News Feeds

Registered nurses at the Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP), in Monterey, California will hold a rally on Monday, October 26 to highlight their patient safety concerns, including short-staffing and ongoing workplace violence issues.

When four surfers began cleaning Ecuador’s beaches in 2014, they were driven by a contradiction that was hard to ignore: How could such beautiful natural spaces be covered in trash? What began as a response to pollution evolved into an organization that today works with communities, promotes environmental education initiatives, generates information, and develops alternatives to reduce the use of single-use plastics.

This is how Mingas por el mar was born—an Ecuadorian foundation committed to a fundamental idea: to tackle plastic pollution, it’s not enough to simply remove the waste; we must understand the problem and build solutions together with those who live with it every day.

“Our mission is to work on the ground—that is, with the communities—because they are the ones who see the problem day in and day out and often lack the knowledge or tools to make these important changes,” explains Nicole Casal, the organization’s education coordinator.

Beach cleanups soon became an opportunity to generate knowledge through citizen science as well. Since 2018, Mingas por el mar has been collecting data that has helped drive changes in public policy. Complementing this work are environmental education projects and reuse systems that seek to address pollution at its root causes.

From Waste to Solution: Reuse as an Alternative

In 2023, thanks to a small local grant, Mingas por el mar launched a project to reduce the use of single-use plastics in tourist establishments by providing reusable cups and straws.

The initiative includes a preliminary survey of the establishments and monthly follow-ups for at least six months to measure results and identify opportunities for improvement. Each establishment signs a commitment agreement to ensure the items provided are cared for properly. This mechanism has helped reduce the loss of reusable items by at least 80%.

Beyond these results, the project demonstrates that alternatives to disposable plastic require support and commitment to be sustained over time. “I’ve seen how such a small and simple reuse project has been yielding very positive results,” notes Casal. Her vision is to move toward reuse and return systems that involve communities as key players and that have the necessary resources to grow and become established.

From Local Evidence to Changes in Public Policy

The data collected by Mingas por el mar since 2018 has also helped drive national regulation of single-use plastics in Ecuador, with a special focus on protected areas.

The regulatory framework addresses plastics from a perspective that considers their entire life cycle—from production to final disposal—and serves as a foundation for the organization’s work with the tourism sector.

This experience demonstrates how community action can help transform public policy: the information gathered on the ground raises awareness of the problem and provides evidence to drive measures that go beyond waste management.

Casal has observed a shift in how this issue is addressed. When she began working on the topic nine years ago, relatively few people and organizations were discussing plastic pollution with the seriousness it deserved. Today, there is more information available and a greater willingness to listen and get involved.

However, growing public awareness does not always translate into policy decisions. “The lack of involvement from decision-makers is what holds us back the most, because while many of us are speaking out and launching initiatives in this fight, there continues to be resistance from decision-makers at all levels—and it’s because of the industries that want to keep things as they are,” she warns.

In the face of these obstacles, it is essential to keep up the pressure so that institutions adopt ambitious measures that address the root causes of pollution and allow for the expansion of alternatives developed within communities.

A Local Struggle That Is Part of a Global Movement

Mingas por el mar is part of Break Free From Plastic (BFFP), the global movement that brings together organizations committed to a future free of plastic pollution. For the Ecuadorian foundation, being part of this network means connecting with other organizations, exchanging experiences, and strengthening local efforts through collective learning.

“The idea of being part of a global movement whose central goal is to fight against plastics from various angles—public policy, grassroots activism, and more—allows us to connect with other NGOs to learn from and support one another,” explains Casal.

In Ecuador, Mingas por el mar has collaborated with organizations on initiatives involving environmental education, composting, and community recycling. At the regional level, it shares its expertise in reuse systems with other NGOs so they can adapt and replicate the model in their own areas.

Reflecting on the BFFP’s 10-year history, Casal highlights the consolidation of a network that brings together organizations with different scopes and working methods, yet all sharing a common goal: “Because by connecting, learning, and building together—across organizations—we create a fairer and cleaner future, supported by a movement that respects opinions, backs decisions, and enables us to grow as an organization and as a team.”

The journey of Mingas por el mar reflects the value of this collaboration. An initiative born out of concern for beaches can generate data, contribute to policy changes, and develop alternatives that are then shared with organizations in other countries. The global movement is strengthened when it supports those who turn their common goals into concrete actions.

A Global Treaty to Change the Rules of the Game

This connection between local initiatives and international action takes on special relevance in the process toward a global plastics treaty. For Casal, the process has made it possible to bring together efforts that previously moved forward in a more scattered manner. “I believe the treaty has united these efforts under a single, broad, and important umbrella, because perhaps before, the efforts were very scattered, but now, in order to achieve a strong treaty, various NGOs and decision-makers from many countries are already collaborating with one another,” he notes.

An ambitious treaty can establish shared commitments to address plastic pollution throughout its life cycle and create conditions for local solutions to become part of a broader transformation. To achieve this, it will be essential that international commitments translate into concrete measures and that communities and organizations working on the ground have opportunities for participation and the resources to sustain their initiatives.

The experience of Mingas por el mar reminds us that global change is also built from the beaches, communities, and businesses that are committed to alternatives to single-use plastic. Ten years after the founding of BFFP, its work demonstrates that local action is indispensable, but it requires strong public policies, international cooperation, and a treaty capable of transforming the rules that perpetuate pollution.

In this guest post, David Eddy, a campaigner with Drawing a Line in the Chalk in North Yorkshire, reviews the change in direction in national planning policy on onshore oil and gas and asks whether it will make any practical difference to the communities living with the risks?

Artwork: Drawing a Line in the Chalk

In October 2025, I wrote for Drill Or Drop about the challenges faced by local communities confronting technically complex oil and gas planning applications.

Writing as the then chair of Foxholes and Butterwick Parish Council, I described a system in which well-resourced developers could call on specialist consultants and technical advisers, while parish councils and residents struggled to obtain information, scrutinise environmental assessments and secure independent expertise.

I argued that fragmented regulation, inadequate transparency and an over reliance on mitigation left communities at a structural disadvantage.

A year on, the national planning landscape has changed. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in August 2026, and its updated mineral policies, published in September, introduce a more restrictive approach to onshore oil and gas extraction.

But the question remains: Has the planning system changed in ways that will actually help communities protect their environment?

A change in policy direction, but not a ban

In chapter 11, the revised NPPF contains a specific policy on development involving peat, coal and onshore oil and gas.

Policy M5 states that development involving onshore oil and gas extraction should be refused unless it falls within specified exceptions. These include development necessary to facilitate exploration, appraisal or production where the North Sea Transition Authority (NTSA) has granted petroleum rights.

This is a significant change in the way national policy expresses its approach to fossil-fuel development. But it does not amount to a blanket prohibition on projects within pre-existing licensed areas.

For communities challenging exploration proposals, the implications need careful examination. The existence of petroleum rights does not, by itself, demonstrate that a particular development is environmentally acceptable or that it satisfies every other relevant planning policy.

The question is whether decisionmakers will properly scrutinise the evidence, apply the relevant environmental protections and explain why the benefits of a proposal do, or do not, outweigh its impacts.

The evidence must be good enough to support the decision

Our experience at Foxholes illustrates the challenge.

A technically complex application can contain hundreds of pages of assessments without necessarily answering every question that matters to the community.

A hydrogeological assessment, for example, needs to be examined not simply for its conclusions but for the evidence supporting them:

• What site-specific investigations have been undertaken?
• Which assumptions have been made?
• How are uncertainties addressed?
• What happens if containment systems fail, extreme weather occurs or impacts persist after operations have ceased?

These are not arguments claiming that every development will cause harm. They are questions that must be answered sufficiently well before a planning authority can make a properly-informed decision.

