News Feeds

Nebraskans: Sign the Letter of Support for Boone County CO2 Pipeline Moratorium

The Boone County, Nebraska Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, May 27 to discuss a proposed moratorium on CO2 pipeline construction in the county.

• WHAT: Public Hearing to Discuss CO2 Pipeline Moratorium
• WHO: Boone County, Nebraska Commissioners
• WHEN: Wednesday, May 27, 10:30 A.M.
• WHERE: 222 South 4th St., Albion, NE, 68620

Landowners and residents of Boone County and others in the vicinity who want to protect property rights against eminent domain land seizures, and who oppose the risky Summit CO2 pipeline are encouraged to attend the hearing in person to show support, and share their concerns during public comments.

Faced with the looming prospect of local landowners being targeted by Summit Carbon Solutions to obtain easements for its proposed risky CO2 pipeline, and potentially seeking to use eminent domain, Commissioners in Boone County are taking action to protect their community. The public hearing and vote by Commissioners on a proposed moratorium on the construction of CO2 pipelines in Boone County follows similar previous actions taken by neighboring counties. Stanton County unanimously denied Summit’s permit request in February 2024, and Dakota County tabled the company’s request in November 2025 and has since removed it from their agenda.

Bold Nebraska supported a bill introduced in the Nebraska Legislature in 2026, LB 916, which would have banned eminent domain for CO2 pipelines in Nebraska. Shelli Meyer, whose family’s land in Dixon County is threatened by the Summit pipeline, testified and Bold’s Founder Jane Kleeb also submitted testimony along with over 700 Nebraskans who wrote letters to their Senators urging them to support LB 916.

Bold will support another bill to ban eminent domain for CO2 pipelines next year, but in the meantime — show your support for the Boone County Commissioners by signing a letter endorsing the CO2 Pipeline Moratorium before the public hearing on May 27.

Nebraskans: Sign the Letter of Support for Boone County CO2 Pipeline Moratorium

Legal Fellow

Location: Salt Lake City, Utah (on-site, full-time, exempt)
Salary Range: $70,000-$78,000, commensurate with experience
Application Deadline: June 15, 2026

Download the Legal Fellow Job Description as a PDF

About the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) is the only nonprofit organization working full-time to protect Utah’s redrock wilderness—some of the most spectacular public lands in America. Since 1983, SUWA’s staff, board, and members have worked to defend this landscape from threats like fossil fuel development, unnecessary road construction, and destructive off-road vehicle use. With offices in Salt Lake City, Moab, and Washington, DC, and tens of thousands of supporters across the country, SUWA has secured lasting protections for more than 5.5 million acres of wild public lands.

Our mission is to preserve the outstanding wilderness at the heart of the Colorado Plateau and ensure these lands remain in their natural state for the benefit of all. We are committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion in our work and in our organization, knowing that the redrock is for everyone.

Position Summary

The legal fellow is a 2-year litigation position that will focus on defense of Utah’s wildest federal public lands. SUWA’s litigation docket includes cases involving national monuments, off-road vehicles, Quiet Title Act (R.S. 2477), energy development, and vegetation removal. The legal fellow works closely with other program staff in SUWA’s Salt Lake and Moab offices and is supervised by the legal director.

 Qualifications

• 1-3 years of relevant experience, including familiarity with federal public land, environmental, and administrative law statutes and regulations.
• Demonstrated interest in environmentalism or conservation—passion for wilderness and public lands preferred.
• Excellent time management, analytical, legal research, and writing skills.
• Ability to handle a substantial workload that will, at times, require working nights and weekends.
• Commitment to wilderness preservation and SUWA’s mission.
• Utah Bar Licensure: (1) Utah bar membership, or (2) the ability to transfer UBE score; or (3) be admitted by motion

Location, Compensation & Benefits

• Location: SUWA’s Salt Lake City Office. We work a hybrid schedule with at least 3 days per week in the office.
• Salary range: $70,000-$78,000, commensurate with experience.
• Comprehensive benefits package including health, dental, vision, retirement contributions, and general leave policies; details can be found online at suwa.org/careers

Application Process

Please submit a cover letter, resume, law school transcript, 3-5 page writing sample, and 3 references to Steve Bloch, Legal Director, at hiring@suwa.org.

Application deadline: June 15, 2026

The lands SUWA works to protect are the ancestral homelands of many Tribes, including those that were forcibly removed at the hands of the U.S. government in an effort to exterminate their cultures, languages, and ways of life. These injustices are still felt today, but the quest to erase the Tribes failed: Indigenous communities continue their traditions and remain an integral part of the landscape and our community. We are committed to working toward understanding this history; to expanding present-day common ground, collaboration, and reconciliation with our Tribal neighbors; and to advocating that Tribes receive a seat at the table when others would exclude them.

SUWA is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate in hiring or employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, age, disability, veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by federal, state, or local law.

The post Now Hiring: Legal Fellow (Salt Lake City) appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Grand Staircase-Escalante Remains in the Spotlight

 

For months now, the fight to protect Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument’s management plan has been the number one priority at SUWA. Senator Lee and Representative Maloy are seeking to undo the plan using the Congressional Review Act (additional background can be found here) and their efforts may soon be coming to a head: we’re anticipating a vote in either the House or the Senate during the first two weeks of June.

If both chambers of Congress pass the measure by simple majority votes, the plan will be undone and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will be barred from issuing another plan that is “substantially the same” in the future. Thanks to the Protect Wild Utah movement, opposition is growing nationwide—conveyed through phone calls, in-district meetings, letters to the editor, DC fly-ins, and so much more—and we know members of Congress are getting the message! 

Here are a few recent materials we wanted to highlight:

• Executive Director Scott Braden has a piece—Congress is gunning for a National Monument in Utah—in Writers on the Range.
• Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert wrote an op-ed for the Salt Lake Tribune (which no longer has a paywall!)
• The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has issued a statement in opposition to use of the CRA.
• Over 150 scientists joined a sign-on letter in opposition, garnering stories in the Salt Lake Tribune, Outside, and other outlets.
• SUWA launched a “Love for GSE” Storymap of art inspired by the monument (and we’re still accepting submissions)

We’ll be in touch as soon as we know more about the vote timing. No matter where you live, our Grassroots Organizing Team can help you find the most effective ways to take action. Click here to learn more.

Photo © Jeff Foott

Speak Up for the San Rafael Swell and Desert!

 

Utah’s San Rafael Swell and San Rafael Desert are home to irreplaceable cultural and historic resources, important wildlife habitat, and unmatched recreation opportunities, including destinations such as Mexican Mountain, Buckhorn Draw, Tomsich Butte, Sweetwater Reef, designated wilderness areas, and the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area. Unfortunately, Trump’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering substantially expanding damaging off-road vehicle use across these unique landscapes.

As a refresher, the BLM completed travel management plans for these two regions in 2022 and 2024. Those plans were far from ideal, designating hundreds of miles of new motorized vehicle routes at the expense of natural and cultural resources as well as non-motorized recreationists. Now the BLM is planning to go even further with a proposal to open hundreds of miles of additional off-road vehicle routes in its latest quest to transform quiet, wild places into motorized playgrounds.

The agency is accepting public comments through Monday, June 8. While the comment deadline is the same for each plan, they are being analyzed separately. Please follow the link below to submit comments, especially if you have first-hand knowledge of one or both landscapes.

>> Click here to submit your comments by June 8.

Photo © Ray Bloxham/SUWA

Tell BLM: No Active Airstrip in the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness!

 

The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Price field office is proposing to authorize aircraft takeoffs and landings in the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness by designating the unauthorized Keg Knoll backcountry airstrip as open for aircraft use. The airstrip is located on the west side of Labyrinth Canyon and north of Canyonlands National Park.

