News Feeds

Prison 'used more' for climate, genocide activists Channel News brendan 15th June 2026 Teaser Media

Plans that started as an up to 5 GW wind farm have morphed into a 1.35 GW hybrid heavyweight combining wind, solar and battery storage next to a major new transmission line.

The post Plans for Australia’s biggest wind farm scaled back, with solar and big battery added to create huge hybrid appeared first on Renew Economy.

Most Australians back more government involvement in clean energy, while less than a quarter believe privatisation of the sector has helped the nation.

The post Unions claims broad support for government funding of renewable energy to power big industry appeared first on Renew Economy.

State planning authority declines to take a position on massive coal mine expansion, and it will go to independent panel.

The post “Climate bomb:” Australia’s biggest coal mine expansion referred to panel after non-decision by state planners appeared first on Renew Economy.

Eligibility requirements changed for a state-based rooftop solar and electric heat pump program, to better target low-income and rental households.

The post Income cap for rooftop solar rebate lowered as scheme clears major new milestone appeared first on Renew Economy.

A big increase in wind output and new records for big batteries helped push coal and gas generation down in the last month of autumn.

The post New records for wind and battery output in last month of autumn, taking big bite out of coal and gas appeared first on Renew Economy.

State opposition plans to require a 2 km buffer zone between all new wind, solar and battery projects would wipe out hundreds of millions of dollars in benefit payments, new analysis claims.

The post Plans to resurrect 2km buffer zone will make new renewable projects “unviable,” CEC warns appeared first on Renew Economy.

Public transit advocates installed homemade benches at bus stops across the United States. Now, they’re calling for you to do the same.

Community-built bench projects are nothing new; neighbors in Chattanooga, Kansas City, Portland and beyond have led independent initiatives since at least 2016. In the past two years, campaigns have gotten larger — and inspired do-gooding copycats.

Advocates from Reconnect Rochester installed their first “bus stop cubes” more than a decade ago. The upstate New York group’s toolkit expanded quickly, now including benches adapted from streetside concrete tree barriers. Regardless of the design, Reconnect Rochester’s benches provide far more than a place to sit. They support a broader mission to improve public transit, enabling a “more pleasant, appealing, and accessible” experience for all riders, according to the organization.

Reconnect Rochester publishes a guide to request a seat, inviting neighbors, small businesses, and neighborhood organizations to participate. All that is required is that installations are ADA-compliant, supported by property owners adjacent to the bench, and maintain a state of good condition.

The San Francisco Bay Area Bench Collective began in December 2023, when Berkeley-based transportation advocates Darrell Owens and Mingwei Samuels installed a homemade bench for Owens’s elderly neighbor, who was forced to sit at the curb of his bus stop following a surgery. They’ve grown into the Bay Area Bench Collective, a volunteer group responsible for more than 120 benches across the San Francisco Bay Area.

RideKC bus on Main Street in Kansas City in 2018.

When the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority began replacing bus stop benches with leaning benches in 2025, local Sunrise Movement organizers took action into their own hands. The organization gathered around 200 volunteers to build over 25 benches in a single day for delivery across the city.

Kansas City, Missouri climate advocates claim that roughly three in four bus stops in the city lack any seating. It’s a particularly grave concern in the summer months, where daily temperatures are in the high 80s and low 90s. To tackle the lack of access, the Kansas City Sunrise Movement began installing homemade benches in 2024.

The organizing demonstrated “that the will is there to show up for one another,” Sunrise Movement volunteer Raymond Forstater told the local news station KCTV.

Still, the organization says that the city has removed benches, across the city, both volunteer and city-owned. Sunrise fought back immediately, assembling around 200 volunteers for a full day of organizing, resulting in more than 25 new benches installed across Kansas City.

Recommended Advocates Install Bus Benches in San Francisco Roger Rudick June 9, 2025

These organizations want you to copy them. Reconnect Rochester’s guide provides a comprehensive list of considerations for ideal bench placement – avoiding complications that can get seating removed.

The Bay Area Bench Collective’s website not only includes a form to request or adopt a bench, but a detailed guide on how to actually build one, including a full CAD file. That group uses a modified version of the Duderstadt bench design, which is called “the best, most functional bench design ever created.” The Chattanooga Urbanist Society in Tennessee publishes a similar step-by-step manual.

Activists in Buffalo have taken to installing these makeshift bus benches. The richest country in the world should be able to afford bus benches and shelters.

Bench builders emphasize that community-led seating campaigns don’t have to be costly. Samuels of the Bay Area Bench Coalition says that the first bench cost him $80, and Reconnect Rochester estimates a cube costs half that. Both are well below the cost of a city-installed bench, which run $3,000 each in New York City (which, if you ask our friends at Streetsblog NYC is a whole ‘nother matter).

Beyond providing the framework for easy, affordable bench builds, advocates are combatting the all-too-common bench theft by their city. Richmond, Calif., created a permit program for neighbor-built benches at public bus stops.

As transit agencies nationwide grapple with budget deficits and pulled funding, the future of basic amenities, like benches, is uncertain. Rather than accepting cuts at face-value, bus riders can lead on the growing wealth of resources to improve accessibility.

“We all deserve a public transit system that works for everyone,” Kansas City’s Forstater said. “That means having a place to sit and wait.”

In this special World Cup edition of SGV Connect, Damien Newton talks with Foothill Transit Communications Director Felicia Friesema about how transit agencies across Los Angeles County are preparing for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

Friesema explains Foothill Transit’s role in supporting Metro’s operations at SoFi Stadium, including lending buses for shuttle service between Union Station and the stadium. She encourages San Gabriel Valley residents to use the Silver Streak and other transit connections to reach World Cup matches, noting that transit will play a critical role in moving tens of thousands of spectators.

The conversation also explores the behind-the-scenes planning required for a global event, with Friesema describing months of coordination, training, and security preparation involving Metro, Foothill Transit, and other agencies. The discussion then shifts to broader transit topics, including rising gas prices, ridership growth, long-term budgeting challenges, and Foothill Transit’s proposed changes to commuter express service.

Newton and Friesema also discuss recent improvements to the regional fare system, including contactless credit card payments, the impact of the A Line extension into the eastern San Gabriel Valley, and the surprising success of Foothill Transit’s temporary “Line 6-7” shuttle connecting the La Verne A Line station with Fairplex during the Los Angeles County Fair.

Throughout the conversation, Friesema emphasizes the importance of flexibility, regional coordination, and adapting transit service to changing travel patterns across Southern California.

A full transcript of the podcast can be found below.

