbelt Alliance strongly opposes Proposition 45 and urges voters to vote NO on 45 this November.

The post Chamber-Backed CEQA Initiative Is A Proposition Californians Can’t Afford: No on Prop 45 appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

This article Why bravery and heartbreak are essential to organizing was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

I could tell that Yotam Marom’s debut book, “For Louder Days: Reaching Beyond a Politics of Powerlessness,” might shift how movement workers think — about telling the truth, and about the personal and political transformation actually required to win and wield power — as I compared notes with two field organizers fighting data centers around the country. 

We had been knocking on hundreds of doors in every kind of neighborhood: Black and brown homeowners in big cities, Latino farmworkers and white farmers in rural towns, parents and students and elders in watersheds across the West and exurbs in the South, all disgusted with data centers. Everyday people are blocking big tech expansion in real time, out of love for their communities and each other, and the ride feels full of possibility. 

Could we move people who’ve never been in motion before — but are now packing zoning meetings, turning each other out in the hundreds, and stopping billion-dollar data centers — into durable political realignment? Could we make the potential crash of the inflated, overextended tech economy into something that could remake politics and the economy — in time to stop the consolidation of authoritarianism?

Those possibilities are real, and that’s why we’re working as hard as we are. But as we compared notes, I felt that familiar tug of dread. All three of us on the phone were veterans of movement moments, big and small. We had all seen coalitions we’d built simmer in misalignment and anger, eventually turning inward or breaking. We had been in room after room where we kept pushing towards an urgent goal, papering over real contradictions in order to get to the next action, the next march, the next move. But we didn’t have a plan to fundamentally shift power, and even when we won, more often than not, our opponents would adjust as we waned or broke, and our people would be worse off than when we started.  

#newsletter-block_3e61ee95945100c46ce4b2525366b414 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_3e61ee95945100c46ce4b2525366b414 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

The three of us talked through how the anti-data center movement might avoid these traps. How could this exploding resistance shift the balance of power at a pivotal time? But when one of the organizers on the line said, “have you read this book, ‘Powerlessness and You,’ or something?” I laughed and let out a breath. I knew what book she meant, and I was thrilled she had found it, too. 

“For Louder Days: Reaching Beyond a Politics of Powerlessness” should be in every organizer’s backpack, dog-eared and a little mangled, because it is a primer for exactly the kind of practice we must take on to meet the challenges we are facing now. 

Marom got his start as a leading organizer at the heart of Occupy Wall Street, and went on to support the leaders building some of the most impactful movement organizations of the last decades, like Dream Defenders, the Sunrise Movement and Uncommitted. He’s also supported us at my own organization, People’s Tech Project, and multiple other tech justice groups as we’ve engaged in the sleeves-up hard work of crafting strategy to take down the ascendant tech oligarchy. 

In “For Louder Days,” he takes the story of his life — from the hopes and heartbreaks of Occupy, to the growth, setbacks and contradictions of the movement to end the Israeli occupation — and spells out his lucid diagnoses of the most critical stumbling blocks of the American left in its fight for hearts, minds and actual power. 

At the core of his assessment: Our movements are woefully underdeveloped in the practice of generative conflict for the sake of good strategy — and that underdevelopment warps and buries the steady love that drove us to come together in this work in the first place.  

Millions in the streets

“For Louder Days” opens in the middle of Occupy at its height, October 2011, when the occupation of Zuccotti Park was spreading nationally and getting buttressed by veteran organizers as it built a realignment of American politics in real time. With generosity, Marom crisply relates how he responded to a call from Spanish comrades for a global day of action, and helped lead the expansion of Occupy into an international project. He and his comrades had a clear hypothesis — that this action would capture the energy boiling over after an attempted eviction from the park and grow the movement far larger — and they worked, heads down, to test it. 

He walks us through the meetings, coalitions, struggles and planning that made it possible. (I’ve never before read a book about meetings that I couldn’t put down.)

He captures the joy and dizzying hope that we’ve all felt at the denouement of those sweaty 20-hour days for weeks on end. He describes what it felt like on Oct. 15, 2011, with 80,000 in the street at Times Square and millions joining globally, to be in the center of the universe as Occupy went worldwide. 

Occupy Wall Street demonstrators converge in Times Square, New York City on Oct. 15, 2011. (Getty/Mario Tama)

“I have been sobered by the history of revolutions that came before and my own small defeats at the hands of this opponent we’re squaring off against,” he writes. “But now — despite all of this good sense, despite my cynicism, despite the layers of armor I have put around my heart along the way — I can’t help but be swept away by this moment. I am completely under its spell.”

