News Feeds

Donald Trump’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rolled into Santa Monica today to hold a hearing on the federal government’s plans to open up California’s coastal waters to oil and gas drilling, floating nuclear power plants (really!), rocket testing, and other questionable uses. Trump is using NOAA to challenge California’s – and only California’s – right to protect its coastlines.

Needless to say, California is not taking this lying down. Tribal leaders, environmental groups, local political leaders, and others gathered in the courtyard for a noon rally before the 2 p.m. meeting to tell the Trump Administration that California’s coast is not for sale.

“We know what is best for Los Angeles County, for California, and for our nation,” argued Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, after arguing that the Trump Administration is intentionally pushing policies that hurt Californians. “If they wanted to really help our communities, they would release billions of disaster aid to help our coastal communities desperate to rebuild their lives after the Palisades Fire.”

At the rally before the hearing, speaker after speaker took to the podium to denounce not just the idea that politics is clouding California’s environmental regulations, but just the opposite: that political concerns were pushing the administration’s attacks on California to the benefit of Trump’s political donors.

“We’ll keep fighting, but we know what’s going to happen today,” stated Congressman Dave Min (D-Irvine). “A bunch of you are going to go in and give your testimony, and this rigged review is going to come to the conclusion that has been preordained.”

Trump’s Plan

The Trump administration is reopening a federal review of California’s Coastal Management Program, raising the possibility that the state could lose some of its longstanding authority to protect its coastline should he succeed.

The program, which has been federally approved since 1978, operates under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. It gives California a role in reviewing federally regulated projects that could affect the state’s coastal resources, including projects in federal waters. The California Coastal Commission, State Coastal Conservancy, and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission all play roles in implementing the program.

That authority has allowed California to challenge or modify projects ranging from offshore oil development to pipelines, desalination facilities and rocket launches. Despite Trump’s claim that the state should lose its rights because of “environmental extremism,” the Coastal Commission has reviewed thousands of federally regulated projects over the decades, but has opposed only a small percentage of them.

NOAA is conducting a new review of the state’s coastal program after Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick accused California of using its coastal authority to obstruct projects favored by the administration for political reasons.

Among the examples cited by federal officials is California’s opposition to expanded SpaceX rocket launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base. SpaceX has been firing test rockets from the base for the last half dozen years. But, the state has asked for more oversight of all rocket launches marines from Vandenberg accidentally fired 155-millimeter artillery shells over a major freeway in Southern California.

State officials, however, argue that the review is part of a broader effort to remove obstacles to the Trump administration’s plans for the coast, particularly its push to expand offshore oil and gas drilling.

Speaking at today’s hearing, Wade Crowfoot, California Secretary for Natural Resources, noted that after states were given greater purview in enforcing environmental standards for projects nearly six decades ago, the states participating in the Coastal Zone Management Act have approved 95% of the federally requested projects. In that same time, California had approved 96% of the projects.

Crowfoot continued with the theme that the federal review is more about politics and Trump’s feelings towards California than about policy.

“Americans across the country share the concerns we do about the health and safety of our coasts. The Trump Administration proposed expanded offshore oil drilling in the states of Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and California. When leaders of three states expressed strong concerns on behalf of their constituents, the federal government backed off those proposals…Yet they continue to target California,” he testified. Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina all voted for Trump in 2024.

The administration has proposed opening federal waters off California to new oil and gas leasing, something that has not happened in decades. It has also sought to restart the Sable pipeline, which has been shut down since the 2015 Refugio oil spill. Recently, the government spent billions of dollars to stop wind farms and other renewable energy projects from being built.

California’s coastal program was already reviewed under the previous administration. NOAA’s 2024 review included public meetings and stakeholder input, and a draft report completed in 2025 found that California had successfully implemented and enforced its federally approved program. The Trump administration nevertheless ordered another review.

If the federal government ultimately determines that California’s program does not comply with federal requirements, it could seek changes to the program or move toward decertification. That could weaken the state’s ability to challenge federal projects and put federal funding connected to the program at risk.

The confrontation is unusual enough that legal experts told the Los Angeles Times they were unaware of another instance in which the federal government had stripped a coastal state of its rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act. What happens in California could therefore establish a precedent for the relationship between the federal government and coastal states elsewhere.

Gabrielino Tongva & Chumash activist and singer Tina Orduno Calderon sings a welcome song at the Rally to Protect the California Coast. To listen to the song, click here. You Can Still Submit Comment

Californians who want to push back against the Trump administration’s effort to weaken the state’s coastal protections have a relatively simple place to start: tell the federal government what you think. You can submit your own comment electronically, here.

While the only in-person meeting was held (or is being held depending when you’re reading this) today, there are virtual meetings tomorrow and Wednesday, August 11 and 12. For more details on those meetings, click here.

“Trump is threatening California’s coast in pursuit of reckless offshore oil and gas extraction to pad the wallets of his corrupt oil cronies,” Newsom said in a statement. “We won’t stand by while Trump sidelines the people who rely on and care for California’s coast. Now is the time to make our voices heard. Give the Trump administration an earful.”

You can read the state’s official comments, here.

Hoo boy. With the approach of what bleakly promises to be "the super-Islamophobic midterms," the Bigot-In-Chief is letting his racist freak flag fly by attacking Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, whose smarts, strength, hotness, accomplished wife and Michigan win clearly terrify him. Cue charges of "communist," "man of hate," and, probs soon, AI slop featuring suicide vests. Meanwhile, El-Sayed, a far sharper tool in the shed, has embraced the charge they represent "(two) America’s": The ads write themselves.

Planet MAGA, of course, is already so delusional Trump just boasted of his "Great Poll Numbers," which now sit at rock-bottom lows of 38% to 33%. For a bunch of hacks led by a fragile narcissist who's never seen a scapegoat he didn't relish, the fantastical goes hand-in-stubby-hand with the fear-mongering: vandals in the Reflecting Pool, domestic terrorists at No Kings, migrant caravans, lunatic Bolsheviks, weird names or just brown-or-black skinned success, more terrifying to many of these losers than any threat of extremism. Enter, in peril, the high-achieving epidemiologist, health official, author and "Muslim boogeyman" El-Sayed. “Expect them to throw the whole bigoted kitchen sink at El-Sayed," says Mehdi Hasan. "This will be the anti-Zohran Mamdani campaign on anti-Muslim steroids."

Unsurprisingly, it began in earnest the minute the good doctor won Michigan's against-the-odds primary against establishment Dem Haley Stevens. He'll face off against GOP Rep. and racist ijiot Mike Rogers, who of course has rushed to call the U.S.-born-and-bred El-Sayed "anti-American" and - pulling the same juvenile "Barack Hussein Obama" crap to undermine his legitimacy - to use his full, scary, def-not-in-Kansas-anymore name Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed. But Abdulrahman, who doesn't suffer fools gladly, has brutally pushed back. "With a name like mine, I never thought running for office would be possible," he said at a campaign event. But if "Mike" wants to focus on his 11-letter (a lot!) first name, he just wanted to remind him, "If you don’t know how to say it, keep the name out of your damn mouth.”

In moronic lockstep, MAGA's bigots, brown shirts and zealots have followed suit with "cartoonishly Islamophobic attacks." They use his full name and say he's a "socialist," which they can't define but anyway he isn't. Anti-trans goon Nancy Mace charges, “Every single Muslim holding public office (is) a Trojan Horse and a threat to national security and our republic," and woe is us when "our granddaughters are wearing burkas to school." Vapid scumbag JD calls him a "crazy" guy who doesn't want Trump's rip-off, oligarch-run "prosperous economy" and flings "personal insults" at Vance's family, though hours later Trump attacked El-Sayed's wife, who is U.S.-born and thus not an alleged Einstein Visa immigrant third wife who somehow after 30 years here can still barely speak English. Maybe it was an Epstein Visa?

As usual, Trump has eagerly led the racist, vulgar charge. Along with a communist man of hate, he's also called El-Sayed a "jihadist" from a rigged, "strictly Third World" state who's "full of shit." It turns out El-Sayed is also "the absolute best at casually burning Trump to the fucking ground": Asked about the barb, El-Sayed snapped back, “At least I don’t let mine go in the middle of the Oval Office." And as with another smart, quick, non-white guy who's way above his pay grade and lives rent-free in his wee puerile mind, he likes to sneeringly recite, often stumbling, the full, scary name of a guy who this time actually would be the first Muslim U.S. senator. Presumably, the ketchup really hit the White House walls last weekend when El-Sayed said he'd had "a really good conversation" with Obama about "what we need to do to win."

Above all, the bigot for all seasons pivots to the trope of anyone Arabic - El-Sayed's parents immigrated from Egypt - being anti-Semitic. "He doesn't love Jewish people," babbles Trump. "He hates them with a passion that burns in his heart." In fact, El-Sayed has plainly, repeatedly said he opposes not Jews but Israel's genocidal policies, AIPAC and the dark U.S. money that abets both: "I believe in equal rights to peace, dignity and self-determination for all people." That call for equality under the law has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, notes Peter Beinart; cognizant of history. he also warns that a political party or ideology willing to be "nakedly bigoted" toward any group of people, in this case Muslims, in order to maintain power would, if the politics were to shift, "do the same thing to Jews in a heartbeat."

Obviously, such subtlety is beyond the dim-witted likes of Trump and his MAGA zombies, who alone could look at Dr. El-Sayed and his (one) wife Dr. Sarah Jukaku, a psychiatrist whose parents emigrated here from India, and see a threat. Both are U.S.-born-and- raised doctors with undergrad degrees from University of Michigan, where they met, and advanced degrees from Columbia and Oxford. In his book Healing Politics, El-Sayed offers a rigorous framework for understanding systemic medical and political failure, and building conditions for lasting healing. He also calls Jukaku his “rock" and praises the "quiet confidence" that led her to work with people confronting pain. "I struggled to learn who I was,” he wrote of their earlier selves. “Sarah did not. She danced with her emotions. I wrestled with mine." The couple has two daughters.

No wonder, then, a needy, hollow rapist, con-man, bully and aspiring tinpot dictator, routinely raking in billions while kids go hungry and stuffed into a cheap tux for his fellow billionaire felons, posted a photo of himself with his tacky, mail-order, call-girl wife in a tight dress with "redacted Epstein files written all over it" - both smirking, "We're richer and be better than you and just ignore our vile name appearing in those pedo files thousands of times" - alongside the other couple, warmly smiling after a pancake breakfast in a diner, El Sayed in a t-shirt, Jukaku in a hijab so she must be a terrorist (though Trump, suspect, is wearing a cat.) The caption for the side-by-side pics, which only the spectacularly tone-deaf Trump could remotely imagine as a mic-drop: "Two VERY DIFFERENT America’s (sic).” Umm. Sure.

Kudos to El-Sayed, prince among men, who didn't even stoop to pick the low-hanging fruit of Trump's "grammatical shitbaggery" - one comment: "What a maroon" - emblematic of a proudly semi-literate GOP somehow come to power in our debased America without understanding how apostrophes work. Instead, El-Sayed went for the meat of the matter. "Yeah, he's right," he told CNN. Swiftly, he embraced the campaign-ready concept of two Americas: "Trump's vision, the one you're living in right now (in) which your overlords are two people who don’t like each other, but join in the interest of making billions of dollars off of you...Or two people who genuinely love each other, enjoyed some pancakes together, and want to come together to build the kind of America where they can raise a family and know that family is going to have the good things."

