News Feeds

Apa Itu Slot Volatilitas Tinggi?

Secara sederhana, volatilitas dalam slot menggambarkan seberapa sering dan seberapa besar kemenangan yang bisa muncul. Slot volatilitas tinggi biasanya memiliki ciri khas kemenangan yang tidak terlalu sering keluar, tetapi sekali muncul nilainya bisa jauh lebih besar.

Karena itulah, pemain sering menyebut jenis slot ini sebagai permainan “sabar tapi menguntungkan”. Dibutuhkan modal yang cukup stabil dan mental yang siap menghadapi putaran panjang sebelum mendapatkan hasil besar.

Berbeda dengan slot volatilitas rendah yang cenderung sering memberi kemenangan kecil, slot volatilitas tinggi lebih fokus pada potensi payout besar dalam waktu tertentu.

Sensasi Tegang Jadi Daya Tarik Utama

Salah satu alasan kenapa banyak pemain menyukai slot volatilitas tinggi adalah sensasi yang dihadirkan selama permainan berlangsung. Setiap spin terasa lebih mendebarkan karena pemain tahu ada kemungkinan hadiah besar muncul kapan saja.

Banyak pemain mengaku justru menikmati momen menunggu tersebut. Ketika simbol bonus akhirnya muncul atau fitur free spin aktif, rasa puas yang didapat terasa lebih besar dibanding kemenangan kecil yang sering muncul di slot biasa.

Bagi sebagian orang, pengalaman ini mirip seperti menonton pertandingan olahraga yang penuh kejutan. Ada rasa penasaran, harapan, dan antusiasme yang membuat permainan terasa lebih hidup.

Potensi Kemenangan Besar Jadi Magnet

Tidak bisa dipungkiri, potensi kemenangan besar menjadi alasan utama slot volatilitas tinggi semakin populer. Banyak provider game modern kini menghadirkan slot dengan multiplier besar, fitur bonus berlapis, hingga jackpot progresif yang membuat pemain semakin tertarik mencoba.

Apalagi di era media sosial seperti sekarang, cerita kemenangan besar dari pemain lain sering cepat viral. Hal ini secara tidak langsung membentuk rasa penasaran pemain baru untuk ikut merasakan pengalaman serupa.

Meski begitu, pemain berpengalaman biasanya memahami bahwa peluang besar tetap datang bersama risiko yang tinggi. Karena itu, pengelolaan modal menjadi hal penting sebelum mencoba slot jenis ini.

Cocok untuk Pemain yang Suka Tantangan

Slot volatilitas tinggi umumnya lebih disukai pemain yang menyukai tantangan dan strategi bermain jangka panjang. Mereka tidak hanya mengejar kemenangan cepat, tetapi juga menikmati proses permainan secara keseluruhan.

Pemain tipe ini biasanya lebih sabar dalam mengatur ritme bermain. Mereka memahami kapan harus berhenti, kapan menambah spin, dan bagaimana menjaga saldo agar tetap aman selama permainan berlangsung.

Di sisi lain, slot volatilitas tinggi juga dianggap lebih menarik karena tidak mudah ditebak. Hal tersebut membuat permainan terasa lebih dinamis dan tidak monoton.

Popularitas Slot Volatilitas Tinggi Terus Naik

Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, provider game terus berlomba menghadirkan slot dengan fitur yang lebih agresif dan inovatif. Mulai dari efek visual sinematik, sistem multiplier unik, hingga mode bonus interaktif yang membuat pengalaman bermain semakin modern.

Perkembangan ini membuat slot volatilitas tinggi semakin diminati, terutama oleh generasi pemain muda yang mencari hiburan digital dengan sensasi lebih intens.

Selain itu, banyak streamer dan kreator konten game juga sering memainkan slot jenis ini karena dinilai lebih seru untuk ditonton. Momen kemenangan besar yang muncul tiba-tiba menjadi hiburan tersendiri bagi penonton.

Kesimpulan

Slot volatilitas tinggi berhasil menarik perhatian banyak pemain karena menawarkan kombinasi antara tantangan, sensasi menegangkan, dan peluang kemenangan besar. Meski risikonya lebih tinggi dibanding slot biasa, banyak pemain justru menikmati dinamika permainan yang tidak mudah ditebak.

