News Feeds

The expense of low cost airlines Channel News brendan 12th August 2026 Teaser Media

The year is 2036. Connected Autonomous Vehicles comprise 25 percent of the cars on the nation’s streets and roads and fleets of robo-cabs crisscross cities. But after one such CAV blows a stop sign and kills a pedestrian, federal cybermarshal Dana Grant starts asking questions — but can Grant get to the bottom of the “accident” … or undercover a plot to use these connected AVs to kill thousands? That’s the plot of “Autokill” (Open Road Media) by “Gridlock” Sam Schwartz and playwright Cary Pepper. To purchase the full book, click here. But for now, curl up with Chapter 3, “What Was Wrong?” in this exclusive excerpt.

After staring at the computer screen for several minutes, Dana Grant sat back and slowly shook her head. She wasn’t happy and she didn’t know why.

The case seemed simple enough. Last week, a Connected Autonomous Vehicle killed a 35-year-old woman in California. She was sitting in a park, set back from the road some 50 feet, when she was struck by the vehicle. According to local police, the car ignored a stop sign, which was one reason the case landed on Dana’s desk. That, and of course, the fatality.

Dana Grant was a federal cybermarshal assigned to the National Transportation Safety Board’s Portland-based CAV unit, Western Sector. With thousands of robo-cabs, trucks, and buses on the nation’s roads and streets, the National Transportation Safety Board had created a new branch to investigate CAV-related accidents. It was similar to the division that investigated aviation incidents, but only two offices had been opened so far (Eastern Sector was head-quartered in Boston), its operating budget was smaller, its staff had not been provided with the in-depth training that allowed agents in the aviation division to effectively probe air-transport events, and, unlike the aviation division, the CAV unit had no NTSB Training Center.

The marshals had been promised such expertise, but the agency, despite being in existence for six years, was still getting “up to speed” and Congress (swayed by the powerful CAV lobby) had repeatedly failed to adequately fund it, leaving many marshals to obtain any special training they felt they needed on their own, at their own expense. Dana had overheard several of her colleagues proudly vowing not to “go all tech” as long as they had to pay for it themselves.

Not Dana. If she were doing the job, she wanted to be as good at it as she could be. Just as she’d gone the extra distance as a cop in Phoenix. Since joining the unit, she’d been taking workshops and reading as much as she could to educate herself on the intricacies of CAVs. When she needed help, she didn’t hesitate to reach out to the small network of advisors and consultants she’d slowly assembled around her during the five years she’d been on the job.

Influenced by those advisors and consultants, Dana had stopped using the word accident when talking about her cases. She investigated crashes.

An accident is an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause. But CAVs, obeying algorithms designed for maximum safety and free of road-rage-inducing ego, didn’t do things unexpectedly or take potentially-dangerous risks. So when a CAV collided with anything, it wasn’t an accident. It was a crash.

Dana also quickly learned that crucial to investigating and understanding any incident involving a CAV meant knowing how to read and interpret the information gleaned from its black box, which included every decision, maneuver, and change the vehicle made during a trip. It included interactions with passengers. It included everything the car did, saw, and heard. And because this data was all in computer code, it required knowing how to understand what you were looking at.

Even with all the time Dana had spent learning about this arcane corner of the universe, she still had large gaps in her knowledge of it. But she was light years ahead of every other agent in her office, and she knew it.

Now Dana sat pondering why the CAV ignored the stop sign. Programming error? Software failure? Faulty sensing equipment? If any of those were the issue, did the problem lie with Relyable, the company that manufactured the car? Or was it a matter of a repair, similar to fixing the brakes on a human-driven car? And if that were so, was the root cause a failure by the company that operated the vehicle to properly maintain it?

Or, if it was a programming or software error, did that signal a failure by the engineers at the company that made the car? Which would mean Dana had to see if the same company created both the computer code and the software, because it was possible that correct computer code had been negated by faulty software.

A third possibility was that someone tampered with the stop sign, which happened often in the 2020s, when kids defaced traffic signs or anti-AVers tried to demonstrate the weakness of autonomous infrastructure. Then came the 2029 Topeka School AV bus crash. A couple of teenagers out for kicks turned a 30-mph sign in to one reading 80 mph by making the three an eight. The bus raced around a sharp curve doing 80, left the road, and plunged 35 feet down an embankment, killing 21 children and the bus attendant.

For the next three years, all AV school buses had to have a human driver. Meanwhile, every inch of roadway in the United States was minutely mapped: every traffic sign, signal, lane marking, and channelization. And the federal government required any change, no matter how small, to be immediately entered in the central Geographic Information System Command file, the huge database where all this information lived. Failure to do so resulted in states and cities losing as much as billions in federal highway dollars. Now, any discrepancy between what an AV saw and what was in the GIS database, was detected by the CAV’s Command Center (all the companies that operated CAVs had command centers that controlled their fleet) in a nanosecond, and the GIS Command Center threw the vehicle into fail-safe mode, choosing the safest available option for its next action.

If a vehicle saw “80 mph” but the database listed “30 mph,” the GISCC would send an alert, slow or stop the vehicle, and a remote driver would take over the CAV. In addition, all other vehicles from that company would be alerted and a post-mortem would be conducted.

The system worked almost flawlessly in cities and on state roads; the only gaps now were the small towns and rural areas that didn’t have the ability to update the GIS files, or the few places where locals believed that routinely updating their files was an infringement by an overbearing government. Since 2033, there had been only nine instances of minor crashes due to un-updated traffic devices, and none due to vandalism. Could this be the first?

Maybe. Yet Dana had a gut feeling it was something else. There were thousands of Relyable delivery robos operating in the county and there hadn’t been similar incidents. Which suggested that the computer code, the software, and pretty much everything else in the vehicle was operating properly. So what else could it be?

Relyable had already responded to the police-finding that the car went through the stop sign. Company spokespeople maintained that the sign had been defaced with both a hole and grafitti, so the fault lay not with the vehicle and its sensing equipment, but with the town for not repairing the sign. Relyable also noted that the town had been cited four times for not complying with GIS Command. The company could not be held responsible, it reasoned, for signage or traffic signals that were not repaired or replaced in a timely manner.

Dana studied pictures of the sign; there was no question that it had been vandalized. A tagger had gone to work on it, and there was a hole dead center in the middle of the O. If it was a bullet hole, someone was quite a shot.

Did that mean the CAV had not seen the sign? Or had it seen the sign but was no longer able to identify it as a signal to stop, perhaps interpreting it as nothing more than a lamppost or structure designating street parking? Why did the Topeka fail-safe protocol fail?

“Oh, you caught that California thing.”

She hadn’t heard Kyle coming up behind her. But now there was that soft wheezing through his seemingly-always-clogged nasal passages. Perhaps if he lost some weight… The thought ran through her head almost every time she saw Kyle. He wasn’t obese. Just unnecessarily overweight, all in his belly, which hung over his belt in a loose fold.

Kyle Beaumont would always be overweight, always breathe heavily through his nose, always be, in Dana’s mind, one nasal breath away from a heart attack. Which of course she hoped would never happen. She didn’t hate Kyle or wish any bad would come to him. She just wished he wasn’t her boss.

Not because he was overweight and breathed through his nose. Because he was always hovering, and he wasn’t thorough. He’d been with the NTSB 20 years to her 5, and was more interested in clearing cases than conducting competent, thorough investigations.

So, rather than encourage his people to spend as much time as they needed to properly run a case, he’d be satisfied with a preliminary finding, even one still open to questions, if it added to the “Case Closed” log he submitted weekly to the head of the Portland bureau.

As a result, Dana’s unit had a high closure rate, which Kyle was determined to maintain. But given how they were achieving it, she wasn’t sure that was something to be proud of.

Their findings tended to hold the vehicles or companies blameless, and Dana sometimes wondered about that. But the truth was, in crashes involving CAVs and human drivers, it was almost always the human driver at fault. CAVs had proven themselves to be more consistent, more stable, and less erratic than human drivers. They were not distracted as easily or as often, never tried to beat a changing traffic light or speed past an approaching train, and had no interest in pushing themselves to test their power, speed, or endurance.

So the fact that Kyle’s long list of closed cases often found in favor of the CAV wasn’t surprising. Nevertheless, Dana often found herself wishing he didn’t reach that conclusion quite so fast.

Standing behind her looking over her shoulder, he’d moved closer. She knew, without turning, because the heavy breathing was now only inches from her ear.

“New perfume?” he asked.

“Nope.”

“You smell different. New shampoo?”

“Nope.”

“Different soap, maybe?”

She pictured him sniffing the air around her. Or, worse, sniffing her.

“Same soap.”

“Something about you is different. Are you …?”

It was time to end this. She shifted in her chair, sending it backward into his foot, then turned around and was “surprised” to see the wheel of the chair pressing on his shoe and the edge of her seat against his leg.

“Oh, sorry! I didn’t realize you were that close.”

“No harm done,” he assured her, reaching down to lightly rub his knee. “You still working on that?” he nodded toward her computer.

“Hmm-hmm,” she muttered, studying the screen again to indicate she was too distracted to talk.

“Stop sign was vandalized. The town didn’t update its GIS records. Like the company says, it’s their fault. Can’t you close it?”

“I’m not sure yet,” she started. “I—”

“You have ‘a feeling,”’ he finished for her. “Here we go.”

She hated when he did that. But it had been years since she took him seriously when he said those things in that tone of voice. That had stopped after working with him for two months, when she almost caved in the wake of his response to her first “feeling.”

That first time, still new to the unit and trying to find her way, she’d almost let him intimidate her because she was half-doubting herself: Had she really been on to something, or was it more an attempt to prove she could do the job?

But she stuck with it, and it paid off. Driver vs. CAV, and the driver swore the robo had swerved into his lane. There was activity to the right of the CAV that might have made it swerve toward the driver, but a check of the black box showed it swerved no more than a foot and did not cross the double yellow line that separated the vehicles.

On a hunch, Dana checked the driver’s cell-phone records and found that he’d been on the phone at the time of the accident. It was him, not the robo, that had swerved across the
double yellow line.

Two lessons learned: Always trust her gut, and never listen to Kyle about such matters.

It took her a while to stop railing at herself for letting him come as close as he did to shutting her down, but she finally landed in place of self-understanding: she was navigating new territory with insufficient training. She was allowed a few missteps; she could forgive herself. Afterward, she did more than that, using the episode to redefine their relationship.

Never one to be intimidated (easily or otherwise), not even as a child, she would never again be bullied by a bureaucrat now that she was 35, carried a badge, and believed (knew) that she was better suited for this work than he was.

