News Feeds

Could the oil industry be held responsible for fueling the extreme heat that led to a woman’s death?

That’s the question at the heart of a novel lawsuit in Washington state. Misti Leon’s mother died from overheating during the hottest day in state history in June 2021, when temperatures climbed to 108 degrees Fahrenheit. Scientists said the unusual heat dome that descended on the Pacific Northwest would have been “virtually impossible” without climate change. So last year, Leon sued Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron, Shell, and other oil majors for wrongful death, alleging that they had known for decades that fossil fuel emissions would lead to destructive consequences, but deceived the public about it, delaying action that could have prevented her mother’s death. An estimated 1,200 people in the region perished from the heat during that simmering week in June.

Earlier this month, a King County judge ruled against the oil companies’ motions to dismiss Leon’s lawsuit, allowing it to proceed toward trial. The ruling was a signal that this kind of case has merit, said Mike Meno, the communications director at the Center for Climate Integrity, a nonprofit supporting climate accountability cases. “It’s the latest type of legal liability that the oil companies are absolutely terrified of and are going to fight like hell to try to escape,” he said. 

More than a decade after investigations found that Exxon Mobil had known about the dangers of global warming since the 1970s but publicly downplayed the threat, lawsuits against oil companies have proliferated. There are nearly 40 of these cases pending across the country, according to Margaret Barry, who manages a climate litigation database at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center. After years of delay tactics from the oil industry, at least five of these lawsuits — from Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, and Honolulu — have proceeded to the discovery stage, in which both sides try to uncover evidence to bolster their case in court. That’s the last major step before a trial, when oil executives would be forced to defend their actions in front of a jury.

Some cases are on hold as judges wait to hear how the Supreme Court handles a lawsuit from Boulder, Colorado, this fall. The city and county of Boulder allege that Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy violated state laws by concealing the dangers of their products and they want money to pay for the rising costs of improving infrastructure to deal with heat waves, wildfires, and floods. The outcome could affect existing climate lawsuits, or push plaintiffs to take different approaches.

Portland residents fill a cooling center at the Oregon Convention Center during the June 2021 heat dome. Nathan Howard / Getty Images

In the meantime, the industry has been mobilizing a counterattack against the lawsuits with the help of the Trump administration and Republican politicians. The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s biggest lobbying group, has said that one of its priorities for 2026 was to “stop extreme climate liability policy.” The industry has begun challenging “attribution science,” a rapidly developing field that seeks to quantify how climate change, and even emissions from specific companies, have intensified extreme weather. 

The flurry of activity suggests that the industry feels like it’s under threat, Meno said. “Quite simply, Big Oil is in panic mode.” 

Republicans are trying to pass laws to grant oil majors immunity to these kinds of lawsuits, with success in several states so far. Utah, Iowa, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Louisiana have recently signed laws shielding fossil fuel companies from lawsuits related to greenhouse gas emissions, while Montana and Utah (again) reformed existing laws to narrowly define what counts as a “public nuisance,” effectively blocking lawsuits against oil companies to recover damages from climate change under that legal theory. The effort has gone national: Republicans in both chambers of Congress introduced bills this spring that would give oil companies broad immunity from lawsuits seeking to hold them accountable for climate damages, with the backing of the American Petroleum Institute. 

In April, an investigation from ProPublica revealed a coordinated effort behind these “liability shield” laws from conservative groups tied to the activist Leonard Leo. Evidence provided to Grist from the watchdog group Fieldnotes shows that Koch Industries and Exxon, in particular, have extensive ties to the organizations pushing for these laws, including the American Legislative Exchange Council and the American Tort Reform Association.

“If these companies have done nothing wrong and they think the law is on their side, why are they lobbying Congress for immunity?” Meno said. 

Oil executives have also gotten help from the federal government, following an executive order from President Donald Trump last year directing the attorney general to prioritize blocking climate lawsuits by states. This May, the Justice Department responded to Minnesota’s climate lawsuit against Big Oil with a lawsuit of its own, just as the state’s case was moving into the discovery phase. It said Minnesota was undermining “American energy dominance” and attempting to regulate greenhouse gases, which should fall under the purview of federal law — echoing the oil industry’s well-known argument. In a related development, Robert Levy, a longtime Exxon lawyer, recently joined the Department of Justice in the newly dubbed “Energy and Natural Resources Division” (instead of the “Environment and Natural Resources Division”).