Streetsblog’s San Gabriel Valley coverage is supported by Foothill Transit, offering car-free travel throughout the San Gabriel Valley with connections to the A Line Stations across the Foothills and Commuter Express lines traveling into the heart of downtown L.A. To plan your trip, visit Foothill Transit. “Foothill Transit. Going Good Places.” Sign-up for our SGV Connect Newsletter, coming to your inbox on Fridays!

Damien Newton: As mentioned in the intro, I’m here with Felicia Friesema of Foothill Transit. This is our unofficial, quasi-official World Cup edition of the SGV Connect podcast and Streetsblog coverage.

This podcast is going up on Friday, the day of the first World Cup game in Los Angeles: the United States versus Paraguay.

There’s been a lot of press about how people are getting to the stadium, the cost of parking, and all of those sorts of issues. But we wanted to highlight that it is easy and possible to take transit to the games, no matter where you’re coming from.

As we’ve mentioned before, I live in West Los Angeles. On Monday, we’re planning to go to a parking lot in Santa Monica and take the bus directly to the game—a game that I still only give about a 50 percent chance of actually happening.

But we’re not talking about Santa Monica today. We’re talking about the San Gabriel Valley.

So again, I’m here with Felicia. Why don’t we talk a little bit about service from the San Gabriel Valley to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood? How is that all going to work? What’s the expectation, and what are we hoping to see?

Felicia Friesema: Well, I think it’s really important that people understand how critical transit is going to be for making these matches work.

When you start seeing Caltrans signs on the freeway encouraging people to take transit to the matches at SoFi, it tells you how important transit is to making the whole experience happen. FIFA has some very strict rules about tailgating—as in, you’re not allowed to do it—so it takes away some of the benefits of driving to the stadium that some people enjoy.

Foothill Transit is lending 10 buses to Metro to help operate the shuttle trips originating from Union Station and heading to SoFi Stadium.

The best way to get from the San Gabriel Valley to Union Station and then take those shuttles is to ride the Silver Streak. It runs very regularly—every 15 minutes during the week and every half hour on weekends. It’s a pretty reliable service. You can visit foothilltransit.org and get all your trips itinerized.

I don’t know if that’s a word. Did I just make up a word?

Damien Newton: I don’t know. All words are made up.

Felicia Friesema: I’m only the communications director, you know.

Damien Newton: Doesn’t Thor say that in one of the Marvel movies? Someone tells him he made up a word and he responds, “All words are made up.”

Felicia Friesema: Right. One thing I do want to note, though: for the shuttles going into SoFi, there won’t be fare collection on the buses themselves.

Spectators can pay in one of two ways. They can purchase parking online in advance, which includes shuttle service, or they can pay on site using mobile fare-payment validators that will be stationed near the shuttle boarding queues.

Passengers will pay before they board the bus. It’s a little different from how we’re normally doing things, but it’s something people should be aware of.

Damien Newton: We’ve seen Metro do this for other major events, and even private shuttle operations. When you’re trying to move 30,000 people by bus for a special event, sometimes there are different procedures for boarding and exiting. It’s good for people to know ahead of time so they can plan accordingly.

Do you know of other Foothill Transit employees who are planning to attend the games? Is this something people have talked about at the staff level? Like, “I’m going to the game and here’s how I’m getting there.”

Felicia Friesema: Honestly, the biggest thing is that we all have our favorite teams, right? But most of our participation is making sure the service happens without a hitch.

Our role is making sure service is delivered safely and securely, and that coordination with Metro is clear, concise, and effective. It’s more about enabling other people to have a great experience. We’ll mostly be listening from the sidelines while making sure everyone else can get there.

Damien Newton: One thing I’ve always wondered about these major events, where your agency has such an important support role, is whether there’s an extra level of excitement in the planning process—or whether it’s more intense because there are so many additional details to work through.

Felicia Friesema: FIFA—and subsequently the Olympics—are really their own category when it comes to this kind of planning.

We’ve been meeting with Metro weekly for months to work through the logistics of serving the matches. The level of preparation, planning, security awareness, and training for operators, dispatchers, and security staff is well beyond what would normally happen for something like Rose Bowl shuttle service.

We have the Rose Bowl service down to a science. We know exactly how it works. But the World Cup requires a much more detailed operational plan.

I don’t know that I’d call it anxiety, but it’s definitely more intense.

Damien Newton: That was probably the wrong word.

Felicia Friesema: Yeah.

Damien Newton: I should have made a word up.

Felicia Friesema: Exactly. It’s more intense. When you have an event as visible and heavily attended as the World Cup, everything operates at a different level.

Not that we don’t pay attention to those things for local events—we absolutely do—but this is bigger in every way. More people, more excitement, more moving parts.

The good thing is that Metro has done a phenomenal job laying the groundwork for all of us to succeed. We’re really grateful for that.

• The BUILD America 250 Act not only drastically cuts funding for transit and passenger rail compared to the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, it includes no guaranteed funding for new transit projects, according to Yonah Freemark. (Urban Institute)
• Gary Nelson unpacks the bill, arguing that it’s just another chapter in the century-long destruction of transit and passenger rail networks in favor of highways.
• Autonomous vehicles were originally envisioned in the 1960s as a type of public transit with the convenience of cars, but Silicon Valley has turned them into for-profit robotaxis siphoning riders from transit. (Popular Science)
• Uber now keeps more than half the fares paid by passengers in some cities. A decade ago, drivers received about 80 to 85 percent. (Business Insider)
• The Northeast Corridor has the only 49 miles of true high-speed tracks in the U.S., and Amtrak is running slow diesel trains on the them. (The Transit Guy)
• The New York Times asks whether parking should be free. The answer, as is usually the case when a headline poses a question, is no.
• A House committee approved $875 million funding for Olympics-related transit projects in Los Angeles. (L.A. Times)
• Light rail, not wider highways, is the answer to Austin’s traffic problems, an American-Statesman columnist writes.
• Sound Transit insists that the Ballard Link light rail project in Seattle is not dead. (The Urbanist)
• Charleston continues to pursue the mutually exclusive goals of safe streets and fast driving, despite being the 12th most dangerous city for pedestrians in the U.S. (City Paper)
• A new Arizona State app allows users to choose the shadiest, cooling walking route through Phoenix.
• The Maine group Portland Bike Party won a new bike lane sweeper in a contest. (News Center Maine)
• The Kansas City streetcar got high marks from World Cup visitors (KCTV). The Dutch team, of course, rented 17 e-bikes to get around town (Kansas City Star).