The global day of action was powerful and effective. Eighty countries saw supporting protests. Forty-five new occupations were launched around the United States, from big cities to suburbs to small, bright-red communities. 

The group that came together to plan Oct. 15 was ready to plan the next escalation for Nov. 17.  But when challenged by another faction inside Occupy’s leadership — because of course, there is leadership, even (especially!) in an ostensibly leaderless project and movement — Marom was pressured to shut down the ad hoc group inside Occupy that pulled off the day of action. He tells the all-too-familiar story of falling apart: how they lost time as they struggled with each other and with themselves, and lost momentum and membership, eventually leading to the end of the occupation after 57 days. He lays bare the battles whirling inside him as he made the choice to shut down that ad hoc group — a choice that contributed to the end of Occupy. 

This account begins an incredible progression of chapters showing us what Marom learned in the next decade-plus as he advised, facilitated, flanked and organized with the leaders of many other movements. What he saw was a crucial common thread that he calls the “politics of powerlessness.” 

The politics of powerlessness

Marom describes the politics of powerlessness as a deep ambivalence towards actually winning and holding power. When we attack or destroy leadership, weaponize hurt and identity, keep ourselves “enclosed and safe and comfortable,” and refuse risks, we are choosing powerlessness. When we avoid conflict, hide from the grief and loss inherent in making hard choices, or follow instinct and habit, we neither win nor grow. “[The politics of powerlessness are] reinforced by ideas that are easy to reach for, even if they are thin and by habit, and routine,” Marom writes. “It goes hand in hand with an instinct to turn away from the brokenness in each other rather than a commitment to turn toward each other whenever at all possible.” 

Marom goes on to break down, with real compassion for all of us and for himself, the totally understandable and human reasons why organizers choose the politics of powerlessness, while making plain, story after story, the choices movements and their leaders have to make to actually get and keep power. That includes strategy that forces us to say no to almost everything so we can say yes to what we truly need to do to win. A reckoning with the rank that exists in all groups and what it means to hold leadership. Balancing an attention to organizational belonging with an uncompromising focus on purpose. A rekindling of our sense of deep love, for each other and for those we’ve hurt and who have hurt us, across all lines and borders, for the sake of the world we hunger to build.

Marom hasn’t written this book as a hectoring finger-wag at a movement that has lost its way and its right to lead. He wrote it because he has skin in the game, and he has earned a very grounded belief that we can feel, survive and get through that necessary grief in order to build the mature people, organizations and movements that we need.  

Previous Coverage

Movements cannot shy away from conflict

In the chapter called “Good Strategy and Telling the Truth,” Marom tells a story about CAAAV — a seminal working-class Asian organization working on housing across New York City. In 2021, CAAAV’s leaders decided to pull back from some beautiful, hopeful organizing in order to choose transformative campaigns that could make them truly powerful. 

The choice was heartbreaking. Instead of continuing to build committees of working-class Chinese, Bengali and Korean tenants in Queensbridge Houses, a public housing development in Queens, they made the choice to kill that project and throw their weight — and all their Chinese organizers — into an under-resourced but fast-growing campaign in Chinatown.  Marom tells the story with reverence and respect as CAAAV faced the loss and grief that would come, as they chose to abandon some potential members and lose staff to chase real strategy and power. 

Marom tells us why taking on those losses and grief were worth it for CAAAV, and what became possible because of their bravery. Because CAAAV leaders were wise and human enough to close a chapter and invest their resources elsewhere, they won big victories, and learned that winning and moving to offense would transform conditions for every working-class person in the city. This was a fundamental shift in their strategy. By choosing to focus, CAAAV and its sibling group CAAAV Voice were in a strong position to win giant campaigns and organize major new bases. It also enabled them to work with other brilliant immigrant organizations like DRUM Beats and the Democratic Socialists of America to back a long-shot socialist mayoral candidate — Zohran Mandani — who could make the vision of the people real. 

Accompanied through hard choices

I carried the book with me all spring across the country, as I organized with tech workers in the Southwest, data center fighters in Philadelphia and Memphis, and comrades across the tech justice movement. Because Marom knits together the hard-won lessons of failure with how making hard choices can transform our ability to win, they felt practical and applicable in real time. This was particularly true for me, since I’d had practice making those choices myself. Marom and another extraordinarily skilled facilitator, BJ Star of the Wildfire Project, have worked with my group and others fighting an ascendant and brutally damaging tech industry in this wild moment. 

I worked with a small group of organizers to break one organization into three, build and sunset teams, and try a wildly ambitious alignment process with leaders of 15 tech justice organizations. As some of the bravest and most beautiful tech justice organizations struggled together over years, there were many days when I felt that we could win if we had the accompaniment and hope of BJ Star and Yotam Marom. 