Read Next Red-state Republicans seek climate ‘liability shield’ for fossil fuel industry Dharna Noor

As oil companies have worked to delay these lawsuits, the scientific backing supporting some of these cases has gotten stronger. A new, major report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concludes that the existing science linking climate change to extreme weather has become increasingly robust, particularly for extreme heat, extreme cold, and heavy rainfall. Though the report doesn’t make recommendations about how the findings should be used, it has drawn an unusual level of scrutiny. Last month, ahead of the report’s release, the opposition research firm Argus Insight requested to see internal communications between the members of the panel working on the report and any emails they might have exchanged with academics and lawyers involved in researching legal strategies for climate court cases. 

“We saw pushback to not the science itself, but the process,” said Carly Phillips, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ climate litigation hub. “For me, that was really illustrative, because the science is really sound.” She sees the opposition as an attempt to discredit scientific evidence before it has a chance to be heard in court.

Earlier this year, Republican attorneys general pressured the National Academies of Sciences and the Federal Judicial Center, the research agency for federal judges, to remove a chapter on climate science from their updated reference manual for judges, but only the Judicial Center complied. Trump entered the debate on Sunday, ordering officials to review the conduct of the National Academies of Sciences. “Our Taxpayers should not be funding Climate Fraud, and Judges should never have relied upon it,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Big Oil ostensibly hopes to avoid the fate of Big Tobacco, which paid hundreds of billions of dollars to settle lawsuits demonstrating that companies lied about the health risks of smoking. As the legal theories for those seeking to hold oil companies accountable for global warming evolve, the fossil fuel industry has to keep up, Justin Anderson, a lawyer for Exxon, explained at a panel on climate litigation held by the Federalist Society in November. 

“Why do they keep adapting and changing their theories?” Anderson asked. “It’s kind of obvious. I have to win every time. I have to win every case that is brought. They just need to find one they can get through.”

toolTips('.classtoolTips3','Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases that prevent heat from escaping Earth’s atmosphere. Together, they act as a blanket to keep the planet at a liveable temperature in what is known as the “greenhouse effect.” Too many of these gases, however, can cause excessive warming, disrupting fragile climates and ecosystems.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline As climate lawsuits advance, the oil industry enters ‘panic mode’ on Jul 24, 2026.

This story is published through the Indigenous News Alliance.

Indigenous communities around the world face mounting, and colliding, impacts from climate change, violence, rising threats from artificial intelligence, and many other crises. Their leaders are demanding that the world take action, and they’ve given the United Nations a 12-point plan for what they say it must do. 

Simply put, their proposal calls on the U.N. and governments around the world to take sweeping and rapid action to protect Indigenous land, rights, and lives. 

“Our communities — our women, our children, our families — they have a right to action and that’s what we’re not seeing globally,” said Cora McGuire-Cyrette, who is a member of the Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek and spoke on behalf of the Ontario Native Women’s Association. “We’re looking for action.” 

Last week, the seven Indigenous members of the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or EMRIP, finalized the proposal it will present to the U.N. Human Rights Council. But even as the recommendations generated hope for change, the financial crisis facing EMRIP cast a shadow over the proceedings. Many delegates expressed concerns about the future of the forum, and other hard-won international platforms for Indigenous voices.

Given the scale of threats Indigenous peoples face, these forums are more important than ever, said Sheryl Lightfoot, who is Anishinaabe and serves as EMRIP’s North America region expert.  “There’s clearly no shortage of work,” she said.

The breadth of the 12 recommendations reflects that urgency, calling for stronger protections for Indigenous cultures and rights and a greater voice in global affairs.

One recommendation sought greater protections for remote Indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation or initial contact. Others stressed the need to preserve Indigenous languages and data sovereignty.

Delegates also argued that the legal standing of Indigenous peoples must be strengthened by recognizing their rights as distinct from broader human rights and by fully implementing the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They also called on the U.N. to increase Indigenous participation within the Human Rights Council and encourage member states to engage more fully with EMRIP.

Albert Barume is the U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples and EMRIP’s former chairperson. He told the delegates about what he called a widespread trend of “stagnation and regression” for human rights. “In the last years,” he said, “almost no single states have taken a new measure protecting Indigenous peoples’ rights. And states that had legal and policy frameworks are actively dismantling and regressing.”