“Here I go,” she corrected him. “It’s not gonna affect your life much.”

“Except what it’s gonna do to our clearance rate.”

“You mean my clearance rate?”

“Ours includes yours. You slow up, we slow up.”

“I’ll work this extra fast.”

“Work what? The cops confirmed the CAV went through the stop sign. No one’s contesting that. The cops confirmed the stop sign was vandalized. No one’s contesting that. The town didn’t update its GIS file. You wanna blame the robo? It’s like, someone blindfolds you, then blames you for walking into something. How much more open-shut can you get?”

“Looks that way.”

“Except you know better.”

“I just want to leave it open a little longer so I can—”

“You can have a little more time on this. But don’t take too long. And don’t neglect your other cases.”

“I never do,” she answered, fingers busy on her keyboard, focusing on her screen, as a way to end the conversation.

Finally sensing their talk was over, Kyle walked away, triggering a new train of thought for Dana: What kind of ratings was he getting on his quarterly evaluations? But why go there? For years he’d been part of a federal bureaucracy that valued meeting quotas and demonstrating its own skewered sense of “efficiency.” She knew exactly the kind of evaluations he was getting. And he knew exactly how to keep getting them. And keep his job.

She peered at the screen for real now, hoping to find something new. Kyle was right about one thing: It did seem like an open-and-shut case. The CAV had functioned perfectly until it encountered the vandalized stop sign.

So what was bothering her? What was wrong?

• Even accounting for manufacturing, swapping out a gas-powered vehicle for an electric one results in 50 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The break-even point is about 18,000 miles, which the average person drives in a year and a half. The benefits are greater for older cars built under less stringent environment standards and in places with green electric grids. The only exceptions are for plug-in hybrids that run mostly on batteries or a second car that isn’t driven much. (Grist)
• Rail projects are still moving forward despite the Trump administration’s animosity toward them. (Quartz)
• Robotaxis seem to be getting glitchier as Waymo grows, and the cities it’s expanding into are unprepared. (New York Times)
• Cities too often ignore medium-density “missing middle” development that encourages walking. (CNU Public Square)
• Walking to school has gotten a lot harder than many adults remember. (Upworthy)
• A town just outside Boston prioritized safety over speed, and the result has been zero traffic deaths over the past three years. (Christian Science Monitor)
• Richmond announced plans for quick-build safety improvements at 700 intersections as part of its Vision Zero program. (WRIC)
• Gov. Mike Braun may have been on shaky legal ground when he extended Indiana’s gas tax holiday. (Indianapolis Star; paywall)
• A Houston developer is building a 12-story, 2,000-space parking garage that takes up an entire city block. (Chron)
• The increasing popularity of giant U.S.-style trucks and SUVs in Australia has led to an uptick in pedestrian deaths, even as driver and passenger fatalities continue to decline. (The Conversation)
• In Bogota, bike advocates are fighting back against the gender stereotype that cycling is only for men. (The Guardian)
• The massive Grand Paris Express metro expansion will feature 68 new architect-designed transit stations. (Arch Daily)

The oil industry just posted some of its best profits in years while Americans pay more at the pump

President Donald Trump promised to “cut your energy prices in half” within his first year in office using his “energy dominance” agenda. Instead, energy dominance has produced record profits for oil companies and higher gas prices for everyone else.

Eight of the world’s largest oil companies made a combined $93 billion in profit in the second quarter of 2026, nearly double what those companies made last year, and more than $1 billion in profit every single day. The increase in profits is connected to the US-Israeli war on Iran, which disrupted oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and pushed global oil prices above $126 per barrel at their peak.

ExxonMobil reported $14.5 billion in profit, its highest quarterly total in four years, while Chevron posted $12 billion, its highest quarterly profit in at least six years. Shell earned $9.8 billion, its second-highest quarterly profit ever, and Saudi Aramco topped the list at more than $33 billion.

US refiners also raked in the profits. Valero Energy reported $3.7 billion in net income, up from $714 million a year earlier and its most profitable quarter on record by earnings per share. HF Sinclair’s profit roughly quadrupled year-over-year, and PBF Energy swung from a loss to over $1 billion in profit.

None of this windfall is reaching consumers. The national average price for a gallon of gas was $4.01 on August 10, and prices are higher than a year ago in every state. Refiners say fuel inventories will be slow to rebuild, meaning the high prices are likely to stick around even as the price of crude oil drops.

Oil companies aren’t using their record profits to expand drilling or refining, either. ExxonMobil alone returned $9.4 billion to shareholders in the second quarter through dividends and stock buybacks, and Shell started a new multibillion-dollar buyback program of its own. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has pointed to record US energy production as evidence that the administration’s regulatory rollbacks are “unlocking the full potential of our domestic energy resources.” But record production and record profits have not translated into lower prices, expanded supply, or any clear benefit for American taxpayers.

In fact, Congress and the Trump administration are giving the oil and gas industry a tax break for drilling on public lands. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025, cut the onshore royalty rate from 16.67 percent back to 12.5 percent. Interior has also moved to make it cheaper to drill on public lands, proposing a rule that would cut cleanup bonds from $500,000 to $25,000 and shrink the public comment period on lease sales from 90 days to 10. Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates the royalty rate decrease alone has already cost the public $489 million, a figure it warns could climb into the billions as 2026 lease sales get underway.

Oil and gas production, Converse County, Wyoming. BLM Wyoming

This isn’t the “energy dominance” Americans were promised. Trump’s declaration of a “national energy emergency” was based on the need to bring down energy prices for Americans, arguing that inadequate domestic supply “causes and makes worse the high energy prices that devastate Americans.” His “Unleashing American Energy” executive order relied on that “energy emergency” to justify a number of policy actions ostensibly aimed at increasing energy production, presumably to increase domestic supply and bring prices down.

If there were an actual energy emergency, and if the Trump administration was serious about addressing it, the administration would have spent the past year and a half investing in a rapid build-out of inexpensive domestic energy sources like solar, wind, and battery storage. But the administration has actually done the opposite, putting up roadblocks to renewable energy development and paying developers nearly $2 billion in taxpayer funds to abandon offshore wind projects that were already underway. Meanwhile, the administration is doing everything it can to rush oil, gas, and coal projects by cutting corners on environmental reviews and avoiding public comment whenever it thinks it can get away with it. Interior’s current plan would compress reviews that once took up to two years into a single month, and cut the public comment period for projects expected to cause environmental harm down to about 10 days.

This strategy is working splendidly for oil and gas companies. For American families, it’s been a disaster that’s squeezing them when they’re already struggling with rising costs in all other areas of their lives. Adding insult to injury, oil and gas companies are locking Americans out of their public lands by nominating and leasing public lands they don’t intend to drill, tying up both the land itself and management agency resources with unserious nominations and leases. The real energy emergency is the oil and gas takeover of our national public lands at the expense of preserving some of America’s most valuable natural places.

The post Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda is only helping oil and gas companies appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES SLF-2007-024 The Sakhalin Papers XIV: The Whales, the Scientists and the Financing Test

Archive reference: SLF-2007-024
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal record: IUCN Independent Scientific Review Panel records; Sakhalin Energy responses; Shell Sustainability Report 2005; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development records
Supporting record: UK Parliamentary material, High Court proceedings and contemporaneous press reporting
Evidence standard: Scientific findings, company statements, lender decisions, court records and campaign commentary are distinguished throughout. A lender’s decision that project documentation was suitable for consultation is not treated as a decision to finance the project.

Introduction

By 2005, the fate of approximately one hundred whales had become entangled with the financing of one of the world’s largest oil and gas developments.

The Western North Pacific gray whale population feeding off north-eastern Sakhalin Island was then classified by IUCN as critically endangered. The independent scientific review convened by IUCN recorded a population of roughly 100 animals and perhaps only 20–25 reproductively active females. At the same time, Sakhalin Energy was constructing platforms, pipelines and associated infrastructure in and around their feeding habitat.

This was not simply an argument between Shell and environmental campaigners.

Independent scientists were involved. Potential lenders were involved. The US Export-Import Bank hosted discussions. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development was carrying out due diligence. British ministers were being questioned in Parliament. Years later, the environmental controversy surrounding Sakhalin-2 would also appear in High Court proceedings concerning the disclosure of UK government records.

And the surviving documents establish something particularly important.

The scientists were not merely producing reports for public consumption.

Potential financiers were reading them.

1. The Whale Problem Was Already a Financing Problem

The preceding archive file examined Britain’s Export Credits Guarantee Department and its consideration of support for Sakhalin-2.

The whale issue sat directly inside that financing process.

On 5 March 2004, UK Trade Minister Mike O’Brien told Parliament that Sakhalin Energy’s proposed offshore pipeline would cross the southern part of the whales’ northern feeding ground. He said ECGD wanted reassurance that the potential impact would be minimised and repeated that support would be approved only if the issues had been satisfactorily addressed.

That statement matters because it fixes the chronology.

Before IUCN’s major independent review appeared in 2005, the whale habitat was already being treated by a prospective government lender as an issue capable of affecting a financing decision.

The environmental question and the money question had become inseparable.

2. Sakhalin Energy Asked IUCN to Convene Independent Scientists

The scientific process itself should be described fairly.

Sakhalin Energy did not simply ignore the existence of the whales. It initiated an independent review process, with IUCN convening a panel of specialists to assess the risks posed by Sakhalin II Phase 2 and possible measures for reducing them. IUCN’s archive says the panel examined conservation risks in the context of a population numbering only about 100 animals.

The scientists also acknowledged substantial expenditure and research by Sakhalin Energy. The 2005 review recorded that SEIC had invested significant sums studying the whales, assessing risk and developing mitigation measures.

That acknowledgement is important.

This was not a report written on the premise that the operator had done nothing.

The question was whether what had been done was sufficient for an exceptionally vulnerable population living beside a massive industrial development.

3. February 2005: The Independent Scientific Review

IUCN released the Independent Scientific Review Panel report on 16 February 2005.

Its underlying question was formidable: could the risks associated with Sakhalin II Phase 2 be managed so that oil and gas development did not further jeopardise the survival and recovery of this critically endangered whale population?

The report considered several categories of risk.

Industrial noise could disrupt feeding or displace animals.

Construction and support vessels created collision risk.

Pipeline construction could damage benthic habitat upon which the whales’ prey depended.

Oil or gas releases could affect whales, prey and sensitive locations such as Piltun Lagoon.

The report also examined cumulative effects rather than pretending Sakhalin II existed in isolation from other industrial activity in the region.

The scientific difficulty was amplified by the population’s size.

With so few reproductively active females, risks that might be tolerable for a large population could have very different consequences here.

