You are here
News Feeds
Q&A: New UK onshore wind and solar is ‘50% cheaper’ than new gas
The UK government has secured a record 7.4 gigawatts (GW) of solar, onshore wind and tidal power in its latest auction for new renewable capacity.
It is the second and final part of the seventh auction round for “contracts for difference” (CfDs), known as AR7a.
In the first part, held in January 2026, the government agreed contracts for a record 8.4GW of new offshore wind capacity.
This makes AR7 the UK’s single-largest auction round overall, with its 14.7GW of new renewable capacity being 50% larger than the previous record set by AR6 in 2024.
In AR7a, 157 solar projects secured contracts to supply electricity for £65 per megawatt hour (MWh) and 28 onshore wind projects were contracted at £72/MWh.
This means they will help cut consumer bills, according to multiple analysts.
Energy secretary Ed Miliband welcomed the outcome of the auction, saying in a statement that the new projects would be “50% cheaper” than new gas:
“These results show once again that clean British power is the right choice for our country, agreeing a price for new onshore wind and solar that is over 50% cheaper than the cost of building and operating new gas”.
In addition to cutting costs, the new projects will help reduce gas imports.
In total, AR7 will cut UK gas demand by around 95 terawatt hours (TWh) per year, enough to cut liquified natural gas (LNG) imports by three-quarters, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Below, Carbon Brief looks at the seventh auction results for onshore wind, solar and tidal, what they mean energy for bills and the impact of the UK’s target of “clean power by 2030”.
- What happened in the latest UK renewable auction?
- What does the solar and onshore wind auction mean for bills?
- What does it mean for energy security, jobs and investment?
- What does the auction mean for clean power by 2030?
The latest UK government auction for new renewable capacity is the second and final part of the seventh auction round, known as AR7a.
It secured a record 4.9GW of new solar capacity across 157 projects, as shown in the figure below, as well as 1.3GW of onshore wind across 28 projects.
In addition, four tidal energy projects totalling 21 megawatts (MW) secured contracts, included within “other” in the figure below.
Capacity of solar, onshore wind and other technologies (including tidal) secured at each CfD auction in megawatts. Source: Department of Energy Security and Net Zero.Most of the solar that secured a contract has a capacity of less than 50MW. This is the cut-off point for projects to be approved by the local council. Larger schemes must instead go through the “nationally significant infrastructure project” (NSIP) process, subject to approval by the secretary of state for energy.
For the first time, one 480MW solar project – approved via this NSIP process – won a CfD in AR7a. The West Burton Solar NSIP is being developed in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire by Island Green Power. It is named after the grid connection it will use, freed up by the shuttering of the coal-powered West Burton plant.
However, Nick Civetta, project leader at Aurora Energy Research notes on LinkedIn that this site was only one of four eligible solar NSIPs to secure a contract.
Civetta adds that “wrangling these large projects into fruition is proving more painful than expected”.
Solar projects secured a “strike price” of £65/MWh in 2024 prices, some 7% cheaper than the £70/MWh agreed in the previous auction round.
In previous auction rounds CfD contracts were expressed in 2012 prices. For comparison, AR6 and AR7a solar contracts stand at £50/MWh and £47/MWh in 2012 prices, respectively.)
Alongside solar, 28 onshore wind projects secured contracts in the latest CfD auction, with a total capacity of 1.3GW.
This includes the Imerys windfarm in Cornwall, which at nearly 20MW is the largest onshore wind farm in England to secure a contract in a decade.
(Shortly after taking office in 2024, the current Labour government lifted a decade-long de facto ban on onshore wind in England.)
Overall, Scotland still dominated the auction for onshore wind, with 1,093MW of projects in the country in comparison to 38MW in England and 185MW in Wales.
.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }This includes the Sanquhar II windfarm in Dumfries and Galloway in Scotland, which will become the fourth-largest onshore wind farm in the UK at 269MW.
In total, Wales secured contracts for 20 renewables projects in AR7a, with a capacity of more than 530MW. This is the largest ever number of Welsh projects to get backing in a CfD auction, according to a statement from the Welsh government.
Onshore wind secured a strike price of £72/MWh, up slightly from £71/MWh in the previous auction in 2024.
The prices for solar and onshore wind were 13% and 21% below the price cap set by Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) for the auction, respectively.
In its press release announcing the results, the government noted that the results for solar and onshore wind were less than half of the £147/MWh cost of building and operating new gas power stations.
Finally, four tidal energy projects secured contracts with a total capacity of 21MW at a strike price of £265/MWh, up from £240/MWh in 2024.
In total, taken together with the 8.4GW of offshore wind secured in the first part of the auction, AR7 secured a total of 14.7GW of new clean power, as shown in the chart below.
This is enough to power the equivalent of 16 million homes, according to the government. It also makes AR7 the single-largest auction round by far, at more than 50% larger than the previous record set by AR6 in 2024.
This means that the two auction rounds held since the Labour government took office in July 2024 – AR6 and AR7 – have secured a total of 24GW of new renewable capacity. This is more than the 22GW from all previous auction rounds put together.
New onshore wind, offshore wind, solar PV and other technologies’ capacity secured in each CfD auction, in megawatts. Source: DESNZ.However, several analysts noted that the AR7a results did not include any old onshore windfarms looking to replace their ageing turbines with new equipment – so-called “repowering projects” – despite the auction being open to them for the first time.
What does the solar and onshore wind auction mean for bills?Onshore wind and solar are widely recognised as the cheapest sources of new electricity generation in almost every part of the world.
The latest auction shows that the UK is no exception, despite its northerly location.
The prices for onshore wind and solar in the latest auction, at £72/MWh and £65/MWh respectively, are comfortably below recent wholesale power prices, which averaged £81/MWh in 2025 and £92/MWh in January 2026.
This means that the new projects will cut costs for UK electricity consumers, according to multiple analysts commenting on the auction outcome.
.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }The government lauded the results of AR7a for securing “homegrown energy at good value for billpayers – once again proving that clean power is the right choice for energy security and to meet rising electricity demand”.
In a statement, Miliband added:
“By backing solar and onshore wind at scale, we’re driving bills down for good and protecting families, businesses, and our country from the fossil fuel rollercoaster controlled by petrostates and dictators. This is how we take back control of our energy and deliver a new era of energy abundance and independence.”
As noted in Carbon Brief’s coverage of the offshore wind results under AR7 in January, electricity demand is starting to rise as the economy electrifies and many of the UK’s existing power plants are nearing the end of their lives.
Therefore, new sources of electricity generation will be needed, whether from renewables, gas-fired power stations or from other sources.
In his statement, quoted above, Miliband said that the prices for onshore wind and solar were less than half the £147/MWh cost of electricity from new gas-fired power stations.
(This is based on recently published government estimates and assumes that gas plants would only be operating during 30% of hours each year, in line with the current UK fleet.)
Trade association RenewableUK also pointed to the cost of new gas, as well as the £124/MWh cost of the Hinkley C new nuclear plant, in its response to the auction results.
In a statement, Dr Doug Parr, policy director for Greenpeace UK, said:
“These new onshore wind and solar projects will supply energy at less than half the cost of new gas plants. Together with the new offshore wind contracts agreed last month, these cheaper renewables will lower energy bills as they come online.”
Strike prices for solar dropped by 6% compared to last year and while onshore wind prices rose, this was by less than 2% despite a “difficult environment for wind generation”, according to Bertalan Gyenes, consultant at LCP Delta.
In a post on LinkedIn, he noted that “extending the contract length [for onshore wind projects] by five years seems to have helped keep this increase low”.
The January offshore wind round secured 8.4 GW at £91/MWh, as such, the onshore and solar projects are 25% cheaper per unit of generation.
(The offshore wind projects secured in January are nevertheless expected to cut consumer bills relative to the alternative, or at worst to be cost neutral.)
Parr added that while the AR7a auction results “show we’re getting up to speed” ahead of the clean power 2030 target (see below), “an even faster way for the government to make a really big dent in bills would be to change the system that allows gas to set the overall energy price in this country”. He adds:
“That would allow us to unshackle our bills from unreliable petrostates and get off the rollercoaster of volatile gas markets once and for all.”
What does it mean for energy security, jobs and investment?The onshore wind and solar projects secured in the latest auction round will generate an estimated 9 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
This is equivalent to roughly 3% of current UK electricity demand.
Combined with the estimated 37TWh from offshore wind secured during the first part of the auction, AR7 projects will be able to generate 46TWh of electricity, 14% of current demand.
If this electricity were to be generated by gas-fired power plants, then it would require around 95TWh of fuel, because much of the energy in the gas is lost during combustion.
This is several times more than the 25TWh of extra gas that could be produced in 2030 if new drilling licenses are issued, according to thinktank the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU). As such, AR7 will significantly cut UK gas imports, ECIU says, reducing exposure to volatile international gas markets.
