News Feeds

From Ethel Kennedy: The Extraordinary Life and Bold Legacy: “The day after we presented the CIW with the RFK Human Rights Award, Mum and I joined the group to protest outside a local Taco Bell.” “Mum left Immokalee even more determined to help the workers earn a decent living. Upon returning to Washington, Mum cold-called the CEO of McDonald’s. When he picked up the phone, she said, ‘Hi, this is Ethel Kennedy. Would you please give the tomato pickers another penny per pound?’ No deal. The CIW soon announced a boycott of McDonald’s, then Burger King.”

If you are a long-time ally of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, you may have met one of this country’s most tenacious human rights leaders without even knowing it.

Ethel Kennedy lived a life true to the tenets of her faith, defined by an unwavering commitment to justice that stretched across two centuries. From the movement to expand fundamental civil and human rights to all Americans in the 1960s — a turbulent decade that claimed the life of her husband, former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy — to the struggle to protect and preserve our country’s fragile democracy today, Mrs. Kennedy never shied away from joining in the fight to make the country, and the world, a kinder, more equal, more humane place.

Indeed, over two decades ago, Mrs. Kennedy joined the CIW in our fight against exploitation and abuse in the fields, when she awarded three CIW leaders — Lucas Benitez, Julia Gabriel, and Romeo Ramirez — the 2003 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award for their groundbreaking efforts to end modern-day slavery and bring abusive farm bosses to justice. Mrs. Kennedy presented the award to the trio of CIW leaders at a gala ceremony in the US Senate, and then promptly joined us in the streets of DC at a protest outside a Taco Bell restaurant (right).

It would be the first of many, many times that Mrs. Kennedy joined us in the streets, from her 2006 visit to Immokalee to kick off the “RFK Memorial Poverty Tour: A Tour for Social and Economic Justice”, to her annual appearances with hundreds of farmworkers and their allies on marches along glamorous Worth Avenue in the heart of her winter home of Palm Beach, Florida, calling on Wendy’s — and her fellow Palm Beach resident, billionaire investor Nelson Peltz — to join the Fair Food Program.

But perhaps the greatest highlight of the past two decades of Mrs. Kennedy’s tireless solidarity came in 2012, outside Publix headquarters in Lakeland, Florida. In a heartfelt callback to her role in supporting Cesar Chavez’s historic hunger strike for farmworker rights in 1968, in which Mrs. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy joined Chavez for the breaking of his 25-day fast, Mrs. Kennedy joined dozens of farmworkers and their allies as they ended their own fast, calling on Publix to join the Fair Food Program in an emotional and unforgettable ceremony.

Tragically, Mrs. Kennedy passed away in 2024 at the age of 96. In a memorial attended by nearly every living US president and countless other senior political and movement leaders, the CIW’s Lucas Benitez, Greg Asbed, and Laura Germino had the opportunity to eulogize Mrs. Kennedy, speaking to her pivotal contributions to the CIW and the advancement of the Fair Food Program.

Lucas’s words on that sad yet joyful day are worth remembering one more time:

“My colleagues and I are here today from the land of swamps and hurricanes, in the company of so many distinguished champions of this great democracy, because Mrs. Kennedy knew it takes all of us, from farmworkers to Presidents, to defend the human rights she held so dear.  She was the rare person who cares not who you are, but what you do for democracy, freedom and equal rights.

I came alone as a teenager to what would become my beloved adopted county, looking for work in America’s tomato fields and citrus groves, after growing up in a one-room, dirt-floor shack along with my five siblings (a big family, but not quite as big as the Kennedys!…).  And 30 years ago, when we as farmworkers from Immokalee began our fight against forced labor, sexual harassment and assault, and wage theft in the fields, Mrs. Kennedy (together with her daughter Kerry) stood with us from the very start.  Ethel saw the promise in our early efforts to bring brutal farm bosses to justice when no one else did, awarding us the RFK Human Rights Award two decades ago, lifting us up from Immokalee’s dusty streets to celebrate our efforts in the hallowed halls of the US Senate, and she stuck with us ever since, as that early promise grew into transformative change.

She picketed with us is in the streets as we boycotted Taco Bell.  She visited us in the fields and in our homes, and brought her friends with her to Immokalee to join the fight, leaders like John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO, and Senator Bernie Sanders.  She used her powers of persuasion to convince McDonald’s executives to join our growing program for human rights.  And she led marches with us in her beloved Palm Beach not once, but many times. I would push her in her wheelchair along Worth Avenue, her straw hat shielding her from the sun, past jewelry stores and shops selling furs.  Her friends and neighbors would stop her and say “Ethel, what in the world are you doing?” And she would say, “Come along and march with us, for justice and freedom!” And many of them dropped whatever they were doing and did!  Who could say no to Ethel?

Thanks in large part to her decades of untiring support – it’s never about just showing up, it’s about sticking around – today, we can say that we have built the most effective human rights enforcement program in the US agricultural industry, the Fair Food Program, which has eliminated modern-day slavery and sexual violence in the fields, and has forged America’s strongest workplace heat protections against the ever-worsening climate crisis.  We are in 23 states and counting, and our partners include 14 of the world’s largest corporations.

Mrs. Kennedy, we thank you, and as we say in Mexico, a person only truly dies when they are no longer remembered by anyone, and you, Senora Ethel — a true force of nature — will never really leave us because you will always live on in our hearts and our memories, in Immokalee and anywhere a farmworker harvests the food that feeds our nation. (read more from the unforgettable memorial service here)

Now, Mrs. Kennedy’s daughter, Kerry Kennedy — herself a stalwart supporter of the cause for farmworker dignity — has penned a biography of her late, great mother. Entitled Ethel Kennedy: The Extraordinary Life and Bold Legacy, the book tells the story of Mrs. Kennedy’s remarkable journey through the eyes of her daughter. Jam-packed with firsthand accounts and exquisite storytelling, the book takes readers beyond the towering achievements of Mrs. Kennedy’s public life to reveal the woman behind the legacy — her humor and heart, her convictions and struggles, and the experiences that shaped a lifetime of fighting for justice. Today, we’d like to highlight one passage in particular, which recounts Mrs. Kennedy’s unwavering support for farmworkers’ rights and her unique contributions to the Campaign for Fair Food.

We are sharing that excerpt below, but be sure to buy the book, which is for sale at all major retailers and online. Here is one part of Ethel Kennedy’s story, as told by her daughter:

“In 2003, Mum presented the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award to the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), a labor group based in Florida that was fighting for fair wages while exposing brutal and illegal conditions in the tomato fields. Along with his colleagues Greg Asbed, Laura Germino, and others, Lucas Benitez had emancipated over a thousand farmworkers from modern-day slavery… The CIW was also leading a nationwide boycott of Taco Bell, one of the major purchasers of Florida tomatoes. At the time, farmworkers received 32 cents for every bucket of tomatoes picked, a pittance that kept them in dire poverty. One of the CIW’s central demands was an additional penny for every pound, which could increase their earnings by $150 more per week. But the raise would be possible only if buyers like Taco Bell paid the growers a penny more per pound. They refused, and the boycott was on.

The day after we presented the CIW with the RFK Human Rights Award, Mum and I joined the group to protest outside a local Taco Bell. Mum hated having to boycott her favorite fast-food joint. “I love Taco Bell,” Mum said. “I called Taco Bell, but they wouldn’t cooperate, so I couldn’t eat there, and it really upset me.” Two years later, the company agreed to pay more for their produce, and Mum was again able to enjoy their supreme burritos.

But she was not finished helping the Florida farmworkers. In 2005, Mum invited the head of the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest trade union federation, and others to join her on a fact-finding tour of filthy, inhumane conditions in Immokalee. The rundown town, surrounded by tomato fields carved out of the swamps, was just 39 miles inland from the wealthy enclave of Naples, Florida, but a world apart. Mum and her guests got a firsthand look at the rotting trailers where the tomato pickers lived three and four to a room. They saw the workers line up for buses, hoping to be chosen by the bosses to spend 12-hour days picking tomatoes. Nearly all the women reported being sexually assaulted by the bosses, often forced to have sex in exchange for the privilege of being hired.

Mum left Immokalee even more determined to help the workers earn a decent living. Upon returning to Washington, Mum cold-called the CEO of McDonald’s. When he picked up the phone, she said, “Hi, this is Ethel Kennedy. Would you please give the tomato pickers another penny per pound?” No deal. The CIW soon announced a boycott of McDonald’s, then Burger King.

*Both Burger King and McDonald’s eventually came around and agreed to participate in the Fair Food Program. The boycott of Wendy’s… continues to this day.”

We truly hope you find the time to read “Ethel Kennedy: The Extraordinary Life and Bold Legacy”, you will be so very glad you did. We here at the CIW have always been honored to have known Mrs. Kennedy, but now, having read this exquisitely written love letter from her daughter Kerry, we miss her, and her indefatigable love of life, even more.

Shell’s latest financial statements reveal an anticipated $6.4 billion non-cash accounting loss arising from the transformation of its Dutch pension arrangements. The disclosure raises important questions about pension governance, regulatory oversight and the financial consequences of the transition — but it does not establish that pensioners will suffer corresponding losses.

By John Donovan — 30 October 2026

Just one day after Shell plc announced spectacular third-quarter earnings and another $5 billion share-buyback programme, a striking disclosure in the company’s financial statements deserves closer attention.

On page 33 of its report for the quarter ended 30 September 2026, Shell reveals that it expects to recognise an estimated $6.4 billion non-cash accounting loss in the fourth quarter of this year.

The anticipated charge arises from the restructuring of the Dutch pension arrangements operated by Stichting Shell Pensioen Fonds (SSPF).

The amount is extraordinary.

It is larger than Shell’s newly announced $5 billion share-buyback programme and comes at a time when the company is reporting exceptionally strong profits.

Yet this is not a straightforward case of Shell losing $6.4 billion in cash.

Nor does the disclosure establish that employees or pensioners face a corresponding reduction in their retirement benefits.

The explanation lies in a complicated intersection of Dutch pension reform, international accounting standards and the treatment of defined-benefit pension obligations.

Understanding what Shell has actually disclosed — and what remains unanswered — is essential.