Those "good things" - health care, good jobs, clean air and water, a relatively level playing field to replace gross inequality, a country where people can live peaceably together "with their sisters and brothers" - are what he and his wife want for their kids, and he wisely gauges most of the rest of us do too. And no, he says, rebutting GOP charges, it's not "radical" to believe people should be able to afford groceries, have health care, partake in free elections. Also, he and his wife actually "like each other," he adds; as to the couple in the "very different" America, "From what I've heard, it's a bit of a rocky road." As mid-terms loom. “They are going to try to paint me as a certain thing, (but) America is a lot bigger than (these) very small people make it out to be," he says. "They all think we won't step up and fight...We fight for each other."

@abdulelsayed

They all think we won't step up and fight... They think they're the biggest, baddest bully on the playground... That they're going to show up and we're going to run away...

In our latest, we talk with Prof. Valena Beety, Professor of Law at Indiana University, about her new book “Pink Crime: Fighting Against the Criminalization of Motherhood, Pregnancy, and Queer…

EWG applauds California’s phase-out of toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s and other diseases Anthony Lacey August 10, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group today applauded the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s announcement that all manufacturers of pesticide products containing paraquat-dichloride have voluntarily cancelled their registrations that allow them to sell paraquat in the state.

The decision starts the phase-out of one of the most toxic weedkillers in use in California agriculture. It’s a major step toward protecting farmworkers, agricultural communities and the environment from a highly toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease, thyroid disease, childhood leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and birth defects.

“California is sending a powerful message that there is no place for paraquat in modern agriculture,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. “The fact is, farmworkers and nearby communities have been unprotected from the health threats of paraquat making this decision long overdue. 

“That, along with the tragic spill in Dorris put the writing on the wall that paraquat’s days were numbered,” said Del Chiaro. 

In March, a large container of paraquat fell from a truck in the northern California town Dorris, spilling roughly 60 gallons of the chemical onto a major roadway and into the surrounding community. Citing the risk of exposure to airborne paraquat releases, officials ordered a lockdown affecting about 600 residents, including those at a local elementary school. 

Del Chiaro praised the California Legislature, in particular former Assemblymember and now Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Calif.) and leading voices like Dolores Huerta that ultimately led to today’s announcement through the enactment of AB 1963 in 2004. EWG sponsored the legislation, which required DPR to prioritize the scientific reevaluation of paraquat.

Using paraquat is banned in more than 70 countries, and earlier this year Vermont became the first U.S. state to prohibit its use. 

“Paraquat is bad news for farmers, farmworkers and public health,” said Del Chiaro. “We applaud today’s announcement and urge other states to follow the lead of California and Vermont and ban this toxic crop chemical once and for all.” 

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Family Health Toxic Chemicals Paraquat California Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 August 10, 2026

Thirty-seven senators recently signed a letter to President Trump vehemently opposing his recent monument reductions and standing up for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. That letter sent a clear message: our national monuments must not be attacked, diminished, or treated as bargaining chips.

But Trump’s attacks don’t stop at monument boundaries. The wild public lands surrounding and connecting many national monuments in Utah are part of the same remarkable redrock landscape and deserve lasting protection.

Please thank your senator(s) for signing the letter while also urging them to cosponsor America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, landmark legislation that would protect more than 8 million acres of wild public land in Utah as wilderness, including lands within the national monuments.

Thank your senator(s) for defending the monuments and ask them to cosponsor America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act

Trump’s attack on the monuments is part of a broader effort to weaken protections for public lands across Utah and the West. The Red Rock bill offers a powerful response: permanent congressional protection for the canyons, mesas, badlands, and other desert wild lands that make this region so extraordinary.

The lands proposed for wilderness designation under the Red Rock bill provide critical wildlife habitat and migration corridors, protect cultural resources, and preserve intact desert ecosystems. Cosponsoring this visionary legislation is one of the clearest ways lawmakers can show they are serious about defending America’s public lands from attacks now and in the future.

Please contact your senator(s) now and ask them to cosponsor the Red Rock Bill. If one or both of your senators have already cosponsored, they’ll just receive a thank-you message.

The Senate sign-on letter is an important public rebuke of Trump’s actions on Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears. Now let’s build on that and make sure Congress protects the surrounding redrock wilderness lands that are essential to the future of these landscapes.

Thank you for taking action!

The post Thank Your Senator(s) for Defending National Monuments in Utah, Ask Them to Cosponsor ARRWA appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

A woman was killed on Market Street on Friday. A recent report shows a higher number of severe and fatal crashes in San Francisco than when the city first took its Vision Zero pledge over a decade ago.

A new study from a coalition including the Vision Zero network and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concludes that the core problem is that cities take the pledge to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries to zero, but then don’t integrate it into all aspects of planning. The “Safe System Success Stories: Proactive Injury Prevention in Transportation” evaluates projects in 13 cities by their ability to reduce crashes. It’s a template for how all cities should look at all projects.

“Across the board, across the city, cities need to make changes and align decision-making and all their funding decisions, all policy decisions, with traffic safety priorities,” explained the Vision Zero Network’s Leah Shahum. “Most cities are not doing that yet; San Francisco is not alone in that.”

More from the study:

Put simply, speed kills. Kinetic energy is the central driver of injury in road collisions. As the amount of kinetic energy in a crash increases, whether through higher velocity or greater mass, the human body is less able to tolerate the forces released. Kinetic energy risk can be managed by reducing how often and how far people drive (exposure), limiting operating speeds and vehicle mass (severity), and reducing how often road users are placed in conflict (likelihood of a crash).

The three levers from the study

According to Shahum, those three safety levers need to be considered in every bit of planning. New York City’s congestion pricing was one successful planning example cited in the study. By charging drivers to enter the city’s most congested area, it reduces the number of cars and vehicle miles traveled, reducing exposure. It encouraged a switch to bicycles. And of course it reduces how often users are placed in conflict “by enabling street space to be repurposed for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Such infrastructure separates pedestrians and cyclists from motor vehicles, reducing opportunities for conflicts.”

Closer to home, San Francisco’s Van Ness BRT also pulled all three levers because it created…

…dedicated, center-running transit lanes, reduced general-purpose lanes from three to two in most segments, narrowed lane widths, added median pedestrian refuges, programmed signals with leading pedestrian intervals, and restricted left turns for private vehicles at most intersections. These changes reduced conflict points, shortened pedestrian crossings, improved transit operating speeds and increased person throughput without roadway expansion.

Projects that don’t meet the safety criteria, she explained, simply shouldn’t be built. Shahum cited an example from Santa Rosa, which nixed a long-planned road-widening because it clearly increased exposure. “It’s not just about a project there or a project here, it’s about changing how we make decisions about widening,” she said. “If a project fails on delivering on safety, you can’t use it as an excuse that something’s been in the pipeline for a long time.”

Shahum confirmed there’s a parallel with equity-based planning, where cities require themselves to ask whether a project exacerbates disparities before it can proceed. Unfortunately, Caltrans and county departments of transportation continue to build projects that are in conflict with Vision Zero goals. Think of all the ramp widenings, which increase speeds and exposure to wrecks.

“City planners need to be unafraid and unapologetic about taking things off their plan and off the funding cycle if it’s not going to improve safety,” said Shahum.

Be sure to check out the report.

This website is dedicated to guiding your participation in both the CSIPM Forum 2026 and the 54th Plenary Session of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS 54). Please visit this web page frequently, as it will undergo regular updates.

CSIPM Forum 2026

Bringing together our collective voice for food sovereignty ahead of the CFS 54th Plenary Session. In-person event for social movements, civil society and Indigenous Peoples’ organisations. 

When: 17 and 18 October 2026, from 8:00 – 18:00

Modality: In-person

Where: Università Roma Tre, Aula Magna del Dipartimento di Architettura.  Rome, Italy. 
Piazza Orazio Giustiniani 4, 00153, Roma https://maps.app.goo.gl/cLRMbKVpDLP9hJnu9

Deadline to register: 4 October 2026 

Interpretation to English, Spanish and French will be ensured. 

We strongly encourage you to book your accommodation as early as possible. 

Register here JavaScript is disabled in your browser. To access our ticket shop without JavaScript, please click here.

JavaScript is disabled in your browser. To access our ticket shop without JavaScript, please click here.

About the CSIPM Forum

Register by 4 October 

The CSIPM Forum is a two day, in-person event that takes place in Rome, Italy,  annually ahead of the CFS Plenary Session. It is open to all interested civil society and Indigenous Peoples’ organisations participating in CFS processes, as well as orgnisations wishing to engage in them. 

At the Forum, participants engage in a wide range of debates to assess past processes, to consolidate common policy positions and to identify key challenges and steps forward in our interactions with the CFS, and other civil society spaces and platforms whose work intersect with the right to food and food sovereignty struggle. This environment enables participants to consolidate, refine, and formalize their stance and key messages, which are subsequently presented at the CFS Plenary Session.

The Forum is also a platform for accountability, where Coordination Committee members openly share updates on their work, achievements, and undertakings.The Forum also hosts a Public Session open to CFS Member States, UN agencies, researchers, students, the press and the general public.  More information is available at www.csm4cfs.org

Agenda

Will be published in early October. 

CFS 54th Plenary Session 

• When and where: : 19 to 23 October, 2026. At FAO Headquarters, in Rome, Italy. 
• Who can participate: The Session is open to members of the Committee, participants and observers. 
• Interpretation:  The Plenary will be conducted in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. 
• Modality: Hybrid 
• Registration: Please register sending an email to  CFS54-Registration@fao.org before 7 September 2026, including the following information: 
  • • • • • • Full name, as it appears in your passport/ ID  
            • Organization 
            • Official title
            • Address
            • Email address 
            • Indicate you are part of the CSIPM 
            • Attach a recent passport-size digital photograph.

Important: Please keep in copy the CSIPM Secretariat at cso4cfs@gmail.com and  betsy.diaz.millan@csm4cfs.org 

Personalized links to access the meeting will be made available by the CFS upon receipt of the above information. 

Visit the CFS 54 Plenary dedicated website for updates. 

What is the CFS Plenary Session

The Plenary is held annually and is the central body for decision-taking, debate, coordination and convergence by all CFS members and participating actors at a global level on issues pertaining to food security and nutrition and on the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security. 

About the CFS 54th Plenary Session

 The Plenary will begin with opening statements by UN high-level representatives, followed by the presentation of the Report “The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) 2026”, a panel discussion comprising regional perspectives on the findings of the SOFI report, the presentation of the outcomes and recommendations of the Second International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD+20), the presentation of the CFS summary report on Collaborative Governance, as well as of the outcomes of the CFS High-Level Forum on Harnessing Artificial Intelligence, Digitalization and Data Governance for Food Security and Nutrition. A Satellite Session on Empowering Women Farmers for Food Security and Nutrition will also be held on the margins of the Plenary. 