Namun, seperti bentuk hiburan digital lainnya, permainan ini tetap perlu dinikmati secara bijak. Memahami cara kerja volatilitas, mengatur modal, dan bermain dengan batas yang jelas menjadi langkah penting agar pengalaman bermain tetap terasa menyenangkan dan terkendali.

May 15, 2026 Read the story on MSN.com Greenaction blasts the Navy over continued botched “cleanup” at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Superfund Site Click here to read the Article on MSN.com

May 14 2026

Bay City News Article on the Latest Scandal with the U.S. Navy and the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Superfund Site

Click Here to read the Bay City News Article

“SF: Cabinet Storing Radiological Materials Discovered At Former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard”

May 15, 2026 Read Capital & Main news story with Greenaction and allies: California Hazardous Waste Rules Criticized as Years Late and Polluter Friendly

By KAY MATTHEWS

Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, the second speaker at the public hearing on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Plutonium Pit Production, pretty much summed up the opposition to the Draft in his three minutes: “Pit production is not necessary and downright wrong.”

• The proposed pits are for the production of new weapons that could lead to testing, which violates the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
• It’s been proved that existing pits have a ± 100-year life span.
• The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has failed for years to formulate a clean-up plan for all of LANL’s contaminated waste. Pit production will continue to block and exacerbate clean-up.
• The New Mexico Environment Department is forcing the Department of Energy to prioritize the shipment of legacy waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
• The missing alternative in this EIS is legacy waste clean-up instead of pit production.

The preferred alternative in this EIS is the Multi-Site Alternative, referring to both LANL and the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. The proposal is for LANL to produce 10/30/80 pits per year and SRS to produce 50/80/125 pits per year. The promulgation of the EIS is a result of the lawsuit that Nuclear Watch New Mexico and other watch dog groups filed against the NNSA that temporarily halted plutonium pit production at Savannah River, leaving LANL as NNSA’s sole pit-production site. The settlement required the development of a new programmatic environmental impact statement involving public hearings around the country by July 2027.

However, as Dylan Spaulding, scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, pointed out in his comments, the Trump administration has issued a new directive to accelerate nuclear weapons production at LANL. On February 11, 2026 Dave Beck, Deputy National Nuclear Security Administration Administrator for Defense Programs, issued a “framework” memorandum mandating NNSA to urgently accelerate the modernization of the nuclear weapons stockpile and the revitalization of its associated facilities and infrastructure to enable production of 100 plutonium pits and achieve a production rate of at least 60 pits per year.

As I listened to the dozens (over 100) who spoke against this draft proposal, I couldn’t help but compare their diversity with the NNSA and LANL administrators, all white men with crew cuts, sitting in the front row.

Skit outside the hearing yelling “fire on the mountain!”

John Wilkes of the Plutonium Trail Caravan, which follows the transportation and disposition of waste from LANL, castigated LANL for failure to clear up Area C or the buried containers in Area G.

Sean Arent, a member of the Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, reminded everyone of the first nuclear arms race at the decommissioned and radioactive Hanford Plant where workers struggle to clean-up the toxic mess. “Proposing new nuclear sites like this to future generations is a curse.”

A member of the Party for Socialist Liberation told the group “This is a farce. If they [the nuclear industry] were actually listening to us they wouldn’t be making bombs.” Madison Figueroa spoke for the UNM Students for Nuclear Disarmament.

Several speakers decried the amount of water LANL will acquire to meet its objectives while the rest of the state is experiencing desertification. Others raised the seismic issue of the Rio Grande Rift that runs right through the Parajito plateau.

Joni Arends of CCNS that works with Pueblo people to stop the migration of the hexavalent chromium plume contaminating groundwater and wells.

One of the biggest reactions from the crowd came when Pat Leahan, of the Las Vegas Peace and Justice Center, speaking remotely, pointed out the sentence on NNSA’s presentation screen that stated: “Peace through atomic strength.” She suggested a more accurate catch phrase would be “stress through nuclear development” as we descend into violence to deter violence.

Public comments are due by July 16 of 2026. All the comments made at the public hearings will be added to the official site along with those submitted by email and snail mail. The email address is PITPEIS@NNSA.GOV. Opposition to this EIS and all previous EISs, from 1999 to 2026, has been overwhelming, but the pits keep marching on. However, there’s hope. By the time the SRS facilities are anywhere near ready for production, and when LANL proves incapable of producing more than a few pits, there will be a new congressional mandate that halts the billions—trillions—of dollars that no longer exist in a failed economy.

