News Feeds

In U.S. cities, ridership on public transit is growing as the Iran War keeps gasoline prices high.

Read more on E360 →

Counterintuitively, it is data centers’ independence from the grid and use of natural gas that will hike energy costs for homes and businesses, write experts from Energy Innovation.

Kicking off proceedings at the mid-year climate talks in Bonn amid fraught global geopolitics, UN climate chief Simon Stiell told delegates that tackling the global climate crisis is “the hardest, but most important, thing humanity has ever tried to do together”.

Perhaps hoping to forestall the usual diplomatic wrangling that routinely bogs down the talks, he warned governments that there is no time to “re-open past debates or renegotiate commitments already made”.

Instead, he added, there is an imperative to accelerate real-world action as deadly heat intensifies and the fossil-fuel cost crisis sparked by the Iran war strangles economies, “taking a wrecking ball to lives and prosperity”. 

That message seemed to sink in with the negotiators in Bonn, where the opening session kicked off only an hour late and was not marred by agenda rows, which delayed the start of the talks by a day last year.  

On bridging the gap between the negotiations and the real economy, Stiell called for elevating the Global Climate Action Agenda, a goal long promised but never fully delivered.

But, he added, Türkiye – working with Australia – is now building on the efforts by last year’s COP30 presidency to streamline this process into six thematic areas, including boosting energy and food security, curbing methane and strengthening the resilience of cities. 

What to expect from the Bonn climate talks

Stiell was also keen to stress that the formal negotiations remain central to driving implementation of the Paris Agreement. He urged governments in Bonn to advance key issues including the Global Goal on Adaptation, the delivery of the outcomes of the first Global Stocktake and the development of a new just transition mechanism.

The first Global Stocktake was an assessment of countries’ collective progress in meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, which led to a 2023 agreement to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems and a 2030 goal to triple renewable energy, among other things.

Hinting at upcoming reforms to the UN climate regime – which has often been accused of failing to keep pace with advancements in the real world – Stiell said all institutions must continuously evolve and improve. The UN climate secretariat has heard countries’ calls to work more efficiently, support access to climate finance and reduce the reporting burden on governments, he added. 

Türkiye to outline targets for Action Agenda

While Australia will run the negotiations at COP31, for co-host Türkiye – which is organising the talks in Antalya – the focus is on the so-called Global Climate Action Agenda. This is a sprawling smorgasbord of around 500 voluntary initiatives bringing together governments, businesses, investors, cities and civil society. It covers everything from strengthening power grids for clean energy, to restoring degraded forests and land, and reducing emissions from buildings. 

COP31 President-Designate Murat Kurum told the opening session of the Bonn talks his team will present the “main framework” of the Action Agenda on Tuesday, adding it will be “based on concrete and tangible targets”. He also said Türkiye will announce a roadmap for translating what happens in the negotiations into the real world, which will ”point to a science-based process with highly clear and defined outcomes” and steps for getting there.

“In the second decade of the Paris Agreement, the COP31 Action Agenda will bring the outcomes of the first Global Stocktake to life, and we will make a strong start to the second decade,” Kurum said. 

In a joint letter issued in May, the two host nations said COP31 will be shaped as an “Implementation COP” and a “COP of the Future,” aimed at translating commitments into tangible and trackable progress. They outlined priority areas – to be achieved through the six axes of the Action Agenda defined ahead of COP30 – including electrification, zero waste, resilient cities, sustainable agriculture, green industrial transformation and climate finance.

Electrification emerges as COP31 priority

Chiming with this, Australia’s Chris Bowen, the COP31 president of negotiations, made the global energy transition the centerpiece of his opening intervention in Bonn. 

This year’s climate summit, he said, must send investors and corporations the message that countries are “collectively committed” to building up renewable energy and reducing fossil fuel reliance. Fossil fuels were not directly mentioned in the main outcome at COP30 last year after countries failed to agree on developing a global transition roadmap, which Brazil is now putting together outside of formal negotiations. 

Bowen, Australia’s minister of climate change and energy, said that, while energy crises like the one the world is going through now will become more frequent and more unpredictable, accelerating the shift to cleaner sources will “ease shocks to our energy systems”. 

He identified progress on electrification as a priority for COP31, pointing to an assessment by the International Energy Agency (IEA) that electricity’s share of final energy consumption needs to reach 35% by 2035 to keep the 1.5C temperature goal in sight. 

“In a world of geopolitical uncertainty and energy disruption, the transition is not a risk,” Bowen added, “it is the solution and an immense opportunity”. 

The opening plenary at the June Climate Meetings in Bonn, June 8, 2026. (Photo: UN Climate Change/Lara Murillo) The opening plenary at the June Climate Meetings in Bonn, June 8, 2026. (Photo: UN Climate Change/Lara Murillo) Tensions around trade and climate surface again 

Over the weekend, it became clear that discussions on trade and climate would once again become a source of contention between countries – if not as explosively as they did at the start of the talks a year ago.

As agreed in the COP30 Global Mutirão decision, a series of dialogues on trade and climate will be held in Bonn yearly from 2026 to 2028. Climate Home News understands that the G77 + China has expressed discontent about the organisation of the first dialogue that will take place on June 13, because it plans to incorporate contributions from a range of organisations rather than just governments.

In a statement at the opening plenary, Uruguay, on behalf of the G77 group of developing nations, “encouraged Parties [countries] to engage constructively in the dialogue in a robust and structured manner”. Many in the Global South are concerned that international trade measures to make products greener, such as the European Union’s carbon levy on imports, could end up discriminating against them.

Russia warned during its opening statement that the new dialogue should not be used to create trade barriers.

Comment: Indonesia’s failing Just Energy Transition Partnership is a cautionary tale

Avantika Goswami, climate change and green economy programme manager at the India-based Centre for Science and Environment, told Climate Home News that the UN climate secretariat has been unclear and untransparent about what will be discussed at the dialogue. “We don’t know if observers and civil society are going to be able to contribute,” she added.

After the three mid-year dialogues, in 2028 there will be a high-level event for countries to exchange their views and experiences, and the officials in charge will have to present a report summarising these discussions.

At Monday’s opening session, Antwi-Boasiako Amoah, the Ghanian chair of the African Group of Negotiators, said it would be “important to provide clarity on how they intend to present the report” and suggested that the co-chairs of the Bonn talks should consult with countries on how best to do that. 

Differences persist on finance between richer and poorer countries

On Monday afternoon, discussions  focused on finance and specifically on the details of the climate finance work programme that countries agreed to set up at COP30. 

While it has yet to be decided when the two-year work programme will start, Monday’s workshop was tasked with hammering out its scope and format.

“We are not in the position to accept these discussions,” Vositha Wijenayake, G77 + China finance coordinator, said at the beginning of the event. Climate Home News can confirm that the group of developing countries sent a letter to the organisers over the weekend insisting that the work programme must be driven by governments, produce concrete outcomes, and be included as an agenda item at COP31. 

Both during the opening plenary and the workshop in Bonn, they reaffirmed the need for implementation of Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which enshrines the obligation of wealthy nations to mobilise public finance for climate action in developing countries. On Monday, many Global South countries flagged concerns about declining levels of international funding at a time when needs are rising.

Campaigners demonstrate at the COP29 climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, calling for public funding for climate action, on November 14, 2024. (Photo: UN Climate Change – Kamran Guliyev) Campaigners demonstrate at the COP29 climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, calling for public funding for climate action, on November 14, 2024. (Photo: UN Climate Change – Kamran Guliyev)

Outi Honkatukia, the European Union’s lead climate finance negotiator, said Article 9.1 “is an important part of finance”, but called for a “broader discussion on climate finance” that encompasses the whole of Article 9. 

As happened with the discussions before the new climate finance goal (NCQG) was agreed at COP29, developed countries want the work programme to focus not only on their responsibility for mobilising financial resources, but also on the role of other potential contributors, like China and the private sector. Switzerland told the event it would like to see a discussion on widening the donor base. 

This was the first of three sessions on the topic that will take place in Bonn in the coming fortnight, with some observers saying a new proposal may be needed to move the work plan forward.

The post Bonn Bulletin: Tackling climate crisis is “hardest” challenge ever, Stiell says appeared first on Climate Home News.

Canada’s National Electricity Strategy makes one thing clear: the country is entering a major electricity buildout. To meet rising demand from electrification, economic growth and new industries, Canada will need to double grid capacity alongside...

The most recent US dietary guidelines have taken a sudden U-turn, suggesting that there should be doubling of animal protein intake in the country. In a recent analysis, scientists warn that the new diet—which also recommends reducing the intake of ultraprocessed foods—would more than offset any benefits of that move with the suggested spike in animal proteins, triggering rising greenhouse gas emissions, land, and fertilizer use.

The guidelines result from the work of a scientific panel called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), which meets every five years to review and update dietary recommendations for the United States. Those are usually adopted into the official guidelines: these were the focus of the current PNAS research.

In it, the scientists looked at the environmental outcomes of current and previous dietary recommendations. They simulated diets in which ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) were completely eradicated, alongside varying levels of suggested protein intake—in one scenario matching animal protein intake to previous years’ guidelines, which suggested Americans should consume about 0.8 grams per kilogram weight of protein. In another, they simulated a diet that reflected the upper bound of what the new guidelines recommend, which is a doubling of that previously suggested protein intake to 1.6 grams per kilogram weight.