Macy Duxfield, who is Māori and belongs to the Ngaa Rauru, Te Ātihaunui-a-Papārangi, and Ngāi Tahu nations, described Aotearoa New Zealand’s policies toward Indigenous peoples as regressive. But she reminds herself of the continual work that’s still needed to overcome the challenges her people face. “We exist in this moment,” she said. “We’ve inherited the work from our ancestors, and we pass it on to our descendants.” 

McGuire-Cyrette and others also reminded delegates about the importance of greater autonomy for Indigenous women and girls. “We recommend the inclusion of Indigenous women in all decisions that impact our lives, our families, and our nations,” McGuire-Cyrette said.

But even as Indigenous delegates try to use international forums to fight for change, those mechanisms are in danger. EMRIP is among the three U.N. bodies focused on Indigenous peoples — along with the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples. All three agencies face an uncertain future due to dwindling financial support.

Marjolaine Étienne, who is Innu from the Pekuakamiulnuatsh community of Mashteuiatsh in Quebec, told delegates the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples needs greater support. The program helps Indigenous representatives cover the costs of attending international meetings. The number of representatives the fund supports is already perilously low, she said. Without greater state contributions, fewer delegates will be able to attend those forums, sidelining them from the international stage. 

Just eight countries contribute to the fund, and its budget is less than $2 million. Only three countries contributed to the U.N. Trust Fund for Indigenous Peoples. The United States does not contribute to either of them. 

“The liquidity crisis must not be used as an excuse to limit the mandate of EMRIP and to reduce the frequency or depth of country engagements or follow-up,” McGuire-Cyrette said. 

Lightfoot acknowledged there is widespread uncertainty within EMRIP and all U.N. bodies amid the agency-wide reform effort known as UN80. But she said EMRIP is preparing for whatever happens. “There are a lot of unanswered questions right now” about the reforms, she said, “and what the impacts of that might be for Indigenous-specific mechanisms.”

“I don’t know where we’re going,” she said. “I don’t know what kind of efficiencies the U.N. will ask of us. But I know we are thinking it through because we want to be ready to respond.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Indigenous leaders give the UN a roadmap for protecting their peoples on Jul 24, 2026.

What would an ecofeminist world include, and what would it leave behind? A classroom exercise explores the values and challenges of imagining systemic change.

Our campaign won a digital advertising revenue tax that may generate over $1.1 billion annually for the state’s budget.

The Stay Grounded network has launched a new project called ‘Red Lines for Airports’. It seeks to unite and support groups campaigning against airport expansion projects and build power for a reduction of air traffic. As part of it we’re running a European Tour, visiting members, and supporting with workshops and skill-shares. Here Sara Fromm, German contact campaigner and action coordinator at…

Source

The Stay Grounded network has launched a new project called ‘Red Lines for Airports’. It seeks to unite and support groups campaigning against airport expansion projects and build power for a reduction of air traffic. As part of it, we’re running a European Tour, visiting members, and supporting with workshops and skill-shares. Here, Inês tells us about her trip to Madrid to support…

Source

Di tengah pertumbuhan tersebut, istilah slot gacor terbaik dan terpercaya menjadi salah satu kata kunci yang paling sering dicari oleh pengguna internet. Meski demikian, memahami makna di balik istilah tersebut menjadi langkah penting agar pengguna dapat memilih platform yang aman, transparan, dan memberikan pengalaman bermain yang optimal.

Secara umum, istilah slot gacor digunakan oleh komunitas pemain untuk menggambarkan permainan yang dinilai memiliki peluang memberikan fitur bonus atau kemenangan lebih sering berdasarkan pengalaman mereka. Namun, tidak ada jaminan bahwa suatu permainan akan selalu menghasilkan kemenangan dalam periode tertentu. Pemahaman ini membantu pemain membangun ekspektasi yang lebih realistis saat menikmati permainan online.

Dalam memilih slot gacor terbaik dan terpercaya, aspek keamanan menjadi prioritas utama. Platform yang kredibel umumnya menyediakan sistem perlindungan data pengguna, metode transaksi yang aman, serta informasi yang transparan mengenai layanan yang ditawarkan. Selain itu, keberadaan layanan pelanggan yang responsif dan proses transaksi yang efisien menjadi indikator penting bahwa sebuah platform berkomitmen memberikan pengalaman pengguna yang berkualitas.

