News Feeds

Part of AWS’s us-west-2 availability zone, showing three datacenters with a fourth under construction. Photo credit: Tedder, Wikipedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.

In a recent article on “Construction’s Data Center Gamble,” Mark Erlich, retired head of the New England Carpenters Union, cautioned that for construction unions, megaprojects like hyperscale datacenters “hold as much risk as opportunity.” Such megaprojects draw unionized workers away from smaller-scale, more conventional projects, opening the door for nonunion contractors.

Erlich points out that “All projects, even megaprojects, eventually come to an end, and the rising level of opposition to these projects may hasten quicker-than-anticipated endings.”

“Rather than seeing the data center boom as a panacea for the ills that have troubled the industry, buildings trades unions need to continue to compete aggressively for the standard sorts of projects that make up the bread-and-butter of construction work, while also seeking to grow their ranks and regain market share from non-union contractors.”

There’s no way to know the future of the hyperscale datacenter boom, but there are straws in the wind that are putting it into question. According to data published in the Financial Times at least 47 major data center projects have been delayed, withdrawn, or blocked so far this year. More than 1,000 communities across the United States now have restrictions on artificial intelligence infrastructure.

The post Betting on the Datacenter Boom? first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

This summer was the hottest on record in the US. Yet worker heat standards proposed by the Biden administration are stalled, few states have more than token standards, and some state legislatures have even forbidden their towns and counties from passing their own heat protections.

An unusual strategy for worker heat protection comes from the “Fair Food Program” of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, which represents thousands of workers in the tomato growing region in south-west Florida. Through years of boycotts, hunger strikes, and protests the Coalition pressured food retailers with brand-name reputations to agree to a code of conduct and pay a small premium to buy exclusively from farms that comply. The code now covers 14 major food retailers, including Walmart, McDonald’s, Whole Foods, and Trader Joe’s.

The Fair Food Program code of conduct, which covers tens of thousands of workers, requires participating growers to provide shade, cool drinking water, paid rest breaks, heat illness training for workers and supervisors, and the ability for workers to seek medical attention without fear of retaliation. These are many of the same life-saving heat protection requirements that federal and state governments have refused to enact. This summer, the Fair Food Program added another requirement: access to electrolytes on participating farms year-round.

Other workers around the country, such as members of the immigrant-led WeCount in South Florida, dairy farm workers in Vermont, and construction workers in Minnesota, are now developing codes of conduct with heat protections and “market-based enforcement” like the Fair Food Program.

Source: US workers facing deadly heat borrow from tomato pickers to win key protections | Extreme heat | The Guardian

The post Beating the Heat first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

According to the U.N.’s just-released annual “Emissions Gap Report,” the Group of 20 industrialized nations have reduced climate-destroying emission in 2025, “with the United States of America being the major exception.” The report said that “recent policy changes” in America will lead to 0.9 gigatons of additional emissions by 2030, equivalent to the yearly total of Japan. The U.S. was tied with Russia as the G20 countries with the most per capita emissions of carbon dioxide and other planet-warning gases. The report warns that the planet is on track for upwards of 5 degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 degrees Celsius) of warming this century, which would cause catastrophic impacts, such as massive sea level rise and the mass extinction of plants and animals.

Source: Emissions Gap Report Identifies U.S. as Outlier Among G20 Nations – The New York Times

Another new report, the 2026 “State of the Climate Report,” found that global sea level, global ocean heat content, worldwide glacier thickness, the mass of the Greenland ice sheet, and the atmospheric concentration of each of the three most common greenhouse gases are at record extremes. The report notes that in May of this year, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide breached 428 parts per million, which is about 50% higher than pre-industrial levels of the gas.

Researchers tracked 16 “planetary vital signs” in their analysis. Click image for larger version. Credit: Ripple et al. 2026, doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biag125

The rate of global warming is accelerating, according to the report, and has roughly doubled from about 0.19°C (0.34°F) per decade from 1970-2010 to about 0.36°C (0.65°F) per decade from 2010 to present day.

The report’s authors warn that accelerating warming trends raise the risk of parts of Earth’s climate system breaching so-called tipping points, or marks at which the affected processes are so destabilized that they cannot return to pre-climate change conditions.

Source: 2026 State of the Climate

A pair of studies in the journal Nature Health find that severe heat killed more than 50,000 people in European cities and towns this summer. That is three times as many people as would have died had humankind not warmed the planet by burning oil, gas and coal, the researchers said. Their estimates suggest that this summer’s intense heat was Europe’s deadliest by far this century. Clair Barnes, lead author of both studies, said “That mortality has been pushed substantially higher by the human-caused warming, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.”

Source: Heat Waves Killed an Estimated 50,000 in European Cities, a Likely Record – The New York Times

The post In Case You Haven’t Heard… first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

This article A North Carolina movement asks voters to reject corporate tax breaks was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

The affordability crisis is hitting people hard across the country, but it’s especially acute in North Carolina. For the sixth year in a row, North Carolina holds the distinction of being the worst state in the nation for workers based on its wage policies, worker protections, and rights to organize, according to Oxfam. Nearly half of renters in the state are struggling to afford their homes, while nearly a third of households are cost-burdened (spending over 30 percent of their income on housing).

North Carolina voters’ eyes may light up when they see two proposed constitutional amendments on their November ballots: one to cap the state personal and corporate income tax rates at 3.5 percent, down from a cap of seven percent, and another to limit how much local governments can levy in property taxes. On their face, they appear as if they might bring much-needed tax relief to North Carolina’s working class. 

The amendments are deceptively framed as being beneficial to working people and homeowners, reading as if they would lower individual taxes when there’s no indication that they will, according to Todd Warren, statewide campaign strategist at Down Home North Carolina, a member-led organization that endorsed a “no” vote. Instead, Warren said, the measures would be a giveaway to corporations and wealthy individuals by limiting how much they pay toward the public good — and a “scam” for voters.

#newsletter-block_910887e661eb8c6d39fe35cb5f7f36ba { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_910887e661eb8c6d39fe35cb5f7f36ba #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Since the passage of the two Republican-sponsored bills that placed the amendments on the ballot this past May, Down Home NC and over 20 other groups have come together as the NC Vote Against coalition to defeat them, as well as to oppose a third amendment that would enshrine voter identification requirements in the state constitution.

Each organization has its own expertise and its own tactics, but a common message: The amendments will not benefit working-class people, but rather corporations and the ultra-wealthy. Each group is playing its part in collecting a total of 100,000 pledges from North Carolinians who commit to voting against the amendments.

The fight to fund the future

Down Home NC joined together with another coalition member, the Carolina Federation, to launch the Fund the Future campaign, deploying nearly 200 paid canvassers.  

Jenn Frye, co–director of the Carolina Federation, spent part of this weekend canvassing at the poll at a Durham, North Carolina library, where she convinced an older couple to vote “no” on the amendments. After a member-led endorsement process that included political education on the amendments, a leadership summit and a vote at a statewide membership meeting, the Carolina Federation decided they wanted to deeply engage in the amendment fight. “We see more and more people in North Carolina who agree that corporations and the wealthiest individuals aren’t contributing what they owe when day in and day out, North Carolinians are working really hard,” Frye said. “We pay our taxes, and we contribute what we owe.”

Down Home NC and the Carolina Federation were founded in 2017 and 2018, respectively, in the wake of President Trump first taking office and Republicans winning control of both North Carolina’s state legislature and governorship in 2013 (for the first time since Reconstruction). The groups share a long-term goal of loosening corporate power’s grip on the state legislature and supplanting it with people power.

The Fund the Future campaign campaign is knocking doors, talking to voters at the polls, getting resolutions against the amendments passed by local governments and school boards, and placing signs in small businesses and in yards, among other tactics. So far, the Carolina Federation’s canvassers have knocked on over 600,000 doors across six counties, collecting over 33,000 pledges, while Down Home NC’s canvassers had knocked 500,000 doors across 20 counties and collected about 8,000 pledges.

“Whatever the outcome of this amendment fight, Federation’s members plan to launch a statewide campaign next year with other organizations like Down Home and Siembra to demand that the legislature pass fair tax policies that make corporations and the wealthiest individuals pay what they owe our communities in taxes,” Frye said. “That may be a multi-year fight. It is one our members feel is worth waging.”

North Carolinians deserve funding for real solutions, Frye said, such as property tax assistance programs, childcare tax credits, an increased minimum wage (it’s currently the federal minimum, $7.25 per hour), and protections against corporate landlords.

Todd Warren of Down Home NC said he has never seen such a robust response to a single issue in over 20 years of working and organizing in North Carolina.

Because Down Home NC’s chapters run organizing campaigns to make sure that local budgets go toward working people’s needs, members recognized immediately how the amendments would exacerbate the underfunding of local services. Like the Carolina Federation, its members endorsed a “no” vote in addition to endorsing political candidates who are supportive of its platforms.

Many voters don’t know about the amendments, Frye said, and if they do, they’re often not sure what to make of them or inclined to support them because they’re exhausted and stressed out due to the affordability crisis. But when they are engaged in conversation about how the amendments affect services they rely on, “then people are movable,” she said.

North Carolina residents march to the polls with signs opposing tax amendments on the ballot during early voting in Guilford County on Oct. 27, 2026. (Guilford For All)

Frye gave the example of her own mother, who recently suffered a series of strokes. Fortunately she was living in a North Carolina county with adequately funded Emergency Medical Services, or EMS. But residents of counties with underfunded EMS operations could face a life-or-death situation during medical emergencies.

“Right now, people feel like ‘taxes’ is a dirty word,” said Warren, a former public school teacher. “But if they connect it to something that they care about, like, ‘Oh, in Johnston County, we have explosive population growth. We need to build a new high school. These amendments would limit our ability to [do that].’ Then they’re like, ‘I’m gonna vote “no” on it.’ We can do that in a five-minute organizing conversation. It doesn’t take much for people to see through the scam.” 