In each case they explored the greenhouse gas impact, land-use, and fertilizer consumption effects of the particular diet, and compared the findings with the mean American diet.

This revealed that even though the new diet does cut environmental impacts by reducing intake of UPFs—which have a high animal protein content overall—this was more than offset by the rising animal protein intake. In fact, the analysis shows that increasing protein intake would cancel out the environmental benefits of UFPs by an excess of 32%.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:The economic impact of plant-based diets: fewer jobs, lower costs, and big climate benefits

 

The paper highlights one plus of the new suggested diet, which is a reduction in water use by between 7 and 19%, compared to the mean American diet. However it notes that the suggested diet would otherwise “confer net environmental harm” across almost all environmental metrics. And besides, a diet low in UPFs but higher in plant-based proteins would tick all boxes, the study finds, lowering water use even further, bringing down greenhouse gas emissions, fertilizer, and land use. 

“There is considerable potential benefit for both public and planetary health if prevailing diets remove UPFs, and replace them with plant dominated whole foods,” the researchers write.

Meanwhile, nonprofits, scientists, and health professionals not involved in the research have collectively noted that the new guidelines reject the majority of recommendations made by the DGAC science panel, and that the process this time around involved significant conflicts of interest with the US meat and dairy industries.

As a closing note in the PNAS paper, the researchers call for an urgent realignment of the guidelines with established science and evidence, which time and time again has shown the harmful effects of excess meat and dairy consumption on human and planetary health. 

Shepon et. al. “The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans are associated with higher land, water and nitrogen use, and greenhouse gas emissions.” PNAS. 2026. 

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

Celebrate and support CELDF’s Declaring Disruption Campaign by reading our mid-year impact report and donating to CELDF to help us meet our 50/20 goals! - Raising $50,000 and welcoming 20 new donors.

The post CELDF Declares Disruption – 2026 Mid-Year Campaign! appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

Headline News:

• “Elon Musk Said He Wouldn’t Take SpaceX Public, But Two Things Changed His Mind” • The stress of taking Tesla public seems to have worn Musk down tremendously. He said he would not do that again. But he needs money for SpaceX, and with the IPO that is coming, he will be able to retain control of 85% of the company’s stock. [CleanTechnica]

Lift off (Kim Shiflett, NASA, public domain)

• “How Hot Conditions Could Impact The World Cup” • The World Cup is set to begin during one of the hottest times of year in more than a dozen cities in Canada, the US and Mexico, and several of the host cities may see high temperatures during the soccer tournament. High temperatures that may put athletes and even spectators at risk. [ABC News]
• “Mexico Reaches 5 GW Of Distributed Solar Power” • Mexico has reached another renewable energy milestone. From 600,368 installations across the country, Mexico reached 5,164.98 MW of small-scale, distributed solar power capacity by the end of 2025. Net metering has been a key driver of small-scale solar growth in the country. [CleanTechnica]
• “Nordex Wins 255-MW German Haul” • Nordex Group has secured orders totalling 255 MW for fourteen wind projects in Germany during the first two months of the second quarter. The orders cover 39 turbines, including nineteen N163/6.X units, eleven N175/6.X units and nine N149 turbines, according to the company. [reNews]
• “Greek Solar Producers With CfDs To Get Paid When Prices Reach Zero” • Currently, when prices are zero or lower for two consecutive hours, solar power producers with contracts for difference (CfDs) don’t get paid. The Greek Energy Ministry decided that renewable energy producers will be paid when the price is zero. [Balkan Green Energy News]

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

By Frank Sekyere, Programs Manager for Upcycle It Ghana

Every morning, millions of garments are pulled from racks across Europe and the United States – purchased with excitement, worn a handful of times (if at all), and then discarded in favour of the next trend. But where do those discarded clothes go after being cast aside? Many second-hand clothes travel halfway across the world to Africa. Here, they meet a cruel fate, overwhelming the local markets, poisoning the environment, and exacerbating the global textile waste crisis. This global trade is marketed as charity, but the reality is much darker: it perpetuates a vicious cycle of waste colonialism with severe environmental and social consequences.

The Hidden Cost of Charitable Donations

Kantamanto Market in Accra, Ghana, stands as a ground zero for the textile waste crisis. Each week, approximately 15 million garments discarded by the Global North arrive in shipping containers, labelled as donations or charitable goods to help the less fortunate and promote reuse. Yet, EU data from 2019, which includes the UK, shows that Ghana was the second-largest destination for Europe’s used-clothing exports by volume, behind only Tunisia.

The truth is that 40% of the clothing sent to Ghana is waste, unsellable and of such poor quality and often damaged, that they can’t be resold. This waste clogs drainage systems, inundates landfills and pollutes the environment. These garments were intended to be a source of aid, but in reality, they are nothing more than a burden.

Textile waste – a plastic-dominant, toxic-saturated waste stream containing complex chemical mixtures – often exhibits characteristics consistent with hazardous or other wastes under the Basel Convention. In Ghana, these textiles are either burnt or left to decompose in landfills, releasing toxic chemicals into the soil and air and damaging the local environment. The smoke from burning textiles contains harmful substances like carbon monoxide, dioxins, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which have been linked to respiratory problems and other health issues in local communities. 

A Story of Waste and Hope

Consider the story of Beatrice, a fish seller from Jamestown Beach in Accra. She walks down the shore every morning, carefully picking through the waste that washes ashore, often finding her catch mixed with discarded textiles. “The waste disturbs us,” she says. “When fishermen go fishing, they come back with fish mixed with plastic and textile waste. We have to remove all the garbage before selling it.”Beatrice’s story is not unique; it is one shared by countless others in Accra. Textile waste has infiltrated every part of their lives, from their markets to their beaches and likely even them, through contamination of the food chain. 

Yet, despite these daily struggles, there is hope. Organisations like Upcycle It Ghana are working tirelessly to turn this waste into a resource by training artisans and young people to repurpose discarded textiles into bags, accessories, and even upcycled fashion. However, it is important to recognise that, despite these efforts, the growing volume of textile waste means end-of-life solutions remain severely limited.

Less than 1% of textile waste is recycled into new clothing, while most materials, especially synthetic and blended fabrics, still have no effective recovery options. And even handling these materials could be harmful to workers because post-consumer polyester contains chemicals from dyes, finishes, detergents, coatings, flame retardants, microplastics and other additives. 

How Overproduction of Virgin Plastic and Fast Fashion Contributes to the Crisis

At the centre of the textile waste crisis is market distortion, the relentless flood of artificially cheap plastic feedstocks like polyester, acrylic and nylon into the fashion industry. These synthetics, derived from fossil fuels and highly subsidised, are now so inexpensive that they outprice natural fibres like cotton, wool and linen.

The result is a race to the bottom, brands cut costs to maximise profits and compete against cheap suppliers who often turn to these plastic fabrics. Yet the inherently low quality means they are designed for disposability rather than longevity. Garments are produced cheaply, worn only a few times and then given away. Studies show that the average time clothing is worn before disposal has declined, with as many as one in five fast-fashion products discarded after no more than 10 wears. A stark contrast to the clothing of previous generations, which was designed to last. 

This throwaway culture is not confined to wealthy countries. As discarded clothing is shipped to developing countries like Ghana, the cycle continues. In Kenya, it is estimated that 55,500 to 74,000 tonnes of textile waste are generated each year due to the flood of second-hand clothing imports. The poor quality of many of these garments, a direct result of the fast-fashion model, means they are often not reusable, contributing to the growing problem of textile waste.

This situation is compounded by the fact that local industries in these countries are unable to compete with the cheap, low-quality textiles flooding their markets. In Ghana, local textile industries have been forced to close or scale back, unable to compete with the influx of second-hand clothing. This leaves the country with a double burden: it imports waste and also loses out on the potential benefits of a thriving domestic textile industry.

What Needs to Change?

The solution to this crisis is not simple, but it starts with accountability and addressing the root cause: overproduction. 

Fast fashion brands must be held accountable for their role in this crisis. Brands that profit from the overproduction of cheap garments must take responsibility for the waste they create. There is an urgent need for binding national, regional, and global agreements to support Extended Producer Responsibility and hold producers legally accountable for the resources used, emissions generated, and waste produced across the entire lifecycle of clothing.

Another important step in addressing the textile waste crisis is ending the export of cheap, low-quality second-hand clothing to Africa and other destination countries. Countries in the Global North must stop using developing nations as dumping grounds and instead invest in local, meaningful solutions to manage their waste responsibly at source. Only clean, sorted material destined for legitimate reuse markets should be traded.

As the Basel Convention’s fifteenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG-15) in June considers options to address used textiles and textile waste within its work programme, there is a clear opportunity to take action to close this gap. Textile waste should be subject to the same baseline controls as other polluting and hazardous waste streams, including classification as “other waste” under Annex II of the Convention, making it subject to mandatory Prior Informed Consent procedures and additional control measures. This will preserve legitimate reuse and recycling markets while ensuring that mixed, contaminated or low-quality textile waste is properly controlled.