Faktor lain yang tidak kalah penting adalah keberagaman koleksi permainan. Platform terpercaya biasanya bekerja sama dengan berbagai pengembang perangkat lunak ternama sehingga mampu menghadirkan pilihan game dengan tema, fitur, dan tingkat volatilitas yang beragam. Variasi tersebut memungkinkan pemain menyesuaikan permainan sesuai preferensi masing-masing, baik yang menyukai fitur bonus interaktif maupun permainan dengan mekanisme sederhana.

Selain variasi permainan, informasi mengenai Return to Player (RTP) dan volatilitas juga menjadi bahan pertimbangan bagi banyak pemain. RTP merupakan persentase teoritis pengembalian dana kepada pemain dalam jangka panjang, sedangkan volatilitas menggambarkan tingkat frekuensi serta besaran kemenangan yang mungkin diperoleh. Memahami kedua indikator tersebut dapat membantu pemain menentukan permainan yang sesuai dengan gaya bermain tanpa bergantung pada anggapan bahwa suatu slot selalu memberikan hasil yang sama.

Prinsip bermain secara bertanggung jawab juga menjadi bagian penting dalam memilih slot terpercaya. Pemain disarankan menetapkan batas anggaran, mengatur durasi bermain, serta menjadikan permainan sebagai bentuk hiburan, bukan sebagai sarana memperoleh pendapatan. Pendekatan ini membantu menciptakan pengalaman bermain yang lebih sehat sekaligus mengurangi risiko pengambilan keputusan secara emosional.

Pada akhirnya, memilih slot gacor terbaik dan terpercaya tidak hanya bergantung pada popularitas suatu permainan, tetapi juga pada kualitas platform yang digunakan. Transparansi informasi, sistem keamanan yang baik, reputasi layanan, serta komitmen terhadap pengalaman pengguna merupakan faktor utama yang perlu diperhatikan. Dengan memahami aspek-aspek tersebut, pemain dapat menikmati permainan digital secara lebih bijak, aman, dan bertanggung jawab, sekaligus memperoleh pengalaman hiburan yang lebih nyaman dalam ekosistem game online yang terus berkembang.

Campaigners have criticised another oil operator for a “flawed assessment” of the climate impact of drilling and production plans.

Methods used in an application for expansion of the Wressle oil field in North Lincolnshire have been condemned in a public consultation as “unscientific wishful thinking” and of failing to comply with the latest guidance.

Objectors have said the Wressle scheme should be refused planning permission.

Existing Wressle well site. Photo: Egdon Resources planning application

Earlier this week, DrillOrDrop reported calls for rejection of an expansion scheme at the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey, partly because of the way carbon emissions had been estimated.

At both Horse Hill and Wressle, developers have claimed the impacts on climate change would be “insignificant”, despite the release at each site of more than a million tonnes of damaging carbon pollution.

Key criticisms have centred on how the companies assessed the significance of greenhouse gases resulting from burning the extracted oil or gas, known as downstream or scope 3 category 11 emissions.

The Wressle operator, Egdon Resources, estimated in a revised application, published in May 2026, that the expanded operation would produce an extra 1 million+ barrels of oil over 15 years and an additional 5.264 billion cubic feet of gas.

Egdon predicted that the site would release more than 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tco2e), most of it through scope 3 category 11 emissions.

Campaigners have argued there is no space in the global carbon budget for any new fossil fuel developments or expansion of existing sites if the world’s temperature increase is to remain within the legally-binding limit of 1.5C.

Egdon had been granted permission in 2024 for two new production wells and lower volume fracking.

But the approval was later quashed following the landmark Finch Ruling at the Supreme Court.

This was a successful challenge brought by Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group, which required decision-makers to take into account the scope 3 category 11 emissions.

“All eyes on Wressle”

The decision on the Wressle scheme, to be made by North Lincolnshire Council, could be the first fossil fuel production application in England to be made using the Finch Ruling.

Other applications have been withdrawn (Biscathorpe), postponed (Waddock Cross in Dorset) or faced requests for more information (Rosebank and Jackdaw).

The Weald Action Group (WAG) said in its response to the Wressle application:

“All eyes will therefore be on North Lincolnshire and the decision will be closely scrutinised, as its approach could set an influential precedent for future decisions on similar projects.”