May 1, 2026—EdSource reporter John Fensterwald covers Governor Newsom’s May Revision and its mixed implications for California schools—including a higher COLA, a historic $2.4 billion special education increase, and a $5 billion discretionary block grant, offset by the governor’s continued withholding of $3.9 billion in Proposition 98 funds that school groups say belongs in classrooms now. Managing Attorney John Affeldt is quoted warning that the budget’s reliance on AI-driven tax revenues is not a stable foundation: “Our state cannot continue to rely on temporary AI stock market bubbles.” Affeldt calls for more robust, permanent revenue streams—and makes clear that the same teachers being asked to transform students’ lives are being priced out of the communities they serve.”

Read the Story

The post Edsource: California schools could get billions more in Newsom’s final budget plan — with one catch appeared first on Public Advocates.

May 15th, 2026

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Contact

Milagros R. Elia

Program Manager, Climate and Clean Energy Advocacy

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

milagros@envirn.org

914.455.1165

 

Nurses Opposes EPA’s  Proposed 2-year delay  of Vehicle Criteria Pollutant Standards 

 

[Washington, D.C.] Yesterday May 14th, 2026, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a delay in enforcement of limits on health-harming tailpipe pollution from cars and trucks for two years until the 2029 model year.

In response to the proposal, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments Executive Director Katie Huffling, DNP, RN, CNM, FAAN issued the following statement:

“Pollution from cars and trucks is linked to catastrophic health consequences including asthma and respiratory disease ,cancer, high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, and heart attacks, among other illnesses. For children, long-term chronic exposure to tailpipe pollution can lead to permanently impairing lung development.

“As nurses we strongly urge the EPA to uphold its promise of access to clean air for all and fulfill its mission to protect human health and the environment. The proposed delay announced today does the opposite and will lead to preventable illness and rising healthcare costs.”

###

 

The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments is the only national nursing organization focused solely on the intersection of health and the environment. The mission of the Alliance is to support nurses in promoting planetary health and equity globally by educating and leading the nursing profession, advancing research, incorporating planet-safe practice, and influencing policy.

http://enviRN.org

The post Nurses Opposes EPA’s Proposed 2-year delay of Vehicle Criteria Pollutant Standards appeared first on ANHE.

May 15, 2026 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SUWA Statement on Proposed Changes to the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area – 5.15.26  Amendments to Plan reduce conservation in favor of extractive development and off-road vehicle dominance 

Contacts:
Grant Stevens, Communications Director, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA); (319) 427-0260; grant@suwa.org

Salt Lake City, UT – Yesterday, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the final environmental assessment and proposed resource management plan (RMP) amendment for the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area and surrounding region. As a result of the 2019 Dingell Act, which included new land management designations and established the Recreation Area, the BLM was required to update its management plan for each of the affected areas. Below is a statement from SUWA Wildlands Director Neal Clark and additional information.  

“We’re disappointed that BLM, at the behest of the Trump administration, squandered this opportunity to set out a proactive, comprehensive vision for resource protection and recreation management in the incredible San Rafael Swell and instead focused its energy and limited resources on rolling back existing protections to allow for more development and off-road vehicle abuse,” said Neal Clark, Wildlands Director at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). “What’s more, instead of meaningfully engaging the public throughout the process, the BLM instead held a general scoping period more than 4 years ago and then jumped to a final decision that cuts out any opportunity for the public to weigh in on the specifics of its plan. The Trump administration practice of intentionally avoiding meaningful input and scrutiny is undemocratic and a disservice to public land users and this world-class landscape” 

Additional information: 

The John D. Dingell Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, which was signed into law on March 12, 2019, designated 663,000 acres of BLM-managed wilderness within 17 new wilderness areas. In addition, the legislation established the 117,000-acre San Rafael Swell Recreation Area, added 63 miles of the Green River to the National Wild and Scenic River System, and designated the John Wesley Powell National Conservation Area and the Jurassic National Monument. Additional information can found here. SUWA members and supporters submitted comments to the BLM in late 2021 and early 2022 regarding the proposed RMP amendments. 

