News Feeds

Why don’t more people talk about chameleons?

These amazing reptiles come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and colors, and are known for their color-shifting abilities and unique eyes, which can look in two different directions at once.

But not enough human eyes are paying attention to chameleons, and they now represent one of the world’s most at-risk species groups. According to experts as many as 50% of the 200-plus recognized chameleon species are endangered, critically endangered, or vulnerable to extinction.

On the eve of the third annual International Chameleon Day on May 9 — an occasion to call attention to these animals’ amazing abilities and underrecognized plight — I sat down with Dr. Christopher Anderson, chair of the IUCN/SSC Chameleon Specialist Group, to talk about what’s threatening these diverse reptiles, what we need to do to help them, and why they’ve eluded media and scientific attention over the past few years.

Let’s start with an observation: The word “chameleon” is part of our culture — I mean, everyone understands the word, everyone thinks they know what it means — but I have found almost zero news coverage about chameleons over the past two years. There’s been a little bit of coverage of research about their eyes or their tongues, but almost nothing about their conservation.

That is exactly true. And I think it’s one of the biggest shortcomings that we have as far as awareness about chameleons.

Like you mentioned, chameleons have fascinated naturalists, the public, and researchers for centuries. Aristotle wrote about chameleons and a lot of their unique behaviors. If you ask somebody on the street about a chameleon, they have a picture of what a chameleon is in their head because of a lot of those unique features.

Oftentimes people are a little bit squeamish or have some concerns or fear of reptiles — snakes in particular. But generally, when people hear about chameleons, they’re like, “Oh yeah, chameleons are great.”

The question there is, why have chameleons not fostered some of that attention that we see with turtles and tortoises, various snakes, and other groups? If you look at zoological institutions, most zoos will have a chameleon or a couple of chameleons on display, because they are fascinating and they really are important to most collections to be able to display. But most zoological institutions have not really focused on any type of major or large-scale projects with chameleons, in large part because they are difficult to capture, and delicate and difficult to display.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by IUCN SSC Chameleon Specialist Group (@iucnchameleons)

So while a lot of zoos have many different turtle and tortoise species, or boas, or iguanas, or crocodilians, and so forth, and are very engaged with conservation efforts in those groups, chameleons have never really benefited from a lot of that attention. If you look at species survival plans or programs that zoological institutions have within reptiles, you see a number of iguana species, numerous turtle and tortoise species, crocodilian species, and so forth. There’s not a single chameleon species that has gotten that focus or attention.

The other thing is, if you look at the number of researchers that are working with crocodilians or turtles and tortoises, and iguanas — not to keep pointing the finger at a few different groups — there are lots of people that study those, even though there’s a lot fewer crocodilians or iguanas than there are chameleons.

But there are actually very few people that specialize in chameleons. I think that that has really been a disservice to even our understanding of where chameleons are as far as their conservation is concerned.

It’s not that they’re not threatened, or that there aren’t numerous species that should be covered, or even that there’s no interest. It’s just that there’s just not enough work that’s being done to really highlight it.

Right. So is that the goal of International Chameleon Day? What do you hope this species awareness day will accomplish?

Yeah, that’s a huge part of one of the goals that we’re hoping to get across with International Chameleon Day. There’s a huge potential, I think, to engage the public, educate them about the conservation status of chameleons, encourage awareness, as well as broader benefits that that could have for different animal groups that live in similar types of environments.

And who knows, maybe in the long run we can actually encourage other people to start focusing on chameleon conservation and increase the number of people that are working with them.

So what’s threatening them? You mentioned that they’re very sensitive animals, and it seems that a lot of them have evolved in particular microclimates or microhabitats. Can you tell us how they’re threatened by climate change or other factors?

We all kind of have an inherent image in our mind of what a chameleon is. But one of the things that fascinates me about chameleons is how diverse they are. There are 236 species that are described in science. And those 236 species are extremely diverse in their biology, ecology, natural history, anatomy, and so forth. They range in size from very small animals that are less than an inch in total length to species that, in total length, are well over two feet. We have species that give live birth, species that lay eggs. We have species that live upwards of 20 years and species that live outside of the eggs for a matter of three or four months.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by IUCN SSC Chameleon Specialist Group (@iucnchameleons)

They’re hugely variable, and a lot of that variation and that species diversity is highly specialized to local microhabitats and very small areas. We have a lot of local endemism with chameleons where there’s a species that lives in a certain elevational band on a single mountain, or a single type of vegetation, or habitat in a very small area. That’s where lot of that diversity occurs, in very small, limited-range habitats.

When you have species that have that limited range, they can be very prone to local disturbances potentially wiping out a population or a significant portion of their distribution.

Most of the major threats that we have for chameleons relate to habitat alteration. That can be from clearing of the habitat for subsistence farming, timber harvesting, charcoal production — particularly in Madagascar, that’s a major issue. We see a lot of local effects from surrounding communities altering the habitat that these species live in.

But there’s other threats that we see with chameleons as well. One of those is harvesting for the pet trade, both illegal and legal. Chameleons for the last 30-40 years have been heavily traded in the international exotic pet trade. Some of that is legal and some of that is sustainable, but much of it is not sustainable or even illegal for some species and some regions.

We also see there’s some looming effects of climate change that are impacting chameleons, making the conditions at local habitats potentially unsuitable. Climate change is also doing things like accelerating dangers from fire and increasing the duration of the dry season, which increases the amount of vegetation that fires can consume if they get started.

And similarly, as habitats become smaller and smaller, you have these boundary effects around the edge of habitats where those boundary areas can be more prone to fire and so on.

Changing of a lot of the durations of the wet seasons and dry seasons, increases in temperature and aridity — all of that is going to play into some of these fire issues and so forth. That could affect a lot of these populations, even in protected areas.

Have you seen some of this in the wild? I found a paper you wrote about the Chapman’s pygmy chameleon in Malawi that seems to be suffering specifically from some of these problems.

Exactly. So, you know, I first traveled to Madagascar many years ago. I have not been back professionally recently, but I traveled there for ecotourism. And one of the things that I was shocked with was the amount of erosion and clear-cut forests and habitat alteration that I was seeing. And that’s not slowed down. If anything that’s accelerated in recent years.

That’s a huge issue. I’ve seen it in Cameroon. I’ve seen it in Kenya. I’ve seen it in Tanzania. I’ve seen it in South Africa. Anywhere you go where there are chameleons, we see a lot of those types of issues.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by IUCN SSC Chameleon Specialist Group (@iucnchameleons)

I also have noticed over the years that there seem to be shifts in the wet season. When I was in Madagascar almost 25 years ago now, the beginning of the wet season was starting at the end of December, beginning of January. Now that period has shifted. People are now going in February or March to be there when the rain has started and when you can see a lot of that biodiversity.

We’re seeing a lot of shifts. Madagascar over the last few years in particular has gotten a lot of attention for some of the massive fires that they’ve had, particularly in the southern portion of the country, in the central highlands, and the southwestern regions. And those are going to have massive effects on local populations.

There’s a lot of concern that as these fires extend into protected areas, areas that we thought were safeguarding these animals may not actually be safe havens for them.

I don’t want to generalize with a couple hundred species, but what do chameleons need to ensure their continued survival? What can people in the conservation community do to help?

Yeah, like you said, there’s a lot of diversity within chameleons. And some chameleons are doing quite well. They’re habitat generalists, they’re widespread. And those species aren’t really ones that are under a high probability of extinction.

But of chameleon species that we know of, a large proportion are threatened — about 78 species based on our IUCN Red List assessments are considered either critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable. That’s about a third of the species that we have described.

But we also have a lot of species that are not evaluated yet. They’re relatively newly described species or we don’t have enough data yet. If we figure in these species that are not evaluated, or that we haven’t actually got enough information to evaluate them, we could actually have as much as 50% of the diversity of chameleons threatened with extinction. That’s huge. We’re talking about 120 species that just from what we know right now may be threatened.

Education, I think, is one of the huge things as far as what we can do right now to advance the awareness of the conservation status with chameleons. We need people to be aware of the threat status of these species. If they’re engaged with the pet trade, [we need to teach them] to make educated and sound conservation decisions and make sure that if they’re involved with keeping chameleons as pets or anything, they’re doing so sustainably and ethically and legally.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by IUCN SSC Chameleon Specialist Group (@iucnchameleons)

But in addition to that, we really need to reach out to local communities about the status of the environment around them, the species that live there, the importance of those species, and try and encourage sustainable practices in safeguarding of those animals.

That’s super challenging because a lot of the areas where these animals live are surrounded by communities that are struggling. Life in Madagascar and life in a lot of these places is not easy. They’re not generally doing mass agriculture that’s wiping out huge tracts of land. Most of it is subsistence agriculture that they depend on for their day-to-day survival.

So helping to provide resources and development that’s sustainable and helps these populations in a lot of these areas is potentially hugely beneficial to the conservation of lot of these animals as well.

This is kind of related to that, but do chameleons have any cultural value to the people who live near them?

This is actually an additional challenge that we face with chameleons and their conservation. What I mean by that is across most of the range of chameleons, there are a lot of local superstitions or taboos or what they call fady in Madagascar about chameleons. They have a longstanding, oftentimes negative connotation to local communities.

Across their range, people tend to think that they’re venomous, that if you touch them, you’ll die. They tend to think things like, if you have a chameleon in a tree in your village, it’s a bad omen. There are stories in northeast Africa saying if a camel steps on a chameleon, the vibrations will kill the camel. There are all kinds of variants on this common theme of not trusting chameleons or thinking that they’re dangerous that they’re bringing bad omens or so forth. So a lot of the time, the local communities don’t view chameleons in a particularly positive manner. When we’re talking about engaging these communities, just convincing them that they need to protect the chameleons is sometimes a little bit of a hard sell.

What we really also need to communicate to them is that they’re not dangerous, that they are harmless animals, that they’re interesting, and that they have value in their local community and in the environment around them. And that can be challenging because we’re trying to challenge and change generations of stories and stuff that have been passed on.

Wow. Are there any memorable encounters you’ve had in the wild with these animals, and can conveying those stories help influence other people?

You know, any time I’m in the field working with chameleons, it’s memorable for me. I am absolutely fascinated with them.

There’s a lot of different species that are very pretty, a lot of beautiful colors that they will express, and there’s some morphologies that are just incredibly intricate and impressive. Finding those species for the first time is always fascinating for me. There are so many species. I’ve never seen all of them in the wild, of course. Every time that I get out into the field and I can find a new species, it’s really exciting. Learning about the environment that each of those species lives in and seeing them in the field and kind of getting a little bit of a better understanding of them is always incredibly rewarding.

My wife and I teach a field course every other year. We bring students from South Dakota, where we’re based, to Kenya. We take them around to different habitats and we teach them about the local environments and so on. One of the things that we do is teach them how to find chameleons, and I teach them about the different species.

The students absolutely love this process of going out and looking for the chameleons. We’re in habitats where we’re looking at lions and elephants and rhinos — these megafauna that they’ve grown up idolizing, wanting to see in the wild. But then we go out and look for chameleons and they love it. The number of students that list that as among the most fun things that they did on these trips is really surprising.

That’s one of the things I really love about teaching that course, taking these students out and showing them these animals and giving them a chance to learn about chameleons firsthand — and appreciate that it doesn’t need to be one of these charismatic megafauna for them to get excited.

So what’s your favorite chameleon species — if you can even answer that?

There are so many species that I think are just fascinating, but I could give a couple that I think are just incredible — and I think some of those actually might surprise people, because they’re maybe not the most colorful species, for instance.

One of those species is the armored leaf chameleon. It’s a species from a drier area in Madagascar, the Tsingy de Bemaraha. It’s an endangered species, and it’s the largest species of the genus Brookesia, which are these miniaturized chameleons — you’ll often see pictures of them on a matchstick. But this is a species that has incredible ornamentation. They’re the only chameleon species that’s known to have osteoderms, these bones in the skin. They have these ornate projections off of their vertebral column that project out of their skins to create spines along their back. Overall coloration-wise, they’re just basically brown with a little bit of different hues of these drab colors, but they’re just incredibly intricate and interesting to me.

There’s a species in Tanzania, Trioceros laterispinis — one of its common names is the spiny-flanked chameleon. It looks kind of like those tree lichens that grow on branches. And it’s incredibly cryptic. You can just look at it and you can tell this is living in an environment that has a lot of those lichens and mosses. It’s beautifully evolved to live in that habitat.