Furthermore, ECIU says that the impact of renewables in driving down gas demand – and subsequently electricity prices – is already being seen in the UK.
Five years ago, gas was setting the wholesale price of power in the UK 98% of the time due to the way the electricity market operates.
This price-setting dominance is being eroded by renewables, with recent analysis from the UK Energy Research Centre showing that gas set power prices 90% of the time in 2025.
A further effect of new renewables is that they push the most expensive gas-fired power plants out of the system, reducing prices. This is known as the “merit-order effect”.
Recent analysis from ECIU found that large windfarms cut wholesale electricity prices by a third in 2025.
Lucy Dolton, renewable generation lead at Cornwall Insight, said in a statement that the AR7a results will provide a “surge in momentum as [the UK] pushes toward secure, homegrown energy”, adding:
“These investments ultimately strengthen the UK’s position against volatile gas markets. If the past few years have shown us anything, it’s that remaining tied to international energy markets comes with consequences.”
The projects that secured CfDs will help the UK avoid burning significant quantities of gas, “the bulk of which would have been imported at a cost which the UK cannot control”, said RenewableUK in its statement.
Together with previous CfD auction rounds, the latest new renewable projects are expected to generate some 153TWh of electricity once they are all operating, according to Carbon Brief analysis. This is around half of current UK demand.
Generating the same electricity from gas would require some 311TWh of fuel, which is similar to the 339TWh of gas produced by the UK’s North Sea operations in the most recent 12-month period for which data is available. This figure can also be compared with the 130TWh of gas that was imported by ship as liquified natural gas (LNG) in the same period.
The government added that the AR7a projects will support up to 10,000 jobs and bring £5bn in private investment to the UK.
(In total, the new projects secured via AR7 are expected to bring investments worth around £20-23bn to the UK, according to Aurora.)
Additionally, the onshore wind projects are expected to generate over £6.5m in “community benefit” funds for people living near them, according to RenewableUK.
The AR7a results were released alongside the publication of the Local Power Plan by the government and Great British Energy.
This is designed to provide £1bn in funding for communities to own and control their own clean energy projects across the UK.
What does the auction mean for clean power by 2030?The AR7a results put the UK “on track for its 2030 clean power target”, according to the government.
Over AR6 and AR7, several changes have been made to the CfD process to help facilitate more projects to secure contracts.
A total of 24GW has been secured over the last two auction rounds – which have taken place under the current Labour government – compared to 22GW across the five auction rounds previously.
As part of its goal for clean power to meet 100% of electricity demand by 2030 and to account for at least 95% of electricity generation, the UK government is aiming for 27-29GW of onshore wind and 45-47GW of solar by the end of the decade.
As of September 2025, the UK had 16.3GW of installed onshore wind capacity and more than 21GW of solar capacity. Taken together, the onshore technologies therefore need to double in operational capacity over the next four years to reach the 2030 targets.
Analysis by RenewableUK suggests that the government will need to procure between 3.85GW to 4.85GW of onshore wind in the next two auctions for the 2030 goal to remain possible.
Writing on LinkedIn, Aurora’s Civetta said that the onshore clean power 2030 targets “remain a long way off”.
He continued that the gap for solar to reach its 45-47GW target is still a “whopping 18GW”, but added that there may be other ways for new capacity to be secured, beyond the CfD auctions.
He said these included a growing market for corporate “power purchase agreements” (PPAs), economic incentives for homes and businesses to install solar and the government’s recently released “warm homes plan”, all of which “should drive further procurement”.
.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }Dolton from Cornwall Insight adds that “the challenge now is delivery”, continuing:
“2.5GW of the winners have a delivery year of 2027/28, and over half – 3.7GW – have a delivery year of 2028/29, which brings them very close to the government’s 2030 clean power target.
“Historically, renewable projects in the UK have faced delays, often due to grid connection backlogs and planning holdups. With AR7 and some of AR8 representing the only realistic pipeline for pre-2030 capacity, keeping to schedule will be essential.”
When built, the projects announced today will help to bring the total capacity of CfD-supported wind and solar to 50.6GW, according to Ember.
While solar and onshore wind are expected to play an important role in decarbonising the electricity system, offshore wind is set to be the “backbone”.
The government is targeting 43-50GW of offshore wind by 2030, up from around 17GW of installed capacity today.
This leaves a gap of 27-34GW to the government’s target range.
Prior to the AR7 auction, a further 10GW had already secured CfD contracts, excluding the cancelled Hornsea 4 project.
The 8.4GW secured in January brings the gap to reach the minimum of 43GW over the four years to just 7GW.
Analysis: China’s CO2 emissions have now been ‘flat or falling’ for 21 months
China energy
|G7 ‘falling behind’ China as world’s wind and solar plans reach new high in 2025
International policy
|Five key climate and energy announcements in India’s budget for 2026
Explainers
|Analysis: EVs just outsold petrol cars in EU for first time ever
Energy
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_99e53f1f9dc00f79a153af73a2fd69dd .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Q&A: New UK onshore wind and solar is ‘50% cheaper’ than new gas appeared first on Carbon Brief.
IPBES chair Dr David Obura: Trump’s US exit from global nature panel ‘harms everybody’
The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the US from the intergovernmental science panel for nature “harms everybody, including them”, according to its chair.
Dr David Obura is a leading coral reef ecologist from Kenya and chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the world’s authority on the science of nature decline.
In January, Donald Trump announced intentions to withdraw the US from IPBES, along with 65 other international organisations, including the UN climate science panel and its climate treaty.
In an interview with Carbon Brief, Obura says the warming that humans have already caused means “coral reefs are very likely at a tipping point” and that it is now inevitable that Earth “will lose what we have called coral reefs”.
A global goal to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 will not be possible to achieve for every ecosystem, he continues, noting that a lack of action from countries means “we won’t be able to do it fast enough at this point”.
Despite this, it is still possible to reverse the “enabling drivers” of biodiversity decline within the next four years, he adds, warning that leaders must act as “our economies and societies fully depend on nature”.
The interview was conducted at the sidelines of an IPBES meeting in Manchester, UK, where governments agreed to a new report detailing how the “undervaluing” of nature by businesses is fuelling biodiversity decline and putting the global economy at risk.
- On US leaving IPBES: “Any major country not being part of it harms everybody, including themselves.”
- On reversing nature loss by 2030: “We won’t be able to do it fast enough at this point.”
- On the value of biodiversity: “Nature is really the life support system for people. Our economies and societies fully depend on nature.”
- On coral reefs: “We will lose what we have called coral reefs up until this point.”
- On nature justice: “The places that are most vulnerable don’t have the income, or the assets, to conserve biodiversity.”
- On IPBES’s latest report: “One of the key findings is all businesses have impacts and dependencies on nature.”
- On the next UN nature summit: “We need acceleration of activities and impact and effectiveness, more than anything else.”
Carbon Brief: Last month Trump announced plans for the US to exit IPBES and dozens of other global organisations. You described this at the time as “deeply disappointing”. What are your thoughts on the decision now and what will be the main impacts of the US leaving IPBES?
David Obura: Well, part of the reason that I’ve come to IPBES is because, of course, I believe in the multilateral process, because we bring 150 countries together, we’re part of the UN and the multilateral system and we’re based on knowledge [that provides] inputs to policymaking. We have a conceptual framework that looks from the bottom up on how people depend on nature. I’m also doing a lot of science on Earth systems at the planetary level, how our footprint is exceeding the scale of the planet. We have to make decisions together. We need the multilateral system to work to help facilitate that. It has never been perfect. Of course, I come from a region [Africa] that hasn’t been, you know, powerful in the multilateral process.
But we need countries to come together, so any major country not being part of it harms everybody, including themselves. It’s very important to try and keep pushing through with the knowledge and keep doing the work that we’re doing, so that, over time, hopefully [the US will] rejoin. Because, in the end, we will really need that to happen.
CB: This is the first IPBES meeting since Trump made the announcement. Has it had an impact so far on these proceedings and is there any kind of US presence here?
DO: This plenary is like every plenary that we have had. The current members are here. Some members are not. And, of course, we have some states here as observers working out if they’re going to join or not. And then we have a lot of private sector observers and universities and so on. The impact of a country leaving – the US in this case – has no impact on the plenary itself, because they’re not here making decisions on the things that we do.
We, of course, don’t have US government members attending in technical areas, but we do have institutions and universities and academics here attending as they have in the past. So, in that sense, the plenary goes on as it goes on – the science and the knowledge is the same. The decision-making processes we have here are the same. And, as I said earlier, what has an impact is the actual action that takes place afterwards, because a lot of the recommendations that we make are based on enabling conditions that governments put in place, to bring in place sustainability actions and so on. When governments are not doing that, especially major economic drivers, then the whole system suffers.