The revised NPPF’s Policy M4 requires mineral development to avoid unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment and human health, taking account of other national decision making policies and cumulative effects. It also addresses restoration and aftercare.

That framework makes the quality of the evidence particularly important. A conclusion that impacts are acceptable should be supported by evidence, not simply by a statement of intent or an expectation that proposed mitigation will work.

Mitigation is a lessening of risk. Mitigation is not the same as eliminating risk.

Communities are frequently reassured that risks will be controlled through engineering measures, planning conditions and environmental permits. Those measures can have a role to play and may be important. But their existence does not automatically resolve every concern.

There is a difference between demonstrating that a risk can be managed in principle and showing that the proposed arrangements are appropriate for a particular site, geology, groundwater system and operating plan.

There is also a difference between the controls imposed at the planning stage and those subsequently dealt with through environmental permitting or other regulatory regimes.

Communities need to understand which authority is responsible for each issue, what evidence it has considered, how compliance will be monitored and what happens if something goes wrong?

Long-term well integrity, restoration and the financial responsibility for dealing with future problems deserve particular attention. A planning decision should not rely on an assumption that a risk will somehow be resolved by another regulator at a later stage.

The cumulative evidence problem

One of the most important lessons from our experience in Foxholes is that environmental risks cannot always be assessed adequately in isolation.

In its consolidated response to Egdon Resources’ application, Foxholes and Butterwick Parish Council have challenged the way the proposed development’s impacts were assessed separately. Traffic, air quality, noise, light, landscape, groundwater and public amenity are not independent issues experienced by different communities. They interact in the same place, at the same time, and affect the same residents and environment.

The revised NPPF now provides a particularly relevant framework for examining this problem. Policy M4 requires mineral development proposals to avoid unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment and human health, taking account of the other national decision-making policies. Crucially, it explicitly includes the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality.

At Foxholes, that means looking beyond individual assurances that particular impacts can be mitigated.

The proposed wellsite involves drilling through the Principal Chalk Aquifer, within a complex groundwater environment connected to local surface water systems. The assessment must also consider the potential implications of well integrity, subsurface geological pathways, methane or saline migration, operational chemicals and hydrocarbons, and the consequences if containment fails.

At the same time, the development would bring additional heavy traffic onto rural roads, alongside existing traffic, noise and road safety concerns. Construction, round the clock drilling, vehicle movements and potential flaring could combine to affect residential amenity and the character of the surrounding countryside.

Each of these issues deserves proper assessment in its own right. But that is not enough. The local planning authority also needs to understand how the impacts interact: do the assessments use an adequate baseline and would the combined effects be acceptable at this particular location?

There is a further question about the boundaries of the assessment. The applicant acknowledges that a successful exploration programme could lead to subsequent applications for appraisal and production. Those later stages would require their own planning decisions, but their foreseeable implications should not be confused with wholly unrelated future development. The authority needs to be clear about what the current application includes, what it excludes, and whether any relevant cumulative effects have been left unexamined.

The same applies to the history of the site. The nearby Fordon-1 proposal was withdrawn in 2013 following objections from Yorkshire Water and the Environment Agency concerning groundwater vulnerability and containment. That history does not prove that the present proposal is unacceptable, but it is relevant evidence that should be considered when assessing whether the current application has adequately addressed the risks associated with the local hydrogeological system.

There is also a significant development in the evidence base.

In December 2025, the British Geological Survey (BGS) completed new geological mapping of the Yorkshire Wolds, improving understanding of the Chalk Aquifer’s complex geological structure and fault network. This work post-dates Egdon’s Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment, submitted in November 2025. North Yorkshire Council must therefore establish whether this new evidence has been taken into account and whether Egdon’s assessment adequately reflects the latest understanding of geological structures and potential groundwater pathways. Where a development involves drilling through a Principal Aquifer supplying drinking water to over 900,000 people in East Yorkshire, the adequacy and currency of the evidence are fundamental to determining whether the risks have been properly assessed.

The central question is, therefore, not whether every individual risk can be described as unlikely, or whether a mitigation measure exists for each one. It is whether the evidence demonstrates that the combined impacts and uncertainties have been properly understood and that the development would be acceptable in this particular setting.

Policy M4 gives decision-makers a clear reason to ask that question. The challenge now is to ensure that cumulative impacts are genuinely assessed, rather than acknowledged in policy but overlooked in practice.

The imbalance in resources remains

Even where national policy provides a clear basis for challenging a proposal, communities must still assemble the evidence and make their case.

Developers can employ specialist planners, lawyers, geologists and hydrogeologists. Parish Councils and volunteer campaign groups, such as Drawing a Line in the Chalk, often have to scrutinise the same technical material with limited funds, often no experience or expertise in this field, and considerable demands on their time.

That inequality matters. An objection supported by specialist evidence may expose a weakness that would otherwise go unexamined. But obtaining that evidence can be beyond the means of the people most directly affected.

If the planning system expects communities to engage meaningfully with complex applications, it should consider how they can access independent professional advice.

Modest funding for technical scrutiny, early access to application documents, clear non-technical summaries and sufficient time to review substantial new evidence would make a practical difference.

Independent review need not mean that every applicant-funded report is unreliable. It means ensuring that important conclusions can be challenged and tested where the consequences of getting them wrong could be serious.

What should change now?

The revised NPPF is an opportunity to improve both the substance and the practice of planning decisions. Local planning authorities (North Yorkshire Council in our case) should ensure that decisions are based on sufficiently robust evidence, with risks, uncertainties and cumulative impacts addressed explicitly.

Regulators should make relevant information available in a way that enables the LPA and the public to understand the issues within their respective remits.

Applicants should provide accessible explanations of their proposals and make the supporting evidence available early enough for meaningful scrutiny.

Government should consider practical support for communities facing complex applications, including support from the LPA and access to independent technical advice.

Finally, decision makers should distinguish between the existence of a mitigation proposal and evidence that it is adequate, enforceable and appropriate for the site concerned.

A fairer system is still needed

The new national planning policy establishes a more restrictive approach to onshore oil and gas. That is a welcome development in the policy debate, but the practical test will be how the NPPF is applied to proposals.

For communities such as ours, the issue is not opposition to development for its own sake. It is whether decisions are made on the basis of sound evidence, with environmental risks properly understood and local people given a meaningful opportunity to participate.

A year ago, I described the experience as playing a board game in which another rule was announced after we had rolled the dice. The rules have now changed. But will communities finally have a fair chance to play by them?

So the central question now is not simply whether the new NPPF is better, but whether a more restrictive national policy on fossil fuels will be matched by a planning process in which communities can properly scrutinise the evidence and decisionmakers fully utilise the evidence to inform decision making and ensure they are accountable for the conclusions they reach.

David Eddy, Drawing a Line in the Chalk

Print article Share Article Contents Expand menu

• NEV record
• Impact of Hormuz
• NEV demand down 
• Exports surge

For the first time, new-energy vehicles (NEVs) made up 67% of new car sales in China in September, according to the latest data from the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA).

The figures show that NEVs, which include battery electric cars and plug-in hybrids, captured a record share of sales, even though fewer were sold than last year.

This is because sales of combustion-engine cars are falling steeply, a trend that the CPCA has attributed to rising petrol prices following the start of the Hormuz crisis.

Indeed, sales of fuel-only cars were down 31% year-on-year in the first nine months of 2026, with plug-in hybrid sales down 26% – whereas battery EV sales were only down 4%.

One analyst tells Carbon Brief that China’s rapidly growing EV fleet has offset demand for 143m barrels of oil since the start of the Hormuz crisis.

Another says that the crisis is “reinforcing China’s electrification of road transport”.