North Carolina’s allegiance to corporations

North Carolina has lost out on almost $18 billion in annual tax revenue since Republicans began overhauling the tax system in 2013. Personal income tax reforms are so regressive that the state’s lowest earners pay more than 10 percent of their income in state and local taxes, while the highest earners pay only six percent. For corporations, the income tax has dropped from seven percent to two percent, the lowest in the nation, and will be phased out completely by 2030. As tax revenue shrinks, so does local governments’ ability to fully fund vital public services.

“Our public services, the things that are supposed to strengthen our communities and support all families in all counties in North Carolina, are being stretched to the limit by the tax cuts,” Frye said. “These amendments want to take that and enshrine it into the [state] constitution.”

Exploitation has marked North Carolina’s economy since the days of chattel slavery. Post-slavery, Black families like my own (in Bertie County) sharecropped for a living well into the 20th century — jobs now carried out by migrant workers who experience poor labor conditions. The Duke family once had a monopoly on the state’s tobacco industry and founded both Duke Energy and Duke University, two institutions notorious for not paying their fair share.

Now the state and some local governments are subsidizing data centers, of which over 60 have been built and at least 30 more are planned or under construction. Under pressure, the state eliminated some tax breaks for data centers in July, but three remaining sales tax subsidies are projected to rob the state of $250 million in revenue annually. Meanwhile, between 2017 to 2024, the average electricity bill of a North Carolina household rose by nearly 30 percent. The state is subsidizing wealthy corporations as regular folks struggle to keep their lights on.

A history of underfunded public schools

On May Day this year, thousands gathered in the capital city, Raleigh, to rally for fully funded schools. Tax cuts have already contributed to the state being ranked last in the country in public school funding by GDP.

Isabell Moore, a coordinator at North Carolina Families for Public Schools (a project of Down Home NC) and a public school parent, said the amendments could be “catastrophic” for public education. North Carolina Families for Public Schools comprises countywide, districtwide and schoolwide teams of volunteer organizers who are calling for equitable, fully funded public schools. These teams are currently circulating a pledge to fund the future for children that includes voting against the amendments, along with measures like fair funding for special education; higher teacher pay; and safe, inclusive schools for all students, including those from immigrant families. 

North Carolina Families for Public Schools had already voted on its 2026 platform when the amendments dropped in May but decided to incorporate them because they stand directly in the way of their goal to win fully funded schools. Their organizers have been tapping into their personal networks to turn people out to vote against the amendments, holding house parties and school-based parties to educate people on the amendments, and more. 

“Everyday working people and public school parents are creative and tough and scrappy,” Moore said. “If we commit to not just voting ‘no’ but also organizing other people in our networks and in our school communities, that’s when we really start to build the power to defeat the amendments.”

#support-block_28ed8986d409d47190301f7ca99a3d5c { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

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

Donate

Even public schools in wealthy counties like Durham, home to Duke University (which has a $14.3 billion endowment) and Duke University Health System (which made nearly $766 million in profits last year), are chronically underfunded. The riches of these two tax-exempt nonprofit institutions haven’t trickled down. Among other demands, the Durham Rising coalition—made up of workers, students, and community members—is calling for Duke University to help fund public schools and educator salaries by making a voluntary payment to the local government called a PILOT, or payment in lieu of taxes.

Since the summer, Christy Patterson, vice president of the Durham chapter of the North Carolina Association of Educators, or NCAE, and a middle school teacher for students with disabilities, has been knocking on doors to tell folks the amendments are for billionaires, not everyday people. The NCAE, which functions as a professional organization because North Carolina bans public-sector collective bargaining, is part of the NC Vote Against coalition and was one of the main architects of the “Kids Over Corporations” rally in May.

“Our voters and our community are engaging us in conversation on the doors,” Patterson said. “We’ve had some conversations that really made us think. Constructive friction on the doors is always good because everybody’s not going to say the same thing or think the same. They’re just so ready to open the door and talk to us, so we are grateful for that.”

Organizing for the long run

In a September poll by Elon University, 67 percent of respondents were in favor of the income tax amendment, and 72 percent supported the property tax amendment. Organizers are working hard to turn that tide.

However, even if they don’t get their desired outcome, there is an entire movement that will continue holding North Carolina corporations and wealthy households accountable until they contribute their fair share to the public good. Organizations like the Carolina Federation, Down Home NC, and the NCAE have been engaging in this work for years and are in it for the long haul.

Warren hopes the Fund the Future campaign can help shift the narrative so that people understand that “taxes” aren’t inherently bad but rather a tool for improving quality of life for themselves, their families, and their communities. 

“Through years of listening and campaigning, we know what working people across North Carolina want,” Warren said: well-funded, well-staffed public schools, healthcare access, transportation options and recreation programs for kids, infrastructure for effective disaster response. “When we talk to people about those things, even when they understand that it may involve an increase in taxes for them personally, they support funding those types of programs.”

This article A North Carolina movement asks voters to reject corporate tax breaks was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Hungary’s new government is considering replacing Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom as the main contractor for the Paks II nuclear power plant, raising questions about whether Budapest is preparing to break with Moscow or simply seeking more favorable terms for a project already plagued by delays and rising costs.

According to an October 21 Reuters investigation, Prime Minister Péter Magyar’s government has begun exploring alternative suppliers as part of a comprehensive review of the €12.5 billion project, awarded to Rosatom by former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in 2014.

The uncertainty has reached Rosatom’s leadership. Director General Alexei Likhachev acknowledged on October 23 that the project could either accelerate or be abandoned altogether, adding that the corporation had received no response to its requests for talks with the Hungarian government.

But Bellona nuclear expert Dmitry Gorchakov cautions against interpreting the reports as evidence that Hungary has decided to abandon Rosatom.

“I fear these rumors about a possible replacement, attributed to anonymous sources, are simply part of the debate now taking place indirectly between Hungary’s new government and Rosatom,” he said.

The high cost of breaking with Russia

Paks II involves two Russian-designed VVER-1200 reactors intended to expand Hungary’s nuclear generating capacity. Construction has suffered repeated delays, with the first concrete poured only in February 2026.

By then, Hungary had already spent more than €2 billion on the project, including approximately €1.1 billion paid to Rosatom. Gorchakov says the threat of cancellation may be a negotiating tactic rather than a settled policy.

“Refusing to work with Rosatom would be the most radical measure, one that apparently was not even discussed during the election campaign,” he said. “It may be useful as a bargaining position, but that does not mean it will actually happen.”

He estimates that replacing the Russian contractor could delay construction by another five to ten years—about how long it would take to approve an alternative design and begin building.

There is at least one European precedent for breaking with Rosatom on a major construction project—Finland’s Hanhikivi plant, which Helsinki cancelled in 2022 with the outbreak of the Ukraine war. But unlike Finland, Gorchakov notes, Hungary remains deeply dependent on Rosatom. Its four existing reactors operate on Russian nuclear fuel, while Rosatom is expected to participate in extending their operating lives.

“Breaking relations with Rosatom could involve much more than simply abandoning a new Russian nuclear power plant,” Gorchakov said.

Such a rupture, he added, could trigger litigation, diplomatic disputes—just as Finland’s divorce with Rosatom did.

Geopolitical calculations

Bellona nuclear expert Alexander Nikitin agrees that negotiations over the future of PAKS II may be underway but argues that economic considerations alone cannot determine the outcome.

“Geopolitics will enter into these economic negotiations,” he said. “And that could very well mean Rosatom loses.”

Nikitin believes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally changed how European governments assess long-term dependence on Russian technology.

Building a Russian nuclear power plant establishes relationships with Moscow lasting many decades, encompassing fuel supplies, maintenance, specialized equipment and technical expertise. For countries seeking to reduce Moscow’s influence, those commitments increasingly carry political risks.

“Experience from Ukraine and other countries previously dependent on Rosatom shows that it is possible to replace the corporation at any stage,” Nikitin said. “Of course, the question is how much it costs.”

But he argues that the price of replacing Rosatom must be weighed against the long-term political and strategic costs of maintaining dependence on Russia.

Is there a compromise to be had?

Hungary is already pursuing alternatives to Russian supplies. On October 29, Magyar’s government submitted legislation to formalize a nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States, covering civilian nuclear technology, including small modular reactors.

The agreement, originally signed under Orbán, encourages the use of American technology in future nuclear projects. It does not, however, resolve the question of Paks II.

Gorchakov believes Budapest may ultimately seek a broader compromise, using the project’s future to negotiate better terms with Rosatom while gradually diversifying fuel supplies and reducing Russian involvement in the existing plant.

Rosatom also has reasons to compromise. Paks II remains its only nuclear power plant construction project in the European Union, making its preservation commercially and politically important.

The dispute comes amid continuing uncertainty over the project’s regulatory and environmental future. A September 2025 European Court of Justice ruling annulled the European Commission’s approval of Hungarian state aid, while exceptionally low Danube water levels have raised questions about cooling arrangements for the expanded station.

Gorchakov argues that these concerns should form part of Hungary’s review, alongside the project’s finances.

Hungary’s decision, expected by late 2026 or early 2027, will therefore determine more than the future of two reactors. It will test how far a European country deeply embedded in Russia’s nuclear industry is prepared to go to reduce that dependence.

The post Hungary weighs breaking with Rosatom as nuclear plant build tests Russian influence appeared first on Bellona.org.

“I think the cost-sharing elements are by far probably the most important part of this bill,” Rep. Josh Harder, D-Calif., told Utility Dive. “My hope is that can unlock a lot more collaboration as opposed to ... folks pointing the finger at each other.”

Europa Oil & Gas has announced an extension to the life of its Crosby Warren licence in North Lincolnshire.

The company reported in a statement that the industry regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), had agreed to extend licence DL001 to 18 October 2032.

Interim results, issued by Europa last month, confirmed the licence had been due to expire next year (2027).