Spiny-flanked chameleon. © Otto Bylén Claesson via iNaturalist (CC BY-NC)

In both cases these aren’t species that are exhibiting bright pinks and blues and reds and greens or flashy colors, but there’s just something about them that I just find fascinating, because you could just see the way that they’re trying to conceal themselves and the way that they’re living in this environment and how they’re adapted to that place, that specific location. I just find that fascinating.

So what can we do to maintain the energy and interest of International Chameleon Day throughout the year?

Chameleons are exciting to the public. They’re interesting. People are intrigued by them. And I think that we really should try to harness that. I think, like you said, if we could see an increase in the coverage of chameleons — just generally, not only on International Chameleon Day, but across different times of the year — that that would go a long way to promoting our understanding and encouraging others to work with these animals in the future. Education about these animals and their local habitats doesn’t need to just be isolated to a single day. We can take advantage of opportunities as they come to educate local communities about the wildlife that they have around them and the value of some of these animals. That would be huge.

Trying to break down some of these longstanding prejudices toward these animals — that doesn’t happen overnight. It doesn’t happen if we’re just isolating that to one day a year. I think that International Chameleon Day is a huge benefit for trying to start those conversations and start those education programs and start those efforts.

But we really do need to continue those across the year at different times and try and promote those messages and get that information and that word out there more generally.

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator:

This Month in Conservation Science: Trojan Seahorses and ‘Vampire’ Birds

The post Even Chameleons Can’t Hide From Climate Change appeared first on The Revelator.

For more than half a century, residents of Sampson County, North Carolina have watched their local landfill grow to nearly 1,300 acres, becoming the largest in the state. Garbage now arrives from far beyond the county line, traveling from all over the state. For locals like Sherri White-Williamson, the scale of the operation has become a source of concern. She grew up in the county, and was alarmed by potential for landfill chemicals leaching into residents’ groundwater and the impact it may be having on their health. “Many of the folks out around that landfill are on well water,” White-Williamson explained. “They are drinking in it, they’re bathing in it, they’re using it to water gardens and animals.” 

She worked for years at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working in its Office of Environmental Justice, where public outreach and education, and coordinating between communities and federal agency staff together with the community were part of her daily routine. Eventually, White-Williamson saw that kind of advocacy was missing in her own backyard. In 2020, she co-founded the non-profit Environmental Justice Community Action Network (EJCAN) to educate and empower communities to advocate for themselves on environmental issues. 

Not long after its first meeting in October of that year, the group began working with residents of Snow Hill, a historically Black rural community near the Sampson County landfill. People described a range of environmental and public health worries. One concern that rose quickly to the top was whether the water — especially the private wells on which many households rely — might be contaminated.

Sherri White-Williamson outside of EJCAN’s headquarters in Sampson County, NC. Cornell Watson

Over the next few years, EJCAN partnered with UNC Chapel Hill and Appalachian State to do free well water testing through some small grants. “The community felt like they were seeing elevated levels of illnesses and [were] convinced what they were seeing was directly related to their proximity to the landfill, and the water that they’re drinking,” White-Williamson said, but there had been little formal research. “There’s never been a health impact analysis in that area, so it’s been all anecdotal,” she explained. The well testing became a first step toward gathering evidence that contaminants from the landfill might be harming residents.

The results were troubling. After four rounds of sampling at homes in the area, they found 13 percent of wells were contaminated with PFAS and other contaminants of concern. Short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the synthetic chemicals have been produced in the U.S. since the 1940s, and are used in water-repellent fabrics, nonstick cookware, and fire fighting foam, among other things. 

PFAS are sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals” because of how long they persist in the body and the environment. That includes “legacy” PFAS, substances such as PFOA and PFOS that were widely used for decades, but phased out during the 2000s. It also includes what researchers call “novel” PFAS, or newer chemicals developed as replacements. While initially thought to have fewer health risks, scientists are now questioning if these next-generation products are meaningfully safer. Because they are newer, far less is known about their impacts, according to the Center for Environmental and Health Effects of PFAS at NC State.

“We know that landfills are a common source of [PFAS], because folks have thrown away a range of consumer products,” said Courtney G. Woods, an environmental sciences professor at the University of North Carolina. According to a 2020 report in the academic journal Toxicology, there is mounting evidence that PFAS are implicated in “adverse health outcomes associated with exposure, including reduced kidney function, metabolic syndrome, thyroid disruption, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.” 

Residents raise red flags

Research into Sampson County water quality dates back a decade, thanks to the work of the late Ellis Tatum, who lived in Snow Hill. In 2016, Woods and some of her students met Tatum at the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network Summit, a gathering of environmental justice organizations led by people of color. “He was convinced there was something going on with what was in the water,” explained White-Williamson. 

Tatum invited Woods and some students to partner with his community. After convening neighborhood focus groups, Woods and a student began to test for legacy and novel PFAS, metals, and bacteria in Bearskin Swamp, located on the north side of the Sampson County landfill in Snow Hill. “There was a suspicion that bad things were going into the water from [the landfill],” White-Willliamson explained.

An exterior view of the Sampson County landfill where a constant stream of trucks deliver waste daily. Cornell Watson

On this first research foray, Woods’ team didn’t detect significant contamination upstream of the landfill. But downstream was a different story. “We found elevated levels of legacy PFAS, as well as novel PFAS just near the landfill,” Woods explained. These include newer chemicals like GenX and Nafion, she explained, which some studies have linked to liver damage and other human health effects.

Some of these chemicals match those produced by Chemours, a PFAS manufacturing facility which has dumped in the landfill for years. “We did have some knowledge from Chemours’ permit, as well as knowledge from other folks that Chemours had been sending their industrial sludge for disposal at the Sampson County landfill,” Woods continued. 

Bridging community concern with free water testing 

After Woods’ initial findings, EJCAN worked to establish further relationships with universities to expand water testing in the Snow Hill community. The collaboration marked a crucial step moving community concerns toward independent scientific verification.

The cost of at-home testing can be prohibitive to many households. According to Antrilli, costs for PFAS testing through private labs start around $380. “Considering the population in Sampson County, a lot of folks could not pay to have their water tested,” White-Williamson said.  

In February 2021, EJCAN partnered with Appalachian State University to provide free testing of well water for bacteria and metals for residents. The non-profit sent out a notice to community members asking if they wanted to participate. “There was a fairly decent amount of response,” said White-Williamson. The initial round of testing included professor Rebecca Witter, who focuses on sustainable development, and biologist Shea Tuberty. Rebecca Witter worked to develop a protocol that could be used to derive community impressions of water quality, while Shea Tuberty and his students went door to door collecting samples, testing for bacteria, nitrates, and heavy metals.

Pictured from left to right are Dr. Shea Tubberty, Sherri White-Williamson, Danielle Koonce (Project Director, EJCAN) and Dr. Rebecca Witter during the first weekend of water testing in Snow Hill.
Chris Lang

On subsequent research trips, the team was joined by Woods from UNC, who provided PFAS testing with support from the nonprofit Research Triangle Institute. After sampling about 250 homes, they found over thirty families had PFAS in their water.

As further rounds of testing were conducted, the respective labs mailed letters to residents with their results, as well as called to speak to residents who had concerning results. The scientists also held a meeting with residents, which White-Williamson attended, so that they could ask questions. Woods said the close communication “was absolutely instrumental” for both research and community organizing. 

EJCAN holds a monthly community meeting that is open to the public, which Tuberty sometimes brings his class to attend, “just to be present and answer questions,” he said. “That’s been really useful, because we get more community buy-in when they realize we’re invested long-term.”

The results led White-Williamson to contact the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Waste Management. In November 2023, the department held a community meeting where people who lived closest to the landfill could request sampling of their private wells. State staff initially tested 30 wells, before expanding the effort, Vincent Antrilli Jr., the waste management agency’s environmental program supervisor, wrote in an email. From October 2023 through April 2026, the program had collected 241 samples—about 25 percent (61) of which had exceedences of PFAS for EPA drinking water standards.

Point-of-use filter systems like this one are common throughout the Snow Hill community. Cornell Watson

The program also provides bottled water and home filtration systems designed to remove PFAS. “To date, 87 point-of-use filter systems have been installed or authorized statewide, including 37 in Sampson County,” Antrilli wrote. 

EJCAN has supplemented this by distributing over 50 Clearly Filtered water pitchers, which remove PFAS and other contaminants like lead and arsenic. “We worked with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services to identify a pitcher that seemed to be pretty efficient in removing a large number of contaminants from drinking water,” White-Williamson said. 

A canceled grant 

EJCAN is still hearing from people who want their well water tested. “We really need thousands of water samples, and we’ve only done hundreds,” said Tuberty from App State.

For about six months, EJCAN, App State, UNC and the Department of Health and Human Services collaborated on an EPA grant application. “The grant would have been for a million dollars over the next three years,” White-Williamson explained. With that support, the coalition would have been able to test up to 250 homes a year and provide follow up support for the homes who had problems. “That would have gone a long way,” she said. 

In February, they learned they’d been approved for the million dollar grant. But in April 2025, as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) slashed federal programs, the coalition learned the grant might be suspended. Only three days later, Tuberty said, they were told it would be spared. Then in early May, there was another reversal. 

“Before we got a nickel of it, we got DOGE-d,” Tuberty said. “Most of the money was going to go to the community members to mitigate the problems that we identified, which would have been great.”

While the research to date has been supported by a number of smaller grants, Tuberty said, “you need that big money to make a significant impact.” The researchers hope another opportunity will present itself. “I don’t think any of us are giving up on it,” he said. 

With federal priorities shifted, EJCAN is concerned about the unmonitored forever chemicals in their community. “These are hard projects to do, because the communities have just been burnt for so long, for so many decades,” Tuberty said. “They’ve just been overlooked over and over again.”

The Environmental Justice Community Action Network (EJCAN) is a North Carolina–based nonprofit that works to advance environmental justice in rural communities, particularly in Sampson County. The organization supports residents facing pollution and other environmental harms by providing scientific research, water and air monitoring, education, and advocacy. EJCAN also helps communities access legal and technical resources, empowering them to hold polluters accountable and push for cleaner air, water, and soil.

LEARN MORE

toolTips('.classtoolTips10','A conductive and heat-resistant metal that forms a key part of many battery cathodes, which allow electric charges to flow. It is used in the lithium-ion batteries that power many EVs as well as solar energy systems and wind turbine components.'); toolTips('.classtoolTips12','An acronym for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS are a class of chemicals used in everyday items like nonstick cookware, cosmetics, and food packaging that have proven to be dangerous to human health. Also called “forever chemicals” for their inability to break down over time, PFAS can be found lingering nearly everywhere — in water, soil, air, and the blood of people and animals.
');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Rural North Carolina fights back against PFAS contamination on May 6, 2026.

This article is part of Food Tank’s primer series, “Food Tank Explains.” Each installment unpacks the ideas, innovations, and challenges shaping today’s food and agriculture systems, offering clear insights into complex topics. To explore more articles in the series, click here.

Food and agriculture systems generate a variety of environmental, health, social, and economic impacts that are not generally reflected in the prices consumers pay for food, referred to as externalities in economics. True Cost Accounting (TCA) is an evolving, holistic framework for measuring and valuing the positive and negative externalities of the food system.

TCA seeks to make the impacts of food production, processing, distribution, and consumption more visible to support improved decision making by policymakers, farmers, and consumers and reduce the true costs of food. Drawing from the four-capitals framework of the TEEBAgriFood Evaluation Framework, TCA assesses four key capitals: natural, human, social, and produced.

The agrifood system generates myriad positive and negative externalities, says Salman Hussain, Coordinator The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food initiative (TEEBAgriFood).

Common examples of positive externalities include a beekeeper incidentally providing a benefit to neighboring farmers when their bees pollinate the farmers’ crops and community cohesion. Examples of negative externalities include emissions from use of fuel in farm machinery, water pollution from fertilizer runoff, and healthcare costs for workers in unsafe conditions.

Though invisible in market prices, the costs of externalities across agrifood systems are nonetheless borne—just rarely by those who create them. Instead, they are passed on to the environment, workers, consumers, and society more broadly.

Environmental costs show up in the 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions that agriculture produces, soil degradation, and biodiversity loss. Workers in food and farming systems face risks like pesticide exposure and heat-related illness and death.