CB: When you were appointed as chair of IPBES more than two years ago, you said that your aim was to strengthen cohesion and impact and also get the findings of IPBES in front of more people. So how would you rate your progress on this now that it’s been about a couple of years?
DO: Well, like any intergovernmental process, we have a certain amount of inertia in what we do and it takes a few years to consult on topics for assessments and then to do them and to improve them and get them out.
One of the main things we’re discussing right now is we have had a rolling work programme from when IPBES started until 2030 and we need to decide on the last few deliverables and how we work in that period. We are asking for a mandate to spend the next year really considering the multiple options that we have in proposing a way forward for the last few years of this work programme. I feel that the countries are very aligned. We have done a lot of work, produced a lot of outputs. It is challenging for governments and other stakeholders to read our assessments and reach into them to find what’s useful to them. They make constant calls for more support, in uptake, in capacity building and in policy support.
The second global assessment in 2028 will be our 17th assessment [overall]. We would like to focus on really bringing all this knowledge together across assessments in ways that are relevant to different governments, different stakeholder groups, different networks to help them reach into the knowledge that’s in the assessments. And I think the governments, of course, want that as well, because many of them are calling for it. Many of the governments that support us financially, of course, want to see a return of investment on the money that they have put in.
CB: Nations agreed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. Back in 2023 we had a conversation for Carbon Brief and you said that you were “highly doubtful” this goal could be achieved for every ecosystem by that date. Where do you stand on this now?
DO: I work on coral reefs and part of the reason I’ve come to IPBES platform is because the amount of climate change we’re committed to with current fossil fuel emissions and the focus on economic growth means that corals will continue to decline 20, 30, 40 years into the future. I think of that there’s no real doubt. The question is how soon we put in place the right actions to halt climate change. That will then have a lag on how long it takes for corals to cope with that amount of climate change.
We can’t halt and reverse the decline of every ecosystem. But we can try and bend the curve to halt and reverse the drivers of decline. So, that’s some of the economic drivers that we talk about in the nexus and transformative change assessment, the indirect drivers and the value shifts we need to have. What the Global Biodiversity Framework [GBF, a global nature agreement made in 2022] aspires to do in terms of halting and reversing biodiversity decline – we absolutely need to do that. We can do it and we can put in place the enabling conditions for that by 2030 for sure. But we won’t be able to do it fast enough at this point to halt [the loss of] all ecosystems.
We’re now in 2026, so this is three years plus after the GBF was adopted. We still need greater action from all countries and all stakeholders and businesses and so on. That’s what we’re really pushing for in our assessments.
CB: Biodiversity loss has historically been underappreciated by world leaders. As the world continues to be gripped by geopolitical uncertainty, conflict and financial pressures, what are your thoughts on the chances of leaders addressing the issue of biodiversity loss in a meaningful way?
DO: What are the chances of addressing biodiversity loss? I mean, we have to do it. It’s really our life support system and if we only focus on immediate crises and threats and don’t pay attention to the long-term threats and crises, that only creates more short-term crises down the line, we make it harder and harder to do that. I hope that what I’m hoping we get to understand better through IPBES science, as well as others, is that we’re not just reporting on the state of biodiversity because it’s nice to have it, but it’s [because] diversity of nature is really the life support system for people. Our economies and societies fully depend on nature. If we want them to prosper and be secure into the long-term future, we have to learn how to bring the impact and dependencies of business, which is a focus of this assessment, in line with nature. And until we do that, we will just continue to magnify the potential for future crises and their impacts.
CB: You mentioned already that your expertise is in coral reefs. A report last year warned that the world has reached its first climate tipping point, that of widespread dying of warm water coral reefs. Do you agree with that statement and can you discuss the wider state of coral reefs across the world at this present moment?
DO: The report that came out last year in 2025 was a global tipping point report and it’s actually in 2023 the first one of those [was published]. I was involved in that one and we basically took what the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] has produced, which [is] compiled from the [scientific] literature [which said] that 1.5-2C was the critical range for coral reefs, where you go from losing 70-90% to 90-99% of coral reefs around the world. [It is] a bit hard to say exactly what that means. What we did was we actually reduced that range from 1.5C-2C to 1-1.5C, based on observations we’ve already made about loss of corals. In 2024, the world was 1.5C above historical conditions for one year. The IPCC number requires a 20-year average [for 1.5C to be crossed]. So, we’re not quite at the IPCC limit, but we’re very close. Also, with not putting in place fast enough emission reductions, warming will continue.
Coral reefs are very likely at a tipping point. And, so, I do agree with the statement. It means that we lose the fully connected regional, global system that coral reefs have been in the past. There will still be some coral reefs in places that have some natural protection mechanisms, whether it’s oceanographic or some levels of sedimentation in green water from rivers can help. And there’s resilience of corals as well. Some corals will be able to adapt somewhat, but not all – and not all the other species too. We will lose what we have called coral reefs up until this point. We’ll still continue to have simpler coral ecosystems into the future, but they won’t be quite the same.
It is a crisis point and my hope is that, in coming out from the coral reef world, I can communicate that this is, this has been a crisis for coral reefs. It’s a very important ecosystem, but we don’t want it to happen to more and more and more ecosystems that support more [than] hundreds of millions and billions of people as well. Because, if we let things go that far, then, of course, we have much bigger crises on our hands.
CB: Something else you’ve spoken about before is around equity being one of the big challenges when it comes to responding to biodiversity loss. Can you explain why you think that biodiversity loss should be seen as a justice issue?
DO: Well, biodiversity loss is a justice issue because we are a part of biodiversity and – just like the loss of ecosystems and habitats and species – people live locally as well. People experience biodiversity loss in their surroundings.
The places that are most vulnerable and don’t have the income, or the assets, to either conserve biodiversity, or need to rely on it too much so they degrade it – they feel the impacts of that loss much more directly than those who do have more assets. Also, the more assets you have, the more you can import biodiversity products and benefits from somewhere else.
So, it’s very much a justice issue, both from local levels experiencing it directly, but then also at global levels. We are part of it [biodiversity], we don’t own it. It’s a global good, or a common public good, so we need to be preserving it for all people on the planet. In that sense, there are many, many justice issues that are involved in both loss of biodiversity and how you deal with that as well.
CB: How would you say IPBES is working towards achieving greater equity in biodiversity science?
DO: One of the headline findings of our values assessment in 2022, which looked at multiple values different cultures have and different worldviews around the planet, [was that] by accommodating or considering different worldviews and different perspectives, you achieve greater equity because you’re already considering other worldviews in making decisions.
So, that’s an important first step – just making it much more apparent and upfront that we can’t just make decisions, especially global ones, from a single worldview and the dominant one is the market economic worldview that we have. That’s very important.
But, then, also in how we do our assessments and the knowledge systems that are incorporated in them. We integrate different knowledge systems together and try and juxtapose – or if they can be integrated, we do that, sometimes you can’t – but you just need to illustrate different worldviews and perspectives on the common issue of biodiversity loss or livelihoods or something like that.
We hope that our conceptual framework and our values framework really help bring in this awareness of multiple cultures and multiple perspectives in the multilateral system.
CB: When this interview is published, IPBES will have released its report on business and biodiversity. What are some of the key takeaways from this?
DO: Our assessments integrate so much information that the key messages are actually, in retrospect, quite obvious in a way. One of the key findings it will say is that all businesses have impacts and dependencies on nature.
Of course, when you think about it, of course they do. We often think, “oh, well ecotourism is dependent on nature”, but even a supermarket is dependent on nature because a lot of the produce comes from a natural system somewhere, maybe in a greenhouse or enhanced by fertiliser, but it still comes from natural systems. Any other business will have either impacts on the nature around it, or it needs tree shade outside so people can walk in and things like that.
So, that’s one of the main findings. It’s not just certain sectors that need to respond to biodiversity loss and minimise their impacts. All sectors need to. Another finding, of course, is that it’s very differentiated depending on the type of business and type of sector.
It’s also very differentiated in different parts of the world in terms of responsibilities and also capabilities. So small businesses, of course, have much less leeway, perhaps, to change what they’re doing, whereas big businesses do and they have more assets, so they can deal with shifts and changes much better.
It’s a methodological assessment, rather than assessing the state of businesses, or the state of nature in relation to businesses [and] they pull together a huge list of methodologies and tools and things that businesses can access and do to understand their impacts and dependencies and act on them. Then [there is] also guidance and advice for governments on how to enable businesses to do that with the right incentives and regulations and so on. In that sense, it helps bring knowledge together into a single place.
It has been fantastic to see the parallel programme that the UK government has organised [at the IPBES meeting in Manchester]. It has brought together a huge range of British businesses and consultancies and so on that help businesses understand their impacts on nature. There’s a huge thirst.