Meanwhile, amid slowing domestic sales, Chinese carmakers’ exports of NEVs more than doubled [in 2026 to date / in September] from a year earlier.

NEV record

A record two out of every three cars sold in September in China were NEVs, according to CPCA data, as shown in the figure below.

(NEVs predominantly include battery electric vehicles – BEVs – and plug-in hybrids  – PHEVs. BEVs only run on electricity, whereas PHEVs also have a combustion engine.)

This marks a rapid rise for NEVs from just 6% of new car sales in 2020 up to 58% in 2026 to date – and a record 67% in the month of September.

This year, NEVs’ share of sales has also bounced back from a low of 39% in January, after the full purchase tax exemption that had been in place for more than a decade came to an end in December 2025.

The gain in NEV share in 2026 has come amid a slowdown across the wider domestic passenger-car market, which has hit sales of combustion-engine vehicles particularly hard. 

This September, passenger-car retail sales across all categories declined, with overall sales volumes falling 28% year-on-year.

The contraction was led by combustion-engine vehicles, which saw sales fall 43% year-on-year in September and 31% in 2026 to date.

However, sales of PHEVs also fell by 36% year-on-year in September and by 26% in 2026 to date. By comparison, BEVs performed better, although sales still declined 8.5% from a year earlier in September and 4% in 2026 to date.

As a result, NEV sales overall fell by 17% in September and 13% in 2026 to date.

While the market changes in 2026 to date were particularly dramatic, they reflect a broad continuation of trends seen over the past decade.

Indeed, sales of combustion-engine cars in China peaked in 2017 and they have been declining ever since, shown in the figure below.

Impact of Hormuz

Part of the reason for the advance of NEVs in 2026, said Chinese technology news outlet OFweek, was petrol cars “giving up market share” as they were outperformed by electric alternatives.

Cui Dongshu, secretary-general of the CPCA, cited higher petrol prices as an explanation for September’s weak combustion-car sales, in comments to financial news outlet National Business Daily. 

Imports of oil into China in January-September have fallen 15% compared to 2025, equivalent to 470m barrels, as ongoing conflict tightened supply and drove up prices. 

China’s passenger-car NEV fleet has displaced 143m barrels of oil so far during the strait of Hormuz crisis, Euan Graham, senior energy analyst at thinktank Ember, tells Carbon Brief.

EVs “accounted for 12% of the decrease in China’s oil use post-Hormuz”, according to an estimate provided to thinktank the Brookings Institute by an unnamed analyst.

#gform_wrapper_6[data-form-index="0"].gform-theme,[data-parent-form="6_0"]{--gf-color-primary: #204ce5;--gf-color-primary-rgb: 32, 76, 229;--gf-color-primary-contrast: #fff;--gf-color-primary-contrast-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-primary-darker: #001AB3;--gf-color-primary-lighter: #527EFF;--gf-color-secondary: #fff;--gf-color-secondary-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-secondary-contrast: #112337;--gf-color-secondary-contrast-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-secondary-darker: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-secondary-lighter: #FFFFFF;--gf-color-out-ctrl-light: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.1);--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-darker: rgba(104, 110, 119, 0.35);--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-lighter: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark: #585e6a;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-rgb: 88, 94, 106;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-darker: #112337;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-lighter: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65);--gf-color-in-ctrl: #fff;--gf-color-in-ctrl-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-in-ctrl-contrast: #112337;--gf-color-in-ctrl-contrast-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-in-ctrl-darker: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-lighter: #FFFFFF;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary: #204ce5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-rgb: 32, 76, 229;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-contrast: #fff;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-contrast-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-darker: #001AB3;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-lighter: #527EFF;--gf-color-in-ctrl-light: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.1);--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-darker: rgba(104, 110, 119, 0.35);--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-lighter: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark: #585e6a;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-rgb: 88, 94, 106;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-darker: #112337;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-lighter: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65);--gf-radius: 3px;--gf-font-size-secondary: 14px;--gf-font-size-tertiary: 13px;--gf-icon-ctrl-number: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='8' height='14' viewBox='0 0 8 14' fill='none' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath fill-rule='evenodd' clip-rule='evenodd' d='M4 0C4.26522 5.96046e-08 4.51957 0.105357 4.70711 0.292893L7.70711 3.29289C8.09763 3.68342 8.09763 4.31658 7.70711 4.70711C7.31658 5.09763 6.68342 5.09763 6.29289 4.70711L4 2.41421L1.70711 4.70711C1.31658 5.09763 0.683417 5.09763 0.292893 4.70711C-0.0976311 4.31658 -0.097631 3.68342 0.292893 3.29289L3.29289 0.292893C3.48043 0.105357 3.73478 0 4 0ZM0.292893 9.29289C0.683417 8.90237 1.31658 8.90237 1.70711 9.29289L4 11.5858L6.29289 9.29289C6.68342 8.90237 7.31658 8.90237 7.70711 9.29289C8.09763 9.68342 8.09763 10.3166 7.70711 10.7071L4.70711 13.7071C4.31658 14.0976 3.68342 14.0976 3.29289 13.7071L0.292893 10.7071C-0.0976311 10.3166 -0.0976311 9.68342 0.292893 9.29289Z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-icon-ctrl-select: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='10' height='6' viewBox='0 0 10 6' fill='none' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath fill-rule='evenodd' clip-rule='evenodd' d='M0.292893 0.292893C0.683417 -0.097631 1.31658 -0.097631 1.70711 0.292893L5 3.58579L8.29289 0.292893C8.68342 -0.0976311 9.31658 -0.0976311 9.70711 0.292893C10.0976 0.683417 10.0976 1.31658 9.70711 1.70711L5.70711 5.70711C5.31658 6.09763 4.68342 6.09763 4.29289 5.70711L0.292893 1.70711C-0.0976311 1.31658 -0.0976311 0.683418 0.292893 0.292893Z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-icon-ctrl-search: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='640' height='640' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath d='M256 128c-70.692 0-128 57.308-128 128 0 70.691 57.308 128 128 128 70.691 0 128-57.309 128-128 0-70.692-57.309-128-128-128zM64 256c0-106.039 85.961-192 192-192s192 85.961 192 192c0 41.466-13.146 79.863-35.498 111.248l154.125 154.125c12.496 12.496 12.496 32.758 0 45.254s-32.758 12.496-45.254 0L367.248 412.502C335.862 434.854 297.467 448 256 448c-106.039 0-192-85.962-192-192z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-label-space-y-secondary: var(--gf-label-space-y-md-secondary);--gf-ctrl-border-color: #686e77;--gf-ctrl-size: var(--gf-ctrl-size-md);--gf-ctrl-label-color-primary: #112337;--gf-ctrl-label-color-secondary: #112337;--gf-ctrl-choice-size: var(--gf-ctrl-choice-size-md);--gf-ctrl-checkbox-check-size: var(--gf-ctrl-checkbox-check-size-md);--gf-ctrl-radio-check-size: var(--gf-ctrl-radio-check-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-font-size: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-font-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-padding-x: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-padding-x-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-size: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-border-color-secondary: #686e77;--gf-ctrl-file-btn-bg-color-hover: #EBEBEB;--gf-field-img-choice-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-size-md);--gf-field-img-choice-card-space: var(--gf-field-img-choice-card-space-md);--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-size-md);--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-icon-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-icon-size-md);--gf-field-pg-steps-number-color: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.8);}

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

Free fortnightly newsletter

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

Erica Downs, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, tells Carbon Brief that the strait of Hormuz crisis and higher oil prices are “reinforcing China’s electrification of road transport”. 

She says the “world’s largest oil supply disruption” vindicates China’s early bet on EVs, which was partly driven by concerns about oil-supply security.