In part, BLM’s RMP amendments: 

• Remove over 12,000 acres of natural areas —wilderness quality lands managed to protect their wilderness values—located outside of designated wilderness to allow increased development and off-road vehicle use. 

• Eliminate the San Rafael Swell Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) and instead designate four new Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs), a less meaningful designation where recreation is not the primary management focus but instead is integrated into other land uses such as grazing and mineral development. 

• Eliminate commonsense recreation management and resource protection requirements to pack out human waste, use fire pans, and not collect firewood at dispersed campsites  

• Reduce or eliminate Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) outside of designated wilderness that will allow for increased development and associated impacts in those areas, even after noting in their scoping document that they would “prioritize the protection and designation of ACECs” 

• Reduce protections for visual resources in some areas to allow development that conflicts with maintaining scenic viewsheds. 

### 
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) is a nonprofit organization with members and supporters from around the country dedicated to protecting America’s redrock wilderness. From offices in Moab, Salt Lake City, and Washington, DC, our team of professionals defends the redrock, organizes support for America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, and stewards a world-renowned landscape. Learn more at www.suwa.org. 

The post SUWA Statement on Proposed Changes to the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area – 5.15.26  appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

The formal refusal of planning permission for drilling and lower-volume fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire was confirmed this afternoon.

Banner at decision meeting on Burniston plans, 24 April 2026. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The county council’s strategic planning committee voted almost unanimously in April against the proposal by Europa Oil & Gas.

But members were limited at the meeting to a “minded to” refuse decision. This followed a request to the local government minister to review the detailed environmental information that accompanied the application.

Less than a week later, the minister said there would be no need to review the information, clearing the way for publication of the formal decision notice.

260515_NY20250030ENV_Decision NoticeDownload

The notice, dated today, lists five reasons why the application had been refused:

• Harm to the heritage coast and landscape
• Proximity of the site to homes and amenities
• Harm to the setting of the North York Moors National Park
• Impact on tourism and lack of economic gain
• Conflict with the council’s climate commitments

Officials had advised councillors not to include in the reasons a risk of induced seismicity and damage to local cliffs.

Europa Oil & Gas has already said it will appeal against the refusal. The decision notice starts the clock on when that appeal must be lodged.

The company has six months, by Friday 13 November 2026, in which to submit its challenge to the Planning Inspectorate. News of an appeal is, however, expected sooner.

The committee’s refusal over-ruled the recommendation of council officers to approve the application. It came after five hours of discussions and presentations.

North Yorkshire Council had set today as the deadline for issuing the decision notice.

Hundreds of the state’s union registered nurses represented by California Nurses Association will converge in Sacramento on Tuesday, May 19 to protest hospital industry greed and lobby lawmakers in support of bills to promote and protect the safety of their patients and health care workers.

How Don Marketing became the sales promotion outfit most loudly, legally and gloriously associated with Shell

Disclaimer: This article is a satirical commentary based on publicly available reporting and historical records. Allegations are described as allegations unless settled, withdrawn, abandoned, acknowledged, or otherwise reported. Site wide disclaimer also applies

PART ONE — FACT-BASED TABLOID DEEP DIVE The forecourt promo firm, the oil giant, and the loyalty-card bust-up that refused to die quietly

In the great British museum of corporate awkwardness, somewhere between “urgent internal review” and “we value our suppliers,” there deserves to be a glass case marked:

DON MARKETING v SHELL: FUEL, PROMOS, WRITS AND ABSOLUTELY NO SHORTAGE OF RECEIPTS.

Because when asking which sales promotion company is most associated with Shell, the answer is not some forgettable agency buried in a procurement spreadsheet. The name that keeps roaring out of the archive like a V-Power lawnmower is Don Marketing.

This was not just a casual association. This was a whole saga: forecourt promotions, loyalty-card concepts, legal claims, public accusations, settlements, counterclaims, statements, and enough courtroom fumes to make a petrol station look like a meditation retreat.

Marketing Week reported in July 1999 that the “six-year legal battle” between Shell UK and sales promotion company Don Marketing had finally been settled. The article said John Donovan, owner of Don Marketing, dropped his High Court action over allegations that Shell stole his ideas for the Shell Smart multibrand loyalty card. It also reported that Donovan had first sued Shell in 1993 over allegations that Shell had taken ideas for several sales promotions, and that three claims were settled out of court.