While the Wilderness Act gives the BLM some discretion to allow (or prohibit) continued use at airstrips that were legally established prior to wilderness designation, it does not allow the agency to authorize aircraft use when the airstrip was not legally open prior to the wilderness designation. That’s the situation here. And there are plenty of backcountry airstrips throughout Utah that don’t impact designated wilderness areas (only around 4% of BLM land in Utah is designated wilderness).

The BLM is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) and intends to issue a decision soon. Please follow the link below to submit comments as soon as possible. At the Trump administration’s direction, the agency is not planning to release a draft EA to the public or hold a formal public comment period.

>> Click here to submit comments now

Photo © Ray Bloxham/SUWA

Proposed Plan for San Rafael Swell Recreation Area Favors Development, ORV Dominance 

 

Last week, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the final environmental assessment and proposed resource management plan (RMP) amendment for the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area and surrounding region. You may recall that this 117,000-acre recreation area was established under the 2019 Dingell Act, along with 663,000 acres of BLM wilderness and other conservation designations.

The BLM is required to update its management plan for each of the new designations. Unfortunately, for the recreation area, it’s choosing to reverse course and emphasize off-road vehicle use and extractive development over conservation. This includes removing over 12,000 acres of natural areas (wilderness-quality lands managed to protect their wilderness values), eliminating commonsense recreation management and resource protection requirements, and reducing or eliminating Areas of Critical Environmental Concern outside of designated wilderness.

“We’re disappointed that BLM, at the behest of the Trump administration, squandered this opportunity to set out a proactive, comprehensive vision for resource protection and recreation management in the incredible San Rafael Swell and instead focused its energy and limited resources on rolling back existing protections to allow for more development and off-road vehicle abuse,” said SUWA Wildlands Director Neal Clark.

>> Read our full statement

Photo © Ray Bloxham/SUWA

DC Update: The Good, Bad, and Ugly News from this Month

The Bad: Senate Confirms Steve Pearce as BLM Director. Yesterday, by a vote of 46–43 the U.S. Senate confirmed anti-public lands politician and former U.S. Representative Steve Pearce (R-NM) as the next director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

“Today’s vote is disappointing,” said SUWA DC Director Travis Hammill. “Anyone who cares about the future of public lands, national monuments, or the redrock knows that Steve Pearce has fundamentally disqualifying views—such as opposing the very existence of public lands—and should not hold the position of Director of the Bureau of Land Management.” >> Read our full statement 

The Ugly: Trump Interior Department Rescinds Public Lands Rule. We’ve known for a while that this was coming, and last week the BLM’s Public Lands Rule (aka the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule) was officially rescinded. Responding to the news, SUWA Legal Director Steve Bloch said, “The Public Lands Rule reiterated that the BLM had to put conservation on equal footing with other uses and laid out a framework for the agency to restore degraded landscapes and protect intact public lands for current and future generations. Americans and Utahns widely supported the Rule and we are deeply disappointed to see the Trump administration’s shortsighted effort to undo it. Our work to Protect Wild Utah continues, undeterred.” >> Read our full statement

The Good: House Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition (SEEC) Endorses ARRWA. Earlier this month, the SEEC endorsed 21 member-led bills—and America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act (championed by SEEC member Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-NM-01) is among them! According to the coalition’s May 7 release, “The bills we are endorsing today reiterate that we must protect our nature and wildlife, invest in American science and clean energy innovation, hold polluters and corrupt corporations accountable, and safeguard our communities against rapidly worsening extreme weather fueled by the climate crisis. This is the future that the American people want and deserve.”

>> Please add your support today by asking your members of Congress to cosponsor America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act (or thanking them if they already have!).

The post May 2026 Redrock Report appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Today we woke up to the news that, once again, Israeli forces have kidnapped members of the Global Sumud Flotilla. Among them is our comrade in international struggles, Beatriz Moreira (Bia), a member of the Movement of People Affected by Dams (MAB) and the Movimiento de Afectados por Represas (MAR), who played an important role in the operational secretariat of the Peoples Summit toward COP30 in Belém, Brazil.

We cannot allow Israel to continue carrying out these illegal detentions without taking into account that these individuals are not at war, and that their only weapon is the defense of life. The kidnapping in international waters violates international law and the principles of humanitarian action.

Therefore, we call on the Government of Brazil, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Itamaraty), other governments, as well as the international community as a whole, to do everything possible to guarantee the release, safety, and free passage of the Flotilla to its destination.

We, the organizations, networks, and social movements that organized the Peoples Summit in Belém during COP30, express our support for Beatriz Moreira, our comrade, and for all the crew members of the Flotilla, and we demand their immediate release!

In accordance with what was stated in the final declaration of the Peoples Summit, we reaffirm that: “For more than 80 years, the Palestinian people have been victims of  genocide perpetrated by the Zionist state of Israel, which has bombed the Gaza Strip, forcibly displaced millions of people and killed tens of thousands of innocent people, mostly children, women and the  elderly. We totally repudiate the genocide perpetrated against Palestine. We offer our support and  solidarity to the people who bravely resist…”

WE WILL CONTINUE THE INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE UNTIL THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLES ARE FREE!

Download the statement in Español, Português, Türkçe

SIGNED BY

• AIP – Articulação Internacional dos Povos
• Alba Movimentos
• AMA – Assembleia Mundial pela Amazônia
• AMB – Articulação de Mulheres Brasileiras
• ANA – Articulação Nacional de Agroecologia
• APIB – Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Brasil
• APMDD – Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development
• CAN – Climate Action Network
• Climate Justice Coalition – Turkey
• Coalizão Negra por Direitos
• COIAB – Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira
• Comitê Brasileiro de Defensores de Direitos Humanos e Terra de Direitos
• CONAQ – Coordenação Nacional de Articulação das Comunidades Negras Rurais Quilombolas
• CONJUCLIMA
• CONTAG – Confederação Nacional dos Trabalhadores Rurais Agricultores e Agricultoras Familiares
• CSA – Confederación Sindical de las Américas
• CUT – Central Única dos Trabalhadores
• DCJ – Demand Climate Justice
• Engajamundo
• FASE – Solidariedade e Educação
• FBOMS – Fórum Brasileiro de ONGs e Movimentos Sociais para o Meio Ambiente e o Desenvolvimento
• FOEI – Friends of the Earth International
• FONSANPOTMA – Forum Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional dos Povos Tradicionais de Matriz Africana
• FOSPA – Fórum Social Pan-Amazônico
• Fossil Fuel Treaty
• GCB – Grupo Carta de Belém
• GFC – Global Forest Coalition
• GGJ – Grassroots Global Justice
• GTA – Grupo de Trabalho Amazônico
• GIMCC- Perú Grupo Impulsor de Mujeres y Cambio Climático
• Iniciativa Internacional de Mulheres de Corpo Territorio (já existente)
• Iniciativa internacional de mujeres en defensa de cuerpos y territorios
• IPB – International Peace Bureau 
• Jornada Continental por la Democracia y contra el Neoliberalismo
• LVC – La Via Campesina / CLOC
• MAR – Movimiento de Afectados por Represas 
• MAB – Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens
• MAM – Movimento pela Soberania Popular na Mineração
• MICQB – Movimento Interestadual das Quebradeiras de Coco Babaçu
• MMM – Marcha Mundial de Mulheres
• MNU – Movimento Negro Unificado
• MPA – Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores
• MST – Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra
• MTST – Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Teto
• OC – Observatório do Clima
• Peoples Dialogue
• Peoples’ Climate Summit 2026, Beyond COP 31, Antalya
• PICS – Palestinian Institute for Climate Strategy
• PLACJC – Plataforma Latinoamericana por la Justicia Climática
• Pororoka
• REBEA – Rede Brasileira de Educação Ambiental
• Rede PCTs
• REPAM – Rede Eclesial Pan-Amazônica
• STC – Seed the Commons 
• TUED – Trade Union for Energy Democracy
• TSF-Mining – Thematic Social Forum in Mining and Extractive Economy
• UNE – União Nacional dos Estudantes
• WFFP – World Forum of Fisher Peoples
• WMW – World March of Women
• WoW – War on Want

DECLARACIÓN DE SOLIDARIDAD CON LA FLOTILLA GLOBAL SUMUD

Today we woke up to the news that, once again, Israeli forces have kidnapped members of the Global Sumud Flotilla. Among them is our comrade in international struggles, Beatriz Moreira (Bia), a member of the Movement of People Affected by Dams (MAB) and the Movimiento de Afectados por Represas (MAR), who played an important role in the operational secretariat of the Peoples Summit toward COP30 in Belém, Brazil.