#support-block_2a4469b0bcb35e0d58851cbce5309c31 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

While we can’t have that, at least not yet, the DNA of what they do and the lineages that shaped them is knit through many of the organizers and organizations I love best. In the meantime, this book is a ridiculously good start. When I see young organizers in Missouri and seasoned elders in Oakland and friends on a mountaintop in Peru all saying that this book stirred them, made them cry, it gives me a lot of confidence that we can change in the ways we need to.  

There are many ways I remain uncourageous in this revolutionary life. There is honesty I need to bring to old comrades even if it causes us pain. I could bring necessary conflicts to the surface in tech justice organizing, even if it risks a rupture, or disquieting and unbalancing something that we all deeply want to work. I could offer and receive love from unlikely people, that I’m holding myself back from giving, from getting.

“For Louder Days” gets into those contradictions in a way that will stay with you for a long time, and maybe change you. I hope this book can accompany you as you make your way, fight, love, and above all, make the hard choices necessary for good, clear strategy, and for your own transformation. 

This article Why bravery and heartbreak are essential to organizing was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

North Carolina regulators are weighing Duke Energy’s rate-hike requests that could raise power bills for customers across the state.

By Autumn Bracey

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson said he will not sign a proposed settlement in the Duke Energy Progress rate case that would raise residential electric bills by about 6.8% over the next two years.

The utility’s original filing had sought an 18.1% increase on residential rates over two years. Duke announced a settlement last week with the North Carolina Public Staff and other parties, and in testimony before the North Carolina Utilities Commission, Kendal Bowman, North Carolina president for Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas, said the residential rate increase would now be 6.8% over two years.

“Duke brought down their rate increase to 6.8%, but that’s still too high for families and still more than the company needs to cover its investments,” Jackson said. “We’re not signing it.”

…

Regulators hold hearings

On Tuesday, the North Carolina Utilities Commission held hearings on the proposed increase.

WCNC spoke with NC WARN, a nonprofit that educates the public about Duke Energy’s practices. The group says that while customers have seen some wins with lower rates in the past, the new requests are a reminder of why it’s important to keep paying attention.

“I think it’s really important we question the reason for these rate increases,” Sara Heilman, clean energy strategist for NC WARN, said. “We understand the connection and correlation between requested rate increases and Duke Energy’s business model, which really serves to profit its executives and shareholders at the expense of affordability for North Carolinians.”

Rising bill despite falling usage

Heilman also pointed out that per-capita electricity use has actually declined over time, which she says makes it even more important for policymakers to scrutinize the data before approving any rate hikes.

“Our allies at the Energy and Policy Institute show customers, even using the same amount of electricity over the same years, are still seeing increases in their power bills,” Heilman said. “It really has a lot to do with Duke Energy’s investments in fossil fuels, like fracked-gas power plants, and the connection between those investments and the affordability crisis.”

Continue reading

The post NC AG Jeff Jackson rejects Duke Energy rate settlement, calls 6.8% hike ‘still too high’ — WCNC Charlotte appeared first on NC WARN.

By Renee Umsted

As temperatures in the Triangle soar, Duke Energy customers are noticing higher bills.

On social media, customers claim they’re not using more energy, or that they’re trying to use less. But they still say that bills are getting higher each month, and are more expensive than this time last year.

Are high temperatures to blame for expensive energy bills?

It’s summertime. It’s hot and humid. Your air conditioning system is working harder to cool your home.

And if you ask Duke Energy, that’s the story.

“Cooling demand across North Carolina was 43% above normal by July 4 following multiple periods of extreme heat, according to federal weather data,” the Charlotte-based company wrote in an Aug. 7 news release. “For many customers, increased air-conditioning use is the primary reason energy use and bills may be higher than normal.”

Is it Duke Energy’s fault?

But there are other factors to blame for higher bills, said Sara Heilman, clean energy strategist at NC WARN, a nonprofit that advocates for a transition to clean energy and promotes energy and climate justice.

“I think the most central thing contributing to rising electric bills is that there is a direct correlation between profit for Duke Energy executives and investors, and rising costs for North Carolinians,” Heilman said in a video interview.

Duke Energy reported $5 billion in profits last year, The News & Observer previously reported. Last week, it reported its strongest-ever second quarter (April through June), with more than $1 billion in net income.

When the utility builds new infrastructure such as a power plant or high-voltage power line, customers pay for the cost of the project, plus an additional percentage as profit, Heilman said.

“There’s this incentive for Duke to be building as much as possible, even when it’s not necessarily needed,” Heilman said.

Continue reading

The post Your electric bill is up. Is it because of the heat or Duke Energy? — The News & Observer appeared first on NC WARN.