The $6.4 billion disclosure

Shell’s financial statements describe the pending transition of its Dutch defined-benefit pension fund to a defined-contribution arrangement.

The company states that the transition is expected to take effect on 1 January 2027.

The associated accounting settlement is expected to occur on 31 December 2026.

At that point, according to Shell, the existing defined-benefit plan will cease to be recognised in the company’s accounts in its present form.

Under the relevant accounting treatment, Shell expects this derecognition to produce a substantial charge in its consolidated income statement.

The estimated amount, calculated at 30 September 2026, is $6.4 billion.

Shell explicitly describes the anticipated charge as non-cash.

It also warns that the figure remains subject to actuarial remeasurement during the fourth quarter and may therefore change.

This distinction matters.

A charge recorded in a corporate income statement does not necessarily represent a cash payment, an investment loss of the same amount or a reduction in the pensions payable to individual members.

Nevertheless, an accounting adjustment of this magnitude is financially material and deserves scrutiny.

Why is Shell changing its Dutch pension arrangements?

The background is a fundamental reform of the Netherlands’ pension system.

On 1 July 2023, the Dutch Wet toekomst pensioenen (Future Pensions Act) came into effect.

The legislation introduced a substantial restructuring of occupational pension arrangements, with existing schemes required to complete their transitions before 1 January 2028.

The reform changes how pension rights, investment risks and retirement outcomes are organised and communicated.

Shell’s Dutch pension fund has been preparing to comply with the new framework.

According to Shell’s financial statements, the SSPF trustee board formally accepted the transition plan in July 2025.

The planned effective date is 1 January 2027.

Importantly, Shell is not presenting this restructuring as an entirely voluntary decision to abandon its existing arrangements.

It forms part of a wider legislatively mandated transformation of the Dutch pension system.

Nevertheless, the financial and governance consequences for Shell remain significant.

Dutch regulator gives conditional clearance

Shell’s disclosure identifies an important regulatory development.

On 2 September 2026, De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB), the Dutch central bank and pension supervisor, issued its decision not to prohibit the transfer of accrued pension entitlements into the new pension arrangement.

The Dutch terminology is Besluit geen verbod op invaren.

The decision was conditional.

Shell states that the funding ratio at the point of transition must remain within an agreed range.

Moreover, final approval by the SSPF trustee board was still outstanding when the quarterly results were published.

Shell expects that decision during the fourth quarter of 2026.

Consequently, the proposed transition has not yet been presented by Shell as an unconditional, completed event.

The precise outcome remains dependent on the relevant conditions and approvals.

That distinction should not be overlooked.

What does a $6.4 billion non-cash loss actually mean?

This is perhaps the most important question.

Under International Accounting Standard IAS 19, Employee Benefits, companies must account for defined-benefit pension commitments according to prescribed rules governing pension obligations, pension assets, actuarial assumptions and the recognition of surpluses or deficits.

In a conventional defined-benefit arrangement, the sponsoring employer may remain exposed to certain risks associated with meeting promised pension benefits.

A defined-contribution arrangement generally involves a different allocation of risks and responsibilities.

However, the precise legal and economic consequences depend on the structure of the scheme.

Shell’s proposed transition involves the derecognition of its existing defined-benefit arrangement.

The company explains that the accounting consequences include the operation of the asset ceiling provisions of IAS 19.

These provisions can restrict how much of a pension fund surplus an employer is permitted to recognise as an asset in its financial statements.

Shell states that in the third quarter of 2025 it recognised an adjustment reducing the pension fund surplus recognised in its accounts to nil, together with a liability associated with minimum funding requirements.

That adjustment produced a loss in other comprehensive income.

The asset ceiling has continued to be monitored and remeasured.

With the expected transition at the end of 2026, a further accounting consequence is anticipated.

The resulting $6.4 billion charge is expected to pass through Shell’s fourth-quarter income statement.

But there is an essential distinction between an accounting loss and money physically leaving the company.

Shell’s disclosure does not establish that it must pay $6.4 billion into the pension fund, that the fund has lost $6.4 billion in assets, or that members’ pensions will be reduced by that amount.

Indeed, the company’s explanation suggests that the anticipated charge is principally associated with accounting recognition and derecognition as the scheme changes.

The correct interpretation requires examination of the detailed actuarial and accounting calculations.

Those calculations are not fully reproduced in the quarterly disclosure.

What about Shell’s existing pension position?

Shell provides additional context in the same financial report.

At 30 September 2026, its consolidated balance sheet recorded:

Retirement benefits 30 September 2026 31 December 2025 Non-current pension-related assets $5.737 billion $5.052 billion Non-current pension-related liabilities $6.262 billion $7.136 billion Net recognised deficit $525 million $2.084 billion

These figures concern Shell’s recognised retirement-benefit assets and liabilities across its relevant plans, rather than representing the funding position of SSPF alone.

Shell attributes the improvement in the net position principally to higher discount rates reducing the measured retirement-benefit obligations, partly offset by investment returns below expectations.

That improvement provides an important contrast with the impending $6.4 billion accounting charge.

It illustrates why the value of pension assets, the actuarial measurement of pension commitments and the accounting consequences of restructuring must be considered separately.

A large pension-related charge in the income statement does not necessarily mean that the underlying pension scheme has experienced an equivalent economic deterioration.

What will happen to Shell pensioners?

The central concern for many current and former employees will be understandable:

Will the transition affect the pensions they receive?

Shell’s quarterly financial disclosure does not provide enough information to determine how every category of member will be affected.

The transition involves accrued pension entitlements, but its implications for individuals depend on the final scheme rules, funding position, allocation mechanisms and relevant Dutch legal safeguards.

It would therefore be irresponsible to suggest that Shell’s pensioners are about to lose $6.4 billion in promised retirement benefits.

The company’s announcement makes no such claim.

Equally, it would be premature to conclude that every pension beneficiary will experience precisely the same economic outcome under the new arrangements.

Those questions require examination of the SSPF transition plan and the communications issued to members.

Independent pension specialists may also be able to explain the consequences more fully.

Why should Shell shareholders be interested?

There are several reasons.

First, the anticipated charge is substantial in absolute terms.

A $6.4 billion loss recorded in a quarterly income statement can materially affect reported statutory earnings.

Second, Shell’s management will need to explain the accounting consequences clearly so that investors do not confuse a non-cash pension adjustment with a deterioration in the company’s operating performance.

Third, the transition represents a major governance development involving pension trustees, a national regulator and the sponsor of a significant retirement arrangement.

Fourth, there are legitimate questions about the longer-term consequences of changing the nature of Shell’s pension obligations and associated financial risks.

Finally, the disclosure warrants attention because the accounting treatment is not intuitive.

Shareholders reading headlines about billion-dollar profits, share buybacks and pension losses may reasonably struggle to reconcile the figures.

Shell has an interest in ensuring that its explanations are sufficiently clear to prevent misunderstanding.

The contrast with Shell’s quarterly profits

The timing is noteworthy.

On 29 October 2026, Shell announced adjusted third-quarter earnings of $10.814 billion.

The same results included a $2.116 billion impairment relating to a European biogas asset and a $1.787 billion reversal of an earlier impairment associated with a North American Integrated Gas asset.

Our previous investigation examined the contrast between those two energy investments.

The pension disclosure introduces a different but equally significant issue.

Whereas the biogas impairment reflects revised expectations about the recoverable value of a commercial asset, the projected pension charge arises from a change in the accounting treatment of retirement arrangements.

These are fundamentally different financial events.

Nevertheless, all three demonstrate why investors should look beyond headline adjusted earnings and examine the accompanying financial statement notes.

Some of the most consequential information in corporate reporting appears not in the headline announcements, but in the explanations accompanying the accounts.

The Shell historical archive perspective

The Independent Shell Archive has long examined questions surrounding the company’s corporate governance, financial reporting, legal responsibilities and relationships with employees.

The pension disclosure is relevant to that historical record.

Shell’s relationship with its workforce has developed over more than a century, encompassing changing employment practices, restructuring, pension commitments and corporate governance arrangements.

The transition now under way in the Netherlands represents another significant chapter in that history.

There is no basis in the present disclosure for suggesting misconduct by Shell, its pension trustees or the Dutch regulator.

Nor is there evidence that the anticipated accounting charge conceals an undisclosed cash liability of the same amount.

What the disclosure does establish is that Shell expects a major financial reporting consequence from a fundamental change in its Dutch retirement arrangements.

For an independent archive concerned with preserving contemporaneous corporate evidence, that is sufficient reason to document the event carefully.

It will also be important to preserve the distinction between what Shell disclosed before the transition and what ultimately occurs when the final arrangements take effect.

That is the same documentary principle underpinning The Shell Leaks Files: preserve the original evidence, identify what was known at the time, and compare statements with subsequent developments.

Questions Shell should answer

In the interests of transparency, Shell could usefully provide fuller explanations addressing several questions.

1. How is the $6.4 billion calculated?

What are the principal accounting components of the expected loss, and how much arises from the reversal of previously recognised pension-related balances?

2. What is the expected cash impact?

Although Shell describes the charge as non-cash, are there separate contributions, payments or funding obligations associated with the transition?

3. What happens to pension obligations?

How will the transition alter Shell’s future exposure to pension funding requirements and actuarial risks?

4. What protections exist for pension members?

How will accrued entitlements and the interests of current employees, deferred members and existing pensioners be treated?

5. What remains subject to approval?

Which decisions must still be taken by the SSPF trustee board, and what would happen if the agreed funding conditions were not satisfied?

6. How will the charge affect reported earnings?

Will Shell classify the anticipated $6.4 billion expense as an identified item excluded from adjusted earnings, and what additional reconciliation information will be provided?

These are questions of financial reporting, governance and pension administration.

They are not allegations of wrongdoing.

A significant disclosure deserving a clear explanation

Shell’s financial statements provide an unusually stark figure: a projected $6.4 billion non-cash loss arising from a change in pension arrangements.

The company’s explanation identifies the accounting mechanism and the regulatory background.

But it leaves important questions about the detailed calculation and practical implications for the pension arrangements.

The transition has not yet been completed.

Final trustee approval remains outstanding, and the estimated loss may change before the expected settlement date.