We cannot allow Israel to continue carrying out these illegal detentions without taking into account that these individuals are not at war, and that their only weapon is the defense of life. The kidnapping in international waters violates international law and the principles of humanitarian action.

Therefore, we call on the Government of Brazil, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Itamaraty), other governments, as well as the international community as a whole, to do everything possible to guarantee the release, safety, and free passage of the Flotilla to its destination.

We, the organizations, networks, and social movements that organized the Peoples Summit in Belém during COP30, express our support for Beatriz Moreira, our comrade, and for all the crew members of the Flotilla, and we demand their immediate release!

In accordance with what was stated in the final declaration of the Peoples Summit, we reaffirm that: “For more than 80 years, the Palestinian people have been victims of  genocide perpetrated by the Zionist state of Israel, which has bombed the Gaza Strip, forcibly displaced millions of people and killed tens of thousands of innocent people, mostly children, women and the  elderly. We totally repudiate the genocide perpetrated against Palestine. We offer our support and  solidarity to the people who bravely resist…”

WE WILL CONTINUE THE INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE UNTIL THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLES ARE FREE!

DECLARAÇÃO DE SOLIDARIEDADE COM A GLOBAL SUMUD FLOTILLA

Hoje amanhecemos com a notícia de que, novamente, forças israelenses sequestraram integrantes da Global Sumud Flotilha, entre elas está a nossa companheira de lutas internacionais, Beatriz Moreira (Bia), membro do Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens (MAB) e do Movimiento de Afectados por Represas (MAR), que desempenhou um importante trabalho na secretaria operativa da Cúpula dos Povos rumo à COP30, em Belém, no Brasil.

Não podemos permitir que Israel siga realizando detenções ilegais sem levar em conta que eles e elas não estão em guerra, que sua única arma é a defesa da vida. O sequestro em águas internacionais viola o direito internacional e as premissas de ação humanitária.

Portanto: exigimos do Governo do Brasil e ao Ministério de Relações Exteriores (Itamaraty), dos demais países, bem como do conjunto da comunidade internacional que façam todo o possível para garantir a libertação, a segurança e o livre trânsito da Flotilha até o seu destino.

Nós, as organizações, redes e movimentos sociais que organizaram a Cúpula dos Povos em Belém, durante a COP30, manifestamos nosso apoio a Beatriz Moreira, nossa companheira, e a todas e todos os tripulantes da Flotilha, e exigimos sua liberdade imediata!

De acordo com o exposto na declaração final da Cúpula dos Povos, reafirmamos que: “Há mais de 80 anos, o povo palestino tem sido vítima de genocídio praticado pelo Estado sionista de Israel, que bombardeou a faixa de Gaza, deslocou pela força milhões de pessoas e matou dezenas de milhares de inocentes, a maioria crianças, mulheres e idosos. Nosso repúdio total ao genocídio praticado contra a Palestina. Nosso apoio e abraço solidário ao povo que bravamente resiste…”

CONTINUAREMOS A LUTA INTERNACIONAL ATÉ QUE O POVO PALESTINO SEJA LIVRE!

KÜRESEL SUMUD FİLOSU İLE DAYANIŞMA AÇIKLAMASI

Bugün, İsrail güçlerinin bir kez daha Küresel Sumud Filosu üyelerini kaçırdığı haberiyle uyandık.

Aralarında, uluslararası mücadelelerdeki yoldaşımız, Barajlardan Etkilenen Halklar Hareketi (MAB) ve Movimiento de Afectados por Represas (MAR) üyesi ve Brezilya’nın Belém kentinde düzenlenen COP30’a Doğru Halkların İklim Zirvesi’nin operasyonel sekreterliğinde önemli bir rol oynayan Beatriz Moreira (Bia) da bulunmakta.

Bu kişilerin savaşta olmadıklarını ve tek silahlarının hayatlarını savunmak olduğunu hesaba katmadan, İsrail’in bu yasa dışı gözaltıları gerçekleştirmeye devam etmesine izin veremeyiz. Uluslararası sularda yapılan kaçırma, uluslararası hukuku ve insani eylem ilkelerini ihlal etmektedir.

Bu nedenle, Brezilya Hükûmetini, Dışişleri Bakanlığını, diğer hükûmetleri ve bir bütün olarak uluslararası toplumu, Filo’nun serbest bırakılması, güvenliği ve varış noktasına özgürce ulaşması için mümkün olan her şeyi yapmaya çağırıyoruz.

Biz, COP30 esnasında Belém’de Halkların Zirvesi’ni düzenleyen örgütler, ağlar ve sosyal hareketler olarak, yoldaşımız Beatriz Moreira’ya ve Filo’nun tüm mürettebat üyelerine desteğimizi ifade ediyor ve derhal serbest bırakılmalarını talep ediyoruz!

Halkların Zirvesi’nin nihai bildirisinde yazdıklarımıza uygun olarak yineliyoruz: “Filistin halkı 80 yılı aşkın süredir, Gazze Şeridi’ni bombalayan, milyonlarca insanı zorla yerinden eden ve çoğunluğu çocuk, kadın ve yaşlı olmak üzere on binlerce masum insanı öldüren Siyonist İsrail devleti tarafından gerçekleştirilen soykırımın kurbanı olmuştur. Filistin’e karşı işlenen soykırımı tamamen kınıyoruz. Cesurca direnen halka desteğimizi ve dayanışmamızı sunuyoruz…”

FİLİSTİN HALKLARI ÖZGÜR OLANA KADAR ULUSLARARASI MÜCADELEYE DEVAM EDECEĞİZ!

The post DECLARATION OF SOLIDARITY WITH THE GLOBAL SUMUD FLOTILLA appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

The deadline for legislation to be passed through committee has come and gone in the State Senate. Among the legislation that failed to advance was Senate Bill 1035: Motor vehicle fuel tax: greenhouse gas reduction programs: suspension, by Senator Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach), which would have suspended the state’s gas tax. 

Yesterday, Strickland bemoaned the failure of his legislation in a partisan rant aimed at blaming gas prices on Democrats and the gas tax.

“At a time when affordability is the top concern for families, Senate Democrats said ‘Hell no’ to much-needed financial relief. This was a missed opportunity to take action,” he declared. “Here in California, despite all the talk about fighting for affordability and California being a leader on policy, Sacramento Democrats are falling in line with Governor Newsom and refusing even to discuss relief at the pump.”

But It’s Not That Simple

It’s true that California has both the highest gas tax in the country ($.79 per gallon) and the highest gas prices in the country ($6.15 on average, as of yesterday). The total gas tax paid by Californians is only $.25 higher than the national average, but the cost per gallon is $1.61 higher.

In short:

• Crude oil prices: the cost of oil on the global market is the single biggest factor affecting California gasoline prices.
• Refinery operations: outages, maintenance, or unexpected shutdowns at California refineries can quickly drive prices higher.
• California’s cleaner-burning fuel requirements: the state’s unique gasoline blend costs more to produce and limits where fuel can be sourced.
• Taxes and environmental fees: state and federal gas taxes, Cap-and-Trade, and Low Carbon Fuel Standard costs all add to pump prices.
• Supply and transportation constraints: California lacks interstate gasoline pipelines and relies heavily on in-state refining and marine imports, making the market more vulnerable to disruptions.

