News Feeds

Headline News:

• “Wind Power Carbon Footprint: What The Lifecycle Data Actually Shows” • The wind power carbon footprint is often described as “close to zero.” While that may be a bit misleading, the total per kilowatt-hour is so small that the entire lifecycle carbon debt of a modern turbine gets repaid within about a year or two of operation. [Intelligent Living]

Wind farm (Thomas Galler, Unsplash)

• “Trump Says He Will Form New ‘AI Force’ But Continues To Call AI Fears A ‘Hoax'” • As concerns from Silicon Valley and beyond grow about the rapid pace of AI development, President Trump said he will move to create an “AI Force.” He promised to appoint a new AI czar as he continued to defend the technology. He still calls the fears about AI a “hoax.” [ABC News]
• “China’s Electric Aviation Advantage Is A Transport System, Not A Prototype” • China does not need battery aircraft to compete with 350 km/h trains between major cities. It needs them to become the better transport product on routes where another railway has poor economics and conventional regional aviation is too expensive. [CleanTechnica]
• “Canada Haunts Trump With New Offshore Wind Project” • Trump might not like it, but Wind West will add offshore wind to Nova Scotia’s energy resources. According to the Government, the province hosts annual average offshore wind speeds in the range of 9-11 meters per second, making it one of the strongest wind areas in North America. [CleanTechnica]
• “Georgia Power Adds 1.14 GW Of Solar Energy With Seven Projects” • Georgia Power said it received authorization to add 1.14 GW of new solar power capacity through agreements linked to seven projects that will begin commercial operations starting in 2029. The facilities will be distributed across different counties in Georgia. [Inspenet]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

Registered nurses at Ascension St. Agnes in Baltimore, Md., voted overwhelmingly in favor of ratifying a three-year contract on Saturday, winning their first-ever collective bargaining agreement in a watershed moment for nurses across Baltimore.

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 19 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-062 The Sakhalin Papers LII: The Type-C Account — How a 2022 Rouble-Payment Dispute Became a €1.5 Billion Claim Against Shell Russia’s Prosecutor General is seeking approximately €1.5 billion from Shell Energy Europe over disputed 2022 gas payments — and wants approximately 94 billion roubles set aside for Shell’s Sakhalin compensation used against the claim. The two sums arise from different transactions. Moscow has joined them together in one closed-door lawsuit. Shell says liability remains uncertain. As of July 2026, the next reported hearing was not due until January 2027.

The previous instalment followed the 94.8 billion roubles attached to Shell’s former Sakhalin II interest.

The money did not simply reach Shell.

Instead, approximately 94 billion roubles became trapped inside Russia’s post-2022 financial machinery and subsequently appeared in a lawsuit concerning an entirely different commercial relationship:

pipeline gas supplied by Gazprom Export to Shell Energy Europe for Germany.

That distinction is essential.

The Russian claim now links:

Shell’s withdrawal from Sakhalin II;

a 2022 gas-supply contract;

Russia’s demand that foreign buyers use its new rouble-payment mechanism;

and:

the proceeds associated with Shell’s former Sakhalin interest.

The result is one of the strangest legal afterlives of Shell’s withdrawal from Russia.

1. The dispute began with pipeline gas — not Sakhalin LNG

The €1.5 billion claim now before the Moscow Arbitration Court should not be mistaken for a claim that Shell failed to pay for Sakhalin II LNG.

It concerns a separate contract between Gazprom Export and Shell Energy Europe Limited.

Contemporaneous reporting in 2022 recorded that the contract provided for up to 1.2 billion cubic metres of pipeline gas per year for Germany. (interfax.com)

That contract became caught in the confrontation over Russia’s new gas-payment rules following the invasion of Ukraine.

On 31 March 2022, President Vladimir Putin signed Decree No. 172 establishing a new payment procedure for certain foreign buyers of Russian gas.

Under the Russian mechanism, buyers from designated states were required to use accounts at Gazprombank through which foreign-currency payments would ultimately be converted into roubles. (interfax.com)

Shell did not accept the new requirement.

2. Gazprom cut Shell’s gas supply on 1 June 2022

On 31 May 2022, Gazprom Export said Shell Energy Europe had informed it that the company did not intend to make payment in roubles under the new Russian system.

Gazprom said that, by the payment deadline, it had not received the required rouble payment for gas supplied in April.

It announced that supply would therefore be suspended from 1 June 2022. (interfax.com)

Reuters contemporaneously reported the same event: Gazprom cut Shell Energy’s gas supply into Germany after Shell declined to comply with the rouble-payment demand. (euronews)

This point requires careful wording.

What is established is that:

Gazprom demanded payment under its new rouble mechanism.

Shell declined to adopt that mechanism.

Gazprom said compliant payment had not been received.

Gazprom stopped deliveries.

That does not, by itself, establish that Shell was contractually obliged under the original agreement to adopt Russia’s newly imposed payment system.

That question is part of the dispute.

3. The quarrel then disappeared from public view

For more than two years, the Shell-Gazprom payment dispute attracted comparatively little public attention.

Shell continued its phased withdrawal from Russian hydrocarbons.

Its Sakhalin II interest became subject to the separate restructuring examined in the previous instalments.

Gazprom’s Russian-controlled Sakhalin vehicle ultimately acquired the unclaimed replacement-company interest for 94.8 billion roubles.

Those events appeared to belong to different legal compartments.

One concerned:

gas purchased by Shell Energy Europe for Germany.

The other concerned:

Shell’s former equity position in Sakhalin II.

By 2024, Russia had joined them together.

4. The Prosecutor General filed suit

On 2 October 2024, Russia’s Prosecutor General filed proceedings in the Moscow Arbitration Court against Shell plc and several Shell-group entities.

The public case number is:

A40-241354/2024

The defendants named in public reporting included Shell plc, Shell Energy Europe Limited, several Dutch Shell companies and Shell NefteGaz Development LLC. (ПРАВО.Ru)

Gazprom Export, the Russian Energy Ministry, Sakhalin Energy LLC, the old Sakhalin Energy Investment Company and the Sakhalin regional authorities were among the third parties identified in reporting on the case. (interfax.com)

The Moscow court accepted the proceedings on 11 October 2024. A reproduced court decision identifies the case as Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation v Shell plc and others. (Jus Mundi)

At that point, however, the detailed basis of the claim was not publicly available.

The statement of claim itself was not published in the public case card. (ПРАВО.Ru)

5. Russia initially described damages of more than €1 billion

On 15 October 2024, the Moscow court press service told Interfax that the Prosecutor General was seeking damages exceeding €1 billion.

Contemporaneous reporting noted that the amount was broadly comparable with the rouble value associated with Shell’s former Sakhalin interest. (interfax.com)

But at that stage the precise connection had not been publicly explained.

That explanation would eventually come from Shell itself.

6. The courtroom was closed

On 11 December 2024, the Moscow Arbitration Court ordered that the proceedings be heard behind closed doors.