To some extent, I would have thought, with so much capacity already in some of these organisations, what would they learn from our assessments? But they’re really hungry to see the integration. They really want to see that this really does make a big difference, that others will do the same, that the government will really support moving in these directions. There’s a huge amount of effort in the findings coming out and I’m sure that that will be felt all around the world and in different countries in different ways.
CB: As we’re speaking now, you’re still in the midst of figuring out exactly what the report will say and going through line-by-line to figure this out. Something we’ve seen at other negotiations…has been these entrenched views from countries on certain key issues. And one thing I did notice in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin discussion of yesterday’s [4 February] negotiations was that it said that some delegations wanted to remove mentions of climate change from the report. Has this been a key sticking point here or have there been any difficulties from countries during these negotiations?
DO: The nature of these multilateral negotiations is that the science is, in a way, a central body of work that is built through consensus of bringing all this knowledge together. It’s almost like a centralising process. And, yes, different countries have different perspectives on what their priorities are and the messages they want to see or not.
We still, of course, deal with different positions from countries. What we hope to do is to be able to convene it so that we see that we serve the countries best by having the most unbiased reporting of what the science is saying in language that is accessible to and useful to policymakers, rather than not having language or not having mention of things in in the agreed text.
How it’ll work out, I don’t know. Each time is different from the others. I think one of the key things that’s really important for us is that you do have different governance tracks on different aspects of the world we deal in. So, the [UN] Sustainable Development Goals, as well [as negotiations] on climate change – the UNFCCC, the climate convention, is the governing body for that. There’s two goals on nature – the Convention on Biological Diversity and other multilateral agreements are the institutions that govern that part.
We have come from a nature-based perspective, with nature’s contributions to a good quality of life for people…We start in the nature goals, but we actually have content that relates to all the other goals. We need to consider climate impacts on nature, or climate impacts on people that affect how they use nature. The nexus assessment was, in a way, a mini SDG report. It looked at six different Sustainable Development Goals.
We try and make sure that while on the institutional mechanisms, certain countries may try and want us to report within our mandate on nature, we do have findings that relate to climate change that relate to income and poverty and food production and health systems [and] that we need to report [outwardly] so that people are aware of those and they can use those in decision-making contexts.
That’s a difficult discussion and every time it comes out a little bit differently. But we hope we move the agenda further towards 2030 in the SDGs. We have an indivisible system that we need to report on.
CB: The next UN biodiversity summit COP17 is taking place later this year. What are the main outcomes you’re hoping to see at that summit?
DO: The main outcomes I would hope to see from the biodiversity summit is greater alignment across the countries. We really need to move forward on delivering on the GBF as part of the sustainable development agenda as well. So there will be a review of progress. We need acceleration of activities and impact and effectiveness, more than anything else.
That means, of course, addressing all of the targets in the GBF. Not equally, necessarily, but they all need progress to support one another in the whole. We work to provide the science inputs that can help deliver that through the CBD [Convention on Biological Diversity] mechanisms as well. We hope they use our assessments to the fullest and that we see good progress coming out.
CB: Great, thank you very much for your time.
Prof Ben Santer: Trump administration is ‘embracing ignorance’ on climate science
Interviews
|Interview: How ‘mid-level bureaucrats’ are helping to shape Chinese climate policy
China energy
|The Carbon Brief Interview: UK Met Office chief executive Penny Endersby
In Focus
|The Carbon Brief Interview: UK Climate Change Committee’s Emma Pinchbeck
Interviews
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_9e2ddb3c7a408710af03dd93037138ec .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post IPBES chair Dr David Obura: Trump’s US exit from global nature panel ‘harms everybody’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
The Lilongwe Declaration on agroecology-based School and College meals
We, the over 80 delegates from Kenya, Uganda and Malawi, including educators, school administrators, entrepreneurs, researchers, civil society organisations, development partners, and policy actors, convened in Lilongwe, Malawi, on 22nd January 2026, to deliberate on ‘Agroecology-based School and College Food Procurement Systems in East and Southern Africa’ WE THANK the Government and People of Malawi for […]
The post The Lilongwe Declaration on agroecology-based School and College meals first appeared on AFSA.
Can you hear it? That’s the sound of a successful rainforest recovery program.
Programs around the world have tried to harness the power of money to save habitat, by paying people to protect or restore their land.
When ecologist Giacomo Delgado wanted to test whether one of the oldest and most established programs was translating into biodiversity gains, he chose to listen for it.
Using more than 100 weatherproofed microphones and powerful computer programs, the Ph.D. student at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH Zürich) collected nearly a million minutes of audio recordings from land scattered across Costa Rica’s Nicoya Peninsula.
The results revealed that the din of life in forests regrowing under a program that paid landowners to leave pastureland untouched had a lot in common with intact forests in the area, Delgado and colleagues reported recently in Global Change Biology.
“These findings represent perhaps some of our best evidence to date that ecosystem restoration can benefit biodiversity at large spatial scales,” Delgado wrote in a blog post.
.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:Forests follow unexpected—and surprisingly fast—paths to recovery
The subject of his study was an experiment begun in Costa Rica in 1996, the first nationwide program in the world that paid people to preserve land and the underlying environmental benefits. The program is funded chiefly through a tax on fossil fuels, and has been credited with helping the country become a place growing more forest than it loses.
But until Delgado picked up his microphones, it wasn’t clear that this forest renewal had translated into a revival of forest inhabitants. While he might have opted to try the painstaking approach of counting individual animals in a small number of places, the scientist opted to tap into the burgeoning field of bioacoustics, in which mountains of digital recordings are crunched by computers to understand the natural world.
He and collaborators placed microphones on 142 sites in the peninsula, a mix of native forest, pasture, and sites that had been allowed to recover on their own or been replanted with a single tree species as part of the national program. They emerged with 999,470 minutes of audio data recorded between May and July 2022.
Using computers, they developed a kind of fingerprint of the soundscapes for each kind of land. Natural forests were raucous – loud and marked by lots of variation in sounds, particularly around dawn and dusk. Birds and insects were particularly noisy during twilight. Pastures, by contrast, had far more human sounds, no big burst at sunrise and sunset, and more noise at night.
The former pasture turned young forest, where people were paid to let it regrow, bore many of the hallmarks of the intact forest, particularly during the dusk burst of activity. Overall, it was 1.4 times more similar to the natural forests than to the pastures. The sounds of the replanted forests lagged behind a bit, at 1.24 times more similar the natural forests.
The regrowing forests still had a way to go before they were indistinguishable from old growth. In particular, the dawn chorus was more muted. That might be because biodiversity in those altered landscapes still lags, or because nearby human activity quieted the creatures, the scientists suggested.
For Delgado, the results offer hope for ecological restoration and for simultaneously bringing economic benefits to the people, many of them poor, who live on and protect the land. “Empowering local people and sharing nature’s bounty among all, instead of locking it away for the privileged few, is a radically effective ecological solution,” he wrote.
Delgado, et. al. “Large-Scale Forest Restoration Accompanied by Biodiversity Recovery in Costa Rica’s Redistributive Payment for Ecosystem Service Program.” Global Change Research. Feb. 4, 2026.
Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine
Nickel price jumps as Indonesia’s top mine cuts output
Nickel prices rose for a fourth straight day Wednesday after Indonesia ordered the world’s largest nickel mine to sharply cut output in a move aimed at tightening global supply and lifting prices.
LME nickel climbed 2% to $17,835 a tonne as of 6:45 a.m. London time, after earlier touching $17,910, extending a rally of more than 20% since mid-December amid speculative buying and heightened geopolitical tensions.
Indonesia plans to issue production quotas of 260 million to 270 million tonnes of nickel ore this year, according to Bloomberg, slightly above an earlier estimate of 250 million to 260 million tonnes but far below the 379 million tonnes targeted for 2025. Authorities manage output through annual mining permits, known as RKABs, and can revise volumes mid-year.
PT Weda Bay Nickel will receive a 12 million tonne ore quota this year, down from 42 million tonnes in 2025. The mine, located on Halmahera in North Maluku, is owned by Tsingshan Holding Group Co, France’s Eramet SA and PT Aneka Tambang. Eramet confirmed the reduced quota and said it plans to seek a revision, while the county’s Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry said quotas remain under evaluation.
Price controlIndonesia is trying to rein in a persistent global surplus after its production surged to about 65% of world supply, triggering a two-year price slump that forced higher-cost rivals in Australia and New Caledonia to shut down.
The quota cut will weigh heavily on Weda Bay, which had planned to expand output to more than 60 million tonnes of ore to support a nearby industrial park. Instead, it has imported large volumes of ore from the Philippines to offset local shortages.
Nickel, used in stainless steel and electric-vehicle batteries, has seen weaker-than-expected demand from the battery sector as some manufacturers shift to non-nickel chemistries.