For more details, the state’s energy commission gives a pretty neutral look at the various influences and Streetsblog did its own breakdown a couple of weeks ago.

Of course, Strickland’s press statement excludes the reason for the massive global increase in crude oil costs in the past two and a half months because of President Donald Trump war against Iran. Iran responded to the initial attack from the United States by not allowing oil tankers and other trade through the Strait of Hormuz. 20% of the world’s oil supply comes through the strait in normal times, and the global oil market has been thrown into chaos. In the U.S., that means an average 50% increase in the cost of gasoline at the pump.

And of course, there’s a cost to Californians in reducing or suspending the gas tax. California’s gas taxes and fees fund transportation infrastructure and programs, including road and highway maintenance, public transit, bridge repairs, traffic safety improvements, and efforts to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Other states that have suspended or reduced the tax in response to the price hikes from Trump’s war, including Utah, Indiana, and Georgia, have large surpluses in their general fund that have offset the reduced revenue from gas taxes.

Whither the Feds?

Trump himself is talking about suspending the federal gas tax of $.18, which would take a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Given that prominent Democrats in the Senate have already signaled their support, it is likely that legislation for a “gas tax holiday” would have majority support, should it be brought to a vote.

The federal gas tax pays for the maintenance, repair, and construction of national infrastructure, including highways, bridges, and mass transit systems. Revenue from the tax goes directly into the Federal Highway Trust Fund.

What is the sunscreen filter bemotrizinol? Iris Myers May 19, 2026

For the first time in over 25 years, the Food and Drug Administration is proposing to approve a new sunscreen ultraviolet, or UV, filter for the U.S. market: bemotrizinol, or BEMT. 

It’s a UV filter that since 1999 has been used in sunscreens in other countries, offering greater protection against harmful ultraviolet A, or UVA, rays.

UVA radiation is the sun wavelength that penetrates deepest into the skin, leads to premature skin aging, suppresses the immune system and increases risk of skin cancers, like melanoma. The sunscreens most Americans use do not provide enough UVA protection. 

For decades, Americans have had access to fewer sunscreen ingredients than consumers in Europe and Asia. In some cases the sunscreen sold in the U.S. offers UVA protection that is much worse than the sunscreens sold overseas.

EWG’s own peer-reviewed research found that U.S. sunscreens deliver on average just 24% of the UVA protection implied by their SPF labels. 

But that might be about to change.

Proposal could improve sunscreen options

In late 2025, the FDA proposed to add BEMT to the U.S. list of active ingredients allowed in sunscreens. The proposal allows for use up to 6%.

If the agency finalizes its decision, BEMT will be the first new UV filter approved for the U.S. market in over 25 years. 

BEMT could be widely adopted into sunscreen formulations, since it will be allowed for use in combination with almost all currently approved active ingredients.

The only restriction on using the filter would be a ban on combining it with two other UV filters: para-aminobenzoic acid, or PABA, and trolamine salicylate. In 2019 and again in 2021, the FDA proposed these two filters are not “generally recognized as safe and effective,” or GRASE, for use in sunscreens sold in the U.S.

In the European Union, BEMT is sold by numerous companies under trade names that include Tinosorb® S, Parsol® Shield, AakoSun BEMT, and Escalol™ S. The chemical company CIBA Speciality Chemicals invented the filter and applied for FDA approval in 2005, so it has already had more than two decades of regulatory review. CIBA was acquired by BASF, which manufactures and markets BEMT internationally.

DSM, a pharmaceutical company, has been leading calls for FDA approval of its version of BEMT, sold as PARSOL® Shield. If the FDA finalizes its approval, DSM would have 18 months of marketing exclusivity. 

After that period, other manufacturers would be able to use BEMT in their formulations, which should expand the range of products available to consumers. 

Data submitted to the FDA about products with BEMT at concentrations up to 6%, led the agency to propose the ingredient as safe and effective. 

Similarly, European Union Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety 1999 findings report that at levels up to 10%, BEMT does not irritate the skin and is not associated in animal studies with harm to the reproductive system.

A step forward in UVA protection

The most important use of BEMT would be closing the UVA protection gap that has plagued American sunscreens for decades.

In the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter drugs, and the FDA oversees sunscreen safety. The agency said in 2019 and 2021 only two of 16 ingredients on the market – zinc oxide and titanium – are GRASE.

Due to safety concerns, the FDA has flagged PABA and trolamine salicylate as not GRASE. 

The 12 other ingredients on the U.S. market are also not GRASE. But that status is primarily due to insufficient data. The agency has requested additional safety data on these ingredients, although they are still allowed for use in products sold in the U.S.

Problems with existing filters

The best sunscreens are those that provide broad spectrum protection – from both UVA and ultraviolet B, or UVB, rays. 

UVA rays don’t easily burn the skin. But they can cause it to age, suppress the immune system and contribute to the development of skin cancer. 

Zinc oxide and avobenzone are the only two UV filters in U.S. sunscreens today that are effective at reducing UVA rays significantly. 

Avobenzone is chemically unstable and must be paired with other ingredients to prevent it from breaking down in sunlight. Breakdown products of avobenzone have also been shown to cause allergic reactions. 

BEMT solves these problems. According to the FDA review, it provides strong broad-spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB radiation. 

It is more stable in sunlight than avobenzone and – unlike avobenzone – can be combined with zinc oxide to provide greater UVA protection. It also has more safety data than any non-mineral filters on the U.S. market.

Minimal health concerns 

Data suggests that most available non-mineral UV filters may have safety concerns.

The FDA’s proposed approval of BEMT includes extensive scientific review requiring data on absorption into the body and likelihood of irritation and sensitization, as well as animal studies of carcinogenicity and potential to harm reproduction or development. 

Minimal skin absorption 

Documents submitted to the FDA report that BEMT at concentrations up to 6% is minimally absorbed into the body and the amount that does absorb is below the concentration FDA considers to be indicative of systemic exposure after application.   

Compared to the other 12 ingredient chemical filters on the U.S. market, BEMT has robust data for safety and does not absorb into the skin. 

FDA studies in 2019 and 2020 showed that a one-time application of six other chemical actives – oxybenzone, homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene, avobenzone and octinoxate – were absorbed through the skin at levels above 0.5 nanograms per milliliter, the maximum concentration the FDA says may be found in blood without potential safety concerns. 

One ingredient, oxybenzone, was detected at 258.1 nanograms per milliliter in blood after multiple lotion applications – 515 times the FDA’s threshold of concern. 

No evidence of carcinogenicity 

In a two-year long animal study, BEMT was applied to the skin of rats. The results indicated that BEMT did not cause abnormal, unregulated growth on the skin. This suggests that BEMT is likely not cancer-causing when applied to skin. 

No reproductive harm

The FDA also reviewed a multi-generational reproductive study and concluded that there were no harmful reproductive effects on the rats giving birth or the survival and development of their offspring.

Not irritating

Data submitted to the FDA also included a repeated insult patch test and cumulative irritation patch test, a photo-allergenicity test and a phototoxicity test. Results suggest BEMT was not irritating to the skin. 

More options are still needed

Approving BEMT is a meaningful step forward, but it doesn’t solve every problem with the U.S. sunscreen market.

For over 20 years, companies have submitted some safety data to the FDA in hopes of adding BEMT to the U.S. market. Even with the addition of avobenzone in 1999, the U.S. has been left with fewer options because the FDA’s approval process has been so slow. 

In sunscreens sold in Europe and elsewhere worldwide, BEMT is formulated with other active ingredients that are not approved for use in the U.S.