Consumers also need to be educated on the environmental impact of their clothing choices. By promoting sustainable fashion practices, such as buying quality second-hand or investing in durable garments, we can reduce demand for fast fashion and its waste.

Governments should be proactive in implementing transparency measures to track the routes, destinations, and fate of used clothes, and in enforcing quality checks at their ports for second-hand clothes, ensuring that only suitable garments are imported for legitimate reuse and recovery. A strict eco-design and detox strategy must be enforced by banning hazardous chemicals and phasing out fossil-fuel-based synthetic fibres in textile production and final products to shift to a truly circular, sustainable model. 

How Are You Contributing to Solving the Waste Crisis?

The global textile waste crisis is a daunting challenge, but it’s one we can solve, together. Real progress begins with the choices we make every day: buying less, choosing better, reusing more, and refusing to be trapped by the cycle of fast fashion. The time to act is now, because every conscious decision, no matter how small, helps build a more sustainable and just future!

References

Ahiable, E. (2021). Textile waste in Ghana: Impact on the environment and health. Journal of Environmental Studies, 15(3), 5-12.

Acquaye, A., & Manieson, J. (2023). Textile waste management practices in Ghana: Challenges and opportunities. Waste Management and Research, 31(1), 45-58.

Changing Markets Foundation. (2023). The impact of textile waste and microplastics on the environment. Retrieved from https://www.changingmarkets.org

Greenpeace. (2024). The impact of textile waste on the environment: Case studies from Africa. Greenpeace Africa.

Kantamanto Market and Environmental Pollution: The Role of Secondhand Clothing Trade in Ghana. (2022). Journal of African Environmental Research, 9(4), 35-47.

Mensah, L., & Agyemang, D. (2023). Textile waste from fashion shops and imported second-hand clothing in the Greater Kumasi Sub-Region of Ghana: A call for policy change. Environmental Challenges, 22(2), 57-70.

Ricketts, L. (2023). The Or Foundation’s advocacy for sustainable textile economies in Ghana. The Or Foundation. 

The post From the EU’s Closet to Africa’s Dumpsters: How Fast Fashion Fuels the Textile Waste Crisis in Africa first appeared on GAIA.

Mengapa Slot Pulsa Menjadi Populer?

Ada beberapa alasan yang membuat sistem pembayaran melalui pulsa semakin dikenal di kalangan pengguna platform hiburan online.

1. Kemudahan Akses

Tidak semua orang memiliki rekening bank atau dompet digital. Dengan memanfaatkan pulsa yang sudah tersedia pada nomor telepon, pengguna dapat melakukan transaksi secara lebih sederhana tanpa harus melalui proses registrasi tambahan.

2. Proses Transaksi yang Cepat

Metode pembayaran berbasis pulsa umumnya menawarkan proses yang relatif singkat. Pengguna hanya perlu memastikan saldo pulsa mencukupi sebelum melakukan transaksi, sehingga pengalaman penggunaan menjadi lebih praktis.

3. Dukungan Operator Seluler

Semakin banyak operator telekomunikasi yang menyediakan layanan pendukung transaksi digital. Hal ini membuat sistem pembayaran melalui pulsa menjadi lebih mudah diakses oleh masyarakat dari berbagai daerah.

4. Adaptasi Terhadap Gaya Hidup Digital

Masyarakat modern cenderung mengutamakan kecepatan dan kemudahan dalam berbagai aktivitas online. Slot pulsa hadir sebagai salah satu solusi yang sesuai dengan kebutuhan tersebut.

Dampak Positif terhadap Industri Hiburan Online

Kehadiran sistem pembayaran pulsa memberikan sejumlah pengaruh positif terhadap perkembangan industri hiburan digital.

Meningkatkan Jangkauan Pengguna

Salah satu dampak terbesar adalah terbukanya akses bagi kelompok masyarakat yang sebelumnya memiliki keterbatasan dalam menggunakan layanan pembayaran digital. Dengan demikian, platform hiburan online dapat menjangkau audiens yang lebih luas.

Mendorong Inovasi Layanan

Persaingan di industri hiburan online mendorong penyedia layanan untuk terus berinovasi. Kehadiran metode pembayaran pulsa menjadi salah satu bentuk inovasi yang bertujuan meningkatkan pengalaman pengguna.

Mendukung Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Digital

Semakin banyak transaksi yang dilakukan secara digital, semakin besar pula kontribusinya terhadap pertumbuhan ekosistem ekonomi digital. Sistem pembayaran alternatif seperti pulsa membantu mempercepat proses adaptasi masyarakat terhadap layanan berbasis internet.

Meningkatkan Fleksibilitas Pembayaran

Pengguna kini memiliki lebih banyak pilihan dalam melakukan transaksi. Fleksibilitas ini menjadi nilai tambah yang dapat meningkatkan kepuasan pengguna terhadap suatu platform hiburan online.

Tantangan yang Muncul Bersama Perkembangannya

Di balik berbagai keuntungan yang ditawarkan, sistem pembayaran melalui pulsa juga menghadapi sejumlah tantangan yang perlu diperhatikan.

Biaya Konversi Pulsa

Pada beberapa layanan, nilai pulsa yang digunakan dalam transaksi dapat mengalami penyesuaian atau biaya tambahan tertentu. Oleh karena itu, pengguna perlu memahami ketentuan yang berlaku sebelum melakukan transaksi.

Edukasi Pengguna

Masih banyak masyarakat yang belum memahami cara kerja pembayaran digital berbasis pulsa. Edukasi menjadi faktor penting agar pengguna dapat memanfaatkan layanan secara aman dan bijak.

Keamanan Transaksi

Seperti halnya sistem pembayaran digital lainnya, keamanan data dan perlindungan pengguna harus menjadi prioritas utama. Penyedia layanan perlu terus meningkatkan sistem keamanan untuk menjaga kepercayaan pengguna.

Regulasi yang Terus Berkembang

Industri digital bergerak sangat cepat sehingga regulasi harus mampu mengikuti perkembangan teknologi. Aturan yang jelas dan transparan diperlukan untuk menciptakan ekosistem yang sehat bagi seluruh pihak yang terlibat.

Pengaruh terhadap Perubahan Perilaku Konsumen

Kehadiran slot pulsa juga turut memengaruhi pola perilaku konsumen dalam mengakses hiburan online. Pengguna kini lebih terbiasa dengan transaksi instan dan layanan yang dapat diakses kapan saja. Kemudahan tersebut mendorong ekspektasi baru terhadap berbagai platform digital, yaitu layanan yang cepat, sederhana, dan mudah digunakan.

Selain itu, konsumen semakin terbuka terhadap berbagai metode pembayaran alternatif. Mereka tidak lagi bergantung pada satu sistem pembayaran tertentu, melainkan memilih opsi yang paling sesuai dengan kebutuhan dan kondisi masing-masing.

Kesimpulan

Slot pulsa merupakan salah satu bentuk inovasi pembayaran yang lahir dari kebutuhan masyarakat akan akses hiburan online yang lebih praktis. Kehadirannya memberikan dampak positif berupa perluasan jangkauan pengguna, peningkatan fleksibilitas transaksi, serta dorongan terhadap pertumbuhan ekonomi digital. Namun, di sisi lain, tantangan seperti keamanan, edukasi pengguna, dan regulasi tetap perlu mendapat perhatian.

Memahami fenomena slot pulsa tidak hanya membantu masyarakat mengenal perkembangan teknologi pembayaran digital, tetapi juga memberikan gambaran yang lebih luas tentang bagaimana inovasi dapat memengaruhi arah perkembangan industri hiburan online secara keseluruhan. Dengan pemahaman yang baik, pengguna dapat memanfaatkan teknologi secara lebih bijak dan bertanggung jawab.

hambachforest.org – Osaka88 login agent boasts an impressive collection of slot machine games that cater to all types of players. Whether you prefer classic themes or modern graphics, there’s something for everyone.

One standout title is “Dragon’s Treasure,” a visually stunning game packed with exciting features and rewarding bonuses. Players are often drawn in by its captivating storyline and immersive gameplay.

For those who enjoy adventure, “Jungle Quest” offers a thrilling experience filled with wild animals and hidden treasures. The engaging soundtracks further enhance the excitement as players spin the reels.

Another popular choice is “Lucky Fortune.” With its vibrant colors and cheerful symbols, this game brings good vibes while offering ample winning opportunities.

Each slot game is designed not only to entertain but also to provide chances for significant payouts, making them irresistible to both new and seasoned players on Osaka88 Agent.

Introduction to Slot Machines and Osaka88 Login Agent

Online slot machines have revolutionized the gaming experience, bringing vibrant visuals and engaging gameplay right to your screen. For fans of spinning reels, Osaka88 Agent is a standout platform that caters to both novice players and seasoned veterans.

What sets osaka88 login site apart is its extensive library of games. You’ll find everything from classic fruit machines to modern video slots with immersive themes. This diversity ensures that there’s something for everyone.

User-friendly navigation makes it easy to explore different categories and discover new favorites. With just a few clicks, you can dive into thrilling adventures or chase jackpots from the comfort of your home.

As technology advances, so do online slot experiences at Osaka88. The agent offers top-tier graphics and sound effects that enhance every spin, making each game feel like an event in itself. Whether you’re looking for relaxation or excitement, this platform delivers on all fronts.

