News Feeds

Antimining Barricade Torn Down In Palawam - But Indigenous People Resistance Will Not Be Silenced

Palawan — long celebrated as the Philippines’ last ecological frontier — is now ground zero for a disturbing pattern: mining incursions advancing with impunity, and Indigenous Peoples’ rights being trampled by the very institutions mandated to protect them.

On March 26, in Sitio Linao, Barangay Ipilan, Brooke’s Point, Pala’wan communities watched in shock as two backhoes belonging to Calmia Nickel Inc. (CNI) crossed the invisible boundary that has safeguarded their upland ancestral domain for generations. For the first time, heavy machinery penetrated a landscape where selfsufficiency still thrives: forests rich with wildlife, upland rice and cassava fields, and dozens of freshwater springs sustaining entire communities.

Support the Pala’wan

What you can do: to support this struggle, please sign and send this email letter to Hon. Cesareo Benedito Jr., Mayor of Brooke’s Point, including also the other electronic addresses in Cc.

/* Contenedor */ .palawan-actions { width: 100%; padding: 30px 20px; box-sizing: border-box; } .palawan-actions-desktop, .palawan-actions-mobile { align-items: center; justify-content: center; flex-wrap: wrap; gap: 14px; } /* Botones */ .palawan-actions .palawan-button { position: static !important; display: inline-flex !important; align-items: center; justify-content: center; float: none !important; width: auto !important; min-height: 48px; margin: 0 !important; padding: 12px 22px !important; background: #94164f !important; color: #ffffff !important; border: 2px solid #94164f !important; border-radius: 4px !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px !important; font-weight: 700 !important; line-height: 1.2 !important; letter-spacing: 0 !important; text-align: center; text-decoration: none !important; white-space: nowrap; cursor: pointer; box-shadow: 0 3px 8px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14); transition: background-color 0.2s ease, color 0.2s ease, border-color 0.2s ease, transform 0.2s ease; } /* Evita el ícono y el desplazamiento automático de Divi */ .palawan-actions .palawan-button::before, .palawan-actions .palawan-button::after { display: none !important; content: none !important; } .palawan-actions .palawan-button:hover, .palawan-actions .palawan-button:focus { padding: 12px 22px !important; background: #ffffff !important; color: #94164f !important; border-color: #ffffff !important; transform: translateY(-2px); } .palawan-actions .palawan-button:focus-visible { outline: 3px solid rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.6); outline-offset: 3px; } /* Escritorio */ .palawan-actions-desktop { display: flex; } .palawan-actions-mobile { display: none; } /* Tablet y celular */ @media only screen and (max-width: 980px) { .palawan-actions { padding: 24px 20px; } .palawan-actions-desktop { display: none !important; } .palawan-actions-mobile { display: flex !important; } } /* Celular */ @media only screen and (max-width: 480px) { .palawan-actions-mobile { flex-direction: column; gap: 12px; } .palawan-actions .palawan-button { width: 100% !important; max-width: 280px; white-space: normal; } } Send with Gmail Send with Outlook Copy letter Open email app Copy letter function getPalawanActionSubject() { if (!window.palawanSelectedSubject) { const subjects = [ "Protect Brooke's Point and Palawan's Indigenous communities", "Stand with the Indigenous communities of Palawan", "Urgent action needed to protect Brooke's Point", "Defend Palawan's forests and Indigenous rights", "Stop mining expansion in Brooke's Point", "Protect Palawan's Last Ecological Frontier", "Respect Indigenous rights in Brooke's Point", "Appeal to protect Brooke's Point from mining" ]; window.palawanSelectedSubject = subjects[Math.floor(Math.random() * subjects.length)]; } return window.palawanSelectedSubject; } function getActionEmailData() { return { to: 'brookespointmayorsoffice@gmail.com', cc: [ 'mabuhay@palawan.gov.ph', 'tjsmatta@gmail.com', 'oed@pcsd.gov.ph', 'ohea@denr.gov.ph', 'region4b@ncip.gov.ph', 'jenmarcantonjos@gmail.com', 'ich@unesco.org', 'comite.liaison.ong@unesco.org' ].join(','), subject: getPalawanActionSubject(), body: `Dear Mayor Benedito, With each passing month, I continue to receive deeply troubling reports regarding the accelerating intrusion of mining operations within Palawan, a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve. Along with many concerned individuals worldwide, I am particularly alarmed by developments in the Municipality of Brooke's Point, where the mining tenements of companies such as Ipilan Nickel Corporation (INC) and Calmia-MacroAsia overlap with the Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (MMPL), an area of both national and international ecological significance. Allowing further degradation in these zones risks irreversible consequences for the island's sustainable future. Public records reveal that at least 218,854 trees have already been targeted under "Special Tree Cutting and EarthBalling Permits" for mining operations in Palawan. This number is staggering - not only because of the trees themselves, but because each permit threatens watersheds, biodiversity, soil stability and the entire ecological system that sustains life on the island. It is disheartening to learn of the Municipal Government's recent endorsement of the business permit renewal for Ipilan Nickel Corporation - an action that would authorize the cutting of approximately 32,000 trees in primary forest. I sincerely hope that this decision, supported by nine members of the Sangguniang Bayan, can still be reconsidered and ultimately reversed in the interest of long-term environmental stewardship. I am equally concerned about the situation in Sitio Linao, where the barricade erected by Indigenous residents to stop Calmia's heavy equipment was dismantled on 29 June. This community has safeguarded and sustainably managed its environment for generations, and their grievances merit urgent attention and meaningful action. They are not alone in facing the impacts of mining; the livelihoods of farmers and fisherfolk across Brooke's Point are already being undermined, as seen in the experience of barangay Maasin proper. This pattern of harm cannot be allowed to continue. I respectfully urge your office not to endorse a business permit to Calmia Nickel Inc. and to ensure that existing operations - particularly those of INC - are not permitted to expand, and ideally are halted altogether. While the recent provincial moratorium on new mining applications is a welcome step, it is discouraging to learn that several officials are circumventing it with increasing ease and impunity. Please be assured that the international network of civil society organizations is closely monitoring the situation in Palawan and remains committed to supporting efforts to protect what has long been recognized as the "Philippines' Last Ecological Frontier." As Mayor, you hold the authority and responsibility to ensure that Brooke's Point remains one of the greenest and most beautiful municipalities in Palawan. I earnestly hope that you will use your mandate to safeguard the forests that Indigenous peoples have protected for centuries, so that future generations may inherit a landscape that remains intact, vibrant, and life-sustaining. Respectfully, [Your Name]` }; } function openActionEmail(type) { const data = getActionEmailData(); if (type === 'gmail') { window.open( 'https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1' + '&to=' + encodeURIComponent(data.to) + '&cc=' + encodeURIComponent(data.cc) + '&su=' + encodeURIComponent(data.subject) + '&body=' + encodeURIComponent(data.body), '_blank' ); } if (type === 'outlook') { window.open( 'https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/compose?' + 'to=' + encodeURIComponent(data.to) + '&cc=' + encodeURIComponent(data.cc) + '&subject=' + encodeURIComponent(data.subject) + '&body=' + encodeURIComponent(data.body), '_blank' ); } if (type === 'mailto') { window.location.href = 'mailto:' + data.to + '?cc=' + encodeURIComponent(data.cc) + '&subject=' + encodeURIComponent(data.subject) + '&body=' + encodeURIComponent(data.body); } } function copyPalawanLetter(button) { const data = getActionEmailData(); const completeText = 'TO: brookespointmayorsoffice@gmail.com\n' + 'CC: mabuhay@palawan.gov.ph, tjsmatta@gmail.com, oed@pcsd.gov.ph, ohea@denr.gov.ph, region4b@ncip.gov.ph, jenmarcantonjos@gmail.com, ich@unesco.org, comite.liaison.ong@unesco.org\n\n' + data.body; const textArea = document.createElement('textarea'); textArea.value = completeText; textArea.setAttribute('readonly', ''); textArea.style.position = 'fixed'; textArea.style.top = '0'; textArea.style.left = '0'; textArea.style.width = '1px'; textArea.style.height = '1px'; textArea.style.padding = '0'; textArea.style.border = '0'; textArea.style.fontSize = '16px'; textArea.style.opacity = '0.01'; document.body.appendChild(textArea); textArea.focus(); textArea.select(); textArea.setSelectionRange(0, completeText.length); let copied = false; try { copied = document.execCommand('copy'); } catch (error) { copied = false; } document.body.removeChild(textArea); if (copied) { showCopyConfirmation(button); return; } /* Segundo intento para navegadores compatibles */ if (navigator.clipboard && window.isSecureContext) { navigator.clipboard.writeText(completeText) .then(function () { showCopyConfirmation(button); }) .catch(function () { showManualCopy(completeText); }); } else { showManualCopy(completeText); } } function showCopyConfirmation(button) { const originalText = button.textContent; button.textContent = 'Letter copied!'; setTimeout(function () { button.textContent = originalText; }, 2000); } function showManualCopy(text) { window.prompt( 'Press and hold the text, then select Copy:', text ); }

According to tribal leader Panglima Celso Paida,

“The company entered our ancestral domain without consulting us at all. We had no choice but to act immediately and set up a community barricade to stop further intrusions. In spite of this, they’re leveling an area where they, supposedly, plan to put up their building.”