Sunscreens are often formulated with a mixture of active ingredients and, even with the addition of BEMT, the U.S. sunscreen market, would still lag behind the EU market. 

In the U.S., 16 active ingredients are permitted and in the EU, about 30 filters are available for formulation. 

With a law known as the 2020 CARES Act, the FDA’s rules for over-the-counter drugs were modernized. The law restructured the regulation of all OTC monograph drugs and replaced the legacy rulemaking process with a streamlined administrative order system. This change simplified the regulatory process. 

If the FDA finalizes the addition of BEMT, it’ll be the first new sunscreen active ingredient allowed in the U.S. in nearly 30 years. Other sunscreen companies could also submit applications to allow additional sunscreen ingredients on the market.

But, so far, these manufacturers seem unwilling to produce the safety data that the FDA requests.

Tips for sun safety

• Cover up and wear sunglasses. Shirts, hats, shorts and pants provide the best protection from UV rays. Good shades protect your eyes from UV radiation, which may cause cataracts.
• Find shade or make it. Picnic under a tree, read beneath an umbrella or take a canopy to the beach. Keep infants in the shade, because they are still developing the tanning pigments, known as melanin, that protect skin.
• Wear sunscreen. EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens evaluates the safety and efficacy of SPF-rated products, including sunscreens for recreational use and SPF-rated daily-use moisturizers and lip products. The best ratings are for products that provide broad spectrum protection formulated with ingredients that pose fewer health concerns when absorbed by the body. 
• Look for EWG Verified®. Consumers can also shop for EWG Verified sunscreens, making it easier to find products that are safer and effective.

Areas of Focus Cosmetics Sunscreen Household & Consumer Products Authors Alexa Friedman, Ph.D. David Andrews, Ph.D. May 19, 2026

‘Balcony solar’ bill to cut energy costs clears California Senate Anthony Lacey May 19, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group applauds California’s Senate for passing a bill today that would let residents install small, portable “balcony solar” systems in apartments, condos and single-family homes, bringing them relief from sky-high electricity bills.

Senate Bill 868, known as the Plug and Play Solar Act, cleared the Senate in a 35-1 vote, with four abstensions. It now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.

The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network.

“EWG commends the Senate for advancing this proposal, a major step forward for energy affordability and consumer choice,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California. 

A 400-watt balcony solar system can cut monthly utility bills for the average apartment dweller by up to $250 per year. Small balcony solar systems start at $500 today, but broader adoption enabled by SB 868 could drive prices down and give renters and low-income households more access to clean energy. 

“These systems are simple, practical and proven. They give people the ability to plug into clean energy savings immediately,” said Del Chiaro.

Balcony solar systems are as simple as plugging in a toaster or other electrical appliance at home. But red tape means the systems aren’t widely used. SB 868 would eliminate those barriers.

“We strongly encourage the Assembly to promptly take up and pass the balcony solar bill, ensuring that as we head into a hot summer, millions of Californians can look forward to having access to this technology and begin to see meaningful reductions in their energy bills,” Del Chiaro added.

Consumer-friendly cost-saving tool

California’s electricity rates have climbed dramatically in recent years, leaving the state with some of the nation’s highest energy costs. 

SB 868 would give Californians a practical, consumer-friendly tool to take greater control over their energy bills. System size is capped at 1,200 watts, enough to power everyday appliances like fridges, lights, Wi-Fi routers or an air conditioning unit.

The bill includes strict safety requirements modeled on internationally recognized standards. All systems must be certified by UL, or Underwriters Laboratories, the global independent safety science organization, or an equivalent nationally recognized testing laboratory. 

The legislation also requires that balcony solar systems have automatic shutoff protections that are triggered within seconds if the grid goes down, helping protect utility workers.

Balcony solar is already thriving in Europe, with over 4 million systems installed in Germany alone. But in California, regulatory barriers have kept this technology out of reach for many. 

SB 868 would remove those barriers while establishing statewide safety standards that do not currently exist.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Energy Renewable Energy California Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 19, 2026

Opinion By Om Jaya

Mice and Men

The best laid plans of mice and men is an expression to signify, despite careful planning, that projects can still fail and cause grief. Big promises often lead to big problems. Moss Landing in California, the Moly Corp/Chevron mine in Questa, Oak Flat in Arizona, the national list is growing. These massive developments are always at the risk of environmental impact and the health and safety of communities. Corporations use clever advertising to sway public opinion, and publish articles on why it’s good for you to support them. Their tone is of concern for public interest but when asked for environmental, health, and safety assessments, they often reply unrealistically.

Guilty companies back out of harmful projects after they’ve taken enough resources and their stock holders are satisfied. These capital groups make promises to restore and balance the land they’ve destroyed and always fall short of their commitments. While capital groups make millions, a few locals earn well, but the environmental destruction is done and serious health issues emerge. The shadow of dishonest corporations and soft handed representatives linger forever.

And now we are faced again with a potential Mice and Men story: the proposed installation of a hydrogen plant and hundreds of acres of solar panels in Questa, along with the proposed hydrogen plants in Taos and Picuris. These possible productions (pilot, in other words, experimental) have rightfully been upsetting local and national citizens who have taken the time to research and uncover the potential environmental impacts and the risks of health and safety to our community.

Kit Carson Electric Coop has been crafting one sided adds disguised as articles that cleverly sway public opinion, falsely stating that all is green, proper environmental assessments have been done, and that they have had no push back. Truth be told, as our community wakes up to this undeveloped proposal, push back is rapidly increasing and the community’s questions of concern are not being fully answered.

Luis Reyes of KCEC tells us everything’s in order, shows no legal proof, and the mayor of Questa, John Ortega, remains silent. Questa Village Councilor Daryl Ortega (no relation to the mayor) has asked Luis Reyes for a copy of the original USDA grant application and other documents related to the $231 million award that funds the project; months later, Luis continues to avoid the request. The latest statement from KCEC is the most alarming: they have done an impact study in case the hydrogen plant explodes. An explosion impact report looks good on paper, but how can we predict the unpredictable power of nature? Why is KCEC so desperate to begin this project?

We are the ones we have been waiting for, so let’s step up and protect our right to have influence on the land we live and love on. Worldwide, alternative clean methods of creating and storing energy are rapidly being developed while hydrogen continues to propose challenges. KCEC needs to imagine a back to the land picture of Taos and not support one of corporate industrial take over. Getting back to the land is not a fantasy, it’s a necessity. We don’t need an eye sore dinosaur (hydrogen plant) that will become obsolete while it is breaking down. A construction mistake like this will not weaken but will challenge the spirit of our people and discolor our already tarnished past.

And there is hope. A new wave of a conscious and vibrant attitude is rising in Taos County, one of regeneration and revival. A vision of returning to community, local culture, food, and arts, one of giving rights back to the land and taking responsibility for its uses. Let’s nourish the nature we are famous for, not stress it with thousands of solar panels and hydrogen plants.

What if our children and their children and the elk and eagle could speak. Will they have to fight for the health and safety of their lives and the protection of the environment, and will their cries fall on deaf ears?

No, we as concerned citizens won’t let that happen.

 

 

 

by Natalie Al-Shihabi, Conservation Leadership Initiative InternAudubon Florida’s Conservation Leadership Initiative (CLI) grants 25 undergraduate students annually the chance to match with a local...

GUILFORD, Conn. — More than half of Connecticut’s salt marshes have been lost after hundreds of years of human intervention, but there is a growing movement to restore these habitats for the...

It would have been a strange scene to onlookers — all thirty of us out in the field dancing to music from the 70s wearing colorful rain gear while April snow blew sideways. Despite the weather and...