For employees, pensioners and shareholders alike, the priority should be clarity rather than alarm.

The public record establishes that a substantial accounting adjustment is anticipated. It does not establish that pension beneficiaries face a corresponding loss.

The proper question is not simply why Shell expects to recognise a $6.4 billion loss, but how that figure arises, what financial responsibilities change, and whether the transition protects the interests of the people whose retirement arrangements are being transformed.

Those questions deserve answers before the new pension arrangements take effect.

And the Independent Shell Archive will preserve the disclosures so that the company’s explanations can be evaluated against the eventual outcome.

Principal sources

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

Official Shell financial statements and quarterly results

See Note 7, particularly page 33, under the headings Retirement benefits and Dutch pension reform. This is the principal source for the $6.4 billion estimate, regulatory decision, transition timetable and accounting explanation.

Shell SEC filings

Shell’s official investor portal providing access to its regulatory and SEC disclosures.

Related Independent Shell Archive reporting

Shell’s $10.8 Billion Profit Bonanza: A $2.1 Billion Biogas Write-Down as LNG Canada Gains $1.8 Billion in Value — 29 October 2026

Our analysis of other material accounting developments disclosed in the same quarterly financial report.

Editorial note: This article is based primarily on Shell plc’s unaudited financial statements published on 29 October 2026 and supplied as part of its US regulatory reporting. The anticipated $6.4 billion pension-related charge is Shell’s estimate, not a completed loss. The estimate remains conditional and subject to change. The article does not allege that pension-fund assets or individual pension benefits have fallen by that amount, or that Shell or its pension trustees have acted improperly. Commentary and questions are independent editorial analysis.

Shell plc and Stichting Shell Pensioen Fonds are invited to provide factual corrections, accounting clarifications or information about the transition’s implications for pension members. Any substantive response will be considered for publication.

The next documentary checkpoint is the SSPF trustee board’s final decision and Shell’s fourth-quarter financial statements, when the company should be able to confirm the actual accounting treatment and amount.

Shell’s $6.4 Billion Pension Bombshell: SEC Disclosure Reveals Major Accounting Loss Expected as Dutch Retirement Scheme Changes was first posted on October 30, 2026 at 2:22 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

At a Tuesday campaign rally for Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton in Lubbock, Texas, President Trump announced the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to roll back a Biden-era methane rule, setting up a likely future showdown in how the agency oversees climate pollution under the Clean Air Act.

The proposal marks a break from the agency’s previous approaches to greenhouse gas regulation by maintaining that — for now — the EPA still has the authority to regulate climate pollution from the oil and gas industry, though it might revisit this decision later. With affordability top of mind for many midterm voters, however, the President framed the move in economic terms.   

“Tonight I’m officially terminating Biden’s expensive and unnecessary methane regulations,” Trump announced to the crowd, located near the oil-rich Permian Basin. The new plan would loosen federal requirements for oil and gas operators to detect and repair leaks, ease restrictions on gas flaring, and eliminate the Super Emitter Program, a third-party monitoring and reporting system designed to identify major releases of methane, known as a climate super pollutant.

Trump said the proposal, which addressed a 2024 rule known as OOOOb/c, would “save consumers and energy producers $45 billion in costs, unlock vast quantities of Texas natural gas, and produce 210 million barrels of oil.” Under President Biden, the EPA estimated the rule would prevent the release of 58 million tons of methane and 16 million tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), leading to major public health and climate benefits. Climate change already is raising costs for American households by an estimated $400 to $900 annually, according to a 2025 Brookings report.  

Trump’s Lubbock announcement follows a series of sweeping deregulatory moves by the EPA in which the agency has stated it does not have the authority to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change under the Clean Air Act. EPA’s most notable decision came in February when the agency rescinded the 2009 endangerment finding, the U.S. government’s scientific finding that greenhouse gases harm human health and the environment and the legal basis for its rules addressing climate change. More recently, the EPA stated in September that it would no longer limit climate pollution for power plants, a move which would likely extend the lifespan of coal-fired power plants. 

In the wake of these decisions, however, legal experts and environmental advocates say that the EPA is attempting to assert power unevenly. On the one hand, the agency says it lacks the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars, trucks, power plants, and industrial sources under the Clean Air Act. On the other, the latest EPA proposal relies on, in some cases in the same section of, the Clean Air Act to regulate methane, a greenhouse gas, from the oil and gas industry.

In its latest proposed rule, the EPA addresses this tension, acknowledging that “stakeholders have also raised concerns” about the agency’s authority to regulate the oil and gas sector’s greenhouse gas emissions under the landmark air pollution law. Depending on the agency’s final handling of the issue with fossil fuel-fired power plants, the EPA states it could then use a “future rulemaking” to resolve the issue in the oil and gas sector. (The EPA is accepting public comments on its proposed repeal of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for fossil fuel-fired power plants until Nov. 2.)

Subscribe to Desmog

Get the weekly intelligence you need to hold polluters accountable

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

Attacking EPA’s ‘flawed legal basis’

In 1999, the oil and gas industry’s largest trade group, the American Petroleum Institute (API), organized a meeting over whether it should “coordinate a multi-industry, trade group response” to the threat of what it called EPA’s “flawed legal basis” for regulating greenhouse gas pollution, including carbon dioxide and methane, under the Clean Air Act. In 2024, the API filed a legal challenge over the OOOOb/c rule, which was eventually consolidated into a lawsuit with states and other industry trade groups. That suit has been paused while the agency reconsiders the rule.

Parts of the oil and gas industry have flagged this distinction in how the Trump EPA is handling two different greenhouse gases under the same law. Shortly after the EPA repealed the endangerment finding, the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance (DEPA), an oil and gas trade association founded by fracking magnate and Trump donor Harold Hamm, wrote a letter to the EPA, thanking the agency for “restoring the rule of law.” The group called out “methane and other greenhouse gas emission requirements for the oil and gas sector” among its examples of “major regulations based on the Endangerment Finding.”

A flare burns over oilfield infrastructure in West Texas’ Permian Basin in 2020. Credit: Justin Hamel/DeSmog

A few months later, after the agency published an update on its proposed reconsideration of the OOOOb/c methane rule, DEPA wrote in an internal newsletter that EPA “does not explain its legal reasoning for continuing to regulate methane emissions when it has found that it does not have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from vehicles and has proposed it does not have the authority to regulate power plants’ CO2 emissions.”

On Tuesday in Corpus Christi, the president called out Hamm by name at another midterms rally shortly before the one announcing the methane rule rollback. “Harold Hamm is here, the great oilman,” said Trump, looking around the audience. “Hi, Harold.” 

‘The Very Definition of Arbitary’

Legal experts and environmental advocates say the EPA’s inconsistency leaves unresolved important legal questions about the federal government’s authority to regulate climate pollution, potentially keeping the door open to upend federal methane regulation entirely.

“Treating similar pollutants under the same statute differently, with no stated reason or evidence, is the very definition of arbitrary and capricious decision making,” said Alejandro Camacho, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Camacho argues that if the EPA adopts a broad theory limiting its authority over greenhouse gases, it must explain why that theory doesn’t also undermine its authority to regulate methane. “States have already sued over the power plant repeal, as have health and environmental groups, and they can and should attack this inconsistency too,” he added.

A lone pumpjack in Loving County, Texas, in the Permian Basin. Credit: Justin Hamel/DeSmog

The EPA’s proposal nods to the industry’s questioning of its authority and points to the agency’s history of handling the oil and gas sector separately, “but the agency hasn’t explained how it will navigate it,” said Rosalie Winn, senior director and lead counsel on methane and clean air policy for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Mary Sasso, an attorney for the Clean Air Task Force, said the agency’s decision to defer the question could leave the future of methane regulation uncertain. “I think that there’s very real concerns that we could see changes to EPA’s interpretation of its own authority finalized in some type of regulation that would be really damaging for public health and the environment,” she said.

Camacho agrees, and warned that the deferral could foreshadow future agency backtracking. “The deferral is less a reasoned distinction than a placeholder for the next rollback,” he said.

The administration also argues that the proposed changes will reduce regulatory costs, encourage domestic energy production, and help lower prices for consumers. “Since day one, President Trump has been putting real money back into the hands of American people by putting American energy back in the hands of the American workers, businesses, and communities,” said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in a press statement about the proposal.

Consumer savings uncertain

Although the EPA estimates that the proposed rollback to the methane rule would save consumers tens of billions of dollars, the relationship between domestic production and consumer prices is more complicated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In an emailed response to DeSmog, the EPA said its estimate reflected the anticipated cost oil and gas operators would save by not having to comply with regulations, their excess profits, and consumer savings. The proposed rule reflects this calculation in its Regulatory Impact Analysis section, but does not provide further details on how the agency determined these figures. These figures are not independently established consumer savings.

“As much as it would be easy to paint oil executives as cartoonish villains hiking prices while families suffer, individuals have little to no control over benchmark oil prices,” said Kelly Mitchell, the executive director of the oil and gas watchdog Fieldnotes.

“The administration may claim that new rules will incentivize new production, bringing online supply to counter the barrels trapped behind the Strait of Hormuz,” Mitchell said. “However, these new rules are primarily designed to help operators of marginal wells — wells that produce fewer than 15 barrels per day.”

Flaring methane gas in the Permian Basin, Texas. Credit: Justin Hamel/DeSmog

Mitchell questioned whether the benefits of the rollback would reach consumers, arguing that changes would primarily reduce costs for oil and gas operators without guaranteeing lower prices at the pump. “We’re left with an outcome where oil companies get to war profiteer, avoid using any of those profits to clean up a major pollution source, and fail to reduce prices. Now they have the gall to look us in the eyes and tell us this is a gift to the American consumer.”

Since rescinding the endangerment finding, the EPA no longer accounts for the cost of harms from additional climate pollution — only the economic harms — which does not figure into the new rule’s estimated savings. Meanwhile, in a study recapping the last decade of climate-induced health harms, the Lancet reported a record high of 710,000 heat-related deaths in 2023 — and almost 72 percent of them caused by climate change.