 Additionally, the Committee will initiate discussions on the next Multi-Year Programme of Work (MYPoW) 2028-2031, drawing on the Note on Critical, Emerging and Enduring Issues for Food Security and Nutrition prepared by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE-FSN). The Plenary will also be invited to consider and endorse the annual update of the rolling section of the current CFS MYPoW, and to select the theme for the 2028 HLPE-FSN Report. 

The agenda will further include a session to discuss and share views on the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE-FSN) Report on Preserving, Strengthening and Promoting Indigenous Peoples’ Food and Knowledge Systems and Traditional Practices for Sustainable Food Systems. 

In addition to a session to discuss progress, challenges and ways to improve the use of CFS policy products, a Global Thematic Event on Empowering Family Farmers to Strengthen Sustainable Food Systems and Achieve Food Security and Nutrition will take place and will provide an opportunity to take stock of progress in the use and application of selected CFS policy recommendations, while contributing to the objectives of the UN Decade of Family Farming (2019-2028). 

Background documents, timetable and provisional agenda

Visit the CFS 54 Plenary dedicated website for updates.  

The post Registration to the CSIPM Forum 2026 and CFS 54 Plenary Session appeared first on CSIPM.

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Jeff Masters

When a weak 45-mph tropical storm named Harvey moved through the Lesser Antilles Islands in August 2017 and then petered out in the central Caribbean Sea, no one could have suspected that the meager clump of clouds that remained would go on to become the second-costliest weather disaster in world history. But after crossing Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula into the Gulf of Mexico, Harvey was rejuvenated, rapidly intensifying into a ferocious Category 4 hurricane that hit Texas just north of Corpus Christi.

Harvey's true mischief came after it stalled inland as a tropical storm for two days, dumping at least 40 inches of rain across a gigantic area from Houston to Port Arthur — larger than the entire state of Delaware. The storm total of 60.58 inches (1,534 mm) at Nederland, Texas, was the heaviest single amount ever recorded from a tropical cyclone or its remnants in the U.S. With damages of $164 billion (2026 USD) — mostly from flooding, Harvey became a historical catastrophe exceeded only by Hurricane Katrina of 2005.

When all of Harvey’s rainfall runoff rushed toward the ocean, it encountered the blocking influence of seawater being pushed inland by the persistent onshore winds of the tropical storm, creating a significant compound flood event — coastal flooding that resulted from a combination of storm surge and river runoff unable to drain into the ocean because of the storm surge waters piled up against the coast.

A similar setup could cause an even worse catastrophe in the future. Climate change is causing more intense, slower-moving hurricanes, increased rainfall, and higher sea levels. But traditional risk assessment methods typically consider one hazard at a time — ignoring compound flood events — leading to an underestimation of the danger. If we include all the ways climate change will likely increase flooding, the future flood risk along significant portions of the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic coasts is nearly certain to make them unlivable by late this century, even under a moderate global warming scenario.

How climate change worsens the danger

A 2023 study looking at the flooding from Harvey near Port Arthur, Texas, found that 19% of the flood area occurred because of compound flooding. Under a global warming scenario where a repeat of Harvey hits with an additional sea level rise of 0.57 meters (1.9 feet), accompanied by 18% more total rainfall — plausible in 2050 — this area would increase to 33%. A potential sea level rise of 1.6 meters (5.2 feet) and an additional 50% in total rainfall, plausible by 2100, would cause the compound flooding area to rise to 46%, increasing the number of structures impacted by about a factor of 23 compared to 2017, causing tens of billions in additional damage.

Figure 1. Storm-total rainfall from Hurricane Harvey, August 24-31, 2017. Harvey dumped over 40 inches (yellow colors) in Houston, with isolated amounts over 50 inches (pink colors) south of Houston and northwest of Port Arthur. Image credit: NOAA.

There are three main ways climate change can increase flood risk along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts:

1. An increase in the frequency of more intense hurricanes and ones moving more slowly at landfall, which will dump more rain
2. Increased heavy rainfall because a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor
3. Sea level rise

The relative importance of these three factors in a future warmer climate will vary depending upon the location, according to a 2022 study. This study found that across the Gulf of Mexico and Florida coastlines, the increase in rainfall was expected to be the largest driver. For parts of the Southeast and mid-Atlantic, the increase in the number of intense or slow-moving hurricanes would predominate. And along the upper mid-Atlantic and New England coastlines, sea level rise will dominate the future compound flood risk.

Figure 2. The main driver of compound flooding on the U.S. coast. Across the Gulf of Mexico and Florida coastlines, the increase in rainfall is the largest driver (yellow colors), while the increase in storm frequency (of more intense, slow-moving storms) has the largest impact for parts of the Southeast and mid-Atlantic (blue). Along the upper mid-Atlantic and New England coastlines, sea level rise causes the most impact (green). Locations with no clear main driver are labeled NA (gray). (Image credit: Gori et al., Tropical cyclone climatology change greatly exacerbates US extreme rainfall–surge hazard, Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 171–178 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01272-7, open access)

Sea level rise has already led to a massive increase in flood risk

Sea level rise from all causes – for example, human-caused climate change, natural tectonic processes, and subsidence from groundwater pumping — has already led to a massive increase in the risk of damaging coastal flooding from storm surges alone, according to a 2026 study, Human-driven sea-level rise has quadrupled the frequency of coastal sea-level extremes since 1900. Relative sea level rise from all causes made a 100-year coastal flood in 1900 into a one-in-five-year flood or less by 2005 in Key West, Jacksonville, Atlantic City, and Maine. Because sea level rise is accelerating, the odds of coastal flooding will increase even faster than the increases already observed since 1900.

Flood risks are growing

Charleston, South Carolina: What was a one-in-10-year coastal flood in 1901 occurred 17 times in 2025.
Galveston, Texas: What was a one-in-10-year flood in 1904 occurred nine times in 2024.
Atlantic City, New Jersey: What was a one-in-10-year coastal flood in 1911 occurred 10 times in 2024.
Miami, Florida: What was a one-in-10-year coastal flood in 1931 occurred 14 consecutive days during the "king tides" of October 2025.
Key West, Florida: What was a one-in-10-year coastal flood in 1913 occurred an astonishing 26 out of 27 days during the "king tides" of October 2025; what was a one-in-100-year flood in 1913 has occurred three times in the past 10 years.

Data: NOAA

Dramatic rises in compound flood risk are coming

A return period refers to how often we can expect a weather event of a given severity to occur. For example, we use rainfall statistics from NOAA to compute how often a flood with a 1% chance of occurring in a given year will recur — which is defined as a one-in-100-year storm, with a return period of 100 years.

A 2022 paper, Tropical cyclone climatology change greatly exacerbates US extreme rainfall-surge hazard, studied the odds of a truly extreme compound flood event — a one-in-100-year storm surge occurring at the same time as a one-in-100-year rainfall event. Historically, the return period of such an event was about once every 200-500 years along the coastlines of the Gulf of Mexico and southeast Atlantic (up to the Chesapeake Bay), shifting to once every 1,000 years or even less frequently along the New England coastline.

But under an extreme global warming scenario for the year 2100, these odds would generally (with some exceptions, see Fig. 4) increase by seven- to 36-fold in the South and 30- to 195-fold to the north — a massive rise in extreme flood risk. Although this result was for an extreme global warming scenario, the strong signal found implies that a significant increase in extreme flood risk would occur even in a moderate global warming scenario.

Figure 3. The return period in years in 2005 for what was a one-in-100-year flood in 1900 because of relative sea level rise. Data is plotted from the 2026 paper, Human-driven sea-level rise has quadrupled the frequency of coastal sea-level extremes since 1900. For example, a 100-year coastal flood in 1900 in Jacksonville, Florida, and Atlantic City, New Jersey, was a one-in-two-year flood by 2005 (red circles with the number "2" in them). This change in flood risk is for sea level rise alone — additional increases in flood risk because of changes in precipitation are not included.

The greatest rises in risk were to the north, because climate change is expected to bring greater increases in extreme precipitation closer to the poles. This was also the finding of a 2020 study, More meteorological events that drive compound coastal flooding are projected under climate change, which predicted that the greatest increases in compound flood threat should occur north of 40°N latitude.

Figure 4. The change in return period for an extreme compound flood, defined as a one-in-100-year storm surge occurring at the same time as a one-in-100-year rainfall event, under an extreme global warming scenario. Left side of table: the return period in the historical climate (1980-2005). Right side: return period in the 2070-2100 period under an extreme global warming scenario, using the median value from eight different climate models. The return period increases by a factor of 14 to 265 for these nine cities. Data taken from the supplemental materials in: Gori et al., Tropical cyclone climatology change greatly exacerbates US extreme rainfall–surge hazard, Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 171–178 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01272-7.

Main cause of future increased compound coastal flood risk: more intense and slower-moving hurricanes

The model used in the 2022 study projected that the top 10% of most intense hurricanes would, along the majority of the U.S. coast, increase in intensity by 15-30% and move 20-30% slower in the future compared to the historical period. “The increase in storm intensity coupled with the decrease in translation speed drives an increased likelihood to observe both extreme rainfall and extreme storm tide in the future,” the authors wrote. 

A substantial inland compound flood risk along the Gulf of Mexico coast

Rivers draining into the Gulf of Mexico have seen large increases in their maximum streamflow in recent decades (commonly 20-40% increases), making them susceptible to increased compound flooding. A 2021 paper found long-term increases in the frequency of compound storm surge and heavy rainfall flooding along the rivers of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Surprisingly, these compound flood events were largest a good distance inland, near the limit of where tidal influences stopped — not at the coast where compound events are usually expected. A 2026 study focused on North and South Carolina also found a considerable expansion of the threat of compound flooding inland in a future warmer climate.

A Hurricane Sandy-like compound flood event: five times more likely by 2100?

Hurricane Sandy in October 2012 caused devastating surge-driven flooding across heavily populated coastal areas in New York City, resulting in more than $91 billion (2026 USD) in damages. A 2024 paper, Climate Change Contributions to Increasing Compound Flooding Risk in New York City, found that a Sandy-like event can be expected about once every 150 years in the present climate. But climate change — through sea level rise and an increase in hurricane strength and rainfall — can be expected to make a similar storm about a one-in-65-year event by 2050, and a one-in-30-year event by 2100, under an emissions scenario slightly higher than the trajectory humanity is currently on.

Increased compound flood threat from hurricanes earlier in the season

A 2022 paper, Earlier onset of North Atlantic hurricane season with warming oceans, found that initial threshold dates of continental U.S. named storm landfalls have trended earlier by two days per decade since 1900. Modeling work suggests that the length of hurricane season will continue to increase because of climate change. A 2017 study found that a hurricane season that was two months longer (May-December) would increase the number of flood-risk days by 28-180% along rivers in four Southeast U.S river basins.

Figure 5. Predicted water levels at the Carrollton gage on the Mississippi River in New Orleans as of July 10, 2019. The river was running high, at 16 feet above sea level, and the city’s levees protect the city to a height of 20 feet. The storm surge from Hurricane Barry was predicted to reach that level on July 13. The last time water levels that high were observed at this point on the Mississippi was in the Great Flood of 1927. Image credit: NOAA.