The ongoing expansion of airports in Uganda is being opposed by community-led advocacy campaigns which put the struggles of communities facing displacement front and centre. Here Ayebaze Moreen explains how the campaign developed. The expansion of Uganda’s aviation infrastructure – including projects at Entebbe International Airport, Anai Airport in Lira, Arua Airport…

Source

The grid operator’s first 10-year forecast to incorporate small, customer-sited energy storage systems finds considerable uncertainty about their role on a changing grid.

Each summer, young explorers arrive at Audubon’s Rowe Sanctuary ready to discover the wonders of the Platte River ecosystems. From scooping up insects with sweep nets to daily birding adventures to...

For 10 days in the Philippines, environmental advocates from across the world moved through neighbourhoods before sunrise with waste pickers, sorted discarded plastics by hand, observed community composting systems, and studied how ordinary residents are helping to build functioning zero-waste communities. 

This included six environmental organisations from Africa (Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana and Togo.) The experience, participants from Africa say, challenged long-held assumptions about waste management and offered practical lessons that could help African communities confront the growing crisis of plastic pollution.

The Asia-Pacific Zero Waste Academy, co-organised by the Mother Earth Foundation and GAIA Asia Pacific, brought together 36 participants from 12 countries for an intensive training programme on community-level zero-waste implementation. Through workshops, field visits and study tours, participants were exposed to waste segregation systems, reuse and refill models, composting initiatives and material recovery facilities operating across communities in the Philippines.

The programme sought to demonstrate that zero waste “is not just a concept, it is a system we can build”.

Participants engaged directly with waste pickers and community waste workers in barangays such as San Agustin, where they participated in waste collection exercises, monitoring activities, and community education campaigns. They also conducted baseline surveys and observed how local governments and residents collaborate to sustain waste management systems.

Visits to material recovery facilities in Dampalit, Malabon City, San Fernando, and Barangay Malpitic in Pampanga offered practical insights into waste-sorting, recycling, and reduction systems. Attendees later travelled to Dumaguete City for dialogues with members of the Dumaguete Waste Workers Association and the Philippines National Waste Pickers Alliance, where discussions focused on the social and economic dimensions of zero-waste systems.

For End Plastic Pollution, Mazingira Plus, Up Cycle It Ghana, NGO Jeunes Verts Togo, and CODAF, the experience challenged assumptions about what is required to build sustainable waste systems.

Abdalla Mikulu, executive director of Mazingira Plus in Tanzania, said the academy deepened his understanding of how women-led community systems are addressing plastic pollution and organic waste challenges.

“I was especially inspired by the adaptability of reuse and refill models across different local contexts and their role in reducing single-use plastics,” he said. “It reinforced that zero waste systems can be designed to fit both low- and high-income communities through context-specific approaches.”

Participants also undertook Waste Assessment and Brand Audits (Waba), sorting through discarded packaging to trace patterns of production and consumption. The exercise examined how single-use packaging travels across borders into local communities and highlighted the structural systems driving plastic pollution.

The academy concluded with “The Great Challenge”, during which participants designed practical zero waste implementation plans. The African participants presented a model for implementing a zero waste system in a community in Togo, focusing on reuse, refill systems and organic waste management.

Nirere Sadrach, founder of End Plastic Pollution Uganda, described the programme as an opportunity to gain practical knowledge that could strengthen zero-waste projects in Uganda.

“It was an opportunity to experience the practice of waste segregation, reuse, refill and composting, and to work with waste pickers and community leaders to ensure the functionality of the zero waste model,” he said.

For Melody Enyinnaya of CODAF Nigeria, the academy marked “a paradigm shift”.

“Witnessing communities in Malabon, San Fernando and Siquijor living proof that zero waste is not a distant ideal but an achievable, everyday reality, powered by strong legislation, community ownership and remarkably simple infrastructure, has completely transformed how I approach our work in Nigeria,” she said.

She argued that African countries require “stronger political will, better data, and communities that are trusted and empowered to lead” rather than expensive technologies.

Frank Sekyere of Upcycle It Ghana said the programme demonstrated that adopting zero waste approaches was “a necessary step towards a sustainable future”.

“The hands-on experience, particularly with the 10 steps to zero waste implementation, was truly eye-opening,” he said. “Every effort, no matter how small, plays a vital role in creating a cleaner, more sustainable world.”

Raissa Oureya of the NGO Jeunes Verts Togo said the academy demonstrated that zero-waste communities can be built with locally available resources and strong local leadership.

“I am returning motivated and full of energy to implement the zero waste project in my municipality, Golfe 4,” she said. “Zero waste is not perfect, but it’s possible.”

ENDS.

The post “Zero waste is possible”: GAIA Africa Members return from Philippines with lessons for tackling waste pollution first appeared on GAIA.

Among a flurry of posts on social media last weekend, US president Donald Trump declared “good riddance” to a specific emissions scenario used in global climate projections.

The “RCP8.5” scenario, which envisages a future of very high carbon emissions, was “wrong, wrong, wrong”, the president wrote in block capitals.

This was “just admitted” by the UN’s “top climate committee”, he falsely claimed, referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The post was quickly picked up by right-leaning media, amplifying Trump’s misrepresentation of emissions scenarios and the role of the IPCC.

His claim follows the publication of a new set of emissions scenarios that will feed into the next IPCC reports. 

While the new scenarios no longer include such high emissions as in RCP8.5, they also show it is “not possible” to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels without significant “overshoot”, one of the authors tells Carbon Brief.

Moreover, projections suggest that the world is still on course for between 2.5C and 3C of warming, another author says.

This level of warming was previously described as “catastrophic” by the UN.

In this factcheck, Carbon Brief looks at Trump’s comments, the debate around RCP8.5 and the “good” and “bad” news within the latest scenarios.

• What did Trump say?
• What is RCP8.5?
• Why is RCP8.5 so hotly debated?
• How has RCP8.5 been replaced?
• How is the IPCC involved?

What did Trump say?

In the late evening of Saturday 16 May, Trump posted the following message on his Truth Social social-media platform:

“Dumocrats” is a derogatory nickname for Democrat politicians, debuted by the president in a televised Fox News interview on Thursday 14 May, according to the Independent.

By “top climate committee”, the president was presumably referring to the IPCC, the UN body responsible for assessing science about human-caused climate change. 

However, the IPCC does not develop, control or own climate scenarios. Moreover, it has not published anything stating that any climate scenario is “wrong”. (For more, see: How is the IPCC involved?)

Nevertheless, right-leaning media outlets have reported on Trump’s comments, in many instances repeating his false assertion that the RCP8.5 climate scenario had been developed by the IPCC. 

The New York Post misleadingly claimed that the IPCC “had quietly adjusted” its framework of emission scenarios. The Daily Caller, a pro-Trump conspiratorial US outlet, adds its own falsehoods stating that “IPCC researchers revised their modelling approach last month, swapping the extreme pathway for seven alternative scenarios”. The climate-sceptic Australian claimed that scientists had “quietly scrapped the apocalyptic forecasts that have terrified policymakers and the public”.

With Fox News also covering Trump’s comments, along with an earlier article by the Times, much of the reporting around RCP8.5 in recent days has been driven by media controlled by the climate-sceptic mogul Rupert Murdoch.

It is not the first time the Trump administration has attacked RCP8.5. In an executive order  issued in May 2025 – entitled, “Restoring gold-standard science” – the White House included the climate scenario in a list of examples of how the previous government had “used or promoted scientific information in a highly misleading manner”.

Excerpt from White House executive order, issued in May 2025.

Federal agencies, it claimed, had been using RCP8.5 to “assess the potential effects of climate change in a higher warming scenario”, despite scientists warning that “presenting RCP8.5 as a likely outcome is misleading”.

The executive order came after Project 2025 – a policy wishlist for Trump’s second term published in 2023 by the Heritage Foundation, an influential rightwing, climate-sceptic thinktank in the US  – criticised the climate scenario.