In January, Macquarie Group raised its 2026 nickel price forecast by 18% to $17,750 a tonne on the LME, citing a sharp drop in the expected surplus due to tighter Indonesian quotas.
Curbing coalIndonesia is also curbing thermal coal output, with mining quotas in the world’s largest exporter set to fall by nearly 25% from a year earlier. The Indonesian Coal Mining Association said the cuts could force some operations to close and leave overseas buyers scrambling for alternative supplies.
(With files from Bloomberg)
Climate change made ‘fire weather’ in Chile and Argentina three times more likely
The hot, dry and windy weather preceding the wildfires that tore through Chile and Argentina last month was made around three times more likely due to human-caused climate change.
This is according to a rapid attribution study by the World Weather Attribution (WWA) service.
Devastating wildfires hit multiple parts of South America throughout January.
The fires claimed the lives of 23 people in Chile and displaced thousands of people and destroyed vast areas of native forests and grasslands in both Chile and Argentina.
The authors find that the hot, dry and windy conditions that drove the “high fire danger” are expected to occur once every five years, but that these conditions would have been “rarer” in a world without climate change.
In today’s climate, rainfall intensity during the “fire season” is around 20-25% lower in the areas covered by the study than it would be in a world without human-caused emissions, the study adds.
Study author Prof Friederike Otto, professor of climate science at Imperial College London, told a press briefing:
“We’re confident in saying that the main driver of this increased fire risk is human-caused warming. These trends are projected to continue in the future as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels.”
‘Significant’ damageThe recent wildfires in Chile and Argentina have been “one of the most significant and damaging events in the region”, the report says.
In the lead-up to the fires, both countries were gripped by intense heatwaves and droughts.
The authors analysed two regions – one in central Chile and the other in Argentine Patagonia, along the border between Argentina and Chile.
For example, in Argentina’s northern Patagonian Andes, the last recorded rainfall was in mid-November of 2025, according to the report. It adds that in early January, the region recorded 11 consecutive days of “extreme maximum temperatures”, marking the “second-longest warm spell in the past 65 years”.
Dr Juan Antonio Rivera, a researcher at the Argentine Institute of Snow Science, Glaciology and Environmental Sciences, told a WWA press briefing that these weather conditions dried out vegetation and decreased soil moisture, which meant that the fires “found abundant fuel to continue over time”.
In the northern Patagonian Andes of Argentina, wildfires started on 6 January in Puerto Patriada and spread over two national parks of Los Alerces and Lago Puelo and nearby regions. These fires remained active into the first week of February.
The fires engulfed more than 45,000 hectares of native and planted forest, shrublands and grasslands, including 75% of native forests in the village of Epuyén, notes the study.
At least 47 homes were burned, according to El País. La Nación reported that many families evacuated themselves to prevent any damage.
In south-central Chile, wildfires occurred from 17 to 19 January, affecting the Biobío, Ñuble and Araucanía regions.
They started near Concepción city, the capital of the Biobío region, where maximum temperatures reached 26C. In the nearby city of Chillán, temperatures reached 37C.
From there, the fires spread southwards to the coastal towns of Penco-Lirquen and Punta Parra, in the Biobío region.
The event left 23 people dead, 52,000 people displaced and more than 1,000 homes destroyed in the country, according to the study.
Inhabitants of Lirquen, in Chile, walk through the homes consumed by the flames in January 2026. Credit: UNAR Photo / Alamy Stock Photo.These wildfires burnt more than 40,000 hectares of forests, “tripling the amount of land burned in 2025” across the country, reported La Tercera.
The study adds that more than 20,000 hectares of non-native forest plantations, including Monterey pine and Eucalyptus trees, were consumed by the blaze and critical infrastructure was affected.
A WWA press release points out that the expansion of non-native pines and invasive species “has created highly flammable landscapes in Chile”.
Hot, dry and windyWildfires are complex events that are influenced by a wide range of factors, such as atmospheric moisture, wind speed and fuel availability.
To assess the impact of climate change on wildfires, the authors chose a “fire weather” metric called the “hot dry windy index” (HDWI). This combines maximum temperature, relative humidity and wind speed.
While this metric does not include every component that could contribute to intense wildfires, such as land-use change and fuel load data, study author Dr Claire Barnes from Imperial College London told a press briefing that HDWI is “a very good predictor of short-term, extreme, dry, fire-prone conditions”.
The authors chose to analyse two separate regions. The first lies along the coast and the foothills of the Andes around the Ñuble, Biobío and La Araucanía regions in central Chile. The second sits across the Chilean and Argentine border in Patagonia.
These regions are shown on the map below, where red circles indicate the wildfires recorded in January 2026 and pink boxes represent the study areas.
Location of forest fires in Chile and Argentina in January 2026 (red circles) and the study areas (pink boxes). Source: WWA (2026).The authors also selected different time periods for the two study regions, to reflect the “different lengths of peak wildfire activity associated with the fires in each region”.
For the central Chilean study area, the authors focus their analysis on the two most severe days of HDWI, 17-18 January. For the Patagonian region, they focus on the most severe five-day period, which took place over 2-6 January.
To put the wildfire into its historical context, the authors analyse data on temperature, wind and rainfall to assess how HDWI over the two regions has changed since the year 1980.
They find that in both study regions, the high HWDI recorded in January is not “particularly extreme” in today’s climate and would typically be expected roughly once every five years. However, they add that the event would have been “rarer” in a world without climate change, in which average global temperatures are 1.3C cooler.
The authors also use a combination of observations and climate models to carry out an “attribution” analysis, comparing the world as it is today to a “counterfactual” world without human-caused climate change.
They find that climate change made the high HDWI three-times more likely in the central Chilean region and 2.5-times more likely in the Patagonian region.
The authors also conduct analysis focused solely on November-January rainfall.
Both study regions experienced “very low rainfall” in the months leading up to the fires, the authors say. They find that fire-season rainfall intensity is around 25% lower in the central Chilean region and 20% lower in the Patagonia region in today’s climate than it would have been in a world without climate change.
Finally, the authors considered the influence of climatic cycles such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a naturally occurring phenomenon that affects global temperatures and regional weather patterns.
They find that a combination of La Niña – the “cool” phase of ENSO – combined with another natural cycle called the Southern Annular Mode, led to atmospheric circulation patterns that “favoured the hot and dry conditions that enhanced fire persistence and severity in parts of the region”.
However, they add that this has a comparably small effect on the overall intensity of the wildfires, with climate change standing out as the main driver.
(These findings are yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, the methods used in the analysis have been published in previous attribution studies.)
Vulnerable communitiesThe wildfires affected native forests, national parks and small rural and tourist communities in both countries.
A 2025 study conducted in Chile, cited in the WWA analysis, found that 74% of survey respondents did not have appropriate education and awareness on wildfires.
This suggests that insufficient preparedness on early warning signs, response measures and prevention can “exacerbate the severity and frequency of these events”, the WWA authors say.
Aynur Kadihasanoglu, senior urban specialist at the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Center, said in the WWA press release that many settlements in Chile are close to flammable pine plantations, which “puts lives and livelihoods at risk”.
Additionally, the head of Chile’s National Forest Corporation pointed to “structural shortcomings” in fire prevention, such as lack of regulation in lands without management plans, reported BioBioChile.
In Argentina, the response to the fires has been hampered by large budget cuts and reductions in forest rangers, according to the WWA press release. Experts have criticised Argentina’s self-styled “liberal-libertarian” president Javier Milei for the cuts and the delay to declaring a state of emergency in Patagonia.
According to the Associated Press, “Milei slashed spending on the National Fire Management Service by 80% in 2024 compared to the previous year”. The service “faces another 71% reduction in funds” in its 2026 budget, the newswire adds.
Argentinian native forests and grasslands are experiencing “intense pressure” from wildfires, according to the study. Many vulnerable native animal species, such as the huemul and the pudú, are losing critical habitat, while birds, such as the Patagonian black woodpecker, are losing nesting sites.
Huemul deer in Argentine Patagonia, one of the vulnerable animal species to wildfires in the region. Credit: Bernardo Galmarini / Alamy Stock Photo.Climate change and La Niña made ‘devastating’ southern African floods more intense
Attribution
|Analysis: What are the causes of recent record-high global temperatures?
El Niño
|Met Office: Ten years of naming UK storms to warn the public
Guest posts
|Global wildfires burned an area of land larger than India in 2024
Land and soils
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_61678c92e1affd8869aa7a79297160f3 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Climate change made ‘fire weather’ in Chile and Argentina three times more likely appeared first on Carbon Brief.
New Pilot Uses Instacart Platform to Improve Grocery Access
Instacart, the D.C. Department of Health (DC Health), and Martha’s Table recently launched the DC Grocery Access Pilot program to expand access to fresh, healthy foods for D.C. residents.