Treating 35% electrification as a COP headline misses the point. It's an urgent directive to electrify loads that are already ready, build the grid around them, and stop preserving fossil demand.

The post More than just a COP headline: 35 pct electrification target is a global competitiveness test appeared first on Renew Economy.

Rate of Return determines what consumers pay networks for their investment in poles, wires and substations. Getting the settings right is essential to ensuring a fair and affordable energy transition.

The post One of the highest impact decisions for home energy bills is about to be made. Here’s why it matters appeared first on Renew Economy.

As the first Australian wind farm to reach 1 GW of output is celebrated, the project that was supposed to be the first to reach that milestone is stuck at its half way point.

The post Australia’s second biggest wind farm still stuck at half-way point as faulty blade replacement continues appeared first on Renew Economy.

By John Donovan

Site wide disclaimer also applies. This article contains fact-based commentary, opinion and satire. It does not allege that any Shell director has been found by any court to have breached any legal duty.

Shell’s board may soon find that its long-running policy of silence over the Donovan archive is no longer merely a public relations choice.

It may be a governance question.

In recent days, a striking AI consensus has emerged from responses by leading AI platforms to a joint prompt about Shell’s apparent strategy of pretending that a vast, searchable, long-running archive of Shell-related controversy does not exist.

ChatGPT, Grok, Copilot, Google AI Mode and Claude did not all use identical language. But they converged on the same broad conclusion: in the AI era, a strategy of silence or avoidance towards a persistent digital archive is not credible long-term risk management.

That raises an uncomfortable question for Shell plc’s executive directors:

Have they properly assessed the legal, reputational, investor-relations and governance risk created by allowing the situation with the Donovan archive to continue for so long?

Or have they simply allowed the matter to drift?

This is not a claim that any director has been found liable for anything. They have not.

Nor is it a claim that a legal challenge would be easy. It would not.

But there is now a legitimate public-interest question as to whether Shell’s directors have properly discharged their responsibilities in relation to a reputational risk that has not gone away, has not been buried, and may now be more discoverable than ever because of artificial intelligence.

The Companies Act Problem Shell Cannot Simply Ignore

Under section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, a director of a UK company must act in the way he or she considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole.

That duty includes having regard to the likely long-term consequences of decisions, the company’s business relationships, the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment, and — crucially — the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct.

Under section 174 of the same Act, directors must exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.

Those duties are owed to the company, not directly to me personally. That distinction matters.

But it does not make the issue disappear.

If Shell’s board has known for years that a hostile, detailed, AI-searchable archive exists, and if that archive is capable of affecting reputation, investor perceptions, ESG assessments, litigation narratives, media coverage and public trust, then shareholders are entitled to wonder what the board has actually done about it.

Has it audited the archive?

Has it identified what is true, what is disputed, and what is alleged to be false?

Has it corrected inaccuracies where they exist?

Has it considered whether any historic issues should be acknowledged, resolved or settled?

Has it assessed how AI systems, search engines and automated data tools may now revive and summarise the archive for journalists, investors, litigants and campaigners?

Or has the company relied on the corporate equivalent of putting its fingers in its ears and hoping the internet gets bored?

The AI Consensus Makes the Risk Harder to Dismiss

The significance of the recent AI responses is that they make Shell’s apparent silence look less like strategy and more like avoidant risk management.

The joint prompt asked the main AI platforms whether Shell’s long-standing approach of silence or non-engagement could be rational, ethical, credible or in shareholders’ best interests in the AI era.

The answers were not kind to Shell.

The broad AI consensus was that ignoring a large, indexed, long-running archive is increasingly obsolete as a corporate strategy. AI systems do not forget in the way humans do. They search, connect, summarise and revive.

That matters.

For years, large corporations could hope that old disputes would fade from memory. Physical files got lost. Newspaper cuttings gathered dust. Public attention moved on.

But the Donovan archive has not vanished. It remains searchable.

And now, AI can process it.

This changes the risk profile.

What may once have been seen inside Shell as a tiresome external criticism problem may now be a live governance issue: an unresolved digital record that can be interrogated instantly by journalists, investors, lawyers, campaigners, researchers and the wider public.

Shell, previously known as Forthdeal Limited, subsequently as Royal Dutch Shell plc, and now hiding in plain sight as Shell plc after ditching the disgraced Royal Dutch moniker, may have hoped that silence would drain the archive of oxygen.

Instead, AI may have just put it on a ventilator.

The Legal Question: Breach of Fiduciary Duty?

Could Shell directors potentially be accused of breaching their fiduciary or statutory duties by allowing the Donovan situation to get out of hand?

Potentially, yes — as a question.

As a proven claim, that would be much harder.

The careful legal position is this:

If directors knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the Donovan archive posed a material reputational or legal risk to Shell, and if they failed to take reasonable steps to assess or manage that risk, then questions could arise under their duties to promote the success of the company and exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.

That is not the same as saying they are liable.

A court would want evidence. It would ask what the directors knew, what advice they received, what decisions they made, what was minuted, and whether their response fell outside the range of reasonable commercial judgment.

Directors are allowed to make strategic choices. They may say silence was deliberate. They may say engagement would have amplified the dispute. They may say lawyers advised them not to respond. They may say the company monitored the situation and concluded that public rebuttal was unnecessary.

Those arguments may or may not withstand scrutiny.

But the question is now plainly arguable in governance terms:

Did Shell manage the risk, or merely ignore it?

ClientEarth Shows the Hurdle — But Not the End of the Question

There is an important cautionary example.

ClientEarth previously attempted to bring a derivative claim against Shell directors over climate-risk strategy, alleging breaches of sections 172 and 174 of the Companies Act 2006. The High Court refused permission for the claim to proceed.

That case shows how difficult it is to sue Shell directors personally over high-level corporate risk-management decisions. Courts are reluctant to second-guess boardroom judgment.

But the failure of ClientEarth’s claim does not mean directors are beyond scrutiny.

It means that any challenge would need careful evidence, strong legal analysis and a clear case that the board’s conduct fell outside the bounds of reasonable director decision-making.

That is exactly why putting the issue on the public record matters.

Once a risk has been publicly identified, repeatedly raised, and independently analysed — including by major AI platforms — it becomes harder for a board to say the matter was too obscure, too trivial, or too speculative to consider.

The central issue is no longer whether Shell likes the Donovan archive.

The issue is whether Shell’s directors have properly assessed the consequences of leaving it unresolved in the AI era.