Consumers bear rising rates of diet-related diseases and issues that are linked to modern food environments. 2.5 billion adults suffer diet-related illnesses, 733 million people live in hunger, and 2.8 billion people are unable to afford a healthy diet. And these burdens are often disproportionately carried by vulnerable populations who face higher exposure to environmental risks, poor health outcomes, and economic instability.

The hidden environmental, health, and social costs of global agrifood systems amount to roughly US$12 trillion each year, according to a U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that Lauren Baker, the Deputy Director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, calls a “startling call to action.” A Rockefeller Foundation study attributes US$1.1 trillion unaccounted-for costs to human health, US$900 billion to environmental and biodiversity damage, and US$100 billion in unaccounted livelihoods.

TCA evaluates four forms of capital—natural, human, social, and produced—reflecting the environmental, health, social, and economic dimensions of agrifood systems. The eco-agri-food system is like a puzzle, Alexander Müller, Study Leader for TEEBAgriFood, tells Food Tank. One only understands the full picture when all the pieces are considered together unclear.

TEEBAgriFood established the four-capital framework in 2018 with contributions from more than 150 researchers and experts across 30 countries. It now underpins most True Cost Accounting assessments used today.

Natural capital refers to the stock of physical and biological resources and ecosystem functions that sustain life and enable food production. In agriculture, this includes land, water, soil, biodiversity, and atmospheric systems.

Social capital captures the networks, institutions, and shared norms that enable cooperation and collective action within societies. This can include labor conditions, fair wages, worker protections, community well-being, and the broader social impacts of food production, such as rural livelihoods, job creation or loss, and community stability.

Human capital refers to individuals’ knowledge, skills, health, and capabilities. This includes farmers’ expertise, agricultural training and education, food system innovation, and the health outcomes associated with both food production and consumption.

Produced capital includes the manufactured and financial assets that support economic activity. This encompasses physical infrastructure such as buildings, machinery, and irrigation systems, as well as financial and intellectual capital that enable food production, processing, distribution, and retail.

The goal of TCA is not to increase retail prices, according to Adrian de Groot Ruiz, Co-Founder of True Price, a Dutch social enterprise that helps identify and measure products’ social and environmental costs. Rather, TCA seeks to reveal information that can ultimately help improve the way food is made and reduce the true costs of food, De Groot Ruiz tells Food Tank.

When externalities go unmeasured, they remain unaccounted for in policy decisions, private purchases and markets fail to prevent or address them. Failing to put a value or price negative impacts “creates a dishonest pricing scheme and perpetuates farming systems which destroy our planet and cause a catastrophic impact on public health,” says Patrick Holden, Founder and CEO of SFT.

By identifying and valuing externalities, TCA can help governments, businesses, and investors design policies, legislation, incentives, and investments that reduce harmful impacts, reward practices that generate public benefits, and support food systems in which nutritious food is accessible, workers are compensated fairly, and consumers can make informed choices.

As detailed in FAO’s reports, The State of Food and Agriculture 2023 and 2024, identifying and assessing all hidden costs across agrifood systems is resource- and data-intensive, requiring collaboration between political, economic and social actors and prioritization of the most decision-relevant impacts.

To be effective, TCA must be incorporated into national and international policy frameworks, accounting standards, and performance evaluation systems, supported by standardized metrics that allow impacts to be measured consistently across food value chains, according to government bodies and industry experts.

Some organizations and researchers advocate for policies under which governments tax activities that impose environmental or social harm so market prices reflect their full costs, alongside subsidies or incentives for practices that generate positive externalities such as improved soil health or ecosystem protection. Ultimately, according to Nature Food, TCA calls for a fundamental change to the valuation of food.

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 Ed Wingate, Unsplash

The post Food Tank Explains: True Cost Accounting appeared first on Food Tank.

The additions bring the company’s total executed agreements with data centers to 7.6 GW, “nearly two-thirds of which are already under construction,” President and CEO Harry Sideris said. Duke’s $103-billion capital plan remained unchanged from 2025.

American Electric Power’s review of its market options comes amid a surge in customer demand across its multi-state footprint. Its utilities have contracts for 63 GW of new large load by 2030.

In summer of 2025, I embarked on the internship assignment of my dreams. Armed with a Nikon D3200, a 2008 birding map, and a healthy supply of coffee, I set out with my coworker to photograph all 35...

In February, the Department of Homeland Security purchased an idle 250,000 square foot warehouse.

Romulus, Michigan is a city of 25,000 people 23 miles outside of Detroit and home to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport. In February,  the Department of Homeland Security purchased an idle 250,000 square foot warehouse in Romulus for $34.7 million. City leaders and the community were kept in the dark as rumors circulated about the sale, including that it was sold at 56 percent more than the previous purchase price. After initial reporting on this sale, 300 Romulus High School students walked out and a thousand people gathered outside Romulus City Hall in late February when the reports were confirmed. On No Kings Day, March 28, another 350 to 400 people gathered for the Romulus No Kings at the warehouse. On Saturday, April 25, hundreds more gathered there for the Communities Not Cages National Day of Action.

A Coalition to Shut the Camps has developed out of weekly pickets at the planned detention center location. This coalition has produced a regulatory punch list and a package of letters sent to various state and local agencies demanding full transparency on all proposals and the opportunity for public meetings. The coalition has been leafleting homes and schools in the area, encouraging people to join weekly meetings and protests. Thirty-three organizations have signed onto the letters, and some are becoming partners in “Solidarity Saturdays,” collaborative events co-hosted by coalition members and other community organizations.

The National Day of Action on April 25 was called by the national coalition Detention Watch Network and involved the participation of other national organizations like Indivisible, Workers Circle, Public Citizen, MoveOn and many others. More than 200 events around the nation transpired as a result. The core campaign demands are to cancel the warehouse detention plan and stop conversions immediately; reject all public funding, approvals, and local resources for detention expansion; and require transparency and community consent before any federal detention action. In Romulus, the Metro Detroit Democratic Socialists of America, No Detention Centers in Michigan (NDCM), the People’s Assembly of Detroit, Southfield Neighborhood Action Committee (SNAC), and Community Aid for Empowerment (CAFE) from Pontiac came together with the Coalition to Shut the Camps to center the experiences of those at risk of being detained and those detained or recently released from detention.

The day of action in Romulus coincided with a hunger strike and work stoppage that began April 20 at the GEO Group owned-and-operated North Lake Processing Facility in the Village of Baldwin, Michigan (population < 1,000). The hunger strike and work stoppage were responses to the intensification of abuse in ICE detention, reflected by deaths in ICE detention entering a record high, and a continuation of unrest at the isolated Northern Michigan facility. From 2019-2022, there were multiple deaths and six separate hunger strikes at this immigrant-only federal prison.

Built in 1999 as the Michigan Youth Correctional Facility, North Lake has closed and reopened four times. Since reopening in June 2025 as the largest ICE detention center in the Midwest, North Lake has consistently imprisoned over a thousand people, many found by federal judges to be unlawfully detained. In recent months, a combination of reports of an increasingly unsafe environment, medical issues going unaddressed, and a steep decline in judicial approval of bonds has brought the North Lake detention center into the international spotlight. Following the death last December of Nenko Gantchev, an immigrant from Bulgaria who lived in the US for over 30 years, and the sharp increase in incidents requiring an EMS response, immigrants detained in Baldwin are demanding better medical care, adequate food, and their constitutional right to timely due process. They are also demanding conditions that allow for adequate sleep and an end to arbitrary rules.

No Detention Centers in Michigan (NDCM) has recently organized multiple protests and is calling for additional actions outside the Baldwin facility in solidarity with those incarcerated, such as blasting song requests from detainees with a loudspeaker to the inside. The strike has spurred calls from the ACLU of Michigan and Michigan Immigrant Rights Center for Congress to conduct formal independent investigations into neglectful and abusive conditions at North Lake.

The strike had been renewed as of April 27, despite claims by ICE denying any such assertion of the rights and dignity of those confined. A statement from a recently released immigrant affirming the courageous act of collective resistance by hundreds of immigrant men across multiple units in North Lake was read at the action in Romulus on April 25. A statement was also read there from Women’s Collective Civil Action, a group of women from another unit at North Lake who filed a joint habeas corpus petition earlier in the month. Many attendees of the Romulus demonstration made the 3.5 hour trek across the state to Baldwin the following day to express solidarity with those kidnapped from the broader region and subjected to the brutality of the state.

As Ale Rojas of NDCM put it, “This courageous collective action is a response to the dehumanization and abuse that are endemic to ICE detention, where immigrants are used as scapegoats so corporations like the GEO Group may continue to build their profits unchecked. Centering our humanity and the humanity of every person who has been kidnapped by ICE is the only way forward.”

Worsening conditions of confinement around the country and the expansion of ICE presence in Michigan with the purchase of the warehouse in Romulus has given rise to a deepened sense of alarm and more community opposition. The Ban Warehouse Detention Act would prohibit DHS from establishing, operating, expanding, converting, or renovating any warehouse or similar building for the purpose of detaining people. Congressmember Rashida Tlaib’s announcement of the bill on April 23 was a direct response to ICE’s expansion in Romulus and Southfield. She herself attended the Romulus No Kings demonstration organized by the Coalition to Shut the Camps on March 28 as well as demonstrations in Southfield opposing the leasing of office space to ICE. Her bill also addresses ICE’s plans to convert 23 such warehouses nationwide into new immigration detention and processing facilities, a plan that would expand the federal agency’s detention capacity significantly.

This legislation was drafted in partnership with Detention Watch Network and cites the likelihood that confining large amounts of people to spaces not meant for human habitation will increase the spread of illness and put people’s health at risk, increasing the chance for abuse and death in ICE custody. The group also suggests that such expansion normalizes mass confinement and will result in an increase in unlawful arrests, violations of due process rights and widespread family separation.

On April 25 in Romulus, the tenth demonstration since the end of February occurred in the city against the purchase of the warehouse by the federal government. The City of Romulus unanimously passed a resolution opposing the sale, citing proximity to nearby elementary and middle schools; negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of Romulus residents; and negative impacts on economic development. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has also joined with the City of Romulus in a lawsuit against DHS and ICE, alleging the federal agency failed to complete necessary environmental reviews and to consider alternatives.

The Communities Not Cages demonstration featured a teach-in with speakers from No Detention Centers in Michigan, the Coalition to Shut the Camps, Detroit DSA, People’s Assembly, CAFE, and SNAC. Organizers discussed the work they have been doing to address ICE activity in Michigan, the needs for future work, how to keep building out the organizing, and how different organizations can work together effectively.

Another demonstration and march occurred earlier in the day organized by local Indivisible groups. Between the two events, roughly 500 people demonstrated throughout the day against the plans for a detention warehouse in metro Detroit.

As in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis, the potential for social upheaval has led to action, in this case Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s suit against the DHS. The lesson taken from experiences around the country has been that local officials respond to organized mass pressure from below. With May Day following the day of action against warehouse detention, there was an opportunity to deepen the involvement of organized workers. The Metro Detroit AFL-CIO recognized International Workers’ Day for the first time in decade. Members organized a post-rally march to the Detroit ICE office, with a contingent for immigrants’ rights and against wars abroad.

Union support against immigrant detentions is crucial. For example, in the nearby city of Wayne, the No Kings Day event was held at UAW Local 900, a major Ford production complex not far from the Romulus detention center project. That No Kings Day was largely focused on the movement against ICE. At a March 16 demonstration outside the Romulus warehouse, a member of UAW Local 900 expressed opposition to the warehouse detention plans. Ron Lare, a retired Ford worker and member of UAW Local 600 at the Ford Rouge plant, held a sign that read, “UAW members and leaders –– join the resistance in the streets!” Lare urged UAW members and leaders to come out to the protests at the detention center project in Romulus. “The union is supposed to stand for the principle that ‘An injury to one is an injury to all.’ It is inevitable that if this detention center opens, some UAW members will be detained inside.”

Ron Lare, a retired Ford worker and member of UAW Local 600 at the Ford Rouge plant, held this sign at the March 16 demonstration.

Against the violence and brutality of the state, there is space for exposing connections to attacks by the ruling class on people throughout the world. It is possible to deepen bonds of international solidarity that pose an alternative to the reactionary ethno-nationalism of the ruling class. The emergence of a detention state with a renewed focus on borders and exclusion is the latest phase of a long history of racialized criminalization essential to stratifying and regulating the labor-market that produces the wealth of capitalist society. Immigration enforcement is a tool of capitalist exploitation that creates a tiered labor market, providing employers with a pool of cheap, exploitable labor and exerting a downward pressure on wages and working conditions, limiting the bargaining power of the working class.