For nearly three months, indigenous residents guarded the barricade day and night. It became a living symbol of resistance – a collective assertion of ancestral rights and a civil society defense of Brooke’s Point’s watersheds, which sustain upland communities, farmers, and fisherfolk downstream.

A Brutal Dismantling — Backed by State Agencies

On June 29, this outpost of Indigenous selfdetermination was dismantled. The operation was carried out with coordination and support from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), Palawan National Police (PNP), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Mining and Geoscience Bureau (MGB) and other agencies.

The order to dismantle the barricade was executed under NCIP Memorandum Order No. 1562026, based on a resolution issued by IPDOBICAMM, an organization whose legitimacy is widely contested by true Pala’wan leaders. In a striking display of bias, NCIP Provincial Director Atty. Jansen Jontilla personally served the dismantling order while wearing a mining helmet — a visual confirmation of where NCIP’s loyalties lie, and a betrayal of the very communities the agency is legally mandated to protect.

Illegitimate Leaders Elevated, True Custodians Ignored

IPDOBICAMM President Julhadi Titte, a key figure behind the dismantling, claimed the barricade violated prior agreements and breached IP rights under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). But Pala’wan leaders reject this narrative outright. One of them argues: “Titte is not a legitimate Indigenous leader, he does not belong to the Pala’wan tribes and IPDOBICAMM does not represent the true custodians of the ancestral domain, across the six ‘barangays’ (administrative units)”. Yet NCIP continues to elevate such figures – a pattern that conveniently aligns with mining interests.

“IPDOBICAMM was created through collusion between mining companies and NCIP. Our legitimate leaders are reorganizing through PEKP (traditional leaders), supported by MKE (women’s groups) and SAMAKA (youth opposing mining).”

A respected Pala’wan representative

A Flawed FPIC Process — Manipulated to Favor Mining

The agreements cited by IPDOBICAMM are deeply questionable. According to legitimate Pala’wan leaders, the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) process was manipulated by NCIP officials. One leader explains: “NCIP validated mining approval through dubious ‘majority’ votes rather than genuine consensus, as required by IPRA.”

An indigenous woman advocate corroborates:

“Several of those consulted are not truly indigenous. They collaborate with mining companies for personal gain. They speak in our name without our consent — and NCIP validates them instead of us.”

Mining Agreements Built on Fraud and Violations

The Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) of MacroAsia Mining Corp., implemented by Calmia Nickel Inc., allegedly received community support leading to NCIP’s issuance of a Certification Precondition (CP). But the consultations involved illegitimate leaders, not the true custodians recognized by local communities.

Indigenous leaders are now demanding an investigation into how the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was secured – and how mining approvals were pushed through despite widespread opposition.

“Why does NCIP follow the orders of IPDOBICAMM - a group that manages mining royalties - instead of the indigenous community who actually live within the ancestral lands to be mined?”

Victor Colili – Former Brooke’s Point Councillor and Indigenous Peoples’ leader

“NCIP was created to protect Indigenous Peoples, not undermine them. When decisions affecting ancestral domains disregard the voices of those who have long protected these lands, public trust in the institution collapses.”

Mary Jean Feliciano – Vice Mayor of Brooke’s Point

Legal Violations, Broken Promises, and a Threat to a UNESCO Landscape

MacroAsia/Calmia promised nine programs for IPs in the MOA — none have been fulfilled. Their mining tenement overlaps with the Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (MMPL), a UNESCOrecognized biodiversity hotspot feeding 33 rivers and providing ecosystem services valued at US$5.5 billion, supporting 200,000 people.

The project also lacks a business permit from the Brooke’s Point Mayor and should not be allowed to push through, given the Provincial Ordinance No. 3646, which imposes a 50year mining moratorium. Yet enforcement agencies continue to ignore these violations. This reflects a familiar pattern in Philippine resource governance: corruption, clientelism, and impunity, undermining Palawan’s status as a UNESCO Man & Biosphere Reserve and threatening one of the country’s last intact forests.

IPRA Under Attack — A Dangerous Legislative Shift

The Philippines has some of Asia’s strongest Indigenous rights laws. Yet corruption hollow them out. Even the landmark Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) is now under threat. Proposed laws such as House Bill 9608 and House Bill 621 seek to transfer IPRA functions from NCIP to DENR — the same agency whose Mines and Geosciences Bureau grants mining permits. If passed, Indigenous rights would fall under the authority of those who profit from their erosion. This would mark the death of IPRA.

“The destruction of the barricade will not stop us. It will only make us more determined to defend our forest and the future of the coming generations.”

Blockade participants led by Celso Paida

Indigenous Resistance Continues

Despite the dismantling, Indigenous resolve remains unbroken.

The struggle of the Pala’wan and civil society to protect Brooke’s Point’s pristine environment will continue — until mining operations retreat and ancestral domains are respected.

What you can do: To support this struggle, please sign and send this email letter to Hon. Cesareo Benedito Jr., Mayor of Brooke’s Point, including also the other electronic addresses in Cc.