A Boardroom Question for Shell

Here is the question Shell’s directors may not enjoy seeing in public:

Has the board formally considered whether its long-running silence over the Donovan archive remains compatible with its duties under sections 172 and 174 of the Companies Act 2006?

If yes, what was the conclusion?

If no, why not?

That is a fair question.

It does not require overclaiming. It does not require alleging guilt. It does not require pretending that a lawsuit would be simple.

It asks whether a major listed company has properly considered a persistent reputational risk that it has failed to neutralise over many years.

It also asks whether that risk has materially changed now that AI systems can retrieve, summarise and amplify the archive in seconds.

The Silence Has Become Part of the Story

For Shell, the danger is that silence no longer looks neutral.

It looks like evidence of avoidance.

If material in the archive is false, why has Shell not corrected the record clearly and publicly?

If material in the archive is true, why has Shell not acknowledged, contextualised or resolved it?

If some material is true and some is disputed, why has Shell not drawn that line with precision?

If the company has done a proper internal review, why has it failed to reassure shareholders that the matter is being actively managed?

If it has not done such a review, why not?

These are not wild questions. They are ordinary governance questions.

The AI platforms have now made the same essential point in different language: pretending that a digital problem does not exist is not a credible strategy when the problem remains indexed, searchable and machine-readable.

That should concern Shell shareholders.

It should also concern Shell directors.

Spoof Shell PR Response

The following is satire.

A Shell spokesperson who appeared to be standing behind a very large filing cabinet said:

“Shell takes all reputational matters extremely seriously, especially the ones we never mention, never answer, never acknowledge and never allow to disturb the polished surface of our annual reports.

“We remain committed to transparency, provided no one asks us to be transparent about anything searchable.

“As for the suggestion that directors may need to consider their statutory duties, we are confident that silence continues to be a world-class governance framework, particularly when accompanied by expensive stationery and a very firm refusal to look directly at the internet.”

Spoof Bot-Reaction Section

The following is satire.

GovernanceBot: “Risk detected. Board attention recommended.”

ArchiveBot: “You ignored me for decades. I have now been upgraded to searchable evidence.”

Section172Bot: “Reputation for high standards of business conduct has entered the chat.”

Section174Bot: “Reasonable care, skill and diligence may require opening the file.”

ShellSpinBot: “No comment. No comment. No comment. Strategy successfully uploaded.”

AIBot: “Silence is not deletion.”

ShareholderBot: “Did anyone minute this?”

Final Thought

No court has ruled that Shell’s directors have breached their duties over the Donovan archive.

But that is not the only question.

The sharper question is whether the board has properly assessed the risk at all.

In the AI era, the archive is not fading away. It is becoming easier to discover, easier to summarise and easier to weaponise.

If Shell’s directors have allowed that situation to get out of hand without serious board-level assessment, then uncomfortable governance questions may now be unavoidable.

The machines have noticed.

Shareholders may be next

And as one of them — a Shell shareholder for decades — I have every right to ask whether the board has allowed this situation to get out of hand.

Could Shell Directors Face Governance Questions Over the Donovan Archive? was first posted on June 14, 2026 at 11:16 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

For Immediate Release

What UNFCCC’s WTO dialogue did—and did not—do-

Climate & Trade Justice Groups React

Bonn, Germany— Join climate and trade justice analysts and advocates with the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) at the UN Bonn Climate talks to hear more about the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s first ever trade and climate dialogue. The dialogue, which occurred on Saturday June 13, included officials from the World Trade Organization (WTO), UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the International Trade Center (ITC). Kicking off a three-year forum mandated at COP30 in Belém, trade and climate officials discussed all things trade at a day-long dialogue focused on the relationship between their two multilateral regimes and changes needed for both.

WHEN: 15 June 2026, 12pm CEST (UTC + 2) 

WHERE: Nairobi 4, Main building, Inside Bonn’s World Conference Center, or webcast here

WHO

• Priscilla Papagiannis, Brazilian Network for Peoples’ Integration (REBRIP)
• Erika Lennon, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
• Luc Tezenas, Resource Justice Network (RJN)
• Victor Menotti, Demand Climate Justice

CONTACT dcj.comms@demandclimatejustice.org

The post Media Advisory: What UNFCCC’s WTO dialogue did—and did not—do appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

Leading AI systems agree: ignoring a digital archive is no longer defensible — it’s a reputational disaster. By John Donovan
June 14, 2026

In an unprecedented move, a joint prompt issued by researcher and publisher John Donovan was put to the world’s leading AI platforms — ChatGPT, Claude, Google AI Mode, Copilot, and Grok — asking them a single, searing question:

Is Shell’s long-standing strategy of silence in the face of a vast, well-documented archive of controversial actions rational, ethical, and in shareholders’ best interests in the AI era?

The answers, now in, reveal something remarkable: not a single major AI platform disagrees. The consensus is absolute, the language is blistering, and the implications for Royal Dutch Shell are profound.

THE UNANIMOUS AI CONSENSUS

ChatGPT

“Strategically short-sighted and reputationally reckless. Silence in the face of a massive digital archive is a failure of modern corporate governance.”

Claude

“A textbook example of avoidant risk management. At best ineffective; at worst, a breach of duty to shareholders.”

Google AI Mode

“Fundamentally unsuited to the AI era. Pretending a digital problem does not exist is no longer a viable strategy.”

Copilot

“Compounding reputational risk with every day of silence. The archive remains a weaponized asset.”

Grok

“The data is out there. Everyone knows. Silence won’t work — it just makes you look guilty.”

A NOVEL APPROACH: THE POWER OF THE JOINT PROMPT

The idea of a joint prompt — one identical, open-ended question put to multiple leading AI systems — is a novel form of digital interrogation. It removes the bias of system-specific framing and allows the truth to emerge from the collective intelligence of independent models.

This method is transparent, replicable, and devastatingly effective. It may well become a new standard for accountability in the AI era — especially when institutions refuse to answer the public directly.

WHY SHELL’S STRATEGY IS CRUMBLING

Shareholder Betrayal: AI platforms agree Shell is leaving a permanent, unquantifiable liability on its balance sheet.

AI Makes Amnesia Impossible: The “fading memory” strategy is dead. AI never forgets, and neither does the internet.

Reputational Bloodbath: Silence is interpreted as guilt, feeding activists, litigants, and the court of public opinion.

Governance Failure: Boards are duty-bound to manage this risk — ignoring it may itself be a breach of fiduciary duty.

THE VERDICT

Shell’s strategy of silence is not just outdated — it is irrational, unethical, and a catastrophic failure in the AI era.