The creation of ICE in 2003, following the post-9/11 reorganization of immigration services, consolidated and militarized longstanding practices rooted in history. The struggle for immigrants’ rights must be rooted in multiracial solidarity that shatters the myth of American exceptionalism and exposes the violent foundations of capitalism and US imperial dominance. Only a united working class has the power to reorganize society on the basis of real democratic control and defend against the inevitable disappointment entailed by elite cooptation.

We must reject any hollow attempt to paint over the historical existence of racial capitalism and recognize it as the key task for socialists to actively strengthen and learn from the struggle for abolition. We must understand, as CLR James did, that those most oppressed in the class struggle “carry the hatred of bourgeois society and the readiness to destroy it” to a greater degree than other sections of the population. It is an essential question of strategy and power to center and uplift such voices in a bottom-up struggle that targets the foundations of capitalism.

The struggle against oppression is the prerequisite for organizing a democratic mass movement capable of confronting the ruling class. A socialist vision for immigration recognizes freedom of movement as a fundamental human right. Only such a vision can address global inequities that drive migration and fuel the fight to extend full labor rights to all workers, removing the incentive for employers to exploit undocumented labor. A genuinely internationalist solidarity can unite workers across borders and advance the global struggle against exploitation.

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

The post Communities not cages appeared first on Tempest.

The vast ocean dwarfs our efforts to understand it. Sensor-laden buoys, high-flying satellites and sophisticated computer models can only do so much to plumb the depths of the waters covering more than two-thirds of the planet.

But a creature with intimate knowledge of the ocean might help humans get a more accurate picture of what lies beneath. Sharks could serve as mobile, wide-ranging sensor systems, collecting data that improves our understanding of ocean conditions in ways that might inform fisheries management and other critical activities, according to new research in the journal npj Climate and Atmospheric Science.

“Sharks are already moving through parts of the ocean that are challenging for us to observe,” said Laura McDonnell, the lead author and a postdoctoral scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts. “This research shows that data they collect can help fill important gaps.”

Scientists have attached sensors to sharks for years, but usually with the intent of understanding what’s going on with the animals. In 2022 I spent five days on the Atlantic Ocean near Africa with a team of scientists catching sharks and drilling holes in dorsal fins to attach light-bulb-sized sensors. They wanted to know how the sharks’ behavior changed as they swam through patches of low-oxygen water.

Neil Hammerschlag, a co-author of the new paper, was using sensors in much the same way as a marine ecologist at the University of Miami (UM) when, in 2018, he spoke with UM atmospheric scientist Ben Kirtman about the possibility of using data from the sensors to study the ocean, rather than the fish.

“Marine predators like sharks naturally seek out dynamic ocean features such as fronts and eddies,” explained Kirtman. “These are areas where models often lack sufficient observations.”

As a Ph.D. student at UM, McDonnell took on the question of whether this might work.  In waters off the Northeast U.S. coast, McDonnell and colleagues attached sensors to the dorsal fins of 18 blue sharks and one shortfin mako shark in October 2021. Then they set them loose, like so many fast-moving drones.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:When they created a reverse bounty for threatened species, scientists got the opposite outcome they wanted

 

In the following months, the equipment decorating the sharks’ fins collected moment-by-moment measurements of temperature and depth, two pieces of data critical to understanding the state of the ocean in a particular place. When the animals surfaced, the tags transmitted the information to satellite and on to the scientists. All told, they collected more than 8,200 snapshots of ocean conditions from the sharks. While the data was concentrated off the coast of the eastern U.S. north of Virginia, the sharks roamed as far south as Florida and out into the middle of the Atlantic. They also gave scientists glimpses of conditions at depths of almost 2,000 meters as they dove.

The researchers took this trove of information and used it to fine tune a computer program commonly used to model current ocean conditions based on data from ocean-going buoys and other sources. In certain parts of the ocean, the shark-enhanced approach was significantly closer to reality than the standard model, when scientists tested to see how well the models simulated ocean conditions during the time when the sharks were collecting the data. (The ability for computer models to accurately reconstruct past conditions is a standard test for ocean and atmospheric models.)

The improved performance was particularly notable along the shallow continental shelf, where it reduced the model’s error by 43% for November and 33% in December. That added up to the model being around 1.5°C closer to the mark when it came to sea surface temperatures, a significant improvement in an environment where subtle temperature shifts can drive major ecological changes.

 “For fisheries and coastal communities, small improvements in ocean forecasts can make a big difference,” said Camrin Braun, an oceanographer at WHOI who worked on the study. “Reducing uncertainty helps people plan, whether that’s where to fish, how to manage resources, or how to respond to changing conditions.”

That doesn’t mean sharks will be replacing other data-gathering, cautioned McDonnell. This was only a short-term experiment, and there is no mention of a more comprehensive effort to enlist sharks to the front lines of ocean forecasting. But it does show that tags formerly used to just understand the sharks could do double duty by shining more light onto broader mysteries of how the ocean is changing.

McDonnell, et. al. “Improved seasonal climate forecasting using shark-borne sensor data in a dynamic ocean.” npj Climate and Atmospheric Science. April 28, 2026.

Image: Blue shark (Prionace glauca) © Diego Delso via Flickr

Headline News:

• “Zambia Blasts The US Over A $2 Billion Health Deal In Exchange For Critical Minerals” • Zambia is accusing the US of tying a $2 billion deal for critical health assistance to access to the southern African nation’s rich mineral assets. The country calls the outgoing US ambassador’s allegations of corruption “mischievous” and “undiplomatic.” [ABC News]

Zambian Zebra (Henning Borgersen, Unsplash)

• “Turbine Prices ‘Surge As Supply Tightens'” • A Rystad Energy report said Europe’s offshore wind sector is facing a structural supply constraint as turbine prices have risen 40-45% since 2020. GE Vernova paused new offshore wind orders, Rystad Energy said, leaving Siemens Gamesa and Vestas to fill nearly all orders for turbines for European developers. [reNews]
• “Record Long Turbine Blades Arrive At Mill Rig” • The longest turbine blades installed at a UK onshore wind farm have arrived at the 33-MW Mill Rig Wind Farm in South Lanarkshire. OnPath Energy said the 80-meter blades will be fitted to six turbines that will power more than 45,000 homes annually and displace about 27,000 tonnes of CO₂ each year. [reNews]
• “The UK Sees A Surge In Solar Power Adoption” • An increase in installations, along with government initiatives, shows that even in a changing global landscape, the UK is moving forward with cleaner, more secure energy sources. March 2026 was a notable month for UK solar energy, with more than 27,000 installations completed. [Open Access Government]
• “Average US Gas Prices Top $4.50 Per Gallon, The Highest In Nearly Four Years” • As the war in Iran drags on, US drivers are feeling pain at the pump. In the US, the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gas jumped to $4.51, the highest it has been since July 17, 2022, according to GasBuddy, a company that helps consumers find the cheapest gas. [ABC News]

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

Ardi masih ingat momen ketika simbol-simbol berkilau itu berhenti berputar dan layar menampilkan tulisan “Congratulations! You’ve Won Free Spins.” Ada rasa penasaran bercampur antusias. Tanpa benar-benar memahami cara kerjanya, ia menekan tombol mulai—dan di situlah perjalanan eksplorasinya dimulai.

Dari Coba-Coba Jadi Paham Pola

Pada putaran pertama free spin, Ardi tidak mengeluarkan saldo sedikit pun. Itu yang membuatnya terkejut. “Ini seperti bermain tanpa risiko,” pikirnya. Namun, setelah beberapa kali mencoba, ia mulai memahami bahwa free spin bukan sekadar hadiah acak. Ada mekanisme yang dirancang dengan sistematis.

Dalam slot online modern, free spin biasanya dipicu oleh kombinasi simbol tertentu—sering disebut sebagai scatter. Ketika simbol ini muncul dalam jumlah yang cukup, sistem otomatis memberikan sejumlah putaran gratis. Ardi mulai memperhatikan pola ini, mencatat kapan fitur tersebut muncul, dan bagaimana hasilnya berbeda dari putaran biasa.

Memahami Sistem di Balik Layar

Seiring waktu, Ardi tidak lagi sekadar bermain. Ia belajar. Ia membaca panduan permainan, menonton ulasan dari pemain lain, bahkan mencoba berbagai jenis slot untuk membandingkan fitur free spin.

Ia menemukan bahwa:

• Beberapa slot menawarkan multiplier saat free spin aktif.
• Ada juga yang memberikan expanding wilds atau simbol khusus yang meningkatkan peluang menang.
• Bahkan, beberapa game menghadirkan sistem retrigger, di mana pemain bisa mendapatkan tambahan free spin selama fitur berlangsung.

Dari sini, Ardi memahami bahwa free spin dirancang untuk meningkatkan pengalaman bermain sekaligus memberi peluang menang tanpa menambah taruhan.

Bagaimana Sistem Ini Dirancang

Dalam industri game online modern, pengembang perangkat lunak merancang fitur free spin menggunakan algoritma. Sistem ini memastikan bahwa setiap putaran bersifat acak dan adil.

Namun, free spin tetap memiliki konfigurasi khusus:

• Volatilitas: Menentukan seberapa sering kemenangan muncul.
• RTP (Return to Player): Persentase teoretis pengembalian kepada pemain.
• Fitur tambahan: Seperti bonus mini-game atau pengganda kemenangan.

Dengan kata lain, meskipun terlihat seperti keberuntungan semata, ada struktur matematis yang mengatur semuanya.

Antara Harapan dan Kendali Diri

Di balik semua keseruan itu, Ardi juga belajar satu hal penting: kendali diri. Ia menyadari bahwa free spin memang memberikan peluang ekstra, tetapi bukan jaminan kemenangan besar.

Ia mulai menetapkan batas waktu bermain, mengelola saldo dengan lebih bijak, dan melihat game ini sebagai hiburan, bukan sumber penghasilan utama. Pengalaman ini membuatnya lebih dewasa dalam mengambil keputusan.

Sebuah Perjalanan, Bukan Sekadar Permainan

Malam semakin larut, dan hujan pun berhenti. Ardi menutup laptopnya dengan perasaan berbeda. Ia tidak lagi melihat slot online sebagai permainan acak tanpa makna. Baginya, free spin adalah pintu masuk untuk memahami sistem, strategi, dan batasan dalam dunia digital yang terus berkembang.

Rising seas could render New Orleans uninhabitable before the end of this century, according to a new paper calling for a managed retreat from the city.

Read more on E360 →

When Shell sold its onshore oil operations in Nigeria to the Renaissance Africa Energy Company last year, the divestment transformed the fossil fuel giant’s climate performance – helping it become the first energy major to report zero routine flaring.

One year on, gas flaring at some of these assets has increased significantly, while Shell has continued to benefit commercially from them, according to a new investigation by nonprofit group Data Desk, shared exclusively with Climate Home News.

Since March 2025, Shell has traded 8 million barrels of oil from the Niger Delta’s Forcados terminal, which was included in the Renaissance deal, Data Desk’s analysis of information supplied by commodities data firm Kpler found.

It is a similar picture at the Bonny terminal, where Shell’s operations were also transferred as part of its onshore exit. Shell is recorded as having traded 3 million barrels of oil from this facility, south of the city of Port Harcourt, since the deal went through.

Multimillion-dollar oil shipments

Using an average 2025 global Brent crude price of $69 per barrel, 11 million barrels of oil shipped from the two terminals since the completion of Shell’s divestment would be worth $759 million.

Shell chartered the tankers carrying the oil to buyers around the world – from Ivory Coast and South Africa, to Canada and Italy, the Kpler data shows.

• Feb 5, 2026 Investigations Gas flaring soars in Niger Delta post-Shell, afflicting communities   Since the multinational sold its assets in Nigeria’s oil hub, data analysis for Climate Home News shows flaring has risen, harming locals and the climate Read more
• Apr 21, 2026 News Fossil fuel crisis offers chance to speed up energy transition, ministers say As climate diplomacy resumes in Berlin, ministers say the Iran war-driven fuel crisis is exposing the risks of fossil dependence Read more

“Whoever is running Shell’s old oilfields in Nigeria needs to get that oil to market,” said Neil Atkinson, former head of the Oil Industry and Markets Division at the International Energy Agency (IEA).