The program provides free Instacart+ memberships and monthly stipends to help cover grocery delivery and service fees to up to 1,000 D.C. residents eligible for SNAP. Participants can shop from any store available on the Instacart platform, which includes over 80 retailers in the city, reaching 100 percent of SNAP households, DC Health tells Food Tank.
“Access to healthy food is critical to reduce the risk of many chronic diseases and improve health outcomes across the life span,” DC Health tells Food Tank. In 2023, nearly 9 percent of households in D.C. struggled to afford enough food, according to D.C. Hunger Solutions. The organization’s Grocery Store Report states that a severe lack of full-service grocery stores is one of the contributing factors for food insecurity in Wards 7 and 8, two of the city’s low-income areas. These Wards contain only seven of the city’s 80 full-service grocery stores, according to a 2025 report from D.C. Hunger Solutions.
In addition to improving food access, the program promotes healthy dietary behaviors by embedding health and wellness education into its eligibility criteria. To participate in the GAP program, residents must enroll in a health education class through Martha’s Table or another DC Health partner, which help build social support networks, teach parenting skills, and promote wellness practices for participants.
At these classes, educators offer an overview of the GAP program and identify those interested in participating. Residents then receive Instacart codes, which they can begin using right away.
This pilot builds upon the success of a similar program Instacart launched in 2023 in partnership with the City of Columbia, South Carolina, and its Mayor Daniel Rickenmann. The program provided Instacart+ memberships and monthly Instacart Health Fresh Funds stipends to residents living in Columbia’s food deserts. Results from the first year found that an overwhelming majority of participants were very satisfied with Instacart and were very likely to continue participating in the program, according to Instacart. Following this positive feedback, the city of Columbia announced a one-year extension of the pilot program.
“That pilot showed us what’s possible when you combine thoughtful public policy with technology that can meet people where they are,” Casey Aden-Wansbury, Instacart’s Vice President, Head of Global Public Policy, tells Food Tank.
She explains that after hearing about the success of the program in Columbia, DC Councilmember Christina Henderson introduced legislation to bring the GAP model to Washington, D.C. “Her leadership on this critical issue was instrumental in making this partnership with DC Health possible,” Aden-Wansbury says.
“Public–private partnerships have a powerful role to play in expanding food access because they bring together the strengths of each sector in a way that no one organization can achieve alone,” Aden-Wansbury tells Food Tank.
Governments understand the needs of their communities and policy levers available, while community organizations bring trusted relationships and on-the-ground insight, Aden-Wansbury says. Companies like Instacart can then provide the technology and infrastructure needed to implement programs at scale. “Collaborations like these allow us to move faster, tailor support to local needs, and ultimately help more people access the nutritious foods that help them thrive.”
DC Health is now leading an evaluation of the pilot to inform its longer-term strategies. “We know that bringing a full-service grocery store to a neighborhood requires long-term planning across agencies,” the agency says.
Looking ahead, Instacart plans to scale similar programs in other communities. Aden-Wansbury explains that the company is working with the Mayors Alliance to End Childhood Hunger to offer the Grocery Access Template Program, an opportunity for smaller cities and towns to partner with Instacart and offer access to online grocery and delivery for residents in underserved areas. “The success of our existing programs gives us a clear path to scale this work, and we’re excited to keep partnering with communities that are looking to expand food access,” she tells Food Tank
Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.
Photo courtesy of Mintolab, Unsplash
The post New Pilot Uses Instacart Platform to Improve Grocery Access appeared first on Food Tank.
“We can no longer forgo the option to strike”: An interview with Minnesota General Strike organizers
Two shutdowns against ICE organized by Minnesota labour unions and student groups shook the United States in January. Spring sat down with two organizers involved in the strikes, Aminah Sheikh and Dan Troccoli, to talk about ICE, the political climate in Minnesota, and the potential for a general strike.
The post “We can no longer forgo the option to strike”: An interview with Minnesota General Strike organizers first appeared on Spring.
February 11 Green Energy News
Headline News:
- “Boreal Forests Are Expanding Northward Due To Warming Climate, Satellite Images Show” • Boreal forests are shifting northward as they warm due to climate change, several decades of satellite images show. Annual surface temperatures in boreal forests have increased about 1.4°C, or 2.52°F, over the last century, according to a study. [ABC News]
Boreal forest (Zosia Szopka, Unsplash)
- “Onshore Wind Lands 1.3-GW Haul” • More than 1300 MW of onshore wind capacity has secured Contracts for Difference in the UK’s Allocation Round 7a (AR7a) auction. A total of 27 projects were successful in winning 20-year support deals at a clearing price of £72.24/MWh (in 2024 prices). The bid ceiling had been £92/MWh. [reNews]
- “ArcelorMittal Invests €1.3 Billion To Produce ‘Green Steel’ At Its Dunkirk Plant” • ArcelorMittal formally confirmed that will invest €1.3 billion in an electric arc furnace at its Dunkirk plant. The company’s plan is to produce steel without coal, whose combustion generates significant CO₂ emissions and contributes to global warming. [Euronews]
- “Cuba Says Airlines Can No Longer Refuel On The Island Due To US Oil Blockade” • The Cuban government issued a notice warning that no jet fuel would be available at nine airports on the island, including José Martí International Airport in Havana, from February 11 until 11 March, due to a US blockade of oil from Mexico and Venezuela. [Euronews]
- “Trump Administration To Make Climate Denialism National Policy” • Continuing the theme of doltishness and mass human harm, the Trump administration seems to be aiming to make climate change denialism US national policy. Why? Because we are apparently a petrolstate being run by a mixture of Homer Simpson and Mr Burns. [CleanTechnica]
For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.
Gwich’in fight to protect caribou from Alaska oil development
The Bureau of Land Management opened nominations last week for the first-ever oil and gas lease auction in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, setting the stage for development that three Gwich’in governments are now suing to stop.
Raeann Garnett, 29, is Gwich’in and the tribal chief of the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, representing about 200 people above the Arctic Circle in northeastern Alaska, accessible only by plane. In January, the Native American Rights Fund, or NARF, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Interior on behalf of Garnett’s government, the Arctic Village Council, and Venetie Village Council. “I’m the main protector of our land that we own and I do it for all our tribal members,” she said.
The lawsuit challenges the DOI’s plan to lease land in the refuge’s coastal plain, an area the Gwich’in call Iizhik Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit, “the sacred place where life begins,” where Porcupine caribou herds forage and calve. The Gwich’in, who call themselves “the caribou people,” have relied on the herd for food and cultural survival since before colonization. Most Gwich’in communities live alongside the animals’ same migratory route used for thousands of years.
Garnett has watched the fight over ANWR intensify throughout her adult life. Oil and gas interests have eyed the refuge for more than 50 years, but recent moves mark the closest the industry has come to actual development on the coastal plain.
A 2017 federal tax bill passed during Donald Trump’s first presidential term authorized an oil and gas leasing program in ANWR, however, 7 leases out of 22 were sold to the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority. The Biden administration canceled the leases in 2023.
Last summer, Congress passed the so-calld “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which mandated lease sales in the refuge’s 1.56-million-acre coastal plain. The Trump administration announced it would reinstate the leasing program just months after taking office in 2025. Last week, the Bureau of Land Management opened a public comment period, running through March, to determine which parcels will be included in the first auction this winter.
Two lawsuits were filed in January of this year, reviving legal challenges from 2020 after Trump’s leasing programs were paused in 2021. One was brought by the Gwich’in Steering Committee alongside environmental groups. The other was brought by NARF representing the three Gwich’in governments.
The NARF suit argues the DOI violated Gwich’in legal rights. While Alaska Native tribes have not signed treaties with the U.S. government, many federal laws function in the same way treaty rights do. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, for instance, upholds Gwich’in subsistence rights, protects cultural resources, and requires federal agencies to protect cultural and archeological sites as well as millions of acres of federal land in Alaska — including ANWR. The law also commits the U.S. to fulfill international treaty obligations with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats.
The lawsuit argues that the DOI failed to meet these obligations. “One of the most egregious errors is defendants’ determination that the impacts of allowing large-scale oil and gas development across the entire coastal plain would have no significant impact on Neets’ąįį Gwich’in communities of Venetie and Arctic Village,” the lawsuit reads.
The case claims development across roughly 100 miles of coastal plain would disrupt caribou migration, foraging, and calving, making the refuge uninhabitable for the herd. A 2024 study found that caribou are more sensitive to traffic and human activity than previously believed, challenging earlier claims that development would not significantly harm their habitat.
For Gwich’in communities, caribou are essential to survival. The herd provides a primary source of food, along with moose, birds, and fish. Garnett said high fuel costs and expensive groceries make subsistence necessary for village residents.
NARF is arguing that the Trump administration has failed to conduct adequate environmental review and has not consulted with tribes since last October about the planned auction.