4. The Existing Pipeline Route Was a Specific Scientific Concern

One conclusion was particularly concrete.

The panel examined three offshore pipeline alternatives linking the PA-A and PA-B platforms to shore.

The existing “base case” route crossed the southern portion of the primary gray-whale foraging area and ran close to the mouth of Piltun Lagoon. The two alternative routes passed farther south. The panel considered Alternative 1 safer in relation to construction noise, vessel collision and physical disturbance of benthic habitat, while also offering advantages in relation to possible spills reaching the principal feeding area.

This was no longer a generic demand that Shell should “do more for the environment.”

It was an engineering choice.

There was a route on the drawing board.

There were alternatives.

And the scientists considered one of those alternatives less risky for the whales.

5. The Precautionary Question

The later September 2005 record is unusually revealing because it reproduced the issues under discussion together with Sakhalin Energy’s responses.

In the Vancouver workshop table, the earlier scientific position was summarised in stark terms: the “most precautionary approach would be to halt operations” while the risk assessment was refined. If operations continued, risk management needed to be conservative.

That sentence should not be inflated into a claim that IUCN ordered Shell to stop Sakhalin-2.

It did not.

IUCN was not the Russian regulator, the project lender or a court.

Nor had the original panel been asked to issue a simple regulatory verdict of “approve” or “reject.”

But the documentary meaning remains substantial.

Independent scientists had concluded that the uncertainties were serious enough for temporary cessation to represent the most precautionary option.

6. Shell Changed the Pipeline Route

At the end of March 2005, Sakhalin Energy announced a major change.

The offshore pipelines would be rerouted away from the principal whale feeding ground.

Contemporaneous reporting described approximately 12 additional miles of pipeline, while Shell’s own Sustainability Report later described the move as placing the offshore pipelines about 20 kilometres farther from the feeding ground.

Shell’s report expressly credited the scientific process.

Its 2005 Sustainability Report stated that Sakhalin Energy had accepted the panel’s advice to move the offshore pipelines farther away and had also used acoustic modelling, vessel restrictions and scientific monitoring to reduce risks.

Contemporaneous reporting treated the rerouting as a major concession, although environmental organisations continued to raise concerns about the offshore platform and other project activities.

Documentary finding

The record supports a straightforward conclusion:

Independent scientific scrutiny produced a material design change.

Whether one characterises that as responsible adaptive management, successful environmental pressure, lender leverage, or some combination of all three is commentary.

The route moved.

7. Then the Potential Lenders Entered the Scientific Process Directly

The surviving Sakhalin Energy response document provides unusually clear evidence that the scientists’ report was influencing financiers.

On 24 February 2005 — only days after publication of the IUCN report — several panel scientists met representatives of potential Sakhalin II lenders at the US Export-Import Bank in Washington.

According to the SEIC document, following that meeting the prospective lenders told Sakhalin Energy that the remaining gray-whale issues identified by the scientific review needed to be resolved.

Sakhalin Energy then produced a structured response.

A further IUCN meeting took place at Gland, Switzerland, on 11–12 May 2005. Its stated purpose included informing decision-making by both Sakhalin Energy and potential lenders and helping the lenders understand whether SEIC’s revised plans adequately addressed the scientists’ concerns.

This is one of the strongest records in this instalment.

The financing institutions were not standing outside the scientific dispute waiting for somebody else to settle it.

They were asking the scientists questions.

They were seeking clarification.

And they were requiring the project operator to respond.

8. May Was Not the End of It

The Gland meeting did not resolve everything.

The SEIC record says the discussions failed to provide sufficient clarity for the decision-makers, particularly the potential lenders.

Those lenders consequently asked for another meeting with the independent scientists to assess Sakhalin Energy’s responses more closely.

That meeting took place in Vancouver from 17 to 19 September 2005.

The participants worked through the scientific issues, SEIC’s responses and the scientists’ assessments in detail.

The result was not a simple declaration that the project was safe.

Nor was it a declaration that the project could never proceed.

It was something much more characteristic of real scientific review:

progress in some areas, unresolved uncertainty in others, and continuing demands for monitoring, mitigation and independent scrutiny.

9. Noise Became One of the Hardest Questions

Industrial noise was particularly difficult.

The independent scientists recognised that modelling could help predict the acoustic footprint of construction, but the September record identified important limitations, especially at lower frequencies potentially relevant to gray whales.

Their assessment said model projections needed verification through measurements and could not by themselves establish an absence of biological effect.

The dispute was not merely about how loud a particular operation might be.

It concerned what received noise meant biologically.

Would feeding whales alter behaviour?

Would they move offshore?

Could repeated exposure matter cumulatively?

What threshold should trigger mitigation or shutdown?

The scientists wanted real-time monitoring of whale distribution, behaviour and acoustic conditions and recommended precautionary shutdown arrangements where agreed criteria were exceeded.

10. The “No Disturbance” Problem

Here the Shell and independent-scientist records deserve to be placed side by side.

Shell’s Sustainability Report stated that external scientific observers monitored noise during installation of the production-platform bases and that the work was completed without signs of disturbance to the whales.

The Vancouver scientific review was more guarded.

For some construction activity, it recorded that weather had prevented behavioural observations during portions of the work. The scientists concluded that, where observations had not been possible, an absence of effect could not safely be inferred. They also said opportunities to learn about whale responses had been lost to some extent.

These statements should not be lazily converted into an accusation that Shell’s account was false.

They operate at different evidential levels.

Shell reported that observers had not identified signs of disturbance during monitored activity.

The scientists warned that incomplete observation prevented the stronger conclusion that no disturbance had occurred across all relevant periods.

Documentary assessment

“Nothing was observed” and “nothing happened” are not scientifically identical propositions.

That distinction became important because financing decisions depended not simply upon corporate assurances, but upon whether risks had been assessed to standards acceptable to external institutions.

11. The Scientists Still Had Reservations in September 2005

The September issues table records progress, but it also preserves criticism.

The independent scientists stated that Sakhalin Energy’s approach had not always been suitably or consistently precautionary and that its use of the ALARP risk-management concept had not always produced the least practicable risk to the whales.

They also identified continuing issues involving contractor compliance, independent monitoring, noise criteria and implementation of mitigation measures.

Sakhalin Energy did not simply reject the process.

Its responses defended aspects of the modelling and risk-management approach, explained operational constraints and accepted that a number of issues should be carried forward to a permanent advisory panel.

That balance matters.

The documentary record is not:

scientists warned; Shell ignored.

Nor is it:

scientists approved; controversy ended.

It is a record of continuing technical disagreement inside a process that the operator itself had entered and prospective lenders were actively following.

12. The Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel

One of the most consequential outcomes was institutional rather than engineering.

The September process produced agreement to establish a long-term Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel.

Sakhalin Energy supported its formation and funding, while the scientists envisaged a continuing mechanism through which independent expertise could review threats and mitigation measures over the life of industrial activity.

IUCN formally announced the new panel in October 2006.

It described a population containing only about 20–25 reproductively active females and said the panel would provide independent scientific advice concerning Sakhalin Energy and other relevant offshore activity.

In hindsight, the structure proved unusually durable.

IUCN’s specialist archive now records a 17-year scientific oversight programme running from the original 2004 process through the final advisory-panel work in 2021–22, involving hundreds of recommendations and specialist work on noise, oil spills, cumulative effects and monitoring.

13. December 2005: What the EBRD Actually Decided

This part of the archive requires particular precision.

On 14 December 2005, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development decided that the Sakhalin II project documentation was:

“fit for the purpose of consultation.”

That wording appears in EBRD’s own record.

Shell’s Sustainability Report described the same development: the EBRD had decided that Sakhalin Energy’s environmental, social, health and safety approach was fit for public consultation.

What that meant

It permitted the financing process to advance into public consultation.

What it did not mean

It was not final EBRD approval of a loan.

It was not a finding that every whale-related concern had disappeared.

It was not a legal ruling that Sakhalin II complied with every applicable environmental requirement.

The distinction is essential because contemporary reporting sometimes compressed the financing process into the simpler question: “Will the EBRD fund Shell?”

The official record was more incremental.

14. Contemporary Journalism Saw the Same Pressure

The financing stakes were obvious to journalists at the time.

In March 2005, The Guardian reported that the proposed route was under pressure because of the whale issue and that public lenders were being urged not to finance the project. After the rerouting, the newspaper reported that environmental campaigners still believed significant risks remained.

In June, The Observer described EBRD financing as being held back while environmental problems remained unresolved. Later reports continued to depict lender approval as commercially important to Shell and linked the whale controversy to the wider environmental scrutiny surrounding the project.

Those reports are evidence of contemporary perception.

They should not substitute for the formal EBRD record.

But they demonstrate that at the time — not merely in retrospective campaigning — the connection between environmental performance and financing was widely understood.

15. The EBRD Ultimately Did Not Finance Sakhalin II

The final outcome is another point where causation must not be invented.

EBRD’s own Independent Recourse Mechanism record states that on 11 January 2007 the Bank decided not to finance Sakhalin II because of the change in ownership of Sakhalin Energy.

That fact places a firm limit on the historical claim.

It would be inaccurate to say:

“The whales caused EBRD to reject Sakhalin II financing.”

The documentary record does not establish that.

Environmental issues, including the gray-whale question, plainly formed part of the financing scrutiny for years.

But the recorded reason EBRD ultimately ceased pursuing the financing was the changed ownership structure following Gazprom’s acquisition of control.

That distinction is exactly the kind of boundary this archive is intended to preserve.

16. The High Court Record Confirms the Whale Issue Was Material

The whale controversy subsequently entered the British judicial record through the dispute over disclosure of government documents.

In Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), the High Court dealt with ECGD’s attempt to overturn an Information Tribunal decision requiring disclosure of interdepartmental material concerning Sakhalin-2.

The court record describes proposed project finance of approximately US$650 million and identifies the endangered Western Grey whale among the environmental concerns surrounding the project. The High Court dismissed ECGD’s appeal against disclosure.

Again, the limits are important.

Mr Justice Mitting did not decide that Sakhalin Energy had harmed the whales.

He did not decide that Shell had committed an environmental offence.

He did not decide that financing Sakhalin-2 would have been unlawful.

The case concerned access to government environmental information.

What it confirms is that the whale and financing questions were sufficiently substantial to form part of a public-law dispute about what the British Government should disclose.

17. What Shell’s Own Record Shows

Shell’s Sustainability Report is striking because it does not pretend that the project passed through 2005 unchanged.

It records substantial adaptation.

The company said Sakhalin Energy listened to stakeholders, moved the offshore pipelines farther from the whale feeding ground, used acoustic modelling, introduced ship-speed and routing measures, supported independent scientific observation and worked toward establishing a permanent advisory panel.