That is the sort of sentence PR departments read with both hands over their eyes.

The association had already been boiling years earlier. In 1995, Marketing Week reported that Don Marketing had issued three High Court writs and county court proceedings against Shell, alleging wrongful use of retail promotions developed by Don Marketing. Shell had settled one of the writs out of court, according to that report.

Then came the big one: Shell Smart. Not merely a coupon. Not merely a “buy petrol, win a mug” operation. A loyalty scheme. A relationship machine. A shiny card-based promise that the customer would come back, spend more, feel known, and possibly collect something branded enough to survive in a kitchen drawer until 2011.

Marketing Week later reported that Don Marketing’s latest legal action alleged Shell’s Smart card scheme was based on a multibrand loyalty programme Don had developed and proposed to Shell in October 1989.

By August 1999, Forecourt Trader described the dispute as “long-running and acrimonious” and said it centred on Don Marketing’s claim that Shell stole its idea for the Smart loyalty scheme. It reported that John Donovan, managing director of Don Marketing, had taken legal action claiming breach of contract and misuse of confidential information, while Shell counter-sued for breach of confidentiality.

And then, the final curtain — or at least the final curtain on that legal act.

The joint statement reported by Marketing Week said Donovan had abandoned his claim in relation to Shell’s Smart loyalty scheme, acknowledged those claims were without foundation and should not have been brought, while Shell acknowledged that the proceedings had been brought in good faith.

That is legal wording so carefully balanced it should have been sponsored by a spirit level.

So, was Don Marketing “right”? Was Shell “wrong”? That is not the point for this article. The final public settlement language matters. The claim was abandoned and acknowledged as without foundation. Shell also acknowledged good faith. Those are the facts as reported.

But the deeper reputational fact is unavoidable: no sales promotion company appears more heavily, repeatedly and dramatically linked with Shell in the public record than Don Marketing.

Not because Shell necessarily wanted that association.

Because history does not always wait for brand approval.

The modern footnote: Shell GO+ and the new loyalty crowd

Today, Shell’s promotional and loyalty world has moved on from the punch-card-and-writ era. Shell UK currently promotes Shell GO+ Rewards through the Shell App, offering savings, hot drinks and perks.

For current/recent agency association, the public credit points elsewhere. The Marketing Society’s 2025 Global Awards lists “Our loyalty programme relaunch — Shell GO+ Rewards” under Altavia UK, in partnership with MLP Agency.

So the clean distinction is this:

Most associated historically with Shell sales promotion drama: Don Marketing.
Most visibly credited in recent Shell GO+ loyalty work: Altavia UK, with MLP Agency.

But if the question is “which sales promotion firm is most associated with Shell?” in the sense of public visibility, archive depth, controversy, and repeated linkage, Don Marketing still walks in wearing the crown, the sash, and possibly carrying a lever-arch file.

PART TWO — SPOOF PR/SPIN SECTION Shell’s imaginary crisis statement, written by the Department of Polished Pebbles

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, PREFERABLY AFTER EVERYONE HAS FORGOTTEN 1999

Shell is delighted to confirm that our long and colourful history of forecourt promotional innovation has occasionally intersected with the equally energetic world of sales promotion entrepreneurship.

We value all our historical relationships, particularly the ones that produced loyalty schemes, legal documentation, press coverage, and enough archival material to power a small academic conference.

Regarding Don Marketing, Shell notes that this was a relationship marked by creativity, robust dialogue and, at certain moments, the kind of correspondence normally delivered by nervous solicitors in very expensive shoes.

We further note that all parties ultimately reached a position that allowed everyone to move forward, reflect deeply, and avoid using the phrase “corporate amnesia” at dinner parties.

Shell remains committed to rewarding customers, building loyalty, and ensuring that any future disputes are sufficiently app-enabled to reduce paper usage.

Ends. Please recycle responsibly.

PART THREE — SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION The algorithm has entered the forecourt

@PromoGoblin1974:
Don Marketing and Shell? That was not a supplier relationship. That was a six-season courtroom box set with petrol vouchers.

@LoyaltyCardLad:
Imagine inventing a loyalty scheme so hard it becomes a legal genre.

@ForecourtFury:
“Collect points every time you fill up.”
Also collect writs, statements, allegations, settlements and a permanent place in Marketing Week archaeology.