“We condemn these actions, and encourage officials in the Trump administration — and our representatives in the Alaska delegation — to acknowledge and accept what we as Gwich’in know, and what the majority of the American people agree on,” said Kristen Moreland, executive director of the Gwich’in Steering Committee, in a statement. “The Arctic Refuge is no place for drilling. It deserves to be protected and preserved for the wildlife that depend on it, and for all our futures.”
For Garnett, threats to the refuge are compounded by climate change already transforming the Arctic. This winter has been the warmest she can remember. “With climate change, as well as the threats of oil drilling, the weather has been changing a lot these past couple of decades,” she said.
Late last year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its yearly Arctic Report Card, confirming the region continues to warm faster than the global average. In 2024, the report linked Arctic warming to fossil fuel use.
“I feel worried for the next generations, after us, after me,” said Garnett. “I want them to have what we have now.”
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Gwich’in fight to protect caribou from Alaska oil development on Feb 11, 2026.
Metrolink electrification would boost efficiency and reduce pollution
Refugee Collective Farming Builds Resilient Food Systems in Texas
In Central Texas, the Refugee Collective is working to demonstrate that farming can serve as both a livelihood and a lifeline. By supporting refugees through farming initiatives, the nonprofit creates pathways to earn fair wages, grow culturally meaningful food, and implement regenerative agriculture practices.
On the Collective’s 20-acre farm in Elgin, Texas, refugees have the chance to bring traditional farming techniques from their cultures as they learn new regenerative practices. The produce harvested at this year-round, Certified Organic farm goes to local restaurants, wholesale buyers, and a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program.
The program has “enabled newly arrived refugees to gain access to commercial plots at our farm to grow more traditionally desired produce, along with training and the ability to sell the organic produce,” Christina Jones, Community Engagement Manager at the Refugee Collective, tells Food Tank.
The Collective also offers smaller plots of land and seeds to newly arrived refugees. Refugee farmers can then sell their produce back to the Collective at market prices and distribute it among their local communities. This program has yielded culturally significant crops, including regional seasoning blends, that are not commonly available in grocery stores in the area.
The Collective’s farms aim to serve as a model for climate-resilient agriculture. In partnership with conservation groups, the Refugee Collective developed Texas’s first Resilient Farm Plan, which will help the Collective sequester 345 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year once fully implemented. The plan integrates no-till practices, cover cropping, crop rotation, windbreaks, and rotational grazing with laying hens.
But the Trump-Vance Administration’s attacks on refugee and immigrant communities and food security programs are creating new challenges for the organization.
“I think that you cannot avoid the sense of danger with the current administration’s assault on basic human rights,” Jones tells Food Tank. “Even though the refugees that we employ are here legally, we cannot ignore the hostility toward their communities. Our feeling is that we want to help refugees through more food access since federal funding like SNAP benefits are being withheld.”
Recent cuts to SNAP benefits and grant funding also leave the Collective worried that it will become more difficult to fund the growing and sale of their harvests.
But Jones and the Collective are trying to focus on maintaining and scaling their efforts. “I look forward to making a greater impact on even more refugees in our community through more food access, pathways for more women to earn supplemental income and for more people in Austin to become connected to our mission through donations and subscribing to our CSA,” says Jones.
Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.
Photo courtesy of the Refugee Collective
The post Refugee Collective Farming Builds Resilient Food Systems in Texas appeared first on Food Tank.
Rethinking the world with Iván Illich and Gustavo Esteva - [Agenda]
Repensar el mundo con Iván Illich y Gustavo Esteva
Nearly three-quarters of U.S. baby foods are ultra-processed, new study finds
Most baby food sold in U.S. grocery stores is ultra-processed, a new study finds, raising fresh concerns about what many infants and toddlers are eating during a critical window of development.
The peer-reviewed study, published in the journal Nutrients, found that 71% of baby food products sold in grocery stores are classified as ultra-processed foods, or UPF.
Researchers analyzed 651 infant and toddler food products available in the top 10 U.S. grocery retailers, using data from the Australia-based George Institute for Global Health’s FoodSwitch database.
The study used the NOVA classification system, the most common method used to identify UPF.
UPF are typically made in industrial settings and contain one or more artificial colors or flavors, non-sugar sweeteners, or additives like emulsifiers and thickeners. Food companies use these ingredients, often in combination with large amounts of fat, sugar or salt, to create UPF.
Additives dominate the baby food aisleA top finding of the study is the widespread use of additives in foods marketed for consumption by babies and toddlers. Nearly three-quarters of all baby food products in the study contained additives, making them the most common ingredient category.
Researchers identified more than 105 unique additives, including flavor enhancers, thickeners, emulsifiers and colors. Flavor enhancers appeared in more than one-third of all products, while thickeners and emulsifiers were also common. Nearly one in five products contained added colors.
A growing body of scientific evidence links certain food additives to potential health concerns, including negative effects on gut function and behavioral difficulties in sensitive children.
Other additives have been studied very little due to a regulatory loophole that allows companies to add new chemicals to foods without any Food and Drug Administration safety review. Nearly 99% of new food chemicals enter the market this way.
More sugar, salt and caloriesThe study also found clear nutritional differences between ultra-processed baby foods and their less-processed counterparts.
On average, ultra-processed baby foods contained nearly twice as much sugar as products that were not ultra-processed. Added sugars were found exclusively in UPF. The disparity was especially pronounced in snack and finger foods, where ultra-processed products contained two and a half times more sugar per serving than similar non-ultra-processed options.
Sodium levels were also higher in ultra-processed baby foods, containing far more sodium per 100 grams than less processed products.
High intake of sugary, calorie-dense foods early in life has been linked to heart and metabolic conditions in children. Early childhood is a particularly sensitive period, since food exposures during those years may shape taste preferences and eating habits that persist for years.
States stepping upThe findings raise questions about whether current regulations adequately protect infants and toddlers and give parents enough information.
There are no federal labeling requirements for UPF. In the absence of robust federal regulation, states have started taking action. Last year, California signed a historic new law to legally define UPF and phase out the most harmful from public school meals. Lawmakers in dozens of other states have introduced or passed bills targeting harmful chemicals in the food supply.
Without stronger federal oversight and clearer labeling requirements for baby foods, parents are largely left to navigate the marketplace on their own.
Finding less processed food for kidsIt’s often possible to find less-processed alternatives to common foods. Instead of yogurt with added flavors, artificial colors or zero-calorie sweeteners, you might look for a yogurt with just a few ingredients: cultured milk and fruit.
One way to identify these products is by reading ingredient lists and nutrition facts to look for more whole foods and fewer chemicals. For now, this information is usually found on the back of food packages.
You may also need to look beyond marketing claims on the front of packages, which can include phrases, colors or pictures intended to appeal to kids.
EWG’s Food Scores provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives.
Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Authors Iris Myers Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN February 11, 2026New England Dodged a Winter Storm Cannon Ball
Carl Pope
Last month was one of New England’s better Januarys. Post-Thanksgiving, the region won a rare rating from the North American Reliability Council, It warned that New England uniquely was at “high risk to natural gas pipeline capacity. It warned that “Natural gas production often falls off in extreme winter temperatures, as supply infrastructure is affected by freezing issues, and Generator Operators that fail to secure firm fuel delivery are frequently unable to access fully subscribed pipelines.”
The warning is shown below in NERC’sual winter assessment by the vertical cross bars. No region except New England was put on this super warning list.
Scattered across an array of recent NERC assessments were repeated warnings: New England’s dependence on aged and leaky gas pipelines, combined with its status as a region at the end of limited gas supplies, makes it particularly vulnerable to power outages. When gas and water combine in freezing temperatures they form gas hydrates. The hydrates freeze and plug pipelines, both those which fuel electric power lines and smaller distribution pipes which heat homes and businesses. In the last two major winter storms to hit New England before this year, the power system suffered major outages of both gas and electricity generated by gas. Indeed, more than half of the power serving the region during those major storms came from drawing down emergency supplies of oil. Had the storms lasted a few more days, oil reserves would have been depleted. The entire regional grid could have shut down in freezing weather. That, NERC had warned, was a serious threat this winter.
New England and its neighboring coastal states had developed a robust strategy to provide a reliable backstop to unreliable gas power: tap the dynamic and virtually 24/7 winter winds off its coasts. Five major Atlantic offshore wind projects, with a combined capacity of 6 GW and a demonstrated super high performance in winter storms, were poised for completion or construction over the next several years. One, Vineyard Wind was already delivering partial power. Revolution Wind, the other project closest to New England, was scheduled to start this winter. Three more projects further south would follow to stabilize the entire East Coast grid by adding 20% to the New England’s grid capacity and adding the bulk of that capacity in a winter when the region is currently vulnerable.