Those are Shell’s own published claims.

They should remain in the archive alongside the independent scientists’ reservations.

Together they demonstrate that the whale controversy produced consequences beyond publicity.

Engineering changed.

Monitoring changed.

Institutional oversight changed.

And the financing process absorbed environmental conditions that the operator had to address.

18. Documentary Findings Established by the scientific and company record

The Western North Pacific gray-whale population feeding near Sakhalin was considered critically endangered and numbered roughly 100 animals, with only about 20–25 reproductively active females.

Sakhalin Energy initiated an independent scientific review through IUCN.

The scientists identified substantial risks involving noise, vessel collisions, habitat disturbance and oil spills.

They regarded the original offshore pipeline route as presenting additional risks because it crossed part of the primary feeding area.

Sakhalin Energy subsequently rerouted the offshore pipelines approximately 20 kilometres farther from that feeding ground.

Potential lenders met the scientists and required outstanding whale-related issues to be addressed.

Further scientific meetings were held specifically to help inform financing decisions.

Unresolved issues remained after the pipeline rerouting, particularly around noise, monitoring, risk thresholds and the precautionary approach.

A long-term independent advisory panel was established.

Established by the financing record

EBRD considered Sakhalin II for financing.

In December 2005 it determined that the project documentation was suitable to enter public consultation.

That was not final loan approval.

In January 2007 EBRD decided not to finance the project following the change in Sakhalin Energy’s ownership.

Established by the court record

The endangered whale issue and approximately US$650 million of potential project finance formed part of the factual background to the later High Court disclosure litigation.

The High Court upheld disclosure of government departmental responses.

The judgment did not determine whether Sakhalin II harmed whales or whether the project itself was environmentally lawful.

Not established

The record does not establish that Sakhalin II caused the extinction of the Western North Pacific gray-whale population.

It does not establish that EBRD rejected the project because of whales.

It does not establish that the IUCN panel ordered Shell to stop the project.

It does not establish that Shell ignored all scientific advice; the pipeline rerouting proves otherwise.

Nor does Shell’s adoption of mitigation measures establish that every scientific concern was resolved.

Commentary

The most revealing document in this file may not be a warning about whales at all.

It may be the record of the lenders meeting the scientists.

That changes the character of the story.

Environmental assessment was not simply an exercise taking place alongside the real commercial negotiations.

It had entered the commercial negotiations.

A pipeline route became a financing issue.

Noise modelling became a financing issue.

Monitoring protocols became a financing issue.

The credibility of mitigation plans became a financing issue.

And a population of roughly one hundred whales became one of the tests through which prospective lenders assessed a multibillion-dollar energy project.

There is also a useful lesson in the competing documents.

Shell’s own sustainability account emphasised adaptation and successful mitigation.

The independent scientists recorded both progress and continuing uncertainty.

The lenders wanted enough clarity to make financing decisions.

Campaigners wanted the precautionary principle applied more aggressively.

None of those records needs to be discarded for the others to make sense.

Put together, they show the actual mechanism of environmental scrutiny at work: contested evidence, design changes, unresolved questions, further monitoring and financial institutions deciding how much uncertainty they were prepared to carry.

That is more interesting — and historically more defensible — than either of the simplistic alternatives.

Shell neither sailed through the whale issue untouched nor had the project conclusively condemned by scientists.

It changed the project while continuing to build it.

And the lenders kept asking questions.

Source Record

The principal evidence for this instalment is the 2005 IUCN Independent Scientific Review Panel report, Impacts of Sakhalin II Phase 2 on Western North Pacific Gray Whales and Related Biodiversity; the September 2005 Western Gray Whale workshop record containing Sakhalin Energy’s formal comments and responses; The Shell Sustainability Report 2005; the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Independent Recourse Mechanism record for Sakhalin II; UK Parliamentary answers concerning the Western Grey Whale and ECGD financing; Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin); IUCN’s subsequent Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel archive; and contemporaneous reporting by The Guardian/Observerconcerning pipeline rerouting, environmental controversy and prospective project finance.

Archive disclaimer: Scientific concern is not equivalent to proof of environmental damage. A company response is not an independent finding. A prospective lender’s environmental review is not a judicial determination. EBRD’s December 2005 finding that documentation was fit for public consultation was not approval of financing, and its January 2007 decision not to finance Sakhalin II is recorded by EBRD as resulting from the project’s ownership change. No allegation of illegality or environmental harm should be inferred beyond the findings of an identified court, regulator or competent scientific body.

Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Next Archive File SLF-2007-025 — The Sakhalin Papers XV: A Thousand Rivers — Salmon, Pipeline Crossings and the Contractor Problem

The whales were offshore.

The next environmental battle ran almost the entire length of Sakhalin Island.

Shell’s own 2005 Sustainability Report acknowledged that the onshore pipelines would cross more than 1,000 rivers and streams, including approximately 180 regarded as environmentally sensitive. It also acknowledged that contractors did not always comply with the river-crossing strategy during the winter of 2004–05 and that Sakhalin Energy stopped the winter work programme when it became aware of the problem.

Contemporaneous journalists, environmental organisations and Russian authorities were meanwhile reporting allegations involving sediment, salmon-spawning habitat, contractor performance and regulatory breaches.

The next archive file will separate those allegations from what Shell itself admitted, what regulators actually established and what the documentary record says about a management problem that appears repeatedly throughout the Sakhalin Papers:

When most of the physical work is being performed by contractors, who carries responsibility when environmental commitments on paper collide with construction on the ground?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 11 AUGUST 2026 was first posted on August 11, 2026 at 10:40 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

Federal agencies are investigating four ongoing cyclospora outbreaks in the United States. This year has seen a record number of cases, prompting concern among consumers and experts.

In its latest update, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports 13,895 laboratory-confirmed domestic cases of the parasitic infection across 45 states since May. They are also tracking an additional 10,455 cases that have yet to be confirmed. There have been two deaths in individuals with underlying health issues.

The biggest outbreak now spans 15 states and has a confirmed case count of over 6,000 people, according to CDC. The agency is still investigating Taylor Farms iceberg lettuce as the likely source after previously declaring their testing a false positive. Taylor Farms has voluntarily recalled their products in 27 states across the U.S.

Agencies are also investigating three additional outbreaks that have already ended.

Cyclospora is a parasite that often contaminates fresh produce, infecting those who eat it. May through August is considered cyclosporiasis season in the U.S. Symptoms usually appear one week after exposure, and most commonly include watery diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue. While treatable, many cases clear up on their own, and aren’t diagnosed, says Glenn Morris, Professor of Infectious Diseases at the University of Florida College of Medicine and Founding Director of the Emerging Pathogen Institute.

“Because fresh produce items typically have short shelf lives, outbreaks of Cyclospora tend to appear suddenly, and gradually fade as the product is consumed out of the marketplace,” Craig Hedberg, a Professor at the University of Minnesota who focuses on foodborne illness and infectious disease outbreaks, tells Food Tank.

Better and more widely available diagnostic testing methods in clinical laboratories may lead to higher case counts, according to Hedberg. And when awareness of an outbreak grows, more people are likely to seek medical care.

Morris points to an additional explanation: a breakdown in the country’s food safety programs.

Last July, CDC made it optional for The Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) to track most pathogens, including Cyclospora. Salmonella and STEC (E. coli) are still mandatory. Although FoodNet is not intended to detect outbreaks of foodborne illness, it better prepares federal agencies to deal with them. Morris thinks that while the outbreak would likely still have occurred, funding cuts, loss of experienced staff, and reduced laboratory capacity within FoodNet, CDC, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have hampered the investigative process.

“All of the tools that would normally be applied, both in terms of preventing the outbreak… [and] investigating the outbreak, have seen major cuts from the current administration,” Morris tells Food Tank.

FoodNet is a CDC program that tracks common foodborne infections to collect baseline data. It uses active surveillance, meaning it contacts clinical laboratories in ten states to identify cases and provide a basis for prevention efforts. “Public health surveillance for foodborne illnesses is a foundation for effective food control,” says Hedberg. But because cyclosporiasis is difficult to diagnose, it can take longer to trace to a source.

Morris notes that oversight of food safety is further complicated by the involvement of multiple federal departments. “We’re the only major Western country that does not have a [single] food safety agency,” he says.

The CDC handles cases of foodborne illness within people but lacks regulatory authority at the state level. Regulation of food is controlled by FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), depending on the product. While these agencies communicate with each other, the U.S. does not have a single federal food safety agency. Morris believes that the country should create one and conduct strong active surveillance on a federal scale.

“We need to invest in public health agencies to better prepare them to respond to outbreaks when they are small, to help prevent them from growing large,” Hedberg tells Food Tank—a point Morris echoes.

Morris advises that consumers can protect themselves from cyclospora by avoiding foods identified as likely to be contaminated, shopping local, and following the latest CDC updates.

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

Photo courtesy of Zolfeqar Fatihzadeh, Wikimedia Commons

The post Cyclospora Outbreak Highlights Food Safety Gaps appeared first on Food Tank.

Updated on August 11, 2026, to reflect the proposition name. Originally published on January 16, 2026.

For advocates working at the intersection of environmental protection and climate-smart growth, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has long been a source of both pride and frustration. While it has been a critical tool to protect our natural and working lands, its procedural delays have often been used to stall projects essential to a low-carbon future: dense infill housing and transit-oriented development in our existing communities.

In July 2025, however, at the urging of Governor Newsom, the California legislature passed some of the most impactful changes to CEQA since its inception. Taken together, the two bills (AB 130 and SB 131) provide robust statutory CEQA exemptions for infill housing and housing element rezonings, require the state to map infill areas where exemptions would apply, and narrow the scope of the administrative record, helping to curtail anti-housing litigation.

Despite these monumental changes that address the barriers to critical infill development, California’s business lobby and sprawl developers were left unsatisfied. Now, they are proposing a ballot initiative that would make far more radical changes to the law. After gathering enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot, this is now called Proposition 45.

While the rhetoric of the measure (initially called Building an Affordable California Act, or BACA) seems to be aligned with urbanist goals and those of the broader abundance and affordability movements, the actual policy details and mechanics of the initiative—and the progress we’ve already achieved in the legislature last year—suggest that the costs it brings far outweigh any potential benefits.