Europa has a 100% working interest in the Crosby Warren licence. The licence was issued on 19 October 1987 and now measures 9km2.

NSTA data shows that the first full year of production at Crosby Warren (1988) produced the highest oil volume (15,483m3) in the history of the field.

Source: NSTA

In each of the past three full years, (2023-2025), annual production at Crosby Warren has been below 1,000m3, averaging 483m3 a year.

In 2025, Crosby Warren ranked 26 out of 30 UK producing onshore oil fields for volume. Its contribution to UK onshore oil production in that year was 0.08%.

Last month (September 2026), Europa said a workover operation on the CW-1 well at Crosby Warren was “expected to be concluded imminently”.

American Electric Power’s contracted large loads jumped 22%, to 84 GW, mainly on a 10.4-GW data center in Ohio being developed by SB Energy, company officials said Wednesday.

Print article Share

With the COP31 climate summit in Turkey looming, all eyes are on China to see what the country will push for in the negotiations.

At COP30 last year, China helped to secure a “dialogue” on climate-related “unilateral trade measures”, as well as a two-year “work programme” concerning climate finance.

The nation also championed south-south cooperation throughout the conference and co-led a summit on methane, alongside Brazil and the UK.

In a recent press conference, China’s environment vice-minister Li Gao noted the need to “uphold multilateralism” and send a “clear political signal” that the global community is united around climate action. 

var gform;gform||(document.addEventListener("gform_main_scripts_loaded",function(){gform.scriptsLoaded=!0}),document.addEventListener("gform/theme/scripts_loaded",function(){gform.themeScriptsLoaded=!0}),window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){gform.domLoaded=!0}),gform={domLoaded:!1,scriptsLoaded:!1,themeScriptsLoaded:!1,isFormEditor:()=>"function"==typeof InitializeEditor,callIfLoaded:function(o){return!(!gform.domLoaded||!gform.scriptsLoaded||!gform.themeScriptsLoaded&&!gform.isFormEditor()||(gform.isFormEditor()&&console.warn("The use of gform.initializeOnLoaded() is deprecated in the form editor context and will be removed in Gravity Forms 3.1."),o(),0))},initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.callIfLoaded(o)||(document.addEventListener("gform_main_scripts_loaded",()=>{gform.scriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),document.addEventListener("gform/theme/scripts_loaded",()=>{gform.themeScriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",()=>{gform.domLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}))},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook("action",o,r,e,t)},addFilter:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook("filter",o,r,e,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook("action",o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook("filter",o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,r){gform.removeHook("action",o,r)},removeFilter:function(o,r,e){gform.removeHook("filter",o,r,e)},addHook:function(o,r,e,t,n){null==gform.hooks[o][r]&&(gform.hooks[o][r]=[]);var d=gform.hooks[o][r];null==n&&(n=r+"_"+d.length),gform.hooks[o][r].push({tag:n,callable:e,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(r,o,e){var t;if(e=Array.prototype.slice.call(e,1),null!=gform.hooks[r][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[r][o]).sort(function(o,r){return o.priority-r.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){"function"!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),"action"==r?t.apply(null,e):e[0]=t.apply(null,e)})),"filter"==r)return e[0]},removeHook:function(o,r,t,n){var e;null!=gform.hooks[o][r]&&(e=(e=gform.hooks[o][r]).filter(function(o,r,e){return!!(null!=n&&n!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][r]=e)}}); #gform_wrapper_6[data-form-index="0"].gform-theme,[data-parent-form="6_0"]{--gf-color-primary: #204ce5;--gf-color-primary-rgb: 32, 76, 229;--gf-color-primary-contrast: #fff;--gf-color-primary-contrast-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-primary-darker: #001AB3;--gf-color-primary-lighter: #527EFF;--gf-color-secondary: #fff;--gf-color-secondary-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-secondary-contrast: #112337;--gf-color-secondary-contrast-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-secondary-darker: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-secondary-lighter: #FFFFFF;--gf-color-out-ctrl-light: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.1);--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-darker: rgba(104, 110, 119, 0.35);--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-lighter: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark: #585e6a;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-rgb: 88, 94, 106;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-darker: #112337;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-lighter: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65);--gf-color-in-ctrl: #fff;--gf-color-in-ctrl-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-in-ctrl-contrast: #112337;--gf-color-in-ctrl-contrast-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-in-ctrl-darker: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-lighter: #FFFFFF;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary: #204ce5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-rgb: 32, 76, 229;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-contrast: #fff;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-contrast-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-darker: #001AB3;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-lighter: #527EFF;--gf-color-in-ctrl-light: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.1);--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-darker: rgba(104, 110, 119, 0.35);--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-lighter: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark: #585e6a;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-rgb: 88, 94, 106;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-darker: #112337;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-lighter: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65);--gf-radius: 3px;--gf-font-size-secondary: 14px;--gf-font-size-tertiary: 13px;--gf-icon-ctrl-number: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='8' height='14' viewBox='0 0 8 14' fill='none' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath fill-rule='evenodd' clip-rule='evenodd' d='M4 0C4.26522 5.96046e-08 4.51957 0.105357 4.70711 0.292893L7.70711 3.29289C8.09763 3.68342 8.09763 4.31658 7.70711 4.70711C7.31658 5.09763 6.68342 5.09763 6.29289 4.70711L4 2.41421L1.70711 4.70711C1.31658 5.09763 0.683417 5.09763 0.292893 4.70711C-0.0976311 4.31658 -0.097631 3.68342 0.292893 3.29289L3.29289 0.292893C3.48043 0.105357 3.73478 0 4 0ZM0.292893 9.29289C0.683417 8.90237 1.31658 8.90237 1.70711 9.29289L4 11.5858L6.29289 9.29289C6.68342 8.90237 7.31658 8.90237 7.70711 9.29289C8.09763 9.68342 8.09763 10.3166 7.70711 10.7071L4.70711 13.7071C4.31658 14.0976 3.68342 14.0976 3.29289 13.7071L0.292893 10.7071C-0.0976311 10.3166 -0.0976311 9.68342 0.292893 9.29289Z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-icon-ctrl-select: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='10' height='6' viewBox='0 0 10 6' fill='none' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath fill-rule='evenodd' clip-rule='evenodd' d='M0.292893 0.292893C0.683417 -0.097631 1.31658 -0.097631 1.70711 0.292893L5 3.58579L8.29289 0.292893C8.68342 -0.0976311 9.31658 -0.0976311 9.70711 0.292893C10.0976 0.683417 10.0976 1.31658 9.70711 1.70711L5.70711 5.70711C5.31658 6.09763 4.68342 6.09763 4.29289 5.70711L0.292893 1.70711C-0.0976311 1.31658 -0.0976311 0.683418 0.292893 0.292893Z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-icon-ctrl-search: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='640' height='640' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath d='M256 128c-70.692 0-128 57.308-128 128 0 70.691 57.308 128 128 128 70.691 0 128-57.309 128-128 0-70.692-57.309-128-128-128zM64 256c0-106.039 85.961-192 192-192s192 85.961 192 192c0 41.466-13.146 79.863-35.498 111.248l154.125 154.125c12.496 12.496 12.496 32.758 0 45.254s-32.758 12.496-45.254 0L367.248 412.502C335.862 434.854 297.467 448 256 448c-106.039 0-192-85.962-192-192z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-label-space-y-secondary: var(--gf-label-space-y-md-secondary);--gf-ctrl-border-color: #686e77;--gf-ctrl-size: var(--gf-ctrl-size-md);--gf-ctrl-label-color-primary: #112337;--gf-ctrl-label-color-secondary: #112337;--gf-ctrl-choice-size: var(--gf-ctrl-choice-size-md);--gf-ctrl-checkbox-check-size: var(--gf-ctrl-checkbox-check-size-md);--gf-ctrl-radio-check-size: var(--gf-ctrl-radio-check-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-font-size: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-font-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-padding-x: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-padding-x-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-size: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-border-color-secondary: #686e77;--gf-ctrl-file-btn-bg-color-hover: #EBEBEB;--gf-field-img-choice-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-size-md);--gf-field-img-choice-card-space: var(--gf-field-img-choice-card-space-md);--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-size-md);--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-icon-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-icon-size-md);--gf-field-pg-steps-number-color: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.8);}

InstagramThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Free fortnightly newsletter

.preheader p{ margin-top: 0; font-family: 'PT Sans', sans-serif; font-weight: var(--type--3--font-weight--bold); color: var(--button--color); font-size: var(--button--font-size, inherit); } .newsletter-inline{ display: flex; border: solid 1px #333333; padding: 1em; background: #ffffff; } .inline-email{ display:inline-block; margin-right:1em; margin-top:0 !important; margin-bottom:0.5em; } #field_submit{ display:inline-block; margin-top:0 !important; } .gform_wrapper .gfield+.gfield{ margin-top:0 } Email gform.initializeOnLoaded( function() {gformInitSpinner( 6, 'http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', false );jQuery('#gform_ajax_frame_6').on('load',function(){var contents = jQuery(this).contents().find('*').html();var is_postback = contents.indexOf('GF_AJAX_POSTBACK') >= 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_wrapper_6');var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_confirmation_wrapper_6').length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf('gformRedirect(){') >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery('html').css('margin-top'), 10) + parseInt(jQuery('body').css('margin-top'), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass('gform_validation_error')){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').addClass('gform_validation_error');} else {jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').removeClass('gform_validation_error');}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').offset().top - mt); }, 50 );if(window['gformInitDatepicker']) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window['gformInitPriceFields']) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery('#gform_source_page_number_6').val();gformInitSpinner( 6, 'http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', false );jQuery(document).trigger('gform_page_loaded', [6, current_page]);window['gf_submitting_6'] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('.GF_AJAX_POSTBACK').html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery('#gf_6').offset().top - mt);jQuery(document).trigger('gform_confirmation_loaded', [6]);window['gf_submitting_6'] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery('#gform_confirmation_message_6').text());}else{jQuery('#gform_6').append(contents);if(window['gformRedirect']) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger("gform_pre_post_render", [{ formId: "6", currentPage: "current_page", abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( "gform_wrapper_6" ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( "span" ); visibilitySpan.id = "gform_visibility_test_6"; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( "afterend", visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( "gform_visibility_test_6" ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 6, current_page ); if ( visibilityTestDiv ) { visibilityTestDiv.parentNode.removeChild( visibilityTestDiv ); } } function debounce( func, wait, immediate ) { var timeout; return function() { var context = this, args = arguments; var later = function() { timeout = null; if ( !immediate ) func.apply( context, args ); }; var callNow = immediate && !timeout; clearTimeout( timeout ); timeout = setTimeout( later, wait ); if ( callNow ) func.apply( context, args ); }; } const debouncedTriggerPostRender = debounce( function() { triggerPostRender(); }, 200 ); if ( visibilityTestDiv && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent === null ) { const observer = new MutationObserver( ( mutations ) => { mutations.forEach( ( mutation ) => { if ( mutation.type === 'attributes' && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent !== null ) { debouncedTriggerPostRender(); observer.disconnect(); } }); }); observer.observe( document.body, { attributes: true, childList: false, subtree: true, attributeFilter: [ 'style', 'class' ], }); } else { triggerPostRender(); } } );} );