The proposed rule places particular emphasis on a class of low-producing facilities known as marginal wells, which typically produce relatively small amounts of oil and gas. The Trump administration alleges that regulations established under the previous administration stymied these wells. “Under crooked Joe Biden, ‘Dumocrats’ crushed the small oil and gas operators,” Trump said during the rally Tuesday. “There are small operators, they’re great operators too, I know so many of them — with crippling regulations and methane that caused prices to skyrocket.”

The EPA says many of these wells are family-owned operations that struggle with the costs of complying with Biden-era standards, but an Environmental Defense analysis found that nearly half of all marginal wells are owned by just 93 corporations.

The proposed methane rule reconsideration is the latest development in a broader campaign to weaken federal methane protections under the purview of Aaron Szabo, a former registered lobbyist for a member of a major trade group pushing for these rollbacks. Earlier this month, Szabo stepped down as the head of the EPA Office of Air and Radiation. Last month, DeSmog reported that members of the oil and gas industry had simultaneously voiced public support for federal methane rules while covertly working to “eviscerate”them during the second Trump administration, according to an investigation published by Fieldnotes.

The proposed changes to the OOOOb/c methane rule are not yet final. The EPA says it will provide at least 45 days for public commentafter publication in the Federal Register, including a public hearing.

The post President Trump Unveils EPA’s New Contradictory Methane Proposal at Campaign Rally appeared first on DeSmog.

350.org says oil companies cannot continue to reap the rewards of fossil fuels while households face rising energy bills and communities bear the costs of climate devastation.

As communities across the world face devastating heat, droughts, wildfires and growing pressure on public services, US oil giants Chevron and ExxonMobil are among five major oil and gas companies expected to make around $53 billion in combined third-quarter profits.

The scale of these forecast profits comes as families and small businesses struggle with energy affordability, while governments face mounting costs from extreme weather and climate impacts. As the US approaches the midterm elections, energy affordability is a growing concern for households and communities. Across the country, debates over rising electricity demand, the expansion of data centres, and the continued reliance on expensive and polluting fossil fuels are bringing questions about who benefits from the energy system ,and who pays, into sharper focus.

Candice Fortin, US Campaigns Manager,

“As we head into the midterms, energy affordability is on everyone’s minds. Families and small businesses want reliable electricity they can afford, and communities want a say in how their land, water and energy resources are used. Yet as people struggle with energy bills and the impacts of extreme weather, the biggest oil companies are forecast to make billions.

“We need an energy system that puts people first. That means protecting households from losing access to essential electricity during extreme heat and cold, expanding affordable solar and wind power, and ensuring that new sources of electricity demand, including data centres, do not drive up bills or place additional pressure on communities. It also means making sure oil and gas companies pay their fair share towards the costs of the crisis, rather than leaving the public to pick up the bill.”

350.org says governments should make polluters pay through permanent levies on fossil fuel producers and taxes on exceptional profits, using the revenue to help energy-stressed households and accelerate the transition to affordable, clean energy.

The organisation is also calling for stronger protections for households facing disconnection or unaffordable electricity bills, greater access to rooftop and community solar, and transparent safeguards for data centre expansion. These should include requirements for genuinely new and additional renewable electricity supply around the clock, with benefits shared fairly with surrounding communities.

Two directors of GB News, which has loudly advocated for the new Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields, hold shares in the firms behind the projects.

Sir Paul Marshall, a millionaire hedge fund boss who also owns The Spectator magazine, and Lord (Theodore) Agnew of Oulton, a Conservative peer and donor, sit on the board of All Perspectives Ltd, the holding company of GB News.

Marshall is also one of its two principal funders, pumping money into the loss-making right-wing outlet.

GB News – which employs Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and former Tory Cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg – has strongly supported new North Sea drilling, with presenters recently calling Rosebank “a no-brainer” that should be approved “instantly”.

The Labour government last week approved the development of the Jackdaw gas field near Aberdeen and is expected to make a decision on Rosebank soon.

Rosebank would create an estimated 250 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions over its 10-year lifetime, roughly 70 percent of the UK’s total annual emissions. The oil and gas field near the Shetland Islands is 80 percent owned by Adura, an “independent joint venture” by the fossil fuel giants Equinor and Shell that also owns the Jackdaw site.

At the end of June, Marshall’s hedge fund Marshall Wace held $16.3 million (around £12.3 million) of stock in Shell, according to its latest filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Meanwhile, Lord Agnew is a shareholder in Equinor, owning a stake in the company worth at least £100,000 according to his parliamentary register.

DeSmog first revealed Marshall Wace’s huge fossil fuel portfolio in 2023, which increased to $2.8 billion (£2.1 billion) in the first quarter of this year.

One of Marshall Wace’s biggest backers, U.S. private equity giant KKR, is itself a major investor in fossil fuels.

Subscribe to Desmog

Get the weekly intelligence you need to hold polluters accountable

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

“GB News has gone way beyond just covering the Rosebank decision. Presenters repeatedly attacked the energy secretary for considering rejecting it, and demanded that the government ‘drill baby drill’,” said Richard Wilson, director of the campaign group Stop Funding Heat.

“The public deserves to know when the people overseeing a TV station have a financial stake in the outcome it’s pushing for”.

Wilson also pointed out that media regulator Ofcom requires “due impartiality” from broadcasters on live policy decisions, potentially including the approval of specific oil fields.

“It’s time for Ofcom to take action,” he said. “In the meantime, it’s vital that advertisers continue to steer clear of GB News”.

Paul Marshall and Marshall Wace declined to comment. GB News and Lord Agnew were approached for comment.

GB News’s ‘Rosebank-tinted’ Coverage

Presenters and guests on GB News have vocally backed the Rosebank and Jackdaw projects.

On 26 October, Rees-Mogg, who lost his seat at the 2024 general election, was asked for his view on Rosebank, replying: “Oh, drill, baby drill. We should get on with it as fast as possible,” adding that the UK should also overturn its ban on fracking for shale gas.

On 19 August, GB News presenter Andrew Pierce interviewed Reform’s deputy leader Richard Tice about the two projects, saying: “If both of them were given the go-ahead, wouldn’t that instantly create some of the extra fuel security, energy security we need, apart from the revenue for the Exchequer?”

Tice replied, “Of course. Both should be given the go-ahead instantly,” adding that the government should grant new North Sea exploration licences, which would break its 2024 manifesto commitment.

On 22 October, Pierce himself called Jackdaw “brilliant” and said it was “madness” for Labour MPs to oppose Rosebank.

GB News political editor Christopher Hope has also made the case for Rosebank, remarking on 26 October: “We’re buying in the oil and gas we would take from Rosebank. Anyway, why not make it in [the UK] and get tax revenue from that asset?”

A few days earlier, on 16 October, he said: “It seems like a no-brainer to many, but not on the left of politics.”

GB News presenter and former Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Credit: GB News / YouTube

Last week, the GB News website ran an opinion article by Russell Borthwick, the chief executive of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, headlined: “Jackdaw approval is a victory for common sense. Now it’s Rosebank’s turn.”

As DeSmog has documented, GB News has long backed new fossil fuels and attacked climate action. It has also given a platform to climate science deniers, including from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a pressure group that says more CO2 emissions would be a “benefit to the planet”.

Marshall has also personally criticised policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, claiming in a speech to the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in February 2025 that the world has been infected by a “climate derangement syndrome”. He said “our economic prosperity and our people’s livelihoods” are being sacrificed “all for the sake of making some fractional changes to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere”.

In reality, reaching net zero emissions is predicted to cost only a fraction of UK GDP, while the extreme weather events caused by climate change could have a dramatic impact on the global economy.

Marshall’s Spectator magazine, edited by former Conservative Cabinet minister Michael Gove, has also strongly supported new North Sea drilling.

A piece last week by anti-net zero columnist Ross Clark hailed Jackdaw as “a small victory for common sense” but lamented that Labour will not approve Rosebank so long as the UK keeps its net zero targets.

The Spectator’s “gossip columnist” Steerpike also last week accused Labour MPs of “throwing a tantrum over Jackdaw”, and concluded: “It has taken years, and so much time has been wasted, but at least the most obvious decision facing the country has finally been made. The question is whether Burnham will be brave enough to approve Rosebank as well.”

The Spectator was approached for comment.

The post Two GB News Directors Have Investments in Oil Companies Behind Rosebank and Jackdaw appeared first on DeSmog.

The story we are often told about Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of replacement, particularly in agriculture. The machines are coming for the tractor, the picker, and then eventually, the farmer. But the real potential of AI in agriculture isn’t replacement but what happens when technology serves the people already in the system, extending their sight rather than overriding their judgment. Successful innovation starts with local knowledge and widens it.

Agriculture, while obviously important to our economies, is one of the slowest to integrate new technology. I learned this lesson in 2017 when I joined an AgTech startup called Artemis Ag, a software company focused on bringing people, processes, and farm data into the cloud. Our initial premise was that software could increase a grower’s view of the farm and drastically improve their efficiency. Initially, user adoption was slow. We learned that we hadn’t fully accounted for the farmer’s experience. We didn’t consider the level of knowledge that comes with years of growing in their local environments, nor the impact that tiny changes to input costs could have on their planning. We especially didn’t account for physical design decisions that affect how and where technology can be used or the fact that farmers, broadly speaking, are more likely to be outside and less likely to be on a computer. And this was just in the U.S.

Globally, it’s a different set of problems. On the ground, technology uptake is uneven and intensely local. In rural areas, 21 percent of people in Africa use the internet, compared with 75 percent in the Americas. Access is only one hurdle. A synthesis of 30 studies found that smallholders run into several barriers at once: capital, credit, weak supply chains, and plain doubt about whether a new tool will ever pay off. The technology itself is rarely the bottleneck.

A food system rests on six interdependent foundations—natural resources, production, manufacturing and supply chain, logistics, a strong consumer base, and effective governance and policy. When one gives way, the others feel it. For example, last year Hurricane Melissa destroyed Jamaica’s agricultural base, destroying many of its farms, roads and logistics infrastructure. In the aftermath, the government went to work to figure out the best policy and long-term plan needed, but it raised questions. How do you restart food production and manufacturing? And how do you rebuild the supply chain and logistics while balancing some of the country’s more foundational needs, such as new, more resilient homes, a better electricity infrastructure, and new roads? These questions present an opportunity for AI and innovation to help connect the dots between the six foundations.