As I wrote in a 2019 post, New Orleans’ Achilles Heel: A Hurricane Storm Surge During a Mississippi River Flood?, a trend toward earlier hurricanes increases the risk of storm surge moving up the Mississippi River that could overwhelm the levees in New Orleans, since the river tends to run high in late spring and early summer. This situation was feared in July 2019, when Hurricane Barry sent a storm surge up the river when the river was already running high from early-summer runoff (Fig. 5). Fortunately, Barry ended up delaying its intensification into a hurricane until after it passed the mouth of the Mississippi, resulting in a storm surge that was not as high as initially forecast.

Other compound hurricane threats

Climate change is likely to make two other types of compound hurricane threats more severe. One of these was covered in my previous post, The emerging danger of post-hurricane heat waves (2026). In addition, more intense hurricanes with higher winds and heavier rains have the potential to create a double-whammy of high-end wind damage and extreme inland flooding simultaneously, overwhelming infrastructure and emergency preparedness and response efforts that could have handled one of these hazards alone, but not both together.

A preprint of a 2026 paper that has not yet undergone peer review, Global Warming Amplifies Inland Compound Risks From Tropical Cyclones, found that when comparing the recent climate (1981-2020) with an extreme climate-change projection for later this century (2061-2100), the annual probability of compound wind and precipitation extreme hazards ranking in the 99th percentile globally increases by 61-115% within 100 kilometers of the coast, and further escalates by 92-204% in areas 100-500 kilometers inland. This inland amplification is driven by more intense landfalling hurricanes and the increased moisture available caused by the 7% increase in water vapor holding capacity of the air per degree Celsius of warming. Hurricane Helene’s impact in 2024 in western North Carolina can be regarded as a harbinger storm in this regard.

Coastal areas becoming unlivable

A 2020 paper, Sea-level rise exponentially increases coastal flood frequency, found that for the most susceptible sites around the U.S., the odds of a one-in-50-year coastal flood “are likely to double approximately every five years into the foreseeable future.” This finding took into account not just storm surges from hurricanes but also from more common coastal storms such as Nor'easters. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, most coastal engineering works in the U.S. are designed for return periods of 50 to 100 years, so the increase in flood risk at so many sites represents a drastic increase in vulnerability. And if high-end sea-level rise projections of one meter (3.28 feet) by 2100 come true, sea-level rise will likely cause "once-in-a-lifetime" coastal flooding events to occur nearly every day before 2100. (NOAA's 2022 sea level rise forecast gives 50% odds that sea level rise along the contiguous U.S. coast by 2100 will exceed 0.7 meters.)

Figure 6. The return period in years in 2050 for what was a one-in-100-year flood in 2005 because of relative sea level rise. Data is plotted using data from the 2020 paper, Sea-level rise exponentially increases coastal flood frequency, in combination with observed and predicted sea level rise from The Virginia Institute of Marine Science annual Sea Level Rise Report Cards. For example, a one-in-100-year coastal flood in 2005 in Key West, Florida, is predicted to recur every 0.04 years (two weeks) by 2050 (red circle with the number "0.04" in it). This change in flood risk is for sea level rise alone — additional increases in flood risk because of changes in precipitation are not included. The forecasts out to 2050 are generated using the observed acceleration trend fitted with a quadratic curve (since sea level rise is increasing exponentially, and a straight-line linear fit is not appropriate). Note that these forecasts are not based on a climate model and may be underestimated.

If we now add in the massive additional increase in flood risk resulting from compound flooding, good luck trying to insure your home. The huge increase in climate change-induced flood risk from sea level rise, heavier rainfall, and stronger/slower-moving hurricanes is nearly certain to force abandonment of portions of the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic coasts by late this century, even under a moderate global warming scenario. A 2026 study, The Growth Effects of Natural Disasters: Evidence From A Novel Global Dataset Over 1970-2023, found that a one-in-100-year flood reduces GDP by about 0.5%, so it is easy to see how the coast could quickly become unlivable if once-in-a-lifetime floods are occurring nearly yearly in low-lying regions. Indeed, hurricane flooding has already led to the unofficial abandonment of several U.S. communities, and a number of others are already at significant risk, which I will detail in a series of future posts (spoiler alert: Barrier islands are high on the list).

https://bsky.app/profile/drjeffmasters.bsky.social/post/3mnhxhqjjtc2g

The only recourse we will have is to spend vast amounts of money to defend the most important places and retreat from or abandon the rest. A society-shaking mass migration of millions of Americans away from the coast is inevitable in future decades because of increased climate change-induced flood risk. The trigger for the beginning of this exodus may be only a few years away. To understand what’s coming, I recommend reading my 2024 post, When will climate change turn life in the U.S. upside down?

Related posts on sea level rise

• Book review: “On the Move” is a must-read account of U.S. climate migration (2024)
• Book review: “The Great Displacement” is a must-read (2023)
• Part one of my three-part sea level rise series: How fast are the seas rising? (2023)
• Part two of my three-part sea level rise series: Eight excellent books on sea level rise risk for U.S. cities (2023)
• Part three of my three-part sea level rise series: 30 great tools to determine your flood risk in the U.S. (2023)
• Bubble trouble: Climate change is creating a huge and growing U.S. real estate bubble (2023)
• How sea level rise contributes to billions in extra damage during hurricanes (2022)

Bob Henson contributed to this post.

This article first appeared on Yale Climate Connections and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

//

In 2026, Bryant Dossman, PhD, joined Audubon as the new director and principal scientist of the Audubon Everglades Research Station (AERS) in Tavernier. Hailing from Newark, New Jersey, his...

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES SLF-2007-025 The Sakhalin Papers XV: The $20 Billion Shock — When Shell’s Flagship Project Blew Its Budget

Archive reference: SLF-2007-025
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal records: Shell Stock Exchange Release of 15 May 2003; Shell Sakhalin II Project Schedule and Cost Update of 14 July 2005; Royal Dutch Shell Annual Report and Form 20-F for 2005; Shell SEC filings of 21 December 2006
Supporting record: Contemporaneous financial and energy-industry reporting; Russian government statements; later English High Court proceedings concerning proposed UK export-credit support
Evidence standard: Shell’s own filings are treated as the primary record for Shell’s estimates and corporate position. Russian government claims, press interpretations and allegations concerning political motivation are identified as such. No court is represented as having adjudicated responsibility for the Sakhalin II cost overrun.

Introduction

On 15 May 2003, Shell publicly presented Sakhalin II Phase 2 as an approximately $10 billion investment.

The scale was extraordinary. Shell described it as the largest single foreign direct investment project in Russia and what was then thought to be the world’s largest integrated oil and gas development. First LNG cargoes were planned for the second half of 2007. Shell held 55% of Sakhalin Energy Investment Company, with Mitsui holding 25% and Mitsubishi 20%.

Just over two years later, on 14 July 2005, Shell issued another formal Stock Exchange release.

The estimated cost was no longer approximately $10 billion.

Sakhalin Energy now provisionally anticipated Phase 2 investment costs “of the order of $20 billion”, including planned development and drilling activity through 2014. LNG deliveries were pushed into the summer of 2008. Shell emphasised that the estimate remained under review, but the scale of the change was unmistakable.

The number had effectively doubled.

And under Sakhalin II’s unusual Production Sharing Agreement, this was not merely Shell’s problem.

It was about to become Russia’s problem too.

The $10 Billion Project

The documentary starting point is unusually clear.

Shell’s May 2003 Stock Exchange release, subsequently lodged with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, stated that Sakhalin Energy had received shareholder support to launch Phase 2. The project’s Supervisory Board, which included representatives of both the company and the Russian Federation, had unanimously approved the development proposal.

Shell put the required investment at approximately $10 billion.

That development involved two new offshore platforms, a gas-processing facility, roughly 850-kilometre oil and gas pipeline systems, an oil export terminal and Russia’s first LNG plant, designed to produce 9.6 million tonnes of LNG annually. First LNG was planned for the second half of 2007.

Mitsui’s own SEC-filed announcement on the same date independently recorded a total Phase 2 development budget of approximately $10 billion and LNG shipments beginning in 2007.

There is therefore little ambiguity about the publicly announced baseline.

Approximately $10 billion was the figure attached to the investment decision.

14 July 2005

Shell’s formal announcement two years later was carefully worded.

Sakhalin Energy “provisionally” anticipated investment costs around $20 billion. The estimate was described as work still in progress and subject to shareholder review and confirmation. The figure covered planned development activity, including drilling through 2014.

But the announcement was nevertheless extraordinary.

A project publicly associated with a $10 billion investment decision in 2003 was now carrying a provisional estimate approximately twice that size.

Shell also moved expected LNG deliveries to summer 2008.

The company said Sakhalin Energy and its shareholders were pursuing mitigation measures and would work with Russian authorities and state experts on revised plans and budgets.

This last point would prove important.

The revised budget could not simply remain an internal Shell accounting exercise.

Russia was one of the parties whose approval mattered.

Shell’s Own Diagnosis

Contemporaneous reporting provides additional detail about what Shell executives believed had gone wrong.

The Guardian reported on 15 July 2005 that Malcolm Brinded, then head of Shell’s Exploration and Production business, attributed the escalation to a combination of currency movements, rising steel costs, difficulties associated with pipeline river crossings and environmental permitting. He acknowledged that the project’s budget and timetable had been materially underestimated.

Industry reporting similarly recorded that the $20 billion estimate was being treated by Shell as a provisional revision requiring further review rather than a finally approved project budget.

This distinction matters.

The July announcement did not mean that the Russian government had already approved $20 billion of recoverable expenditure under the Production Sharing Agreement.

It meant Shell and Sakhalin Energy had concluded that the project they were building was likely to cost dramatically more than previously expected.

Approval of the revised plans and budget remained another matter.

The Annual Report Removes Any Doubt

By the time Royal Dutch Shell published its 2005 Annual Report and Form 20-F, the language had become more direct.

Shell recorded that Sakhalin Energy had announced Phase 2 investment costs estimated at $20 billion and described the change as representing “very substantial cost overruns” compared with previous estimates. The same report stated that construction was approximately 60% complete by the end of 2005 and that LNG deliveries were expected to begin in 2008.

Chief Executive Jeroen van der Veer went further in his introductory message.

He acknowledged “large cost overruns” on Sakhalin II and said Shell intended to learn lessons from them.

This is therefore not a cost-overrun allegation derived from environmental campaigners, hostile journalists or Russian officials.

Shell itself recorded the overruns in its audited corporate reporting.

The argument begins only when one asks why they happened, who should bear them and what consequences followed.

Not Every Extra Dollar Was an Environmental Cost

It would be misleading to imply that the doubling arose principally from the Western gray whale controversy discussed in SLF-2007-024.

Shell and contemporary reports identified a much wider set of pressures: steel and other materials inflation, contractor costs, foreign-exchange movements, Russian inflation, difficult frontier construction conditions, river crossings, engineering challenges and regulatory requirements.

The project itself was immense.

Two offshore platforms had to operate in a region of severe weather, seismic risk and sea ice. Twin pipeline systems crossed most of Sakhalin Island. Processing, liquefaction and export facilities were being created on a scale Russia had not previously attempted for LNG.

Environmental changes, including pipeline-routing and permitting issues, formed part of that history.

They were not the entire explanation.

That evidential boundary is important.