According to Interfax, most participants supported closed hearings because the case materials contained commercially confidential information.

The Prosecutor General also argued that public disclosure of information from the proceedings could increase sanctions pressure on Russia. (Interfax.ru)

That decision has an obvious consequence for this archive.

There is no complete public evidential record from which an outsider can independently reconstruct the parties’ contractual arguments.

The Shell Leaks Files therefore cannot responsibly declare which side is legally correct.

The available record establishes what each side is alleging.

It does not establish liability.

7. Shell eventually disclosed what Russia was seeking

The most important public description came from Shell’s own annual reporting.

Shell’s 2024 Form 20-F stated that the Russian prosecutor sought three principal forms of relief.

First, declarations that Shell had acted unlawfully in withdrawing support from Sakhalin Energy Investment Company.

Second, approximately:

€1.5 billion

from Shell Energy Europe Limited to Gazprom Export for alleged unpaid gas deliveries during 2022.

Third, permission for Gazprom Export to take approximately:

94 billion roubles

purportedly reserved for Shell as Sakhalin equity compensation in a Type-C account, and apply that amount against part of the alleged Shell Energy Europe debt. (SEC)

That disclosure transformed the understanding of the case.

The Sakhalin compensation and the German gas-supply dispute had become legally connected.

8. Two separate commercial relationships were being joined together

This is the central documentary point.

The €1.5 billion claim relates to alleged non-payment for gas under the Gazprom Export–Shell Energy Europe relationship.

The 94 billion roubles relates to compensation associated with Shell’s former Sakhalin position.

They are not the same transaction.

Russia’s case seeks to connect them through set-off.

In simplified terms, the prosecutorial position described by Shell is:

Shell Energy Europe allegedly owes Gazprom Export money.

Money is allegedly being held for Shell arising from Sakhalin.

Russia wants the Sakhalin money applied against the alleged gas debt.

That is the connection.

9. What is a Type-C account?

Type-C accounts became an important part of Russia’s financial response to Western sanctions after the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

They are special rouble accounts used in certain circumstances to fulfil obligations to creditors associated with states Russia categorises as “unfriendly”.

The account structure can mean that an obligation is treated as paid within the Russian system even though the foreign creditor cannot freely repatriate or use the funds in the manner normally expected in an international commercial transaction. (lidings.com)

For Shell, however, one qualification is particularly important.

Shell’s annual report does not simply state as an uncontested fact that 94 billion roubles belongs to Shell.

It describes the money as approximately 94 billion roubles “purportedly set aside” for Shell’s Sakhalin equity compensation. (SEC)

That wording preserves Shell’s legal position.

So should this archive.

10. Shell sought postponements

The litigation did not move rapidly towards judgment.

Shell’s 2024 Form 20-F recorded that Shell Energy Europe filed a written postponement motion on 30 January 2025.

Following a hearing on 14 February 2025, the case was postponed until 14 April. (SEC)

Further delays followed.

On 14 April 2025, the court adjourned proceedings until 11 June. (Interfax.ru)

On 11 June, the next hearing was fixed for 25 August. (Interfax.ru)

On 25 August, another postponement took the case to 26 November.

Interfax reported that Shell Energy Europe had again sought an adjournment and that the prosecutor had submitted further written explanations. (Interfax.ru)

The repeated adjournments show that this was not being disposed of summarily.

11. Shell’s latest annual report still records no resolution

Shell’s 2025 Annual Report and Accounts, published on 12 March 2026, provides the most recent authenticated Shell description located for this instalment.

The language is notably cautious.

Shell again states that the prosecutor seeks:

approximately €1.5 billion;

access to approximately 94 billion roubles of alleged Sakhalin compensation;

and declarations concerning Shell’s conduct in relation to Sakhalin Energy Investment Company.

Then comes the critical sentence:

“The proceedings are ongoing.” (SEC)

Shell further says that it cannot reliably estimate either the magnitude or timing of any possible obligation or payment, or even whether payment will ultimately be due.

The company records a high degree of uncertainty over the outcome and its possible effects. (SEC)

That is Shell’s own audited reporting position.

12. The case is now reported to extend into 2027

There is a more recent procedural development.

A report dated 8 July 2026, citing the Moscow Arbitration Court case file, states that the next continuation of the proceedings is scheduled for:

18 January 2027

The reported claim remains €1.5 billion. (https://x-compliance.ru)

That means that, as of the latest public procedural information located for this file, the litigation remains unresolved more than two years after the Prosecutor General first filed suit.

No final Russian judgment has been identified for this instalment.

Accordingly, the archive treats the allegations as pending.

13. The 2022 gas dispute deserves particular care

The Russian claim is often summarised as being for “unpaid gas.”

That shorthand risks obscuring the contractual dispute.

Contemporaneous reporting establishes that Gazprom demanded compliance with a payment mechanism introduced by Russian presidential decree after the original gas relationship was already operating.

Gazprom said Shell refused to pay in roubles.

Shell did not accept the new payment terms.

Gazprom then halted supplies. (interfax.com)

The later Russian prosecutor describes sums as unpaid.

But the public record available here does not contain the full gas contract, the payment clauses, the parties’ contractual notices, or the evidence being considered in the closed Moscow proceedings.

It would therefore be improper to convert the Russian allegation into an established debt.

14. The same caution applies to Russia’s allegation that Shell “abandoned” Sakhalin

Shell announced in 2022 that it intended to withdraw from Russian hydrocarbons following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Russia subsequently restructured Sakhalin II under presidential decree.

Shell declined to take an interest in the newly created Russian operator.

Mitsui and Mitsubishi remained.

The Russian prosecutor now seeks declarations concerning what Shell’s annual report describes as alleged unlawful abandonment of support for Sakhalin Energy Investment Company. (SEC)

That allegation forms part of the pending proceedings.

It has not been established by a final judgment located for this instalment.

15. Yet Shell has not entirely disappeared from the old corporate structure

Shell’s 2025 annual report continues to state that the company holds a 27.5% minus one share interest in Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd, the old Bermuda-incorporated company. (SEC)

As previous instalments have documented, Russia transferred the operational rights and obligations into a new Russian company.

Shell did not join that company.

The result is an extraordinary corporate split:

Shell retains shares in the predecessor entity;

the operating project is controlled through the Russian successor;

the economic value associated with Shell’s former operating interest was priced at 94.8 billion roubles;

and Russia now wants approximately that compensation pool applied against a separate gas claim.

16. What the case does not establish

The litigation does not currently establish that Shell owes Gazprom Export €1.5 billion.

It does not establish that the 94 billion roubles is freely available property of Shell.

It does not establish that Russia’s post-2022 rouble-payment mechanism was contractually binding upon Shell Energy Europe under the pre-existing agreement.

It does not establish that Shell’s decision not to participate in the replacement Sakhalin operator was unlawful.

And it does not establish that Gazprom Export is ultimately entitled to set one claim against the other.