Li also pledged to advocate for an “open and efficient” trade system that “facilitates” adoption of clean-energy technologies.

On the more traditional topics of mitigation and finance, Li highlighted the need to “address insufficient emission reduction efforts by developed countries and inadequate financial support” for developing countries.

Carbon Brief asked six leading experts on China what they believe China wants from COP31 and what signals they will be watching for. 

Their responses have been edited for length and clarity.

Article Contents Expand menu

• Kate Logan
• Ma Jun 
• Yao Zhe 
• Prof Ryna Cui 
• Dr Joseph Dellatte 
• Prof Jeremy Wallace 

Kate Logan

Director of the China climate hub and climate diplomacy, Asia Society Policy Institute

In an era where global climate cooperation is severely challenged, China’s top priority at COP31 will be upholding multilateralism. With most “big ticket” items under the Paris Agreement now complete and constrained expectations for major new breakthroughs at COP31, China may be satisfied with a conference that produces no major drama and little else.

Nevertheless, expect China’s vision for multilateralism to have a distinct flavor to it. Chinese officials may again leverage the COP stage to oppose unilateralism and promote an open and fair international trade system, reflecting Beijing’s persistent frustration with tariffs and other measures that have inhibited the global flow of Chinese clean technologies. One question is whether they will do this through existing spaces or push for a dedicated agenda item on trade, given that COP30’s trade outcomes, championed by China, mostly relegated discussions to mid-year technical meetings.

China may also seek clarity on implementation pathways for existing targets, including nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and the $300bn climate finance goal. Amid US withdrawal, officials remain anxious about additional pressure that Beijing may receive. After vice-premier Ding Xuexiang shared at COP29 that China has provided and mobilised over 177bn yuan ($26.5bn) in climate finance for developing countries since 2016, China has refrained from issuing further quantitative updates, while maintaining the imperative for developed countries to take the lead on climate finance. China may be happy to let other developing countries push this agenda while serving as a broker in the end game to ensure its own interests are protected.

Ma Jun 

Founder and director, Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs

I think China wants COP31 to reaffirm confidence in multilateral climate cooperation and translate commitments into action. With the risk of overshooting 1.5C almost unavoidable, I expect China to seek clearer delivery of climate finance for developing countries; encourage reductions in potent, short-lived greenhouse gases such as methane; support a just transition; and highlight trade barriers affecting clean technologies.

I will be watching whether negotiations produce credible plans for delivering finance, particularly for adaptation, as well as practical support for implementing national climate pledges. The climate-trade debate will also matter. Can countries address their differences while keeping renewable energy and other clean technologies affordable and accessible? It will be an important test of whether countries can achieve global energy-transition targets by 2030 and turn shared ambitions into measurable emissions reductions.

Yao Zhe 

Global policy advisor, Greenpeace East Asia

At COP31, I expect a continued push from China to integrate more trade perspectives into the climate negotiations. Beijing’s new five-year plan on climate action envisions a constructive leadership role in global climate governance, specifically calling for the proper handling of climate-trade issues and the free flow of low-carbon products. It will be critical to watch how this grand strategy plays out on the negotiation floor.

I will also be watching how China responds to the COP presidency’s electrification initiative. Beijing increasingly views climate diplomacy through the lens of clean-energy diplomacy – an approach that directly leverages its industrial strength on renewables, electric vehicles (EVs), batteries and grid infrastructure. While China should naturally welcome a global electrification initiative that will lead to larger overseas markets, it likely remains reluctant to link these targets to any commitments regarding transitioning away from fossil fuels.

Prof Ryna Cui 

Associate research professor and research director, University of Maryland Center for Global Sustainability

There isn’t much on the formal negotiation agenda for this year’s COP. The core theme will continue to focus on implementation and delivery, which I think China has strong interests in. This is because of both progress made domestically with the clean energy transition and the overseas economic opportunities to support other countries’ implementation with low-cost Chinese clean technologies. 

One thing exciting for me to watch is that, as China reaches its coal and oil peak, it may open up space for increased interests and leadership in the global “transitioning away from fossil fuels” agenda. This may not happen immediately through formal government negotiations, but more likely through broader bilateral and multilateral engagements. 

As the world navigates options and challenges for the 1.5C overshoot future, China can also contribute critically beyond the energy transition, especially on opportunities for rapid abatement of methane, industrial nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons and other non-CO2 gases as part of its 2035 all-sector, all-greenhouse gas NDC.

Dr Joseph Dellatte 

Resident fellow and head of energy and climate studies, Institut Montaigne

China will likely seek recognition as a climate leader while defending its position as the world’s cleantech manufacturing hub, amid growing trade tensions. I’ll watch whether it continues to frame the global transition primarily around access to Chinese technologies and open markets for its exports, or shows greater willingness to discuss cooperation that shares industrial benefits through local manufacturing, joint ventures and technology sharing. Its delegation and pavilion messaging will reveal how Beijing responds to partners seeking their own place in cleantech value chains.

In the negotiations, I’ll watch whether China accepts greater responsibility for climate ambition while maintaining its leadership role among developing countries, including through additional voluntary climate finance. Electrification will be another test. Will Beijing support commitments linking electrification to cleaner grids and use its influence to bring reluctant fossil-fuel producers on board?

Prof Jeremy Wallace 

A Doak Barnett professor of China studies, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies 

China seems to hold many cards in the notional game of global climate leadership. Its firms have innovated and scaled up production to make solar, batteries and EVs cost-competitive with or cheaper than fossil alternatives. It has led in deployment of these technologies. 

Yet, in preparation for COP31, China seems more interested in fighting battles abroad about “unfair” tariffs on these products than about demonstrating their effectiveness by accelerating adoption of the green-tech revolution at home. China’s renewables buildout has slowed dramatically in 2026, while new coal power and coal chemical facilities continue to be built. The Chinese government has restricted firms from taking their best manufacturing innovations out of the country when building factories abroad. 

Climate leadership is up for grabs. I’m watching to see if Beijing will play its cards and show that they are a winning hand.

Related Analysis: China’s clean-tech exports in 2026 to avoid as much CO2 as Brazil emits in a year 29.10.2026 China policy Chart: A record two-thirds of car sales in China are now electric vehicles 23.10.2026 China policy Interactive: What China’s dozens of ‘five-year plans’ say about climate and energy 24.09.2026 China policy Analysis: China’s CO2 emissions fall in Q2 2026 due to plummeting oil use 03.09.2026 Emissions

The post Experts: What China wants from the COP31 climate talks appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit said Texas has a “free lane” to enforce restrictions on foreign-owned companies’ access to the state’s electric grid in a ruling that could have implications for other states and market participants.

Two FirstEnergy utilities reserved combined-cycle turbines for a 1.2-GW data center-focused project in West Virginia and issued a solicitation for an additional 3 GW, company officials said.

Shell’s latest financial results reveal a striking contrast: a multibillion-dollar reassessment of a European biogas investment, a substantial increase in the accounting value of an LNG-related asset, and another $5 billion earmarked for share buybacks. What does this tell shareholders about the company’s energy-transition strategy?

By John Donovan — 29 October 2026

Shell plc has today announced third-quarter adjusted earnings of $10.814 billion, almost double the $5.432 billion recorded for the corresponding quarter in 2025.

Income attributable to shareholders reached $12.057 billion, while operating cash flow amounted to $21.043 billion.

These are impressive figures by almost any corporate standard.

But buried within Shell’s newly released financial statements are two disclosures that deserve particular attention.

The first concerns a $2.116 billion impairment of a European biogas asset.

The second concerns a $1.787 billion reversal of a previous impairment associated with a North American Integrated Gas asset, linked to changes in commercial terms and the final investment decision on LNG Canada Phase 2.

One investment has been written down substantially. Another has seen its recognised value increase.

The contrast raises an important question: what do Shell’s latest accounting decisions reveal about the commercial realities behind its energy-transition ambitions?

The $2.116 billion biogas write-down

On page 31 of its third-quarter financial statements, Shell discloses that it recognised total pre-tax impairments of $2.543 billion during the quarter.

Of that amount, $2.116 billion related to a European biogas asset within its Marketing business.

Shell attributes the impairment principally to a reassessment of management expectations concerning the speed of market development and the associated realisation of value.

In straightforward terms, Shell has concluded that the asset’s recoverable value is substantially lower than previously recognised.

The company has not identified the particular European biogas asset in this disclosure. It would therefore be inappropriate to attribute the charge conclusively to a named facility or subsidiary without further evidence.