Below, we outline seven reasons why the measure should be rejected (click to read more):

1. Major Reforms Have Already Been Enacted

For years, a primary objective for California’s urbanists was to stop the abuse of environmental law against projects that genuinely help the environment: dense, transit-oriented housing.
In a landmark shift for the state, that goal has largely been realized. Following years of advocacy by urbanists, the legislature passed a clean statutory CEQA exemption for infill housing. AB 130, which Greenbelt Alliance was proud to support, is already being utilized across California, allowing builders to move forward with climate-friendly housing in high-opportunity areas like Palo Alto or Beverly Hills without the threat of being endlessly delayed by the environmental review process. While there is room for technical refinements, the fundamental issue at hand—the misuse of environmental laws to delay environmentally-friendly housing projects—has largely been addressed.

2. Everything is “Essential”

As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details”, and that’s certainly true for the BACA initiative. While modest on the surface, BACA creates a completely new set of rules for what it calls “essential” projects. So what, exactly, is an “essential project”?

The list is incredibly broad. Under Article 2, Section 21013, “essential projects” include housing, water, transportation, clean energy, transmission, broadband, and healthcare infrastructure. In practice, this definition encompasses a wide range of large-scale developments. For example, new freeways and existing freeway expansions would qualify as “essential transportation” projects; large greenfield sprawl developments would be treated as “essential” housing projects; and new dams and reservoirs would qualify as “essential” water projects. The definition even includes all “related and ancillary infrastructure,” meaning that highway interchanges, utility extensions, and water pipelines that enable sprawl developments also receive streamlined approval. All of these are enormous projects in terms of size and scale, with major potential environmental impacts. Yet, just like an apartment building in an urban area, under BACA, they would qualify for a significantly truncated review process.

In effect, this new CEQA process mirrors the fundamental flaw of its predecessor. While the old system failed to exempt low or no-impact projects from excessive review, the new one errs in the opposite direction, fast-tracking high-risk developments with significant potential for harm.

3. All Timelines Are Not Created Equal

The BACA initiative imposes strict timelines for this new class of projects that it deems “essential”: the environmental review process can take no more than one year. On the surface, a one-year limit on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) seems reasonable. And for certain projects, like an apartment building on a parking lot in downtown San Francisco, or a townhome development in an LA suburb, it would be.

However, the measure’s definition of “essential” includes highways, dams, large-scale subdivisions, and other major projects. The environmental review required for projects at this scale cannot be done in a single year. Surveying hundreds if not thousands (or even tens of thousands) of acres of undisturbed and undeveloped land for species nesting patterns and habitat, water pollution impacts, and other environmental concerns physically cannot be accomplished within the timeframe laid out in the initiative. By forcing these projects into such a condensed timeline, we will be creating a system that overlooks genuine environmental harm in favor of speed.

For projects with unambiguous environmental benefits, such as housing developments within already urbanized areas, such speed makes sense. Many of the project types considered by this measure do not have the same clear, unambiguous benefits.

4. Restrictive Alternatives

One of CEQA’s most critical tools for preventing environmental harm is its alternative analysis provision, which allows for the identification of better project locations and designs. Currently, CEQA requires agencies to analyze a “reasonable range of alternatives” that could reduce environmental impacts, including different sites, reduced intensity options, and designs that avoid sensitive resources. This is how agencies can say, “this housing should be built downtown on a parking lot instead of on farmland,” or “this highway expansion has an alternative transit solution.”

BACA restricts this to just three options: the proposed project, one alternative designed by the applicant themselves (which doesn’t even need to be at a different location), and “no project.” The applicant’s alternative can be a slightly modified version of their original proposal on the same site. This eliminates the core mechanism for steering projects away from environmentally sensitive locations toward more appropriate sites, exactly the tool needed to prevent sprawl, protect open space, and ensure development happens in the right places.

5. The Evidentiary Standard

Maybe the most radical change incorporated in the ballot measure is to CEQA’s standard of review. Right now, CEQA allows a lead agency (generally a city or county) to use its own discretion to explore project alternatives and negotiate environmental mitigations. BACA proposes to eliminate this by requiring that environmental impacts only be found significant if they violate objective, quantifiable standards already in existing law when the project was proposed, which doesn’t sound inherently unreasonable! 

However, the measure doesn’t actually require jurisdictions to adopt such standards; instead, it exploits their absence. If numerical thresholds don’t already exist for resources like oak woodlands, groundwater, or wildlife corridors, impacts to them essentially can’t be found significant regardless of severity. A genuine objective standards approach would mandate jurisdictions adopt protective thresholds and update them as science improves. This measure rewards weak standards, freezes them at application date, and prevents improvements based on new knowledge.

6. Ballot Box Permanence

Finally, one of the greatest flaws of the measure is its rigidity. Should it pass, BACA would require a 2/3rds vote of the legislature to amend.

California has a long, storied history with ballot box governance, where initiatives become impossible to adjust as new problems arise. The 2/3rds requirement virtually guarantees the law could never be changed, regardless of what issues may arise. An unchangeable measure, with foreseeable negative impacts for the state, may have lasting consequences for generations.

Some of the project types included in this measure, such as clean energy or transmission infrastructure, may benefit from the types of streamlining being considered if careful, targeted changes were made. Rather than a broad, clunky initiative that will be extremely difficult to change, we should advocate for those reforms through the legislative cleanup process already underway.

7. The Costs Are Just Too High

California faces converging affordability crises: insurers fleeing the state, utility rates climbing, and municipal budgets straining under unsustainable costs. All of these issues stem from the same source: decades of sprawling outward, often into fire-prone areas, leaving us with infrastructure we cannot afford to maintain and risks we cannot afford to insure.

BACA will accelerate these failures by trading short-term speed for permanent costs. By gutting CEQA’s alternatives analysis—the primary tool for steering projects away from costly, high-risk locations—this limits agencies to the developer’s preferred site, one alternative the developer designs themselves, and “no project.” It freezes environmental standards at the date of application, rewarding jurisdictions with weak protections. And it requires agencies to approve permits within strict timelines regardless of fiscal consequences, because most cities lack the quantitative standards BACA requires to find fiscal impacts “significant.”

The result: even if we build some things faster today, we’ll be paying the tab forever. Even more homes in fire zones will continue to destabilize our insurance markets. More infrastructure extensions will push up our utility rates. More sprawling subdivisions that generate less revenue than they cost to maintain will ensure even higher taxes. BACA promises affordability through speed but delivers the opposite: cheaper to build, but financially ruinous to sustain.

At a time when people are struggling to make ends meet, and when the federal government is doing all it can to roll back our environmental protections, the last thing we need is to double down on the failed policies we have tried for decades and know do not work.

Proposition 45 will hurt the environment and your wallet.

Greenbelt Alliance strongly opposes Proposition 45 and urges voters to vote NO on 45 this November.

The post Chamber-Backed CEQA Initiative Is A Proposition Californians Can’t Afford: No on Prop 45 appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

This article Why bravery and heartbreak are essential to organizing was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

I could tell that Yotam Marom’s debut book, “For Louder Days: Reaching Beyond a Politics of Powerlessness,” might shift how movement workers think — about telling the truth, and about the personal and political transformation actually required to win and wield power — as I compared notes with two field organizers fighting data centers around the country. 

We had been knocking on hundreds of doors in every kind of neighborhood: Black and brown homeowners in big cities, Latino farmworkers and white farmers in rural towns, parents and students and elders in watersheds across the West and exurbs in the South, all disgusted with data centers. Everyday people are blocking big tech expansion in real time, out of love for their communities and each other, and the ride feels full of possibility. 

Could we move people who’ve never been in motion before — but are now packing zoning meetings, turning each other out in the hundreds, and stopping billion-dollar data centers — into durable political realignment? Could we make the potential crash of the inflated, overextended tech economy into something that could remake politics and the economy — in time to stop the consolidation of authoritarianism?

Those possibilities are real, and that’s why we’re working as hard as we are. But as we compared notes, I felt that familiar tug of dread. All three of us on the phone were veterans of movement moments, big and small. We had all seen coalitions we’d built simmer in misalignment and anger, eventually turning inward or breaking. We had been in room after room where we kept pushing towards an urgent goal, papering over real contradictions in order to get to the next action, the next march, the next move. But we didn’t have a plan to fundamentally shift power, and even when we won, more often than not, our opponents would adjust as we waned or broke, and our people would be worse off than when we started.  

#newsletter-block_3e61ee95945100c46ce4b2525366b414 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_3e61ee95945100c46ce4b2525366b414 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

The three of us talked through how the anti-data center movement might avoid these traps. How could this exploding resistance shift the balance of power at a pivotal time? But when one of the organizers on the line said, “have you read this book, ‘Powerlessness and You,’ or something?” I laughed and let out a breath. I knew what book she meant, and I was thrilled she had found it, too. 

“For Louder Days: Reaching Beyond a Politics of Powerlessness” should be in every organizer’s backpack, dog-eared and a little mangled, because it is a primer for exactly the kind of practice we must take on to meet the challenges we are facing now. 

Marom got his start as a leading organizer at the heart of Occupy Wall Street, and went on to support the leaders building some of the most impactful movement organizations of the last decades, like Dream Defenders, the Sunrise Movement and Uncommitted. He’s also supported us at my own organization, People’s Tech Project, and multiple other tech justice groups as we’ve engaged in the sleeves-up hard work of crafting strategy to take down the ascendant tech oligarchy. 

In “For Louder Days,” he takes the story of his life — from the hopes and heartbreaks of Occupy, to the growth, setbacks and contradictions of the movement to end the Israeli occupation — and spells out his lucid diagnoses of the most critical stumbling blocks of the American left in its fight for hearts, minds and actual power. 

At the core of his assessment: Our movements are woefully underdeveloped in the practice of generative conflict for the sake of good strategy — and that underdevelopment warps and buries the steady love that drove us to come together in this work in the first place.  

Millions in the streets

“For Louder Days” opens in the middle of Occupy at its height, October 2011, when the occupation of Zuccotti Park was spreading nationally and getting buttressed by veteran organizers as it built a realignment of American politics in real time. With generosity, Marom crisply relates how he responded to a call from Spanish comrades for a global day of action, and helped lead the expansion of Occupy into an international project. He and his comrades had a clear hypothesis — that this action would capture the energy boiling over after an attempted eviction from the park and grow the movement far larger — and they worked, heads down, to test it. 

He walks us through the meetings, coalitions, struggles and planning that made it possible. (I’ve never before read a book about meetings that I couldn’t put down.)

He captures the joy and dizzying hope that we’ve all felt at the denouement of those sweaty 20-hour days for weeks on end. He describes what it felt like on Oct. 15, 2011, with 80,000 in the street at Times Square and millions joining globally, to be in the center of the universe as Occupy went worldwide. 