NEV demand down 

Nevertheless, NEV sales have fallen year-on-year, albeit at a slower rate than overall car sales. The growth in NEV market share has also been decelerating.

Zhang Yichao, a partner at consulting firm AlixPartners, tells Carbon Brief that NEVs benefit from government trade-in policies and a “strong pipeline” of new models, particularly those involving innovation. 

He says these factors help explain why NEVs sales have fallen at a slower rate to their combustion-car counterparts.

Cui told the state-run China National Radio that the fall for NEVs and for cars overall in September 2026, is also due to a high baseline of sales from the same month in 2025, as well as changes to trade-in policies and disruptions from the holiday period. 

Other factors, says consulting firm Wood Mackenzie, are the weakened demand due to “demand pull-forward” in 2025 caused by the end of subsidies, as well as “tighter financing conditions”.

Zhang tells Carbon Brief he does not “see much more room ahead” for further growth in NEVs’ market share.

He adds that, in his view, their share in China is unlikely to exceed 80%, as some premium-market segments and specific use cases will continue to require combustion-engine vehicles.

Exports surge

Meanwhile, while domestic NEV retail sales fell 17% in September 2026, exports more than doubled, increasing 164% year-on-year, according to the CPCA.

This extends the decline in domestic sales and very strong growth in exports seen across 2026 to date, as shown in the figure below.

In September, 1,084,000 NEVs were sold domestically in China, while 558,000 NEVs were exported.

Exports are becoming increasingly important to Chinese carmakers, in the face of weaker domestic demand and cut-throat industrial competition.

The CPCA says exports have become “a core priority” for some carmakers.

However, the surge in exports from China has created concern in the EU, which has placed tariffs on imports of EVs from China and recently agreed plans to cut imports of hybrids.

Countries including Mexico and Turkey have also placed tariffs on Chinese EV imports. 

At the same time, the Chinese government is putting policies in place that might be expected to disincentivise exports, such as cutting VAT export rebates.

Analysts differ on what impact this policy shift will have, with some saying it will be limited, while others believe it could cause the price of exported cars to rise. 

Related Experts: What China wants from the COP31 climate talks 29.10.2026 China policy Analysis: China’s clean-tech exports in 2026 to avoid as much CO2 as Brazil emits in a year 29.10.2026 China policy Interactive: What China’s dozens of ‘five-year plans’ say about climate and energy 24.09.2026 China policy Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action? 14.08.2026 China policy

The post Chart: A record two-thirds of car sales in China are now electric vehicles appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Asheville, NC — Energy company Drax planned to build a huge data center in England. The center would have run on power from burning wood. That plan has stalled. The Times reports that the project did not win government funding. The North Yorkshire Council has also pulled its support.

Earlier this year, advocates from the US South traveled to York to fight the project. The delegation included Kathy Egland, Dr. Krystal Martin, and Michél Legendre. They joined University of York students. The students opposed the project because of its environmental and public health harms.

Kathy Egland co-founded EECHO in Gulfport, Mississippi. She is its program director. Since 2010, she has also chaired the NAACP National Board’s Environmental and Climate Justice Committee. Dr. Krystal Martin leads Greater Greener Gloster. The group wants to close the Drax plant in Gloster, Mississippi. Michél Legendre is Campaigns Director at Dogwood Alliance. Dogwood is a nonprofit that protects Southern forests and communities from industrial logging.

The data center could have burned wood pellets made at Drax plants in the South. These plants cut down forests. They also release pollution linked to:

• cancer
• heart disease
• respiratory problems
• other serious illnesses

Legendre praised the UK government and the North Yorkshire Council. He applauded them for refusing to back the project.

“This is a good day for forest protection and environmental justice. It appears that more stakeholders are waking up to Drax’s dirty energy scam. Wood pellet energy is anything but clean and green. As the UK cuts Drax’s subsidies, its move to power AI data centers with biomass is a desperate attempt to save itself. Now, we need US policymakers and power companies to follow the UK’s example. We call on them to prevent any concessions to Drax in the form of subsidies. We call on them to dismiss Drax’s proposals to power AI data centers here in the South.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) works with Dogwood Alliance. Together they are stopping the growth of the wood pellet industry. Matt Williams is a senior forest protection advocate at NRDC. He said:

“Burning forests to run server farms was never a serious plan. North Yorkshire Council saw that. Drax’s pellet mills sit in communities across the US South, where families are already breathing the pollution. As tech companies go looking for power here, utilities and lawmakers need to shut the door on biomass. Trees are not a fuel source for the AI boom.”

Tech companies want to build many AI data centers across the South. What could happen if those centers ran on burned wood? Dogwood’s report found harm to Southern forests and to communities that already face heavy pollution.

Read the report: Fueling Destruction: How AI Data Centers May Drive a Renewed Biomass Crisis

The post UK Rejects Drax Plan to Power AI Data Center by Burning Trees appeared first on Dogwood Alliance.

CEO Patti Poppe said the company’s credit rating “is a major issue that must be solved ... [legislative] inaction will continue to get increasingly expensive for our customers.”

A starlit forest rustles in the dark. Ancient birds sleep beneath a Cenozoic moon, survivors from the age of dinosaurs just recently passed. In the velvet gloom, a small, shrew-like mammal swings on...

If we want a future of colorful springtimes, we need to make sure bees and butterflies have safe places to thrive today.

Washington has a gift for cloaking unpopular ideas in appealing names. One recent example is the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, or BAAJA, a sweeping “permitting reform” measure introduced this September by Sens. Shelley Moore Capito, Mike Lee, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Martin Heinrich. Once stripped of its deceptive branding, the bill is an out-and-out assault on the National Environmental Policy Act, the bedrock environmental law that has for more than 50 years required the federal government to look before it leaps.

NEPA’s genius is its modesty. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, it’s a purely procedural statute. It dictates no outcomes but requires agencies to stop and think — to generate, consider, and disclose the potential environmental consequences of their actions before shovels hit the ground. Often called the “Magna Carta” of environmental law, NEPA has been emulated worldwide.

BAAJA keeps NEPA’s title while hollowing out nearly everything that makes it work: detailed review of environmental risks, rigorous analysis of available alternatives with less harmful effects, meaningful public input before agencies commit to harmful actions, and — most dangerously — the ability of courts to enforce any of it.

The bill has a minor positive or two; it would restore some of the authority of the Council on Environmental Quality that two courts in 2024 appeared to strip away, allowing the Council to standardize federal agencies’ NEPA procedures. The deal, however, is terribly lopsided and devalues NEPA’s essential purposes.

BAAJA dramatically expands NEPA’s “categorical exclusions,” removing scrutiny and shutting the public out of commenting on excluded projects. It expands the categories of proposals that aren’t “major Federal actions,” reducing agencies’ responsibility to prepare in-depth environmental impact statements. The newly excluded categories could cause significant harm, including projects such as electric transmission facilities, methane gas pipelines, and water resources and geothermal energy development programs.

When review does occur, the bill guts its substance. It instructs agencies to eliminate alternatives that don’t “meet the goals of an applicable non-Federal project sponsor.” The comparison of alternatives is the heart of an EIS, but the bill would let developers define that heart out of existence. The bill then freezes the science: Agencies could ignore research that becomes available after it publishes a project’s notice of intent to prepare a NEPA document.

The bill also imposes rigid deadlines that trace back to a report the Congressional Research Service thoroughly debunked. The real culprits delaying infrastructure projects are inadequate financing, local opposition, and under-resourced agencies. Arbitrary clocks will pressure agencies to cut corners, inviting project-slowing litigation while doing little or nothing to address the most important causes of delay.