Those are precisely the matters that remain contested.

Documentary Findings

Established: Shell Energy Europe had a Gazprom Export contract for up to 1.2 billion cubic metres of gas annually for Germany. (interfax.com)

Established: In May 2022, Shell Energy Europe informed Gazprom Export that it would not adopt the new rouble-payment arrangement demanded under Russian Presidential Decree No. 172. (interfax.com)

Established: Gazprom suspended supplies from 1 June 2022 after stating that the required rouble payment had not been received. (interfax.com)

Established: Russia’s Prosecutor General filed Moscow proceedings against Shell-group entities on 2 October 2024 under Case No. A40-241354/2024. (ПРАВО.Ru)

Established: The proceedings were placed behind closed doors in December 2024. (Interfax.ru)

Established: Shell says the prosecutor seeks approximately €1.5 billion from Shell Energy Europe for alleged unpaid 2022 gas deliveries. (SEC)

Established: Shell says the prosecutor also seeks authority for Gazprom Export to take approximately 94 billion roubles purportedly reserved for Shell’s Sakhalin equity compensation from a Type-C account and apply it against part of the alleged debt. (SEC)

Established: Shell’s 2025 Annual Report, published on 12 March 2026, describes the case as ongoing and says the company cannot reliably estimate any eventual payment obligation. (SEC)

Established: Public procedural reporting dated 8 July 2026 states that the next continuation of the proceedings is scheduled for 18 January 2027. (https://x-compliance.ru)

Alleged: That Shell Energy Europe owes approximately €1.5 billion for unpaid gas.

Alleged: That Shell unlawfully withdrew support from Sakhalin Energy Investment Company.

Not established: That Shell is ultimately liable for either allegation.

Not established: That Gazprom Export is entitled to the 94 billion-rouble compensation pool.

Not established: That the Type-C funds will ever be freely recoverable by Shell.

Commentary

The most revealing feature of this case is not simply its size.

It is the way separate strands of Shell’s Russian exit have become entangled.

A gas-purchase contract for Germany.

A presidential decree changing the currency-payment mechanism.

Shell’s refusal to adopt that mechanism.

Gazprom’s suspension of supply.

Shell’s withdrawal from Sakhalin.

Russia’s transfer of the project to a new operator.

The 94.8 billion-rouble valuation of Shell’s former interest.

A restricted Type-C account.

Then a Prosecutor General’s lawsuit attempting to connect them.

Four years after Shell announced that it would withdraw from Russian hydrocarbons, the company’s Russian relationship is still generating unresolved legal consequences.

That is the point the official record now establishes.

Leaving the country commercially did not mean leaving its legal system behind.

The evidential limitation matters

There is also a larger archival lesson.

The Moscow case is closed to the public.

The full pleadings are not publicly available.

The underlying contracts are not before us.

The court has not issued a publicly identified final judgment.

In those circumstances, certainty would be manufactured.

The proper documentary approach is narrower:

record what Russia alleges;

record what Shell says;

record what the contemporaneous evidence shows;

record the procedural history;

and stop where the evidence stops.

That discipline is especially important when the dispute sits at the intersection of sanctions, war, energy security and state-controlled companies.

Source Record

Shell’s latest authenticated description appears in its 2025 Annual Report and Accounts, published 12 March 2026. It states that the Moscow proceedings remain ongoing, identifies the €1.5 billion claim and the attempted use of approximately 94 billion roubles from a Type-C account, and records Shell’s inability to estimate the eventual financial outcome. (SEC)

Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2025

The SEC-hosted Shell filing provides the same authenticated disclosure.

SEC — Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2025

The original Moscow case is publicly identified as A40-241354/2024. Pravo reported the filing and noted that the statement of claim itself was not available in the public case card. (ПРАВО.Ru)

Pravo — Prosecutor files case against Shell

The Moscow court’s 11 October 2024 decision accepting the case is reproduced by Jus Mundi. (Jus Mundi)

Jus Mundi — Prosecutor-General’s Office v Shell

Interfax recorded the December 2024 decision to close the proceedings to the public and the repeated 2025 adjournments. (Interfax.ru)

Interfax — Court orders closed hearing, 11 December 2024

Interfax — Hearing moved to 11 June 2025

Interfax — Hearing moved to 25 August 2025

Interfax — Hearing moved to 26 November 2025

The 2022 gas-payment dispute was documented contemporaneously by Gazprom statements carried by Interfax and Reuters reporting. (interfax.com)

Interfax — Gazprom halts gas supplies to Shell, 1 June 2022

Reuters report — Gazprom cuts Shell Energy supply, 1 June 2022

The latest procedural report located for this instalment, dated 8 July 2026 and citing the court docket, states that the next hearing is scheduled for 18 January 2027. (https://x-compliance.ru)

X-Compliance — Shell hearing continued to January 2027

Archive disclaimer: Russian prosecutorial allegations are identified as allegations. Shell’s descriptions of the case are attributed to Shell. The absence of public pleadings and the closed nature of the Moscow proceedings prevent an independent assessment of the full contractual evidence. This instalment therefore makes no finding that Shell owes the sums claimed, that Russia’s rouble-payment mechanism governed the original contract, or that Gazprom Export is legally entitled to Shell’s Sakhalin compensation.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers LIII: The Missing LNG Cargoes — Shell Had a Sakhalin Contract Running to 2028. Then the Deliveries Stopped

There is another contract in the Sakhalin story.

This one did concern LNG.

Shell disclosed that it had a long-term agreement with the old Sakhalin Energy company that was due to run until 2028.

After Russia transferred the project into the replacement Russian operator, Shell said it stopped receiving cargoes due under that contract.

By February 2023, Shell was publicly saying that it was monitoring developments and evaluating its legal options. (interfax.com)

The next file follows those missing cargoes:

What exactly did Shell lose when Sakhalin LNG stopped arriving, what contractual rights survived the Russian restructuring, and did Shell ever obtain compensation for supplies that were supposed to continue for years after its departure?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 19 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 19, 2026 at 9:47 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

On Thursday morning, Sept. 24, Food Tank will host “Chefs Save the World” at Climate Week NYC 2026, in partnership with The James Beard Foundation and CARE. The morning will highlight how culinary leaders are using their platforms to drive meaningful impact in their communities and beyond.

Chefs are far more than culinary innovators. From reducing food waste and supporting regenerative agriculture to championing local producers, improving nutrition, and responding to humanitarian crises, they are helping shape a more sustainable and equitable food system.

Discussions will feature voices of global farmers, explore the barriers facing women farmers, and highlight the solutions—including those in partnership with chefs—driving meaningful change.

“Every meal served today starts with a farmer, and in much of the world that farmer is a woman working land she does not own, in a climate she did not destabilize, with less access to credit, seed, and training than the men farming beside her,” says Maria Hinson Tobin, Executive Director of Agribusiness Partnerships at CARE.