Fossil Fuel Free Lincolnshire (FFFL) told DrillOrDrop:

“Once again at Wressle, the oil and gas industry claims that the emissions from a single development are insignificant when set against global carbon budgets.

“That misses the point entirely.

“The remaining carbon budget is disappearing fast, which means every tonne of emissions counts. The claim that one more oil and gas development won’t make a difference is ludicrous – especially as they say it every time!

“Each new development locks us into fossil fuels and adds to global emissions.”

FFFL said:

“We’ve presented robust legal and planning arguments showing why this proposal should be refused, backed by national climate policy and North Lincolnshire’s own Green Future Plan. The planners have both the evidence and the policy framework they need. Now they just need the courage to resist industry pressure and make the right decision.”

Lincolnshire Climate Commission told us:

“Limiting the worst impacts of climate change requires a rapid reduction in fossil fuel use across all sectors, not the expansion of oil and gas production that extends reliance on fossil fuels.

“The UK’s long-term energy security depends on accelerating the transition to renewable energy and improving energy efficiency, rather than continued investment in new fossil fuel extraction and associated infrastructure.

“We urge decision-makers to ensure that the Wressle planning application is assessed in light of the UK’s climate commitments and the wider, long-term public interest.”

Lincolnshire climate campaigner, Amanda Suddaby, said in her formal response that Egdon Resources had failed to “provide a transparent or robust assessment of the project’s full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions or their significance.”

She said the proposal would extend the original 15-year production life of Wressle:

“this application represents a material extension of fossil fuel extraction that is not consistent with the basis on which the original temporary permission was granted, nor with current national and local policy requirements relating to climate change.”

Key points “Unsound and inadequate environmental statement”

Opponents of the Wressle expansion have outlined in formal responses to a public consultation what they said were numerous flaws in the environmental statement (ES) that accompanied the planning application and included the climate assessment.

FFFL said in its response:

“The ES is logically unsound and legally inadequate. On that basis alone, permission for the proposed development should be refused.”

The group said North Lincolnshire Council should not give Egdon “yet another bite at the cherry” by asking for a further revised environmental statement. It said:

“The most robust and cogent response would be to refuse permission”.

“Contrary to latest guidance”

Several responses argued that Egdon had not complied with the latest guidance on assessing climate impacts.

WAG said:

“We consider that the assessment does not comply with EIA Regulations 2017, the Department of Energy and Net Zero scope 3 supplementary guidance, or the Institute of Sustainability and Environmental Professions 2022 guidance regarding assessing greenhouse gas emissions and evaluating their significance.

“Nor does it refer to the 2025 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change or the 2024 proposed revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework.”

“Ignored latest forecasts”

Several responses also stated that Egdon’s environmental statement did not consider the most up-to-date forecasts of the remaining 1.5C aligned global carbon budget.

WAG said:

“There is zero space in the remaining 1.5C aligned global carbon budget for any new fossil fuel developments or expansions to existing sites; and a massive excess of emissions from existing oil, gas and coal infrastructure which will now need to close before the end of its economic life.

“The 917,999 tco2e of scope 3, category 11 emissions from an expanded Wressle development would be additional, cumulative and hence contribute to the further exceedance of the 1.5C global carbon budget. As such, and based on established guidance, these emissions should be considered as significant for the climate.”

Amanda Suddaby said:

“The development of new fossil fuel extraction is fundamentally incompatible with the UK’s climate obligations and with Paris-aligned 1.5C pathways which are essential for maintaining a habitable planet and avoiding runaway climate breakdown triggers.”

“Insignificant impact” – “scientifically-flawed”

Egdon Resources assessed the significance of the category 11 emissions at Wressle as a percentage of overall global carbon budgets and in relation to emissions reduction pathways published behind paywalls by the fossil fuel consultancy, Global Energy Outlook.

The company said:

“while the unmitigated, worst-case effect is moderate adverse, the overall assessment concludes that the effect is minor adverse when viewed in the context of global mitigation trajectories.”

Lincolnshire Climate Commission described this conclusion as “scientifically flawed”.

FFFL said:

“This startling conclusion is entirely without rational foundation.

It said:

“The reasoning for how an acknowledged significant adverse effect can become ‘not significant’ in the absence of any mitigation is demonstrably flawed.”