That qualification does not diminish the significance of the announcement.

Biogas and renewable natural gas have featured prominently in Shell’s efforts to diversify beyond conventional fossil fuels.

Such investments have been presented as opportunities to use existing gas infrastructure while serving customers seeking lower-carbon alternatives.

Yet the latest impairment suggests that, at least for the asset concerned, commercial expectations have fallen materially.

The charge does not necessarily represent $2.116 billion in cash lost during this quarter. An impairment is an accounting recognition that an asset’s carrying value exceeds its recoverable amount.

Nevertheless, it is a substantial acknowledgement that previous assumptions about future value have changed.

Shareholders are entitled to ask how those assumptions were developed, what caused them to change, and whether further reassessments might follow.

Meanwhile, LNG Canada gains $1.787 billion in recognised value

The contrasting disclosure concerns LNG Canada.

Shell reports that impairment reversals recognised during the third quarter totalled $1.801 billion before tax.

Almost the entire amount — $1.787 billion — relates to a North American asset within its Integrated Gas business.

According to Shell, the reversal was triggered by revised commercial terms and the final investment decision taken on LNG Canada Phase 2 during the third quarter.

A reversal of an impairment means that an asset’s recoverable value has increased sufficiently to justify reversing part of an earlier write-down, subject to applicable accounting limits.

It is not equivalent to receiving $1.787 billion in cash.

Nevertheless, the financial message is significant.

While Shell has lowered the recognised value of a European biogas investment, it has increased the recognised value of an asset associated with a major LNG development.

The LNG Canada Phase 2 investment decision, taken in September 2026, is itself substantial.

According to Shell, the expansion will increase the project’s annual production capacity from 14 million tonnes to 28 million tonnes.

Shell holds a 40% interest and expects to receive nearly six million additional tonnes of LNG annually from the expansion. Commercial operations are expected to begin in the early 2030s.

That represents a long-term commitment to natural gas infrastructure.

The two accounting adjustments concern different assets, markets and commercial circumstances. They should not be treated as a direct measure of the relative profitability of biogas and LNG across Shell’s entire portfolio.

But taken together, they provide a revealing snapshot of where important commercial expectations have strengthened — and where they have weakened.

Another $5 billion for shareholders

Against this background, Shell has announced a further $5 billion share-buyback programme, expected to be completed by the fourth-quarter 2026 results announcement.

During the third quarter, shareholder distributions totalled approximately $5.3 billion, comprising $3.2 billion in share repurchases and $2.2 billion in cash dividends.

Shell also reported:

• Adjusted earnings: $10.814 billion
• Income attributable to shareholders: $12.057 billion
• Operating cash flow: $21.043 billion
• Free cash flow: $16.322 billion
• Net debt: $39.7 billion, compared with $41.8 billion at the end of the preceding quarter

These figures illustrate the continuing financial strength of Shell’s operations.

They also sharpen the debate about capital allocation.

Shareholders must assess whether management is directing capital towards investments capable of delivering sustainable long-term returns, rather than merely pursuing businesses that appear attractive under a particular political or commercial climate.

For an oil and gas company navigating the energy transition, that challenge is especially important.

This is not Shell’s first bioenergy disappointment

The latest biogas impairment should not be considered in isolation.

In its third-quarter results, Shell also refers to an impairment recognised during the equivalent quarter of 2025, principally associated with its decision not to restart construction of the planned biofuels facility at the Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Rotterdam.

That earlier episode involved a different project and different commercial considerations.

Nevertheless, both developments illustrate the financial challenges that can arise when large energy-transition investments confront changing market assumptions.

Shell is not alone in facing those challenges.

The development of lower-carbon energy markets depends on regulatory arrangements, customer demand, infrastructure, technology, competitive conditions and the availability of commercially viable returns.

But Shell’s size, resources and influence make its investment decisions particularly consequential.

When management commits billions to emerging energy businesses, shareholders are entitled to expect rigorous scrutiny of the assumptions supporting those commitments.

When those assumptions change, the reasons should be explained transparently.

The distinction between adjusted earnings and reported profits

There is another important accounting consideration.

Shell’s preferred measure of adjusted earnings excludes identified items such as certain impairments, impairment reversals, divestment gains and other adjustments.

Consequently, the headline adjusted earnings figure of $10.814 billion does not measure the full effect of every accounting development during the quarter.

The biogas charge and LNG-related reversal are reflected in the company’s statutory financial reporting, but excluded from adjusted earnings through Shell’s reconciliation process.

That approach is not inherently improper. Adjusted earnings are commonly used to compare underlying operating performance between reporting periods.

However, readers should examine both adjusted and statutory results.

A multibillion-dollar impairment remains financially meaningful even when excluded from a company’s preferred performance measure.

Equally, an impairment reversal should not be mistaken for recurring operating earnings.

What Shell’s own disclosures tell us

For readers of The Shell Leaks Files and the Independent Shell Archive, the significance of these disclosures extends beyond one quarterly reporting period.

Our historical investigations have repeatedly examined the relationship between Shell’s public representations, internal commercial assessments and subsequent developments.

The Sakhalin-2 documentary record demonstrates why it is important to preserve contemporaneous evidence of what companies expected, what actually happened, and how management explained the differences.

The present circumstances are not evidence of wrongdoing or a repetition of the Sakhalin controversy.

They are, however, another example of why the company’s original financial disclosures deserve permanent preservation and careful analysis.

The figures published on 29 October 2026 provide a verifiable reference point against which future management explanations can be assessed.

Several questions arise:

First, which European biogas asset accounts for the $2.116 billion impairment, and what changes in market expectations produced such a substantial revision?

Second, how much of the LNG-related valuation improvement arises from revised commercial arrangements, and how much from the decision to proceed with Phase 2?

Third, what do these developments imply for Shell’s remaining investments in biogas, biofuels and other lower-carbon businesses?

Fourth, how does management reconcile these commercial developments with its longer-term energy-transition strategy?

These are legitimate questions for shareholders, analysts and the wider public.

They do not imply that Shell has concealed information or breached its reporting obligations.

They arise directly from the company’s published figures.

A revealing moment in Shell’s energy transition

Shell’s third-quarter results demonstrate that the company continues to generate substantial earnings and cash flow.

They also demonstrate that the value of particular energy-transition investments can change dramatically as commercial expectations evolve.

The biogas impairment suggests significant disappointment in the anticipated economics of one European asset.

The LNG Canada impairment reversal reflects more favourable expectations for an asset associated with a major expansion of natural gas production capacity.

The contrast is noteworthy.

Shell’s energy transition cannot be judged solely by corporate statements of ambition. It must also be judged by investment decisions, asset valuations, capital expenditure and the eventual financial and environmental outcomes.

The company’s own financial reporting provides some of the most important evidence.

And today’s figures offer another reminder that the distinction between an attractive corporate narrative and a commercially successful investment can be measured in billions of dollars.

The central question is not whether Shell remains profitable. Clearly, it does. The question is whether its evolving portfolio demonstrates that the energy-transition investments promoted to shareholders are delivering the commercial results originally anticipated.

That is a question worth continuing to investigate.

Principal sources and further reading

Primary corporate disclosures

Shell plc — Third Quarter 2026 and Nine Months Unaudited Results, published 29 October 2026

The principal source for all financial figures, impairment charges, impairment reversals, portfolio developments and share repurchases discussed above. See particularly the financial statement notes on page 31.

Shell plc — Third Quarter 2026 Results Announcement

Shell’s official results announcement and investor information.

Shell — Third Quarter 2026 Update Note, 7 October 2026

Shell’s earlier trading update, providing useful context for comparing preliminary expectations with the final quarterly results.

Previous independent reporting

Shell’s Latest SEC Filing Reveals the Contradictions of Its Energy Transition: Refining Profits, Carbon Costs and Biogas Write-Downs — 8 October 2026

Earlier coverage of Shell’s third-quarter outlook and the emerging biogas impairment issue.

Shell’s Green Future Moves to China Just as Its German Battery Dream Goes Bust — 25 October 2026

Related examination of Shell’s lower-carbon investment portfolio.

Editorial note: This article is based principally on Shell plc’s unaudited third-quarter financial statements published on 29 October 2026. The accounting figures and explanations attributed to Shell are drawn from its own disclosures. Commentary concerning the implications for investment strategy and shareholders represents independent editorial analysis. This article does not allege accounting misconduct or regulatory violations. The financial results are company-issued primary disclosures; their status as a new SEC EDGAR filing has not been independently established.

Shell plc is invited to provide factual corrections or additional explanations, including identification of the European biogas asset concerned and further details of the commercial assumptions underpinning the impairment and LNG-related reversal. Any substantive response will be considered for publication.

Shell’s $10.8 Billion Profit Bonanza: A $2.1 Billion Biogas Write-Down as LNG Canada Gains $1.8 Billion in Value was first posted on October 29, 2026 at 1:06 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Compostable plastics are touted as a greener alternative to conventional petroleum-based plastics that can linger in the environment for centuries. But there’s a catch. Degradable plastics only break down in the right conditions typically found in a composting facility. The tons of compostable plastic that ends up in oceans can still float around for decades and threaten marine life and ecosystems.

Researchers have found a way for plastics to break down much faster in the ocean. They embedded tiny amounts of plastic-degrading enzymes in compostable polyester plastics. The enzyme-containing polyesters completely degraded in a relatively short time period even in microbe-scarce environments.

The method works at all depths from coastal waters to the deep open sea, the researchers report in the journal Nature.

There are many types of biodegradable plastics in commercial use today. These plastics are designed to decompose completely by microorganisms at certain temperatures and humidities. Those conditions are found in industrial composting facilities and with more care in backyard compost settings. But out in cold ocean water, biodegradable plastics can persist for a long time.