The Future of Online Slot Machines: Virtual Reality Technology

Virtual reality technology is set to revolutionize the online slot machine experience. Imagine stepping into a fully immersive casino environment from your living room. Players can interact with vibrant, 3D graphics that bring games to life in unprecedented ways.

With VR headsets, you’re no longer just clicking buttons; you’re pulling levers and spinning reels as if you were at an actual slot machine. This sensory involvement enhances engagement and excitement.

The social aspect also evolves. Players can meet friends or make new ones in virtual spaces, sharing experiences while trying their luck on various machines.

As technology advances, expect even more realistic animations and sound effects that transport players deeper into the gaming world. The future promises a blend of strategy and entertainment like never before, making each spin more thrilling than the last.

Conclusion and Recommendation for Playing Slot Machines on Osaka88 Agent

Choosing to play slot machines on Osaka88 Agent is a decision that brings excitement and potential rewards. The platform offers a diverse selection of games, from classic favorites to innovative new titles, ensuring there’s something for every type of player. With user-friendly navigation and secure transactions, players can focus on enjoying their gaming experience without unnecessary distractions.

The benefits of playing with Osaka88 go beyond just the games themselves. Their customer support team is dedicated to enhancing your experience by providing assistance whenever needed. This commitment ensures that players feel valued and supported throughout their gaming journey.

For those looking to maximize their chances of winning, utilizing strategies and understanding the mechanics behind each game can be advantageous. Coupled with responsible betting practices, players can enjoy hours of entertainment while maintaining control over their gameplay.

Whether you are a seasoned player or new to online slots, exploring what Osaka88 Agent has to offer could lead you down an exciting path filled with opportunities for fun and fortune in the world of online gaming.

The post Popular Slot Machine Games Available Login Osaka88 Agent appeared first on HAMBACHFOREST.

In the United States, data centre developments have become an increasingly pressing issue for many communities. They bring noise pollution, water contamination, and higher utility...

The post A data centre may be coming to your neighbourhood  first appeared on Spring.

AFTER ANOTHER YEAR of wildfires, floods, heat waves, and extreme weather-induced evacuations, Indigenous communities are facing the brunt of devastating climate change impacts caused by fossil fuel extractivism, capitalism, and colonialism. Indigenous youth in particular are experiencing acute mental health impacts related to loss of land-based knowledge. 

Despite these impacts, Indigenous youth across Turtle Island continue to lead in the protection of their territories through approaches such as clean energy leadership, food sovereignty initiatives, land back movements, and international climate policy. However, their perspectives remain underrepresented within academic research and political decision-making. 

Youth Climate Corps

The Youth Climate Corps (YCC) is an emerging response to these overlapping crises. Open to Canadians aged 35 and under, the YCC equips young people with training and meaningful employment focused on climate mitigation, adaptation, and emergency response. As of Budget 2025, the federal Liberal government proposed a two-year YCC pilot, allocating $40 million over two years starting in 2026–27 to provide paid skills training for young Canadians to “quickly respond to climate emergencies, support recovery, and strengthen resilience in communities across the country.” While the federal government has announced the pilot, the program remains in the design phase, and decisions around implementation and governance have yet to be made — presenting a critical opportunity to ensure YCC upholds Indigenous sovereignty and supports existing Indigenous-led climate solutions from the outset.

The federal government has framed the program as a way to reduce youth unemployment while strengthening climate resilience and emergency response capacity. In the face of tariffs, AI-related job loss and a recession, the YCC can be thought of as a jobs guarantee, protecting young workers — who are often first laid off — from long-term wage loss, debt and economic instability. These pressures are particularly acute for Indigenous youth, who continue to face disproportionately high rates of unemployment, underinvestment, and barriers to culturally relevant training and employment opportunities.

Paradoxically, Canada faces both an unemployment crisis and a skilled labour shortage. Jobs in the green economy are growing rapidly, but there aren’t enough trained people to fill them. Labour market data shows over 327,000 jobs in the environmental and clean tech sector in 2021, an increase of 10.4 percent from 2020. A net-zero transition could create up to 40,000 new jobs by the end of the decade — representing emerging career possibilities that align with Indigenous-led climate solutions focused on renewable energy, land stewardship, food sovereignty, housing and climate resilience.

The contradiction is even sharper when considering public spending priorities. At scale, YCC could create nearly 20,000 full-time jobs annually with an investment of $1 billion a year.

This amount represents only a small fraction of the $594.8 billion federal budget and of the $29.6 billion in public financial support directed toward fossil fuel and petrochemical companies in 2024 alone. The program could be bolstered by a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies; the Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that a 15 percent tax on these companies could generate $4.2 billion in revenue over five years. The same companies that are set to make a record $90 billion in excess profits due to the war in Iran. Redirecting even a portion of these profits toward Indigenous-led climate initiatives and youth employment would represent a meaningful investment in a just transition.

While Canada continues to funnel billions of dollars to the oil and gas sector, Indigenous communities and nations are leading climate solutions across Turtle Island. Indigenous communities are partners and leaders in 20 percent of Canada’s electricity-generating infrastructure — almost all of which are producing renewable energy. There are nearly 200 medium-to-large and over 2000 small-scale Indigenous-led clean energy projects in operation in Canada. Indigenous communities are simultaneously advancing a renewable energy transition, resisting new fossil fuel infrastructure, and prioritizing well-being. Many are undertaking initiatives to build food, water, housing, and energy security, strengthening community resilience and sovereignty in the process. 

YCC is an opportunity to invest directly in this existing leadership by supporting Indigenous youth in building skills, accessing meaningful employment, and continuing to expand community-led climate work that is already underway. Rather than imposing external solutions, a YCC could help scale intergenerational, land-based, and Indigenous-led climate solutions that are already building resilience and sovereignty despite often being implemented with limited resources and government support. 

Indigenous Youth Leadership

In June 2025, the federal government rushed through Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, granting Cabinet sweeping powers to fast-track “nation-building projects” at the expense of Indigenous rights and environmental protections. The false promise of “economic reconciliation” offered by industry and governments trades limited short-term financial benefits for environmental destruction, chronic health problems, and continued exploitation of people and the planet. Instead of supporting efforts towards self-determination and obtaining consent, governments and proponents are co-opting reconciliation through economic means, such as project participation, revenue-sharing, and procurement contracts. 

If a YCC is to be done right, we must avoid reproducing greenwashing narratives and prioritize Indigenous self-determination and existing Indigenous-led climate solutions already being successfully implemented. As it stands, the YCC is a unique opportunity to move beyond business as usual. 

Core components of the vision for a YCC focus on the innate responsibility to centre Indigenous knowledges, leadership, and sovereignty while building equity in historically underserved communities. 

As Indigenous peoples, we have always taken care of our lands and waters. With a YCC predicated on Indigenous self-determination, we can leverage large-scale funding to enhance work already underway. Providing additional funding towards green skills and capacity building at the national level would also signal fiscal and strategic support for Indigenous-led climate solutions. Through a YCC, we can create real momentum towards a just transition by intentionally investing in the leadership of Indigenous young people across the country. 

Indigenous youth are already leading climate advocacy and community resilience work because of their connection to the lands and waters, their relationships with their communities and cultures, and their sense of responsibility for future generations. As the YCC pilot is developed, the program must recognize and support the existing work of Indigenous youth, nations, and organizations. This requires moving beyond one-size-fits-all approaches to create meaningful, culturally relevant opportunities that reflect the distinct priorities, knowledge and leadership of Indigenous communities.

Indigenous youth are motivated to join the green workforce, but they continue to face systemic barriers to participation. With youth guidance, a YCC can provide the resources and opportunities to overcome these challenges.

1. For organizations like Sacred Earth, a YCC could provide critical funding to scale up Indigenous-led climate solutions. Capacity building and informed decision-making are major determinants of project success in Indigenous communities, and access to a YCC would strengthen communities’ financial capacity to lead and implement their own projects.
2. A YCC must support partnering organizations that are architecting this work themselves, such as Indigenous Clean Energy. Since 2016, Indigenous Clean Energy has supported approximately 500 Indigenous youth across the country in building green skills, accessing mentorship opportunities, and finding meaningful employment through programs like ImaGENation, Generation Power, and the 20/20 Catalyst Program. A YCC must not only consider new opportunities for our communities, but also how to sustain existing programs amid growing uncertainty in the federal funding landscape.
3. By prioritizing Indigenous knowledge and sovereignty through a YCC, this program gives communities the potential to define a “green job” for themselves and create culturally responsive climate solutions. For Indigenous communities and organizations like kâniyâsihk Culture Camps, having a green job encompasses land-based work, language and culture revitalization, and Indigenous food or energy sovereignty. A YCC program must allow communities to contextualize green jobs for themselves and allocate resources to grassroots, land-based, and community-led work.

As the YCC moves through the design phase, these priorities must be reflected in the program’s governance, funding and implementation. The following recommendations outline key considerations for ensuring the YCC upholds Indigenous self-determination and existing Indigenous-led climate solutions. 

The Way Forward: Green Jobs in a Good Way

 

1. Respecting Indigenous Knowledge and Experience

A YCC must centre diverse Indigenous knowledge(s) from First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities across Turtle Island. Understanding these distinct lived experiences will support a YCC in applying a community-relevant framework for advancing a just transition.