Congress passed NEPA because development-minded agencies often treated environmental concerns as obstacles. This bill hands those agencies — and the developers they serve — the keys to making the go or no-go decisions. A project sponsor could force an agency to veto deadline extensions and dictate which alternatives get studied. This is the essence of agency capture, transforming a public safeguard into a private convenience.

The most alarming provisions concern courts. Building on the Supreme Court’s vilification of NEPA in its Seven County Infrastructure Coalition decision, BAAJA forces judges to give “substantial deference” to agency determinations in NEPA documents. This ignores an important impetus for NEPA’s adoption: the incentives of development-oriented agencies to sweep adverse effects under the rug if they threaten project implementation.

Even when a plaintiff wins, courts generally could not halt projects pending preparation of NEPA-compliant documents. By the time they’re completed, the projects may already have caused irreparable environmental harm. These measures go well beyond the already restrictive judicial limits in recent permitting legislation and the Seven County decision and remove agency incentives to conscientiously apply NEPA’s requirements.

The bill also penalizes agencies for protecting the public. If an agency suspends or revokes a permit, it would need to prove that doing so “is necessary to prevent specific, urgent, substantial, and proximate harm or damage to life, property, national security, or defense” — but not, perversely, to the environment!

A defeat for a NEPA plaintiff would enable private project proponents to recover a significant percentage of all project costs they incurred. Faced with that exposure, no rational agency would ever correct a mistaken approval. A law meant to improve decisions would instead make them irreversible.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Real reform would fund agencies properly, reserve any streamlined track for projects that genuinely benefit the environment, make mitigation binding and monitored, and preserve the public’s access to courts to redress statutory violations.

We should build clean energy and critical infrastructure faster, but not bulldoze the one law that makes sure we know what we’re building before it’s too late to change course. Before Congress votes on whether to “reform” NEPA — which is scheduled to happen immediately after the midterms — its members need to heed the statute’s original vision and look before they leap.

Further reading:

• • Hundreds of Organizations Oppose Endangered Species Attacks in Permitting Legislation

Our publisher, the Center for Biological Diversity, offers an opportunity to take action against this bill.

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

NEPA: The Accepted Lies and Mistakes About This Critical Environmental Law

 

The post A ‘Bipartisan’ Bill to Dismantle the Nation’s Bedrock Environmental Law appeared first on The Revelator.

Extreme weather events provide unique opportunities for misinformation to spread widely: rumors swirl on social media, telecom lines go down, and people’s worst fears and angers come to the surface.

Join Grist and Climate Central for a virtual conversation with meteorologists, journalists, and researchers about how we can communicate more accurately and thoughtfully before, during, and after extreme weather. Speakers include: Deanne Criswell, former FEMA administrator; Shel Winkley, senior engagement epecialist and chief meteorologist at Climate Central; Ginny Katz, hazard adaptation researcher and founder of HazAdapt Community Resilience Tools; and Jake Bittle, staff writer at Grist.

We’ll answer your questions and offer tips for your future conversations — whether they’re public or private, online or offline.

Date: October 28 at 1 p.m. ET
Location: Virtual
RSVP: Register here

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Event: Distorted, October 28, 2026 on Oct 23, 2026.

Baltimore, Maryland is leveraging a historic US$11 million grant to invest in holistic solutions that build resilience in the city’s food and agriculture systems.

The city’s Food Policy and Planning (FPP) Division received the funding through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) to improve access to healthy food without depending on brick-and-mortar grocery stores. Taylor LaFave, Baltimore’s Chief of Food Policy and Planning sees the strategy as innovative thanks to its comprehensive approach. In total, it spans five programs covering food access, Food is Medicine, and urban agriculture education.

The strategy builds on lessons from Baltimore’s COVID-19 emergency food response between 2020 and 2022. The city led an almost US$40 million effort to distribute more than 180 million servings of fresh fruits and vegetables to residents in what it calls “healthy food priority areas.”

That experience reinforced the importance of providing foods residents needed. “They not only needed it, but they also wanted it, they valued it, and it made a significant improvement in their lives and in their health,” says LaFave.

The pandemic also highlighted the shortcomings of traditional food retailers. For more than 10 years, Baltimore operated a tax incentive program to attract and retain grocery stores. But when stores shuttered, they realized that it may not be possible to bring a supermarket to every neighborhood.

“We can’t continue to rely on large private corporations that are ultimately only interested in profit to solve our healthy food access issues, and to improve our city’s food system,” LaFave tells Food Tank.

The ARPA investment instead supports programs available across the city, with the goal of reaching residents through multiple channels.

One initiative is the Black Butterfly Teaching Farm, supported through a partnership with the Farm Alliance of Baltimore. Located in a residential neighborhood near an elementary school and a high school, the farm combines food production with community engagement. It also offers mentorship and training for emerging farmers of color.

Neighbors have responded positively to the program, asking how to get involved and where they can buy the produce, says Najahla Olumiji, Baltimore’s Food Systems Planner.

The farm is also encouraging students to learn about urban food production. One group Olumiji saw during a recent visit was “shocked at how little space it takes to grow thousands of pounds of produce,” she tells Food Tank.

Another program under the strategy is Food Rx, hosted at MedStar Harbor Hospital and Good Samaritan Hospital. It provides enrolled patients with enough produce for 10 medically tailored meals per week to improve diet-related health outcomes and reduce the costs of care.

The city is also expanding access to fresh produce through the Produce Box Distribution Program, which connected residents with the equivalent of 195 million servings of produce since 2020. And with the B’More Fresh Program, they are able to provide US$30 in monthly fruit and vegetable vouchers to recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) when they shop online at Amazon and Safeway. The fifth program of the city’s strategy expands the use of electronic nutrition incentives at Baltimore City farmers markets.

Despite the successes that FPP has celebrated, the city is preparing for the end of ARPA funding at the end of October. “None of these programs will be able to continue how they’ve been operating by relying just on city funding,” LaFave explains.

But FPP doesn’t want these programs to disappear. They have secured some funding to put toward programs including Food Rx and Black Butterfly Teaching Farm. And each fiscal year, they receive US$150,000 from the city’s general fund, which they plan to use to help cover funding gaps and leverage additional grants.

In June 2026, the Division also received a grant from the Johns Hopkins Urban Health Institute. As part of this, the team will work with researchers from the Center for a Livable Future over the next year to evaluate the programs and explore options for continuing them.

Public-private partnerships will be particularly important to sustain this work, LaFave believes. “We need national funders to step up and work more collaboratively together across the food system.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of the Black Butterfly Teaching Farm

The post How Baltimore Is Rethinking Healthy Food Access appeared first on Food Tank.

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: Titanium dioxide rcoleman October 23, 2026 Dayna de Montagnac, MPH Sydney Evans, MPH Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. Jump to: What is titanium dioxide and why is it added to food? Where is titanium dioxide found in food? What is the regulatory status of titanium dioxide? Are foods containing titanium dioxide ultra-processed? Is titanium dioxide allowed in organic foods? What are the potential health harms associated with titanium dioxide? Uncertainties and where more research is needed More details about titanium dioxide Cited resources October 23, 2026 EWG’s recommendation

Titanium dioxide, or TiO₂, is an ingredient of concern in food, and EWG suggests limiting consumption of food containing this ingredient. 

Food-grade synthetic titanium dioxide contains a substantial fraction of nanoscale particles, and although systemic absorption after ingestion is low, absorbed titanium dioxide can distribute to tissues, and studies indicate that tissue elimination may be slow. 

In its 2021 assessment of TiO₂, the European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, expressed concern about immunotoxicity and inflammation, gastrointestinal effects and neurotoxicity. The EFSA concluded that a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out on the basis of evidence that TiO₂ particles can induce DNA strand breaks and chromosomal damage. 