The research team from Japan took four types of compostable plastic—PBS, PBSA, PCL, and PBAT—and melted them. The heat of the melt would destroy plastic-degrading enzymes. So the researchers made freeze-dried forms of Candida antarctica lipase B and Humicola insolens cutinase enzymes. They added the enzymes to the melts at very low concentrations ranging from 0.1–3% by weight.

 

.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:Ocean microbes may be developing taste for plastic pollution

 

Then the researchers shaped the materials into films and microbeads. After sealing the samples in a polyethylene meshes, they placed the meshes at various locations off the coast of Tokyo, ranging in water depths from 2–6 m to 5,503 m. They monitored the samples over periods ranging from one month to 18 months.

At 757 m, PBS, PBSA and PCL films containing 3% cutinase nearly completely disappeared within five months. Films of those three plastics containing only 0.1 wt% cutinase lost 27.4%, 100% and 85.5% of their mass, respectively, in 1 month. But PBAT was more resistant, losing just over 12% under the same conditions.

Enzyme-free samples barely degraded. And enzyme-containing plastics also showed moderate biodegradation on the cold floor of the deepest test site. Meanwhile, microbeads embedded with 0.1 wt% cutinase formed visible pores and cracks within 2 weeks in coastal seawater.

“These results demonstrate enzyme embedding as a material-level strategy to enhance the environmental degradability of the compostable polyesters…across diverse marine environments without compromising their mechanical properties,” the researchers write.

Source: QiuYuan Huang et al. Enzyme-embedded polyesters for accelerated biodegradation in the deep sea. Nature, 2026.

©Anthropocene Magazine

A temporary shortage of meter components should be fully resolved by the end of the year, the electrical equipment supplier said in its third-quarter earnings call.

Would you trust a detox facility that offers a minibar in every room? How about a climate course sponsored by ExxonMobil? If not, you might direct the same incredulity towards Canada’s recently unveiled Responsible Data Centre Development Principles, endorsed by tech giants that are implicated in violating those same principles. 

Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation Evan Solomon announced the voluntary and non-binding principles in September in response to mounting public opposition to massive data centre developments. It is hardly encouraging that the same companies leading the disruptive build out of massive data centres, such as Amazon, Google, OpenAI, Meta, and Anthropic, quickly signed on to this toothless commitment. 

“Data centres must protect ratepayers, respect water and energy resources, and create lasting benefits for the communities that host them,” assured Solomon at the launch in September. “These principles set a clear national standard: If you build in Canada, you must build responsibly and transparently and you must build for Canadians.”

Really?

Barely three weeks after these companies pledged to Canadians to be “transparent about local impacts,” the U.S. House Judiciary Committee opened an investigation into Amazon, Google, and Meta for using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to gag state and local officials from telling their constituents about data centre impacts on local water supplies and electricity rates.

“Google’s own confidentiality agreements have been shown to contain language that explicitly prevents local officials from disclosing ‘the terms of any agreement,’” ranking member Democratic U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin wrote in a letter to Google’s parent company Alphabet.

For over a year, the company fought a local newspaper in Oregon in the courts to keep its Dalles data centre’s water consumption hidden, arguing the figure was a “trade secret.” When the courts finally forced the release of this essential information, it was revealed  that Google was using a quarter of the entire city’s water. A company that litigates to hide its water use from the residents of one small town is now asking Canadians to trust its promise of transparency here.

A Meta subsidiary in Louisiana likewise convinced Republican Gov. Jeff Landry to sign an NDA tied to a $50 billion data centre campus. Over 100 Louisiana state public officials signed similar gag orders that apparently silence them even if they leave government. Eric Holl, an adviser to former Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, told the Gulf States Newsroom, “I don’t see this being used as anything other than a tool of intimidation and control.”

Citizens in Wisconsin were also forced to sue the local utility regulator to release documents detailing the projected energy demand of a proposed Meta data centre after this basic information was also deemed a trade secret.

Subscribe to Desmog

Get the weekly intelligence you need to hold polluters accountable

Email Address Sign Up Send me intelligence from: All US/Global team UK/Europe team Sign Up --> (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

The impacts of enormous AI facilities on American communities are well known. The consequences being visited on Canadian towns and residents are concerning to say the least.

The principles say centres must reduce environmental impacts, and prioritize “low-emission energy sources.” Yet a contentious data centre development in Saskatchewan proposed by Bell Canada – also a signatory to Minister Solomon’s principles – would require as much generating capacity as the entire city of Regina. About 900 megawatts (MW) of its power will come from behind-the-fence gas generation. The Regina City Council recently debated the development for over seven hours and voted to demand more information on potential impacts on local water supplies and electricity costs. A total of 18,000 residents have signed a petition opposing the project.

Beacon Data Centers is another signatory, which stated it is “proud to stand with governments, municipalities, and industry in supporting them.” Yet the company is embroiled in a bitter dispute with residents of Lorneville, New Brunswick, who are understandably opposed to the company’s plans to fill in a local wetland to expand an industrial park with a data centre that will require more than 10 percent of provincial energy demand. The data centre would become one of New Brunswick’s biggest emitters, generating 6.6 percent of provincial emissions.

According to reporting from the Narwhal, “documents obtained through provincial access to information legislation … show provincial officials were in discussions to bring a data centre to the [industrial] park long before residents were told about the tenant — and that details of that data centre conflicted with the more low-impact vision for the industrial park advertised to residents.”

DeSmog has already documented the massive buildout of data centres in Alberta, almost entirely powered by burning natural gas. Almost 21 GW of potential new gas capacity is enthusiastically being embraced by provincial regulators, an amount described as “absurdly high” by Alex de Vries  at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Based on similar gas-fired installations around the world, de Vries estimated this amount of new data centres would require about 200 billion litres in cooling water each year. How is this not supposed to impact local electricity rates, heating costs, or water supplies?

This absurd increase in climate-killing gas consumption seems, in fact, to be the point. Internal Privy Council documents obtained by DeSmog from Greenpeace showed that increased gas demand was being touted by senior advisors to Prime Minister Mark Carney as one of the top “public policy benefits to Canada” of data centres.

Bringing “strategic value to Canada” is another vague goal of the newly announced data centre principles. If this is meant to allude to protecting Canadian data sovereignty, building facilities owned by Google, Meta, Amazon or other tech giants will accomplish very little. The U.S. government can compel an American company that controls data – regardless of location – to release it to American regulators under the CLOUD Act (2018). 

Regardless of the law, many of the enthusiastic corporate endorsers of Canada’s new data centre principles have repeatedly demonstrated their obedient political fealty to the Trump administration. Tech leaders attended his inauguration, donated vast sums of money to the Trump campaign, and indulged the president’s geographic fits of pique by rapidly renaming Lake Ontario “Lake America” on Google and Apple maps. 

With this cohort driving Canada’s tech build-out, what could possibly go wrong?

Canadians are justifiably concerned data centres will impact local water supplies and electricity costs. We need bold policies that will improve digital safety and address increasing democratic threats from AI-driven disinformation. Rather than bringing in meaningful and enforceable regulations, the federal government has instead trotted out vague platitudes endorsed by the same companies contributing to the problem. Ottawa, we have a credibility problem.

The post Canada’s ‘Responsible’ Data Centre Principles Have a Credibility Problem appeared first on DeSmog.

Lake Powell recently dropped to a historic low, slashing hydropower and the flow of water downstream. As drought deepens, groups are pushing to drain the lake entirely to reveal its long-submerged rock arches and spires and allow wildlife along the Colorado River to recover.

Read more on E360 →

La Vía Campesina alert the world to the grave situation facing Ecuador.

The post La Vía Campesina denounces the alarming criminalization and fascist drift of Daniel Noboa’s regime in Ecuador appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

La Vía Campesina stands in solidarity with the peoples in Haiti who are fighting for their sovereignty and dignity.

The post La Via Campesina stands in solidarity with the Haitian people and their struggles for sovereignty, social justice, and self-determination appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

By John Donovan — 29 October 2026

A newly launched website, ExposeShell.com, is drawing attention to historical evidence that Shell commissioned research into the climatic consequences of burning fossil fuels as early as 1966. The archive brings together material associated with British scientist James Lovelock, Shell’s later greenhouse-effect studies and legal claims arising from Typhoon Rai in the Philippines. But how strong is the evidence, what is genuinely new, and what would make the archive most valuable to independent researchers?

In the interests of transparency and fairness, RoyalDutchShellPlc.com extends an open invitation to the ExposeShell organisers to respond to this review. We offer to publish their response in full, subject only to ordinary legal and privacy safeguards. Shell is equally welcome to respond.

Introduction: From protest slogan to documentary evidence

The launch of ExposeShell.com on 28 October 2026 represents a potentially important addition to the growing network of archives documenting the oil industry’s historical knowledge of climate change.

The initiative is associated with Fossil Free London and The Odette Case, a campaign supporting survivors of Typhoon Rai who are pursuing legal action against Shell.

The launch attracted international attention when climate campaigners staged a theatrical demonstration outside Shell’s London headquarters.

Participants dressed as 1960s oil executives, handled imitation money and acted out scenes intended to portray the suppression of inconvenient scientific evidence.

The message was unmistakable: Shell knew about the potential dangers of fossil-fuel emissions decades ago.

But a slogan, however memorable, is not a substitute for historical evidence.

The documents are what matter.

This review examines the principal records associated with ExposeShell, their historical significance, the allegations they may help investigate and the limitations of the conclusions that can presently be drawn.

One qualification is necessary. Although ExposeShell’s launch and several of its featured documents can be independently verified, direct access to the new website was unavailable during this review. This is therefore a documentary assessment of its reported collection and supporting sources, not a completed technical audit of every page or feature.

That limitation is also one reason we particularly welcome a response from the ExposeShell team, who may be able to clarify the website’s contents, organisation and future development.

1. The 1966 Lovelock report: the archive’s most significant historical evidence

The most compelling feature of the project is the research commissioned from British scientist James Lovelock.