FFFL added:

“All the factors … point to a major adverse impact, given the project [is] being assessed as a fossil fuel project which locks in emissions because it adopts a business-as usual or do-minimum approach to compliance with global mitigation trajectories (themselves unscientific).”

FFFL said of the company’s assessment approaches:

“Neither is an adequate approach to contextualising the significance of the project’s emissions since neither allows for the project’s contributions (or lack thereof) towards the achievement of net zero to be clearly understood.”

Professional judgement “unscientific wishful thinking”

Egdon Resources concluded that the scope 3 category 11 emissions would have a moderate adverse effect, reducing to minor adverse when “professional judgement” was applied. The company referred to guidance from the Institute of Sustainability and Environmental Professions (ISEP).

But the ISEP guidance on ‘professional judgement’ states this must be based “on available guidance, policy and scientific evidence”.

FFFL said:

“The so-called ‘professional judgement’ reducing the moderate adverse effect … to a minor adverse effect is unmoored from any available guidance, policy or scientific evidence. It is unscientific wishful thinking.”

FFFL added:

“It is self-evidence that the GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from the proposed development would have a significant effect on the climate and that the effect would be major adverse, applying the ISEP guidance and the supplementary guidance.”

“Failed to assess cumulative effects”

The supplementary guidance, published by the UK government after the Finch Ruling, states that global emissions reduction pathways should be “inherently cumulative” so that they can function as a cumulative assessment of a project’s climate effects.

FFFL said pathways used by Egdon were “not inherently cumulative”.

They relied on “abstract projections and modelling of reducing demand for fossil fuels over time rather than real world data and implemented policies”, FFFL said.

FFFL described the Egdon pathways as “untethered from the reality of existing, consented and planned projects.”

FFFL said the company failed to “carry out a proper assessment of the cumulative effects of the proposed development in relation to other planned and permitted fossil fuel projects”.

WAG said:

“By not considering forecast emissions from already existing and approved oil and gas projects it fails to place Wressle’s scope 3, category 11 emissions within a global cumulative emissions context.”

Amanda Suddaby said it was “mathematically unsound” to argue that any single development was insignificant in the context of a larger overarching budget.

She said:

“Treating any source individually rather than additionally is to misunderstand the nature of the mitigation problem: emissions from all sources must be rapidly cut, with no scope for additional fossil fuel extraction”.

She added:

“The drop in the-ocean argument has been rejected by courts around the world, and by the government”.

“No substance to substitution argument”

Egdon suggested that demand for oil would be met from alternative sources if Wressle expansion did not go ahead. It said the sources could include imported oil, resulting in additional emissions from transport and different regulatory standards.

UK government guidance requires developers to provide evidence of substitution if it relies on this argument.

WAG and FFFL said no evidence of substitution had been provided and the argument should be disregarded.

FFFL said:

“Egdon purports to rely on alleged substitution and a reduction in the need for imports into the UK, that is inappropriate and unlawful.”

Lincolnshire Climate Commission said:

“Global oil markets do not operate on a one‑in, one‑out basis. Additional production from small fields such as Wressle adds to total global supply, increasing global emissions. This conclusion is consistent with independent climate‑energy research and the position of the UK Climate Change Committee. The substitution argument should therefore be given no weight in the planning balance.”

“Contradicts local climate plan”

Several responses said Wressle expansion would contradict local climate policies.

The North Lincolnshire Council Green Future Programme aims to create a “cleaner greener and more sustainable North Lincolnshire”, with its own commitment to net zero in operational emissions by 2030.

Amanda Suddaby said estimated emissions associated with Wressle expansion were approx 200 times greater than the council’s six-year carbon reduction target. She said:

“This highlights a fundamental inconsistency between the council’s stated climate ambitions and the continued approval of new fossil fuel developments”.

Lincolnshire Climate Commission said:

“Approving further oil extraction at Wressle would directly contradict these strategic aims, undermine the Council’s stated commitment to a “cleaner, greener and more sustainable North Lincolnshire,” and increase the very climate and nature risks the Council has pledged to reduce.”

There are farcical elements to the Farage/Lowe schism but also a real danger of dragging British politics ever rightwards, writes Rhys Clarke

The post Reform, Restore and the fragmentation of the British right appeared first on Red Pepper.