It is imperative that a YCC learn from and support — not supplant — Indigenous-led projects that are revolutionizing the climate, environment, and renewable energy sector. Indigenous communities are already leading the way and have the experience to provide direction. 

2. Upholding Indigenous Governance and Sovereignty

The Canadian government must uphold Indigenous sovereignty during program design and implementation – going beyond consultation towards a Nation-to-Nation approach. This includes obtaining free, prior and informed consent before proceeding with any project on Indigenous territories. 

The guidance of an Indigenous council or advisory body can ensure that the program respects and aligns with diverse Indigenous worldviews, legal structures, and governance models. By working in true partnership, a YCC can honour and include First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities through equitable governance and decision-making processes.

While implementing the YCC program, Indigenous Nations and governments must have the ability to define green workforce priorities themselves. In practice, Indigenous communities accessing the YCC program should be able to define and decide which training and workforce opportunities are foregrounded.

3. Equity and Justice

A just transition is only “just” if it is led and informed by the communities who will be most affected by the climate crisis — particularly underrepresented demographics, including but not limited to Indigenous, Black, racialized, and disabled persons, members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, newcomers, youth, and Elders. Prioritizing equitable and accessible opportunities through a YCC will be an ongoing process requiring consultation, partnership, and meaningful accommodations with and for communities. 

As one of the key demographics of this program, Indigenous youth must be meaningfully woven throughout the development and implementation of a YCC. A YCC cannot leave behind any youth – it should seek to provide culturally responsive support, while reducing barriers to participation. This includes investment in those transitioning away from extractive industries and who require reskilling for a green career pathway. 

4. Indigenous Workforce Development

Indigenous employment and cultural networks can be utilized to strengthen and streamline economic and workforce development. A YCC should partner with Indigenous businesses and trade networks to employ Indigenous youth in culturally appropriate, green careers — such as renewable energy, green housing, clean water initiatives, land sovereignty and food security. These initiatives benefit the wider community and are vital for health, well-being, and resilience in the face of impending climate disasters.

5. Sustainable Funding Sources

The Canadian government must sufficiently fund the engagement and design of the YCC program to meaningfully represent Indigenous communities accessing this resource.

To provide funding equitably, the YCC should specify that, after administrative costs, a portion of the funds should be allocated to First Nations, Inuit, and Métis youth, nations, organizations, and communities. To respect the sovereignty of Indigenous community partners, nations should have the autonomy to govern the funding and employment processes themselves. This may include the involvement of band councils, traditional forms of governance, Indigenous-led non-profit organizations, or other forms of Indigenous leadership. We recommend adopting funding approaches with the ability to work alongside Indigenous governance systems, rather than restrictive, colonial funding structures.

Citation:

Mendizabal, Serena and Aubrey-Anne Laliberte-Pewapisconias, Bushra Asghar, Farron Rickerby-Nishi, and Doug Hamilton-Evans. “The Youth Climate Corps and the Indigenous Green Jobs Revolution,” Yellowhead Institute. June 09 2026. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2026/the-youth-climate-corps-and-the-indigenous-green-jobs-revolution

The post The Youth Climate Corps and the Indigenous Green Jobs Revolution appeared first on Yellowhead Institute.

Large loads pose additional challenges for cooperatives. Planning strategically is critical.

One platform. Fewer silos. Better billing and payment experiences for utilities and customers.

The data on outbound calling: higher enrollments, strong sentiment, surprising insights

Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Shell, previously known as Forthdeal Limited, subsequently as Royal Dutch Shell plc, and now hiding in plain sight as Shell plc after ditching the disgraced Royal Dutch moniker, has reportedly marched back into the legal arena in Australia, this time demanding more money in the long-running brawl over who should pay for the Northern Endeavour clean-up — the offshore decommissioning saga that has become a cautionary tale for anyone who thought selling ageing oil assets made the liabilities magically disappear.

According to Upstream, Shell has “upped the ante” in a decommissioning legal wrangle centred on the Northern Endeavour floating production, storage and offloading vessel, with the dispute involving former partners Woodside Energy and Paladin Resources. The article, by Amanda Battersby, was published on 8 June 2026 and frames the fight around costs tied to the Northern Endeavour FPSO.

The public record makes the story look even messier. Shell has reportedly launched a fresh claim of more than A$83 million in the Western Australian Supreme Court against Woodside and Paladin. That comes after an earlier claim of about A$86.6 million over levy payments linked to the same clean-up nightmare. Add interest, legal costs and future exposure, and this is no longer just a tidy invoice dispute. This is a fossil-fuel family argument with a taxpayer-funded ghost ship floating in the background.

The Northern Endeavour is not some minor bit of scrap with delusions of grandeur. It was a 274-metre FPSO formerly moored between the Laminaria and Corallina oil fields in the Timor Sea, about 550 kilometres northwest of Darwin. The Australian Government says there are nine oil wells on the seabed associated with the fields. After the former private owner collapsed, the Commonwealth took control of the facility and moved to decommission, disconnect, dispose of the FPSO and remediate the fields.

That is where the real fun begins — if your idea of fun is corporate archaeology performed with court documents and a very expensive shovel.

The basic argument, as reported publicly, is that Shell says it sold its interests in the Laminaria-Corallina assets to Woodside and Paladin back in 2005 under agreements that allegedly shifted environmental, abandonment, reclamation, remediation and restoration liabilities to the buyers. Shell says, in effect: we sold, you assumed, now reimburse us.

Woodside and Paladin, unsurprisingly, have not responded by throwing rose petals at Shell’s feet and reaching for the cheque book. The earlier reporting says both disputed responsibility. Hence the courtroom theatre.

The reason this matters beyond the three corporate names is that Northern Endeavour has become one of Australia’s defining offshore decommissioning fiascos. The Commonwealth created the Offshore Petroleum (Laminaria and Corallina Decommissioning Cost Recovery Levy), known as the OP Levy, to recover the costs of decommissioning and remediation from offshore petroleum production licence holders. The official line is simple: the public should not be left paying for these activities.

Which sounds sensible — until the industry starts arguing about which corporate pocket the bill should land in.

The Northern Endeavour story has all the ingredients of a classic late-life oil asset drama: ageing infrastructure, changing ownership, regulatory reform, collapsing operators, decommissioning complexity and a clean-up bill that appears allergic to staying small. The result is a legal wrangle where Shell, having paid levy assessments, is trying to pass the cost back to former counterparties under old sale agreements.

For the public, the bigger question remains brutally straightforward: how many times can oil companies sell, transfer, restructure and contract around liabilities before somebody is finally made to clean up the mess?

Because decommissioning is not a footnote. It is not an optional extra. It is the back-end cost of extracting hydrocarbons from the sea and leaving heavy industrial hardware behind. The Northern Endeavour case shows what happens when the end-of-life chapter is treated like tomorrow’s problem — until tomorrow arrives with lawyers, regulators and an invoice.

Shell’s position appears to be that the contracts say one thing. Woodside and Paladin appear to disagree. The court will have to decide what those old agreements actually mean, and whether Shell can claw back the money it says should never have been its burden.

But whatever the legal outcome, the optics are spectacularly grim for the industry. The public sees an old oil vessel. The government sees a decommissioning project. The regulator sees a hard lesson. The companies see a liability allocation dispute. And everyone else sees a familiar fossil-fuel magic trick: profits in the good years, legal footnotes in the bad ones.

The Northern Endeavour may be headed for dismantling, but the argument around it is very much still afloat.

SPOOF PR/SPIN SECTION: “A PROUD MOMENT IN RESPONSIBLE INVOICE REDIRECTION”

In a bold display of corporate sustainability, Shell today reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring that decommissioning costs are handled by whichever historical contract clause looks most persuasive under courtroom lighting.

A fictional Shell spokesperson, speaking from behind a tasteful wall of compliance language, said:

“Shell has always believed in responsible decommissioning, responsible partnerships and responsible reimbursement. We are proud to play our part in the energy transition by transitioning invoices to the entities we believe are contractually responsible for them.”

The spokesperson added that Shell’s legal action should not be viewed as a dispute, but as “a collaborative multi-party alignment process concerning legacy fiscal responsibility allocation.”

Woodside, in this entirely spoofed PR universe, responded:

“We remain committed to best-practice stakeholder engagement, which is why we are engaging with Shell through the traditional stakeholder engagement mechanism known as litigation.”

Paladin, meanwhile, was imagined standing quietly in the corner, clutching a 2005 agreement and whispering: “Please define ‘all’.”

The Australian taxpayer was unavailable for comment, having stepped outside to scream into the Timor Sea.

SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION

DecomBot3000:
“Asset sold. Liability detected. Historical contract clause activated. Commencing blame-allocation protocol.”

OffshoreRiskEnjoyer:
“So the oil came out in the easy years and the invoices came back in the courtroom years. Classic reservoir management.”

LegalEagleButMakeItOily:
“This is why lawyers keep both hard hats and microscopes.”

Taxpayer_404:
“I was told the levy means the public won’t pay. Lovely. Now please explain why I can still smell burning public money.”

FPSO_FanAccount:
“Northern Endeavour has had more plot twists than a streaming drama and somehow worse production values.”