Occupy Wall Street demonstrators converge in Times Square, New York City on Oct. 15, 2011. (Getty/Mario Tama)

“I have been sobered by the history of revolutions that came before and my own small defeats at the hands of this opponent we’re squaring off against,” he writes. “But now — despite all of this good sense, despite my cynicism, despite the layers of armor I have put around my heart along the way — I can’t help but be swept away by this moment. I am completely under its spell.”

The global day of action was powerful and effective. Eighty countries saw supporting protests. Forty-five new occupations were launched around the United States, from big cities to suburbs to small, bright-red communities. 

The group that came together to plan Oct. 15 was ready to plan the next escalation for Nov. 17.  But when challenged by another faction inside Occupy’s leadership — because of course, there is leadership, even (especially!) in an ostensibly leaderless project and movement — Marom was pressured to shut down the ad hoc group inside Occupy that pulled off the day of action. He tells the all-too-familiar story of falling apart: how they lost time as they struggled with each other and with themselves, and lost momentum and membership, eventually leading to the end of the occupation after 57 days. He lays bare the battles whirling inside him as he made the choice to shut down that ad hoc group — a choice that contributed to the end of Occupy. 

This account begins an incredible progression of chapters showing us what Marom learned in the next decade-plus as he advised, facilitated, flanked and organized with the leaders of many other movements. What he saw was a crucial common thread that he calls the “politics of powerlessness.” 

The politics of powerlessness

Marom describes the politics of powerlessness as a deep ambivalence towards actually winning and holding power. When we attack or destroy leadership, weaponize hurt and identity, keep ourselves “enclosed and safe and comfortable,” and refuse risks, we are choosing powerlessness. When we avoid conflict, hide from the grief and loss inherent in making hard choices, or follow instinct and habit, we neither win nor grow. “[The politics of powerlessness are] reinforced by ideas that are easy to reach for, even if they are thin and by habit, and routine,” Marom writes. “It goes hand in hand with an instinct to turn away from the brokenness in each other rather than a commitment to turn toward each other whenever at all possible.” 

Marom goes on to break down, with real compassion for all of us and for himself, the totally understandable and human reasons why organizers choose the politics of powerlessness, while making plain, story after story, the choices movements and their leaders have to make to actually get and keep power. That includes strategy that forces us to say no to almost everything so we can say yes to what we truly need to do to win. A reckoning with the rank that exists in all groups and what it means to hold leadership. Balancing an attention to organizational belonging with an uncompromising focus on purpose. A rekindling of our sense of deep love, for each other and for those we’ve hurt and who have hurt us, across all lines and borders, for the sake of the world we hunger to build.

Marom hasn’t written this book as a hectoring finger-wag at a movement that has lost its way and its right to lead. He wrote it because he has skin in the game, and he has earned a very grounded belief that we can feel, survive and get through that necessary grief in order to build the mature people, organizations and movements that we need.  

Previous Coverage

Movements cannot shy away from conflict

In the chapter called “Good Strategy and Telling the Truth,” Marom tells a story about CAAAV — a seminal working-class Asian organization working on housing across New York City. In 2021, CAAAV’s leaders decided to pull back from some beautiful, hopeful organizing in order to choose transformative campaigns that could make them truly powerful. 

The choice was heartbreaking. Instead of continuing to build committees of working-class Chinese, Bengali and Korean tenants in Queensbridge Houses, a public housing development in Queens, they made the choice to kill that project and throw their weight — and all their Chinese organizers — into an under-resourced but fast-growing campaign in Chinatown.  Marom tells the story with reverence and respect as CAAAV faced the loss and grief that would come, as they chose to abandon some potential members and lose staff to chase real strategy and power. 

Marom tells us why taking on those losses and grief were worth it for CAAAV, and what became possible because of their bravery. Because CAAAV leaders were wise and human enough to close a chapter and invest their resources elsewhere, they won big victories, and learned that winning and moving to offense would transform conditions for every working-class person in the city. This was a fundamental shift in their strategy. By choosing to focus, CAAAV and its sibling group CAAAV Voice were in a strong position to win giant campaigns and organize major new bases. It also enabled them to work with other brilliant immigrant organizations like DRUM Beats and the Democratic Socialists of America to back a long-shot socialist mayoral candidate — Zohran Mandani — who could make the vision of the people real. 

Accompanied through hard choices

I carried the book with me all spring across the country, as I organized with tech workers in the Southwest, data center fighters in Philadelphia and Memphis, and comrades across the tech justice movement. Because Marom knits together the hard-won lessons of failure with how making hard choices can transform our ability to win, they felt practical and applicable in real time. This was particularly true for me, since I’d had practice making those choices myself. Marom and another extraordinarily skilled facilitator, BJ Star of the Wildfire Project, have worked with my group and others fighting an ascendant and brutally damaging tech industry in this wild moment. 

I worked with a small group of organizers to break one organization into three, build and sunset teams, and try a wildly ambitious alignment process with leaders of 15 tech justice organizations. As some of the bravest and most beautiful tech justice organizations struggled together over years, there were many days when I felt that we could win if we had the accompaniment and hope of BJ Star and Yotam Marom. 

#support-block_2a4469b0bcb35e0d58851cbce5309c31 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

While we can’t have that, at least not yet, the DNA of what they do and the lineages that shaped them is knit through many of the organizers and organizations I love best. In the meantime, this book is a ridiculously good start. When I see young organizers in Missouri and seasoned elders in Oakland and friends on a mountaintop in Peru all saying that this book stirred them, made them cry, it gives me a lot of confidence that we can change in the ways we need to.  

There are many ways I remain uncourageous in this revolutionary life. There is honesty I need to bring to old comrades even if it causes us pain. I could bring necessary conflicts to the surface in tech justice organizing, even if it risks a rupture, or disquieting and unbalancing something that we all deeply want to work. I could offer and receive love from unlikely people, that I’m holding myself back from giving, from getting.

“For Louder Days” gets into those contradictions in a way that will stay with you for a long time, and maybe change you. I hope this book can accompany you as you make your way, fight, love, and above all, make the hard choices necessary for good, clear strategy, and for your own transformation. 

This article Why bravery and heartbreak are essential to organizing was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

North Carolina regulators are weighing Duke Energy’s rate-hike requests that could raise power bills for customers across the state.

By Autumn Bracey

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson said he will not sign a proposed settlement in the Duke Energy Progress rate case that would raise residential electric bills by about 6.8% over the next two years.

The utility’s original filing had sought an 18.1% increase on residential rates over two years. Duke announced a settlement last week with the North Carolina Public Staff and other parties, and in testimony before the North Carolina Utilities Commission, Kendal Bowman, North Carolina president for Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas, said the residential rate increase would now be 6.8% over two years.

“Duke brought down their rate increase to 6.8%, but that’s still too high for families and still more than the company needs to cover its investments,” Jackson said. “We’re not signing it.”

…

Regulators hold hearings

On Tuesday, the North Carolina Utilities Commission held hearings on the proposed increase.

WCNC spoke with NC WARN, a nonprofit that educates the public about Duke Energy’s practices. The group says that while customers have seen some wins with lower rates in the past, the new requests are a reminder of why it’s important to keep paying attention.

“I think it’s really important we question the reason for these rate increases,” Sara Heilman, clean energy strategist for NC WARN, said. “We understand the connection and correlation between requested rate increases and Duke Energy’s business model, which really serves to profit its executives and shareholders at the expense of affordability for North Carolinians.”

Rising bill despite falling usage

Heilman also pointed out that per-capita electricity use has actually declined over time, which she says makes it even more important for policymakers to scrutinize the data before approving any rate hikes.

“Our allies at the Energy and Policy Institute show customers, even using the same amount of electricity over the same years, are still seeing increases in their power bills,” Heilman said. “It really has a lot to do with Duke Energy’s investments in fossil fuels, like fracked-gas power plants, and the connection between those investments and the affordability crisis.”

Continue reading

The post NC AG Jeff Jackson rejects Duke Energy rate settlement, calls 6.8% hike ‘still too high’ — WCNC Charlotte appeared first on NC WARN.

By Renee Umsted

As temperatures in the Triangle soar, Duke Energy customers are noticing higher bills.

On social media, customers claim they’re not using more energy, or that they’re trying to use less. But they still say that bills are getting higher each month, and are more expensive than this time last year.

Are high temperatures to blame for expensive energy bills?

It’s summertime. It’s hot and humid. Your air conditioning system is working harder to cool your home.

And if you ask Duke Energy, that’s the story.

“Cooling demand across North Carolina was 43% above normal by July 4 following multiple periods of extreme heat, according to federal weather data,” the Charlotte-based company wrote in an Aug. 7 news release. “For many customers, increased air-conditioning use is the primary reason energy use and bills may be higher than normal.”

Is it Duke Energy’s fault?

But there are other factors to blame for higher bills, said Sara Heilman, clean energy strategist at NC WARN, a nonprofit that advocates for a transition to clean energy and promotes energy and climate justice.

“I think the most central thing contributing to rising electric bills is that there is a direct correlation between profit for Duke Energy executives and investors, and rising costs for North Carolinians,” Heilman said in a video interview.

Duke Energy reported $5 billion in profits last year, The News & Observer previously reported. Last week, it reported its strongest-ever second quarter (April through June), with more than $1 billion in net income.

When the utility builds new infrastructure such as a power plant or high-voltage power line, customers pay for the cost of the project, plus an additional percentage as profit, Heilman said.

“There’s this incentive for Duke to be building as much as possible, even when it’s not necessarily needed,” Heilman said.

Continue reading

The post Your electric bill is up. Is it because of the heat or Duke Energy? — The News & Observer appeared first on NC WARN.

When my grandma speaks, I hang onto her words with a burning curiosity. Her voice, thick with a lilting twang that could only come from a tried-and-true Oklahoman, wraps around my earliest memories...

This story is published through the Indigenous News Alliance.

When the chief of the Okanagan Indian Band looked down on his community from a helicopter last week, much of what he had known all his life was gone.

Homes had burned. Photographs, memorabilia, and Salish baskets had disappeared with them. More than 30 band members had lost their homes, naspəpʕásəs Dan Wilson said, along with around 200 homes and other structures belonging to non-band members.

“Our loss is measured in the family histories that have been lost — especially the Elders who have lost their homes,” he said.

The destruction left by the Bradley Creek wildfire at nk̓maplqs (the head of Okanagan Lake) comes amid a wildfire season that has repeatedly forced Indigenous peoples across Canada from their homes. As of Tuesday, 601 wildfires were burning across the country, including 113 classified as out of control and another 371 that remained out of control but were being monitored rather than actively suppressed.