Dancing towards the revolution Channel News brendan 24th July 2026 Teaser Media

Veteran energy and climate reporter Peter Hannam is joining Renew Economy, returning to journalism after a stint with the Climate Change Authority.

The post Peter Hannam joins Renew Economy as senior writer as editorial team expands appeared first on Renew Economy.

Consultant Shane Quinnell on the many hurdles we force renewable projects to jump over – and then wonder why they trip up. Plus, news of the week.

The post Energy Insiders Podcast: Why we make renewable projects so hard appeared first on Renew Economy.

Waymos — the driverless taxis that operate in many cities — are involved in 68-percent fewer crashes than humans, a new independent study found.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety report compared state and federal crash data with incident reports from major autonomous vehicle companies in Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Francisco, and Austin. To improve the accuracy of its conclusions, the AV sample was limited to collisions to which police would normally respond. In addition to having fewer incidents than humans, researchers concluded that driverless car crashes are generally less egregious.

In addition to experiencing fewer crashes overall, Waymos experienced 85-percent fewer single-vehicle crashes per mile than human drivers, and 81-percent fewer crashes resulting in injury. The driverless cars also rear-ended other vehicles 91 percent less than their human-operated competitors.

Recommended Driverless Cars Could Save Tens of Thousands of Lives. But We Must Treat Them Like Aviation — Not Like Cars Marco Conner June 18, 2026

The study corroborates Waymo’s previous claim that its fleet is less prone to collisions than humans are. Waymo cars did best in Phoenix, where its crash rate was 76 percent lower than that of human drivers in Phoenix. There were 71 percent fewer crashes in Los Angeles, but only 35 percent fewer in San Francisco, though the data may simply be reflecting inconsistencies around police reportability as a metric.

“We welcome this new research from IIHS, which confirms our previous peer-reviewed analyses and reinforces the significant safety benefits of the Waymo Driver,” the company said in a statement.

“Safer than humans” is better than nothing, but it’s still an unpleasant concept.

Driverless cars have been at-fault in several high-profile collisions since rolling out onto American streets. An Uber test vehicle struck and killed Arizona resident Elaine Herzberg while she was crossing a Tempe street in 2018. In 2023 a vehicle from Cruise, General Motors’s now-defunct robotaxi service, dragged a woman 20 feet after she was struck by a human driver. Earlier this year, a Waymo crashed into a 9-year-old child in a school zone in Santa Monica, California.

The report’s scope is limited to collisions, and does not take into account the dangers caused by Waymos parked in bike lanes, passing school buses, or blocking emergency vehicles, to name a few recent incidents.

Driverless cars are still cars and, as such, contribute to the many problems that cars bring to US streets.

Waymo has yet to invent a car that does not add to congestion on city streets. Traffic, as it turns out, is one metric by which Waymo might even be worse than human drivers. A report released earlier this week found that Waymos spend nearly 15 percent more time driving around empty than Uber and Lyft with drivers vehicles. In turn, they add tens of thousands of vehicle miles traveled to roads every day.

Recommended Report: Waymo Cars Mean Way Mo’ Traffic Gersh Kuntzman July 23, 2026

The solution to car problems is older than the cars themselves. Public transit is critical to curbing traffic and reducing pollution. It vastly outperforms cars, autonomous and not, on safety. Todd Litman, executive director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, reported that drivers are killed at 10 times the rate as transit drivers.

Investing in transit to save more lives, with less of the negative side effects, would be even better.

For this week’s Friday video, Streetsblog is featuring Peter Van Pelt’s epic quest to dethrone the city’s top Citi Bike Angel. Below, you’ll find Van Pelt’s introduction to his ambitious expedition, and after that, his three-part video series in which he tries to capture the top angel’s forbidding lead.

There is a person in this city known only as NS143. They have been the number one Citi Bike Angel for as long as anyone can remember. If you don’t know what a Citi Bike Angel is: it’s someone who rebalances docks, taking bikes from full stations and riding them to empty ones. You get points. There’s a leaderboard. NS143 is always at the top of it. By a lot. I decided to find out what it would take to beat them.

On my first day, which happened to be April Fools’ Day, I rode for 15 hours and racked up 54,000 steps. By the end of it, I was still more than 100 points behind NS143. This was going to be harder than I thought.

Then, after a day, NS143 suddenly stopped riding. No one knew why. Maybe they went on vacation? But even without them in the picture, I was still battling daily against the rest of the field. Riders like LV440 and HN277. I managed to squeak into first place, but it was a grind, day after day.