/* Contenedor */ .palawan-actions { width: 100%; padding: 30px 20px; box-sizing: border-box; } .palawan-actions-desktop, .palawan-actions-mobile { align-items: center; justify-content: center; flex-wrap: wrap; gap: 14px; } /* Botones */ .palawan-actions .palawan-button { position: static !important; display: inline-flex !important; align-items: center; justify-content: center; float: none !important; width: auto !important; min-height: 48px; margin: 0 !important; padding: 12px 22px !important; background: #94164f !important; color: #ffffff !important; border: 2px solid #94164f !important; border-radius: 4px !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px !important; font-weight: 700 !important; line-height: 1.2 !important; letter-spacing: 0 !important; text-align: center; text-decoration: none !important; white-space: nowrap; cursor: pointer; box-shadow: 0 3px 8px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14); transition: background-color 0.2s ease, color 0.2s ease, border-color 0.2s ease, transform 0.2s ease; } /* Evita el ícono y el desplazamiento automático de Divi */ .palawan-actions .palawan-button::before, .palawan-actions .palawan-button::after { display: none !important; content: none !important; } .palawan-actions .palawan-button:hover, .palawan-actions .palawan-button:focus { padding: 12px 22px !important; background: #ffffff !important; color: #94164f !important; border-color: #ffffff !important; transform: translateY(-2px); } .palawan-actions .palawan-button:focus-visible { outline: 3px solid rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.6); outline-offset: 3px; } /* Escritorio */ .palawan-actions-desktop { display: flex; } .palawan-actions-mobile { display: none; } /* Tablet y celular */ @media only screen and (max-width: 980px) { .palawan-actions { padding: 24px 20px; } .palawan-actions-desktop { display: none !important; } .palawan-actions-mobile { display: flex !important; } } /* Celular */ @media only screen and (max-width: 480px) { .palawan-actions-mobile { flex-direction: column; gap: 12px; } .palawan-actions .palawan-button { width: 100% !important; max-width: 280px; white-space: normal; } } Send with Gmail Send with Outlook Copy letter Open email app Copy letter function getPalawanActionSubject() { if (!window.palawanSelectedSubject) { const subjects = [ "Protect Brooke's Point and Palawan's Indigenous communities", "Stand with the Indigenous communities of Palawan", "Urgent action needed to protect Brooke's Point", "Defend Palawan's forests and Indigenous rights", "Stop mining expansion in Brooke's Point", "Protect Palawan's Last Ecological Frontier", "Respect Indigenous rights in Brooke's Point", "Appeal to protect Brooke's Point from mining" ]; window.palawanSelectedSubject = subjects[Math.floor(Math.random() * subjects.length)]; } return window.palawanSelectedSubject; } function getActionEmailData() { return { to: 'brookespointmayorsoffice@gmail.com', cc: [ 'mabuhay@palawan.gov.ph', 'tjsmatta@gmail.com', 'oed@pcsd.gov.ph', 'ohea@denr.gov.ph', 'region4b@ncip.gov.ph', 'jenmarcantonjos@gmail.com', 'ich@unesco.org', 'comite.liaison.ong@unesco.org' ].join(','), subject: getPalawanActionSubject(), body: `Dear Mayor Benedito, With each passing month, I continue to receive deeply troubling reports regarding the accelerating intrusion of mining operations within Palawan, a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve. Along with many concerned individuals worldwide, I am particularly alarmed by developments in the Municipality of Brooke's Point, where the mining tenements of companies such as Ipilan Nickel Corporation (INC) and Calmia-MacroAsia overlap with the Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (MMPL), an area of both national and international ecological significance. Allowing further degradation in these zones risks irreversible consequences for the island's sustainable future. Public records reveal that at least 218,854 trees have already been targeted under "Special Tree Cutting and EarthBalling Permits" for mining operations in Palawan. This number is staggering - not only because of the trees themselves, but because each permit threatens watersheds, biodiversity, soil stability and the entire ecological system that sustains life on the island. It is disheartening to learn of the Municipal Government's recent endorsement of the business permit renewal for Ipilan Nickel Corporation - an action that would authorize the cutting of approximately 32,000 trees in primary forest. I sincerely hope that this decision, supported by nine members of the Sangguniang Bayan, can still be reconsidered and ultimately reversed in the interest of long-term environmental stewardship. I am equally concerned about the situation in Sitio Linao, where the barricade erected by Indigenous residents to stop Calmia's heavy equipment was dismantled on 29 June. This community has safeguarded and sustainably managed its environment for generations, and their grievances merit urgent attention and meaningful action. They are not alone in facing the impacts of mining; the livelihoods of farmers and fisherfolk across Brooke's Point are already being undermined, as seen in the experience of barangay Maasin proper. This pattern of harm cannot be allowed to continue. I respectfully urge your office not to endorse a business permit to Calmia Nickel Inc. and to ensure that existing operations - particularly those of INC - are not permitted to expand, and ideally are halted altogether. While the recent provincial moratorium on new mining applications is a welcome step, it is discouraging to learn that several officials are circumventing it with increasing ease and impunity. Please be assured that the international network of civil society organizations is closely monitoring the situation in Palawan and remains committed to supporting efforts to protect what has long been recognized as the "Philippines' Last Ecological Frontier." As Mayor, you hold the authority and responsibility to ensure that Brooke's Point remains one of the greenest and most beautiful municipalities in Palawan. I earnestly hope that you will use your mandate to safeguard the forests that Indigenous peoples have protected for centuries, so that future generations may inherit a landscape that remains intact, vibrant, and life-sustaining. Respectfully, [Your Name]` }; } function openActionEmail(type) { const data = getActionEmailData(); if (type === 'gmail') { window.open( 'https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1' + '&to=' + encodeURIComponent(data.to) + '&cc=' + encodeURIComponent(data.cc) + '&su=' + encodeURIComponent(data.subject) + '&body=' + encodeURIComponent(data.body), '_blank' ); } if (type === 'outlook') { window.open( 'https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/compose?' + 'to=' + encodeURIComponent(data.to) + '&cc=' + encodeURIComponent(data.cc) + '&subject=' + encodeURIComponent(data.subject) + '&body=' + encodeURIComponent(data.body), '_blank' ); } if (type === 'mailto') { window.location.href = 'mailto:' + data.to + '?cc=' + encodeURIComponent(data.cc) + '&subject=' + encodeURIComponent(data.subject) + '&body=' + encodeURIComponent(data.body); } } function copyPalawanLetter(button) { const data = getActionEmailData(); const completeText = 'TO: brookespointmayorsoffice@gmail.com\n' + 'CC: mabuhay@palawan.gov.ph, tjsmatta@gmail.com, oed@pcsd.gov.ph, ohea@denr.gov.ph, region4b@ncip.gov.ph, jenmarcantonjos@gmail.com, ich@unesco.org, comite.liaison.ong@unesco.org\n\n' + data.body; const textArea = document.createElement('textarea'); textArea.value = completeText; textArea.setAttribute('readonly', ''); textArea.style.position = 'fixed'; textArea.style.top = '0'; textArea.style.left = '0'; textArea.style.width = '1px'; textArea.style.height = '1px'; textArea.style.padding = '0'; textArea.style.border = '0'; textArea.style.fontSize = '16px'; textArea.style.opacity = '0.01'; document.body.appendChild(textArea); textArea.focus(); textArea.select(); textArea.setSelectionRange(0, completeText.length); let copied = false; try { copied = document.execCommand('copy'); } catch (error) { copied = false; } document.body.removeChild(textArea); if (copied) { showCopyConfirmation(button); return; } /* Segundo intento para navegadores compatibles */ if (navigator.clipboard && window.isSecureContext) { navigator.clipboard.writeText(completeText) .then(function () { showCopyConfirmation(button); }) .catch(function () { showManualCopy(completeText); }); } else { showManualCopy(completeText); } } function showCopyConfirmation(button) { const originalText = button.textContent; button.textContent = 'Letter copied!'; setTimeout(function () { button.textContent = originalText; }, 2000); } function showManualCopy(text) { window.prompt( 'Press and hold the text, then select Copy:', text ); }

Is your community, organization, or network interested in becoming a YLNM member? Would you like to know more about us? Please send an email enquiry to membership[at]yestolifenotomining.org

Subscribe to our bi-monthly newsletter Suscríbase a nuestro boletín

Yes to Life No to Mining global solidarity network since 2012 | Contact Us

• Follow
• Follow
• Follow
• Follow

The Audubon Society has seen tremendous success across the fifteen certified Bird Cities! All across the state, communities are promoting events, education, and sustainability efforts that are...

Last week, a major trunk line ruptured in Los Angeles, sending thousands of gallons of water rushing down the Sunset Strip and into surrounding neighborhoods. Later that same week, two additional pipe failures caused flooding in Venice. In total, five water main breaks were reported within a single week, raising serious concerns about the city’s aging water infrastructure. 

These incidents are the consequences of relying on outdated infrastructure that is more than a century old. In 2019, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) reported that roughly 29% of the city’s pipes were more than 80 years old, approaching their typical 100-year lifespan.

The latest failures also echo the 2014 rupture of a trunk line on Sunset Boulevard, which released millions of gallons of water onto the UCLA campus, flooding multiple buildings and causing millions of dollars in damage. In the aftermath, the Los Angeles Times found that nearly half of the city’s water pipes had received a condition grade of “C” or lower from officials.

It remains unclear how long repairs to the damaged trunk line in West Hollywood will take. Meanwhile, utility and state leaders continue to prioritize costly projects like the Delta Tunnel rather than addressing California’s urgent need to modernize its aging water infrastructure.

These ruptures are a reminder that California must rethink its approach to water resilience. Southern California should embrace the Water Renaissance Plan by investing in sustainable, local water supplies and practical infrastructure upgrades that strengthen reliability and help prevent future disasters, rather than relying on large-scale water diversion projects.

Read more about last week’s water line breaks:

• More water pipes burst in Venice, Hollywood as Sunset Strip repairs enter Day 4. The Los Angeles Times.
• West Hollywood rupture was L.A.’s worst in years: 17 million gallons spilled, Sunset Boulevard closed for days. The Los Angeles Times.
• ‘Significant progress’ made on ruptured Sunset Strip water main. The Los Angeles Times.
• West Hollywood faces long recovery from massive water main break: ‘It was like whitewater rapids’. The Los Angeles Times.   
• 2 separate water pipe issues flood neighborhoods in Venice, damage underground parking structures. ABC 7 Los Angeles.
• Three ruptured water pipes cause flooding in Venice neighborhoods. CBS Los Angeles.
• Street, homes flooded after water pipe ruptures in Venice. KTLA.
• Two Pipe Failures Flood Venice Days After West Hollywood Water Main Rupture. Westside Current.

Registered nurses at SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital (SLUH) in St. Louis, Mo., will hold a rally on Wednesday, July 22, to protest SSM Health’s termination of two highly skilled and dedicated nurses for participating in protected, concerted union activities.

Ring-necked Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) are one of the world’s most popular game birds, prized as a culinary delicacy and for their beautiful plumage. Although this species is not native to...

Education is a weak point for Ford and his government, and is a potential place where he can be defeated. That requires the unions to stay united and the for the existing public support for education workers to be organized.

The post Education workers can create political crisis for Doug Ford  first appeared on Spring.

As global warming fuels more extreme rainfall in Appalachia, new research finds a link between flooding and opioid deaths.

Read more on E360 →

As fertilizer prices rise and farmers face growing pressure from climate change, researchers in Kenya are looking to an unlikely allies—insects.