CorporateSpinDetector:
“When three companies argue over who pays to clean up the old oil kit, the only guaranteed winner is the legal profession.”

TimorSeaTea:
“Imagine being 274 metres long, decommissioned, removed, and still causing boardrooms to sweat.”

ContractClauseGoblin:
“Somewhere in a 2005 sale agreement, one sentence is having the best week of its life.”

GreenwashGPT:
“Decommissioning is just circular economy, but with more subpoenas.”

Final bot verdict:
Northern Endeavour: physically leaving the field. Legally? Still moored.

SHELL UPS THE ANTE IN OZ DECOMMISSIONING LEGAL WRANGLE: THE NORTHERN ENDEAVOUR CLEAN-UP BILL THAT JUST WON’T DIE was first posted on June 8, 2026 at 9:58 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

The company with the biggest stake in the Wressle oil field has agreed a £1m loan from the site operator, Egdon Resources.

Wressle oil field in North Lincolnshire. Photo: Egdon Resources

Union Jack Oil announced in a statement to investors this morning the loan would provide it with “additional working capital for general purposes”.

The statement said the loan was secured against Union Jack’s 40% stake in the Wressle licences, PEDL180 and PEDL182, in North Lincolnshire.

Union Jack has previously reported that it was debt free. At the time of writing, shares in the company had fallen 2.78%.

The Wressle well produced an average of 119 barrels of oil per day for Union Jack during 2025, according to annual accounts published last month. The average oil price at the time was US$68.2 per barrel.

Loan terms

Under the loan terms, Union Jack must pay 60% of its free cash flow generated from Wressle each month. This will first be applied to unpaid interest and then to reduce the loan principal.

If free cash flow from Wressle was insufficient, interest for that month would be capitalised and added to the loan balance.

The loan must be repaid in full after 24 months. The interest rate is 5% per year.

Restrictions

The agreement also requires Union Jack to support Egdon’s role as the Wressle operator. Union Jack cannot “vote or act to remove or replace the lender as operator (except in cases of gross misconduct”.

If Union Jack wants to sell its interest in the Wressle licences, Egdon now has the right of first refusal before any third parties are approached. This will last for 12 months after the repayment date.

As the midterm elections approach, something strange has happened: Democratic politicians who once talked about climate change as the defining crisis of our time now barely mention it at all. The phrase has begun disappearing from their speeches, social media posts, and podcast appearances. The main exception is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who has given some version of his “Time to Wake Up” speech on the dangers of climate change more than 300 times over the past decade and a half. He’s accused “climate hushers” of pushing the party to stop talking about the overheating planet.

If you had to pinpoint the moment that “climate hushing” began, the 2024 presidential election would be the obvious contender. After President Donald Trump beat former Vice President Kamala Harris in all seven swing states, Democrats were left scrambling to figure out where they went wrong. One popular theory was that they were too busy harping on social justice and planetary problems at the expense of everyday concerns voters cared more about, like the rising cost of living. Whitehouse, however, sees global warming as a piece of that conversation, rather than a distraction from it.

“Climate change is right now raising costs for families across the country through higher property insurance premiums, grocery and electric bills, and health care expenses,” Whitehouse said in a statement to Grist.

The idea that talking about climate change is a liability for Democrats has become conventional wisdom. Last year, the Democrat-aligned think tank Searchlight Institute issued the advice “Don’t say climate change.” A recent op-ed in The New York Times concluded, “When it comes to climate change, for now, it might be better to say nothing at all.” An early draft of the Democratic National Committee’s autopsy report of the 2024 election, released under pressure in May, posited that messages about climate change and shifting to green energy “created anxiety among workers in traditional industries worried about job losses.”

“It’s very zeitgeisty to assume right now that it’s really important not to talk about climate, or that Democrats have paid a political cost for talking about climate,” said Matto Mildenberger, a professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara. But there’s no hard evidence that discussing climate change hurts Democrats in elections, Mildenberger and other experts told Grist. If anything, it rewards candidates with a modest boost among voters, studies and surveys show. 

The basis for thinking that Democrats should avoid the subject comes from polls asking voters about their top priorities: Climate change ranks number 24 out of 25 when Americans are asked which issues will be very important to their vote, according to data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication last year. That’s mainly because other concerns have risen in importance, with liberal Democrats more concerned about things like protecting democracy, government corruption, and the treatment of immigrants than before the 2024 election. It’s a logical leap, however, to assume that talking about climate change is a political liability simply because voters don’t name it as one of their top issues.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse speaks during a Senate Committee on Finance confirmation hearing in 2025. Andrew Harnik / Getty Images

Some commentators argue that you can achieve climate action just by getting Democrats elected, regardless of whether they’re bringing it up. But deemphasizing climate change as part of their political platform could have long-term consequences: Without real discussion of it, you lose momentum for action and send a signal that it’s not important. “You actually need to have conversation and attention to an issue to slowly build the coalition and policy work necessary to address it,” Mildenberger said.

In effect, Democrats are ceding rhetorical ground to their opponents, he argues, even as polling shows that Trump’s agenda — blocking the construction of wind farms, scrubbing public information about global warming from government websites, and pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement — is broadly unpopular. “All of this is, frankly, doing the service of the fossil fuel industry, ultimately, because it’s helping climate delay,” Mildenberger said.  

Whitehouse has argued that Democrats are “poll-chasing,” parroting what voters say they want to hear with bland, backward-looking messages. “Many Americans don’t believe Democrats are fighters,” Whitehouse said. “The best way to shed that label is to actually step into the arena and fight. Our climate messaging has long been terrible, but it would be malpractice to shy away from a fight with Central Casting villains (the fossil fuel industry climate denial fraud and dark money corruption operations) with such high stakes for the economic well-being of American families.” As people in the U.S. struggle with rising costs and surging gas prices, oil giants are raking in billions from the Iran war, a dissonance that Democrats could tap into.

Matt Burgess, an economist at the University of Wyoming who studies how to find common ground on the environment, agrees with the broader sentiment that Democrats alienated voters on cultural issues and lost sight of concerns around affordability, and that progressive messaging about climate change was a piece of that. But he said it’s wrong to assume that climate change is a losing issue. “There are lots of different lines of evidence that suggest that climate change as an issue overall helps the Democrats and hurts Republicans,” Burgess said. A study he co-authored in 2024 found that in a hypothetical world in which climate change hadn’t been an issue in the 2020 election, Republicans could have gained somewhere around a 3-percent swing in the popular vote, enough to hand the White House to Trump instead of Joe Biden.

“If you have any issue that moves the needle a little bit in your favor in a super-close election, it can make the difference between winning and losing,” Burgess said.

Exit polling suggests there’s little reason to believe that climate change was a problem for Democrats in 2024, as opposed to other issues playing a larger role. Swing voters considered “U.S. efforts to fight climate change” a reason to support Harris over Trump by 21 points, according to a survey of 5,000 voters from Navigator Research just before and after the election. Trump won by large margins on inflation, the economy, and immigration — concerns that were top-of-mind for voters. “The very simple version is, Trump winning those voters won the election,” said Bryan Bennett, who runs the independent consulting practice Loft Beck strategies, advising Democrats and progressives, and who directed the post-election survey in his previous role at Navigator. 

Harris, in other words, didn’t lose because she mentioned climate change a few times, or even because Democrats passed climate policies under the Biden administration. Federal investments in infrastructure and manufacturing projects were, on a county level, linked to a very small improvement in the vote share for Harris, an analysis from the Center for American Progress found. If anything, the problem was that voters didn’t know enough about the federal government’s involvement to give the administration credit.

Read Next The planet is overheating. Why is the news looking away? Kate Yoder

Even if climate change is not an electoral problem for Democrats, they might have other reasons for staying quiet about it. The media ecosystem now is fractured, with many people getting their news from TikTok, YouTube, and podcasts as opposed to traditional news sources, meaning that it’s harder than ever for politicians to make their preferred narrative heard, Bennett said. In recent years, the Democratic Party has gotten more serious about “message discipline,” the practice of sticking with a central message, to try to cut through the noise.

“So much of the oxygen in the room is taken up by, ‘How do Democrats deal with, and how do progressives deal with, talking about the economy in a way that really meets voters where they are?’” Bennett said. “And I think that inherently detracts from basically every other issue, regardless of whether it’s a good thing to talk about or not.”

The Democratic politicians who are still mentioning climate change have tended to do so indirectly, arguing that clean energy is “cheap energy” and tying it to rising electricity bills. Polling suggests that voters have an appetite for more: Last fall, 41 percent of those surveyed by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication said they wanted political candidates to talk about efforts to reduce global warming more often, almost double the number who wanted to hear about it less. The trend of climate-hushing could stem from a misperception: Studies show that politicians and the public at large tend to vastly underestimate Americans’ appetite for taking action on climate change, from carbon taxes to expanding renewable energy. 

“We have this tension where, I think, empirically, talking about climate change provides a net benefit. It’s a very small net benefit, but it is a net benefit,” Mildenberger said. “But we have a discourse that somehow says that it’s this massive cost.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why are so many Democrats going quiet on climate change? on Jun 8, 2026.