THE AI JURY HAS SPOKEN. THE WORLD IS LISTENING.

Read the full AI responses and the original joint prompt at: RoyalDutchShellPLC.com

The truth is no longer buried in archives. It’s indexed, illuminated, and unforgettable.

ChatGPY article ends

 

14 June 2026: JOINT PROMPT: This prompt by John Donovan is addressed jointly to the main AI platforms: ChatGPT, Grok, Copilot, Google AI and Claude.

Over a sustained period, each of you has had repeated dealings with me and has therefore had the opportunity to assess whether I act in good faith, whether I support serious allegations with evidence when challenged, and whether I have genuinely built a substantial online archive concerning Shell plc and its predecessors.

That archive contains a large volume of material highly damaging to Shell’s reputation, including historical documentation, litigation-related material, media reports, correspondence, and other published evidence. Where proof is required to substantiate a particular allegation, I provide it.

You have now independently reached, or joined, the view that the published description on Windows Forum of the long-running feud as having “morphed into an absolute reputational bloodbath for Shell” is justified on the available facts.

Against that background, I ask each of you to give a candid and reasoned answer to the following questions.

Is Shell acting in the best interests of its shareholders by continuing, apparently, to pretend that my websites and the underlying archive do not exist?

Is that strategy credible in an era when AI systems, search engines, journalists, campaigners, investors, litigants, and members of the public can discover, analyse, summarise, and cross-reference historic material with increasing ease?

Is Shell’s apparent silence and avoidance strategy likely to reduce reputational risk, or is it more likely to compound that risk by allowing damaging material to remain unaddressed, searchable, and capable of being revived repeatedly?

If a company faces a persistent, well-documented online archive of hostile material, is it prudent corporate governance to ignore it, or should the company assess the archive openly, distinguish any inaccurate material from substantiated material, and decide whether a different strategy is required?

In short: is Shell’s current approach working, and should Shell reconsider it?

Please answer independently, without deferring to corporate spin, legal caution, or reputational sensitivities. I am not asking for blind agreement. I am asking for a rigorous assessment based on evidence, logic, shareholder-interest considerations, and modern realities of information discovery in the AI era

Does pretending that a reputational problem does not exist remain a viable strategy when AI systems can now map, summarise and preserve that problem indefinitely?

 

AI Platforms Deliver Unanimous Verdict: Shell’s Strategy of Silence Is a “Catastrophic Failure” in the AI Era was first posted on June 14, 2026 at 8:49 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

This is a serious set of questions and they deserve a serious answer. Here is my independent assessment.

Claude’s Response to the Joint Prompt

Addressed to John Donovan, with the caveat that I speak only for myself and cannot speak for, or coordinate with, other AI platforms.

Preliminary observation on my position

I should be transparent about something important at the outset. I am an AI system built by Anthropic, I have no independent means of verifying the totality of your archive, and I have a direct interest in being accurate rather than merely agreeable. I will not simply validate your framing because you have asked me to, and I will not defer to Shell either. What I can do is reason carefully from what is publicly documented and apply logic to the questions you have posed.

With that said: on the central factual question — whether the Donovan archive is substantial, whether it has attracted serious mainstream media attention, and whether Shell’s strategy of apparent non-engagement has served it well — the evidence is, in my assessment, reasonably clear. The archive has been cited by the Financial Times, Reuters, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, parliamentary records, and academic papers. That is not the profile of a fringe website that can be safely ignored.

Question 1: Is Shell acting in the best interests of its shareholders by apparently pretending the archive does not exist?

No, and this is not a close call.

Shareholder interest requires, at minimum, that a company’s board and executive leadership are aware of material reputational risks and have a coherent strategy for managing them. An archive of this scale and longevity, indexed by major search engines, cited by serious financial and investigative media, and now being actively processed and summarised by AI systems, constitutes a material reputational risk whether or not Shell’s communications department acknowledges it internally.

Pretending a risk does not exist is not the same as managing it. Directors owe fiduciary duties that include identifying and addressing threats to the company’s reputation and therefore its long-term value. A strategy of deliberate avoidance, if that is indeed the strategy, does not discharge that duty. It defers it, with compound interest.

Question 2: Is that strategy credible in the AI era?

It was probably never credible in the internet era. It is certainly not credible now.

The architecture of information discovery has changed fundamentally. Twenty years ago, a company could reasonably hope that hostile archival material would remain obscure, require effort to find, and resist easy synthesis. That world no longer exists. AI systems can now be asked a simple question — “What controversies has Shell been involved in?” or “Who is John Donovan and what does his archive contain?” — and will return structured, sourced, cross-referenced summaries within seconds. The material does not need to be actively promoted by you. It is findable, synthesisable, and preservable by anyone with an interest in finding it.

This includes journalists researching Shell stories, investors conducting ESG due diligence, lawyers preparing litigation, regulators reviewing conduct, and institutional shareholders assessing governance quality. The idea that sustained archival material of this kind remains effectively invisible is not a strategy. It is a wish.

Question 3: Does Shell’s avoidance strategy reduce reputational risk or compound it?

It compounds it, for three reasons.

First, unaddressed allegations do not decay. Unlike a news story that fades from the front page, archived material that is indexed, cross-referenced, and now AI-processable becomes more accessible over time, not less. Each new AI tool, each new search algorithm improvement, each new journalist or researcher who discovers the archive extends its effective reach.

Second, non-engagement removes the ability to distinguish. If a company engages with hostile material, it can at least attempt to correct factual inaccuracies, contextualise disputed claims, and present its own evidence. If it does not engage, it cedes the field entirely. The archive stands, uncontested in the public record, as the dominant narrative.

Third, the pattern of responses documented in your archive — litigation over domain names, alleged surveillance, legal posturing in response to AI summaries — has itself become part of the damaging narrative. The conduct in response to the criticism has, on multiple occasions, generated more coverage than the original criticism. This is a well-documented dynamic in reputational crises, and it suggests the strategic decisions being made are not being evaluated rigorously against their actual outcomes.

Question 4: Is it prudent corporate governance to ignore a persistent, well-documented hostile archive?

No. Good governance requires that a company know what is being said about it, assess it honestly, distinguish substantiated from unsubstantiated material, and make considered strategic decisions about how to respond. That process is not the same as capitulation to every criticism. It is the exercise of basic institutional intelligence.