At the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, scientists are developing insect-based fertilizers and biopesticides that can improve soil health, reduce dependence on expensive imported agricultural inputs, and help farmers build more resilient agriculture systems.

“The residue that remains behind is an excellent source of organic fertilizer,” Dennis Beesigamukama, a postdoctoral fellow at icipe, tells Food Tank.

The process, he explains, begins with black soldier flies. Researchers feed the insects organic waste, which the larvae convert into protein that can be used in animal feed. What’s left behind is a nutrient-rich organic fertilizer known as frass.

According to icipe, insect-derived fertilizers contain three to nine times more nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium than many conventional organic fertilizers. And they have the potential to increase crop yields by as much as 27 percent compared with similar organic alternatives.

The organization is also developing biological alternatives to synthetic pesticides. Researchers have identified naturally occurring bacteria, fungi, and viruses that target insect pests without harming crops. Several of these biopesticides are already registered for use across Africa, with commercialization underway in Europe, North America, and Asia.

These inputs are designed to become part of integrated pest management systems, helping farmers reduce their dependence on agrochemicals and protect biodiversity.

Beesigamukama says the benefits extend far beyond pest management. Insect-based fertilizers improve soil water retention and support carbon sequestration, making them what he describes as “climate smart” inputs.

The need for alternatives is becoming increasingly urgent. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the overuse and misuse of artificial fertilizers and pesticides contributes to soil degradation, water and air pollution, and human health problems.

At the same time, African farmers remain heavily dependent on imported fertilizers. The International Food Policy Research Institute estimates that roughly 80 percent of fertilizer used across the continent is imported, leaving producers vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and volatile global markets. The World Bank reports that fertilizer prices climbed sharply this year, reaching their highest levels since 2022.

“Insect-based fertilizers, produced from locally available organic waste, create a more resilient and self-sufficient system,” says Beesigamukama.

icipe believes insect-derived agricultural inputs can help farmers reduce costs while strengthening local production capacity. Because they rely on resources that are already available within communities, Beesigamukama says they are “one of the most decentralized and scalable technologies” available to support more resilient food systems across Africa.

For researchers at icipe, insects are more than just bugs. They can be practical tools for helping farmers improve soil health, reduce dependence on imported inputs, and build food systems that are better equipped to withstand economic and climate shocks.

And for farmers facing rising input costs and increasingly unpredictable growing conditions, these insect-based solutions could offer a locally produced, lower-cost alternative that strengthens both livelihoods and ecosystems.

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 icipe

The post At a Kenya Research Center, Insects Are Helping Farmers Reduce Their Reliance on Synthetic Fertilizers and Pesticides appeared first on Food Tank.

Today, House Republican Representative Harriet Hageman introduced legislation under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to revoke California's Clean Air Act waiver allowing the state to enforce stronger than federal greenhouse gas standards for vehicles.

This legislation targets policy that is already fully phased in, which means cars impacted by it are already on the road. The move is the latest attempt by congressional Republicans and the Trump administration to dismantle longstanding clean air protections and undermine states' ability to protect residents from dangerous vehicle pollution.

In response to the bill introduction, Sierra Club Climate Policy Director Patrick Drupp released the following statement:

"Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration are once again putting Big Oil's profits ahead of Americans' health and wallets. California's Clean Air Act waivers have delivered cleaner air, driven innovation, and saved drivers money for decades.

"American families are facing rising costs and worsening climate impacts, and Republicans in Congress are wasting time attacking states’ rights to cleaner air to satisfy Trump’s anti-clean car obsession.

"Nullifying California’s clean vehicle waivers will not make cars more affordable. Sierra Club will continue fighting to defend these lifesaving protections and states' rights to protect the air their residents breathe."

Softly, delicatelyYou weave theStrandsLaden withGratitude, awareness, kindnessOver yourBeloved Braided RiverA gesture of reciprocityAnd knowingHonoring the oneWho welcomes youAnd receives you as none...

National Nurses United President Jamie Brown, RN, will testify at the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ (CPC) shadow hearing, “Universal Healthcare: Now is the Time for Medicare for All,” on Wednesday, July 22. NNU is the largest union of registered nurses, who see everyday how people cannot access or afford the health care they need when they need it.

Maybe we can work together in community to build grassroots power, take direct action, disrupt unjust systems, and resist corporate encroachment.

The post From Fracking to Data Centers—Hamster Wheels and That Same Old Song and Dance appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

A United Nations investigation into deep-sea mining firms will continue after the world’s top maritime court rejected their bid to suspend the inquiry triggered by a US-backed push to extract critical minerals from the ocean floor.

In two orders issued on Saturday, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) declined to halt an inquiry launched by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) into whether permit holders, including Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd (TOML) and Nauru Ocean Resources Inc (NORI), have breached their obligations under UN exploration contracts.

The two companies are subsidiaries of Canadian firm The Metals Company (TMC), which earlier this year sought permits from the United States to commercially mine the deep seabed in an area already covered by its UN exploration licences, bypassing the ISA’s regulatory process.

The inquiry was opened after TMC’s move raised questions over whether its subsidiaries had complied with their contractual obligations to the ISA, which regulates mining in international waters under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. TOML and NORI sued the ISA last June for allegedly targeting them “in breach of due process” and without “good faith”.

• Jul 14, 2026 News UN seabed regulator defends authority as mining firms seek to halt inquiry Campaigners accused deep-sea mining frontrunner The Metals Company of obstructing an inquiry into its subsidiaries. The firm says it is being targeted without procedural basis Read more
• Jul 20, 2026 Justice Flood deaths in West African cities raise fraught issue of slum evictions Deadly floods expose poor urban planning, over-population and spread of informal settlements on disaster-prone land – a problem authorities are struggling to manage Read more
• Jul 17, 2026 Carbon markets Most “zombie credits” locked out of new UN carbon market after China and India snub Fears of a flood of environmentally-dubious carbon credits have faded, with most old projects not able to transition to new UN market Read more

While allowing the inquiry to proceed, the court ordered the ISA to ensure the companies receive due process. Judges said the regulator must explain the factual and legal basis of its inquiry, clarify the procedures being followed and provide TOML and NORI with a meaningful opportunity to respond.

The companies seek to mine an area called the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which holds vast reserves of critical minerals like nickel, manganese and rare earths but is also home to a little-studied deep ocean ecosystem with thousands of unnamed species.

In response to the court’s ruling, the ISA welcomed the decision, saying the inquiry “remains in effect” and would continue “with due regard to all applicable legal requirements”.

Last week, during an annual meeting of its member governments, ISA secretary-general Leticia Carvalho said the resources in the ocean floor are “the common heritage of humankind” and upheld the agency’s role as “more important than ever”.

TMC also welcomed the court decision in a statement and claimed that judges ruled to “protect the rights of TMC subsidiaries”.

“Contractors like NORI and TOML, who have together spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the promise of a fair regulatory framework, should be informed of the factual and legal basis of any non-compliance inquiries, understand the procedure being applied, and receive a meaningful opportunity to respond,” said Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company.

Iridogorgia and bamboo coral pictured around the Johnston Atoll Unit of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (Photo: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research)

Environmental groups said the ruling allows scrutiny of the companies’ actions to continue.

Louisa Casson, deep-sea mining campaigner with Greenpeace, said the “entire litigation has been an egregious waste of time and money”, which was part of the industry’s “textbook distraction tactic” meant to delay the consequences of the inquiry.

“If the inquiry confirms that TMC’s subsidiaries are breaching their contracts, governments must send the strongest possible signal that complicity in unlawful deep sea mining will not be tolerated,” she said.

While the investigation is ongoing, NORI’s contract is set to expire this week and is up for review. Governments asked the ISA to report back and make “make appropriate recommendations” by the next ISA assembly, its main decision-making body, set to take place next week from July 27-31.

The court ordered both the ISA and TMC to submit a report on how they have complied with the ruling by August 31, and called on both to “cooperate and refrain from any action that might lead to aggravating the dispute”.

The post Top maritime court rejects bid to halt UN deep-sea mining inquiry appeared first on Climate Home News.

On Saturday, July 25, over 135 communities (and counting) across the United States will hold vigils, protests, and demonstrations to demand justice for Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, Johan Sebastian Guerrero, and many more who have been killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Neighbors will gather to pay their respects, pray, mourn, and demand ICE OUT!

Find all events here.

On the streets and across the agency’s more than 200 abuse-ridden detention facilities, ICE is making communities less safe. Communities are demanding that the ICE agents involved in these killings, Department of Homeland Security Sec. Markwayne Mullin, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and all related agencies under the Trump administration are held accountable.