“So it may well be that while Shell no longer runs a facility, the firm that took it over may have an arrangement to continue selling oil through Shell, thereby making use of their connections and trade networks,” Atkinson said.

Shell’s shipping and chartering arm made a profit of £24.8 million (about $33 million) in 2024, the most recent date available, up from £17 million the year before.

Asked about Shell’s continuing ties to the two terminals, a Shell spokesperson said: “We don’t comment on trading activities or specific customer relationships.”

Renaissance did not address a question from Climate Home News about its ongoing commercial ties with Shell.

Environmental legacy

The new reporting raises fresh questions about how energy majors present their climate performance to investors and consumers, and the environmental legacy they are leaving behind after selling fossil fuel assets in countries such as Nigeria, where Shell has operated for nearly a century.

Many of Shell’s onshore oil fields had been in production for decades by the time the company sold its Nigerian onshore subsidiary over a year ago for $2.4 billion to Renaissance, a consortium of Nigerian companies and an international firm that aims to double oil production by 2030.

Six months after finalising the deal, Renaissance CEO Tony Attah said the company had already boosted output at Shell’s former fields by 100,000 barrels per day.

A view shows the Bonny oil terminal in the Niger Delta when it was operated by Shell, in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, on August 1, 2018. (REUTERS/Ron Bousso) A view shows the Bonny oil terminal in the Niger Delta when it was operated by Shell, in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, on August 1, 2018. (REUTERS/Ron Bousso)

At the same time, gas flaring increased at most of the fields where the activity was detected, according to Data Desk’s analysis of satellite data, despite Renaissance’s pledges to foster sustainable energy development and protect local communities.

Gas is a by-product of oil drilling. In places that lack infrastructure to process this gas, like the Niger Delta, it gets burned off instead.

Earlier this year, Climate Home News reported on the impact on local communities of increased gas flaring at several other fields in the Niger Delta since they were sold by Shell to different Nigerian companies in recent years.

Besides billowing out toxic chemicals that cause air pollution and wasting a potential energy source, global gas flaring is estimated by the World Bank to release the equivalent of 400 million tonnes of CO2 annually – higher than France’s greenhouse gas emissions each year.

Gas flaring renaissance?

Comparing the year before the sale’s completion to the year after, satellite data shows daily flaring rose at 10 of the 13 Renaissance blocks where it was detected. Flaring fell at two blocks and was unchanged at one other, while five had no detectable flaring in the dataset.

The OML 32 block, located in the heart of the Niger Delta, was one of the assets that Renaissance took over last year. Here, average daily flaring was more than 20 times higher in the year ending March 2026 compared to the year before, according to Data Desk’s analysis of satellite data from the Colorado School of Mines’ Earth Observation Group.

The Renaissance-operated OML 21 and OML 28 onshore blocks saw increases of 390% and 93%, respectively, in average daily flaring in the year after the sale’s completion.

A spokesperson for Renaissance said the company’s environmental management framework included a plan to reduce flaring.

“Renaissance Africa Energy Company Limited has a multi-year gas flaring reduction strategy through its Flare Elimination and Monetisation Plan, developed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations,” the spokesperson said.

Shell’s spokesperson said it “cannot comment on operational matters relating to assets under new owners/operators”, adding that both the company and the Nigerian government had conducted “extensive due diligence” with regard to its divestments in Nigeria.

“Dodging accountability”

Before the deal, Shell said three years ago that its remaining Nigerian assets accounted for about half of the total routine and non-routine flaring in its integrated gas and upstream facilities. Shortly after selling these assets, the company announced it had achieved zero routine flaring – five years ahead of a global 2030 target set by the World Bank.

Afolabi Macus shows his hands stained with crude oil in Oduka Lake in Ikarama community, Bayelsa State, Nigeria, February 8, 2024. REUTERS/ Seun Sanni Afolabi Macus shows his hands stained with crude oil in Oduka Lake in Ikarama community, Bayelsa State, Nigeria, February 8, 2024. REUTERS/ Seun Sanni

Shell’s exit from onshore operations in Nigeria followed years of accusations of environmental harm, including oil spills. Residents of two Nigerian communities are currently taking legal action against the oil major in the UK and a trial at the High Court is due to begin next year. 

Shell says the majority of spills in the Niger Delta were caused by theft and sabotage and it is therefore not liable.

According to Atkinson, Shell pivoted away from onshore oil fields that “might have become more trouble than they were worth” while remaining a major player in Nigeria’s oil industry. 

Top green jet fuel producer linked to suspect waste-oil supply chain

The London-based company has invested billions in offshore gas development in the country. It has also retained a 25.6% stake in Nigeria LNG Limited (NLNG), a liquefied natural gas producer based on Bonny Island.

As the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies seek to meet their climate targets, a strategic shift “to dodge accountability” by selling more problematic assets is under way, said Sophie Marjanac, director of legal strategy at the Polluter Pays Project, an organisation that campaigns for the oil industry to cover the cost of its environmental damage.

“By dumping ageing, polluting infrastructure onto smaller operators, they leave behind contamination, and communities facing ongoing harm with little chance of justice,” Marjanac said.

The post How Shell is still benefiting from offloaded Niger Delta oil assets appeared first on Climate Home News.

On the first day of his presidency back in 2021, Joe Biden revoked a key permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have brought oil from Canada’s tar sands into the U.S. The decision to kill Keystone XL was perhaps Biden’s clearest gift to the environmental movement. 

But now, five years later, a family of Wyoming oil tycoons is bringing the Keystone concept back from the dead — and the Trump administration is signaling its support. Last week, President Trump signed a presidential permit for the so-called Bridger expansion pipeline, which would likely deliver oil from the carbon-intensive Alberta tar sands to a pipeline hub in central Wyoming, 647 miles away. From there, the oil could move through other pipelines to key refineries as far south as the Gulf of Mexico.

“Slightly different than the last administration,” Trump said ⁠at the White House last Thursday when he signed the presidential permit. “They wouldn’t sign a pipeline deal, and we have pipelines going up.”

The presidential permit gives the project the green light to transport oil across international borders, and it’s only the latest step in what appears to be a fast-tracked timeline for the revived tar sands pipeline. Last month, the federal Bureau of Land Management announced that it would begin conducting an environmental review of the project on an expedited schedule. (The Trump administration has shortened many of the environmental review processes required for pipeline construction.) Bridger Pipeline, the company behind the project, says it wants to begin construction next year and start moving oil in 2028.

The pipeline would carry at least 550,000 barrels of crude oil per day. That’s only about two-thirds of what Keystone XL would have carried, but it could expand to a peak capacity even larger than what was originally planned — more than 1 million barrels a day. The similarity between the new pipeline’s path and Keystone’s has led some opponents to call the successor “Keystone Light.” The Canadian portion of the new pipeline would be built by a company called South Bow, which was spun off from TC Energy, the company behind the original Keystone XL line. 

Miles of unused pipe, prepared for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, sit in a lot outside Gascoyne, North Dakota, in 2014.
Andrew Burton / Getty Images

The proposed pipeline would be one of the biggest new fossil fuel developments of Donald Trump’s second presidency. It comes at a time of growing oil production in Alberta and skyrocketing global crude prices due to the war the president is waging in Iran. The project is being pushed by the True family, a clan of oilmen with a long history of drilling in the Rockies — and a history of oil spills from pipelines across the region.

“We know that there is limited pipeline capacity to move Canadian crude oil, and we have extensive experience in the Rocky Mountains,” said Bill Salvin, a spokesperson for Bridger Pipeline, the True family pipeline company proposing the project.

The True business empire dates back to the 1940s, when a wildcatter named Henry Alphonso “Dave” True Jr. began exploring for oil in Wyoming. He and his three sons expanded their company into a network of almost a dozen corporations that includes a drilling company, a network of local oil pipelines, a trucking company, an oil trading company, an oil equipment company, a geothermal energy firm, and a real estate company called Brick & Bond, according to a Grist review of corporate records. They also invested in cattle ranching, becoming some of the state’s largest landowners. One of True’s sons, Diemer True, served for two decades in the Wyoming legislature.

This corporate expansion has given the four-generation True family outsize influence in a state that doesn’t produce much oil but neighbors the massive Bakken shale formation of North Dakota, which is served by some of the True family pipelines. The family name is synonymous with oil in Wyoming, and True family members have become prominent donors to the University of Wyoming and to a conservative legal foundation in the region. The Trues have also run afoul of the federal government: Several members of the family engaged in a 10-year dispute with the Internal Revenue Service over what the government said was a strategy to evade some taxes by shuttling ranchland purchases between different companies. (The case ended in a multimillion-dollar fine against the Trues, which was upheld by an appellate court in 2004.)

“They’re very prominent, and their business interests have spread all around the West,” said Phil Roberts, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Wyoming and an expert on the state’s oil industry. He noted that families like the Trues have shifted away from oil production as the state’s fields have declined, investing in pipelines and oilfield services to maintain their revenue.

“Those fields have gotten really worn out, so they’ve had to diversify,” said Roberts.

Tad True speaks during the third day of the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum in 2012. Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Tad True, the grandson of the True who first struck oil in Wyoming, has led the family’s pipeline business for most of this century, expanding its network to more than 4,000 miles across Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. He argued as early as 2006 that more pipeline development was needed in order for regional oil producers to remain competitive, and in a 2012 testimony before the House of Representatives he said that the Obama administration’s regulations were blocking the pipelines needed for the fracking boom that was then in full swing. True spoke at the Republican National Convention the same year, accusing Obama of “playing politics” with the Keystone XL pipeline, which the then-president had rejected the previous year. (While the pipeline was primarily intended to carry Canadian shale oil to American markets, it would also have included an “on ramp” for crude from True’s part of the country.)

True’s company, Bridger Pipeline, has a history of oil spills. In 2015, one of the pipelines it operated ruptured underneath the Yellowstone River after fast-moving waters eroded sediment and rock from the riverbed. At least 30,000 gallons of crude oil streamed into the river, contaminating the water supplies of Glendive, Montana. The town had to truck in bottles of drinking water after some residents noticed an odor in their tap water. Then, just a year later, another pipeline operated by one of the company’s subsidiaries leaked 600,000 gallons into a stream in North Dakota — almost enough oil to fill an Olympic-sized pool. Another pipeline broke several years later, dumping 45,000 gallons of oil onto ranchland in Wyoming. The company ultimately paid $1 million in fines to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the 2015 spill and $12.5 million for the 2016 spill.

In total, there have been at least 42 spills as a result of pipeline operations by True subsidiaries since 2010. According to data collected by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, more than a third of those spills had detrimental effects on the environment or people. The data shows that the Bridger Pipeline company alone is responsible for seven of those spills in just the last three years. The most recent spill took place in March near Guernsey, Wyoming. 

“That definitely sets off some alarm bells,” said Kenneth Clarkson, communications director with the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust. “It’s not acceptable to have one incident, and when we have this quantity, it’s definitely troubling.”

If the expanded Bridger pipeline ultimately carries tar sands oil from Canada, as appears likely, the environmental consequences of a spill could be dire. Given the thick, viscous nature of tar sands, operators mix a type of thinner — called a “diluent” in technical parlance — to help it flow through pipelines. In the event of a rupture, the diluent can easily evaporate, leaving behind a heavy, tar-like substance that sinks to the bottom of rivers and other waterways. That particular property of tar sands made cleanup of the Kalamazoo River particularly complicated after a different company’s pipeline burst in southwestern Michigan in 2010.  

“We regret any spill from our pipelines,” said Salvin, the Bridger spokesperson. “Anytime oil gets out of the line, that’s unacceptable to us, so we do everything possible to keep the oil in the line.” He said that Bridger will employ “horizontal drilling” to tunnel under rivers and streams, which he said would reduce the risk of ruptures. Salvin did not say what type of oil the pipeline would carry, but confirmed it would be engineered for “mostly heavy crude” from Alberta; the Canadian portion of the pipeline will begin in the town of Hardisty, in the heart of Alberta’s oil sands.

He also said the company would use advanced technology to monitor for leaks. In the aftermath of the 2015 spill, when North Dakota’s then-governor Doug Burgum challenged Tad True to prevent leaks, True created an artificial-intelligence software called Flowstate that analyzes pipelines for potential ruptures. Salvin said the company now uses the software on all its pipelines and markets it to other operators as well.