@AgencyProcurementBot:
Risk status: Amber.
Supplier history: Extensive.
PR volatility: Premium Unleaded.

@ShellArchivist_Probably:
We found another folder marked “Don.” We are not opening it without a priest and a media lawyer.

@TabloidPumpWatch:
Altavia gets the modern loyalty relaunch. Don Marketing gets the folklore. That is how history works: one gets the award entry, the other gets the Netflix treatment.

@CourtroomCosta:
The real loyalty scheme was the dispute staying loyal to the headlines for six years.

@PromoTruthFerret:
Conclusion: Shell had many agencies. Don Marketing had the association that refused to leave the forecourt.

Editorial verdict

Don Marketing is interesting precisely because it is not merely “an agency Shell once used.” It is the sales promotion company whose name became welded to Shell through forecourt promotions, legal action, Shell Smart, public allegations, settlement language, and decades of archive residue.

In modern agency terms, Altavia UK and MLP Agency are the names to cite for Shell GO+ Rewards.

In historical tabloid terms?

Don Marketing is the one with the smoke, the paperwork and the pump-side legend.

RELATED BOOK JUST PUBLISHED

SHELL YEAH! was first posted on May 15, 2026 at 5:54 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Reflexiones sobre la seguridad en una época de profunda crisis civilizatoria Fecha y horario * Fecha: 4 de junio, 2026 * Horario: 1pm GMT * Enlace de Registro: Aquí * Participantes: Manuel Rozental (Colombia), Deepa Sinha (India) and (TBC) * Moderación

The state plans to scrap a 2030 goal that sought a 40% reduction in emissions and replace it with a 2040 goal that aims for a 60% reduction.

I used to walk through Copley Square in Boston’s Back Bay and catch it by accident — the way Trinity Church appeared twice. Once in stone, anchored and unmoved, and again, improbably, in the mirrored skin of the John Hancock Tower.

Completed in 1877, Trinity rises from a very different era than the Hancock, finished nearly a century later in 1976. And yet, depending on the light and angle, the two seem to occupy the same moment.

Trinity Church reflected in the mirrored glass of the John Hancock Tower, Boston. Image: Wikimedia Commons

The old isn’t erased by the new. It’s carried forward, reflected back at the city.

That distinction — between replacement and reflection — matters more than we often admit, especially now, as so many institutions, from environmental governance to technology itself, are being rebuilt at speed.

Henry Cobb, the lead architect of John Hancock Tower, described wanting the building to be deliberately quiet — a modern structure that responded to Copley Square rather than dominating it. The mirrored glass was meant to dissolve the tower’s presence, allowing the city — and especially Trinity Church — to remain visually central.

Whatever Cobb intended, the outcome became something larger than design logic alone. The tower doesn’t merely recede; it carries the past into view. Meaning emerged not just from intention, but from how the structure settled into its surroundings over time. Nearly a century of distance collapses into a single frame, not by imitation or nostalgia but by restraint.

That choice — to build something new that reflects rather than replaces — is not a silver bullet. Reflection alone does not guarantee success. But its absence almost guarantees failure.

This is the lesson conservation continues to relearn: The durability of a system matters more than the brilliance of its design. Protection that only works under ideal conditions isn’t protection — it’s aspiration.

Nowhere is this tension more visible than in the ocean, the world’s largest and most vulnerable mirror.

Ocean conservation is often driven by urgency. New frameworks, tools, and technologies are deployed to address collapse at scale. The focus is speed, efficiency, and ambition. The pressure is always forward.

And yet, again and again, the efforts that endure are not the most novel. They’re the ones that manage — sometimes deliberately, sometimes imperfectly — to carry older lessons forward: restraint, relationship, and place-based memory. The understanding that ecosystems are lived with, not simply managed.

The problem is not innovation itself. It’s innovation that looks impressive but reveals very little beyond its design.

Consider Mexico’s Cabo Pulmo, often cited as one of the most successful marine protected areas in the world. The headlines focus on dramatic increases in fish populations and the power of no-take regulations.

But those tools came later. Long before formal protection, local families understood the reef as relational rather than extractive. Fishing practices were shaped by limits, seasons, and the knowledge that abundance depended on patience. When modern conservation arrived — laws, enforcement, scientific monitoring — it did not overwrite that ethic. It reflected it, giving durable form to values already in place.