We demand:

• Immediate Transparency: DHS must immediately release the key witnesses to Lorenzo’s death and halt their deportation proceedings so they can safely participate in any investigation and legal process.
• Full, Independent Investigations: We demand a transparent investigation into these killings that includes cooperation from all law enforcement agencies and accountability for any officer found to have committed misconduct.
• ICE Out!: We call on all state and local leaders to end the use of state resources to support federal immigration enforcement and remove ICE from our streets. DHS must remove all ICE agents from the streets and all cities and states must stop all coordination with ICE.

On July 7, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Houston while driving a work van with his crew. Only a week later,on July 13, ICE fatally shot 26-year-old Johan Sebastian Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine while his wife and toddler were forced to witness his murder. Both men were beloved members of their communities, killed on their way to work, leaving their families broken.

Since then, two more individuals in Florida and in Georgia have been killed by ICE’s chaotic and violent occupations of U.S. cities.As ICE takes more lives, communities are becoming more outraged and taking to the streets to protest and mourn together. Everyday people now demand action from local and national leaders to stop these federal agencies from killing our neighbors, family and friends. .

The day of action is being planned by volunteers, neighbors, families, and organizations nationwide, with the support of the Disappeared in America project hosted by Public Citizen, the National Day Laborers Organizing Network (NDLON), The Workers Circle, Detention Watch Network and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). A core principle behind all Disappeared In America events is a commitment to nonviolent action.

The fight to save Maryland’s salt marshes will be won in places like Irish Grove Sanctuary on the state’s Eastern Shore. Last month, I stood on a sandy road that runs through the heart of the...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 20, 2026

Environmental organizations across Canada, part of the Canadian Zero Waste Coalition, have submitted joint comments to the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) urging the province to reject a proposal that would classify waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration as renewable energy. If adopted, the proposal would amend Ontario’s Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) Regulation to expand the definition of biomass to include the biogenic fraction of municipal waste burned in waste incinerators. 

The coalition argues that waste incineration is not renewable energy and should not be classified as such. Municipal waste is the product of a linear economy (not a renewable resource) that externalizes the costs of products’ full lifecycles onto municipalities, the public, and the environment. WTE does not advance Ontario’s climate or waste reduction goals and locks communities into costly, polluting, and outdated infrastructure. 

The coalition is calling on Ontario’s government to reject the proposed amendment and instead prioritize policies that encourage waste prevention, reuse, recycling, and composting. 

###

The Canadian Zero Waste Coalition brings together environmental and community organizations from across the country to oppose waste incineration and advance zero waste solutions. Through collaboration, advocacy, and public education, we work to promote policies that reduce waste at its source, protect communities from pollution, and accelerate the just transition to a zero waste economy.

The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) is a member-based, environmental justice network working at the intersection of waste, climate, and justice. In the United States and Canada, GAIA supports grassroots organizations that advance zero waste solutions, challenge the plastics and petrochemical industries, reduce methane emissions, and promote safe, sustainable practices for electric vehicle battery production and recycling.

.stk-ni4yxyk {height:25px !important;}

Press contact:

María Guillén, Communications & Network Development Manager, U.S. & Canada

mariaguillen@no-burn.org 

.stk-3zd1xyr {height:25px !important;} .stk-jg0v64e {height:25px !important;} ENGO-response-to-ERO-on-incineration-as-renewable-energy-updated-signatories-July-2026

The post Environmental Groups Urge Ontario’s Government Not to Classify WTE as Renewable Energy first appeared on GAIA.

Safe food depends on the states Iris Myers July 20, 2026

The recent outbreak of cyclosporiasis, a food-borne illness, has shown we can’t count on the federal government to make sure our food is safe. 

States have always played a central role in the safety of our food, tracking pathogens and inspecting food manufacturing facilities, farms and restaurants. 

The states have become even more important in recent years, as the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agencies that have been underfunded for decades, have laid off experienced food safety experts, conducted fewer inspections, tracked fewer pathogens,including cyclospora, and delayed efforts to trace the source of foodborne illnesses. 

The states are especially important for the safety of food chemicals. 

While states have acted to ban many toxic chemicals from food and food packaging, including chemicals linked to cancer, the FDA has banned just two – and only after states had done so. Some food chemicals have been under review by the FDA for decades.

When it comes to the toxic chemicals in our food, the FDA has a long history of failure. 

It has largely allowed food chemical companies to decide which food chemicals are safe and  permitted these companies to add new chemicals to food without the FDA’s knowledge. 

Now, on behalf of the food industry, some members of Congress want to make things even worse. 

It would block states from keeping our food safe, and would do so both retroactively and prospectively. This isn’t just about stopping states from passing new protections. It would also wipe out laws already in effect. In all, the proposal in Congress could preempt more than 100 state laws, including state and local regulations that keep restaurant food safe. 

Food companies want to block state laws that: 

• Ban PFAS from food packaging and cookware
• Ban BPA and phthalates from food packaging
• Ban synthetic dyes from school foods and lead from lunch boxes 
• Define and remove ultra-processed food from school food. 
• Require testing and reporting on toxic metals in baby foods. 

State and local food labeling laws that apply to food packages and menus, such as allergen warnings, could be blocked. State laws that exempt entrepreneurs who make food at home for sale at farmers markets could be in jeopardy. Enforcement of state laws could also be blocked by the food industry’s proposal, including state laws that allow consumers to sue food companies when they have been injured. 

Even state pet food laws could be invalidated. 

Blocking our states from keeping our food safe – during the nation’s worst food safety outbreak in years – would be hard to stomach. After four recent food safety failures, including the 2024 McDonald’s e. Coli outbreak and three infant formula recalls, we should be making our food safety laws stronger, not weaker. 

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Authors Scott Faber July 20, 2026

Print article Share

The European Commission has put forward new plans to cut emissions under the EU carbon market more slowly, from 2031 onwards. 

On 17 July, the commission presented its long-awaited proposal for reform of the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS). 

It recommended a number of changes, including giving companies free allowances to cover their emissions for longer than previously planned, conditional on climate investment plans. 

The proposal would result in around 2bn tonnes of extra emissions from sectors that are part of the trading system, say WWF and other analysts.  

This means other sectors would need to pick up the slack in order for the EU to stick to its climate goals overall. 

The plan offers a more business-friendly and “savvy” approach, argued EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra in a press conference.

In this Q&A, Carbon Brief outlines the details of the new ETS proposal – which is subject to negotiation with member states – and explores what it could mean for climate action. 

• What is the EU Emissions Trading System?
• What did companies and countries want from the ETS review?
• What is in the new proposal from the European Commission?
• Free allowances extended
• Slowing path to reach zero emissions by a decade
• Aviation
• Auction money
• CO2 removals
• International credits
• Other sectors extended
• Market stability reserve review
• UK-EU ties
• What could the changes mean for greenhouse gas emissions?
• How was the proposal received?
• What is ‘ETS2’?
• What happens next?

Article Contents Expand menu

• What is the EU Emissions Trading System? 
• What did companies and countries want from the ETS review?
• What is in the new proposal from the European Commission?
• Free allowances extended 
• Slowing path to reach zero emissions by a decade
• Aviation 
• Auction money 
• CO2 removals 
• International credits 
• Other sectors extended 
• Market stability reserve review 
• UK-EU ties
• What could the changes mean for greenhouse gas emissions? 
• How was the proposal received? 
• What is ‘ETS2’? 
• What happens next? 

What is the EU Emissions Trading System? 

The EU ETS is a carbon market, which puts a price on the greenhouse gas emissions of companies in power generation, industry, aviation and other sectors.  

It covers everything from electricity generation to steel production, as well as flights within the EU and a handful of other European countries. 

Emissions in these sectors have halved since the ETS launched in 2005, according to the European Commission. 

A European parliament briefing describes the system as a “cornerstone” of EU climate policy, covering around 40% of the bloc’s overall emissions. 

It applies to emissions in all 27 EU countries alongside Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and electricity generation in Northern Ireland. (The UK established its own ETS after Brexit.)

The ETS operates as a “cap and trade” system, which puts a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) that can be emitted within the sectors it covers. 

The “cap” on emissions gradually decreases each year until, eventually, they are expected to reach zero. 

The currency of trade within the system is “allowances”. One allowance is equal to one tonne of CO2-equivalent emissions. 

At present, around 57% of these allowances are bought by companies in auctions. The EU generated around €43bn in revenue from these auctions in 2025.

The remaining 43% of allowances are given to companies for free, to cover some or all of their emissions. 

This is intended to prevent “carbon leakage” – the idea that companies operating in countries with strict climate policies will relocate to countries with looser rules.  