“Women are feeding their families, their communities, and contributing to the world’s food resources. Their resilience is the most undervalued asset in the global food system, and events like this exist to make sure it stops being invisible.”

The event will kick off at WNYC-NPR Studios’ The Greene Space in New York City at 9am with breakfast and live musical performances, followed by a reception including lunch until 12:45pm.

Speakers and performers include Chef Fariyal Abdullahi, Executive Chef and Partner, Hav & Mar; Chef Bleu Adams, Executive Chef, Black Lamb Group, and Director, IndigeHub; Fernando González, Co-Founder and Pitmaster, 2Fifty Texas BBQ; Roman Goron, French-Filipino-American jazz pianist, composer, and producer at Juilliard; Erica Helms, Chief Growth Officer, James Beard Foundation; Emily Janoch, Associate Vice President for Evidence and Learning, CARE; Ellie Krieger, Dietitian and Nutritionist, Host of Healthy Appetite with Ellie Krieger on Food Network and Ellie’s Real Good Food on PBS, and Columnist, The Washington Post; Anne E. McBride, PhD, Vice President of Impact, James Beard Foundation; Taylor Montgomery, James Beard Award-Winning Chef, Farmer, and Co-Founder, Montgomery Sky Farm; Liz Murray, Chief Operating Officer, The Marlow Collective; Danielle Nierenberg, President, Food Tank; Chris Noble, Associate Vice President, Corporate Partnerships, CARE; Chef Grace Ramirez, Chef, La Latina Cocina and Aramark Collegiate Hospitality; Nishant Roy, Chief Impact Officer, Chobani; Deena Shanker, Writer, Bloomberg Businessweek; Chef Sean Sherman, Founder and Executive Director, NĀTIFS (North American Traditional Indigenous Food Systems); Janae Yates, New York-based drummer, composer, and bandleader who studied at Juilliard and has performed at Lincoln Center and internationally; and Andrew Zimmern, Emmy- and James Beard Award-winning chef, television host, author, and food advocate.

“Chefs Save the World” will feature a special musical performance by Nick T. Daly, an actor, singer, and dancer currently appearing Off-Broadway in The Heart; previously in MJ the Musical on Broadway. He will be joined by Elijah Caldwell, an OBIE Award-winning actor, singer, pianist, and music director whose credits include A Strange Loop Off-Broadway and the national tour of Shucked.

This summit will be streamed live on FoodTank.com and Food Tank’s YouTube channel, here. Join the Food Tank newsletter list for reminders, and click here for Food Tank’s full lineup of events at Climate Week NYC 2026.

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.

The post Chefs Driving Climate Action at Climate Week NYC appeared first on Food Tank.

Newsom signs landmark California transparency bill, creating ‘non-ultraprocessed’ label for food Anthony Lacey September 19, 2026

SACRAMENTO – In a historic victory for consumers, California Gov. Gavin Newsom today signed a trailblazing law that gives shoppers in the grocery store an easy way to spot less harmful processed foods.

Assembly Bill 2244, introduced by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), received bipartisan support from legislators in the state Assembly and Senate.

The Environmental Working Group co-sponsored the bill.

“While Washington D.C. is paralyzed by inaction, Republicans and Democrats in California are joining forces to empower consumers to avoid harmful ultra-processed foods,” said Gabriel. 

“Like the USDA Organic label, this new seal will provide consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to locate healthier foods that are free from harmful additives. Parents shouldn't need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they’re feeding their kids.

“California began this movement three years ago by banning the most dangerous food additives, and with Governor Newsom’s continued leadership we are taking another big step forward today,”  he added.

The new law directs the state to create a standardized label bearing the phrase “non-ultra-processed certified.” Products will not be permitted to carry the new label if California law classifies them as ultra-processed food, or UPF. 

Only products that meet these requirements can display the seal. A food will not qualify for the label if it contains substances or additives, including dyes, flavor enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners or processing aids, used to manipulate the taste or quality of foods, making them hyperpalatable or irresistible.

Raising the bar

AB 2244 builds on AB 1264, a 2025 landmark law, also authored by Gabriel. AB 1264 created the first U.S. legal definition of UPF and banned the worst of the worst from K-12 public schools. 

The California Department of Public Health will oversee certification of products that meet the state’s non-UPF standard, approving and accrediting third-party certifiers to conduct product certifications. The products must be recertified at least every three years. The law directs the department to accredit these third-party certifiers no later than June 1, 2029.

“Today California raised the bar for what we consider healthy food,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California. “Consumers deserve labels they can trust, and with Gov.  Newsom’s signature, families now have a simple way to tell which foods are closer to what comes from a kitchen rather than a factory.”

“AB 2244 creates a state-verified seal for foods free from the additives, emulsifiers, food dyes and flavors that have come to define the modern American diet,” she added. 

“California is once again leading where Washington has stalled – and this new law gives millions of families a fighting chance to shop with confidence.”

Transparency and accountability for the food system

The law includes these strong oversight and transparency measures:

• Certification agents must register with the state 
• The state can audit certification records at any time
• The state must maintain a public, online list of certified products 
• Misuse of the label will be illegal and subject to enforcement

These provisions are designed to ensure the label’s credibility.

Making healthier choices easier in stores

In addition to creating the label, the law requires large food retailers to display certified products so consumers can easily identify them, for instance,  through special signage or physical separation within the store.

This requirement applies to grocery stores that sell more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified products  and brings in more than $10 million in annual sales. 

Addressing the rise of UPF

UPF are industrially manufactured, chemically modified products often made with additives widely used in cosmetics and used in food to enhance taste, texture, appearance and shelf life. 

In the U.S., these foods make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half the typical adult diet.

Experts say ultra-processed food and drinks are engineered to trick people into consuming more of them than they want, especially soda.

Scientific research has linked diets high in UPF to serious health harms, including cancer, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders (such as Crohn’s disease and fatty liver disease) and mental health issues.

Obesity is chief among the health problems linked to UPF. Rates of obesity in the U.S. and globally have skyrocketed in tandem with the rising UPF consumption.

Help for consumers

Despite these concerns, consumers have no clear, standard labeling system to help them identify foods that are not UPF.

With federal regulators slow to update oversight of food additives and processing, states are increasingly taking action to protect public health.

The new law builds on California’s leadership in addressing harmful food chemicals and improving transparency for consumers. 

“Because companies are not required to disclose an ingredient’s purpose, it can be really difficult even for experts, even for people like me who have a doctoral degree in nutrition, to look at a food package and determine whether a food is ultra-processed or not,” said Alyssa Moran, ScD, MPH. Moran is deputy director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

“And from a behavioral science perspective, we also know that people seldom use information on the back of food packages to make food decisions,” Moran said. “So that is exactly why clear, science-backed labels on the front of food packages can be so influential in helping people to make better choices.

“If we want to meaningfully curb disease, we need a suite of complementary policies that limit the availability of ultra-processed foods while promoting non-ultra-processed alternatives. I firmly believe this is the only way we’ll make progress,” she added.