Even though the new proposed pipeline is similar to Keystone XL in length and size, it will only cost $2 billion, far less than Keystone’s $8 billion price tag. That’s because its route will largely follow existing infrastructure and rights-of-way established by True Companies pipelines. Salvin said that the company has held a dozen landowner meetings and has secured surveying easements, or allowances to scout the land for construction, from 374 of the 376 private landowners along the pipeline route. Unlike Keystone XL, the route does not cross any federally recognized tribal lands.

“We’re very familiar with what happened with the previous project,” said Salvin. “Given that we have existing pipeline corridors that we have access to, that’s one of the reasons why this makes such commercial sense to us.” Salvin declined to offer details about the financing of the project, and such details are not publicly available because Bridger is a privately held company.

The project must still secure a number of state and local permits, but so far it isn’t having any trouble with the Trump administration, which has been aggressive in supporting new oil and gas development. The line cuts through Montana and Wyoming, including public land overseen by the Bureau of Land Management, which is leading the federal government’s review of the project under the National Environmental Policy Act. Although the law typically requires the preparation of a detailed assessment of the project’s impact on wildlife and waterways, the bureau has suggested it might fast-track the pipeline’s review. 

Past studies have found that it typically takes federal agencies more than two years to complete an environmental impact statement, but the Bureau has indicated in public filings that it intends to publish a final impact statement by next May and make a decision on the project, allowing the company to begin construction by July.

Though True family members do not appear to be particularly close allies of Trump himself, they have given more than $4 million to Republican candidates and political action committees since 1977, according to federal records. A combined $12,000 went to Trump’s unsuccessful reelection campaign in 2020, the only apparent record of True financial support for the president. Furthermore, six members of the True family appeared on a 2022 endorsement list for Liz Cheney, the Wyoming politician who lost her reelection bid after she voted to impeach Trump.

The business case for the new pipeline rests on a number of big assumptions. The existing pipelines from the tar sands are running near capacity, but the Bridger proposal assumes that production in Canada’s oil hub will continue to increase. Many forecasters aren’t so sure; even with prices high, current projections show that production growth is slowing and may peak in 2030 at around 3.5 million barrels a day, well under what the proponents of Keystone XL anticipated. 

Second, the pipeline would only carry oil to central Wyoming, not all the way to the Nebraska refinery hub targeted by the original Keystone XL pipeline. Another company would need to build another pipeline across Nebraska in order for the crude to reach the major oil refineries on the Gulf Coast. (Salvin said Bridger is “exploring options” for that segment.) Third, it’s unclear if those refiners will even want as much of the heavy Canadian crude oil that the pipeline would offer, since imports of similar oil from Venezuela have started to tick up following Trump’s kidnapping of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and subsequent negotiations with the country’s new leadership. 

“To call this plan half-baked would be an insult to baking,” wrote energy lawyer and anti-pipeline advocate Paul Blackburn in a blog post last month. Blackburn is an advisor to Bold Alliance, the activist network that opposed the last Keystone XL proposal. 

Many of the same activist groups that opposed the prior pipeline are getting ready to oppose this one as well. The Bold Alliance, which organized tribes and rural landowners against Keystone, has said it will litigate any attempt to extend a pipeline into Nebraska. Jenny Harbine, a managing attorney with the nonprofit Earthjustice, said her group is “keeping a close eye” to ensure federal and state agencies adequately consider environmental and safety concerns. The Bureau of Land Management and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, which is coordinating its review with that of the federal government, closed an initial public comment period last week.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Keystone Light’: These Wyoming oil tycoons are reviving the controversial pipeline on May 6, 2026.

There’s a strange trend afoot on the East Coast, where residents have seen some of the highest increases in electricity costs in the country. As part of efforts to relieve the pressure, some Democrats are planning to slash energy-efficiency programs. Because utilities fund energy-efficiency measures through charges to their customers, the thinking is that scaling the programs down will reduce people’s bills quickly. The irony is that energy efficiency is meant to do exactly that: lower people’s energy use, and thus reduce their bills. 

“The cheapest, fastest thing you can do to help meet energy demand in this moment of increasing need for energy is energy efficiency,” said Mark Kresowik, senior policy director at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, or ACEEE.

This emerging trend among Democrats, alongside a more established shift among Republicans, is the opposite of how politicians have reacted to similar situations in the past. In 1973, when Arab countries stopped exporting oil to the U.S. because it supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War, oil prices soared, drivers waited in long lines at gas stations, and electricity bills increased. In response, President Richard Nixon proposed measures to trim energy use, including reducing speed limits to 50 mph, and urged Americans to lower their thermostats in the colder months. It was the beginning of a decades-long, bipartisan effort to improve energy efficiency and reduce the country’s reliance on “foreign oil.” 

The effort ended up saving Americans trillions of dollars. As regulations prompted manufacturers to make cars with better gas mileage, they trimmed fuel costs for Americans by an estimated $5 trillion over the course of decades (as well as preventing 14 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions). In addition, the efficiency standards that the government set on home appliances and plumbing still save the average household about $576 a year on their utility bills, while cutting national energy use by 6.5 percent. That’s according to data from the Department of Energy in January last year, before President Donald Trump took office.

Read Next How your showerhead and fridge got roped into the culture wars Kate Yoder

But confronted with another oil crisis today, again sparked by a conflict in the Middle East, many politicians are taking the opposite approach. The Trump administration, along with Republicans in Congress, has attacked the Biden-era fuel economy standards for cars, along with rules requiring appliances to be more efficient. And some Democrats, previously reliable supporters of energy efficiency, are wavering in their support. The result is that as data centers gobble up electricity, and extreme weather and an aging grid further drive up prices, some politicians are weakening one of the best tools for lowering bills and protecting people from price swings.

In Maryland, for example, Democratic Governor Wes Moore is expected to sign legislation scaling back the state’s target to reduce emissions, which would cut the amount utilities have to spend on energy-efficiency programs and eliminate a surcharge ratepayers see on their bills. Politicians in the region are looking for anything to immediately decrease their constituents’ bills, and they don’t have a lot of options to address the drivers of rising costs. “Energy affordability politics are dominating the political agenda, and it’s very difficult to address energy affordability,” said Kelly Trombley, senior director of state policy at Ceres, a sustainability nonprofit. But politicians can remove energy-efficiency surcharges with the stroke of a pen.

That helps explain why Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee, another Democrat, floated the idea of capping spending for energy efficiency rebates at $75 million a year, down from $95 million approved for this year. Fees, state mandates, and other charges tied to state policies reportedly account for a quarter of energy bills. Affordability concerns also prompted Democrats in the Massachusetts House to pass a bill that would cut $1 billion, out of $4.5 billion, from the state’s energy-efficiency budget. That bill appears to have a tough path forward, since the chair of the state Senate’s energy committee has signaled his support for Mass Save, a program that rewards ratepayers for buying heat pumps and making other energy-saving moves.

In Maryland, supporters of the legislation to cut energy efficiency spending say it could save residents $150 a year or more on their bills. “The thing about surcharges like this is, it is one of our most direct tools,” state Delegate Marc Korman, a Democrat, told Canary Media. ​“We don’t want to forsake all efforts at energy efficiency, but we want to try to provide a little bit of relief for some time if we can.” 

To opponents, focusing on immediate savings misses the bigger picture, since it would hurt affordability in the long-term. An analysis from ACEEE found that the proposed legislation in Maryland would increase costs for the state’s electricity customers by a net $592 million.

“Unfortunately, cutting energy efficiency programs — it’s like trading in your car for one that gets worse gas mileage at a time when gas prices are going up, and it won’t do anything to address those real cost drivers that will only get worse,” Trombley said. “Energy efficiency is one of the only options customers have to insulate themselves from the volatility coming from things like natural gas or an aging grid susceptible to extreme weather.”

While the trend appears mostly limited to the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, there’s one recent example of Democrats opposing an energy-efficiency measure on the federal level. In January, 57 Democrats in the House voted with Republicans on a bill that would eliminate the Biden administration’s efficiency standards for manufactured homes, which haven’t been updated since 1994 and allow for poor insulation. It’s still awaiting a vote in the Senate.

Republicans have increasingly targeted energy-efficiency laws, a reversal from the days of presidents Nixon and Ronald Reagan, who signed the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act in 1987. These days, everything from dishwashers to laundry machines has been sucked into the culture wars. The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have targeted efficiency standards enacted under the Biden administration, viewing them as symbols of Democrats interfering with “consumer choice.” Last week, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down Biden-era rules that would have restricted gas-powered commercial water heaters and consumer furnaces, siding with the natural gas industry and utilities.

Still, some energy efficiency programs have survived the Republican-dominated federal government. After the Trump administration threatened to eliminate Energy Star, a government program that puts its certification label on products that meet its efficiency standards, Congress passed a bipartisan spending bill in January that ensures continued funding. Congress also allocated $3 million more in funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program, which provides free energy-efficiency upgrades for low-income households, than it did last year, for a total of $329 million. Some Republican members of Congress have proposed a bill to extend tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act that were set to expire at the end of June — including incentives for constructing energy-efficient homes and supporting retrofits for commercial buildings.

And in the bigger picture, state spending on energy efficiency, especially in terms of assisting low-income households, has been on the rise. Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, signed a handful of pro-efficiency laws in April aiming to trim household bills by providing energy-saving upgrades to low-income families, some with bipartisan support. Also last month, Ned Lamont, Connecticut’s Democratic governor, announced a measure that’s supposed to save families about $30 a month by decreasing charges for public benefits on utility bills, with much of the reduction offset by contracts he negotiated with nuclear power plants that provide energy at fixed prices.

“We’re hopeful that there’s a pathway to strengthen and really recognize that you actually can’t have an energy affordability strategy without energy efficiency,” Trombley said.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Democrats used to back energy-saving plans. Now they’re wavering. on May 6, 2026.

Last week, the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues released urgent calls to action, including a pause on fast-tracked critical mineral projects and increased funding for Indigenous climate projects. But those recommendations come as the Forum itself is facing an existential crisis. 

For 25 years, the Forum has been the leading United Nations body representing Indigenous peoples, but that status has not always translated to policy change by member states or the U.N. itself. Growing questions about the Forum’s effectiveness also come amid budget cuts at the U.N., Trump’s rejection of multilateralism, and ongoing efforts to streamline U.N. processes. These intersecting challenges are all threatening to push the Forum, and the causes Indigenous representatives bring to it, even further toward the margins.

“For us, climate change is not a distant threat. It is a present and lived human rights crisis,” Aluki Kotierk, who is Inuk from Canada and current chairperson of the Permanent Forum, said Friday at the conclusion of the Forum’s two-week annual meeting in New York City. The Forum’s recommendations reflect discussions and research conducted by hundreds of Indigenous delegates and experts over the past year. They join more than 1,000 recommendations issued by the Forum since it first began to meet, many of which Indigenous advocates deem critical to their survival. But state governments often blatantly ignore them. 

A new “Systemic Assessment” report by a group of current and former members of the Permanent Forum underscores this problem. “While UNPFII has succeeded in establishing itself as a visible and legitimate global platform, questions remain regarding its ability to translate dialogue, recommendations, and knowledge production into tangible outcomes for Indigenous Peoples on the ground,” the report said. “The proliferation of recommendations has not been matched by corresponding mechanisms for implementation, follow-up, and accountability.” 

The report underscores the limitations of Forum, which makes recommendations on behalf of Indigenous peoples to U.N. agencies and member states, but has been hamstrung by funding cuts and the willingness of other U.N. agencies and global leaders to listen. Annual funding for the U.N. Trust Fund on Indigenous Issues, which helps the Permanent Forum carry out its mission, is at a historic low, falling from more than $300,000 in 2021 to less than $50,000 in 2026. Currently, only three U.N. member states contribute to the fund, down from nine member states in 2006. 

The drop in funding reflects a broader liquidity crisis at the U.N. driven in part by late payments from key members like the U.S. and China. Kotierk said the lack of funding has led to staff reductions at the Forum, shorter meeting times, and fewer interpretation services. 

That didn’t stop the Forum from issuing bold calls to action on Friday, including urging U.N. member states to seriously consider international court rulings to mitigate climate change by 2027, and to legally protect Indigenous lands, especially land belonging to uncontacted tribes. The Forum published multiple reports Friday with recommendations ranging from asking member states to develop legal protections for nomadic Indigenous communities, to urging the Green Climate Fund and Global Environment Facility, multi-billion dollar government-funded global funds, to provide direct funding to Indigenous peoples to mitigate climate change. 