Because of these findings and the remaining uncertainties, the EFSA concluded that TiO₂ could no longer be considered safe for use as a food additive (EFSA, 2021). Since TiO₂ is a food color additive, consumers can easily choose products without it. 

Science analysis

What is titanium dioxide and why is it added to food?

Titanium dioxide is a synthetically produced white color additive used in some kinds of food to brighten its appearance, create a smooth finish, enhance whiteness and provide opacity for other food colors.

Where is titanium dioxide found in food?

Most commonly used in candy, titanium dioxide can also be found in salad dressing, chewing gum, ice cream, drink mixes and many other food categories.

It is used in 15,483 of the 172,081 foods added to EWG’s Food Scores between 2023 and 2025.

The 15 food categories with the most products containing titanium dioxide (by supermarket shelf)

Image

Source: EWG’s Food Scores. Label created between January 2023 and October 2025.

What is the regulatory status of titanium dioxide?

In 1973, the Food and Drug Administration authorized titanium dioxide as a food color additive in certain types of food, as long as it does not exceed 1% of the food by weight. But particle size is not limited.

Because of recent safety reviews, in 2023 EWG and other NGOs petitioned the FDA to roll back approval of titanium dioxide.

Titanium dioxide was removed from the EU’s list of approved food additives in 2022 after a 2021 EFSA re-evaluation raised concerns about its potential genotoxicity. 

A 2025 Arizona ban on the use of TiO₂ in food sold in schools took effect at the beginning of the 2026-2027 school year. 

Are foods containing titanium dioxide ultra-processed?

TiO₂ and other color additives are common ingredients in ultra-processed food, or UPF. As an ingredient synthesized in a laboratory, it falls into the Nova framework as a UPF ingredient. (Monteiro et al 2019). 

Under a recent California law defining UPF, food containing TiO₂ qualifies as UPF because of its property as a color and coloring adjunct (Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, 2025). 

Is titanium dioxide allowed in organic foods?

Under Agriculture Department organic standards, synthetic substances are prohibited in certified organic foods. 

What are the potential health harms associated with titanium dioxide?

Food-grade titanium dioxide contains a nanoscale fraction, and although systemic absorption after ingestion is low, absorbed particles may persist in tissues. EFSA found that TiO₂ particles can accumulate in the body and noted that nanoscale particles showed particularly long half-lives in animal studies (EFSA, 2021). 

A study using the food additive TiO₂ in mice found accumulation of TiO₂ in the intestine and liver and evidence of an inflammatory response (Talamini et al., 2019). TiO₂ particles have also been detected in human placenta and meconium, and an ex vivo study using food-grade TiO₂ nanoparticles provided evidence of maternal-fetal transfer (Guillard et al., 2020). 

Experimental studies have reported the potential effects of TiO₂, particularly nanoscale forms, on the gastrointestinal, immune, neurological, reproductive and developmental systems. The EFSA identified potential immunotoxicity and inflammation, neurotoxicity, and gastrointestinal effects, including indications that TiO₂ may induce aberrant crypt foci, or ACF, in the colon, a potential marker of preneoplastic change (EFSA, 2021; Bettini et al., 2017). Studies of food-grade TiO₂ nanoparticles have also reported alterations in intestinal microbial populations, brush border membrane functionality, and intestinal morphology (Cheng et al., 2023). But these findings have not been consistently reproduced, and the EFSA found no reproductive or developmental toxicity in its TiO₂ study (EFSA, 2021).

Evidence of the genotoxicity of TiO₂ remains mixed. The EFSA concluded that TiO₂ particles have the potential to cause DNA strand breaks and chromosomal damage and that a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out (EFSA, 2021). A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 studies found that TiO₂ nanoparticles were associated with DNA and chromosomal damage in both in vivo and in vitro studies (Cao et al., 2023). In human intestinal cell models, exposure to digested TiO₂ nanomaterials also produced DNA damage, with some effects more pronounced after simulated digestion (Vieira et al., 2022). 

In contrast, the World Health Organization’s Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives, or WHO/JECFA, concluded that the available data did not provide convincing evidence of genotoxicity, while noting limitations in current testing methods for poorly soluble particulate materials and nanoparticles (JECFA, 2023).

Uncertainties and where more research is needed

The genotoxicity of titanium dioxide remains uncertain. While the EFSA’s conclusions regarding the possible genotoxicity of TiO₂ leading to its EU ban raise concern, the WHO/JECFA could not make the same conclusions due to study limitations.

Since these assessments, studies have produced mixed findings, with some reporting DNA or chromosomal damage and others finding no evidence of genotoxicity. 

Uncertainties remain regarding the mechanisms of potential genotoxic effects, the relevance of experimental findings to human exposure, and the potential genotoxic effects of nanoscale TiO₂ particles. 

Human epidemiological evidence is also limited. The JECFA cautioned that available studies do not allow conclusions about associations between dietary TiO₂ exposure and human health effects. 

Evidence for carcinogenicity from dietary exposure also remains uncertain. EFSA found no appropriately designed studies evaluating the carcinogenicity of TiO₂ nanoparticles. It observed that TiO₂ may induce ACF in the colon, but did not conclude TiO₂ causes cancer (EFSA, 2021). 

The JECFA subsequently concluded that TiO₂ was not carcinogenic in adequately conducted two-year studies in mice and rats and also considered studies investigating the potential initiation or promotion of colon cancer (JECFA, 2023).

More details about titanium dioxide

An exposure analysis found titanium dioxide was most common in candy, chewing gum and other sweets, so children were more likely to consume more titanium dioxide than adults (Weir et al 2012). 

In 2015, Dunkin’ announced it was phasing out titanium dioxide from the powdered sugar used on its doughnuts. In 2024 Mars removed titanium dioxide from Skittles sold in the U.S.   

TiO₂ is also added to personal care products such as toothpaste and cosmetics and is used as an ultraviolet, or UV, filter in sunscreen products. 

It is one of three active UV filters in the U.S. designed as generally recognized as safe and effective. Sunscreen products formulated with titanium dioxide have long appeared on EWG’s best lists. EWG recommends avoiding spray or powder products that contain titanium dioxide because of concerns about risks from inhaling nanoparticles and subsequent health effects. 

Cited resources

Global health and regulatory agencies

• EFSA FAF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings), 2021. Scientific Opinion on the safety assessment of titanium dioxide (E171) as a food additive. EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6585, 130 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6585 
• Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). (2023). Evaluation of certain food additives: Ninety-seventh report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (WHO Technical Report Series No. 1051). World Health Organization.  https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/jecfa-risk-assessment-of-titanium-dioxide-risk-released-background-information 
• Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Titanium dioxide as a color additive in foods. https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additives/titanium-dioxide-color-additive-foods 

Comprehensive reviews and frameworks

• Cao, Y., Chen, J., Bian, Q., Ning, J., Yong, L., Ou, T., Song, Y., and Wei, S. (2023). Genotoxicity Evaluation of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles In Vivo and In Vitro: A Meta-Analysis. Toxics, 11(11), 882. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11110882 
• Monteiro, C.A., Cannon, G., Levy, R.B., Moubarac, J., Louzada, M.L., Rauber, F., Khandpur, N., Cediel, G., Neri, D., Martinez-Steele, E., Baraldi, L.G., and Jaime, P.C. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936–941. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980018003762 
• Weir, A., Westerhoff, P., Fabricius, L., Hristovski, K., and Von Goetz, N. (2012). Titanium dioxide nanoparticles in food and personal care products. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(4), 2242–2250. https://doi.org/10.1021/es204168d 

Legislation

• Arizona Healthy Schools Act, H.B. 2164, 57th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (2025). https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HB2164/2025 
• Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, A.B. 1264, Chapter 467, Cal. Stat. (2025). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264. 