The Most Awkward Week in the Timeline

The timing of the cost announcement created an additional problem for Shell.

In early July 2005 — only days before the $20 billion disclosure — Shell and Gazprom had agreed the broad principles of an asset swap.

Under the proposed arrangement, Gazprom could acquire 25% plus one share of Sakhalin II while Shell would receive a 50% interest in Gazprom’s Zapolyarnoye-Neocomian development. Any difference in valuation would be balanced with cash or other assets. Shell’s 2005 Annual Report subsequently recorded those terms.

Then came the cost announcement.

Contemporaneous reporting recorded an immediate reassessment by Gazprom of the proposed transaction’s valuation. UPI reported that Gazprom demanded reconsideration of the swap terms after Shell disclosed the scale of the cost increase.

This sequence has sometimes invited suspicions about what Gazprom knew and when.

The available record requires caution.

Shell told journalists that Gazprom had been informed before the public announcement that costs were rising. The evidence examined here does not establish that Shell deliberately concealed the scale of the overrun from Gazprom while negotiating the swap.

What is established is the sequence:

the proposed asset swap was announced;

the $20 billion estimate became public shortly afterwards;

and the valuation of the proposed transaction immediately became contentious.

The original swap was never completed in the form envisaged that July.

Why Russia Cared About Shell’s Costs

Sakhalin II was being developed under a Production Sharing Agreement signed in 1994.

Sakhalin Energy’s own description of that agreement states that the Russian Federation retained sovereign ownership of the oil and gas resources while Sakhalin Energy supplied the investment needed to explore and develop them. The PSA replaced much of the conventional tax-and-licence framework with contractual arrangements governing the project over its lifetime.

By 2006, the size and recoverability of Sakhalin II expenditure had become a direct point of confrontation with Moscow.

Russian Natural Resources Minister Yuri Trutnev publicly said that plans to increase reimbursable costs were unacceptable to the Russian side and warned that Russia could lose billions if project expenditures continued to rise. Those statements were Russian government claims about the financial consequences; they were not independent audited findings establishing a precise loss to the Russian state.

But Shell’s later filings confirm that cost recovery itself became a subject requiring agreement with the Russian authorities.

That is the crucial documentary fact.

From Project Overrun to State Dispute

This is where Sakhalin II ceased being an ordinary megaproject cost story.

If Shell had merely been constructing an entirely private project at its own financial risk, the principal questions would have concerned shareholder returns and project economics.

But Sakhalin II operated under a contract with the Russian Federation.

Accordingly, arguments over which expenditures belonged in the project budget and how those costs should be treated under the PSA had consequences for both investors and the state.

By September 2006, Russian officials were publicly connecting the cost escalation with their wider dissatisfaction over Sakhalin II. Oil & Gas Journal recorded Trutnev’s objection to increased reimbursable costs and his assertion that Russia was obliged to protect its interests.

Contemporaneous press reporting increasingly described the dispute as involving both environmental compliance and economics. The Wall Street Journal reported that Russian authorities were explicitly linking their scrutiny of Sakhalin II with the project’s cost overrun.

The motives behind the later regulatory campaign remain contested.

The existence of the budget dispute does not.

The Financing Context

There was another audience watching Sakhalin II’s mounting problems: international lenders and export-credit agencies.

Shell had been seeking major external financing for the development. The subsequent English High Court judgment in Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth recorded that approximately $650 million in UK-backed project finance support had been sought and that the scheme was regarded by ECGD as sufficiently complex and sensitive to require consultation across government departments.

That litigation concerned access to environmental information.

It did not adjudicate the Sakhalin II cost overrun or determine whether Shell had mismanaged the project.

But the judicial record demonstrates how extensively the project was being scrutinised outside Shell and Russia while its cost estimate was escalating.

Commercial lenders, state export-credit agencies, environmental experts, Shell’s shareholders and the Russian authorities were all examining different aspects of the same development.

A $10 billion revision was impossible to isolate from that wider scrutiny.

Shell Was Still Committed

Despite the scale of the problem, Shell did not publicly retreat from Sakhalin II.

Its July 2005 filing stressed the substantial resource base — 17.3 trillion cubic feet of gas and one billion barrels of oil — and noted that more than 75% of LNG capacity had already been sold under long-term contracts. Construction was already well advanced.

Malcolm Brinded said Shell remained committed to completing the development and delivering value both to shareholders and Russia.

The economics had deteriorated on the cost side, but rising oil and gas prices provided a countervailing benefit. Contemporary reporting records Brinded making precisely that point.

Sakhalin II was therefore not regarded by Shell as an abandoned or economically worthless development.

The problem was how to finish it — and under what ownership, budget and political conditions.

December 2006: The Budget and the Ownership Change Converge

The documentary climax came on 21 December 2006.

Royal Dutch Shell filed two highly significant announcements.

In one, Shell, Mitsui and Mitsubishi said they had reached agreement with the Russian Ministry of Industry and Energy concerning the amended Sakhalin II budget and cost recovery. Shell stated that the Production Sharing Agreement would continue and that the amended Phase 2 budget was expected to receive Supervisory Board approval.

In the other, Shell announced a protocol under which Gazprom would acquire 50% plus one share of Sakhalin Energy for $7.45 billion in cash.

Shell’s stake would fall from 55% to 27.5%. Mitsui’s would fall from 25% to 12.5%, and Mitsubishi’s from 20% to 10%. Gazprom would become the controlling shareholder.

The two developments occurred on the same day.

One settled the immediate argument over budget and cost recovery.

The other ended Shell’s majority control.

That juxtaposition is central to the Sakhalin II story.

This Does Not Prove a Forced Expropriation

The political circumstances surrounding Gazprom’s entry have generated strong language ever since.

Contemporaneous Western reporting frequently portrayed Moscow’s environmental and regulatory campaign as pressure designed to force Shell to surrender control. Russian officials, by contrast, publicly presented their actions as enforcement of environmental obligations and protection of the state’s economic interests.

The documentary evidence examined in this instalment demonstrates intense pressure, a serious budget dispute and a fundamental ownership change.

It does not, by itself, prove that every regulatory action taken by Russia was fabricated solely to obtain Sakhalin II.

Nor does it establish that Shell freely chose the final ownership structure in circumstances equivalent to an ordinary arm’s-length transaction.

Those are questions requiring the regulatory and political record examined in the next files.

The correct documentary position is narrower:

Shell began Phase 2 as the 55% controlling shareholder of a project publicly estimated at approximately $10 billion.

The project’s estimated cost rose to approximately $20 billion.

The Russian government challenged the treatment of project expenditure and cost recovery.

By the time agreement was reached on the amended budget, Gazprom was simultaneously entering the project as majority shareholder.

Those facts require no embellishment.

What Is Established

Shell’s own SEC-filed documents establish that Sakhalin II Phase 2 was publicly associated with an approximately $10 billion investment when the development decision was announced in May 2003. First LNG was then planned for the second half of 2007.

Shell’s 14 July 2005 filing establishes that Sakhalin Energy subsequently anticipated costs around $20 billion, including development and drilling through 2014, and expected LNG deliveries in summer 2008. The estimate was still provisional and subject to review.

Shell’s 2005 Annual Report later characterised Sakhalin II as suffering substantial cost overruns and recorded management’s intention to learn from them.

It is also established that the increased costs became a point of dispute with Russian authorities, particularly over reimbursable expenditure and the project budget.

Finally, Shell’s December 2006 SEC filings establish that agreement over the amended budget and cost recovery coincided with a protocol transferring majority ownership of Sakhalin Energy to Gazprom for $7.45 billion.

What Is Alleged or Contested

Russian officials alleged that the increasing recoverable costs could deprive the Russian Federation of very large sums of anticipated revenue.

Those statements were part of the dispute and should not automatically be treated as independently established calculations.

Western journalists, environmental organisations and other critics subsequently argued — sometimes explicitly — that Russia’s environmental enforcement campaign was being used as leverage to force Shell and its Japanese partners to surrender control to Gazprom. Russian authorities disputed that characterisation and maintained that legitimate environmental and financial interests were at stake.

This instalment does not resolve that dispute.

It establishes the economic circumstances in which it arose.

What Remains Unresolved

The public documentary record does not permit a precise allocation of the extra approximately $10 billion between inflation, currency movements, contractor escalation, engineering complexity, environmental mitigation, regulatory delay, inadequate original estimating and other causes.

Nor does the material examined here establish that any particular Shell executive knowingly approved an estimate he or she believed to be false.

Shell’s own public record supports the conclusion that the original budget and schedule proved seriously inadequate.

That is different from proving intentional deception.

Similarly, the close timing between the Gazprom asset-swap discussions and Shell’s July 2005 cost disclosure raises legitimate historical questions, but the evidence examined here does not establish deliberate concealment of the revised cost from Gazprom.

Those distinctions should remain intact.

Commentary

There is a temptation, looking backwards, to treat the $20 billion announcement merely as another milestone on the road to Gazprom’s takeover.

That understates it.

The cost escalation fundamentally altered the political economics of Sakhalin II.

When Shell committed to Phase 2 in 2003, it was presenting Russia, investors, customers and potential lenders with a development costing approximately $10 billion.

Two years later that number had become approximately $20 billion.

For any megaproject, that would be serious.

Under a Production Sharing Agreement involving a sovereign state, it was explosive.

The consequences reached beyond Shell’s shareholders because Russia disputed how much of the enlarged expenditure should be recognised for project-budget and cost-recovery purposes.

At the same time, Shell was attempting to bring Gazprom into the project through an asset swap.

Then environmental enforcement intensified.

Then negotiations changed.

Then Gazprom entered not as the anticipated 25%-plus-one-share partner but as the owner of 50% plus one share.

It would be simplistic to say that the cost overrun alone caused Shell to lose control.

The record does not support such a single-cause explanation.

But it would be equally difficult to understand the 2006 confrontation without it.

The $20 billion shock changed Sakhalin II from an extraordinarily difficult engineering project into an increasingly difficult political bargain.

And by the end of 2006, Shell was no longer the party holding the controlling hand.

Source Record

The principal documentary records are Shell’s own corporate filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

The 15 May 2003 Stock Exchange release records the Phase 2 investment decision, Shell’s 55% interest, the approximately $10 billion investment estimate and the planned second-half-2007 first LNG cargo.

The 14 July 2005 Shell Sakhalin II Project Schedule and Cost Update, also filed with the SEC, records the provisional approximately $20 billion estimate, drilling through 2014, the revised summer-2008 LNG timetable, continuing budget review and consultation with Russian authorities.

Royal Dutch Shell’s 2005 Annual Report and Form 20-F subsequently described the Sakhalin II increase as a substantial cost overrun and recorded both the Gazprom asset-swap proposal and Shell management’s acknowledgement that lessons needed to be learned.

The 21 December 2006 Shell Form 6-K filings record agreement with the Russian Ministry of Industry and Energy concerning the amended budget and cost recovery and, separately, the protocol under which Gazprom would acquire 50% plus one share of Sakhalin Energy for $7.45 billion.

Contemporaneous reporting from The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, UPI and Oil & Gas Journal provides additional evidence concerning Shell’s publicly stated explanations for the escalation, Gazprom’s reaction and the Russian government’s objections to increased reimbursable expenditure. These reports are used as contemporaneous reporting rather than as substitutes for Shell’s primary filings.