Consumers can consult EWG’s Food Scores database to find products that are less processed. Food Scores also flags unhealthy ultra-processed food and drinks and can help identify alternatives.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods California Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 September 28, 2026

A federal appeals court has used a decades-long water crisis in one of the Blackest cities in America to rule that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee Americans the right to clean and safe drinking water.

The September 4 ruling came even after Jackson, Mississippi, residents alleged officials knew the water was contaminated and assured the public it was safe. To this point, the appellate court also ruled that the Constitution does not offer citizens the “right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.”

The ruling signals that Black residents may face the most serious consequences of unsafe or failing water systems while having limited ability to seek a remedy through the Constitution. At the same time, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has already determined that the city could not receive support through the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

What is happening in Jackson matters because federal data shows Black communities are more likely than white communities to be served by water systems with health-based Safe Drinking Water Act violations. Research has also found that systems in communities with larger Black populations take much longer to be fixed or improved. 

Read Next Chicago has the most lead pipes in the nation. We mapped them all. Keerti Gopal, Peter Aldhous, Clayton Aldern, Amy Qin, & Juanpablo Ramirez-Franco

“Jackson residents did everything this country tells poor people to do. They organized, they testified, they boiled their water, they filed suit, they trusted the courts. And at every step the answer has been no,” said Danyelle Holmes, a senior national organizer with Mississippi’s Poor People’s Campaign.

Jackson is more than 80 percent Black and has a poverty rate that is more than double the national average.

“What it signals is that the law has told a majority-Black capital city that its suffering is real but its remedy does not exist,” Holmes added.

How did the court come to this decision? 

The lawsuit that spurred the federal appeals court ruling was first brought by Jackson residents who alleged that city officials knowingly allowed lead-contaminated water to reach their homes and then misled the public about whether it was safe to drink. The suit also alleged that state authorities violated civil rights law by repeatedly sending federal money earmarked for drinking water safety to white communities rather than Jackson.

The plaintiffs sued Jackson and former Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba in 2022, arguing that the city’s actions violated their constitutional right to bodily integrity under the 14th Amendment. They sought damages and changes to how the city manages and communicates about its water system.

“Nearly all of the residents of Jackson have watched brackish, dirty, impure, and undrinkable water trickle from their taps. At times, some have had no water at all,” Jackson residents said in 2022. 

In the September 4 ruling, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of the case. Judge Kurt Engelhardt wrote that while access to safe water is “important,” it is not a right “deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition,” the standard the court used to decide whether it is protected by the Constitution.

Jackson residents also argued that the alleged false assurances by officials about the water violated their right to make informed decisions about their health. Engelhardt rejected that claim, writing that “lying about the presence of lead in the water is a far cry from the state’s physically extracting evidence from a criminal suspect or conducting an invasive medical procedure without consent.” 

Read Next Trump ordered to release billions in climate grants meant for Black communities Adam Mahoney, Capital B

Engelhardt acknowledged the alleged harm, but wrote: “The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing.” 

Judge Catharina Haynes dissented in part, arguing that the residents had plausibly alleged that Jackson violated their right to bodily integrity by knowingly placing them in danger.

“They did not say the water was safe. They said even if everything the residents alleged is true, the Constitution owes them nothing,” Holmes said about the ruling.

In response to the ruling, John Horhn, Jackson’s mayor, said in a statement: “We are pleased that the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal of these claims. The City remains committed to the health, safety, and well-being of every Jackson resident.”

What exactly is wrong with Jackson’s water? 

As Capital B has documented, Jackson’s water crisis has plagued the city long before it made national headlines in 2021. Residents like Brooke Floyd, who as a child watched her grandmother complain about the water decades ago, have said that the water contamination has impacted their families for generations. 

“I do think the ruling would’ve been different if the majority of our city looked different, was in a different tax bracket, and had a different ZIP code, but alas, we probably wouldn’t have had the problems to begin with,” Floyd told Capital B after the ruling. “The problem the rest of America needs to worry about is, while they were making sure not to guarantee me my rights, they were quietly taking yours, too.”

Others, like Gwendolyn Reed-Davis, have spent years driving long distances to family members’ homes to wash clothes and bathe. 

Reed-Davis attributes her school-age children’s learning problems and her kidney infection to decades of exposure to the city’s contaminated water. Dozens of studies have shown that lead exposure leads to cognitive impairment for life, even decades after initial exposure. And the biggest factor for lead poisoning in America is race, namely being Black, even more so than poverty.

Read Next Mississippi officials saw the Jackson water crisis coming — and did nothing Lylla Younes

Time and time again, Floyd said, Jackson has been left to fend for itself and had its issues downplayed by government bodies. 

“Isn’t that how it goes? The oppressor telling the oppressed that they haven’t been discriminated against,” she told Capital B in 2024.

The failures are the result of decades of deferred maintenance, aging treatment equipment, leaking and breaking water mains, staffing shortages, and a shrinking revenue base that left the city unable to keep pace with needed repairs. 

The EPA warned in a March 2020 emergency order that conditions in Jackson’s system presented an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to residents, citing problems with treatment and distribution infrastructure. Then, in February 2021, severe winter weather froze equipment and ruptured lines, leaving tens of thousands of residents without running water for weeks. A year later, flooding and failures at the O.B. Curtis Water Treatment Plant triggered another citywide emergency, prompting federal intervention and the appointment of a third-party manager to rebuild the system.

As the city attempts to strengthen its water system, residents are increasingly being asked to finance the improvements. JXN Water, the federally appointed manager overseeing the city’s water and sewer system, says it has improved operations and brought in more revenue, but the utility remains under federal oversight. 

In March, a court-approved rate increase of about 12 percent raised the average residential water-and-sewer bill by roughly $8.88 a month, to about $88. JXN Water’s financial plan now proposes an added 10 percent increase in spring 2027, followed by proposed hikes of 9 percent in 2028 and 8 percent in 2029. That adds up for a city with so many residents living in poverty. 

“We are organizing, we are marching to the polls, and we are not waiting on a court to tell us our lives are worth clean water,” Holmes said in response to the cascading rulings and water issues. “As the Poor People’s Campaign teaches us, this is not about left and right. It is about right and wrong, and everybody knows which one Jackson has received.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Federal court rules there is no constitutional right to safe drinking water on Sep 19, 2026.

On Friday morning, Sept. 25, Food Tank will host the “Water and Blue Foods Summit” at Climate Week NYC 2026, in partnership with Future Food Institute, Monterey Bay Aquarium, and Venice Climate Week.

Water connects every aspect of our food systems, public health, ecosystems, and communities. The summit will bring together leaders working across oceans, fisheries, blue foods, water, climate, public health, and global justice to explore how healthier aquatic ecosystems and communities can help build a more peaceful, equitable, and resilient future.