The amount of free allowances varies by sector, depending on factors including the level of competition with overseas firms that do not face a carbon price. 

What did companies and countries want from the ETS review?

Countries and companies have been divided on how they wanted the ETS to evolve. 

Some pushed for more ambition to help meet European climate goals. Others called for it to be rolled back, amid rising costs for businesses. 

In March, 10 countries including Italy, Hungary and Poland wrote a letter to the commission calling the ETS an “existential risk” for key industrial sectors, reported Euronews. 

Italy had earlier even called for the system to be suspended outright. 

France and other countries favoured introducing a slower descent towards bringing the emissions cap to zero by 2039. 

Some steel and chemical companies also criticised the cost burden of the ETS. 

Other organisations focused on calls for stability and predictability in the system. 

In recent weeks, Spain, the Netherlands and five other countries called on the commission to “resist gutting” the ETS in its review, said E&E News. They said the ETS should be strengthened to “ensure long-term investment predictability and regulatory stability”. 

Weakening the system could “undermine investment signals and leave Europe more exposed to fossil-fuel shocks”, said a March 2026 briefing from climate thinktank E3G.

Another E3G briefing said the “risk” is that politicians weaken the system as a short-term economic fix, “undermining one of the EU’s main tools for delivering on its industrial transformation ambitions”. 

Dozens of investment organisations called on EU countries to facilitate a “robust and predictable” ETS. They said that “policy stability is the cheapest investment stimulus available to the EU”. 

In its list of priorities for ETS reform, the NGO Carbon Market Watch said that “now is not the time to backslide” on its aims and terms. 

What is in the new proposal from the European Commission?

The commission’s proposal outlines a number of changes to the ETS, to bring it in line with the EU’s climate goal to cut emissions to 90% below 1990 levels by 2040. 

The review will “bring relief to industry”, the commission says, while also continuing the ETS’ “essential” role in climate action. 

However, others are more sceptical about the impacts it could have on climate action. 

Below, Carbon Brief details the main aspects of the proposal. 

Free allowances extended 

The European Commission proposes to extend free allowances beyond a previously agreed date. 

Free allocations were due to reduce from this year and be fully removed by 2034. 

However, the commission has proposed to extend this to 2038, on the condition that companies receiving free allowances set out how they will invest in decarbonising their EU operations. 

It proposes that from 2031 onwards, 80% of free allowances in the system would be given to companies that have submitted plans for investment in EU decarbonisation. 

The remaining 20% of free allowances would only be allocated to those that can prove they followed through with planned investments and achieved the emissions reductions they had previously outlined. 

This move is a “step in the right direction”, says Dr Kirsten Scholl, the director for EU affairs at thinktank Epico, but it must not “impose excessive administrative burdens”.

The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) was designed to replace the existing system of free allowances in the ETS. 

It is a tax applied to certain imported goods, based on the amount of CO2 emissions released during their production. It began to be phased in at the start of 2026. 

As a result, free allocation is being gradually phased out from 2026-38.

However, the commission has proposed that 15% of free allocations due to be removed  because of CBAM should be reintroduced from 2028, to “reduce the speed at which CBAM is phased-in and mitigate the remaining carbon leakage risk”. 

The commission says that preventing carbon leakage “remains a crucial element” of the ETS.

Pushing back the phase-out of free allowances and the full implementation of CBAM “risks squandering the EU’s credibility with investors and trading partners alike”, says Francesco Lombardi Stocchetti, a policy advisor on sustainable economy at the Bellona Foundation, an environmental NGO. 

“Europe cannot lead the clean industrial transition just by moving the goalposts,” he adds in a statement.

Slowing path to reach zero emissions by a decade

The commission has proposed to cut emissions in the ETS more slowly from 2031 onwards.

This could mean new allowances are able to enter the scheme into the 2040s, instead of ending in 2039 as previously planned. 

But the planned changes are still “aligned” with the EU’s 2040 climate target and net-zero requirement by 2050, says the commission. 

The overall ETS cap on emissions was reduced by 1.7% each year up to 2020 and then by 2.2% annually since 2021. 

It is then agreed to drop by 4.3% over 2024-27 and 4.4% from 2028 onwards. 

Maintaining similar rates after 2030 would not be “realistic”, says the commission’s proposal. 

Instead, it suggests that the cap should fall by 3.7% per year over 2031-35 and by just 1.7% annually over 2036-40. The chart below outlines how this would look.

Different trajectories for allowances in the EU Emissions Trading System over 2030-50, in MtCO2e. Source: Oeko-Institut analysis.

This will make the path to zero emissions within the ETS “more gradual and aligned with domestic climate ambition level”, claims the commission. 

But WWF says that the proposal would allow an extra 2bn tonnes of CO2e to be emitted. (See: What could the changes mean for greenhouse gas emissions?) 

Aviation 

The commission has proposed plans to incorporate more airline emissions into the ETS. 

The plan outlines that, from 2029, all flights departing from the European Economic Area (EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) and landing in other countries within 5,000km of a point in central Europe should be added to the ETS.

This distance means that the changes would not apply to flights landing in China or the US. (Both the US and China have opposed the expansion of ETS coverage for flights.)

The commission also proposes including emissions from private jets and other “business flights” in the ETS. 

It notes that aviation currently accounts for 14% of EU transport emissions. This is expected to skyrocket to around 90% by 2050, given it is more difficult to decarbonise than other modes of transport. 

Some aviation emissions have been included in the ETS since 2012. This included emissions from air travel within the EEA and flights departing from Switzerland and the UK.

The airline industry did not respond favourably to reports of plans to expand beyond this scope. 

On 8 June, the biggest airlines in Europe urged commission president Ursula von der Leyen not to extend the ETS to cover international flights, saying that it would raise ticket prices. 

A study commissioned by Carbon Market Watch found that the ETS encompassing all flights departing from the EEA, not just those within it, would result in a “very small impact on ticket prices and passenger demand”.  

Auction money 

Under the proposed changes, EU countries would need to funnel half of the money they receive from ETS auctions towards decarbonising sectors covered by the system. 

This would amount to more than €100bn in investment for decarbonisation before 2030, says the commission. 

Around three-quarters of the money generated by the ETS has been allocated to EU countries since 2013, the proposal notes.

Since 2023, countries have been required to spend all of this money on climate and energy-related activities – at least on paper. 

But the proposal says the “transparency and effectiveness” of this mechanism has been “insufficient”. 

Currently, only around 5% of the ETS money “directly supports industrial decarbonisation in sectors such as steel, chemicals and fertilisers”, it adds. 

Going forward, the proposal says that 50% should be put towards actions aiding clean-energy plans, industrial decarbonisation and improved waste management, as some examples. 

A briefing by thinktank Institut Montaigne noted that the money generated within the system for EU countries to help finance the energy transition should be “at the heart” of ETS discussions, amid budget constraints in many EU countries at the moment. 

CO2 removals 

The commission has proposed integrating permanent carbon removals into the ETS to “give additional flexibility” for certain sectors that struggle to decarbonise. This action was previously agreed within the terms of the EU’s 2040 climate target.

“Permanent” removals refer to direct air capture with carbon storage and similar measures, rather than temporary removals such as planting trees. 

The removals would be integrated into the system by increasing the allowance cap by an amount equivalent to the number of removals purchased. 

This will set up “additional emission space” for hard-to-abate sectors and also support the “scale-up of the carbon removals industry”, outlines the proposal. 

It also proposes that certain companies, such as shipping and aircraft operators, could compensate for their emissions with their own certified carbon removals. 

These emissions would not be permitted to “go beyond zero”, adds the proposal.

Sven Harmeling, the head of climate at Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, says that adding carbon removals “would weaken the ETS impact, undermine the carbon price and create new loopholes for polluters instead of accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels”. 

The proposal “fails to ensure that only high-integrity removal technologies would be considered”, he adds in a statement. 

However, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Prof Ottmar Edenhofer, describes the move as “an important step”, saying: 

“For the first time, it creates a credible and long-term investment framework for carbon-removal technologies in Europe.”

International credits 

The commission proposes that firms covered by the ETS could make use of “high-integrity” credits bought on the global carbon market from 2036 onwards. 

This relates to the EU’s 2040 climate target, in which up to 5% of the 90% reduction in GHGs can come from global carbon credits. 

Amélie Laurent, a policy advisor in carbon accounting at the Bellona Foundation, says in a statement that these credits “should be in a strategic last resort reserve, not an excuse to avoid doing our homework”. 

Aurora D’Aprile, the EU policy director at the International Emissions Trading Association, notes in a statement: 

“For international credits, early preparation on governance and procurement and greater certainty around a pilot from 2031, will be essential to establish a credible demand signal.” 