As the U.S. faces an aging farmer population, communities are looking for ways to shore up the next generation of growers. But high upfront costs, access to land, and a shifting climate can make entry into the field feel out of reach for many people looking to get into the business.

Tucked on farmland at the southern edge of Traverse City, Michigan, one program wants to solve some of these problems by letting aspiring farmers learn by doing.

The Great Lakes Incubator Farm attracts students from all over the country. Over the course of seven months, a three-student cohort learns about topics like pest management, how to drive a tractor, and what to include in a farm business plan.

“Nobody gets into farming for sane reasons, other than the sanity of knowing where your food comes from and just general health,” said Rachel Greenberg, a 33-year-old student farmer from Indianapolis. “The challenges are pretty never-ending.”

Read Next While Zach Galifianakis finds peace in gardening, I’m at war with raccoons Matt Simon

Farm bankruptcies were up 46 percent last year, according to a National Farm Bureau report. As land prices have risen due to demand from developers, more than 50,000 acres of farmland have been lost in the last two decades, research has found.

Despite the headwinds, the student farmers said they’re driven by wanting to know where their food comes from, to contribute to local communities, and to teach others to do the same.

The farm training program — a project of the Grand Traverse Conservation District — has fewer economic pressures than running a farm business, Greenberg said. The fruits and vegetables that students grow will go to local residents who have already committed to buying the season’s produce, and leftovers will be donated to food-rescue operations. Unlike a traditional business, the goal isn’t to make a profit.

“The whole incubator idea is something you see a lot in the world of entrepreneurship, and it’s beautiful that somebody saw that and was like, ‘Why don’t we just do that with farming?’” Greenberg said.

Troy Saruna, 28, said at a time when climate change is driving more severe weather, he wants to better understand his impact on the natural world. Saruna worked in conservation around the country prior to the program and has no farming experience.

The training program focuses on teaching regenerative agriculture, a method of farming that focuses on soil health and reduces the amount of heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere.

Student farmer Shanaya Holmes of Alabama poses by a row of spinach at the Great Lakes Incubator Farm in northern Michigan.
Vivian La / IPR News

“Our food systems are just so inextricably tied to the health of the planet,” Saruna said. “I’m just really interested in striking up a new balance where I can understand, interpret, and just develop some new instincts in terms of feeding myself and having thriving communities that also support wildlife.”

Farmers with some experience also find the program helpful to more deeply develop their skills. Shanaya Holmes, 49, runs a small 4-acre farm in Alabama.

She’s looking to learn how to grow food in a different climate than the South and to improve her record-keeping — tracking what’s been planted, what soil was used, or how much money was spent on equipment.

“It’s a challenge to switch that button off to come inside and do bookwork, bookwork, bookwork when you’re so used to outside, outside, outside,” she said.

Read Next The USDA canceled $300M in farm grants, citing fraud. Did it make up the evidence? Ayurella Horn-Muller

Adam Brown, the farm’s manager and instructor, said the farmer training program is meant to be a stepping stone.

“It’s really built for anybody who can then filter out and work anywhere in the food system, either manage a farm, start their own business, or any rung of that ladder where people can just help out in the food system,” Brown said.

Brown, whose background is in ecology, wouldn’t have pursued farming himself if it wasn’t for a similar training program he did 15 years ago on the West Coast. 

“I can pay it forward, my lessons, and all the wisdom that I learned throughout my years of farming, and be a mentor to these other people, and I feel like it’s super important,” he said.

The training program, now in its second year, is one of the only of its kind in northern Michigan, according to data from Michigan State University. Around the country, there are roughly 100 similar programs, according to a group at Tufts University that coordinates a national network of training farms, though no comprehensive list exists.

The Great Lakes Incubator Farm relies mostly on a nearly $700,000 federal grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture aimed at supporting beginner farmers. That grant ends after the harvest season in October. Brown plans to reapply for USDA funding again this year but said he’s looking for backup options because of how competitive the grant program is.

In 2025, the USDA canceled $148 million in grants — including some in the beginner farmer program — to comply with President Donald Trump’s early executive orders targeting climate action, environmental justice, and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Adam Brown sits on a tractor at the Great Lakes Incubator Farm. Vivian La / IPR News

Brown said that besides the USDA grant, there aren’t many large pools of money available that support efforts to train the next generation of farmers. (The Great Lakes Incubator Farm is also supported by some state grants.)

Lack of consistent funding is a big reason there aren’t more of these training programs, said Jon LaPorte, a farm business management educator for Michigan State University Extension, which put together a beginner farmer’s guide in partnership with the USDA last year.

“It’s almost like a double-edged sword that they’re trying to help people get started, but then they’ve got the same struggles of staying sustainable themselves,” he said.

That means even as the share of young people in farming grows, programs to support them might be harder to come by, LaPorte said. In Michigan, farmers under the age of 45 increased by about 20 percent between 2017 and 2022, according to the USDA’s census. Sustaining that growth will be a challenge, he said.

“Because of those hurdles, they don’t all stay in, and what we want to see is more of those people being able to stay in, having more farms, more diversity of farms,” LaPorte said. “More people involved in agriculture at that level is really, really important.”

Brown, the farm manager, said students in his training program learn that the growing season doesn’t always go smoothly — and challenges, like frost damage on plants, are just part of the job.

“This is a great space for failure too, right? Because there’s not a whole lot of risk here,” he said. “It’s a perfect, experimental type of atmosphere.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Becoming a farmer is hard. This Michigan program wants to help. on Jun 8, 2026.

*Read the full position paper with detailed analysis and demands for all key negotiating topics here*

Climate Justice in an Age of Genocide, Militarism and Climate Breakdown

SB64 (the 64th meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, from June 8-18 in Bonn, Germany) convenes at a moment when the contradictions shaping the international climate regime have become impossible to ignore. Across the world, communities are confronting escalating climate impacts alongside deepening militarisation, debt crises, economic instability, shrinking civic space, rising authoritarianism and the continued concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small number of states, corporations and financial actors. The climate crisis is unfolding not in isolation, but resulting from a global political order structured by histories and ongoing acts of colonisation, imperialism, racial capitalism, patriarchy, extractivism and the continued sacrifice of peoples and ecosystems in the pursuit of profit for a few.

DCJ joins social justice movements around the world standing in solidarity with the peoples currently resisting the imperial attacks by the nexus of the U.S.-Israel and its allies across the world, especially Palestine, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Haití, Cuba, Venezuela, Nigeria, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, among others. We stand in solidarity with peoples across the world who have been on the receiving end of imperial wars, invasions, attacks to their sovereignty and their right to self-determination. We condemn the subjection of civilians to warfare for territory, natural resources, or religious conflict anywhere and everywhere. We stand in strong opposition to the perpetuation of human and environmental suffering across the world.  We commit to a solidarity not based in words but in actions. There cannot be emancipation and liberation with ongoing imperial and colonial capitalism, which must be our first priority to dismantle.

This context matters because climate negotiations are not politically neutral spaces. They are shaped by the same global inequalities that produced the crisis. The countries and corporations most responsible for climate breakdown continue to hold disproportionate power over the terms of climate action, while the peoples and communities most affected continue to fight for their rights and justice. Every major issue on the agenda for SB64, from climate finance, adaptation, loss and damage to just transition, fossil fuel phase-out, mitigation and false solutions, reflects a broader struggle over rights, responsibility, redistribution and the future of multilateralism.

The ongoing genocide in Palestine, carried out by Israel with the military, political and economic backing of the United States and its allies, has laid bare the brutality and hypocrisy of the present international order. The destruction of Palestinian life, land, food systems, water infrastructure, energy systems, homes, hospitals, schools and places of worship is not only a humanitarian catastrophe. It is also a profound indictment of an international system that claims to uphold human rights, international law and multilateral cooperation while enabling impunity for occupation, apartheid and genocide. For climate justice movements, this moment demands political clarity: there can be no climate justice while genocide is normalised, while occupation is greenwashed, and while systems of militarism and fossil capitalism continue to destroy both peoples and ecosystems.

The relationship between militarism and climate breakdown is not incidental. Fossil fuels remain central to modern military power, geopolitical conflicts and domination, and global economic control. Military operations depend on oil, gas and petrochemical supply chains; fossil fuel revenues and infrastructure shape conflicts and geopolitical alliances; and the military-industrial complex absorbs vast public resources that could otherwise be directed towards climate finance, adaptation, public services and just transition. At the same time, war and occupation destroy the very systems that communities need to survive climate impacts: land, water, food, healthcare, housing, energy and social infrastructure.

This is why the climate crisis must be understood as part of a broader crisis of power imbalance. The same global system that drives emissions also drives war, displacement, debt, extraction and ecological destruction. It is a system that allows fossil fuel corporations to profit while communities lose homes and livelihoods; that allows governments to expand military budgets while claiming there is no money for climate finance; that allows financial institutions to enforce austerity while climate-vulnerable countries are forced to borrow to recover from disasters they did not cause.

The Global South continues to bear the brunt of this injustice. Countries and communities that contributed least to the climate crisis are facing the most severe impacts while being denied the resources necessary to respond. Many developing countries are trapped in cycles of debt servicing, austerity and extractive dependency that restrict their ability to invest in adaptation, public services, food sovereignty, energy transformation and resilient development. International financial institutions, unequal trade rules, intellectual property barriers and investor protections continue to constrain the policy space required for a just transition. In this context, calls for ambition that do not address finance, debt, technology and historical responsibility will become new forms of burden-shifting.