In June 1966, Lovelock prepared a report for Shell entitled:

Combustion of Fossil Fuel: Large Scale Atmospheric Effects — Part 1: Climatic Changes.

The report examined possible connections between fossil-fuel combustion and changes in the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.

Its historical importance is substantial.

It establishes that Shell was commissioning specialist scientific research into the possible climatic consequences of fossil-fuel combustion sixty years ago.

This was long before climate change became a central issue in international politics.

The document was preserved among Lovelock’s papers at the Science Museum Library and Archives in Britain.

Investigative journalists subsequently examined the collection.

In July 2026, DeSmog published a detailed investigation drawing upon the original report and associated correspondence.

The research included concerns about worsening climatic conditions and the possible responsibility of fossil-fuel combustion.

That evidence matters because it connects the history directly to Shell’s own commissioning of research.

This is stronger than merely establishing that climate science was publicly available in 1966.

A report specifically prepared for Shell demonstrates a direct corporate connection with the subject.

However, it is important to distinguish three propositions.

First, Shell commissioned climate-related scientific research.

Second, the research contained warnings concerning potential climatic effects.

Third, Shell deliberately suppressed those warnings to deceive the public.

The first two propositions are supported by the historical documents.

The third requires further evidence concerning corporate decisions, communications and intent.

The distinction is essential to the integrity of any serious documentary archive.

Source: DeSmog — The Lovelock Papers, 29 July 2026

2. An important discovery: Lovelock’s relationship with Shell continued

The historical record extends beyond a single report in 1966.

DeSmog’s investigation identifies further correspondence and research involving Lovelock and Shell during subsequent decades.

His consultancy relationship resumed around 1980.

In March 1982, Lovelock submitted two papers identified in the surviving correspondence as Casting Pearls before Minkand Comments on CO2 in the Atmosphere.

The complete papers had not been located in the research reported by DeSmog in July 2026.

But related correspondence indicates that Shell produced internal memoranda based upon Lovelock’s work for circulation to more senior personnel.

This is a particularly promising area for further investigation.

The surviving correspondence establishes that additional scientific material existed and was considered significant enough for internal communication.

But it does not establish the complete contents of papers that have not been recovered.

A responsible archive should therefore distinguish the original documents that can be read from missing documents whose existence is evidenced only indirectly.

That approach avoids turning gaps in the surviving record into unsupported certainty.

It also creates a useful research agenda.

Locating the 1982 papers, their subsequent internal summaries and any related correspondence could materially improve understanding of how Lovelock’s advice was received within Shell.

The new archive could make a valuable contribution by maintaining a public register of such missing but identifiable documents.

3. The 1985 Shell lecture: a more explicit scientific warning

Another important discovery concerns a 1985 lecture prepared by Lovelock.

DeSmog’s July investigation reports that the document was found among his preserved papers.

Its concerns were more explicit than those expressed two decades earlier.

By 1985, Lovelock had developed the ideas associated with his Gaia hypothesis.

His understanding of the Earth as an interacting system informed his warnings concerning excessive atmospheric pollution.

The document raised the prospect of consequences on a global scale.

The historical significance is not simply that Lovelock became more concerned about climate change.

It is that his relationship with Shell provided another opportunity for the company to encounter his developing scientific thinking.

But an important evidential question remains.

A lecture prepared for Shell does not, by itself, prove exactly which directors or executives heard it, read it or relied upon it.

Those questions require attendance records, correspondence, distribution lists or other contemporaneous evidence.

The distinction between a scientist communicating a warning and a corporation adopting or rejecting that warning is fundamental.

An archive seeking to establish corporate knowledge should make such distinctions explicit.

4. The confidential 1988 report: Shell’s internal assessment becomes clearer

The 1988 Shell report entitled The Greenhouse Effect is one of the most important documents in the company’s climate history.

Unlike the earlier Lovelock research, it was an internal Shell report.

It examined the greenhouse effect and the possible consequences of increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Its analysis discussed major changes to climate systems, sea levels, weather patterns and precipitation.

It also considered the difficulty of responding effectively once substantial warming had become unmistakable.

The report demonstrates that Shell was studying the risks of climate change internally by the late 1980s.

Its significance is reinforced by the company’s recognition of the role of fossil-fuel combustion in increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Yet this is not a document newly discovered in October 2026.

The report has been publicly available through earlier investigations and documentary archives.

The Climate Investigations Center, Climate Files and other research projects have preserved or published important sections of Shell’s historical climate records.

The contribution of ExposeShell is therefore not necessarily the first discovery of every document it features.

Its potential contribution lies in bringing the evidence together, explaining its relevance and connecting it with current legal and public debates.

That distinction matters.

Discovering a document, digitising it, publishing it and placing it within an accessible research archive are different achievements.

All can be valuable, but they should be credited accurately.

Source: Climate Investigations Center — Shell Climate Documents

5. Is the evidence genuinely new?

This is one of the most important questions to ask of ExposeShell.

The available evidence suggests that the answer differs from document to document.

The Lovelock papers received significant new attention following DeSmog’s investigation in July 2026.

The 1985 lecture and correspondence surrounding the missing 1982 papers appear particularly important.

Other documents, including the 1988 greenhouse-effect report, have been publicly examined for years.

Additional Shell records concerning corporate planning, climate policy and public communications were identified by investigators including Jelmer Mommers and Vatan Hüzeir.

These discoveries are available through established documentary resources.

The Climate Files collection, for example, contains materials concerning Shell’s internal planning and its approach to environmental policy during the 1980s and 1990s.

The ExposeShell initiative should therefore be understood as part of a developing documentary ecosystem.

Its value will depend partly on how effectively it connects existing evidence with newer discoveries.

A useful archive should identify which documents were previously unpublished, which have been republished and which are included for historical context.

Clear attribution to original researchers and repositories is essential.

That practice benefits the public and protects the reliability of the historical record.

6. The central weakness in the slogan “Shell Knew”

The phrase “Shell Knew” is effective campaigning language.

As historical analysis, however, it needs definition.

What exactly is meant by knew?

Knowledge that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide is not identical to knowledge of the precise future consequences of global warming.

Knowledge that climate change poses serious risks is not identical to knowledge that a particular storm will occur.

And knowledge possessed by an individual scientist or company department is not automatically evidence that every director or employee held the same understanding.

A documentary investigation should distinguish levels of knowledge.

It should identify the scientific propositions contained in each report, the confidence expressed, the recipients and any subsequent corporate response.

The 1966 and 1988 documents provide substantial evidence concerning Shell’s historical engagement with climate science.

They do not, on their own, prove every element of the wider allegations made by campaigners or litigants.

This does not diminish their importance.

It makes them more useful.

The strongest case is the one that preserves the original meaning of the evidence rather than claiming more than the documents can establish.

7. Shell’s response deserves to be included

A fair examination must also consider Shell’s published position.

Shell acknowledges the urgency of climate change and the need for a transformation of the global energy system.

It disputes claims that litigation directed at individual companies provides an effective means of achieving that transformation.

Concerning the Typhoon Odette case, Shell has challenged the attempt to attribute responsibility for a specific extreme-weather disaster to the activities of one company and its customers.

It also disputes the allegation that it possessed unique knowledge of climate change.

Shell argues that the subject has been publicly discussed and researched for decades.

The company points to its public climate communications, including its 1991 film Climate of Concern, and says it supports action to reduce emissions.

These statements do not invalidate the original historical reports.

Nor do the original reports automatically disprove Shell’s entire defence.

The disagreement concerns the interpretation and legal consequences of historical knowledge, corporate conduct and emissions.

Readers should be able to examine both the underlying documents and Shell’s response.

Primary source: Shell — What Kind of Climate Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Shell?

8. The Typhoon Odette litigation: why historical documents could matter in court

The ExposeShell project is connected with litigation involving survivors of Typhoon Rai, known locally as Typhoon Odette.

The storm struck the Philippines in December 2021.

It caused extensive destruction and loss of life.

Claimants represented by Hausfeld have brought proceedings against Shell in England.

They argue that greenhouse-gas emissions associated with Shell’s historical activities contributed to climate change and consequently to the losses suffered during the typhoon.

The claim involves difficult questions of scientific attribution and legal causation.

Climate science can examine how human-caused warming changes the probability or severity of certain extreme weather events.

But establishing legal responsibility for particular losses requires additional findings under the applicable law.

Historical evidence concerning Shell’s scientific knowledge may be relevant to questions about foreseeability, corporate conduct and responsibility.

It does not automatically resolve the causation question.

Nor does the existence of the lawsuit establish that the claimants will succeed.

The court must consider the evidence and competing legal arguments.

The historical climate documents may be important.

But they should not be described as a judicial determination of liability before the court has reached such a conclusion.

Source: Hausfeld — Typhoon Odette Survivors’ Climate Damages Claim Against Shell

9. The archive’s potential research value

ExposeShell’s underlying concept has substantial merit.

Historical corporate documents are often scattered among museums, academic collections, litigation records, investigative websites and archived media reports.

Researchers may know that a particular report exists without knowing where the complete document can be found.

A dedicated archive can reduce those difficulties.

It can also make documentary evidence accessible to readers who lack specialist knowledge of the energy industry.

But its usefulness depends upon transparency.

For every important document, the archive should ideally provide the original date, author, recipient, title, original repository, document reference and complete source.

Where documents have been obtained by journalists or researchers, that contribution should be acknowledged.

Where a report is incomplete, the missing sections should be identified.

Where the provenance is uncertain, the uncertainty should be disclosed.

A modern archive should also allow documents to be downloaded and searched.

For long-term research, individual files should have stable identifiers and permanent links.

The underlying content should remain accessible independently of interactive graphics or promotional material.

These are standards against which ExposeShell can be assessed as it develops.

The publicly available descriptions establish that the initiative is intended to make historical evidence more accessible.