The manifesto said a “day-one” priority for the new government should be to “eliminate” the US Environmental Protection Agency’s “use of unauthorised regulatory inputs”, such as “unrealistic climate scenarios, including those based on RCP8.5”.

Back to top

What is RCP8.5?

Scientists use emissions scenarios to explore potential future climates, based on how global energy and land use could change in the decades to come. 

These scenarios are not predictions or forecasts of what will happen in the future. Therefore, Trump’s declaration that projections under RCP8.5 were “wrong, wrong, wrong” misrepresents the purpose of emissions scenarios.

Different modelling groups have produced thousands of different scenarios over the years. RCP8.5 was developed by scientists back in the early 2010s as one of a set of four consistent “representative concentration pathways”, or RCPs, for climate modellers to use. 

As their name suggests, the RCPs were representative of the vast array of scenarios in the scientific literature.

Their corresponding numbers – 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 – do not describe temperature rise (as some mistakenly assume), but the level of “radiative forcing” that each pathway reaches by 2100. This forcing level is a measure of the change in the Earth’s “energy balance” (in watts per square metre) caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

As the highest forcing of the set, RCP8.5 was a scenario of very high emissions and extensive global warming. 

When it was originally published in 2011, RCP8.5 was intended to reflect the high end – roughly the 90th percentile – of the baseline scenarios available in the scientific literature at the time. 

A “baseline” scenario is one that assumes no climate mitigation, explains Dr Chris Smith, senior research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria. He tells Carbon Brief:

“RCP8.5 was developed as a no-climate-policy scenario, often called ‘reference’ or ‘baseline’ scenarios. These are used to benchmark the actions of climate policy.”

Under RCP8.5, the IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5) in 2013 projected a best estimate of 4.3C of temperature rise by 2081-2100, compared to the pre-industrial period, with a “likely” range of 3.2C to 5.4C.

The RCPs were succeeded in 2017 by the “shared socioeconomic pathways”, or SSPs. The SSPs included a set of five socioeconomic “narratives”, which described factors such as population change, economic growth and the rate of technological development.

The SSPs were then used in the IPCC’s sixth assessment (AR6) cycle, which ran over 2015-23. The upper end of the AR6 temperature projections was provided by the successor to RCP8.5, known as SSP5-8.5, which indicated warming of 4.4C by 2081-2100, with a “very likely” range of 3.3C to 5.7C.

Back to top

Why is RCP8.5 so hotly debated?

Prof Detlef van Vuuren from Utrecht University, a leading figure in the development of emissions scenarios for many years, tells Carbon Brief that RCP8.5 is a “low-probability, high-risk scenario and it was always meant like that”.

The scenario assumed a world without climate policy and was designed to explore the consequences of high levels of greenhouse gases and global warming. It was not, van Vueren says, a “best-guess scenario” of what the future held in store.

However, in some research papers, RCP8.5 was characterised as “business as usual”, suggesting that it was the likely outcome if society did not pursue climate action.

This was “incorrect”, says van Vuuren, noting that RCP8.5 “is not a likely outcome”. He adds: “It’s never been a likely outcome.”

Over time, RCP8.5 became hotly debated in academic circles, with some scientists arguing that such high emissions were becoming increasingly unlikely and others claiming that RCP8.5 was still consistent with historical cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. 

Carbon Brief unpacked the arguments in this debate in a detailed explainer in 2019.

The charts below, originally included in a 2012 Nature commentary and then updated each year by the authors, shows how projected CO2 emissions under RCP8.5 (red line) compares with the other RCPs (bold coloured lines) and observations (black line).

The left-hand chart shows total CO2 emissions, including land-use change, while the right-hand chart shows CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and producing cement – the dominant drivers of 21st century emissions. 

Global total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and land use (left) and global fossil CO2 emissions (left) for historical observations (black lines) and the four RCP (coloured bold lines) for 1980-2050. Originally produced as part of Peters et al. (2012) and since updated by Glen Peters and Robbie Andrew.

While emission trends up to the early 2010s approximately tracked RCP8.5, a flattening of emissions growth in the years since has meant they have not kept pace with the sustained rises that were assumed in the scenario.

Over the past decade, global emissions have more closely tracked RCP4.5, one of the two “medium stabilisation scenarios” of the original four RCPs.

The debate around RCP8.5 has not just focused on current emissions, but also on the scenario’s underlying assumptions for the future. 

When it was published in 2011, the world had just seen unprecedented growth in global CO2 emissions, which had increased by 30% over the previous decade. Global coal use had increased by nearly 50% over the same period. Cleaner alternatives remained expensive in most countries and the idea of continued rapid growth in coal use seemed realistic.

Critics of RCP8.5 point to its assumptions for a dramatic expansion of coal use in the future, as well as high growth in global population.

For example, in a 2017 paper, two scientists argued that the “return to coal” envisaged in RCP8.5 would require an unprecedented five-fold increase in global coal use by the end of the century. Such an outcome was “exceptionally unlikely”, the authors wrote.

However, others have argued that while high-emissions scenarios are becoming increasingly unlikely, they still have an important role to play. For example, they highlight risks that only emerge under higher levels of warming. 

In addition, research has shown that feedbacks in the climate system – where warming triggers the release of more CO2 and methane, which warms the planet further – could mean that human-caused emissions lead to a higher radiative forcing and have a greater climate impact than initially assumed.

In a post on the RealClimate website, Dr Gavin Schmidt – director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies – unpacks why scenarios are updated and “why high-end scenarios are important”.

Back to top

How has RCP8.5 been replaced?

As the IPCC heads into its seventh assessment cycle (AR7), scientists have been developing the emissions scenarios and climate model projections that will – eventually – feed into its reports.

For the emissions scenarios, that process – known as ScenarioMIP – started back in 2023 at a meeting in Reading, UK. This involved scientists representing “different climate research communities”, explains van Vuuren.

This “brainstorming” session devised the outlines for the new scenarios, he says. After more meetings, these were subsequently developed into a proposal that was – after review – translated into a journal paper. After review from scientists and the public, the final paper was published in April. 

The paper sets out seven all-new emissions scenarios, replacing the SSPs (and its predecessors, the RCPs). For simplicity, the new scenarios are named according to their levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

The figures below show the emissions (left) and the estimated global temperature changes (right) under the proposed scenarios, from the “low-to-negative” emissions scenario (turquoise) up to a “high-emissions” scenario (brown). 

The greenhouse gas emissions for each of the CMIP7 climate scenarios (left) and the associated estimated average temperature change over 2000-2150 from a 1850-1900 baseline (right) using the FaIR emulator. Source: Adapted from Van Vuuren et al. (2026)

(It should be noted that, while the ScenarioMIP paper has been published, there remains an embargo on using the scenario data produced by integrated assessment models – often referred to as IAMs – to publish academic papers, analysis or even social media posts until 1 September this year. Carbon Brief will publish a detailed explainer on the new scenarios once the embargo lifts.)

When compared to the SSPs that came before, the range in future emissions in the new scenarios “will be smaller”, the authors say in the paper:

“On the high-end of the range, the…high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends…At the low end, many…emission trajectories have become inconsistent with observed trends during the 2020-30 period.”

In other words, the combination of technological progress and action on climate change that, to date, remains insufficient, means that scenarios of very high or very low emissions are now not considered plausible. 

Another way of looking at it is that the “range of potential futures has narrowed”, explains Smith, one of the authors on the paper.

If you “draw a fan or plume of potential future emissions that start in 2025”, it lies entirely within the spread of scenarios from a decade ago, he says:

“So you’ve ruled out futures at the high end. You’ve also ruled out futures at the low end – so it’s now not possible to limit warming to 1.5C, at least in the short term or the medium term.” 

This is a mix of “good” and “bad” news, Smith adds. 