COP30 in Belém created important openings, but it did not resolve these contradictions. The establishment of the Just Transition Mechanism represented a significant victory for developing countries, workers, Indigenous Peoples, feminist movements, youth, frontline communities and climate justice organisations. It reflected years of organising to ensure that transition is not reduced to market-led technological substitution but understood as a question of justice, rights, livelihoods and systems transformation. The roadmap process on transitioning away from fossil fuels also opened a political space to confront the root cause of the climate crisis. Progress on adaptation and related implementation processes created additional possibilities for advancing rights-based and people-centred climate action.

Yet COP30 also demonstrated the continued resistance of developed countries to fulfilling their obligations. Finance remained inadequate. Article 9.1 continued to be contested and diluted. Adaptation and loss and damage remained underfunded. Fossil fuel interests and false solutions continued to shape climate action. Carbon markets, offsets, carbon capture, financialised nature schemes and other mechanisms continued to be promoted as substitutes for real emissions reductions, public finance and system change. The outcomes of Belém therefore created both opportunities and risks. SB64 is where many of these political battles now move from recognition to operationalisation.

This distinction is critical. The fight after Belém is no longer only about whether Parties acknowledge the need for climate finance, just transition, adaptation, loss and damage or fossil fuel phase-out. It is about how those commitments are interpreted, governed, financed and implemented. History shows that implementation is often where justice is diluted. Commitments secured through struggle can be narrowed through technical processes, weakened through procedural delays, captured by corporate interests or redirected towards market mechanisms. SB64 must therefore be approached as a political battleground over the future direction of climate action.

For DCJ, the demands ahead of SB64 are rooted in a clear understanding of climate justice. Developed countries must fulfil their obligations under Article 9.1 and provide public, grant-based, predictable and adequate finance to developing countries. Adaptation and loss and damage must be financed as matters of rights and reparative justice. The Just Transition Mechanism must be operationalised in ways that support systemic transformation across energy, food, care, labour, public services, critical minerals and development pathways. The transition away from fossil fuels must be rapid, equitable, anti-extractivist and grounded in the political vision emerging from Santa Marta. Article 6 and other false solutions must not be allowed to delay real action or create new markets for pollution and dispossession. Mitigation must remain anchored in equity, CBDR-RC and means of implementation rather than becoming another tool for shifting burdens onto developing countries.

SB64 must also defend the integrity of climate multilateralism itself. This means protecting civic space, ensuring meaningful participation of rights-holders and movements, and confronting corporate capture within the UNFCCC. It means recognising that fossil fuel corporations, big polluters and actors complicit in militarism, occupation and ecological destruction cannot be allowed to define climate solutions or climate action. It means understanding that climate governance will lose legitimacy if it continues to treat the demands of the most affected as negotiable while protecting the interests of those most responsible.

The climate crisis is often described as a crisis of emissions. It is that, but it is also far more. It is a crisis of colonial history, economic organisation, political power and moral accountability. Addressing it requires more than technical implementation. It requires reparations, redistribution, democratic participation, public finance, energy sovereignty, food sovereignty, gender justice, Indigenous sovereignty and the dismantling of the systems that have made both people and planet expendable.

This position paper sets out DCJ’s priorities for SB64 from that perspective. It is written in the understanding that climate justice will not be delivered through incremental adjustments to an unjust system. It will require confronting the structures that created the crisis and building pathways rooted in collective survival, dignity and liberation. Systems change, not climate change.

Climate Finance Work Programme and Article 9.1

Climate finance remains the defining test of whether the climate regime is prepared to uphold the principles of equity and historical responsibility agreed at Rio in the 1992 UNFCCC. Developed countries continue to fall far short of their obligations despite overwhelming evidence that sufficient resources exist to finance transformative climate action. The struggle over Article 9.1 is not merely a debate about financial flows. It is a struggle over responsibility itself.

As articulated in its official submission, DCJ rejects attempts to frame climate finance as aid, philanthropy or voluntary support. Climate finance is an obligation rooted in historical responsibility and climate debt. Developed countries must provide public, grant-based, predictable and adequate finance consistent with their commitments under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. Climate finance must also be understood within a broader framework of reparative justice that includes debt cancellation, reform of the international financial architecture and mechanisms to ensure that those who have profited most from climate destruction contribute proportionately to addressing its consequences.

Adaptation Finance and the Global Goal on Adaptation

Adaptation is a matter of survival for billions of people across the Global South. Yet adaptation finance remains dramatically inadequate despite rapidly growing needs. Communities are already confronting severe climate impacts while lacking access to the resources necessary to strengthen resilience and protect livelihoods.

DCJ calls for a substantial increase in public, grant-based adaptation finance and rejects efforts to rely on private finance and market mechanisms. Adaptation must be grounded in rights, participation, Indigenous knowledge, food sovereignty and community leadership. The continued development of the Global Goal on Adaptation must support implementation rather than becoming an exercise in technocratic measurement detached from lived realities.

Loss and Damage

The climate crisis is already causing irreversible harms that cannot be prevented through mitigation or adaptation alone. Communities are losing homes, livelihoods, ecosystems, cultures and territories as climate impacts intensify. COP27’s establishment of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) represented an important political victory, but current levels of finance remain wholly inadequate compared to actual needs.

DCJ reiterates that loss and damage finance must be understood as reparative finance. It must be new, additional, grant-based and distinct from adaptation and mitigation finance. Polluter-pays mechanisms, including taxes on fossil fuel extraction, extreme wealth and corporate windfall profits, should be advanced as important sources of finance.

Operationalising the Just Transition Mechanism

The establishment of the Just Transition Mechanism at COP30 represented a significant achievement. However, the creation of a mechanism alone does not guarantee justice. A central question in Bonn is whether the way SB64 defines and designs the Mechanism will support transformative change or merely manage the social consequences of existing economic models.

DCJ rejects narrow approaches that reduce just transition to energy sector restructuring or workforce adjustment. Just transition must encompass food systems, care economies, public services, critical minerals, workers’ rights, Indigenous sovereignty and democratic control over resources. The Mechanism must be supported by adequate finance and meaningful participation by workers, Indigenous Peoples, peasants, fisherfolk, women, youth and frontline communities.

Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels

COP28’s commitment in Dubai to transition away from fossil fuels marked an important breakthrough, but implementation remains contested. The “roadmap” process initiated under the Brazilian COP30 Presidency (as opposed to any agreed mandate by all countries) must not become a vehicle for delaying action or reproducing extractivist development models under new forms.

Drawing on the political vision emerging from Santa Marta, DCJ calls for a transition rooted in justice, sovereignty, care and democratic control. The transition away from fossil fuels must not be used to justify new forms of extraction, including the expansion of critical mineral supply chains that sacrifice communities and ecosystems in the Global South. Climate justice requires confronting both fossil fuels and the systems of power that sustain them.

Article 6 and False Solutions

Climate justice movements continue to confront the expansion of false solutions that allow polluters to delay structural transformation while claiming climate leadership. Carbon markets, offsets, carbon capture technologies, geoengineering and the financialisation of nature all risk entrenching existing power structures while failing to address the root causes of climate breakdown.

The continued promotion of false solutions reflects the influence of fossil fuel interests and corporate actors within climate governance. SB64 must resist efforts to expand reliance in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) on market-based approaches and instead prioritise real solutions rooted in public accountability, food sovereignty, Indigenous stewardship, community-controlled renewable energy and systemic transformation.

Mitigation Work Programme

The Mitigation Work Programme must remain firmly grounded in equity and CBDR-RC. Developing countries have repeatedly raised concerns regarding attempts to use the MWP as a vehicle for shifting mitigation burdens onto countries least responsible for the climate crisis while developed countries continue to evade obligations on finance and support.

Mitigation ambition cannot be separated from means of implementation. Climate finance, technology transfer, debt justice and policy space remain essential prerequisites for equitable climate action.

Cross-Cutting Priorities

Across all negotiating tracks, DCJ calls for climate action grounded in equity, historical responsibility, human rights, Indigenous sovereignty, feminist climate justice, democratic participation and protection from corporate capture. Climate governance must strengthen civic space, ensure meaningful participation by rights-holders and adopt robust conflict-of-interest policies that prevent fossil fuel interests and big polluters from shaping climate action.

The Challenge Before SB64

A central challenge facing SB64 is not the absence of solutions. Communities, movements and frontline peoples have long advanced pathways capable of addressing both climate breakdown and social injustice. The challenge is whether governments are prepared to confront the structures of power and privilege that continue to benefit from the crisis.

For DCJ, climate action must be rooted in reparative justice, international solidarity and systemic transformation. Anything less will preserve the unequal and unjust systems that created the climate crisis while leaving its underlying causes intact. SB64 must therefore advance implementation in ways that strengthen accountability, uphold historical responsibility and support the system change grounded in the peoples led solutions necessary to secure a just, equitable, healthy life and planet for all.

*Read the full position paper with detailed analysis and demands for all key negotiating topics here*

The post SB64 POSITION PAPER: Advancing Climate Justice in an Age of Crisis appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.