I needed a different approach.

The core inefficiency in the Angel system is transit time. You ride a bike to a dock, return it, walk to the next bike and start over. Every minute spent walking is a minute not spent earning points. My solution: ride two bikes at once.

The method: ride my personal bike to a Citi Bike station, then ride the Citi Bike while holding my own bike alongside it. It was clumsy. Several people assumed I was stealing a bike. But it worked. When I dropped a bike off, I could get back to my own ride much faster, collapsing the dead time between trips. I want to be clear that I am not recommending this. At all. Ever.

There were complications: two small accidents (both my fault), three flat tires and two trips to the same bike shop on Canal Street.

The strategy worked. My points climbed fast. But just as I was starting to feel confident, NS143 reappeared. If they really had been on vacation, they returned refreshed, tan, and ready to destroy an interloper. I was thousands of points ahead, but they seemed unfazed, going on an angeling bonanza and racking up absurd numbers of points.

I spent 30 days riding and competing, through temperatures ranging from the 20s to the 90s, several rounds of April showers, and every other kind of chaos New York’s streets could throw at me.

So did I defeat NS143? Sorry. No spoilers. You’ll have to watch the videos to find out.

Episode 1: Episode 2: Episode 3:

• Despite transit’s success during the World Cup, the event still created 8 or 9 million tons of carbon emissions, most of it stemming from fans flying to host cities. (Wired)
• The U.S. DOT continues to scrub references to bike safety from its websites (NPR). In related news, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy seems to think that bike lanes create traffic, despite all evidence to the contrary (Streetsblog USA).
• Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and John Curtis (R-Utah) introduced a bill to funnel more transit grants toward fast-growing regions.
• A city analysis of federal crash data found that Philadelphia has the highest pedestrian death rate of any major U.S. city. (NBC 10)
• North Carolina passed a law prohibiting most local governments from mandating a minimum number of parking spaces in new developments. (Smart Cities Dive)
• The North Carolina DOT awarded grants for 16 collaborations between two or more transit agencies. (News 12)
• Dallas Area Rapid Transit received a $25 million federal grant to upgrade eight light rail stations. (KERA)
• A New Jersey Complete Streets group is advocating for shorter light rail headways. (NJ.com)
• Nashville is installing barriers to protect existing downtown bike lanes. (WKRN)
• Atlanta broke ground on a Monroe Drive road diet. (Saporta Report)
• San Diego is lowering speed limits in school zones. (Inside San Diego)
• Seattle residents will vote in November on renewing a sales tax for transit and doubling it to 0.3 percent. (Seattle Transit Blog)
• Maryland is planning a transit-oriented development at Bowie State near Washington, D.C. (Maryland Matters)
• Logan, Utah, population 55,000, is an example of how small cities can do transit right. (Bus News)
• Dutch cities are replacing concrete with grassy blocks that absorb stormwater and create a cooler environment. (Times of India)
• From Japan’s automated underground bike parking to a psychedelic mountain tunnel in Norway, Momentum Mag highlights some of the world’s most innovative infrastructure projects.

Ark Energy becomes the fifth developer in just one week to announce a major investment decision on a new renewable energy project in Australia – in this case, for Australia's biggest solar-battery hybrid.

The post “Strong endorsement:” Australia’s biggest solar-battery hybrid project locks in finance appeared first on Renew Economy.

As communities brace for another summer of extreme weather, many home and building owners are taking a closer look at how exposed these assets are to climate risks. When it comes time for their next insurance or mortgage renewal, or when they decide...

The developer behind Victoria’s Mortlake Energy Hub has secured around $A245 million from a global asset manager to accelerate development of more than 2 GW of new renewables.

The post Australian developer gets funding boost for 2 GW-plus renewable energy plans and big solar battery hub appeared first on Renew Economy.

Plans to build a wind farm near one of country's youngest coal plants win all-important local council approval for meteorological mast changes at project site.

The post Small victory for big wind project navigating tough state planning laws appeared first on Renew Economy.

Researchers says realignment of wind turbines away from the wind can boost output. "Wake steering" has real data, but wind owners in Australia aren't buying it yet.

The post Wake steering: Researchers say turbine realignments could add double digit power gains to wind farms appeared first on Renew Economy.