Those numbers have translated into a summer of evacuations, displacement, and, in some communities, devastating losses for First Nations. Wildfires have affected at least 81 First Nations and forced 9,131 people from their communities since April 1; 2,524 people remained evacuated as of Tuesday. As fires have threatened communities from British Columbia to Ontario, Indigenous leaders have raised concerns about inadequate firefighting equipment, delays in emergency assistance, and the information used to make evacuation decisions.

In Ontario, a fast-moving fire devastated Namaygoosisagagun First Nation in July as residents fled by boat. At least 12 First Nations in the province have been fully or partially evacuated because of wildfires this summer, according to Chiefs of Ontario. The organization is demanding an independent public inquiry into what Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict called a “catastrophic and systemic failure” in the response.

And last week, leaders of Kiashke Zaaging Anishinaabek were still fighting an Ontario government decision to withdraw wildfire implementation and evacuation orders while massive fires remained out of control nearby.

For the Okanagan Indian Band, the immediate danger has eased. The wildfire, which started July 31 on reserve lands near Vernon, British Columbia, had burned about 6,550 acres as of Monday. It was classified as being held over the weekend, meaning it was expected to remain within its existing boundaries under prevailing and forecast conditions. Some evacuation orders have since been rescinded or downgraded.

Although the community faces a long recovery, it “is getting stronger every day,” Wilson said last week. “We’re holding up. We’re very resilient. We have a long history — we’ve been here for 10,000 years.”

Read Next Wildfire season is changing. Spokane is showing how. Sachi Kitajima Mulkey

Wilson praised the band’s firefighters, who were first on the scene and worked alongside provincial wildfire crews. “They went above and beyond. I can’t say enough,” he said.

Wilson said the band’s fire department, which consists of around 30 trained firefighters, was equipped only with a fire truck designed to tackle structural fires. “If we had a proper wildland firefighting truck that’s able to access rough terrain … I’m told that if we had that equipment, our first responders would’ve been able to put that fire out immediately,” he said.

He said that concern was relayed to Mandy Gull-Masty, the federal minister of Indigenous Services.

Wilson noted that the one bright spot from the helicopter tour was seeing the Komasket powwow arbour grounds — as well as the nearby daycare and Nk̓maplqs Iʔ Snm̓am̓ay̓aʔtn Iʔ K̓l Sqilxʷtət Cultural Immersion School — unscathed by the fire. 

The disaster comes five years after the Whiterock Lake wildfire destroyed 10 homes belonging to Okanagan Indian Band members and displaced the community for weeks.

For communities facing this summer’s fires, the challenges have extended beyond escaping the flames. The devastation of Namaygoosisagagun, also known as Collins First Nation, has raised questions about whether the remote community will receive federal recovery and rebuilding assistance. Although its residents are recognized as First Nations people under the Indian Act, Namaygoosisagagun is not recognized as a First Nation. A lawyer representing the community wrote to Gull-Masty that denying it the emergency and rebuilding assistance available to recognized First Nations could threaten its ability to rebuild.

Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict also criticized bureaucratic obstacles First Nations encountered while trying to access emergency assistance. On July 30, Chiefs of Ontario called for an independent public inquiry into the province’s response, saying at least 12 First Nations had been fully or partially evacuated during the wildfire season.

“There has been a catastrophic and systemic failure at nearly every level and at nearly every step of this process,” Benedict said in a statement. “We need to know how and why this happened. But most importantly, we need to learn from it so it never happens again.”

Read Next A ‘crisis communication gap’ threatens Indigenous peoples Dionne Phillips

Communication has emerged as another concern. When an out-of-control wildfire threatened Xeni Gwet’in First Nation in British Columbia in April, authorities did not provide emergency alerts in Tŝilhqot’in — the only language spoken by many Elders in the community — leaving the Nation’s own forestry crew to alert them directly.

Sara Wilson, a communications researcher at Simon Fraser University, has described such shortcomings as part of a broader “crisis communication gap,” pointing to language barriers, underfunding, and the exclusion of Indigenous communities from decision-making during emergencies.

Those concerns extend beyond how emergency information is communicated to questions about who decides when a First Nation is safe. That question remained at the center of a dispute last week at Kiashke Zaaging Anishinaabek, also known as Gull Bay First Nation, in northwestern Ontario. The Nation’s leaders objected to the government decision to withdraw wildfire implementation and evacuation orders around the community. “Our members are still at risk and our infrastructure is at risk,” Chief Wilfred King told CBC Thunder Bay.

Several large fires remained near the community, and King said one of the community’s greatest concerns was that one of them could block its only road out, leaving residents trying to flee across Lake Nipigon. “The only escape would be jumping on boats and crossing Lake Nipigon, and that’s not an alternative,” he said.

King said the community was also concerned about delays in receiving information about changing fire conditions. Before residents return, he said, the Nation also must ensure its water treatment and sewage systems are functioning safely.

Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources told CBC that changes to evacuation orders would be made only when fires no longer posed a risk, based on advice from fire behavior experts. But King said the provincial order should have remained in place until the community was confident it was safe. He told CBC that Indigenous Services Canada supported the Nation’s decision to maintain its own evacuation order.

At Okanagan Indian Band, support came from other First Nations and Indigenous leaders. Penticton Indian Band and Westbank First Nation opened their communities to evacuees, while leaders from across the syilx Okanagan Nation Alliance reached out.

At an emotional community meeting in Vernon, drummers Bruce Manuel and his sister Trish Manuel, sent by Upper Nicola Band Chief Dan Manuel, performed a closing drum song. Wilson said the response was “really bolstering our spirits here.”

“We say our prayers,” he said. “We have a strong faith in kʷuləncútn, the Creator.”

This story was originally published by IndigiNews and updated with additional information by Grist.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Canada’s wildfire season is taking a heavy toll on First Nations on Aug 11, 2026.

Mollie’s Pack has left the safety of Yellowstone’s borders and entered a hunting area.

For seven weeks this June and July, a crew of curious campers explored Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary’s boardwalk and beyond. 69 local youth, aged 6-16, laughed, learned, and formed lifelong connections...

The author, Betsy Pfeiffer, was a UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy (GSPP) Fellow and Greenbelt Alliance research collaborator between February and May 2026.

How do we help Californians understand that building homes in existing communities is good for commutes, wallets, and the environment? Over the first half of 2026, I had the opportunity to work with Greenbelt Alliance to identify existing housing and climate narrative strategies and develop guidance to increase impact.

To understand how Greenbelt Alliance can communicate this link more effectively to Californians, I consolidated existing research, recent polling done by EMC Research, and stakeholder input into a best practices playbook for communicating about climate and housing in California.

According to polling from 2025, California voters’ top five issues are cost of living, housing, crime, traffic, and climate change. Local land-use policies that prioritize infill development can address four out of five of those issues, but that same poll also showed that most voters don’t understand that connection. When asked what local governments could do about climate change, only 3% of respondents said housing policy, and a third of all respondents had no answer at all.

California has historically prioritized housing development on undeveloped land outside of existing communities—known as sprawl. These policy choices have normalized long commutes while driving up the cost of living, increasing traffic, and undermining Californians’ health and quality of life. These land use patterns also lead to more Californians living in areas that are vulnerable to wildfire and floods, which fuels insurance pressures that drive up housing costs statewide. In turn, pollution and global warming gases from so many long commutes are contributing to climate change.

While the links between housing and climate change are clear to many of us working in the field, they can be difficult to talk about in a way that resonates with the general public. There is a growing body of research on the most effective ways to communicate about the environment and housing separately, but little guidance exists on how to connect them.

Day-to-Day Life Resonates

The single most consistent finding from the research, the polling, and the advocates I interviewed is that messages rooted in tangible, everyday benefits outperform everything else. Quality-of-life messages combine those top four concerns from the poll—cost of living, housing, affordability, and climate change—by emphasizing that more housing in existing neighborhoods means less time in traffic, less money spent on gas, and less impact on the environment.

Shorter commutes, walkable neighborhoods, and living closer to family are messaging winners.

The Environment Belongs in The Story

Environmental messages poll well in California, and research suggests that pairing them with quality-of-life framings strengthens the narrative, but the right environmental angle varies by audience.

Urban Californians, for example, seem to respond most to framings that treat care for the environment or fighting climate change as broad values, not aligned with specific actions.

When speaking to rural and suburban residents, conservation messages, in contrast, may be more effective. And framing matters—”Protecting open space” earned strong support, but “stopping sprawl” did not. This difference reflects a broader best practice principle to link messages to existing concerns and keep the framing proactive and solutions-oriented.

Developing a positive framing for stories about disaster avoidance is a bigger challenge. Fire and flood hazards are among the most effective ways to connect housing and climate change, but to work as a housing development narrative, these messages need to execute a pivot that can be difficult to pull off. Moving from why “not to build” in certain places to “why to build” in others can be difficult to communicate effectively and simply in a single message. For now, wildfire threats and insurance pressures seem to land most powerfully with rural and suburban Californians, but urban residents are beginning to share those concerns as climate impacts reach more of the state.

The research demonstrates that quality of life framing applies broadly, but a more nuanced approach is needed when talking to urban versus suburban/rural audiences. Additionally, staying safe from fire and flood is a promising narrative for all Californians, but the messaging needs to be refined and tested. Finally, simpler is better: trying to combine all of these into a single message risks diluting the impact of each.

The Big Picture

Greenbelt Alliance and allies have the opportunity to shift the current public perspective on both housing and the environment to emphasize that housing is a climate solution. The quality of life plus environment pairing has strong evidential support, but it has yet to be tested. And while stakeholder input suggests that separating audiences into urban versus suburban/rural is a reasonable starting point, it’s an inference rather than a tested finding. 

Encouragingly, Californians already care about what infill housing can deliver: shorter commutes, lower costs, walkable neighborhoods, land protection, and a healthier climate.

Header Photo: View from Berkeley Hills. By Chris LaBasco Photography

The post Build California Here appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.

Are there enough minerals for solar power expansion to help mitigate climate change?

Global mineral supplies are large enough to support solar development for climate change mitigation.

A 2023 analysis of 75 emissions-reduction scenarios found that projected median mineral demand largely remains within known geological resources. Projected median demand for silver was about 68,000 metric tons, compared to 530,000 tons of estimated reserves; cadmium demand was 38,000 tons against 500,000 tons of reserves.

Tellurium may constrain cadmium-telluride panels, a minority of the global solar market, but research suggests improved refining and material efficiency could substantially reduce this strain.

Recycling can further reduce demand for newly mined minerals by recovering silver, copper, silicon, and other components for reuse in future panels. Recent innovations are improving recycling cost-effectiveness, while federal programs continue to support domestic mineral supply chains and recycling research. 