The later High Court judgment in Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin) provides the judicial record concerning proposed UK project-finance support and government consideration of Sakhalin II. That litigation concerned environmental information disclosure and made no finding on responsibility for the cost overruns.

Archive disclaimer: Cost estimates changed over time and were expressed on differing stages of project definition. The comparison between approximately $10 billion in 2003 and approximately $20 billion in 2005 reflects Shell’s own published figures, but the later estimate expressly included planned development and drilling activity through 2014. Russian government estimates of potential losses are identified as government claims rather than independent findings. Nothing in this instalment alleges fraud, deliberate concealment or unlawful conduct unless expressly attributed to an identified source or competent authority. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Next Archive File SLF-2007-026 — The Sakhalin Papers XVI: The Environmental Offensive — When Moscow Turned the Screws on Shell

By 2006, the argument was no longer confined to spreadsheets.

Russian environmental authorities began attacking the physical execution of Sakhalin II: pipeline construction, river crossings, water permits, forestry damage and alleged breaches of environmental approvals.

Shell and its partners faced the possibility that key permissions could be suspended or revoked.

Western governments and journalists increasingly suspected that environmental enforcement was being used to force Gazprom into control of the project.

Russia insisted it was enforcing its laws.

Then something remarkable happened.

Once the ownership dispute was resolved and Gazprom obtained the controlling stake, the political temperature surrounding Sakhalin II changed dramatically.

The next file will examine the actual regulatory documents, the allegations made against Sakhalin Energy, what was genuinely wrong on the ground, what remains disputed — and whether the famous “environmental offensive” was conservation enforcement, Kremlin leverage, or an uncomfortable mixture of both.

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 10 AUGUST 2026 was first posted on August 10, 2026 at 8:51 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

Mines approved with less public input and more environmental risk under Trump

The Trump administration is rushing to permit mines on federal public lands across the west without safeguards to protect our land, air, and water. Mine projects are being fast-tracked without public comment periods or proper environmental studies. Tribal consultation and endangered species protections are under attack. 

State laws and regulations are more important than ever to hold the line in the face of federal deregulation and corruption. But one county in California is considering giving up its control over any project that the Trump administration approves. 

California counties provide local oversight for proposed mines

California law requires that mining projects, including those on federal public lands, go through county permitting to minimize environmental impacts. Mining projects must comply with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act and the California Environmental Quality Act, as well as other state laws and regulations that require tribal consultation, protections for endangered species, and for the Western Joshua tree. 

Taken together, these laws and regulations ensure tribes and the public are informed of potential impacts, and that decision-makers have the best information to protect California’s public lands.

San Bernardino County is considering revising its mining regulation. The County calls this a standard update, but sloppy drafting risks giving up local oversight for projects that have approval from Washington D.C. 

Because federal requirements are weaker than California’s, this means new mining projects will be approved without the public’s knowledge, and with serious impacts to treasured public lands, air, and water. These changes could make it easier for companies like Dateline Resources to mine in Music Valley, on the border of Joshua Tree National Park.

Opportunities to act

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors is holding a public hearing on the revised mining regulations at 9 a.m. on Tuesday August 18th. This is the first of two readings of the mining regulations ordinance.

If you live in San Bernardino County, please take action here and tell the board to deny the ordinance until it is revised.

For even more impact, you can give your oral comment in person or virtually at 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., 1st Floor, Covington Chambers, San Bernardino, CA 92415 or remotely by telephone. Online registration is available by clicking “Register to Speak.”

People who are not San Bernardino residents can help by spreading the word. Please reach out to friends in San Bernardino County to let them know what’s happening.

A mining claim in Music Valley in San Bernardino County

The post Don’t let San Bernardino County permit mines without public input appeared first on Earthworks.

Canada’s public health care system, which provides essential health services without regard to ability to pay, is one of our most cherished social achievements. Indeed, public opinion polls consistently show that medicare is the single feature Canadians most associate with our national identity. Support for universal public health care is thus an important element of Canadians’ response to the challenges to our economy and sovereignty posed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

However, the medicare system is under threat from inadequate funding, long wait times for some services, and ongoing pressure from investors to privatize services. In Alberta, new laws allow parallel private provision of key health care services (including diagnostic tests and some surgeries). Other provinces (such as Ontario) are also pushing privatization. Always underlying privatization efforts is the claim that Canada simply cannot ‘afford’ the big costs of the public health care system.

At the recent summit meeting of Canadian premiers held in Charlottetown, P.E.I. in July, premiers discussed the challenges of financing health care and called on the federal government to hold a national summit on future health funding. At the summit, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford made a presentation to the premiers on the economic benefits of public health care. He stressed that health care ranks as one of the most important industries in Canada: it creates jobs, generates incomes, supports widespread economic spillovers, and is one of Canada’s leading sources of innovation and new technology. These benefits have to be considered alongside the costs of providing essential health services.

Here is the presentation which Stanford gave to the premiers. It drew on findings from a recent report Stanford prepared for the Canadian Federation of Nurses’ Unions, titled The Economic Benefits of Canada’s Public Health Care System. The report quantified the important ways in which public health care supports employment, incomes, economic growth, and government revenues. Seen this way, health care should be redefined as an investment—not just a cost item on provincial budgets.

Key findings from the report include:

• Health care is one of Canada’s largest and most dynamic industries.
• It employs 1.9 million waged or salaried employees, and hundreds of thousands more self-employed practitioners, specialists, and contractors.
• Health care production accounts for about 8% of Canada’s total value-added (GDP), and over 10% of total employment.
• Health care workers earn $120 billion per year in wages and salaries.
• The health care system purchases $51 billion worth of supplies and inputs from a complex and far-reaching supply chain (composed mostly of private businesses).
• Health care accounts for over $7 billion in annual research spending, the second highest of any Canadian industry.
• Because health care is not highly integrated in international trade, it is relatively protected from global disruptions and shocks (like the effects of U.S. trade policies).
• Universal access to quality health care unlocks many other economic benefits including: more flexible labour markets (workers are able to change jobs without fear of losing health coverage), enhanced longevity and well-being (supporting more labour force participation and higher productivity), and improved ‘social capital’ (safe and inclusive communities where interactions can occur more securely and efficiently).

In sum, health care cannot be understood solely as a ‘cost.’ It is also a powerful economic engine: a source of growth, jobs, incomes, tax revenues, and well-being. Understanding and appreciating the economic benefits of the universal public health care system can reinforce public and fiscal support for its maintenance and improvement.

Please see the full report here.

The post Health Care is an Economic Engine, not Just a Cost Item appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

The post How to Report to City of Merced Code Enforcement / Cómo Reportar al Departamento de Cumplimiento de la Ciudad de Merced appeared first on Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability.

On August 7 both Statistics Canada and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released their monthly labour force reports (for July). The stark contrast in the two trends certainly strengthens Canada’s hand in ongoing trade talks with Trump. Canada created 75,000 jobs in July. The U.S. lost 23,000 jobs by one measure (the payroll survey of employers), 87,000 by another (the household survey of workers).

But the longer-term trends also refute Trump’s chaotic economic and geopolitical policies. Since January 2025 (his second inauguration), US employment has declined by 1.0% (by the household survey), the unemployment rate has grown, and the participation rate (which has been much lower than Canada’s for years) has fallen much more.

In Canada, employment rose 1% in the same time, the unemployment rate fell, and the participation rate (which reflects both demographic and cyclical factors) declined 0.4 percentage points (one third as much as in the US). Even in manufacturing, the target for Trump’s tariffs, the US has lost more jobs than Canada since Trump returned to office. This is also true in the high-profile auto sector, which Trump claims should completely relocate to the US: it is losing jobs much faster in the US than in Canada.

Real wages are growing in Canada, but falling in the US. This reflects both strong wage growth here, and slower inflation. 

Trump’s policies were never about protecting American workers. They are about weaponizing popular discontent and misdirecting it against foreigners—rather than against the billionaires whose interests he promotes. The longer he’s in power, the weaker the US economy becomes, the worse off are American workers, and the more dismal do his mid-term prospects appear.

Also, the worse the US economy gets, the weaker is Trump’s bargaining position in trade talks (including with Canada and Mexico). With Republicans down badly in the polls as mid-term elections approach, Trump’s tariff war is losing credibility at home quickly.

In short, Trump’s pledge to use “economic force” to annex Canada is backfiring badly. Labour market trends show both that Canada’s economy is more resilient than most expected, but also that Trump’s bargaining position will weaken as more US jobs are lost to his misguided tariffs.

Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford discussed the July employment numbers, and the contrast between Canada and the U.S., on CBC News Network with host Lien Yeung.

One nerdy data note: The US releases its payroll and household surveys the same day. The series differ for various reasons, such as self-employment & agriculture (not counted in the payroll data), and multiple job-holding (which inflates payroll employment). US household data has been weaker than payroll data under Trump’s second term, in part because it does count agricultural employment (which has been hurt badly by Trump’s repressive immigration policies).

Canada’s payroll data (from the SEPH series) comes out a few weeks later than the household survey data discussed above, so we can’t make a direct Canada-US comparison for payroll employment in July yet. For May (the most recent Canadian payroll data), Canadian payroll employment was up 0.5% from January 2025, vs a 0.4% increase in the US (both seasonally adjusted). That gap will have widened since May, which will be confirmed when the July data comes out for Canada.

The post Canada-U.S. Employment Contrast Shows Trump’s Tariffs are not Working appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

More than 6,500 people have signed a petition demanding that FERC reject the Mountain Valley Pipeline expansion as state concerns remain unresolved.

RICHMOND, VA — On Friday, August 7, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued its Environmental Assessment (EA) for Mountain Valley Pipeline’s (MVP) proposed “MVP Boost” expansion. While the assessment concludes that the project does not “significantly [affect] the quality of the human environment,” critics say the EA leaves a variety of critical questions unanswered. Additionally, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has suspended its review of MVP’s proposed compressor station permit due to inconsistent filings. The DEQ also raised concerns about environmental justice and community outreach to MVP, which the company has not resolved. Now, more than 6,500 people have signed a petition urging FERC to reject the MVP expansion. 

“As a resident in Elliston, we already have the trains, which are a situation in themselves that block us in where we can’t get out,” said Penny Nunes, an Elliston, Virginia resident. “Now we’ve got gas in the pipe. I find it interesting that our firehouse is in the blast zone. You can see from the blast zone: a trailer park, housing development, and ROWE Furniture, a business with about 500 employees. As soon as they put gas in the pipe, I thought about moving. But I am not gonna move. I’m gonna stay here, and I am gonna fight as hard as I can to stop this. And for FERC to do something that Virginia DEQ said is incomplete, that’s one agency stepping on the other. DEQ is right: you got a problem, you gotta fix it. But FERC may just ignore our problem and go on with it.” 

The MVP Boost proposal would drastically increase gas capacity on the 303-mile Mountain Valley Pipeline system and add a new 136,900-horsepower compressor station in Montgomery County, Virginia, near homes, farms, a busy railroad crossing, and an environmental justice community in Elliston. FERC is reviewing the industrial water use associated with this major fossil-fuel project, even as Virginia faces mounting concerns about industrial water use prompting state lawmakers to call a special session on stronger water protections. 