“We began this journey in Venice, during our Climate Week, promoting a simple but radical idea: we are citizens of a water planet, our ‘Planet Aqua.’ Water is the resource of life, and the blue resource—in all its forms—must be addressed from every perspective: from food to energy, from ecosystems to human health, mental health and longevity,” says Sara Roversi, President of the Future Food Institute, Founder of Paideia Campus, and producer of the Venice Climate Week.

“This is why we are proud to continue this conversation in New York with Food Tank: because water cannot be a topic we discuss once a year. It must become a daily priority for regeneration, prosperity and planetary care.”

Panel discussions will explore both global and national perspectives on blue communities, blue food, and fisheries, as well as water crises and water bankruptcy.

“Climate change is transforming our ocean, creating challenges for coastal communities around the world. In the Mediterranean Sea, warmer waters have contributed to the spread of blue swimming crab, an invasive species that is disrupting marine ecosystems and threatening local fisheries and livelihoods,” says Wendy Norden, Global Programs Director of Global Ocean Conservation at Monterey Bay Aquarium.

“Some countries are finding ways to turn this challenge into an opportunity that benefits both people and the environment, and we look forward to sharing these stories of resilience and collaboration at the Water and Blue Foods Summit.”

Speakers include Jenn Kemmerly, Vice President of Global Ocean Conservation, Monterey Bay Aquarium; David Laborde, Director, Agrifood Economics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Riccardo Luna, Co-Curator, Venice Climate Week; Kaveh Madani, Director, United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health; Sarisher Mann, Director of Sustainable Finance Engagement, BNP Paribas; Kathleen McDavitt, Senior Programs Manager for North America, Aquaculture Stewardship Council; Laura McDearis, US Program Director, Marine Stewardship Council; Lela Nargi, Journalist and Author; Danielle Nierenberg, President, Food Tank; Wendy Norden, Director of Science and Global Strategies, Monterey Bay Aquarium; Joshua Perry, Seafood Coordinator, NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets; Stefano Pisani, Mayor of Pollica, Italy, and Mediterranean Diet Advocate; Sara Roversi, Founder, Future Food Institute; Carlotta Santolini, Marine Biologist and Group Leader, Blueat La Pescheria Sostineble; Barton Seaver, Chef, Author Sustainability Fellow at the New England Aquarium, and Director of the Sustainable Seafood and Health Initiative at Harvard; Brendan Shane, Director of Philanthropy Special Projects and Climate Advisor, Trust for Public Land; Michael Sheldrick, Co-Founder and Chief Policy, Impact & Government Relations Officer, Global Citizen; Simone Venturini, Mayor of Venice; and Kate Warren, Executive Vice President and Executive Editor, Devex.

The event will kick off at WNYC-NPR Studios’ The Greene Space in New York City at 6:35pm with light food and live musical performances, followed by a reception until 9:30pm.

The “Water and Blue Foods Summit” will feature special musical performances by Blu Allen, a Broadway actor, singer, and dancer currently appearing in MJ the Musical, with previous credits including Titanique. He will be joined by Elijah Caldwell, an OBIE Award-winning actor, singer, pianist, and music director whose credits include A Strange Loop Off-Broadway and the national tour of Shucked.

The event will be streamed live on FoodTank.com and Food Tank’s YouTube channel, here. Join the Food Tank newsletter list for reminders, and click here for Food Tank’s full lineup of events at Climate Week NYC 2026.

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.

The post Why Blue Foods Matter to the Future of Food appeared first on Food Tank.

Food Tank, in partnership with Whole Foods Market, will kick off Climate Week NYC 2026 on the evening of Sunday, September 20, by hosting “Putting Farmers First: How Young Farmers Are Shaping the Future of Food.” The free event will celebrate the next generation of farmers and food systems leaders who are redefining agriculture through innovation, resilience, and climate leadership.

Farmers in the United States are facing a generational challenge. While the number of new and young producers is beginning to rise, farmers overall are getting older: The average age of U.S. producers increased from 56.3 in 2012 to 58.1 in 2022. At the same time, the total number of farms fell by about 7 percent between 2017 and 2022.

This makes supporting young and beginning producers increasingly important. New farmers face significant barriers to entering and staying in agriculture, including access to affordable land and capital, housing, health care, production costs, and climate-related risks.

“At Whole Foods Market, we believe that investing in the next generation of farmers is one of the most important things we can do—for our food system, for our customers, and for our planet,” says Sonya Gafsi Oblisk, Chief Merchandising & Marketing Officer at Whole Foods Market and Vice President of Amazon Worldwide Grocery Stores Private Brands & Marketing.

“We’re proud to partner with Food Tank during Climate Week to put their voices front and center, because when farmers thrive, we all thrive.”

Sessions will include a young farmer storyteller panel with an immersive video and tasting experience. Panelists will explore what it means to be a farmer today, how to work better with farmers, and how to elevate farmers’ voices among those influential in this space.

A panel of three consumer packaged goods company CEOs who have signed the pledge to support farmers—Brita Lundberg of Lundberg Family Farms, Becca Millstein of Fishwife, and Anna Turrell of Mars Snacking—will also join the stage. The discussion will explore how to humanize the farmer connection for consumers, why supporting farmers is a winning business angle, and the need for greater transparency from food companies.

The event will kick off at WNYC-NPR Studios’ The Greene Space in New York City at 6:30pm with food, drink, and live musical performances, followed by a reception until 9:40pm.

Speakers include Jason Buechel, Vice President, Amazon Worldwide Grocery Stores and Chief Executive Officer, Whole Foods Market; Amalia Colón-Nava, Farmer and Co-Director, Dirtbaby Farm; Michelle Hughes, Executive Director, National Young Farmers Coalition; Sarah Jones, Jones Farms Organic, Hooper, Colorado; DeVonne Jackson Perez, Brooklyn-based Urban Farmer and Sustainability Educator; Emily Grant, R&S Acres, diversified/livestock farmer, Genesee County; Caitlin Liebert, Head of Sustainability, Worldwide Grocery, Whole Foods Market; Brita Lundberg, Fourth-Generation Farmer, Lundberg Family Farms; Becca Millstein, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Fishwife; Danielle Nierenberg, President, Food Tank; Sonya Gafsi Oblisk, Chief Merchandising & Marketing Officer, Whole Foods Market and Vice President, Amazon Worldwide Grocery Stores Private Brands & Marketing; and Anna Turrell, Global Chief Sustainability Officer, Mars Snacking.

“Putting Farmers First: How Young Farmers Are Shaping the Future of Food” will feature a special musical performance by Tristen Buettel, Broadway actor, singer, and dancer currently appearing in Just in Time, where she covers Connie Francis and Sandra Dee, following roles in BOOP! The Musical, Bad Cinderella, and Jersey Boys. She will be joined by Cullen Curth, New York City-based pianist, music director, and conductor who recently made his Broadway conducting debut with Just in Time.

This summit will be streamed live on FoodTank.com and Food Tank’s YouTube Channel, here. Join the Food Tank newsletter list for reminders, and click here for Food Tank’s full lineup of events at Climate Week NYC 2026.