A great example can be found in Aquaconnect, a startup my company SecondMuse worked with in 2019, when they joined our Seafood Innovation Project in Indonesia. We supported them as they explored bringing to Southeast Asia what it had built for shrimp farmers back home in India. Most of the shrimp eaten in India are not caught at sea but raised in farm ponds, a livelihood that supports whole coastal communities. The farmers who run those ponds carry real expertise, much of it learned by hand and kept in notebooks. When pond conditions slip, yields fall and the runoff can harm nearby waters. The farmers were not short on knowledge or effort. They were short on sight: a way to see what was happening in the water before it cost them a harvest.

Aquaconnect set out to close that gap by building on what farmers already knew. The company pairs local, on-the-pond expertise with AI and satellite remote sensing, using geospatial data and deep learning models to read a pond’s condition and stage remotely, without a site visit. The technology widens what the farmer can see and act on. Aquaconnect has grown from roughly 3,000 farmers when we first met them in 2019 to more than 90,000 aquaculture farmers across six Indian states today.

It’s here that AI proves its worth, not by doing the work, but by showing the worker the whole field and helping to close the trust-and-risk gap. It offers a bird’s-eye view across foundations, connecting a decision in one part of the system to its consequences in another.

AI and prediction technology lets us ask sharper questions of messy data. This was the power of Artemis when it was acquired by Iunu. Iunu wrapped Artemis’s technology into a Machine vision product that helped growers make stronger, more insight-driven decisions.

So how can we use AI to build a better future in agriculture? AI is not a substitute for engaging trusted local institutions and local growers. They are the key to providing the right mix of meaningful data. Often, farms have outdated legacy software. Be willing to do the hard work of collecting and cleaning up the data before introducing AI. It becomes the difference between building something truly useful and sustainable versus not.

In addition, don’t forget the humans behind the work and the expertise they’ve cultivated over generations. This is the step that enables u to bring in insights that may be obvious to a 30-year veteran farmer who is irreplaceable when they retire.

This idea builds on years of groundwork. In 2019, The Rockefeller Foundation launched the Food System Vision Prize, inviting teams from around the world to propose transformational visions for the year 2050. These were visions that would enable local communities to describe, and ultimately attain, a regenerative, equitable, and nourishing food future. The Foundation distributed US$2 million in prizes to 10 winning teams, whose stories are featured in a series of documentary shorts. The Prize proved that communities everywhere, given the right framework, could imagine their own food futures with rigor and ambition.

We are working together on the next step in enabling ambitious ideas for future food systems. It is a platform SecondMuse is building, supported through a grant from The Rockefeller Foundation. It takes a proven food-system visioning methodology and puts it directly in the hands of communities, so they can build hope-filled visions of their own food future without needing outside facilitators or institutional backing. It is the thesis in working form: communities author their own visions; the structure helps them see the whole system rather than one slice; and it adapts to local context by design.

Aquaconnect works because it did not ask farmers to abandon what generations had taught them. It read their notebooks, added satellites and algorithms, and handed the result back to the same people who had been managing those ponds all along. Iunu did the same thing from a different angle, wrapping machine vision around what Artemis had already built, so growers could see patterns in their own fields they’d been too close to notice.

Do that across a whole food system and the picture changes. The grower sees not just the field but the weather bearing down on it and the market waiting past it. The founder fighting food waste sees whether the real problem is spoilage or a selling radius drawn too tight. The advisor sees which pond’s trouble is about to become the problem of the district. None of them stops relying on what they know. Each of them can finally see past it. That is the food system worth building with AI. Not one run by machines, but one where the people already inside it are no longer working in the dark.

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 Kat Kelley, Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | Putting Farmers First in the Age of AI appeared first on Food Tank.

Food accounts for a third of humanity’s greenhouse emissions. And sure enough, the most carbon-gushing foods are also the ones that tend to be the worst for our health, such as meats and dairy. So what if we tried taxing that carbon, to nudge people toward higher-plant diets that are healthier for people and planet alike?

A new study in Nature Food explores how these food emissions taxes could be applied to countries around the world with different levels of wealth and greenhouse emissions. It shows how they could be tweaked to manage the delicate interplay between food prices, poverty, hunger, and health—while still cutting billions of tons of annual emissions.

Economists have estimated that growing populations and increasing meat consumption worldwide could cause the environmental footprint of our food—including greenhouse emissions—to balloon by 50 to 90 percent by 2050. This has spurred recommendations that humanity shift its diet, toward fewer animals and more plants.

Emissions taxes paid by consumers buying foods are one way to encourage a shift away from meats, dairy, eggs, and sugars. But questions remain about how those taxes can be applied fairly to countries around the world—given that wealthier nations have more ability to pay them, and that many of these same nations also contributed disproportionately to rising greenhouse gases in the first place.

In the new study, researchers used economic, trade, and public health models to predict how well different types of taxes would curb greenhouse emissions—and also, how they would impact food prices and human health around the world.

 

.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:What’s the fairest climate policy of all?

 

They compared two tax scenarios. In one, emissions are priced the same worldwide, at a constant cost of USD$ 185 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent (tCO2eq). In this system, wealthy countries would still pay more taxes, because their food systems emit more tons of CO2. In the other system, the cost-per-ton of emissions is scaled up or down, based on each country’s wealth—thereby further increasing the taxes paid by consumers in wealthy countries (to as much as $969 per tCO2eq), while reducing those paid by lower-wealth countries (to as little as $21 per tCO2eq). The researchers compared these two scenarios both with and without a second provision, in which governments would also subsidize fruits and vegetables to further lower the prices that consumers pay for these low-carbon foods.

Their results suggest that taxes based on a fixed-price-per-ton would reduce food-related emissions most sharply—by up to 18.7 percent, or about 2.6 billion tCO2eq worldwide each year. But such taxes would likely worsen overall health in some countries such as India, Bangladesh, and Vietnam—even after accounting for reductions in heart disease and diabetes—because they might make food less affordable to some people, compromising nutrition.

The authors found that adjusting the price-per-ton of emissions based on national wealth would lessen this problem. And subsidizing the cost of fruits and vegetables would further decrease it. Together these two tweaks slightly reduced the emissions that were prevented—but they were still predicted to cut worldwide food emissions by 17 percent, or about 2.3 billion tCO2eq per year.

The authors recommended that these efforts to reduce the negative impacts on the poor could be further explored, with detailed studies of poverty in individual countries, and potentially by excluding some critical sustenance foods such as fish or rice from the taxes in some countries.

Bouyssou, et al. “Food emissions taxes can deliver health and environmental benefits with limited leakage.” Nature Food, 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

“We believe that we can, in fact, protect the planet” while serving growing demand, CEO Bob Frenzel said. The spending plan includes 9.2 GW of renewables and 2.3 GW of storage.

ZERO WASTE FOR CLIMATE: MOVE UPSTREAM, CUT EMISSIONS, DELIVER JUSTICE
Zero waste is on the climate agenda. Now we need to get it right.

At COP31 in Antalya, Türkiye, GAIA will champion zero waste as a practical climate solution that cuts emissions at the source, protects communities, and advances a just transition. From preventing waste and reducing methane and black carbon to financing community-led solutions, we know what works. Now governments and financiers must turn ambition into action.

What is COP31?

COP31 is the 31st UN Climate Change Conference (the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties), held at the Antalya Expo Center in Antalya, Türkiye, from 9 to 20 November 2026. Governments meet to negotiate the next steps in global climate action, and Türkiye’s COP31 Presidency has placed zero waste among its priorities. GAIA members from Africa, Asia Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe, and the US and Canada will be in Antalya and online to make sure zero waste delivers real emission cuts, and that incineration stays out of climate solutions.

At COP31, we call on:

• Policymakers to prioritize waste prevention, reuse, source separation, and organics management in climate policies, while keeping incineration and other polluting technologies out of zero waste solutions.
• Financiers to direct accessible climate finance towards proven, locally led zero waste systems that cut emissions, strengthen communities, and avoid polluting infrastructure.
• Governments and decision-makers to cut waste methane and black carbon at the source, reduce plastic production and fossil fuel dependence, and protect waste pickers and workers through a just transition.

Climate action must move upstream. The solutions already exist. What we need now is the political will and financing to scale them.

GAIA AT COP31

A global network of climate and zero waste advocates bringing community-led solutions, evidence, and frontline voices to the climate conversation.

At COP31, we will work to ensure zero waste delivers real climate action and environmental justice through events, engagement with policymakers and allies, and traditional and digital media.

Meet the GAIA Experts at COP 31 Check out and Join GAIA COP31 Events Join the GAIA@COP31 Broadcast Channel WHY ZERO WASTE MATTERS AT COP31

For years, communities around the world have demonstrated how zero waste solutions can cut emissions, protect public health, create local livelihoods, and strengthen resilience. Yet these solutions have too often been overlooked in global climate policy and financing.

COP31 presents an important opportunity to change that.

Türkiye’s COP31 Presidency has elevated zero waste and circular economy planning among its priorities, creating momentum to advance waste prevention, reduce waste methane, and transform how materials are produced, used, and recovered.

The Presidency’s Action Agenda includes two targets:

• Reduce the projected growth in global waste generation by 50% by 2035.
• Increase the global circular material use rate in production and manufacturing to at least 15% by 2035.

These ambitions create an opportunity to advance zero waste as a core climate solution. But targets alone are not enough. Their success will depend on what counts as zero waste, how progress is measured, which solutions receive investment, and whose voices shape implementation.

The challenge is to ensure that zero waste means preventing waste and cutting emissions at their source—not simply managing growing volumes of waste through conventional disposal technologies.

COP31 must move from managing the consequences of a wasteful economy to transforming the systems that create waste.

WHAT WE’RE CALLING FOR

At COP31, GAIA calls on governments, financiers, and other decision-makers to turn zero waste commitments into practical, equitable, and measurable climate action.

1. Make zero waste a core climate solution

Prioritize waste prevention, reuse, repair, source separation, recycling, and composting. Embed these strategies in climate and waste policies, and keep incineration and other polluting end-of-pipe technologies out of zero waste and climate finance.