Specific health impact studies

• Bettini, S., Boutet-Robinet, E., Cartier, C., Coméra, C., Gaultier, E., Dupuy, J., Naud, N., Taché, S., Grysan, P., Reguer, S., Thieriet, N., Réfrégiers, M., Thiaudière, D., Cravedi, J.-P., Carrière, M., Audinot, J.-N., Pierre, F.H., Guzylack-Piriou, L., and Houdeau, E. (2017). Food-grade TiO₂ impairs intestinal and systemic immune homeostasis, initiates preneoplastic lesions and promotes aberrant crypt development in the rat colon. Scientific Reports, 7, 40373. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40373  
• Cheng, J., Kolba, N., García-Rodríguez, A., Marques, C.N.H., Mahler, G. J., and Tako, E. (2023). Food-grade metal oxide nanoparticles exposure alters intestinal microbial populations, brush border membrane functionality and morphology, in vivo (Gallus gallus). Antioxidants, 12(2), 431. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox12020431 
• Guillard, A., Gaultier, E., Cartier, C., Devoille, L., Noireaux, J., Chevalier, L., Morin, M., Grandin, F., Lacroix, M. Z., Coméra, C., Cazanave, A., de Place, A., Gayrard, V., Bach, V., Chardon, K., Bekhti, N., Adel-Patient, K., Vayssière, C., Fisicaro, P., Feltin, N., de la Farge, F., Picard-Hagen, N., Lamas, B., and Houdeau, E. (2020). Basal Ti level in the human placenta and meconium and evidence of a materno-foetal transfer of food-grade TiO₂ nanoparticles in an ex vivo placental perfusion model. Particle and Fibre Toxicology, 17, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-020-00381-z   
• Talamini, L., Gimondi, S., Violatto, M.B., Fiordaliso, F., Pedica, F., Tran, N.L., Sitia, G., Aureli, F., Raggi, A., Nelissen, I., Cubadda, F., Bigini, P., and Diomede, L. (2019). Repeated administration of the food additive E171 to mice results in accumulation in intestine and liver and promotes an inflammatory status. Nanotoxicology, 13(8), 1087–1101. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2019.1640910 
• Vieira, A., Vital, N., Rolo, D., Roque, R., Gonçalves, L.M., Bettencourt, A., Silva, M.J., and Louro, H. (2022). Investigation of the genotoxicity of digested titanium dioxide nanomaterials in human intestinal cells. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 161, 112841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2022.112841   

At the start of October activists staged an action at Schiphol Airport, demanding an end to KLM’s frequent flyer programme. It was the latest in a series of actions at the airport, demanding the airline take the climate crisis seriously and stop it’s attempts to incentivise people to fly more. Below, an activist explains what took place on the day and why ending frequent flyer programmes is so…

Source

Following a Section 232 probe, the president tasked cabinet officials to engage in negotiations and report on their progress within 180 days.

Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) welcomes provisional allocation, raises concerns over delays in disbursing funds and inadequate levels of support for Nepal’s flood recovery efforts

23 October 2026 – In its first-ever Extraordinary Board Meeting, the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) approved a decision to set aside $21.6 million for Nepal’s recovery efforts.

Nepal will, however, not get the funding immediately. The Board has invited Nepal to submit a new funding request under the Barbados Implementation Modalities (BIM), the start-up phase of the FRLD. Before Nepal can access the funds, it must prepare a proposal and navigate existing approval processes for support to reach the affected communities.

While civil society members from the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) welcomed the convening of the Board meeting, they expressed concerns over the lack of concrete and urgent action, including the lack of advancement of a rapid response or disbursement modality. DCJ warned this would hinder Nepal’s emergency response, adding that the delay raised questions on the Fund’s ability to respond rapidly, if at all.

Representatives of DCJ and its member organisations reacted to the decision:

*Note to editors: This page will be updated with additional quotes from DCJ members and allied organisations as they become available.

[Prayash Adhikari, Peoples Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ) Nepal]

“We welcome the historic decision but let’s be clear this is not enough and we have to scale up the Fund. Nepal receiving the support from FRLD marks a historic milestone, but the reality is that $21.6 million only covers just 0.45% of Nepal’s Bhotekoshi loss and damage, without accounting Non-economic Loss and Damage (NELD). To see a multilateral fund support climate impacted countries is a step in the right direction, but now it is time to scale up the Fund. The Fund must receive $1 trillion per year. Without increasing the capacity of the Fund, communities and countries will continue to suffer.”

[Arnab Chaudhary, All In Foundation/ Aalawya Foundation, Nepal]

“The Nepal disaster is fundamentally inequitable in that a country with only 0.1% of global emissions is bearing immense and tragic costs of climate crises.​ We not only lose our lives and livelihoods but also face irreparable loss of socio-cultural heritage with disproportionate impact on Indigenous Peoples, people with disabilities, and marginalised communities, particularly Dalits, who are at the frontline of the crisis. ​

Nepal is investing its scarce resources in climate adaptation, mitigation, and resilience, yet climate finance often deepens its debt burden. For every US$1 received as a grant, Nepal receives US$6 in loans. Countries that contributed least to this crisis should not have to borrow to survive it. These loans divert resources from health, education, and livelihoods, burdening future generations. Meanwhile, the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage remains terribly underfunded. We demand that developed countries urgently scale up new and additional grant-based climate finance, fulfill their commitments to the FRLD, and establish predictable, accessible funding commensurate with the real needs of affected communities. Climate justice must mean resources reaching frontline people, not debt passed to future generations.”

[Jinghann Hong, Third World Network]

“Setting money aside is not the same as getting money out the door. Disappointingly, the Board missed an opportunity to be more ambitious. It could have commissioned a loss and damage needs assessment to determine the true scale of support required. It could also have explored coordination with existing delivery channels like the Green Climate Fund-supported glacial lake outburst flood project in Nepal. That could have helped get resources flowing much faster to the affected communities.

It is inequitable to request a country in the midst of a climate crisis to prove its needs through yet another proposal before funds can be released. We hope the Board treats the Nepal case as an opportunity to build the access modalities that all developing countries and communities deserve – and turn expressions of solidarity into real support that reaches people when it is actually needed.”

[Brandon Wu, ActionAid USA]

“Handcuffed by a lack of resources, today’s extraordinary FRLD Board meeting ultimately did very little for communities in Nepal affected by the devastating floods in August. Three years after being established, the FRLD has yet to send any money to countries hit by climate impacts. Today’s meeting did not change this, nor did it provide a concrete timeline for disbursing money to Nepal.

The current delays are caused in part by genuine concerns about the fairness and procedural integrity of the FRLD. But these concerns stem primarily from the fact that rich countries have refused to provide money for the FRLD at any kind of reasonable scale. If the Fund were adequately resourced, an immediate disbursement to Nepal would be an absolute no-brainer. But it seems rich countries are terrified that the Fund – which has received a paltry $500 million to date – will run dry, thus putting more pressure on them to provide the money they owe.”

[Laurie van der Burg, Global Public Finance Campaign Manager, Oil Change International]

“This is an important step towards the first ever release of funding from the FRLD, but it’s far too little, far too late. The $21.6 million does not even come close to the $4.7 billion needed for Nepal’s recovery. Meanwhile, G7 countries continue to spend five times that amount – $25.7 billion – every year propping up fossil fuels with public money, worsening the very climate disasters, like Nepal’s glacial floods, that are already causing death and destruction. Developed countries must end fossil fuel subsidies, make polluters pay and support reforms to unfair debt, trade, tax and financial rules to free up trillions. This allows them to avoid cutting public spending at home, while at the same time delivering the climate finance they owe to the Global South.”