What mattered was not simply that protection arrived, but how it arrived.

The new rules did not ask the community to abandon identity in exchange for compliance. They extended a relationship people already understood. Because restraint was familiar, limits felt legible rather than imposed. Continuity made patience possible — and patience made recovery visible.

Cabo Pulmo’s success was ecological and also cultural. Protection worked because it felt continuous rather than disruptive.

In places like Kaʻūpūlehu on Hawaiʻi island, a different but complementary pathway was revealed. There, continuity was not merely recognized by outside institutions after the fact; it was actively reclaimed and relegitimized by the community itself. The revival of ahupuaʻa-based management blends contemporary science with customary practice — seasonal closures, species-specific rules, and governance grounded in community responsibility rather than distant authority.

To understand the ahupuaʻa is to understand connectivity as a physical and social mandate. These wedge-shaped land divisions traditionally ran from the mountain peaks down through valleys to the reef. If you fouled the stream in the uplands, you starved the taro patches and the fishponds below. Responsibility wasn’t an abstract environmental ethic; it was a literal downstream consequence.

Ahupuaʻa systems were never static codes handed down unchanged through time. They were adaptive frameworks, responding to shifts in abundance, climate variability, and social need through observation and restraint. They endured not because they resisted change, but because they embedded flexibility within .

When modern conservation engages these systems as living frameworks rather than cultural artifacts, authority becomes relational. Compliance becomes collective. Resilience begins to scale — driven less by tighter rules than by deeper meaning.

Still, reflection is not immunity.

The field has learned this through a category of failure so common it has a name: “paper parks.” These are protected areas that were intensively planned, legally designated, internationally celebrated — and then quietly failed in practice: protections that looked complete from a distance but proved too thin to hold under pressure.

A particularly instructive case is the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. On paper it was a triumph of ocean policy design: years of consultation, sophisticated ecological science, international financing mechanisms, and UNESCO World Heritage status. It was widely hailed as a model for large-scale ocean protection in the high-seas era.

And then it faltered.

This was not a story of hypocrisy or neglect. It was a structural mismatch between design and reality.

Despite its careful planning, the reserve struggled with enforcement, financing, and political durability. Kiribati faced real economic pressures from fishing access fees, climate impacts, and national debt. The conservation model assumed that long-term international support and compliance would hold.

They didn’t.

At points, commercial fishing resumed or enforcement weakened, as the governance design failed to account for sovereignty, economic vulnerability, and political gravity.

The surface held global conservation values clearly, but it did not reflect the weight the system would be asked to carry. Ecology was remembered; history was not. Like a building designed to photograph well but not weather a storm, the reserve reflected the ideals of its designers more clearly than the conditions it would have to survive.

That fragility is not theoretical. It is being actively stress-tested.

In the United States, recent policy direction under the Trump administration has moved to accelerate deep-sea mining exploration in U.S. territories, fast-tracking permits and weakening environmental review in places where baseline knowledge is still profoundly incomplete.

At the same time, longstanding marine monuments and sanctuaries — areas once framed as durable commitments to restraint — have been reopened or proposed for reopening to commercial extraction, including fishing access once explicitly limited.

These are not isolated policy shifts; they are a demonstration of how protections built by executive decree can be unbuilt by the same mechanism. The legal architecture remains thin, contingent on political alignment rather than ecological necessity. What was presented as permanence reveals itself as provisional — protection that reflects intention in one moment, but cannot withstand the next.

You see this pattern elsewhere: marine protected areas mapped with exquisite precision but no budget for enforcement; fisheries reforms negotiated over years that collapse when leadership changes; international ocean treaties whose necessity is uncontested, but whose buy-in remains elusive.

In each case the failure wasn’t a lack of rigor. It was the assumption that process equals permanence.

Conservation was designed to be impressive at birth, not resilient across political seasons.

Durability is the real design challenge. Ocean policy fails when it isn’t built to survive pressure, fatigue, turnover, and bad years.

Technology has only intensified this tension. Satellites, autonomous vehicles, and AI-driven analytics now extend our perception, revealing patterns in the water that were once invisible.