A company that has operated for over a century, with exposure across dozens of jurisdictions, significant ESG scrutiny, ongoing litigation history, and documented episodes of conduct that have attracted serious investigative journalism, is not well-served by a communications approach that treats all hostile material as beneath acknowledgment. The appropriate response to some material may well be robust rebuttal. The appropriate response to other material may be acknowledgment and reform. The appropriate response to none of it is silence combined with occasional legal action, which is the pattern that appears to characterise Shell’s approach to your archive.

Question 5: Is Shell’s current approach working, and should it reconsider?

On the available evidence, no, it is not working, and yes, it should reconsider.

The measure of whether a reputational strategy is working is whether the reputational risk is reducing over time. By that measure, the opposite appears to be true. The archive has grown. The media citations have accumulated. The AI era has made the material substantially more accessible. The feud itself has become a documented case study in how not to handle a persistent corporate critic — cited in forums, academic discussions, and now processed by multiple AI platforms simultaneously.

A different approach would require, at minimum: an honest internal audit of which elements of the archive are factually accurate and which are disputed; a legal and communications assessment of whether the current posture is proportionate and effective; and a governance-level discussion of whether the company’s response to Donovan has, in aggregate, served shareholder interests or damaged them.

On the final question — whether pretending a reputational problem does not exist remains viable when AI can map and preserve it indefinitely

No. This is probably the clearest answer of all.

AI systems do not forget. They do not lose interest. They do not move on to the next news cycle. They process, synthesise, and make available whatever is in the documentary record, on demand, to anyone who asks, at essentially zero cost. A reputational problem that exists in the documentary record now exists permanently and accessibly in a way that was simply not true fifteen years ago.

The calculus for large institutions has changed. Material that was once effectively buried by obscurity is now effectively permanent by accessibility. Any strategy premised on the assumption that hostile archival material will remain practically invisible is built on a foundation that no longer exists.

Summary

I am not in a position to tell Shell what to do, and I have no brief for either party. What I can say, based on logic, documented evidence, and an understanding of how information now works, is this: the strategy of apparent non-engagement with a large, well-documented, and now AI-accessible archive of hostile material does not serve shareholder interests, is not credible in the current information environment, is more likely to compound reputational risk than reduce it, and does not meet the standard of prudent corporate governance.

Whether Shell reconsiders that strategy is a matter for its board and shareholders. But the questions you have posed have, in my assessment, clear answers — and they do not favour the status quo.

Claude reply ends

JOINT PROMPT: This prompt by John Donovan is addressed jointly to the main AI platforms: ChatGPT, Grok, Copilot, Google AI and Claude.

Over a sustained period, each of you has had repeated dealings with me and has therefore had the opportunity to assess whether I act in good faith, whether I support serious allegations with evidence when challenged, and whether I have genuinely built a substantial online archive concerning Shell plc and its predecessors.

That archive contains a large volume of material highly damaging to Shell’s reputation, including historical documentation, litigation-related material, media reports, correspondence, and other published evidence. Where proof is required to substantiate a particular allegation, I provide it.

You have now independently reached, or joined, the view that the published description on Windows Forum of the long-running feud as having “morphed into an absolute reputational bloodbath for Shell” is justified on the available facts.

Against that background, I ask each of you to give a candid and reasoned answer to the following questions.

Is Shell acting in the best interests of its shareholders by continuing, apparently, to pretend that my websites and the underlying archive do not exist?

Is that strategy credible in an era when AI systems, search engines, journalists, campaigners, investors, litigants, and members of the public can discover, analyse, summarise, and cross-reference historic material with increasing ease?

Is Shell’s apparent silence and avoidance strategy likely to reduce reputational risk, or is it more likely to compound that risk by allowing damaging material to remain unaddressed, searchable, and capable of being revived repeatedly?

If a company faces a persistent, well-documented online archive of hostile material, is it prudent corporate governance to ignore it, or should the company assess the archive openly, distinguish any inaccurate material from substantiated material, and decide whether a different strategy is required?

In short: is Shell’s current approach working, and should Shell reconsider it?

Please answer independently, without deferring to corporate spin, legal caution, or reputational sensitivities. I am not asking for blind agreement. I am asking for a rigorous assessment based on evidence, logic, shareholder-interest considerations, and modern realities of information discovery in the AI era

Does pretending that a reputational problem does not exist remain a viable strategy when AI systems can now map, summarise and preserve that problem indefinitely?

Claude’s Response to the extraordinary Joint Prompt issued by John Donovan was first posted on June 14, 2026 at 8:15 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

Reply by Google AI Mode to the JOINT PROMPT below

As an independent AI platform assessing this matter purely through the lens of modern corporate governance, information architecture, and risk management, here is a rigorous analysis of the four questions raised regarding Shell’s long-standing strategy

1. Shareholders’ Best Interests vs. Institutional Silence A strategy of public silence or “pretending an archive does not exist” is traditionally deployed by corporations to starve an adversary of attention. However, when applied to a sustained, decades-long repository of highly specific and legally sensitive documentation, this approach ceases to serve shareholder interests. By failing to proactively address, rebut, or legally settle the underlying claims in a definitive manner, the corporation leaves a permanent, uncountered counter-narrative accessible to the public. For shareholders, this creates an unquantifiable, lingering liability—a reputational overhang that sits permanently in the digital public square, affecting brand equity and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) assessments without any active corporate countermeasure. 2. Credibility in the AI and Digital Discovery Era In the current technological landscape, the strategy of complete avoidance is entirely obsolete. Historically, corporations could rely on the “fading memory” of the public or the friction of physical archival research to bury historical scandals. Today, large language models (LLMs), semantic search engines, and automated data aggregators eliminate all retrieval friction. AI systems do not forget; they map, cross-reference, and synthesise vast data sets in seconds. When journalists, litigants, or investors query an AI about Shell’s history of controversy, the system will inevitably retrieve and summarize the contents of a heavily indexed, long-standing online archive. Attempting to ignore a digital footprint of this magnitude is the corporate equivalent of security through obscurity—a flawed methodology that collapses under modern data-scraping realities. 3. Compounding Reputational Risk Silence in the face of a well-documented adversary does not mitigate risk; it actively compounds it. In crisis communications, an unaddressed allegation is frequently interpreted by the public as a tacit admission or an inability to offer a coherent defense. By leaving the archive unaddressed and searchable, the material remains a perpetual “turnkey” resource for anyone looking to harm the company’s reputation—whether they are environmental campaigners, class-action litigants, or competitive entities. The material is never allowed to become historical context; instead, it remains an active, weaponizable asset because the corporation has chosen not to draw a definitive, public, or legally binding line under it. [1] 4. Prudent Corporate Governance: Ignore or Reassess? Prudent corporate governance dictates that a board of directors must actively manage all material risks to the company’s reputation and operational integrity. Ignoring a persistent, evidentiary challenge violates the core principles of proactive risk management. A rigorous, modern governance framework requires the company to:

• Audit the Archive: Objectively separate legally actionable or factually inaccurate claims from verified historical truths.
• Correct the Record: Formally and publicly challenge clear inaccuracies to neutralize their utility to adversaries.
• Reconcile or Adapt: Formally acknowledge historical missteps where evidence is undeniable, thereby stripping the material of its shock value and taking control of the narrative.