2. Cut methane and black carbon at the source

Act on super pollutants to deliver rapid climate benefits. Prevent food waste, separate organic waste at source, and expand effective organics management to keep organics out of landfills. Prioritize prevention and diversion over approaches that simply manage emissions after they are created.

3. Finance solutions that work

Direct predictable, accessible climate finance towards proven zero waste systems, organics management, reuse, and locally led implementation. Support cities, communities, waste pickers, and local organizations instead of locking public resources into expensive, polluting infrastructure.

4. Put environmental justice and a just transition at the center

Recognize waste pickers and waste workers as essential climate actors. Protect livelihoods, strengthen social protection, ensure decent work, and give workers and affected communities a meaningful role in the policies, investments, and systems that shape their lives.

5. Connect zero waste to the wider climate transition

Reduce plastic production and dependence on fossil fuels through prevention and reuse. Reduce pressure on natural resources and transition minerals by extending product lifetimes, repairing goods, and keeping materials in circulation.

6. Scale community-led solutions beyond COP31

Show what works in practice. Build on successful zero waste models, Zero Waste Districts, and GAIA member experiences to strengthen commitments, mobilize resources, and support implementation long after the climate summit ends.

Zero waste is practical climate action—but only when it tackles waste at source and is rooted in justice.

GAIA@COP31 LATEST RESOURCES

Previous Next Building Community Resilience and Green Jobs through Organic Waste: The Case of Bandung, Indonesia

The Neglasari pilot project in Bandung, Indonesia demonstrates that community-based organic waste management can be financially feasible when the government finances the public-service functions that markets do not pay for, particularly land, source-separated organics collection, education, and waste treatment. This model is financially attractive as it generates public goods such as recoverable organic products, local livelihoods, and avoided landfill costs. 

Building Community Resilience and Green Jobs through Organic Waste: The Case of Bandung, Indonesia

Building Community Resilience and Green Jobs through Organic Waste: The Case of Durban, South Africa

The Durban Zero Waste Project pilot shows that decentralized organic waste management can deliver powerful environmental and economic outcomes when regarded as a municipal public service rather than a commercial enterprise. The model reduces costs already borne by the municipality through avoided landfill disposal, avoided transport, avoided compost purchases, and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Building Community Resilience and Green Jobs through Organic Waste: The Case of Durban, South Africa 

Methane Emissions Mitigation by Waste Pickers: The Case of Valparaíso

The National Waste Pickers Movement of Chile (ANARCH) is taking foundational steps to find solutions for organic waste through management models led by waste pickers. Among these is a pilot project in the city of Valparaíso, in collaboration with its local affiliate, the El Molle Workers’ Cooperative. The project aims to mitigate methane emissions from the waste sector through the separate collection and composting of organic waste from the El Cardonal wholesale market, the resulting reduction in the amount of waste sent to landfills, and the creation of new economic opportunities for waste pickers.

(EN) Methane Emissions Mitigation by Waste Pickers: The Case of Valparaíso

(SP) Mitigación de emisiones de metano a cargo de recicladores de base: el caso de Valparaíso

Managing Organics With Waste Pickers: A Briefing for Policymakers

The report, co-presented by the International Alliance of Waste Pickers and supported by the Climate & Clean Air Coalition, outlines a series of recommendations for governments, including recognizing waste pickers as formal service providers, ensuring fair compensation, investing in decentralized waste infrastructure, and incorporating gender-responsive policies. It also emphasizes the importance of sustained public funding, noting that while composting and other organic waste outputs can generate some income, they are not sufficient on their own to support livelihoods at scale.

(EN) Managing Organics With Waste Pickers: A Briefing for Policymakers

(ES) Gestión de residuos orgánicos con recicladores de base: informe para responsables políticos (coming soon)

(Infographics) Waste Pickers: Cutting Methane Emissions through Organic Waste Management

Separation at Source (S@S): 12 Real-World Zero Waste Practices That Work

Establishing waste separation at source (S@S) is the foundation of zero waste systems. It means separating different types of waste—such as organic, recyclable, and residual materials—at the point where waste is generated, keeping materials clean and preventing contamination. This publication presents 12 diverse successful cases from five regions: Africa (Tanzania), Asia (India, The Philippines), Europe (Greece, Slovenia, Italy), North America (USA), and Latin America (Costa Rica). The communities featured range in scale, from Tilos Island with a permanent population of 700 residents, to megacities such as Bengaluru, where the zero waste systems reach approximately 2 million people. Across these jurisdictions, source separation rates vary according to local mandates and frameworks, ranging from 30-33% organic waste diversion in Portland to outstanding rates of 80- 95% in places such as Varkala, San Fernando, and Dar es Salaam, and reaching 100% in Tilos Island.

(EN) Separation at Source (S@S): 12 Real-World Zero Waste Practices That Work

(SP) Separación en origen: 12 prácticas reales basura cero que funcionan

Financing Zero Waste: Practical Guidance for Immediate Action by Local and National Governments

Zero waste is emerging as one of the most powerful, immediate climate actions available to governments. This publication provides practical, context‑specific guidance to help local and national governments finance and sustain zero waste systems that cut methane, improve public health, strengthen livelihoods, and build fiscal resilience.

(EN) Financing Zero Waste: Practical Guidance for Immediate Action by Local and National Governments

(ID) Pembiayaan Zero Waste: Panduan Praktis untuk Tindakan Segera oleh Pemerintah Daerah dan Nasional (Coming soon)

(SP) Financiando Basura Cero: Guía práctica para la acción inmediata de gobiernos locales y nacionales

Financing Zero Waste: A High-Level Synthesis Report

This high‑level synthesis distills the core insights from Financing Zero Waste: Practical Guidance for Immediate Action by Local and National Governments, showing how governments can finance zero waste systems by aligning local implementation with national enabling conditions—and by recognizing the broader public value that zero waste generates across climate, health, livelihoods, and resilience.

(EN) Financing Zero Waste: A High-Level Synthesis Report

(ID) Pembiayaan Nol Sampah (Zero Waste): Laporan Sintesis Tingkat Tinggi (Coming soon)

(SP) Financiando Basura Cero: Informe de síntesis de alto nivel

Previous Next

/

GAIA@COP31 REGIONAL LENS

Previous Next AFRICA

GAIA Africa’s Priorities at COP31

At COP31, GAIA Africa will spotlight four key priorities: integrating food loss and waste management into Africa’s climate commitments, recognizing waste pickers as essential climate actors, challenging waste-to-energy incineration, and scaling up proven organic waste diversion models across African cities.

Integrating Food Loss and Waste into Africa’s NDCs: We will advocate for stronger food loss and waste commitments in African Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), positioning organic waste management as a key strategy for reducing methane emissions. 

Recognizing Waste Pickers as Climate Actors: We will champion waste pickers as essential contributors to climate action, calling for their meaningful inclusion in waste management and climate policies. We will highlight the importance of strengthening waste picker movements, protecting livelihoods, and scaling up waste picker integration across African countries.

Challenging Waste-to-Energy Incineration: We will challenge the promotion of waste-to-energy incineration as a solution to Africa’s waste management challenges. Drawing on an analysis of 15 waste-to-energy incineration projects and proposals across 11 African countries.

Scaling Up Organic Waste Diversion Across African Cities: Through insights from the Methane Reduction in Nigeria (MAMRN) Project, we will showcase organic waste diversion efforts in Lagos, Abuja, Jos, and Benin City. We will share data, practical lessons, and replication resources to help more African cities establish and scale their own waste diversion programmes.

[Photo Credit: Green Knowledge Foundation, GKF]

ASIA PACIFIC

At COP31, Asia Pacific demands that climate financiers and national governments stop funding debt-heavy, ineffective incineration technologies, like Waste-to-Energy (WtE), and instead redirect public finance toward upstream, community-led zero waste systems. With organics making up over half of the region’s municipal waste, governments must embed separate collection and decentralized composting into updated NDCs to rapidly cut methane, scale reuse models to reduce  fossil-fuel packaging at the source, and ensure a just transition that legally protects and funds informal waste workers and waste pickers. 

LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN US & CANADA

At COP31, the GAIA U.S. & Canada region advocates for tangible methane action and urges governments to consider real solutions to our growing waste problem, such as community-led composting. Our members’ campaigns against toxic waste facilities not only work to close incinerators and stop landfill expansions, but also to implement change at the community level and through policy. As a region, our core priorities include:

Reducing methane emissions through actionable zero waste interventions. Much of the “waste” we burn or bury can be recovered — organics that can be composted and materials that can be recycled. 

Mitigating the damage that toxic waste management infrastructure creates in overburdened communities. We empower our members to lead the change in their communities.

Advocating against waste colonialism and ensuring that waste from the Global North is not exported to vulnerable countries in the Global South.

EUROPE

At COP31, Zero Waste Europe will bring two lessons from Europe’s experience: how to manage leftover mixed waste in the most climate-friendly way, and why waste incineration must not be exported to the rest of the world as a climate solution.

Managing residual waste the climate-friendly way: While cities work to prevent and separate more of their waste, some mixed residual waste still needs to be managed along the way. We will make the case for Material Recovery and Biological Treatment (MRBT) as the most climate-friendly option for managing it. MRBT recovers the remaining recyclables, such as metals, plastics and paper, and biologically stabilizes the organic fraction before landfilling, sharply cutting methane emissions. It is cost-effective, needing a fraction of the investment of an incinerator per tonne of capacity, and easily scalable: modular plants can be up and running in around two years, work well at small scale, and adapt as separate collection improves, instead of locking cities into burning waste for decades.

Making the economic case for methane reduction: Food waste prevention, separate bio-waste collection and effective bio-waste management are essential to reducing methane emissions. We will highlight the climate and economic benefits of these measures, alongside solutions such as MRBT that recover valuable materials and reduce methane emissions from residual waste. We will showcase which economic and fiscal tools governments can use to make food waste prevention and bio-waste management more financially attractive than disposal. Drawing on our local methane work, we will highlight practical approaches that can deliver emissions reductions while making better use of resources and public investment. 