Other sectors extended 

The commission has outlined plans to expand the inclusion of the maritime sector in the ETS. 

Maritime accounts for around 4% of the EU’s total emissions. The new proposals for the sector include adding certain small ships of 400-5,000 tonnes to the system.

The proposal also outlines plans to incorporate more waste incineration into the ETS on a gradual basis from 2031. 

Since 2024, some waste-burning companies have been required to monitor and report their emissions under the ETS. But they did not have to purchase credits. 

Now, the commission proposes introducing the sector on a gradual basis. 

Under the proposals, companies would require allowances for 25% of their emissions in 2031, 50% in 2032, 75% in 2033 and 100% from 2034 onwards. 

Market stability reserve review 

The market stability reserve was added to the ETS in 2019 to help stabilise the flow of allowances. 

It acts like an overflow container holding extra allowances. If the number of allowances in the market falls below a certain threshold, more are brought out from the reserve to balance things out. 

Equally, if the market is flooded with too many allowances, depressing prices, then some are removed and put into the reserve. 

The commission has proposed a reform of the reserve, including changing the upper and lower limits for when allowances are released or removed. 

It wants to reduce the rate at which allowances are withdrawn from auctions when they exceed a certain threshold from 24% to 12% from 2028. 

This means that the permits would be able to stay in the market for longer. 

As shown in the chart below, the price of carbon in the EU increased tenfold over 2017-2021, exceeding €80 (£68) per tonne of CO2.  

Carbon price in the EU ETS over 2012-26, in € per tonne of CO2. Credit: Carbon Brief, based on data from Energy Instrat and EEX

Nevertheless, the commission proposal says the reserve was “effective in mitigating price shocks” on the ETS caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the surge in energy prices after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2021. 

UK-EU ties

The EU and UK have agreed in principle to link their carbon markets, but the commission’s proposal says negotiations are still “under progress”.

It adds that the commission “foresees” future financial contributions from the UK to the EU’s ETS, if a final agreement is reached. 

Many companies have called for the systems to be linked. In June, dozens of carbon-capture organisations and industry groups signed a letter calling for greater certainty on EU-UK links to ensure cross-border carbon-capture and storage projects are covered, for example. 

Switzerland’s ETS has been linked to the EU since 2020. 

What could the changes mean for greenhouse gas emissions? 

The European Commission says the ETS plays a “crucial role” in meeting its climate targets “cost-effectively”.

Emissions in the sectors included in the ETS have halved since its launch in 2005, according to the European Commission. 

(Roughly three-quarters of this reduction has come from the power sector, according to Carbon Brief analysis of data compiled by the thinktank Bruegel.)

As highlighted in the chart below, the EU’s overall GHG emissions have dropped by 40% since 1990. 

Greenhouse gas emissions in the EU over 1990-2025 (solid line) and projections out to 2050 (dotted line). The red dots indicate climate targets for 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050. Credit: Carbon Brief, based on data from the European Environment Agency

Climate commissioner Hoekstra told a press briefing that the proposal is “fully aligned” with the EU’s target to cut GHGs to 90% below 1990 levels by 2040. He called the plan “completely climate-law proof”.

He also noted that no other EU policy has contributed to reducing emissions on the scale of the ETS, describing it as a “phenomenal asset”. 

But campaigners and experts are concerned that the proposed changes could slow decarbonisation and put the EU’s climate goals at risk. 

Carbon Market Watch says the plans would “severely weaken” the ETS and “risk undermining the achievement of the EU’s 2040 and 2050 climate targets”. 

The proposals “would represent a major setback for EU climate ambition, weakening incentives to cut emissions, extending reliance on fossil fuels and putting the 2040 climate target at risk”, says a statement from WWF. 

WWF estimates that 2bn extra tonnes of CO2 would be emitted if the proposals were approved in the EU. 

This is similar to analysis by Ingmar Rentzhog, chief executive of the We Don’t Have Time platform and published in Forbes, which puts the figure at around 2.4bn tonnes by 2050. A figure of 2.4bn tonnes is also given in analysis by Benjamin Görlach, the EU climate economics and finance lead at thinktank Agora Energiewende.

Michael Bloss, a German member of the European parliament (MEP) for the European Greens, says the plans would release around 1.4bn tonnes of extra CO2 [likely due to considering a shorter time period]. He describes the proposal as “climate vandalism”. 

Chiara Martinelli, the director of CAN Europe, says:

“Every extra tonne of CO2 allowed under the ETS makes Europe’s climate challenge harder and more expensive. Weakening the ETS now is a gift to polluters that have prioritised shareholder payouts instead of investing in cleaner production.”

How was the proposal received? 

The European Commission’s new ETS proposal has been met with a mixed response. 

Scholl from Epico says the proposal has “important flexibilities that can help address competitiveness challenges and provide greater certainty for industrial investment”. But she adds in a statement: 

“Concerns remain about whether the proposed changes preserve the long-term investment signal of the ETS and sufficiently recognise companies that have already committed to ambitious decarbonisation pathways.”

Edenhofer from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research adds that the proposals provide “clarity on the contribution that emissions trading is intended to make towards the 2040 climate target”. 

Elisa Giannelli, a programme lead at E3G, says in a statement: 

“Today’s proposal might please some, but it risks increasing both the long-term cost and the time needed to deliver the EU’s growth strategy.”

Pepe Escrig, a senior researcher, also at E3G, adds that the commission held onto some of the ETS’ “essential foundation”, but “yielded to political pressure to weaken it as a quick fix to broader challenges”. 

This has left the plan “pull[ing] in two directions: strengthening support for industrial investment while weakening parts of the framework meant to drive it”, says Escrig. 

Andrea Spignoli, the policy manager of sustainable markets at Bellona Europa, says the proposal risks “weakening green investments”.

It also means “more efforts will be needed in other sectors…which come with their own political and economic challenges”, says Agora’s Görlach on LinkedIn. 

Greg Van Elsen, a senior industrial policy coordinator at CAN Europe, says in a statement:

“Free pollution permits were never meant to become a permanent subsidy. Extending them until 2038 rewards delay instead of industrial decarbonisation.”

Lobby groups also had mixed reactions to different aspects of the proposal. 

The International Air Transport Association says it is “deeply frustrated” with the proposal. 

The organisation’s director general, Willie Walsh, claims the consequences will be “harmful”, “sowing acrimony over extraterritoriality, slowing global decarbonisation and sapping European competitiveness”. 

WindEurope says the proposal risks “slowing decarbonisation and failing to channel billions in ETS revenues to industrial electrification”. 

BusinessEurope’s director general, Markus J Beyrer, says some aspects “raise concerns”. For example, he says the “new conditionalities for free allocations risk increasing bureaucratic complexity and the uncertain role for international carbon credits”. 

What is ‘ETS2’? 

ETS2 is a separate emissions trading system to the main ETS. It is due to take effect in 2028 and is not affected by the current ETS review or resultant proposals. 

It will operate under a similar system as the existing ETS, covering emissions from transport, buildings and smaller industries in other sectors.

One key difference, however, is that ETS2 will not provide any allowances for free. They will all be auctioned and bought by companies. 

On 15 July, 10 countries, including Italy and Poland, had urged the commission to also reconsider the ETS2 during this review. They were unsuccessful. 

Similar to the original ETS, the commission believes the carbon price under the new ETS2 system will “provide a market incentive for investments in building renovations and low-emissions mobility”. 

However, in June, member-state governments and the European parliament agreed on a number of “safeguards” to support price stability. 

For example, if allowance costs under the ETS2 exceed €45 per tonne of CO2, they agreed that 40m allowances will be put into the system from a reserve to normalise the supply – double the amount previously agreed.  

A European Environment Agency briefing said the ETS2 will “affect fuel prices and mobility costs” and that money will be syphoned into a social climate fund to “support vulnerable households and investments”. 

What happens next? 

EU countries will now negotiate over the terms of the commission’s proposal before it goes to a vote in the European parliament.

Ireland, which recently took over the six-monthly rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, has stated that it wants the ETS proposals to be signed off by the end of this year. 

A previous document from the council, which represents member-state governments, outlined a target to agree a deal by the first quarter of 2027.

Clean Energy Wire says that this would be an “unusually ambitious timetable for one of the bloc’s most technically complex pieces of climate legislation”. 

Politico notes that “months of arguing” is likely to occur.