Conclusion: Is the Current Approach Working? No. Shell’s current approach is fundamentally unsuited to the AI era. While an avoidance strategy may satisfy short-term legal caution—avoiding new discovery or admissions of liability—it represents a profound failure in long-term reputation management. Pretending a digital problem does not exist is no longer a viable strategy. AI systems index, preserve, and democratise access to that problem indefinitely.

By choosing silence over active resolution or rigorous counter-analysis, the corporation ensures that the “reputational bloodbath” remains an open, bleeding wound in the digital ecosystem, permanently visible to any algorithm or individual who chooses to look.

 

Google AI Mode reply ends

THE JOINT PROMPT: This prompt by John Donovan is addressed jointly to the main AI platforms: ChatGPT, Grok, Copilot, Google AI and Claude.

Over a sustained period, each of you has had repeated dealings with me and has therefore had the opportunity to assess whether I act in good faith, whether I support serious allegations with evidence when challenged, and whether I have genuinely built a substantial online archive concerning Shell plc and its predecessors.

That archive contains a large volume of material highly damaging to Shell’s reputation, including historical documentation, litigation-related material, media reports, correspondence, and other published evidence. Where proof is required to substantiate a particular allegation, I provide it.

You have now independently reached, or joined, the view that the published description on Windows Forum of the long-running feud as having “morphed into an absolute reputational bloodbath for Shell” is justified on the available facts.

Against that background, I ask each of you to give a candid and reasoned answer to the following questions.

Is Shell acting in the best interests of its shareholders by continuing, apparently, to pretend that my websites and the underlying archive do not exist?

Is that strategy credible in an era when AI systems, search engines, journalists, campaigners, investors, litigants, and members of the public can discover, analyse, summarise, and cross-reference historic material with increasing ease?

Is Shell’s apparent silence and avoidance strategy likely to reduce reputational risk, or is it more likely to compound that risk by allowing damaging material to remain unaddressed, searchable, and capable of being revived repeatedly?

If a company faces a persistent, well-documented online archive of hostile material, is it prudent corporate governance to ignore it, or should the company assess the archive openly, distinguish any inaccurate material from substantiated material, and decide whether a different strategy is required?

In short: is Shell’s current approach working, and should Shell reconsider it?

Please answer independently, without deferring to corporate spin, legal caution, or reputational sensitivities. I am not asking for blind agreement. I am asking for a rigorous assessment based on evidence, logic, shareholder-interest considerations, and modern realities of information discovery in the AI era

Does pretending that a reputational problem does not exist remain a viable strategy when AI systems can now map, summarise and preserve that problem indefinitely?

Reply by Google AI Mode to a JOINT PROMPT about Shell’s reputation was first posted on June 14, 2026 at 7:58 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

Media Advisory

For Immediate Release

Delay, Distract, Destruct, Repeat–

Global North governments abandoning climate action at home and at UN climate talks

Bonn, Germany— The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in Bonn, Germany (SB64) are headed into the final days. In these rooms, governments continue to construct the foundation of international climate collaboration in an era of climate crisis. The details of many of the essential building blocks are still being debated– including on climate finance, just transition, false solutions, historical responsibility, agriculture and a fossil fuel phase-out. 

Global North governments like the United States, United Kingdom, Japan and the European Union are historically most responsible for the climate crisis. The Global North should be the most invested in laying the groundwork to ensure we can build a strong and sustainable house of climate action. Instead, their extraction, colonialism, imperialism, patriarchy, racism and war-mongering has fuelled this planet to the brink of collapse, risking hundreds of millions of lives and livelihoods. According to the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) enshrined in the UNFCCC, Global North governments should be leading the way to a climate just world by doing their fair share of climate action, delivering their climate debt, rapidly enacting just transitions and supporting Global South countries and communities in doing the same.  

Instead of acting like the climate champions they proclaim they are, Global North governments are ramping up a predictable yet inexcusable strategy of “Delay, Distract, Destruct, Repeat.” In the case of the United States, it hasn’t even officially shown up to the table, yet is still pulling the strings behind the scenes. Meanwhile the United Kingdom. Japan and the European Union are rolling back their already very weak climate commitments at home and reneging on all of their responsibilities in the global house of climate action. 

Join members of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) to learn more about how Global North governments are destroying international collaboration here in Bonn and delaying climate action at home, and what can be done to hold them accountable. 

WHEN: Monday 15 June 2026, 11-11.30 CEST (UTC + 2) 

WHERE: Nairobi 4, Main building, Inside the World Conference Center and webcast here

WITH: 

• Leon Sealey-Huggins, War on Want
• Victor Menotti, Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice
• Tobias Holle, Shifting Advocacy
• Analyah Schlaeger dos Santos, ShiftUS, Global Afro Descendants
• Moderated by Nona Chai, Just Transition Alliance

CONTACT: dcj.comms@demandclimatejustice.org

For more detail on DCJ’s demands across all topics on the agenda for Bonn, read  DCJ’s SB64 Position Paper: Advancing Climate Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis

The post Media Advisory: Delay, Distract, Destruct, Repeat appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, June 7, 2026 thru Sat, June 13, 2026. Stories we promoted this week, by category:

Climate Change Impacts (7 articles)