Exposing false solutions: waste incineration: Waste incineration, often marketed as “waste-to-energy”, is a false climate solution. Europe is a clear warning: emissions from waste incineration have roughly doubled since 1990, while the EU’s overall emissions have fallen. Every new plant locks in fossil emissions, mostly from burning plastics, for decades. We will share how Europe is starting to tackle the problem, including the move to bring municipal waste incineration into the EU Emissions Trading System, and what the alternatives look like in practice: waste prevention, reuse, separate collection, and MRBT for what is left.

Building support for Extended Producer Responsibility for Food Products (ERPFP): COP31 will also be an opportunity to test the ground for ERPFP, build interest and alignment among potential partners, and map opportunities to advance producer responsibility as a way to support food waste prevention and more sustainable food systems.

Previous Next COP31 and Zero Waste: Frequently Asked Questions When and where is COP31?

COP31, the 31st UN Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC), takes place from 9 to 20 November 2026 at the Antalya Expo Center in Antalya, Türkiye, under Türkiye’s COP31 Presidency.

Why does zero waste matter for the climate?

Waste is a major source of methane and black carbon, two short-lived super pollutants. Waste prevention, reuse, source separation and organics management cut these emissions at the source, create local jobs and protect communities, without locking cities into incinerators.

What is GAIA calling for at COP31?

GAIA calls on governments, financiers and decision-makers to make zero waste a core climate solution, cut methane and black carbon at the source, finance solutions that work, put environmental justice and a just transition for waste pickers at the center, connect zero waste to the wider climate agenda, and scale community-led solutions beyond COP31, while keeping incineration out of zero waste and climate finance.

What are the COP31 Presidency’s waste targets?

The COP31 Presidency’s Action Agenda sets two targets for 2035: reducing the projected growth in global waste generation by 50%, and increasing the global circular material use rate to at least 15%. GAIA argues that their success depends on how zero waste is defined and measured.

Is waste incineration a climate solution?

No. Waste-to-energy incinerators emit more greenhouse gases per unit of electricity than coal, lock cities into long contracts that depend on a steady supply of waste, and harm nearby communities and waste pickers. GAIA’s statement Incinerators Out of COP31 explains why climate finance should fund zero waste instead.

GAIA@COP31 NEWS & UPDATES

Follow GAIA’s COP31 engagement through our latest:

• MEDIA ADVISORIES AND PRESS RELEASES
• COMMENTARIES AND BLOGS
• EVENTS AND PRESS CONFERENCES
• NEWS COVERAGE
• PHOTOS AND VIDEOS FROM COP31

From community-led solutions to global climate policy, GAIA will share the stories, evidence, and voices demonstrating why zero waste is essential to climate action.

Zero waste is practical climate action—when it tackles waste at source and is rooted in justice.

The post GAIA at COP31: Zero Waste for Climate first appeared on GAIA.

    Isobel Fletcher I have a confession: I genuinely like using AI, and that makes me feel deeply conflicted. On a day-to-day level, it is incredibly helpful. When I am staring into the fridge on a busy evening, it gives me a quick recipe from leftovers. When a family member faced a health scare, it […]

Nearly a decade ago, a helicopter pilot flying in Canada’s Northwest Territories noticed something peculiar: a landslide so immense, it had blocked a river and created a lake. But that damming power wasn’t what made this slide so strange. What he saw wasn’t just new to the landscape, it was new to science, what researchers have dubbed a “permafrost detachment slide.” 

In a recent paper, a team of scientists describes two of these events in the region, one stretching for three-quarters of a mile and the other for 2 miles. Combined, they’d moved 30 million cubic yards of earth. Whereas other kinds of slides send a torrent of rainwater and mud and rock down a hillside, permafrost detachments happen when frozen soils degrade and the land fails catastrophically. Weirder still, the two slides started three decades ago during a wildfire, which slowly transformed the permafrost until the land collapsed in a matter of hours or days along the Johnson River in 2017 and Redstone River in 2018. 

When the researchers visited the slides, they found them embedded with chunks of frozen material up to 650 feet long. “It’s a very dramatic manifestation of the changing climate,” said geoscientist Joseph Young, lead author of the paper, who conducted the research while at the University of Alberta. “They’ve only started happening in the last 10, 15 years, and it’s a very drastic and abrupt change in the landscape.”

Permafrost is a major planetary wild card. Simply put, it’s ground that remains frozen for two years or longer, containing ice and dead plants, plus dirt, rock, or sand. Across the Northern Hemisphere, permafrost zones cover an area two and a half times the size of the continental United States. With the Arctic warming four times faster than the rest of the planet, permafrost is now thawing so quickly that it’s gouging massive potholes in the landscape, a phenomenon known as thermokarst, releasing clouds of greenhouse gas in the process.

A similar thing is happening with permafrost detachment slides, only a single event is much, much bigger in scale. “I think it’s fascinating that we’re discovering a new type of thermokarst,” said David Olefeldt, a soil scientist at the University of Alberta, who studies permafrost but wasn’t involved in the new paper. “This is a type of land collapse due to permafrost thaw which hasn’t really been observed before.”

Duane Froese

The disturbance began in 1995, when a wildfire swept through the region. The flames burned off the vegetation that normally shaded the permafrost, keeping it cool during the sunny northern days of summer. The ground, then, lost a sort of thermal shield. “After about 20 years or so, that thermal signature from the burned forest can reach the base of permafrost,” Young said. “It’s slight, but it’s there.”

The collapse of the permafrost, then, actually came from the bottom up through the mixture of soil, ice, and organic material that comprised it. As the base warmed  — even slightly — tension cracks propagated. This created pools of relatively warm water at the surface, which further infiltrated the permafrost. As the melange degraded it slipped downhill at a rate of a handful of feet a year, increasing to perhaps 80 feet annually, before it all suddenly gave way as a detachment slide. “This kind of movement can create its own release of energy because of friction and cracking on the bottom,” said Vladimir E. Romanovsky, a permafrost geophysicist and professor emeritus at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who wasn’t involved in the new research. Glaciers — vast sheets of ice creeping downhill — do this, too, suddenly surging and accelerating.

Because the researchers found those huge blocks of frozen material, they can tell that the permafrost eventually failed from below. That is, if they instead found a bunch of mud in the slide area, that might suggest that the ground degraded from above as the permafrost slowly thawed into mush.

The tumult didn’t stop at the moment of collapse. So much material was displaced that it left walls of permafrost on either side of the slide, which were then exposed to the sun. “Just because you have this large detachment failure, that doesn’t mean it’s over,” Young said. “Actually, it means you’ve opened up more potential for failure.”

Jurjen van der Sluijs

The consequences could extend far beyond the Northwest Territories. As permafrost thaws, microbes begin feasting on the organic material within, expelling greenhouse gas as they digest it. This might be kicking off a feedback loop, in which warmer temperatures release more carbon, which leads to more warming and more carbon, and on and on. “That’s a major global concern,” said Miriam Jones, a research geologist who studies permafrost at the United States Geological Survey but wasn’t involved in this research. “It’s a feedback that many of us have been studying.”

At the same time, plants are quickly marching north at miles per decade, a phenomenon known as Arctic greening. In some areas, a rising number of shrubs trap snow, preventing the chill of winter from penetrating the underlying permafrost, thus hastening its decline. More plants also means more fuel for the wildfires that initiate permafrost detachment slides. As if that weren’t bad enough, northern wildfires tend to burn through peat, the carbon-rich material that accumulates in the ground over centuries. These “zombie fires” are so persistent that they can smolder underground even as snow falls above, popping up again during the spring thaw, releasing still more carbon into the atmosphere.

Now the question is: How much more of that planet-warming gas might be spewing from permafrost detachment slides, as bacteria proliferate in the aftermath? “The short answer is: We don’t know how much, because we haven’t characterized and classified it,” Young said. “But it could be quite severe, just because the size of these features.” 

Indeed, previous research has found that much smaller instances of abrupt permafrost thaw could be producing significant carbon emissions. “I expect that we can see more of these types of surprises,” Olefeldt said, “as we cross thresholds in other regions that have these vulnerabilities to collapse.”

toolTips('.classtoolTips7','A powerful greenhouse gas that accounts for about 11% of global emissions, methane is the primary component of natural gas and is emitted into the atmosphere by landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, and wastewater treatment, among other pathways. Over a 20-year period, it is roughly 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Strange, catastrophic landslides are kicking off across the far north on Oct 30, 2026.

A government bus outfitted with oxygen tanks. Fire fighters collapsing to the ground in relief at the first sign of rain. Dozens of orangutans rescued. And hundreds of Indonesian students marching through the haze, some wearing gas masks, others carrying signs that read, “If we burn, you burn with us.”

These are recent scenes from Indonesia’s worst wildfire season in a decade. More than 4.6 million acres have burned across the country since August, blanketing its large island regions, like Kalimantan and Sumatra, in a thick smoke that has spread to neighboring countries. Millions are breathing in this toxic haze, and the government’s data shows that more than 300,000 Indonesians have sought treatment for acute respiratory problems. 

On some days, the air quality conditions are more than 13 times worse than the threshold considered unhealthy. And like in many tropical countries, buildings in Indonesia are often built to maximize air flow, rather than filter it or keep it out. “This is a public health catastrophe,” said Robert Field, a fire researcher at Columbia University. Although there are other pressing consequences of the fires, such as carbon emissions and the harm to wildlife and forest habitats, “it’s hard to think much past the air quality issues,” he said. 

The fires are the latest environmental crisis inundating Indonesia. The country is not only one of the world’s most populated, but also one of its most disaster-prone. Just last year, 1,200 residents of Sumatra died during catastrophic cyclone-induced flooding and landslides. And the country’s capital city of Jakarta, which already partially sits below sea level, is sinking. As a warming climate pushes sea levels higher, the country is racing to build a new capital on higher ground.

Satellite-detected fires on the island of Borneo, which is home to the five provinces in Indonesia’s Kalimantan region. NASA

These disasters are all wrought from the dangerous combination of human sprawl and climate change. But it’s not yet clear how much hotter temperatures influenced the ongoing disaster. By contrast, wildfires in parts of the world that are warming faster than Indonesia — like the recent devastating outbreaks in Canada and Europe — are clearly attributable to climate change, scientists say.