“The people of Elliston, Virginia deserve clean air and a safe, healthy community,” said Russel Chisholm, Managing Director at Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights. “EQT and MVP’s massive Boost expansion and data center fever dreams directly threaten that safety while recklessly pushing the planet toward a future of more fire, flood, and displacement. People everywhere are fighting back – and prevailing – against these greedy projects by saying, ‘Enough is enough.’”

The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors previously found the proposed site unsuitable, citing safety concerns that the evacuation route from the site would be blocked by train traffic. For community members, that one concern does not resolve the bigger question: whether it is appropriate to place a massive fossil fuel compressor station in a community already burdened by pollution and safety risks.

“Time and time again, FERC commits itself to an unreality where massively polluting and unsafe fossil fuel projects somehow pose no significant threat to the environment or the neighboring communities who must shoulder the burden,” said Joshua Vana, Director of ARTivism Virginia. “A rational review of the dangers posed by MVP Boost and its Swann Compressor Station should alarm any conscious person. Whether it be harmful air pollution dumped on an environmental justice community in Eastern Montgomery County, the cumulative impacts of drastically increasing MVP’s methane emissions in a world that’s on fire, or gambling on the safety of an already compromised pipeline – this project is nothing more than another bad idea from MVP, meant to cash in during a time of gross environmental deregulation, nauseating corruption, and an intensifying stench of skyrocketing corporate profits. This project must never be built.”

MVP Boost also comes after years of concerns surrounding the existing Mountain Valley Pipeline, including state violations, safety orders, and construction impacts that residents say underscore why further expansion should not be approved. Community and environmental advocates say the federal government should not advance the project while Virginia’s permit process remains paused and local opposition remains overwhelming.

“FERC is trying to build on a foundation that DEQ has already found to be flawed,” said Zander Pellegrino, Senior Field Manager at Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “MVP wants to lock us into outdated fossil fuel infrastructure and decades of climate pollution when we urgently need to transition to clean energy. It is unacceptable that the company is trying to do so on the back of environmental justice communities that have clearly said they do not want this project in their neighborhoods. FERC should stop MVP Boost and reject this dangerous expansion before it puts more communities at risk.” 

The EA was issued by FERC Friday, August 7, 2026, followed by a comment period ending on September 6, 2026, and a Federal Authorization Decision deadline on November 5, 2026.

###

Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. Founded in 2002, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC.

The post Thousands Urge Feds to Reject “MVP Boost” While Virginia DEQ Suspends Impact Review appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

PEER, DarkSky International, the American Bird Conservancy, and Environment America — represented by Earthjustice — filed a formal Application for Review asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reverse its Space Bureau’s approval of Reflect Orbital Inc.’s Earendil-1 satellite.

Earendil-1 is a commercial satellite that will reflect sunlight back to Earth at night.

The Space Bureau granted Reflect Orbital’s application on July 9, 2026, finding it served the public interest and fell outside the environmental review requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — the federal law requiring agencies to study the environmental effects of major actions on the United States before granting approval.

Selling Sunlight After Dark

Reflect Orbital’s business model is to sell sunlight at night for uses such as replacing streetlights, extending outdoor work hours, and powering solar arrays. To do this, Earendil-1 will unfold a mirror roughly a tenth of an acre wide at 600–650 km altitude and steer reflected sunlight to chosen spots on the ground. A single Earendil-1 satellite is expected to project a beam roughly 5 km (over 3 miles) wide as it sweeps the ground, with scattered light extending further still.

Although Reflect Orbital’s FCC application covers only this one satellite, the company has called this a “crucial testbed” for a much larger operation, with publicly stated plans to scale up to 50,000 satellites by 2035.

Why This is a Problem

In March, PEER and other groups filed comments with the FCC opposing Reflect Orbital’s original application for approval. In last week’s Application for Review, the groups say the Bureau didn’t adequately address a number of issues, including:

• Eye damage — a DarkSky technical report found the reflected light could be intense enough to injure eyes faster than a person could blink or look away.
• Astronomy disruption — the American Astronomical Society warned that even one pass could saturate telescope detectors and cost extended observing time; roughly 80% of astronomers surveyed in 2025 expected satellite constellations like this one to affect their work.
• Aviation and road safety — the Air Line Pilots Association, representing over 80,000 pilots, said Reflect Orbital’s own safety analysis was inadequate to address glare risk to aircraft.
• Wildlife harm — roughly a third of vertebrates and most invertebrates are light-sensitive at night; the scientific record links artificial light to disrupted migration and breeding, threatening species already protected under the Endangered Species Act.
• Human health — nighttime light suppresses melatonin and disrupts circadian rhythms, with peer-reviewed research tying this to elevated risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and certain cancers.

An Environmental Review is Necessary

Our main request is for the FCC to reverse the Space Bureau’s order and require a full, lawful environmental review — an Environmental Assessment or Impact Statement — before Earendil-1 is authorized to operate at all.

At a minimum, we argue, the FCC needs to place 16 binding conditions as part of its approval, including: an independent scattered-light and sky-brightness analysis; exclusions over national parks, wildlife refuges, and other protected or ecologically sensitive lands; blackout periods during peak bird migration and after midnight; a requirement to get sign-off from affected state, local, and Tribal governments; independent, third-party verifications of the actual beam; and the requirement of a full environmental review before any commercial scale constellation could move forward.

Part of a Bigger Fight Over What’s Allowed in Low Orbit

This filing Application for Review is one piece of a broader push by DarkSky, PEER, and allied groups to get federal regulators to properly review the wave of low-Earth orbit projects before the FCC — including proposals for orbiting data centers.

As companies make plans to launch more than a million data centers into space, the FCC must conduct a thorough review of the risks and impacts of these projects to ensure they are not causing irreparable environmental harm to the United States, and if they are, place conditions on these projects to minimize these harms.

With the space rush on, we must not fall blindly into accepting everything the industry and government tells us. Rather, we must continue to act to make sure federal agencies consider all the risks and impacts of these satellite proposals as part of the approval process.

The Application for Review and mitigations annex are now part of the FCC’s public record (ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20250701-00129). There’s no set timeline for a ruling from the full Commission.

Nestled in the misty, snow-capped Himalayas in northeast India, the city of Darjeeling — the famed “Queen of the Hills” — has long been synonymous with its legendary tea gardens.

But tea isn’t the only thing you’ll find on these rolling mountains. A “living fossil” also inhabits this landscape: the endemic Himalayan salamander (Tylototriton himalayanus), whose ancestors roamed the Earth with dinosaurs about 160 million years ago.

At first glance these ancient amphibian survivors, all of 6-7 inches (16–18 cm) in length, look like lizards with elongated bodies and long tails. Their broad, blunt-snouted heads, raised ridges across their bodies, and heavily textured brownish-black skin give them the armored appearance of miniature crocodiles.

Locally called the pani kukur — meaning “water dog” in Nepali — the salamander neither barks nor bites.

“In fact, the creature is so harmless that when you pick it up, it gently slips into your palm without a fuss,” says 80-year-old Nar Bahadur Rai from Basti Gaon in Darjeeling’s historic Margaret’s Hope Tea Estate. What fascinates the smiling village elder most of all, though, is that a species with a “Jurassic legacy” exists near his village.

Dwindling Numbers

The octogenarian recalls that as a child, he would find salamanders in abundance across the hilly wetlands or slowly waddling on moist soil, particularly during monsoons.

The nearly 160-year-old Margaret’s Hope Tea Estate in Darjeeling is home to one of the largest breeding habitats of the Himalayan Salamander. Photo: Prasant Kumar Allay, used with permission.

But today they’re far less common. According to the IUCN, which has assessed the species as vulnerable to extinction, many of the salamanders’ wetland habitats have been drained for agriculture or irrigation, or encroached upon by roads and other infrastructure. The introduction of exotic fish into some of these wetlands and unregulated tourism add to the pressure.

An estimated 5,000 individuals may survive in the wild, based on the latest survey conducted across Darjeeling hills in 2025. The species is also distributed in parts of Bhutan and Nepal in the eastern Himalayas, but hasn’t received as much study in those areas yet.

Protecting this species will require protecting more of its habitat — efforts that experts say may depend on recognizing the salamanders as the flagship species of these biodiverse wetland ecosystems.

A Valuable Burrower

Also called the crocodile newt or Himalayan newt, these amphibians inhabit cool, shaded wetlands and forest ponds along the Himalayan slopes, where they breed from late April through the monsoon. Their straight, muscular tails help them swim, while the knob-like granular glands lining their backs deter predators by releasing a milky toxin. In the nonbreeding season, they hibernate on land, burrowing into the damp forest floor beneath leaf litter, rocks, and tea bushes until the first monsoon showers return.

The “lizard-looking” amphibian hibernates beneath leaf litter, rocks, and tea bushes after breeding, before returning to wetlands to mate with the first rains. Photo: Barkha Subba, used with permission.

“These tiny creatures are exceptional bio indicators; their very presence in a wetland is enough to indicate that the ecosystem around is alive,” explains Devesh Pandey, divisional forest officer, Kurseong (an important salamander area). On land, their burrowing through damp earth, leaf litter, and mud makes the soil porous, allowing rainwater to seep through and recharge groundwater, improving water availability in these hilly areas, he says.

Community Stewardship

Although the species remains little studied, Barkha Subba, scientist at Federation of Societies for Environmental Protection, has been spearheading their protection and habitat restoration for the past few years. Her work brings together government agencies, including the forest divisions in Darjeeling and the West Bengal tourism department, nonprofits such as the World Wildlife Fund-India, tea estates, and local communities.

The efforts earned international attention earlier this year as one of the 2026 winners of the prestigious Whitley Award. Often referred to as the “Green Oscars,” the awards honor grassroots conservation programs across the global south and come with £50,000 ($67,000) in project funding.

Standing knee-deep in a wetland, Whitley Award winner Barkha Subba is delighted to gently hold a Himalayan Salamander between her palms. Photo: Deoashis Thapa, used with permission.

The award will enhance Subba’s multipronged approach toward community awareness and stewardship, which will include salamander protection committees across villages to identify and document new salamander sightings while improving degraded habitats.

And since Darjeeling is a global tourist destination that attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors from India and abroad, she’s also training local youths to educate tourists on keeping salamander habitats free of plastic and garbage.

Habitat Restoration

Unlike many declining species, Himalayan salamanders are neither hunted for food nor sought for traditional medicine. According to Subba, the biggest challenge in conserving the species lies not in protecting the amphibian itself, but its habitat. The animals requires pristine, unpolluted waters to thrive, as they tend to return year after year to breed in the same wetlands where they were born.

“But with most of its traditional habitats getting disturbed, fragmented, or disappearing, its viable population is also gradually vanishing,” she says.

Of the 37 to 40 documented salamander breeding sites studied across Darjeeling hills, Subba notes that nearly 80% lie outside protected areas, within tea estates, village commons, and private lands.

“Conserving the species thus cannot solely rely on protected areas,” she says. “Rather its future depends on trust, cooperation, and long-term commitment of the communities who live around these habitats.”