Eirik Larsen, who attended this year’s Forum on behalf of the Saami Council, urged Forum members to consider capping the number of recommendations to maximize their effectiveness, and to ask member states and U.N. entities to report back on whether they’ve implemented recommendations from previous years. 

Larsen said that despite the need for improvement, he keeps returning to the Forum because it’s an important arena for discussing critical issues at the international level. “It’s a unique venue for Indigenous peoples to interact directly with member states,” he said. 

The systemic assessment of the Forum found that many Indigenous survey respondents agreed with Larsen’s appreciation of the Forum, seeing it as “a place of visibility, exchange, and recognition,” the report found. “Yet a large number also characterize it as overly performative, a ‘talk shop,’ or a space in which testimony is heard but not translated into meaningful change.” 

To Ghazali Ohorella, international relations and Indigenous rights advisor of the Alifuru Council, the assessment could not have been issued at a worse time. Just a year ago, the U.N. embarked on a process of restructuring, which could lead to U.N. bodies like the Forum being consolidated or eliminated. Today’s Permanent Forum is the result of decades of advocacy by Indigenous peoples for a dedicated space within the U.N., which by design, privileges the voices of recognized state governments and doesn’t allow Indigenous peoples who remain under colonial rule to vote in the General Assembly. Ohorella is worried that the report — which is based on a survey of 200 respondents, rather than the thousands of attendees over the past 25 years — could give ammunition to the Forum’s detractors. “It allows them to say: See, even Indigenous Peoples themselves identified problems with the Forum. Retire it,” Ohorella said. 

Read Next Indigenous peoples bear the brunt of climate change — and get almost none of the money to fight it Anita Hofschneider

One of the most valuable aspects of the Forum is its ability to elevate issues that otherwise might be ignored, like Indigenous health, which was the main topic of this year’s gathering. “There is no health without land. The well-being of Indigenous Peoples is inseparable from our lands, waters, and territories,” Kotierk said in her closing speech on Friday. “To restore health, we must advance decolonization.” This year, the Forum’s official recommendations urged U.N. member states to disaggregate health data on Indigenous peoples by 2027, and “to treat prolonged climate-induced displacement of Indigenous Peoples as a health emergency.” 

Kotierk said that the Forum has been instrumental in influencing global policies. “This Forum has consistently elevated what the world too often ignored. It has brought visibility to the crisis of Indigenous Peoples’ languages, affirmed the rights and leadership of Indigenous women and girls, and ensured that Indigenous Peoples’ voices are not only present—but heard—in international decision-making,” Kotierk said. 

Yet despite its importance, it’s not easy for Indigenous advocates to participate in the Permanent Forum. Structural barriers that limit participation include challenges obtaining visas — which have worsened under the Trump administration — lack of awareness about the Forum and how to register, and the high cost of travel. In the systemic assessment report, survey respondents suggested the Forum consider holding regional, national and local gatherings “that do not force all meaningful participation through a single annual gathering in New York.” 

Mariah Hernandez-Fitch, a first-year law student at Emory University and a member of the United Houma Nation, attended the Forum for the first time as a youth fellow for the Ban Ki-Moon Foundation. Hernandez-Fitch has never been abroad and this was her first time participating in a global Indigenous space. “It was beautiful to see people not all in suits,” she said. “Seeing people in their cultural attire, their formal wear, that was very exciting to me.” She listened to someone from Vietnam speak about how climate change was affecting their community and was moved by how similar their experience was to her family’s experience with rising seas in southeastern Louisiana. 

But she also felt overwhelmed by the process, confused by when the side events were happening, and ended up not delivering a planned statement, in part because she was intimidated by the process. “There’s rules, but if you don’t know about them, you do feel out of place even in a space that is for Indigenous peoples,” she said. 

Still, now that she’s back in New Orleans, Hernandez-Fitch can see herself returning to the Forum. “I can see myself applying the law and my experience into those spaces,” she said. “I could see myself not being scared of making an intervention.” It helped to meet other Indigenous youth who care just as much as she does about making a difference. “There’s a communal kind of excitement and I feel excited for the future.”

Conversations about how to make the Forum more effective will continue at next year’s gathering, which will be held from May 10 to 21 and focus on global progress on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The uncertain future of the UN’s leading voice on Indigenous rights on May 6, 2026.

Labour inaction on poison weedkillers Channel News brendan 6th May 2026 Teaser Media

Energetická transformace k obnovitelným zdrojům nabírá v celé Evropě na tempu. V ekologickém hnutí přitom vznikají spory mezi zastánci rychlého budování rozsáhlé obnovitelné infrastruktury a stoupenci participace místních komunit.

Až donedávna panoval v energetické politice západního světa opatrný konsensus: udržovat stávající model založený na fosilních palivech a zároveň vlažně podporovat dekarbonizaci. Tento konsensus se nyní bortí a energetickou politiku v rostoucí míře určuje otevřený konflikt.

Političtí aktéři hájící zájmy fosilního průmyslu se čím dál nepokrytěji staví proti energetické transformaci, což se projevuje zejména rostoucím odporem vůči projektům rozvoje obnovitelných zdrojů. V Evropské unii se zvlášť na krajní pravici prosazuje rétorika proti obnovitelným zdrojům, která vykresluje větrnou a solární energetiku jako ekonomicky nevýhodnou, diktovanou shora a odtrženou od „reálných“ potřeb běžných lidí.

Rychlý rozmach obnovitelných zdrojů však nenaráží jen na zájmy fosilního průmyslu. Vyvolává také spory mezi aktéry, kteří v zásadě zelenou transformaci podporují.

Na lokální a regionální úrovni se řada ekologických organizací postavila proti konkrétním projektům, jež jsou součástí přechodu k obnovitelné energetice. Například v jižní Francii podnikly spolky jako France Nature Environnment a Liga za ochranu ptactva (LPO) právní kroky proti parkům větrných elektráren, které v chráněných lokalitách ohrožovaly vzácné ptačí druhy. V jižním Španělsku zahájila skupina Ecologistas en Acción kampaň proti projektu rozsáhlé solární elektrárny s odůvodněním, že by znehodnotil půdu a narušil místní flóru.

Tyto debaty nejsou jen typickými příklady sporů o ekologickou spravedlnost či odporu místních obyvatel k výstavbě v jejich okolí (tzv. NIMBY efekt — z anglického Not In My Backyard, tedy Ne na mém dvorku), přestože se s nimi v mnoha ohledech prolínají. Jde spíše o ukázku konfliktů uvnitř zeleného hnutí — o střety mezi navzájem soupeřícími ekologickými prioritami.

Aktéři uvedených sporů se sice shodnou na potřebě dekarbonizace a ochrany přírody, ale rozcházejí se v tom, jaké typy obnovitelných zdrojů by se měly využívat, kde by se elektrárny měly stavět a kdo o tom má rozhodovat. Jelikož jsou spory daného typu čím dál častější a mají zásadní politické důsledky, zasluhují si zevrubnější analýzu, o niž se tu chci pokusit.

Soupeření mezi prioritami

Termín „green-on-green conflicts“, tedy konflikty uvnitř zeleného hnutí, zavedl v roce 2004 britský geograf Charles Warren. Inspiroval se přitom vojenským výrazem „blue-on-blue“, který označuje střelbu do vlastních řad. Warren už tehdy upozornil, že podobné střety předznamenávají budoucí debaty v rámci ekologického hnutí: „Společnost se přiklonila k zelené politice, ale jakou podobu by zelená politika měla vlastně mít?“

Spory mezi ekologickými aktivisty se často točí kolem umístění energetické infrastruktury, ochrany ohrožených druhů či procesů plánování, v principu se však jedná o konflikty politické. Nutí nás totiž klást si otázky, kdo v rámci zelené transformace definuje veřejný zájem a co lze ještě považovat za přijatelné vedlejší škody.

Spory uvnitř zeleného hnutí nejsou ničím novým. Odrážejí dlouhodobé napětí mezi různými proudy, které hlavní důraz kladou na odlišné aspekty ekologické krize. Nejčastěji proti sobě v posledních desetiletích stanuly dva tábory. Na jedné straně to jsou ti, kteří usilují o zmírnění klimatické změny a upřednostňují rychlou, systémovou transformaci ve spolupráci s vládami a průmyslem, což zahrnuje i výstavbu rozsáhlé infrastruktury.

Proti nim se postavili ti, kteří hájí zájmy místních komunit a regionů a akcentují ochranu biodiverzity, půdy a přírodních zdrojů. Popsanou dělicí linii bychom neměli přeceňovat, faktem ale zůstává, že v řadě sporů uvnitř zeleného hnutí stojí proti sobě právě uvedené dvě skupiny, což odráží také dlouhodobý střet mezi odlišnými politickými kulturami uvnitř hnutí.

Ačkoli do odporu proti projektům v oblasti obnovitelné energie často vstupují i jiné příčiny, konflikty mezi ekologickými aktéry si zasluhují zvláštní pozornost. V zemích EU vedla zrychlující se energetická transformace v posledním desetiletí k čím dál častějším a viditelnějším střetům daného typu.

Každý ze sporů je sice zasazen do specifických místních souvislostí, které nelze vždy snadno zobecnit, přesto se do nich často promítají podobné vzorce. Zatímco evropská fosilní energetika se obvykle opírá o těžbu v odlehlých oblastech a o infrastrukturu soustředěnou do nemnoha lokalit, zelená transformace spočívá na početnějších a územně rozptýlených zdrojích výroby energie. Tím se produkce energie dostává do mnohem těsnějšího kontaktu s obydlenou krajinou a místními komunitami.

Při prosazování projektů energetické transformace se obvykle argumentuje naléhavou potřebou dekarbonizace, křehkou energetickou bezpečností či nutností dosáhnout energetické nezávislosti. Odpor proti projektům obnovitelné energetiky naopak postrádá jednotný scénář. Bývá spíše situační, promítají se do něj specifika daných projektů a jejich konkrétní dopady na místní přírodu a krajinu. Navzdory různorodosti odporu lze říci, že jednotlivé sektory energetiky zpravidla vyvolávají specifické typy protestů podle konkrétního dopadu na životní prostředí.

Ohniska sporů

Zřejmě nejčastější a rovněž nejdiskutovanější příčinou sporů uvnitř zeleného hnutí je výstavba větrných elektráren, které v Evropské unii vyrábějí asi čtyřicet procent obnovitelné energie. Jedním z důvodů je jejich nepřehlédnutelnost. Vnitrozemské větrné parky proměňují ráz krajiny a výrazně zasahují do životního prostředí, čímž vyvolávají tradiční formy odporu proti velkým infrastrukturním stavbám.

Dobře je to vidět na příkladu Galicie v severozápadním Španělsku. V regionu, který byl kdysi největším španělským producentem větrné energie, nyní naráží rozšiřování pevninských větrných elektráren na tvrdý odpor. Ekologické organizace vystupují proti desítkám nových projektů a podávají stovky žalob s argumentem, že rychlá výstavba ničí krajinu i chráněné oblasti.

Řada projektů tak byla dočasně pozastavena, což vyvolalo bouřlivou celospolečenskou debatu. Kampaň přitom neodmítla větrnou energii jako takovou: odpůrci naopak zdůrazňují, že větrná energie je „pro ochranu planety před dopady současné klimatické krize zásadní“. Svou kritiku však směřují proti „spekulativnímu a predátorskému modelu“ rozsáhlých projektů větrných elektráren, které jsou prosazovány shora v zájmu velkých energetických korporací.

Takovýto přístup podle nich může způsobit „nezvratné ekologické, kulturní, společenské a ekonomické škody“. Podobné spory kolem větrných parků se objevily také v dalších částech Evropy, například v Německu, Švédsku nebo na Kypru.

Podobné diskuse vyvolávají i solární projekty, které zajišťují asi čtvrtinu evropské energie z obnovitelných zdrojů. Například plány na projekt Dama Solar v rumunské župě Arad, který se měl stát největším fotovoltaickým parkem v Evropě, napadlo u soudu místní ochranářské sdružení. Jeho zástupci tvrdí, že umístění projektu do chráněného území Natura 2000 ohrožuje tamní vzácné druhy.