“In the latest set of scenarios, the lowest [scenario sees] peaking at about 1.7C, so we’ve also lost that low end, but the good news is we’ve lost the high end…Back in 2010, RCP8.5 wasn’t an implausible future, we’ve now made it an implausible future, because we’ve actually bent the curve [on emissions] enough to eliminate that possibility.”

The new “high” scenario projects warming in 2100 of closer to 3.3C (with a range of 2.5C to 4.4C).

To be clear, this “high” scenario would still come with catastrophic climate impacts, even if the level of warming would remain slightly below what was set out in RCP8.5.

Van Vuuren adds that the world is “now on a trajectory to 2.5-3C of warming”. As a result, “we don’t have any scenario anymore that can reach 1.5C with limited overshoot – we will have a significant overshoot”. 

Back to top

How is the IPCC involved?

Contrary to Trump’s claims, the common set of future emissions scenarios used by climate scientists are not developed by the IPCC, the UN climate-science body that produces landmark reports about climate change.

Instead, the development process described above is driven by a group of Earth system modelling experts convened by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).

CMIP – an initiative of another UN body, the World Climate Research Programme – coordinates the work of dozens of climate modelling centres around the world.

Working in six-to-eight year cycles, CMIP asks modelling centres around the world to run a common set of climate-model experiments – simulations that use the same inputs and conditions – that allows for results to be collected together and more easily compared. 

For experiments that explore how the climate might change in the future, modelling centres are instructed to run simulations against a fixed set of future climate scenarios, each with different levels of concentrations of greenhouse gases, aerosols and other drivers of climate change. 

These future emissions scenarios are revisited each time CMIP embarks on a new “phase” of climate-modelling coordination, to reflect advances in scientific understanding and the pace of real-world climate action. 

The group tasked with producing the design of future scenarios, as well as the “input files” for climate models, is the “scenario model intercomparison project”, or ScenarioMIP.

CMIP aligns its work with the schedule of the IPCC, coordinating a new set of model runs for each IPCC assessment cycle. 

For example, the IPCC’s AR5 in 2013 featured climate models from the fifth phase of CMIP (CMIP5), whereas AR6 in 2021 used climate models from CMIP’s sixth phase (CMIP6).

AR7 will feature models from CMIP’s ongoing seventh phase (CMIP7). The first results from CMIP7 model runs are expected later this year. 

The IPCC is consulted during the CMIP process, van Vuuren tells Carbon Brief, but its input is “no different from any other review comment” that the ScenarioMIP team received. 

Thus, while the IPCC relies on model runs coordinated by CMIP in its landmark reports, it does not play a role in designing future emissions scenarios, nor in deciding when they should be retired. 

Dr Robert Vautard, co-chair of IPCC AR7 Working Group I, tells Carbon Brief that the IPCC does not “do or coordinate research”. Its role, he says, is to “synthesise existing knowledge” and produce “regular” reviews of climate-science literature. 

He adds that ScenarioMIP is just one set of scenarios the climate-science body assesses in its reports:

“IPCC assesses all scenarios, or sets of scenarios, that the scientific community produces. IPCC does not produce scenarios. CMIP7 will be [one] set of scenarios assessed by IPCC [for AR7] – but there will be many others.”

The IPCC has also released a statement in response to the recent reporting, reiterating that the paper on the new scenarios “belongs to the broader body of scientific literature produced by the international research community, under the coordination of the WCRP, not the IPCC”. It adds:

“The IPCC does not conduct its own research, run models or make measurements. It does not own the scenarios described in the mentioned paper, nor does it own any of the scenarios assessed in the sixth assessment report.”

Back to top

Factcheck: US and Iran are world’s only major emitters without net-zero targets

Factchecks

|

18.05.26

Factcheck: What the UK car industry is not saying about EV targets

Factchecks

|

08.05.26

Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas

Energy

|

25.03.26

Factcheck: What it really costs to heat a home in the UK with a heat pump

Factchecks

|

30.01.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_1270d8a4c2c1404fcbe3c5c8e86b17a4 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Factcheck: Trump’s false claims about the IPCC and ‘RCP8.5’ climate scenario appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Editor's note: Conservation along the Platte River is a collaborative effort, and Rowe Sanctuary works closely with many partners to work towards our habitat and landscape goals.  This month, we...

Nebraska is the home of Arbor Day, established in 1874 to promote tree-planting; an effort that has since spread across the country with great success.  It is ironic, then, land managers along...

On Monday and Tuesday, Paris hosted the G7 Finance Ministers’ meeting, bringing together finance ministers and central bank governors from some of the world’s most powerful economies, alongside counterparts from Brazil, India, Kenya, South Korea, Ukraine, Syria, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. But behind the diplomatic pageantry,and despite the G7’s call for innovative financial instruments to urgently address overlapping crises,French host Roland Lescure squandered a major opportunity.

While fossil fuel companies raked in billions in profits in the first quarter of 2026 amid the South-West Asia conflict, campaigners at 350.org condemn the French G7 presidency’s glaring inaction on windfall and excess profits taxes targeting the oil and gas industry.

Fanny Petitbon, 350 France Country Manager, said:

“France has built its G7 presidency on the bold promise to use this forum as a lever to reinforce economic security in times of crisis and to respond to the legitimate concerns of citizens. But fine words ring hollow. When it comes to taxing the obscene profits recently made by oil and gas corporations, Paris chose complete silence. Not a single word appeared in the final communiqué.

Once again, the interests of a powerful minority are being protected. Companies like TotalEnergies, which boast of their so-called foresight while doing little more than speculating on war and human suffering, have cashed in billions,while families around the world pay the price at the pump and on their energy bills.

The G7’s initiative to expand insurance coverage for people and countries experiencing extreme weather events is welcome. But without turning off the fossil fuel tap and forcing the biggest polluters to foot the bill, climate finance risks becoming little more than taxpayers cleaning up a mess that oil giants are still being paid to create.

President Macron has positioned himself as a global leader on climate and economic justice. Yet this silence tells a very different story. Is this really the legacy he wants to leave in his final G7 presidency? The Leaders' Summit, to be held in Évian from June 15 to 17, is the last chance to course-correct and finally choose people over profit.”

Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.

Does electromagnetic radiation from wind turbines pose a threat to human health?

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from wind turbines are well below international exposure safety limits.

Wind turbines produce EMFs mainly from their electrical equipment. Multiple studies have found their strength to be lower than everyday exposure to many common household appliances, such as microwaves and vacuum cleaners.  

In a field study at a Canadian wind farm, average magnetic fields at the base of operating turbines were around 0.1 microtesla (µT) and dropped to background levels within 2 meters. Turbines under high wind and low wind conditions emitted equivalent levels of radiation. Another 2020 study found wind turbines produced under 0.1 µT at 4 meters distance.

For comparison, an electric can opener measures about 60 µT at 6 inches but 0.2 µT at 4 feet. International guidelines set a safety reference level of 100 µT at 50 Hz, far above the turbine measurements reported in field studies.

Go to full rebuttal on Skeptical Science or to the fact brief on Gigafact

This fact brief is responsive to quotes such as this one.

Sources

Environmental Health Measuring electromagnetic fields (EMF) around wind turbines in Canada: is there a human health concern?

Radiation Protection Dosimetry EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE MEASUREMENT IN THE VICINITY OF WIND TURBINES

World Health Organization Radiation: Electromagnetic fields

Frontiers in Human Health Wind Turbines and Human Health

Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles

Please use this form to provide feedback about this fact brief. This will help us to better gauge its impact and usability. Thank you!

About fact briefs published on Gigafact

Fact briefs are short, credibly sourced summaries that offer "yes/no" answers in response to claims found online. They rely on publicly available, often primary source data and documents. Fact briefs are created by contributors to Gigafact — a nonprofit project looking to expand participation in fact-checking and protect the democratic process. See all of our published fact briefs here.