A completed technical examination of the live website would still be needed to determine how fully it currently meets those standards.

10. Why ExposeShell and the Donovan–Shell archive could complement one another

There is considerable potential for cooperation between ExposeShell and the independent Donovan–Shell documentary archive.

The two projects approach Shell’s history from different directions.

ExposeShell concentrates on climate science, corporate knowledge and the relationship between historical evidence and contemporary climate litigation.

The Donovan–Shell archive covers a much wider range of subjects.

These include the company’s historical corporate conduct, internal communications, legal disputes, whistleblower disclosures, environmental controversies, Sakhalin-2, Nord Stream 2 and security-related activities.

Our archive also contains extensive contemporaneous reporting and correspondence spanning several decades.

The projects therefore have overlapping interests but different strengths.

That creates opportunities for cross-referencing.

For example, historical Shell climate documents may be relevant to later company statements concerning environmental responsibility.

Similarly, records of corporate communications and public-relations practices can help researchers examine how Shell presented environmental issues over time.

But cooperation should not mean merging distinct allegations or adopting each other’s conclusions without verification.

The appropriate relationship would be documentary.

Each archive could identify original sources held by the other.

Researchers could follow cross-references between related documents.

Corrections and disputed interpretations could be recorded transparently.

This would be valuable for conventional research and increasingly important for artificial-intelligence systems.

Search engines and AI models can sometimes repeat an unsupported claim simply because it has appeared across several websites.

Repetition is not independent corroboration.

Two archives linking to the same original document should be recognised as two routes to one source, not two independent pieces of evidence.

A shared commitment to provenance would therefore be especially important.

11. The issue of long-term preservation

The launch of an online archive is an achievement.

Its long-term survival is a different challenge.

Campaign websites may be created for particular events, lawsuits or public-awareness initiatives.

Their content may remain valuable long after the original campaign has ended.

The risk is that hosting arrangements change, funding disappears or websites are redesigned in ways that break older links.

Documents may become inaccessible even though they were originally published with the intention of preserving them.

For a collection dealing with events dating back sixty years, durability is essential.

Copies of historically important records should ideally be preserved in more than one location.

Original files should be retained.

Metadata should accompany the documents.

And important material should not depend entirely upon a single commercial platform or interactive viewer.

The Science Museum’s preservation of Lovelock’s papers demonstrates the value of institutional archives.

The work of investigative journalists demonstrates the value of making those records publicly accessible.

A durable digital archive should attempt to combine both approaches.

The goal should be not merely to expose documents today, but to ensure that researchers can still examine them decades from now.

Documentary findings Established

Shell commissioned climate-related research from James Lovelock during the 1960s.

The surviving material includes a report dated June 1966.

Additional Lovelock correspondence and lecture material has been identified in the Science Museum’s collections.

Shell produced a confidential greenhouse-effect report in 1988.

Several important Shell climate documents were published by investigative researchers before the launch of ExposeShell.

ExposeShell was launched in October 2026 to make historical climate-related material accessible and support public understanding of the issues.

The initiative is associated with campaigns concerning climate responsibility and the Typhoon Odette litigation.

Shell disputes the claimants’ allegations and maintains that climate change has been the subject of public scientific discussion for decades.

Not established

The historical documents do not, without additional evidence, establish that every Shell director possessed identical scientific knowledge.

They do not prove that Shell deliberately destroyed the original Lovelock report.

They do not establish that all internal confidentiality arrangements were intended to deceive the public.

They do not determine Shell’s liability for Typhoon Rai.

Nor has this review independently verified the complete contents, navigational features, accessibility, document count or technical durability of ExposeShell’s live website.

Editorial conclusion: The real value of exposing Shell

The importance of ExposeShell lies in its potential to make original historical evidence more accessible.

The 1966 Lovelock report is significant.

The later correspondence and 1985 lecture are significant.

The 1988 greenhouse-effect report is significant.

Together, these documents help reconstruct the development of scientific understanding within and around Shell.

But their importance should not be exaggerated into claims that the documents themselves cannot support.

A successful documentary archive should allow readers to examine the evidence independently of the campaign through which it was publicised.

It should also distinguish established scientific knowledge from the changing levels of certainty associated with particular forecasts.

Above all, it should preserve the difference between a historical document and an allegation made about that document.

ExposeShell has the potential to become an important resource for researchers examining the history of corporate climate knowledge.

Its relationship with existing documentary collections should be complementary rather than competitive.

The question is not which website can make the strongest accusation.

The question is which collection can provide the clearest access to authenticated evidence.

For RoyalDutchShellPlc.com, that principle is familiar.

Our long-running archive has repeatedly demonstrated the importance of preserving original correspondence, corporate documents, court records and contemporary reporting.

Those records may support criticism of Shell.

They may also correct exaggerations or misunderstandings.

Both outcomes strengthen the historical record.

ExposeShell deserves serious attention because the scientific documents behind it are real and historically important.

Its enduring value will depend upon how carefully those documents are presented, attributed, contextualised and preserved.

If it achieves those aims, the archive could become a useful resource not only for campaigners and litigants, but for shareholders, historians, journalists and future generations of researchers.

The appropriate response from an independent archive is therefore to welcome the publication of historical evidence, examine it critically and offer cooperation where doing so improves public access to the original records.

The documents should decide. Not the slogan, not the company, and not the archive that publishes them.

An open invitation to the ExposeShell team

RoyalDutchShellPlc.com warmly invites the organisers of ExposeShell to respond to this review.

We recognise the importance of preserving and making accessible historical documents concerning Shell’s knowledge of climate change.

We also recognise the substantial research undertaken by the journalists, scientists, archivists and campaigners responsible for bringing these records into the public domain.

Our review has identified several subjects on which further information would be particularly welcome.

These include the provenance of documents published through ExposeShell, identification of material being made publicly available for the first time, the completeness of the current collection and arrangements for its long-term preservation.

We would also welcome clarification concerning documents whose existence has been established through correspondence but whose complete contents have not yet been recovered.

Of particular interest are the two papers reportedly supplied by James Lovelock in 1982 and the related Shell internal memoranda.

If the ExposeShell team can provide additional information about those records, it would be a valuable contribution to the historical record.

We would equally welcome corrections to any factual inaccuracies, omissions or misunderstandings in our assessment.

We undertake to publish a substantive response from ExposeShell in full and without editorial alteration, subject only to ordinary legal and privacy safeguards.

Any necessary editorial qualifications would be clearly identified separately.

Our purpose is not to compete with ExposeShell but to encourage the preservation, verification and accessibility of important historical evidence.

We would also welcome discussion of possible cooperation between ExposeShell and the independent Donovan–Shell documentary archive.

Such cooperation might include reciprocal links, cross-referencing of original documents, identification of previously unpublished material and sharing information about records held in other collections.

The two archives need not agree upon every interpretation.

Indeed, independent examination is most valuable when differing interpretations can be tested against the same original sources.

Our common interest should be the survival and accessibility of the documents.

The ExposeShell team is welcome to have its say, in its own words, on RoyalDutchShellPlc.com.

An equivalent invitation to Shell plc

In the same spirit of fairness, we also invite Shell plc to respond to this article.

We would welcome any factual corrections, relevant historical records or clarification concerning the company’s commissioning, receipt, distribution and subsequent use of the Lovelock research and other early climate studies.

Shell is equally welcome to provide a substantive response for publication, subject to the same ordinary legal and privacy safeguards.

Our intention is to maintain an accessible record in which documentary evidence, corporate explanations and independent analysis can be considered together.

The invitation to both parties is made openly and in good faith.

The objective is not to establish which organisation can advance the most persuasive slogan, but which conclusions can be supported by authenticated evidence.

Principal sources

1. ExposeShell — New Historical Climate Archive — The initiative under review; direct technical inspection was not available during this assessment.
2. DeSmog — Interactive Archive Shares Secrets of Shell’s Early Climate Research, 28 October 2026 — Reporting on the launch, organisers and litigation connection.
3. DeSmog — The Lovelock Papers, 29 July 2026 — Investigation of Lovelock’s original archival papers and scientific warnings.
4. Climate Investigations Center — Shell Climate Documents — Established collection of Shell reports and documentary references.
5. Climate Files — New Shell Documents from the Dirty Pearls Investigation — Additional historical Shell records concerning climate research and corporate planning.
6. Shell — Official Position on Climate Litigation — Shell’s published response to climate-related legal claims, including the Typhoon Odette proceedings.
7. Hausfeld — Typhoon Odette Survivors’ Claim Against Shell — The claimants’ legal representatives explain the case and allegations.

Documentary disclaimer

This article is an independent assessment of ExposeShell’s reported documentary collection and its historical significance, supported by external sources. It is not an exhaustive inspection of the website itself.

The review distinguishes authenticated historical corporate documents, scientific findings, campaign statements, contested allegations, legal proceedings and editorial commentary.

The existence of early Shell climate research does not, without additional evidence, establish every allegation made concerning the company’s historical intentions or conduct.

No allegation is made that Shell has been judicially found liable for the losses arising from Typhoon Rai.

Shell’s published position is acknowledged.

The article includes open invitations for ExposeShell and Shell plc to respond. Those invitations do not imply that either organisation has already received or accepted a separate request.

Any substantive responses received may be published, subject to ordinary legal and privacy safeguards, with any editorial commentary clearly distinguished from the responses themselves.

Further primary documents, factual corrections and relevant information from researchers, archivists, scientists and other interested parties are welcome.

The website’s general disclaimer also applies.

ExposeShell Under the Microscope: A New Climate Archive, Six Decades of Documents and the Evidence Behind “Shell Knew” was first posted on October 29, 2026 at 11:01 am.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

The following presents a snapshot of Cuban society during the Che Guevara Volunteer Work Brigade’s visit in May 2026. Singing “The Internationale” together with sugarcane...

The post Cuba: Solidarity against the US blockade first appeared on Spring.