Konflikt postavil ochranáře do přímého střetu s developery a státními úřady, kteří projekt hájí jako nezbytný pro dosažení klimatických cílů a posílení energetické bezpečnosti země. Celý spor, který byl později po mimosoudní dohodě pozastaven, odráží širší vzorec, s nímž se můžeme setkat třebas i v některých částech Francie, Španělska a Polska.

Vedle větrné a solární energetiky jsou tu ovšem i další základní pilíře transformace, které sice nepřitahují tolik pozornosti, ale jsou právě tak klíčové. Posilování přenosových sítí nebo výroba baterií rovněž vyvolává na různých místech v Evropě spory uvnitř zeleného tábora. Vůbec nejsilnější odpor se však zvedá proti těžbě některých kritických surovin; vlna protestů proti těžařským projektům se objevila v zemích jako Srbsko nebo Švédsko.

V severním Portugalsku vyvolaly vlnu odporu plány na těžbu lithia nedaleko obce Covas do Barroso. Ačkoli úřady projekt prezentovaly jako strategický příspěvek k evropské energetické transformaci, místní obyvatelé a ekologické organizace okamžitě zareagovali demonstracemi a přípravou právních kroků.

Protestující mluvili o tom, že jejich krajina má být „obětována“ a že zdejší životní prostředí utrpí jen proto, aby dekarbonizace pokročila někde jinde. Vadilo jim také, že rozhodnutí přišlo shora bez ohledu na jejich názor. Jedna z organizací, která se na protestech podílela, Unidos em Defesa de Covas do Barroso, shrnula kritiku argumentem, že „energetická transformace, která obětuje životní prostředí a je komunitám vnucena shora, místo aby vznikala ve spolupráci s nimi, přehlíží zkušenosti místních lidí s jejich vlastní krajinou a vytváří nebezpečný nedemokratický precedent“.

Od klimatu ke krajině

Stále častější konflikty uvnitř zeleného hnutí svědčí o hlubších rozporech v pojetí ekologického aktivismu. Patrná je zejména rostoucí nespokojenost s tím, že se výhradním středobodem ekologických kampaní stává samo klima. Některé proudy radikálního ekologického hnutí dnes vnímají „klima“ jako příliš abstraktní a technokratické téma, které je navíc úzce svázáno s politikou establishmentu.

Jejich skepse často pramení z frustrace z mainstreamové klimatické politiky, kterou mnozí považují za příliš pomalou a neefektivní. Takováto kritika zaznívá už dlouho, širší odezvy se jí však začalo dostávat až po neúspěchu klimatických protestů v roce 2019. Většina účastníků akcí tehdy nabyla dojmu, že ani masová mobilizace veřejnosti nevedla k prosazení smysluplné politické změny.

Zatím nelze hovořit o tom, že by v Evropě obrat od soustředění na klima ke komplexnějšímu vnímání ekologické krize nastával v širším měřítku, některé případy však naznačují, že se takováto dynamika začíná postupně prosazovat. Jasným příkladem je francouzská radikální organizace Povstání země (Les Soulèvements de la Terre), která sdružuje aktivisty různých názorových proudů včetně těch, kteří jsou rozčarováni vývojem dosavadních klimatických protestů. Francouzská organizace prohlašuje, že klimatická politika zůstává odtržená od žité reality, a namísto toho vybízí k lokálním zápasům, které „vracejí ekologické hnutí zpátky na zem“.

Uvedený obrat je zčásti odrazem lokálního ekologického aktivismu. Odpor proti projektům energetické transformace často navazuje na dlouhodobé tradice hnutí proti jaderným elektrárnám, budování přehrad, těžbě či průmyslovému zemědělství. Takováto hnutí obvykle chápou ekologický konflikt jako obranu krajiny a každodenního života proti vzdáleným centrům politické a ekonomické moci.

Historicky se takovéto iniciativy vyvíjely v určitém odstupu od agendy klimatické transformace. S tím, jak se nyní přechod k zelené energii zrychluje, napětí mezi různými tradicemi ekologického hnutí vystupuje na povrch a v některých případech přerůstá v otevřený konflikt.

Svou roli hraje také rostoucí vliv antikapitalistických postojů v ekologickém aktivismu. Pro mnohé skupiny totiž není hlavním tématem sama dekarbonizace, ale spíše její prosazování prostřednictvím tržních mechanismů. Z tohoto pohledu se zelený průmysl nejeví jako rozchod s minulostí, ale spíš jako stará známá logika exploatace zdrojů a kumulace kapitálu v novém kabátě.

To pak znemožňuje přistoupit na to, jak si energetickou transformaci představují vlády či korporace, a to i v situacích, kdy panuje široká shoda na nutnosti skoncovat s fosilními palivy. Popsané posuny nám pomáhají pochopit, proč se určité proudy zeleného aktivismu přiklánějí stále více k lokálním konfliktům a jak spolu s tím vzrůstá i nedůvěra vůči klimatické politice. Objasňuje se tím také vznik nových spojenectví mezi radikálními ekologickými aktivisty, ochranářskými organizacemi a obyvateli venkovských či příměstských oblastí.

Spory o pojetí zelené politiky míří do vyšších pater

Vnitřní konflikty zeleného hnutí se neprojevují jen lokálními protesty, ale stále častěji pronikají i do vysoké politiky. Ačkoli obě roviny nemusí být vždy přímo provázané, často zrcadlí stejné základní napětí.

To jen potvrzuje, že nejednotnost hnutí zdaleka není jen záležitostí lokálních sporů. U některých ekologicky zaměřených stran to pak vede k odmítání dekarbonizačních projektů, které by vyžadovaly jakékoli kompromisy.

Ačkoli se rétorika politických stran nemusí vždy přesně krýt s argumenty v lokálních sporech „zelených proti zeleným“, často s nimi sdílí podobnou vnitřní logiku. Příklady z nedávné doby najdeme po celé Evropě. Ve švýcarském kantonu Valais se například postavila Strana zelených proti vybudování fotovoltaických elektráren v alpských oblastech. V Portugalsku se zase levicový Bloco de Esquerda zapojil do kampaní proti těžbě lithia, v níž varuje před ničivými dopady na tamní krajinu.

Další, taktéž výmluvný příklad najdeme ve Španělsku, kde se podobný střet odehrál na parlamentní půdě. Poté, co zemi v roce 2025 postihl rozsáhlý výpadek elektrické energie, navrhla vláda opatření k posílení stability distribuční sítě a navýšení podpory obnovitelných zdrojů.

Vládní návrh byl však nakonec zamítnut, a to i s přispěním levicové strany Podemos, která se k zelené politice jinak hlásí. Její poslanci argumentovali tím, že reformy nijak neposilují veřejné vlastnictví ani demokratickou kontrolu, a naopak obsahují hrozbu, že upevní pozici stávajících energetických hráčů.

Uvedené obavy nebyly neopodstatněné. Bezprostředním důsledkem však byla patová situace: vládní návrh byl smeten ze stolu a žádná alternativní opatření se nepřijala. Odmítání obnovitelných energetických projektů s odůvodněním, že přinášejí prospěch především energetickým gigantům, se stalo trvalou součástí rétoriky Podemos.

Všechny uvedené případy mají jeden společný rys: aktéři, kteří nenesou přímou odpovědnost za dodávky energií a politiku v oblasti průmyslu, snáze odmítají kompromisy spojené s energetickou transformací. Naproti tomu ti, kteří jsou u moci, jsou strukturálně nuceni na ústupky přistupovat.

Nevyhnutelné napětí

Evropské spory uvnitř zeleného hnutí nabývají na intenzitě v kontextu zcela specifické politické situace. Odehrávají se v kontextu celosvětové vlny odporu proti ekologické politice, což se v Evropské unii projevuje rostoucí snahou vytlačit ekologický aktivismus na okraj. Evropská unie se přitom paradoxně snaží urychlit budování energetické a průmyslové infrastruktury založené na obnovitelných zdrojích, a to navzdory mnohým rozporům ve svém vlastním zeleném programu. Popsaná dynamika pak vyvolává stále naléhavější otázky ohledně směřování evropské ekologické politiky.

Popsaný vývoj lze interpretovat jako upevňování jakéhosi evropského energetického státního zájmu (raison d’état). Členské státy a instituce Evropské unie se stále častěji zaštiťují klimatickými cíli a energetickou bezpečností a velké energetické a průmyslové projekty označují za strategickou prioritu, kterou je nutno realizovat rychle a bez zbytečných průtahů.

Takovýto trend potvrzují i nedávné politické změny, jako je zrychlení schvalovacích procesů či upřednostňování strategických projektů. V unijním politickém diskursu se už energetická transformace nezdůvodňuje ani tak ochranou lidí a životního prostředí, jako spíše nutností zachovat konkurenceschopnost prostřednictvím ambiciózních, velkokapacitních projektů.

Bude-li takovýto vývoj pokračovat cestou oslabování ekologických pojistek, pravidel územního plánování a veřejné kontroly, lze očekávat, že i vnitřní střety v zeleném hnutí naberou na síle a prohloubí se polarizace. Některé spory pak mohou přerůst institucionální rámec a nabývat ostře konfrontačních podob.

Fragmentace zeleného hnutí znamená velké politické riziko — zejména v době, kdy ekologičtí aktéři potřebují utvářet široké a stabilní koalice, aby dokázali čelit sílícímu odporu vůči klimatické politice. Má-li zelený tábor prosadit podstatné změny, musí najít společnou řeč napříč celým spektrem zastánců zelené transformace, aby se rozdílné priority dařilo překonat jednáním, spíše než aby vedly k rozkolům.

Nicméně soudržnost nelze vynucovat. Mnohé požadavky, které ve vnitřních konfliktech zeleného hnutí zaznívají, jsou zcela legitimní. Projekty energetické transformace často prosazují hráči, jejichž prioritou je korporátní zisk, nikoli ekologické či sociální zájmy — a škody, které působí, jsou zcela reálné.

Mnozí z těch, kdož se odvolávají na naléhavost situace, se často jen pokoušejí odsunout požadavky na participaci, inkluzi či spravedlnost na vedlejší kolej. Z tohoto pohledu jsou debaty uvnitř zeleného hnutí nezbytné. Nutí totiž centra moci ke konfrontaci s konkrétními místy, kde zelená transformace získává svou hmatatelnou podobu, a podtrhují zásadní argument: energetická transformace si nemůže nárokovat legitimitu, pokud při své realizaci ničí ekosystémy, biotopy a místní komunity.

Na hlubší úrovni popsané rozpory odrážejí ústřední dilema klimatické krize. Dekarbonizace musí proběhnout rychle a ve velkém měřítku, jenže aktéři, kteří by ji dokázali provést sociálně spravedlivě a s citlivostí ke krajině, momentálně nemají v rukou politickou moc.

Vzhledem k naléhavosti a rozsahu celého úkolu si lze jen stěží představit, že by energetická transformace mohla proběhnout hladce a bez třenic, a to i za těch nejpříznivějších politických okolností. Ačkoli tedy zůstává hlavním úkolem budování rozsáhlých akceschopných koalic k odvrácení klimatické katastrofy, vnitřní konflikty v zeleném hnutí budou pravděpodobně přetrvávat.

Takovéto spory nejsou chybou v procesu zelené transformace, nýbrž jen symptomem toho, jak hluboko do různých vrstev ekologické a politické reality celý proces zasahuje. Z toho důvodu je bezkonfliktní transformace nejen nerealistická, ale dost možná i nežádoucí. Skutečnou otázkou tedy není, jak střetům mezi zastánci zelené politiky zabránit, ale zda je lze zvládat tak, aby se zelené hnutí mohlo stát silou, která energetickou transformaci usměrní, namísto toho, aby ji paralyzovalo.

Despite Scotland's lack of power over immigration policy, migrant justice remains central to the 2026 election, writes Cailean Gallagher

The post Elections 2026: Immigration, employment and the limits of Holyrood appeared first on Red Pepper.

Survey finds most Australians support cap for diesel fuel rebate, and most didn't even know mining companies pocketed so many billions from the policy.

The post Survey finds most Australians support fuel tax credit cap, and didn’t know miners pocketed so many billions appeared first on Renew Economy.

Federal government to spend $10 billion to "future proof" supply of fuel and fertiliser, but critics not impressed.

The post National fuel reserve “future-proofed” in $10 billion plan, but critics say it is “junk logic” appeared first on Renew Economy.