The primary culprits of Indonesia’s fires, however, are no mystery. A superstrong El Niño has sent Indonesia into a severe drought, drying out the peatlands found across the country. And peat, a kind of soil packed with partially decayed plant matter, is highly flammable, especially so when dried out. But when farmers or agriculture companies light fires to quickly and cheaply clear away vegetation and debris, a common practice in Indonesia, peat fires can quickly get out of control — smoldering underground for months.

“This is a crime against humanity, because what they have done endangers the health of millions of our people,” said Prabowo Subianto, the president of Indonesia, during a Cabinet meeting last week, according to a government press release. Seemingly in an effort to address the public’s outrage, he vowed to investigate who was responsible for lighting the fires and called these actions a kind of environmental terrorism. Frustration over the fires, high living costs, and government spending has sparked numerous large protests across the country in recent weeks.

A helicopter drops water on a peatland fire as a firefighter pulls a hose through the haze in South Sumatra on September 12.
Bagus Kurniawan/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The government has also been preparing for the year’s fires for months, ever since scientists first began forecasting this year’s El Niño. “This year, we must be much more careful,” Raja Juli Antoni, Indonesia’s minister of forestry, told the United Nations in May. “The potential for a longer dry season due to El Niño demands heightened vigilance from all of us.”

Unfortunately, the fires were lit anyway. According to Field, who worked with the Indonesian government to create fire prevention strategies in the 2000s, many of the fires appear to be on unmanaged lands next to working plantations, which often grow oil palm, and are the primary driver of Indonesia’s high rates of deforestation and biodiversity loss. That means the fires were likely being used to clear the overgrowth to make room for more crops, he said.

Indonesia has faced terrible peat fire outbreaks since the 1990s, but began making strides to address the problem in the last decade. In 2014, it banned drainage canals used to dry out peatlands and make them more suitable for crops. And a couple of years later, after a particularly bad wildfire season, the government sharply curbed deforestation and began restoring large areas of already degraded land. The rate of deforestation continued to fall for five more years and, although it began creeping back up in 2022, remains far below what it once was.

“I was optimistic that the drought was inevitable but the fire was not,” said Field, adding that Indonesia was much more prepared for this year’s fires than in the past. “I don’t think there was a lack of sincerity from officials not wanting this to happen, and the fact that it did just points to how hard it is to manage fire in such a large and complicated country.”

Peat fires are an especially challenging form of wildfire for many reasons, said Israr Albar, Indonesia’s former deputy director of forest fire management, in an emailed statement. The dense buildup of organic material allows fires to burn underground for months, making them difficult to detect by satellite even as they release large amounts of carbon and smoke. (The smoke can become dense enough to obscure satellites from seeing fire on the surface, too.) “Just because we cannot see a fire does not mean it is not there,” Albar said.

This dynamic makes the flames hard to locate and put out, and even fires that seem extinguished will often reignite without notice. And it’s not always possible to find the large amounts of water necessary to put a peat fire out during the water-stressed conditions of the dry season. The country recently saw some rain, but “that doesn’t mean the danger has passed,” Albar said. “Even when the rainy season begins, fires may continue underground.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What’s fueling Indonesia’s worst wildfire season in a decade? on Oct 30, 2026.

Correspondence about permission for gas drilling and fracking in North Yorkshire has prompted concerns about the independence of the environmental regulator.

Emails, seen by DrillOrDrop, reveal what has been described as a “close working relationship” between the Environment Agency (EA) and Europa Oil & Gas, the company that wants to drill for gas at Burniston, near Scarborough.

The correspondence shows that the EA shared the draft environmental permit with Europa, which would be required to comply with its conditions.

The company suggested changes to wording, most of which were agreed by the EA, and asked for sections to be removed.

The emails were written during an important period for public comment on the Burniston permit application.

Residents and local organisations had complained about errors and inconsistencies in key documents. But they were unaware of discussions between the EA and Europa or that the company was involved in changes to the permit.

“Growing concerns”

The correspondence was released in response to a freedom of information request by DrillOrDrop.

We sent the released emails to Burniston Parish council, which said:

“The concerns around the Environment Agency’s handling of the Europa Oil and Gas application for an environmental licence grow with every new piece of information we receive.

“Our community and the wider community are struggling to understand quite why the EA appears to be so quick to assist EOG [Europa Oil & Gas] and at the same time, fail to respond to the very genuine questions and concerns raised by members of our community.”

DrillOrDrop also shared the emails with the local campaign group, Frack Free Coastal Communities. It said:

“The email chain shows the close working relationship between the regulator and the fossil fuel industry.

“We see details of the draft permit being shared with the company that will be bound by its provisions, giving them the opportunity to suggest amendments that will suit their operational interests and remove bothersome constraints.”

Regular contact

The correspondence, covering Tuesday 29 September 2026 to Tuesday 6 October 2026, shows the EA was in regular contact with Europa.

In the six working days in this period, the EA and Europa corresponded eight times. On three days, at least two emails were exchanged.

This contrasts with the experience of local people and organisations, who complained that the EA had not responded to their correspondence.

The emails also revealed

• The EA agreed (Tuesday 29 September 2026) to most of Europa’s comments on the draft permit raised in a conversation the previous week.
• The EA sent Europa the revised permit with the company’s amendments on Friday 2 October 2026. But the document was not posted online for public comment until Wednesday 7 October 2026. The EA said it wrote to people about the revised version but some said their letter arrived too late for them to comment.
• The EA told the public the changes in the amended version corrected drafting and “minor typographical errors”. But, according to the emails, amendments included changes to key permit conditions and operational issues.
• The EA promised (Tuesday 6 October 2026) to share with Europa further changes in the wording of a permit condition in the following fortnight, something not offered to the public.
• The EA also offered Europa the chance to discuss “outstanding matters” even after the public consultation closed, again not offered to the public.
• Generally, the EA responded quickly to Europa’s emails, in contrast to some residents’ experiences.

“Demonstrate equality”

Burniston Parish Council, which opposes the gas drilling proposal, said it was concerned that the EA has taken different approaches to the company and the local community.

Cllr Richard Parsons, the parish council chair, told DrillOrDrop, the community was looking for equal treatment:

“We at Burniston Parish Council would once again urge the EA to show that they are independent and understand the need to communicate, on the same footing with this community and the wider community, as they are communicating with EOG. In other words demonstrate equality in their process.”

Cllr Parsons said the council and others had asked for a public meeting with the EA about errors in an earlier version of the permit documents. He said:

“we have received no response.

“Nobody here is asking for preferential treatment, just equality.

“I would challenge the EA, ‘if you are not prepared to communicate with those who have legitimate concerns over the granting of this licence, whilst communicating with EOG, say so’.”

He added:

“There should be no need to remind the Environment Agency of their independent role, the requirement to protect our environment and to act in a manner that is fair and equal whilst acting in a manner that is open, honest and transparent. Because our concerns are growing, the time is well overdue for the EA to demonstrate understanding of their role.”

“Unwarranted influence”

Professor Chris Garforth, of Frack Free Coastal Communities, said:

“Essentially, the emails show how successive opportunities to comment on and suggest changes to the wording of the permit are giving Europa unwarranted influence on the key provisions that they would need to abide by if their proposed drilling and fracking were ever to go ahead.

“The response from the EA is to accept most of Europa’s suggestions. They do push back on one, however: Europa asked them to remove reference to specific depths for the underground waste operation (following fracking of four separate geological formations) – presumably to allow them leeway to frack at any depth they choose. The EA point out that these are specific depths at which Europa said in their application they would frack and see no reasons for changing that specification in the permit.”

Professor Garforth said the emails did not contain from the EA “any concern at all about the inconsistencies in the draft decision document”.

He also said the emails revealed a gap in the regulatory process.

At Europa’s request, the EA removed a reference to the “loading, unloading, handling and storage of crude oil”.

Professor Garforth said:

“Why is this? Europa will argue (as they do in the application) that crude oil coming up during the well testing and appraisal will not be treated as waste but as a commercial product – and so is outside the scope of the Waste Management Plan and the permitting regime.

“However, they did not mention in their planning application to NYC [North Yorkshire Council] that they expect oil to be produced. Consequently, no part of the regulatory framework has explicitly considered the procedures and facilities on site necessary to handle this oil.

“We pointed this out to NYC at the time the initial consultation on the environmental permit was launched but were ignored. It seems to us that Europa is deliberately and cynically using the different parts of the framework to hide certain parts of their intentions from regulatory and public scrutiny.”

Europa did not respond in the released emails to the EA’s question on 29 September 2026 about wildfire risk. The EA had asked the company whether it had a plan to mitigate fire risks from flaring of waste gas.

Professor Garforth said:

“The many residents who raised concerns about this in the 2025 consultation (when the devastating wildfire on the North York Moors was still raging) will be keen to know the answer.”

DrillOrDrop has sent this article to the EA for comment.

I took a really long walk this summer. Along the way, I learned lessons that seemed applicable to how we can cultivate personal and community resilience during the Great Unraveling.

Moments of rupture arrive the way storms do, not as isolated events, but as expressions of deeper atmospheric conditions.

Whether to grow your own food or simply lessen your impact on the world, we can take initial steps toward self-sufficiency. I began by planting a tree.

An idea from fifty years ago offers solutions to today's economic, technological and environmental crises, writes Adrian Smith

The post Looking forwards to the Lucas Plan appeared first on Red Pepper.

The global climate health emergency Channel News brendan 30th October 2026 Teaser Media

Industry expert Claire Elkin on why Australia is missing out on global capital to fund its green energy transition. Plus: WA's big new renewable target, and all the news from All Energy.

The post Energy Insiders: In search of green capital appeared first on Renew Economy.

MELBOURNE, Australia, 28 October 2026 — Fox ESS (Fox) showcases Power Beast, G-Max Plus, Power Cube, AirGate and FoxCloud 2.0 at Booth N123, All Energy Australia on 28–29 October. Fox brand ambassador, Australian swimming legend Ian Thorpe joined mascot Maimai in welcoming guests. From Residential Leadership to Rebate-Ready C&I Solutions In August, Fox joined the […]

The post Fox ESS Builds on Residential Success with Expanded C&I Solutions at All Energy Australia 2026 appeared first on Renew Economy.