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.

The post Young Farmers Shaping the Future of Food appeared first on Food Tank.

Headline News:

• “Scientists Hope Deeper-Rooted Soybeans Can Withstand Climate Extremes And Store More Carbon” • For years, scientists have explored ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Now, researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies are testing whether deeper root systems could become another tool, with a grant from the Bezos Earth Fund. [ABC News]

Growing soybeans (Nicholas A Tonelli, CC BY-SA 2.0)

• “Trump’s War On Wind Turbines Takes Another Ludicrous Turn” • The US DOE created the Integrated Energy Systems Office to combine the former Solar Energy Technologies Office and Wind Energy Technologies Office. It lists advanced PVs and a number of other technologies, including “aeromechanical energy systems.” [CleanTechnica]
• “Neptun Smulders Signs A 2-GW LanWin3 Platform Deal” • 50Hertz and Neptun Smulders Offshore Renewables have signed a contract for the construction of a 2-GW offshore converter for the LanWin3 North Sea grid connection project. 50Hertz said Siemens Energy is responsible for supplying the high-voltage components for LanWin3. [reNews]
• “Federal Judge Rules The EPA Illegally Terminated A $7 Billion Solar Program Needy Americans” • The Trump EPA illegally terminated a $7 billion Solar for All program intended to make solar power accessible to over 900,000 low-income Americans, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled. District Judge Mary McElroy vacated the termination. [ABC News]
• “Space-Based Solar Power Could Reach The Grid By 2028” • As the world rushes to build up more energy generating capacity in a rush to keep up with demand from data center hyperscalers, the public and private sectors alike are increasingly adopting an all-of-the-above approach to energy. That includes putting solar panels into space. [OilPrice.com]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

When Shell first put its longstanding Woodcreek headquarters campus in Houston on the market, the broad outline was already striking.

The company was seeking roughly $325 million for a campus of almost 1.5 million square feet while planning to lease back only a little more than half of it on a long-term basis. More than 700,000 square feet appeared destined to be released over time. (Houston Chronicle)

The latest investment-marketing material now fills in much more of the picture.

And the detail makes clear that this is not just a property sale.

It is a carefully structured reduction in Shell’s long-term U.S. office footprint.

Exactly how much Woodcreek does Shell intend to keep?

According to the current listing for the Woodcreek campus, Shell USA intends to take a 15-year lease on 780,161 square feet, representing 53% of the campus’s net rentable area. (LoopNet)

That long-term space consists of:

• 100% of Building E;
• 100% of Building F;
• and one floor of Building A.

At the same time, Shell would take only a three-year master lease on the remaining floors of Building A and all of Buildings B, C and D. (LoopNet)

That confirms the significance of the structure first reported in August.

Shell is not abandoning the rest of Woodcreek immediately.

Instead, the transaction appears designed to give the new owner three years of Shell-backed rental income while Shell progressively exits the balance of the campus.

The distinction matters.

The 15-year component represents the headquarters footprint Shell appears prepared to retain.

The three-year component looks much more like transition space.

Shell’s long-term rent would start at about half market level

The financial structure is particularly revealing.

The investment listing says Shell’s 15-year lease would begin at $18.50 net per square foot, described as approximately 50% of market rent, with annual increases of 3%. (LoopNet)

The shorter three-year lease covering the space Shell is expected eventually to vacate would instead begin at market rent, also with 3% annual increases. (LoopNet)

In other words, the prospective buyer is being offered two quite different income streams.

For three years, Shell would continue paying market rent on the larger temporary footprint.

For the core space Shell intends to retain for 15 years, the starting rent would be materially below prevailing market levels.

The marketing material explicitly says that the long-term leaseback is being structured at a fraction of market rent in order to reduce Shell’s occupancy costs. (LoopNet)

That is an important addition to the story.

Shell is not simply monetising a real-estate asset.

It is also apparently using the transaction to reset its future occupancy costs substantially lower.

$345.7 million of lease income

The numbers attached to the lease structure are substantial.

Excluding expense reimbursements, the marketing material says Shell’s structured leases would produce approximately $345.7 million in net operating income, of which around $116.3 million would be paid during the first three years. (LoopNet)

That helps explain the attraction to a potential buyer.

The purchaser would acquire a large Houston corporate campus backed initially by Shell rental income across the entire property, while having three years to reposition, re-lease or redevelop the space Shell ultimately intends to vacate.

From Shell’s perspective, the logic runs in the opposite direction.

The company receives the proceeds from selling the property, reduces its permanent physical footprint and locks in a long-term rental rate on its retained headquarters space that is being marketed as roughly half of market.

That is a much more sophisticated transaction than a straightforward headquarters sale.

Still no buyer — and no confirmed sale price

One important question remains unanswered.

There is still no publicly identified buyer for Woodcreek and no confirmed final transaction price.

The figure of approximately $325 million remains the reported marketing level, not evidence of a completed deal. (Houston Chronicle)

That distinction should be maintained until a sale actually closes.

A prospective price and an achieved sale price are not the same thing.

It will therefore be worth watching whether the property ultimately sells near the $325 million figure, whether the lease terms change during negotiations, or whether Shell modifies the amount of space it intends to retain.

Jiffy Lube is already leaving Woodcreek

There is another concrete development.

On 17 September 2026, REBusinessOnline reported that Jiffy Lube has signed a 28,000-square-foot headquarters lease at Westway Plaza in West Houston and is relocating from the Shell Woodcreek campus. (REBusinessOnline)

That move comes after Shell agreed to sell Jiffy Lube to Monomoy Capital Partners.

The relocation is comparatively small beside the scale of Woodcreek as a whole, but it is nevertheless another visible example of activity leaving the campus.

And it reinforces the broader point.

Woodcreek is already beginning to function less like a single, permanently consolidated Shell corporate campus and more like a property in transition.

Aberdeen: still no numbers

The contrast with Aberdeen is interesting.

Shell confirmed in August that certain development, subsurface and wells roles would move from Aberdeen to London in 2027 as part of changes to its global upstream organisation. (Press and Journal)

Shell said the majority of the affected roles support its global operations rather than UK operations based in Aberdeen. (Press and Journal)

But nearly a month later, the central numerical questions remain unanswered.

Shell has still not publicly disclosed:

the number of employees expected to relocate;

the number who may decline to move;

whether any redundancies will ultimately result;

or whether further functions will be transferred from Aberdeen.

BBC reporting likewise noted that Shell had not disclosed the number of jobs involved. (BBC Mirror)

So the Aberdeen story remains important, but presently unchanged in evidential terms.

Woodcreek, by contrast, has become considerably clearer.

A wider pattern in Shell’s corporate geography

Taken together, Woodcreek and Aberdeen illustrate something broader about the modern Shell organisation.

The company is concentrating people and functions into fewer hubs.

In Aberdeen, certain global technical roles are being moved to London.