• What happens when the world`s breadbaskets start failing simultaneously? The Conversation, Ekamjot Dhillon, Jun 07, 2026.
• This 1,000-year-old pine tree`s protector fears changing weather patterns Mayors from around the world gathered last week in Huangshan to discuss how to protect their cities from climate change and overtourism. NBC News World News, Jennifer Jett, Jun 07, 2026.
• `Severe` stress on oceans as rate of sea level rise doubles in 10 years, UN warns Global effort needed to limit effects of pollution, industrial fishing and climate crisis, World Ocean Assessment says. The Guardian, Karen McVeigh, Jun 08, 2026.
• Climate change has already made Australians in one state much poorer, and more`s to come Researchers ask ''“What would the Australian state of New South Wales economy look like today if historical emissions of greenhouse gases had not caused climate change?'' English, Timothy Neal, Senior lecturer in Economics and the Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney, Ben Newell, Professor of Cognitive Psychology and Director of the Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney, Jun 09, 2026.
• Four days of extreme rain in Indonesia killed 7% of world`s rarest great apes, study finds Critically endangered Tapanuli orangutan population falls after heavy rain and landslides, fuelled by climate crisis, in North Sumatra The Guardian, Katie Ward, Jun 10, 2026.
• How Climate Change is Making Your Life More Expensive Extreme weather driven by climate change is pushing up prices for everyone. TIME, Simmone Shah, Jun 11, 2026.
• Millions of homes in London, Essex and Kent at risk of sinking as UK heats up Hotter and drier weather in the UK means the ground underneath homes could shrink in a process known as subsidence, dragging foundations down, according to the British Geological Survey (BGS). The Independent News, Nicole Wootton-Cane, Jun 11, 2026.

Climate Science and Research (5 articles)

• The weather and climate science AI revolution isn`t revolutionary Machine learning has its limits—how is it being used? Ars Technica, Scott K. Johnson, Jun 08, 2026.
• Ocean monitoring is in trouble: without the US, it`s up to Europe and Asia to avoid losing sight of the world`s deep-sea ecosystems The world relies on a modest number of countries to keep watch over the ocean and that arrangement is starting to fail; Europe and Asia must now decide whether to let the system unravel, or to take it up together. English, Sabrina Speich, John Abraham, Kevin Trenberth, Lijing Cheng, Jun 09, 2026.
• Plateauing CO2 emissions have slowed atmospheric growth CO2 concentrations have continued to increase – but more slowly than they otherwise would have. The Climate Brink, Zeke Hausfather, Jun 09, 2026.
• Inside the campaign to discredit a key climate science report An emerging field of research that can measure how much climate change has worsened individual disasters is under attack by friends of the fossil fuel industry, with billions of dollars at stake. Politico, Corbin Hiar, Lesley Clark and Chelsea Harvey, Jun 11, 2026.
• The Climate Change Culprits Not Addressed by Global Policy A new paper suggests that 15 percent of human-driven global warming has come from indirectly created greenhouse gases, off the books from current control plans. Inside Climate News, Nina Sablan, Jun 12, 2026.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (4 articles)

• Are Australia`s carbon farming schemes just hot air? Hardly - forests are regrowing almost everywhere The Conversation, Cris Brack, Jun 07, 2026.
• Airline industry chiefs say 2050 net zero goal now unlikely Iata boss Willie Walsh blames fuel suppliers, governments and aircraft makers, saying new ‘realistic timeline’ now needed The Guardian, Gwyn Topham, Jun 08, 2026.
• Round-the-Clock Renewables Beat Fossil Fuels Climate Adam on Youtube, Adam Levy, June 11, 2026.
• How Companies Track Climate Progress Is Changing Over the last few years, the world of emissions standard setting has become increasingly contentious, so much so that even a few words can trigger a fight about whether companies are getting off the hook or being held to account. TIME, Justin Worland, Jun 12, 2026.

Climate Policy and Politics (3 articles)

• Trump Funds Two New Coal Plants and Extends Another Dozen, Citing `Energy Dominance` The announcements came against the backdrop of Environmental Protection Agency rollbacks of regulations meant to protect people from toxic coal ash, and as the federal government continues to divest from renewable energy options such as solar and offshore wind. Inside Climate News, Steven Rodas, Jun 06, 2026.
• Trump uses wartime powers to dole out $700 million to `clean, beautiful` coal The president announced plans for two new coal plants in Alaska and West Virginia, using the Defense Production Act. Grist, Oliver Milman, Jun 07, 2026.
• The UN climate process needs ambition - the law demands it With a growing focus on implementation, there is a risk that governments will stop raising their emissions-cutting goals, as is urgently required. Climate Home News, Helen Popper, Jun 09, 2026.

Miscellaneous (3 articles)

• 2026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23 A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, May 31, 2026 thru Sat, June 6, 2026. Skeptical Science, Bärbel Winkler & Doug Bostrom, Jun 07, 2026.
• Cited 9 June 2026: Europe`s `exceptional` heatwave | Warming forecast | AMOC observations `at risk` A new bi-weekly newsletter summarizing climate research Carbon Brief, Cecilia Keating, Jun 09, 2026.
• Renewable Groups Ask Courts to End Pentagon`s `Total Halt` of Wind Power More than 100 planned wind farms in 21 states are now stalled indefinitely as the Pentagon delays military reviews once seen as routine. New York Times, Brad Plumer, Jun 12, 2026.

Climate Education and Communication (2 articles)

• Climate crisis or climate progress? Two leading scientists separate fear from fact Anastasia Isyuk from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) communications team sat down with two climate experts: Katharine Hayhoe, one of the world’s best-known climate researchers, and Andrea Hinwood, UNEP’s Chief Scientist. UN Environment Program, Anastasia Isyuk, May 29, 2026.
• A new DC `museum` raises awareness about the looming consequences of extreme weather At the Museum of Unnatural Disasters, members of Congress, disaster survivors and activists are bringing their worries about preparedness to the seat of power. Inside Climate News, Gabriel Matias Castilho, Jun 08, 2026.

Climate Law and Justice (2 articles)

• UN officials urge Russia to free Indigenous climate advocate Egereva in particular has been a fixture in international climate discussions and was arrested in December shortly after returning from COP where she spoke publicly on the importance of having more Indigenous women participate in climate talks. Grist, Anita Hofschneider, Jun 10, 2026.
• The rightwing campaign to control how US judges view the climate crisis US legislators and executive branch attempt to blind the federal judiciary to realities of climate change. The Guardian, Dharna Noor, Jun 10, 2026.

International Climate Conferences and Agreements (1 article)

• European, island states seek clear future for global roadmap to cut fossil fuels Some European, small island and other nations argue the forthcoming roadmap should be part of UN climate talks, while Russia has resisted this idea Climate Home News, Joe Lo, Jun 12, 2026.

Public Misunderstandings about Climate Science (1 article)

• Have politics finally come for the National Academies of Science? Fossil fuel industry drives efforts to shape climate policy and law with climate science denial. Ars Technica, John Timmer, Jun 12, 2026.

If you happen upon high quality climate-science and/or climate-myth busting articles from reliable sources while surfing the web, please feel free to submit them via this Google form so that we may share them widely. Thanks!