When President Trump on his Inauguration Day announced his hostility to wind power, particularly offshore wind, the Governors responsible for the projects that seemed most at risk negotiated with the President. He demanded, and received, their support for unneeded natural gas pipelines. In exchange, Trump promised to allow the offshore wind project to be completed. (NERC had said New England needed less reliance on gas power, but the Governors decided the offshore projects were critical, and pipelines were Trump’s price.)
Then, on December 22, Trump broke his word and issued “stop completion” orders for all five Atlantic offshore projects. Among them Vineyard win, which was already operating, and Revolution, which was about to open. The only viable, reliable strategy to stabilize the New England grid had just been blown up by the President, who had no Plan B to offer – just more gas which would simply freeze into hydrates.
The next day the weather service announced that a new, tropical storm, named Winter Storm Fern, was forming over the Gulf of Mexico and aiming to bring massive cold weather, snow and ice to a region stretching from Texas to New England. The New Year prospects for New England were grim. With work frozen on all offshore wind power, and Winter Storm Fern makings its way through the South towards New England, the region prepared for the worst. Meteorologists warned that immediately behind Fern was another Tropical storm, a Northeaster, along the Atlantic Coast.
Fern, of course, we now know, devastated much of the United States. Over a million Americans lost power; hundreds of thousands are still in the dark. The death toll is approaching 100. The damages are estimated at $6 billion. The South and the mid-Atlantic were socked the hardest. New England got record snow from Fern, but so cold was the weather that hydrate plugging of the gas system was avoided – only snow fell, no water. New Englanders kept their power-and the heat it provides. When Northeaster Gianne came roaring along the coast, like Fern it too concentrated its snow and ice on the south. Then, as it moved north, it remained far enough offshore that the New England grid was spared, narrowly, a second time.
So, 2025-6 will go down in the record book, but perhaps not the New England record book for damages. Better yet, as Fern and Gianne made their devastating way through the Eastern United States, some incredibly important good news made its way from Federal Courthouses huddling in the snow. In a series of five rulings, one for each of the offshore projects Trump had shut, federal judges lifted Trump’s “stop work” order. They allowed the 6 GW of incremental, winter weather resilient offshore wind projects to resume construction and start adding reliable power before next winter.
The Judges in each case had inspected the classified and allegedly “new” risks posed to national security by allowing power generation off the Atlantic Coast, and in each found the Trump Administration’s arguments unpersuasive and inadequate. That doesn’t mean Trump won’t appeal; but it strongly suggests that if he does, he will lose at least in the Appellate Courts.
The war on the New England grid by Washington isn’t over. And the New England States need to gird for bigger battles to come. Trump’s attacks on the only viable, reliable and domestic source of power available to an entire region are on a scale with the kind of destruction that Russia is inflicting on the Ukraine. New England must demand that Trump explain: where is the power going to come from, power that won’t freeze, power that thrive in winter storms?
This winter isn’t over either. The Vineyard Wind and Revolution projects have been delayed and won’t help for another year. But by next year they may both be online, providing New England with the affordable, reliable winter storm power it has lacked so long.
“To learn more about Carl’s views on the environment, energy and climate, read “Climate of Hope” which he has co-authored with former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg and which can be purchased online or from your local book store.
A veteran leader in the environmental movement, Carl Pope is the former executive director and chairman of the Sierra Club. He’s now the principal advisor at Inside Straight Strategies, looking for the underlying economics that link sustainability and economic development and serves as a Senior Climate Advisor to former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has served on the Boards of the California League of Conservation Voters, Public Voice, National Clean Air Coalition, California Common Cause, Public Interest Economics Inc, and Zero Population Growth.
Mr. Pope is also the author of the books: Sahib, An American Misadventure in India and Hazardous Waste In America. Carl Pope is the co-author with Michael Bloomberg of Climate of Hope: How Cities, Businesses, and Citizens Can Save the Planet. How to attack climate change as a series of manageable challenges, each with a solution that can make our society healthier and our economy stronger.
Statement on FDA request for information on food additive BHA
WASHINGTON – Today the Food and Drug Administration issued a “request for information” about the food chemical preservative butylated hydroxyanisole, or BHA. Studies show BHA may cause cancer in rats, mice, fish and hamsters exposed to it through what they eat.
BHA has been listed as a known carcinogen under California’s Proposition 65 since 1990. The National Toxicology Program in 1991 classified it as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”
In 1990, a doctor petitioned the FDA to ban the chemical from food, but the FDA has not yet issued a response. In 2025, West Virginia banned BHA from all food sold in the state beginning in 2028.
The following is a statement from Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group:
This is yet another instance of the FDA planning to plan instead of taking decisive action. And this time the FDA’s plan is more than three decades late. A petition to ban BHA has been pending for over 30 years, during which time evidence of risk has accumulated, consumers have voiced concern, and states and retailers have stepped in where federal regulators would not.
BHA has already been banned in West Virginia. Major retailers like Kroger, Hy-Vee and Aldi prohibit BHA from their store brands.
This raises the obvious question of what, exactly, the FDA is hoping to learn now. Instead, the FDA could simply grant the pending petition and get BHA off the shelves everywhere much more quickly.
A request for information that follows decades of inaction is not leadership; it’s a paper exercise. Americans deserve timely, decisive food safety regulation, not another slow-walked process that treats urgency as optional.
###
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 February 10, 2026Join us on Feb 21st for our Mining and militarism teach in!
Roundup Video: Sixty North targets midyear Mon mine restart
Sixty North Gold Mining (CSE: SXTY; US-OTC: SXNTF) plans to restart the past-producing Mon gold mine in the Northwest Territories by midyear after installing a 100-tonne-per-day mill at the site, CEO David Webb said.
The project, about 40 km from Yellowknife, is in a gold belt with a history of high grades. Past production totalled about 15 million oz. at an average 16 grams gold per tonne, according to Webb. Sixty North plans to develop beneath historical stopes – about 17 metres below the old workings – and feed the new mill, which the company expects to deliver in March.
“We would ramp down underneath the old [stopes] and start mining that with a brand-new mill,” Webb told The Northern Miner’s Western Editor, Henry Lazenby, at a recent industry event. “And we feel that at 100 tonnes a day, recovering somewhere close to a 100 oz. gold per day – that would work out to over $442,911 per day.”
So confident are Web and the team in the mineralization they’re seeing that the restart is moving ahead without a formal economic study or compliant mineral resources or reserves. Webb said he prefers to prove the project through mining rather than spend on technical reports he considers costly and inconclusive.
Watch the full interview below:
American Tungsten drills high grades at former Idaho mine
American Tungsten (CSE: TUNG) has provided its first assay results from underground drilling at the IMA project in Idaho, showing high grades of tungsten plus silver from multiple holes. Shares of the Canadian miner surged.
Located in Lemhi county, the IMA project is the site of a former tungsten mine that operated between 1945 and 1957. During that time, it produced nearly 200,000 metric ton units of tungsten trioxide (WO3), along with millions of pounds of copper and zinc and over 1,000 ounces of silver. From the 1960s onwards, the property was explored for molybdenum and tungsten by various operators.
American Tungsten bought the project in 2024 with the aim of bringing the underground mine back into production. Before that, the company plans to conduct exploration drilling to define a mineral resource while restoring the mine infrastructure to assess the potential restart.
To date, a total of 10 underground drill holes totaling approximately 3,800 feet have been completed on the rehabilitated D-level of the mine. The drilling is being conducted in a series of upward inclined fan holes from new drill stations in the footwall of the No.5 and No.7 vein systems.
‘High-quality’ tungsten assetIn a press release on Tuesday, the company released the first set of results, with three holes returning 31 feet grading 0.48% WO3 and 1.84 oz/t silver, 11.1 feet grading 1.08% WO3 and 2.05 oz/t Ag, and 16.3 feet grading 0.54% WO3 and 1.79 oz/t Ag, respectively.
“These results show strong grades over significant widths, underscoring the high-quality nature of the IMA tungsten asset, which has never been systematically targeted with modern exploration methods,” American Tungsten CEO Ali Haji said in the release.
Tungsten is a critical mineral used widely in industrial and technology applications. The US has not had any domestic production since 2015, and so relies heavily on supplies from China, which accounts for 80% of the global mine output.
American Tungsten in line for potential $25.5M loanShares of American Tungsten rose nearly 9% to C$2.59 apiece by midday after the announcement, giving the company a market capitalization of C$129.5 million ($95.6 million). Year to date, the stock has risen by nearly 60%.
“They will support the definition of a mineral resource — an important step toward bringing the mine online. The results also identify a silver system that is expected to help offset operating costs,” Haji said.
Silver prices recently rallied to record highs of above $120/oz., and despite a massive selloff at the end of January, it remains up 160% over the past year.
According to American Tungsten, the next major focus for the company is to advance metallurgy and move the IMA project toward development.
Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.