In Houston, Shell is seeking to sell its historic headquarters campus and retain only 53% of it on a long-term basis.

The remaining Woodcreek space would be covered by Shell for just three years before becoming available to the purchaser for other uses. (LoopNet)

Shell describes these kinds of changes in terms of efficiency, collaboration, competitiveness and optimising its real-estate footprint.

Those descriptions may all be accurate.

But the physical consequences are equally clear.

Shell is reducing the amount of office space it intends to occupy permanently.

In Houston, we can now put a precise number on it:

780,161 square feet retained long term.

Everything else is transitional.

And if the proposed Woodcreek transaction completes on the advertised terms, Shell will have achieved something else at the same time: converting a large owned headquarters campus into cash while securing its retained U.S. headquarters space at a starting rent marketed at roughly half the prevailing market level.

That makes Woodcreek one of the more revealing examples yet of Shell’s continuing effort to shrink, consolidate and financially restructure its corporate office footprint.

Shell’s Woodcreek Retreat Comes Into Sharper Focus: 780,161 Sq Ft Retained, Three-Year Exit for the Rest was first posted on September 19, 2026 at 9:27 am.
©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

Updated: Renewables met more than 80 per cent of total grid demand for first time over a weekend that also saw record levels of rooftop PV and new demand lows.

The post Renewables hit more than 80 pct of grid demand for first time – despite heavy throttling of wind and solar appeared first on Renew Economy.

BC Ferries recently announced a purchase of four major new vessels from a shipyard in China. This decision has sparked criticism from trade unions and others, who argue the ferries should have been commissioned from domestic shipyards.

New research from the Centre for Future Work confirms that the decision to import the ferries, rather than domestic procurement, imposed a significant foregone economic cost on the province.

Sourcing an equivalent value of shipbuilding from domestic yards would generate $1.5 billion in additional GDP in Canada (85% of that in B.C.), over 10,000 person-years of employment, and would return over $400 million in additional revenue to government coffers (providing a financial basis for public support for future procurement).

The report reviewed the current scale of shipbuilding in B.C. and Canada, highlighting the strong employment growth in the sector over the past 15 years (largely due to a pro-active procurement strategy for Navy and Coast Guard ships from the federal government). It reviewed the role of active industrial policy in supporting shipbuilding in other major producers – including the U.S., China, and Europe.

It also surveyed the current capabilities of B.C.’s shipbuilding sector, identifying gaps that should be addressed in order to ensure the industry can source future ferry procurement from the provincial ferry operator.

The report concluded with several recommendations, including:

1. Establish a Ministerial-level task force to coordinate the development and implementation of a robust provincial shipbuilding strategy.
2. Amend contractual and fiscal arrangements with BC Ferries to require the firm to maximize economic benefits from domestic procurement of future vessels.
3. Commitment to accelerate the electrification of ferries, and development of B.C. technological and industrial expertise in electric vessels.
4. Formation of a consortium of firms to organize and plan the expansion of future shipbuilding capacity in B.C.
5. The provincial government should be prepared to take equity stakes in future ventures.

1. A strong marine sector workforce development strategy to ensure a steady and adequate supply of skilled workers for the shipbuilding and marine sectors.

Please see the full report, The Economic Benefits of Ferry Construction in B.C., by Jim Stanford, Blair Redlin, and David Fairey.

A video reviewing the main findings of the report, recorded during a public launch event, is available on the Centre for Future Work’s YouTube channel.

The report generated numerous media articles, including:

• Newspaper articles in the Vancouver Sun, the Toronto Star, and numerous other outlets.
• Television coverage on CHEK TV and other stations.
• A feature interview on the Jas Johal Show on CKNW Radio.

The post B.C. Missed an Economic Opportunity by Importing New Ferries From China, Rather than Building them Here appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Albertans will vote on October 19 in an unusual ‘referendum on a referendum’, initiated by the Alberta government of Premier Danielle Smith. The referendum asks voters whether they prefer to stay part of Canada, or prefer to initiate a process of negotiation and preparation fo0r a binding referendum on separation some time in the future.

Many economic, business, and civil society leaders have warned of the economic risks and costs of even a significant threat of Alberta independence, let alone outright separation. But working people are especially exposed to those risks, for several reasons: they need employment, they depend disproportionately on federal income supports (like CPP, EI, and the Canada Child Benefit), they depend on unions and labour standards to negotiate their wages, and they are less mobile across borders than investors or high-income households.

The Centre for Future Work has explored the particular risks facing Alberta workers from the separatist movement, in a new report published in conjunction with the Alberta Federation of Labour.

The report challenges several of the myths propagated by the separatist movement – in particular, claims that an independent Alberta would be richer, have lower taxes, and more opportunity to sell products to other countries.

It also reviews several statistical indicators of declining living standards for Alberta workers in recent years. It finds that Alberta workers are quite right to be angry about stagnant wages, falling purchasing power, and growing insecurity in the province – but those problems should not be blamed on a distant federal government. Rather, they result from problems right at home in Alberta, in particular the distorted playing field of labour relations, which has undermined the bargaining power of Alberta workers to negotiate better jobs and wages.

The economic pie in Alberta has been growing: oil and gas production and export set new records every year, and output per worker is the highest in Canada. But labour’s share of that economic pie (in wages, salaries, and benefits) has been shrinking faster than in any other province, and average wages now barely match the Canadian national average.

The report concludes that by defeating the false hopes of separation, workers in Alberta can refocus their rightful anger on the task of reforming Alberta’s labour and economic policies, so that the province’s abundant wealth can be shared more fairly.

Please see the full report, False Promises, Big Dangers: How Separation Would Hurt Alberta Workers, by Jim Stanford, Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work.

The report generated abundant media coverage, including:

• Newspaper articles in the Calgary Herald and the Lethbridge Herald.
• Interviews on CBC Radio and 880 CHED.
• A feature interview with Ryan Jesperson’s Real Talk video podcast.
• A commentary in The Tyee, targeting the myth that Alberta ‘subsidizes’ the rest of Canada.

The post Workers are Especially Exposed to the Economic Risks of Alberta Separation appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

As the 2026 El Niño intensifies across the Amazon, new research highlights the urgent need to better protect the region’s remaining forests from disturbances.

Researchers have shown how dramatic sea level rise, over a 5,000 year period, profoundly changed the coasts of northern Italy, Slovenia and northern Croatia.

It started as a routine data-quality check. 

Eruptions are a regular occurrence at Anak Krakatau, a small volcano between the Indonesian islands of Java and Sumatra. 

Storing energy as heat is a proven pathway to address the challenge solar power faces when it’s dark or cloudy outside by enabling the capture, storage and on-demand release of thermal energy.

Forests and woodlands cover millions of hectares across Australia, from tropical rainforests and temperate eucalypt forests to the vast woodlands and shrublands of the arid interior.

The same amount of rain falling on the same landscape at different times can send very different amounts of water into its rivers, according to a new study in Nature Water.