[Rachitaa Gupta, Global Coordinator, Demand Climate Justice]

“The board’s decision is only the first step in a critical journey to helping vulnerable countries tackle the impacts of a crisis they did not cause. Nepal estimates it needs over $4 billion to get back on its feet, and with the Fund woefully underfunded the country risks being pushed deeper into debt. Yet the very countries responsible for the climate crisis continue to fund wars and hand out fossil fuel subsidies instead of paying what they owe in climate finance. Nepal, like many other Global South countries, cannot continue to pay for the climate crisis with lives and livelihoods as the Global North shirks its responsibilities.”

For media enquiries, contact:

Juliah Kibochi

juliah.dcj@gmail.com 

dcj.comms@demandclimatejustice.org 

The post Civil Society reacts to Loss and Damage Fund’s board decision on Nepal appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

Search any grocery store for protein-rich food that’s good for both you and the planet, and you’re buffeted by certified labels claiming organic-grown, ocean-friendly, low-carbon, fair trade, free range, or other shining attributes. These well-meaning labels can obscure serious tradeoffs—for example healthy tree nuts that minimize greenhouse emissions while guzzling scarce water, or organic meats and cheeses that spew water pollution or planet-warming gases. A health tech scientist has proposed a new solution to this problem, in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems.

The paper sketches a new rating system for high-protein foods that encompasses multiple dimensions of environmental, health, and human impacts—calculating simple overall scores that can be compared across a variety of plant- and animal-derived foods. “The goal is not necessarily to create another front-of-package label, but to foster a new literacy” that enables better-informed decision-making, writes Chris Macdonald of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom.

Maintaining sufficient dietary protein is a major concern when it comes to reconciling modern agriculture with future climate change. Scientists have spent years searching for new, non-meat protein sources, ranging from marigold flowers to fungi to alternative cropping schemes. But currently available non-meat foods are also high in protein, and Macdonald has found that misunderstandings about protein content are a major factor preventing people from choosing these planet-friendly foods over meats and dairy.

 

.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:Which age group has the most climate-intensive diet?

 

In his latest research, Macdonald is trying to provide people with information that is accurate, comprehensive, and simple, so they can make good choices on dietary proteins. He mined scientific data on the environmental impacts and nutrient contents of various foods to develop two simple ratings. A Planet Score, ranging from 0 to 16, includes measures of greenhouse emissions, water pollution, water use, and land use per hundred grams of protein. A separate People Score, ranging from 0 to 24, includes measures of cholesterol, saturated fat, sodium, essential amino acids, commercial availability, and affordability. The Planet and People scores are then combined into an overall Better Proteins Institute (BPI) score.

When Macdonald applied the system to 20 foods (10 animal and 10 plant), tofu, chia seeds, beans, and quinoa had the highest scores (30 to 36), while cheddar, mozzarella, lamb chops, and beef steak had the lowest scores (13 to 16). The highest-scoring animal foods were chicken breast and tuna, ranking 7th and 8th out of 20, based largely on their affordability, low saturated fats, low land use, and moderate greenhouse emissions. Walnuts and brazil nuts were the lowest-scoring plant foods, ranking 11th and 12th out of 20, due to their high prices, saturated fats, and water use.

Macdonald views this as a starting point, which he hopes to improve over time. Affordability and commercial availability, for example, were determined within the U.K. for this study—but they will vary substantially between regions. Future versions may also contain additional factors such as fair trade, ethical treatment of workers, or animal treatment.

Macdonald. “What are the best sources of protein? Introducing the BPI score.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2026.

image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

Other than the Australian and Turkish co-hosts, the only G20 nations to address the COP31 leaders’ summit with speakers at the “head of state or government” level will be the UK, Brazil and China, according to a provisional list released on Wednesday.

The list, which is published by the United Nations and subject to change, includes 77 countries whose leaders are listed to speak at the summit in Antalya on November 11-12. That would be nearly a third fewer than the 116 who spoke at COP28 in Dubai three years ago.

Yvo de Boer, a former head of the UN’s climate secretariat, told Climate Home News that the low turnout and “the absence of many nations that should be showing leadership on climate action and support for developing nations” sends “the wrong signal at a difficult time”.

Amid geopolitical conflicts, a struggling global economy and an inevitable overshoot of the 1.5C global warming limit, de Boer said that “climate action needs a strong show of support, not empty seats at a leaders’ summit”.

• Oct 21, 2026 News UN sets steep emission cuts to reverse 1.5C overshoot by end of century Emissions must by reduced by nearly 6% a year for the world to have a good chance of bringing global warming back down to the Paris Agreement limit, the Emissions Gap Report says Read more
• Oct 21, 2026 Investigations Turkish giant sponsoring COP31 cut climate goals then cashed in on oil boom COP31 sponsors should be screened for “climate integrity”. Yet Koç Holding has become a top partner while its oil refiner runs flat out and its climate targets slip Read more

Earlier this week, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said G20 countries should lead on climate action, adding that while they have varying responsibilities in tackling global warming, “all countries, especially the big emitters, must do more”. As major economies spanning developed and developing nations, G20 countries account for more than three-quarters of annual global emissions.

China is likely to be represented at COP31 by Vice-Premier Ding Xuexiang, as in the past three years, rather than President Xi Jinping, who has rarely left China since the COVID-19 pandemic and has not attended a climate COP since Paris in 2015.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham is scheduled to speak, after telling parliament in September he would do so as part of his efforts to “meet the climate challenge” following a series of deadly heatwaves.

UK approves gas drilling despite admitting blow to “climate leadership” status

Brazil’s President Lula has also said he will attend. Depending on the result of Sunday’s election against his far-right rival Flávio Bolsonaro, he will speak at COP31 as either a recently re-elected or outgoing president.

While the COP31 summit is being hosted by Türkiye in Antalya, Australia has the formal role of President of Negotiations and its prime minister, Anthony Albanese, will speak at the summit. Türkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not on the UN’s speaker list but is likely to give an opening speech.

Brazilian President Lula shakes hands with Chinese Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang at COP30 in Belem in 2025. (Photo by Wagner Meier/Getty Images)

Many of the countries whose leaders are due to attend COP31 are those suffering the worst effects of climate change. About a third are African countries and a quarter are small island developing nations. Türkiye’s Central Asian and Balkan neighbours are also well-represented. 

COP31 no-shows

Among the major emitters not on the list are French President Emmanuel Macron, German leader Friedrich Merz, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, India’s Narendra Modi, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Canada’s Mark Carney and Japan’s Sanae Takaichi.

Macron, who is struggling to deal with rising social unrest across France, will reportedly attend commemorations marking the end of the First World War and a European Political Community summit instead. It is not known whether the others will eventually decide to attend COP31, or what they will do instead. 

Climate change-sceptic US President Donald Trump has never attended a COP and is withdrawing the US from the UN climate convention (UNFCCC), under which COP meetings are held, after quitting the Paris Agreement for a second time.

Argentina’s Javier Milei has considered exiting the Paris Agreement but has so far not done so, although his government is one of around 30 countries yet to submit an updated national climate plan to the UN.

The post Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31 appeared first on Climate Home News.

I remember the first time I learned about Abu Ghraib in detail and being stunned at what a lacklustre aftermath took place. I felt a...

The post Review: Once Upon a Time In The Middle East first appeared on Spring.

More than a year after a devastating wildfire destroyed the Hawaiian town of Lahaina, residents were found to have high levels of arsenic and other toxic metals in their bodies.

Read more on E360 →

“For the Long Haul” diagnoses the roots of burnout among organizers and offers lessons from movement elders to combat it.