Related Eight facts about air conditioning amid an overheated global debate 10.07.2026 Energy Iran war: EU strategy sets out 44 actions to limit ‘fossil-fuel price shocks’ 23.04.2026 EU policy Q&A: What the EU’s new industry and ‘Made in Europe’ rules mean for climate action 05.03.2026 EU policy Analysis: EVs just outsold petrol cars in EU for first time ever 27.01.2026 Energy

The post Q&A: What the EU’s carbon market review means for climate action appeared first on Carbon Brief.

This is a re-post from The Climate Brink

I’m generally pretty measured in how I discuss climate data. There has been only one time in recent years when I was truly shocked: when global temperatures came in for September 2023 at a full 0.5C warmer than any prior September on record.1 Once until today, that is. With the July runs now in from 667 ensemble members across 14 different seasonal forecast models, it looks like this year’s El Niño is not only very likely to be the strongest event since reliable records began – it may end up the strongest by a truly mind-blowing margin.

The multi-model median for the event’s peak (measured as detrended sea surface temperature anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region of the tropical Pacific) currently stands at 3.6C, roughly 0.8C hotter than the prior record of 2.75C set in 2015-16. For context, the gap between the strongest and the fifth strongest El Niño of the past 150 years is only about 0.5C. The models are forecasting something outside the envelope of anything we have ever observed.

Peak monthly Niño 3.4 anomaly for every El Niño event since 1877, with each event measured against its own era’s centered 30-year climatology (the ONI convention, applied at monthly resolution to match the forecasts’ monthly values). Events after 1950 (blue) use ERSSTv5; earlier events (open gold) use the HadISST reconstruction. The 2026-27 forecast shows the weighted median of 667 ensemble member peaks from 14 models (July 2026 initializations, members weighted so each model counts equally), with the bar spanning the middle 80% of members.

A few things stand out in this figure. First, no event in a century and a half of observations has ever pushed meaningfully past 2.75C. The legendary 1877-78 event comes closest, in a statistical dead heat with 2015-16 (2.73C vs 2.75C, well within the uncertainty of 19th-century ship data). Second, the middle 80% of this year’s forecast ensemble sits entirely at or above that all-time record: even the low end of the plume (2.8C) grazes it. Around 91% of ensemble members exceed the 2015-16 record at their peak.

To see what this would look like as the event unfolds, we can compare the forecast trajectory against the five strongest events ever observed, month by month through the development year and into the following spring.

Monthly Niño 3.4 anomaly trajectories for the five strongest observed El Niño events across their development year and decay, against the 2026-27 multi-model forecast. Note that the expected peak (3.6C) sits slightly above the top of the dashed median trajectory (3.5C): individual models peak in different months (e.g. CFSv2 in November, ECMWF in December) so the median of the individual model peaks runs a bit higher than the peak of the median line.

What is remarkable here is not just the level but the trajectory. The 2026 event is developing faster than 1997-98, the previous gold standard for explosive El Niño onsets. And unlike 2015 which started its year already warm from a precursor event, this one launched from genuinely La Niña-ish conditions in January.

Of course, a multi-model median can hide a lot of disagreement, so it is worth looking at where each individual model puts the peak. The figure below shows the distribution of member peaks across all 14 models.

Peak 2026 Niño 3.4 forecast: model-weighted histogram of each ensemble member’s July-December 2026 maximum (top) and per-model medians with 10-90% member ranges (bottom).

Every single model’s median peak lands at very strong (”super”) El Niño intensity, and all but one (JAMSTEC’s SINTEX-F, at 2.2C) put their median above the 2015-16 record. Model agreement this strong is unusual, though I’d note that agreement is not the same thing as skill as I discuss later on.

Long-time readers may recall that in a warming world, the raw Niño 3.4 anomaly risks conflating El Niño with the broader ocean warming trend. NOAA’s answer is the relative ONI (RONI), which subtracts the tropical-mean SST anomaly to isolate the ENSO signal. In RONI terms the record holder is actually 1982-83 (a peak monthly value of 2.69C), not 2015-16. However, even using RONI the multi-model median in 11 of the 14 models shows a record event.

As above, but for the relative Niño 3.4 index (RONI): Niño 3.4 anomaly minus the 20S-20N tropical-mean anomaly, with the L’Heureux et al. (2024) variance-restoration scaling applied. The record event in RONI terms is 1982-83 (a peak monthly value of 2.69C).

Putting the two together: models give a ~91% chance of a record peak in Niño 3.4 terms and ~77% in RONI terms this year. Whichever way you slice the index, the forecast says the same thing: this is more likely than not to be the strongest El Niño ever observed.

So how did we get here? The forecast has been building all spring. The figure below shows how each model’s projection evolved from its March run through its July run, against observed monthly conditions.

Ensemble-mean Niño 3.4 forecast from each model’s March, April, May, June and July 2026 runs (blues deepening with recency; July in red with its full member range shaded), against observed monthly means from the daily OISSTv2.1 series (black). One corrupted NCAR-CESM1 ensemble member is excluded from the July run for clarity.

Nearly every panel shows the same thing: each successive run warmer than the last, across five months and thirteen independent modeling systems.2 This pattern of sustained revision as initialization improves is the classic signature of a real intensifying event rather than model noise. The reason is visible in the black line: observed conditions kept outrunning the forecasts. (Though credit where credit is due: NCAR’s CESM1 was calling ~4C back in March when that looked absurd, and I and others called it out as unrealistic at the time. The ensemble has since converged toward it.)

The combined multi-model picture makes the same point more concisely.

The model-weighted median Niño 3.4 forecast from each monthly initialization, March through July 2026 (July with its 10-90% member band), against observed monthly OISSTv2.1.

The peak median has climbed from ~2.8C in the March runs to 3.6C in July — though notably the revisions are decelerating (+0.5C, +0.14C, +0.14C over the last three cycles), suggesting the forecast is converging rather than still escalating.

It is also worth looking at what this event looks like spatially. The figure below maps each model’s SST anomaly field at its own forecast peak month.

Sea surface temperature anomaly forecasts at each model’s own 2026 peak month (the July-December month maximizing its Niño 3.4 mean), from the July 2026 initializations of 6 NMME models, 7 C3S centres, and SINTEX-F (seasonal mean, June initialization). Niño 3.4 region boxed; panels ordered warmest first.

The classic east-Pacific El Niño tongue is there in every model. I’d flag CMCC as the outlier to discount: its 5.3C peak sits a full 1.3C above the next warmest model. Because we are looking at the multi-model median, even discounting CMCC doesn’t change the overall forecast meaningfully.

Meanwhile, the ocean is not waiting for the models. Daily SSTs in the Niño 3.4 region are already running around 2C above their era-adjusted average – the threshold for a very strong (”super”) El Niño if sustained – and it is only mid-July. The figure below puts this in context, showing the daily Niño 3.4 anomaly for every year in the satellite record, with each year measured against its own era’s climatology so the long-term warming trend doesn’t mess up the comparison.

Daily Niño 3.4 SST anomaly for every year since 1982, from NOAA OISSTv2.1 (final plus near-real-time) via NOAA CoastWatch ERDDAP. Each year is referenced to its own centered 30-year day-of-year climatology (the ONI convention), removing the long-term warming trend. 2026 is shown in red; the great El Niño development years 2015 and 1997 are highlighted for comparison.

No prior year in the 45-year record has been anywhere near this warm this early: not 1997 (+1.6C at this date), the previous benchmark for an explosive onset, and not 2015 (+1.3C). And El Niño almost always peaks near the end of the calendar year – typically between November and January, occasionally as early as October – so the physics of ENSO’s seasonal phase-locking says there is likely a good deal of intensification still to come.3

What does all this mean for global temperatures? Because global temperature lags ENSO by around three to five months, most of this event’s warming will land in 2027, which is now shaping up to be a genuinely alarming year and the warmest on record by a sizable margin. But a strengthening El Niño does load the dice for late 2026: our dashboard currently gives this year a non-trivial chance (~28%) of edging out 2024 as the warmest on record, up from ~13% at the start of the month..

I want to end with an important caveat about these numbers: the models have never been verified in this territory. Seasonal forecast systems have real, demonstrated skill at this lead time for ordinary events, but no ensemble has ever forecast (and then verified against) a 3.6C El Niño, because one has never happened. Model agreement is reassuring, but it is not proof. But the uncertainties can cut both ways, and the observed ocean, not just the models, is already in uncharted waters.

As always, for daily updates on the El Niño forecast and global temperatures head over to our Climate Dashboard.

1 I referred to it as “absolutely gobsmackingly bananas” at the time, which might be the only time something I said ever went properly viral online.

2 The SINTEX-F model is not included in this plot as I only began tracking it in July.

3 The lone exception in the modern record is the unusual two-year 1986-88 event, which reached its ONI maximum in August 1987. Every other strong event since 1950 peaked between October and January.