Salamander’s Hope

One of Darjeeling’s largest salamander ponds lies within the historic Margaret’s Hope Tea Estate, established in 1864. Flanked by gently sloping terraced tea gardens and pine trees, this 39,000 square foot (3,654 square meters) swampy wetland holds water throughout the year, fed by local streams and rain.

“The pond, which was once a large lake and is almost as old as the tea garden itself, has been retained in its natural state, with its natural vegetation intact, and is thus a traditional habitat of Himalayan salamanders,” says Prasant Kumar Allay, manager of the tea estate.

The water of the pond is revered by local communities. However, some people have released exotic fish such as carp and guppies into it — an act believed to wash away one’s sins.

“This has made salamander eggs and larvae vulnerable, as they are eaten by the fish,” says Ramesh Rai, the estate supervisor, who stirred up community awareness of this enigmatic species through an article in a local magazine way back in 2005.

Helping Hands

Today Rai has become an adept at “parenting” the salamander eggs, and he leads his team in their protection.

During the peak breeding season between May and July, when females lay gelatinous clusters of eggs on submerged vegetation in the pond, the salamander team from the tea estate carefully collects them before water levels plunge after the rain,s exposing the eggs to direct sunlight.

“This would otherwise dry up the protective jelly around the eggs and they would die,” says Rai.

Close-up of gelatinous Himalayan Salamander eggs attached to native vegetation in the breeding wetlands. Photo: Barkha Subba, used with permission.

The eggs are then transferred to a temporary pond of 55 square feet (about 5 square meters), with an island of vegetation in the middle. The water levels are maintained to keep the gelatinous coating submerged, where it absorbs water and enlarges, keeping the eggs safe until they hatch, explains Rai. After about 12-14 days of careful monitoring, the hatchlings emerge. Rai and his team initially feed them mosquito larvae cultivated by the estate, and later small earthworms as they grow.

A miniature lake dug to protect salamander eggs relocated from the main breeding site at Margaret’s Hope Tea Estate, with a small, vegetated island at the centre to anchor the eggs. Photo: Prasant Kumar Allay, used with permission. Tea Partnerships

Meanwhile, the species is also found in the tea gardens of Tung and Mirik, besides Nakhapani in Gopaldhara Tea Estate.

“We plan to work as a team with the managers for the protection of salamanders and other biodiversity in the tea gardens,” says Subba. She explains that these efforts will also add value to the gardens’ annual reporting for the global Rainforest Alliance Certification, which verifies compliance with environmental and sustainability standards required for tea exports.

Across these tea gardens, protected areas, private land holdings, and community-managed forests, she and her team are restoring critical salamander breeding sites with different stakeholders.

“We have identified the ones that need immediate attention, having dried up, become silted, or been taken over by invasive plants as reeds or exotic fish,” says Subba.

She emphasizes that the key to increasing the number of salamanders in the wild is bringing back their habitats along with the native vegetation. Invasive species like phragmites and other kinds of reeds are uprooted and replaced with salamander-friendly plants such as sweet flag, knotweed, and watercress. Females attach their delicate jelly-coated egg clutches to the broad, semi-submerged leaves of watercress or the stems of knotweed. These native plants anchor the eggs in the stagnant water above the floor of the pond and protect them from predators until they hatch.

Forest Initiative

Meanwhile the Kurseong Forest Division is also working toward declaring the potential salamander habitats of Namthing Pokhari (a biodiversity heritage site), Panchpokhri, and Pokhritar wetlands as India’s dedicated salamander sanctuaries. According to Devesh Pandey, divisional forest officer, these wetlands have been assessed in collaboration with the Zoological Survey of India for pH balance, toxicity, dissolved oxygen levels, surrounding vegetation, and other habitat parameters.

A few artificial wetlands have also been created, with native species to enhance habitat suitability.

Pandey confirms that while the conservation of the Himalayan salamander is being carried out under Subba’s guidance. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has also sanctioned funds for the proposed sanctuary, with Subba as the project’s principal advisor.

Undisturbed Habitats

Some naturally occurring salamander habitats across the hills have acquired cultural and religious significance over generations. Surrounded by vibrant prayer flags and fed by the pure waters of hilly springs, these wetlands are worshipped by local communities as the abode of deities. Subba hopes reviving this heritage will also help protect these habitats.

“This tends to keep such places undisturbed, clean and peaceful where salamander thrives best,” she says. Three such sacred wetlands — Namthing Pokhari, Tiffin Dara in Pokhriabong, and another within the Margaret’s Hope Tea Estate — are also among the sites selected for restoration with the funding from the Whitley Award.

“The joy of seeing these gentle, slow-moving salamanders is when we leave their habitat completely undisturbed and let them do their own thing; after all they have held onto this Earth for centuries,” says 73-year-old Rajendra Prasad Gurung from Mirik, in southwest of Darjeeling. Gurung owns about 3.5 acres of land that appear unkempt, with verdant native foliage such as sweet flags fringing 4-5 marshlands that have been traditional breeding sites for decades.

In winter when they come to land for hibernation, three or four salamanders even come close to his home, “slipping underneath some of the flowerpots,” says Gurung.

From its undisturbed habitat on Rajendra Prasad Gurung’s land, the rare Himalayan Salamander ventures near his house. Photo: Rajendra Prasad Gurung, used with permission.

That said, there are still challenges. With climate change shifting patterns of rainfall and intensity, sudden deluges sometimes can wash away the eggs. Invasive reeds are taking over parts of his land, which need to be removed for native species to thrive.

Getting Tourists to Help

Spillover of plastic pollution from nearby tourist areas also clogs the marshlands.

Making tourists aware of responsible behavior around the fragile habitats of the species is one of the objectives of the Salamander Initiatives of Sukhia, a local collective formed in 2023, about 75 kilometers from Mirik in western Darjeeling.

Members of the Salamander Initiative Sukhia remove plastic and other waste from a tourist site to keep Himalayan Salamander habitats clean. Photo courtesy: Salamander Initiative Sukhia.

“Many of the salamander’s natural habitats are also places of tourist interest in Darjeeling,” says Furba Tshering Sherpa, who has been working on salamander conservation for 15 years and leads the initiative there.

Located about 6,500 feet above sea level, Sukhia Pokhri is surrounded by the majestic Himalayas, draped in tall pine forests interspersed with lakes and wetlands. One such destination, Majhidhura, which holds 7-8 natural habitats of Himalayan salamander, draws flocks of tourists.

“They tend to spend hours here, making videos or taking photographs amid this scenic landscape,” says Sherpa.

In the process, they often end up littering the area with plastic bottles and food wrappers or brushing away the salt that estate managers use to protect plants from the leeches that abound in the region. Sherpa and his fellow members are often seen explaining the species to tourists through life-cycle charts, videos, and still photographs. They point out how such indiscriminate behavior disturbs the ecosystem and makes the water salty, which may eventually destroy the salamander habitats.

The recently formed Majhidhura Salamander Protection Committee, which works with the Forest Department’s Joint Forest Management Committee, is a step ahead in engaging village heads, local vendors, and taxi drivers catering to the tourists, community members, nonprofits to protect the species and its habitats in the region. The vendors and drivers are being trained to act as tourist guides and regulate the entry of visitors, especially during the three months of breeding season.

Meanwhile the first Himalayan Salamander Festival was held on May 30. The event brought together government agencies, researchers, scientists, conservation organizations, local communities and other stakeholders from across the region to learn of the latest state of conservation and exchange ideas for the future. Organized by FOSEP, the festival aimed to draw up a practical and inclusive conservation action plan, ensuring no one is left out of the deliberations.

“We all thus become the guardians of our salamanders and ensure they continue their ancient legacy,” says Sherpa.

This year’s “Green Oscar” winner, Barkha Subba, could not have been happier.

“The transformation from ‘your’ salamander to ‘our’ salamander today has made my work with the local communities all the more fulfilling and meaningful,” she says with a smile.

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

‘Tortoise Guardians’ Protect Rare Giants

The post Tea and Salamanders appeared first on The Revelator.

Three Interior department staffers told POLITICO they watched officials routinely shred official documents and use disappearing Signal messages, even for routine scheduling, to keep communications from being preserved as the Federal Records Act requires. “They’re terrified of written records,” one former official said. Two other former officials said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum used a private email account for department business. Interior staff described a “culture of secrecy” under Burgum, who wanted to add a secure conference room, or SCIF, near his 6th floor office even though Interior already has a SCIF three floors below.

The secrecy concerns extend to Interior’s own watchdog office. The department has allegedly installed Dennis Kirk, a co-author of Project 2025’s federal workforce chapter, inside its Office of Inspector General, but declined to confirm the hire. Kirk arrives at an office that has had no Senate-confirmed inspector general since January 2025, when President Trump fired 17 inspectors general across the government without giving Congress the 30 days’ notice federal law requires.

“Interior’s watchdog was fired, left vacant for eighteen months, and is now hosting one of the architects of Project 2025. At least five investigation requests from members of Congress are sitting in that office right now, and its integrity has been compromised,” said Center for Western Priorities Executive Director Aaron Weiss. “Congress cannot outsource its constitutional oversight duty to an inspector general’s office taken over by the White House.”

Border wall crews move into Big Bend and onto Tohono O’odham land

Federal contractors began border wall construction work inside Big Bend National Park on August 4, prompting Texas lawmakers to call for a pause. Days later, the Tohono O’odham Nation in Arizona posted no-trespassing notices against border wall contractors on Tribal land and said it may pursue arrests, escalating a long-running fight over construction on Tribal territory.

Quick hits Lake Mead hits lowest water level on record as Colorado River crisis deepens

CNN

Opinion: My hometown went up in flames. It won’t be the last

New York Times

Meet the army of amateur archivists racing to save US history in national parks

The Guardian

Trump says there was ‘some contractor error’ during Reflecting Pool renovation

The Hill

‘No Trespassing’: Tohono O’odham Nation warns border wall contractors

Arizona Republic | 12 News

Opinion: The assault on public land is accelerating. Idaho’s votes can stop it

Idaho Statesman

Photos: This is what the new rush to mine America looks like

TIME

Haaland: I helped restore protections for Bears Ears. Now it’s at risk again

Outside

Quote of the day

Washington is looking at the Imperial Valley and saying that’s just a desert, that’s just wasteland… It has been mandated by the United States government and the state of California to annihilate the California Indians since the Gold Rush, and I’m still watching it today.”

—Carmen Lucas, a 90-year-old from the Kwaaymii Tribe in California who has been fighting mining developments for over two decades, TIME

Picture This

@factpostnewsBulldozers sent by Trump have begun tearing up Big Bend National Park to build a border wall through the protected public land. The Trump administration waived dozens of environmental laws to permit the construction.

Feature image: Doug Burgum, Kathryn Burgum, and Donald Trump at the opening of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library, X.com

The post Burgum directs staff to shred documents, installs Project 2025 author as Interior watchdog appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

As the RPM team embraces socialist traditions with a summer break, we flag choice recent and archive reads and preview an exciting autumn to come

The post August pause and autumn updates appeared first on Red Pepper.

Set beneath the living canopy of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary’s ancient cypress forest, this outdoor exhibit brings large-format photography into the landscape that inspired it. On view from November...