The main challenge lies in expanding production and supply chains, not mineral shortages.

Go to full rebuttal on Skeptical Science or to the fact brief on Gigafact

This fact brief is responsive to quotes such as this one.

Sources

AP News Study: Enough rare earth minerals to fuel green energy shift

Joule Future demand for electricity generation materials under different climate mitigation scenarios

USGS Byproduct Mineral Commodities Used for the Production of Photovoltaic Cells

Yale School of the Environment As Millions of Solar Panels Age Out, Recyclers Hope to Cash In

Resources, Conservation and Recycling Innovating the recycling of silicon-based solar panels with an eco-friendly alkaline leaching process

MIT Climate Can solar panels be recycled?

U.S. Department of Energy End-of-Life Management for Solar Photovoltaics

The White House Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Delegates Defense Production Act Authority with Respect to Recoverable Critical Minerals and Materials That Are Essential to Our National Defense

Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles

Please use this form to provide feedback about this fact brief. This will help us to better gauge its impact and usability. Thank you!

About fact briefs published on Gigafact

Fact briefs are short, credibly sourced summaries that offer "yes/no" answers in response to claims found online. They rely on publicly available, often primary source data and documents. Fact briefs are created by contributors to Gigafact — a nonprofit project looking to expand participation in fact-checking and protect the democratic process. See all of our published fact briefs here.

Layers of red dust coat South Africa’s Saldanha Bay, a legacy of the one billion-plus tonnes of iron ore exported from what was once a quiet coastal fishing town in the 1970s. Now the government wants to turn this area into the “oil and gas hub of South Africa”, but opposition from local communities and civil society could force a change of plan.

Since 2014 South Africa has developed a strategy for taking “full advantage” of its marine resources, known as Operation Phakisa. It has resulted in more than 95% of the ocean off South Africa’s nearly 3,000-kilometre coastline being mapped for oil and gas exploration.

The plan seeks to “drill 30 exploration wells in 10 years”, which it estimates could lead to the production of an average of 370,000 barrels of oil and gas per day over 20 years, with Saldanha Bay earmarked as a key logistics hub. It also aims to develop other marine sectors like aquaculture, maritime transport and ocean tourism.

However, two major court cases against the government and oil giants Shell and TotalEnergies have challenged those plans, as coastal residents, allied with national civil society groups, have pushed back against oil concessions held by the multinationals, arguing they were not consulted, and that towns like Saldanha Bay could face social and environmental harms from the fossil fuel extraction.

• Aug 6, 2026 News Quarter of countries still missing UN climate plans 18 months after deadline Egypt, Vietnam, Argentina and the Philippines are among the 45 nations that have breached the Paris Agreement by not submitting a new NDC to the UN Read more
• Aug 5, 2026 News Santa Marta coalition tested as co-chair Colombia turns back to fossil fuels Despite a leadership gap, outgoing environment minister Irene Vélez Torres says the anti-fossil fuel coalition can “live without Colombia” Read more
• Aug 6, 2026 News China’s coal power rebounds as record clean energy goes to waste Long-term contracts guarantee coal plants buyers regardless of demand, crowding out renewables, report finds Read more

Melissa Groenink-Groves, programme manager at legal nonprofit Natural Justice, said the cases in South Africa could set a precedent for the whole region. “When communities win in the courts, the successes serve as inspiration for other communities to advocate [for] their rights in their own contexts,” she explained.

She added that the legal challenges to Operation Phakisa also develop climate litigation in South Africa, and could impact how environmental impact assessments are conducted going forward.

Globally, as the oil and gas industry sets its sights on the ocean, with over 85% of new discoveries in 2024 made offshore, scientists and activists warn it could threaten marine life and coastal communities, and weaken the ocean’s ability to trap excess heat from the atmosphere, fuelling planetary warming further.

A demonstration against TotalEnergies’ offshore oil exploration effort in South Africa. (Photo: Ashraf Hendricks/GroundUp News) Taking oil companies to court 

About 400 kilometres north of Saldanha Bay, the Aukotowa Fisheries Cooperative, backed by nonprofits The Green Connection and Natural Justice, has taken TotalEnergies to court over its plans to drill for oil and gas in a 30,000-square-kilometre block off South Africa’s west coast.

The oil exploration block is in a biodiverse marine area bordering Namibia and South Africa known as the Orange Basin, which is a “highly relevant” sanctuary for endangered species, according to Nelson Mandela University’s Institute for Coastal and Marine Research.

Among other grievances, the cooperative maintains that the company’s environmental impact assessment was flawed, failing to consider the project’s contribution to climate change, and that the government “placed the profits of a multinational corporation above the livelihoods of vulnerable coastal communities”. The Western Cape High Court concluded hearings in late March and is expected to deliver a ruling later this year.

Walter Steenkamp, chairperson of the Aukotowa Cooperative, is concerned that the oil and gas drilling will lead to increased inequality, asking “for whom is the development? Definitely not for us.”

In a written statement, TotalEnergies told Climate Home News that it “is a responsible operator fully committed to complying with all applicable South African legislation”.

Southeast Asia’s fragile grids threaten billions in clean energy investment

Communities and climate impacts at stake

On the other side of the country, along South Africa’s eastern coastline, community-based nonprofit Sustaining the Wild Coast and partner organisations have since 2021 challenged Shell and Impact Africa’s exploration permit, arguing that the firms had failed to consult impacted communities – a legal requirement under South African law.

Co-plaintiff Sinegugu Zukulu also said in 2022 that “oil and gas will lead to more emissions, and in the face of climate change, this is wholly irresponsible”.

Following two rulings against the companies by lower courts, the case is now before South Africa’s highest Constitutional Court, which has reserved judgment since September 2025. A ruling against the companies would be final, effectively ending the exploration permit.

Legal expert Groenink-Groves said oil exploration applications under Operation Phakisa have been “granted largely without properly assessing the devastating impact an oil spill could have on small-scale fishers, the risks of drilling in ultra-deep waters, [and] without accounting for climate change impacts associated with oil and gas exploitation”.

She added that exploration applications have often failed to consider coastal management laws and in some cases, cross-border and regional environmental risks.

Shell and South Africa’s Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources did not respond to written requests for comment.

Sinegugu Zukulu, co-plaintiff in the case against Shell. (Photo: Tom van der Schijff) South Africa’s offshore oil ambitions

Fishers around South Africa, many of whom have for generations relied on marine resources for survival, say the country’s offshore oil and gas push is sacrificing their livelihoods for profit.

“Why do they want to destroy our heritage? We can’t afford to say yes to oil and gas because the ocean is our source of life,” said Carmelita Mostert, a member of advocacy group Coastal Links and third-generation Saldanha Bay fisher. 

Yet with unemployment above 30%, alongside high levels of poverty and wealth inequality, the government sees Operation Phakisa as a vehicle for socioeconomic development.

South Africa’s Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources Gwede Mantashe has described the court cases as “anti-development”, and claimed that the environmental organisations are funded by the CIA.

Sifiso Dladla, a campaigner with human rights organisation groundWork, argued that the close relationship between the government and the fossil fuel industry – including its more than 3% contribution to gross tax revenue – limits the potential success of movements pushing for an inclusive energy system. Politicians “need money to win elections. Mining companies need the government to protect them,” he said.

Patrick Bond, a political economist and sociology professor at the University of Johannesburg, said Operation Phakisa only makes economic sense if its social and environmental harms are ignored, adding that “if a genuine social cost of carbon analysis were done in any African fossil fuel project, there would be few – if any – able to justify the projects economically”. 

Bond added that efforts by South African communities to oppose oil projects are undermined by public and private financial support for oil companies, including the French government’s $2.8 billion stake in TotalEnergies. 

For Saldanha Bay fisher Mostert, the fight is about protecting the livelihoods of coastal communities. “It is my hope that we can stand strong and protest,” she said. “If oil and gas is not allowed, our lives will be much easier and better – but if oil and gas goes ahead we will be in absolute agony.”

This piece was edited to clarify Patrick Bond’s comment on the international support for oil corporations.

The post South Africa’s offshore oil push meets grassroots resistance in court appeared first on Climate Home News.

With more than two decades of advocacy efforts and many twists and turns, the site known as Tesla Park in eastern Alameda County needs protection once again. 

In 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom, the Legislature, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation reached a $31 million agreement to protect the Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area from off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation on the land.

We are now asking our supporters to reach out to legislators to ask them to support establishing Tesla as a State Natural Reserve. We need your urgent help because State Parks plans to release the general plan and Environmental Impact Report by the end of the year. We cannot let Tesla’s irreplaceable resource values be damaged by short-term thinking. Send an email to Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan and Senator McNerney in a few easy steps using this action alert!

Tesla has natural and cultural resources of statewide significance that exceed the statute for Reserve classification, from extraordinary biodiversity to an essential critical linkage wildlife corridor to important historic and prehistoric cultural resources. Learn more here. 

Historic Fight

With the mobilization of a coalition of organizations, led by the Save Tesla Park campaign, Greenbelt Alliance helped fight this battle for Tesla Park—and won. The land has rare ecological value and contains an abundance of highly sensitive natural and cultural resources. Learn more here. 

This agreement was part of the 2021 Natural Resources Budget Trailer Bill AB 155/SB 155, which ended plans to expand the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) into the 3,100-acre Tesla Park and provides resources to reallocate this high-environmental-impact activity to a different, more appropriate location. 

For at least two decades, Tesla Park was at risk of becoming a destructive off-highway vehicle/motorized recreation park as an expansion project for the Carnegie SVRA. In 2019, Governor Newsom vetoed legislation that would have preserved Tesla Park, and in June 2021, threatened to line-item veto a Tesla Park protection item in the budget unless it was removed. Ultimately, the Tesla budget language was passed.

Now, this land will become a new unit of the state park system, under the control of State Parks and the Parks and Recreation Commission. A planning process is currently being conducted to determine the classification of Tesla Park as a unit of the park system and its management and use plan, with $1 million allocated to the planning process. 

Greenbelt Alliance and the coalition to Save Tesla Park are working to have Tesla classified as a State Natural Reserve, which can provide low-intensity public access, education, and enjoyment, including hiking, nature appreciation, cultural resource interpretation and tours,
and ensure that its irreplaceable natural and cultural resources are protected forever.

With information from Friends of Tesla Park.

The post Tell Legislators to Make Tesla Park a Natural Reserve appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

I went for a run this morning, on a paved trail that runs along a little creek surrounded by a few loblolly pine trees and some red maples, a little bit of urban nature surrounded by houses, streets, and suburbia. It was humid in the early summer morning, with mist steaming up off the concrete […]