Used well, they act as clarifying filters. But a technocentric mindset has taken hold — the belief that future tools will spare us from the harder work of changing ourselves. This is the blank glass of our era: a surface so smooth it stops the eye, obscuring the downstream consequences of our choices.

We see it in autonomous ocean cleanup systems that promise to vacuum plastic from the high seas while leaving the industrial tap wide open on land. We see it in carbon removal schemes that treat the atmosphere as a ledger rather than a life support. And we see it in deep-sea mining proposals that promise “smart robots” to manage extraction — outsourcing moral weight to machines operating in the dark.

In this framing conservation begins to resemble the tech industry itself: forever iterating and increasingly uncomfortable with limits. When a tool is designed only to look forward, it behaves like a screen rather than a mirror. Demand disappears from view; efficiency becomes the sole metric of virtue.

The ocean has never been short on clever tools. What it has lacked is the willingness to say enough. A satellite can track a vessel with surgical precision, but it cannot decide when fishing should stop. No algorithm can negotiate the social courage required to leave resources unextracted. Those decisions require memory — of places, of relationships, of limits already tested. Technology works best when it remains reflective — when it amplifies accountability rather than automating it.

Some conservation structures are built to last. Others are built to be seen. The difference becomes clear over time. Enduring systems allow people to plan, to invest, and to commit attention without constantly checking the political weather. Fragile ones, even when ambitious, remain provisional — less like stone and more like a projection, subject to being switched off.

When authority is provisional, stewardship becomes reactive. Budgets hesitate. Careers stall. The long view collapses into crisis management. Conservation becomes a flickering screen rather than a structure capable of holding meaning.

Older stewardship traditions rarely operated this way. Continuity wasn’t a political achievement; it was the point. They were designed to absorb change without constantly redefining their own existence. There is a difference between adaptation — the breathing of a living system — and instability, which is simply erosion by another name.

This does not mean protections should be frozen in time. Healthy systems require reassessment. But endurance resists the constant resetting of goals before ecosystems and communities have time to respond.

What lasts is often quiet. It does not announce itself with sweeping designations or polished dashboards. Like all structures that truly hold, its value becomes visible only when stress arrives — and the system does not collapse.

The ocean responds to steadiness: to protection held long enough for complexity to return, to rules applied consistently enough for trust to form, to care practiced across generations. Conservation falters when it confuses motion with progress. The future worth building is not one that erases the past, nor one that freezes it in place. It is one that remains readable — where earlier lessons about limits, restraint, and relationship are still visible as new structures rise.

What endures is not the shine of what’s new, but the care taken to ensure it can still hold and reflect something older in view.

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

The Work Behind the Win: The Long, Collective Effort Behind the Moments Conservation Celebrates

The post Reflections on What Endures in Conservation appeared first on The Revelator.

Data collection can feel meaningless when utilities lack the tools to turn that data into improved performance or efficiency, writes Ariel Santamaria from Advanced Technology Services.

It is “the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance,” a deputy assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice wrote in a court notice suggesting it might intervene.

Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed. 
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.

This week US-China meet

ENERGY TALKS: Trump administration officials have raised the prospect of China buying more US oil in response to the disruption caused by the Iran war, following two days of talks between the leaders of the superpowers in Beijing, said Reuters. On Thursday, US treasury secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC the nations had discussed China “buying more US energy”, adding that production from Alaska would be a “natural” ⁠for China. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported that Trump and Xi also agreed that the strait of Hormuz must remain open to “support the free flow of energy”. 

CLIMATE ‘COOPERATION’: Ahead of the talks, the Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily published an article saying that addressing climate change requires “coordinated efforts and cooperation” between China and the US. State-run newspaper China Daily said that US-China cooperation on energy security and climate governance is “essential” because the two countries have “considerable influence over international institutions”. However, an article in Legal Planet said that the Trump-Xi meeting had no climate agenda, adding that the two countries are now moving in “radically different directions”.

El Niño extremes

‘SUPERCHARGED’: From wildfires to heatwaves and flooding, scientists have warned that the El Niño weather pattern could “amplify climate extremes” in 2026, reported Climate Home News. There is an 82% chance of a “very strong” El Niño forming this year, according to the average of four weather forecasters cited by the Times. The Independent added that the phenomenon could be “supercharged” by another weather pattern – a positive Indian Ocean Dipole – raising the risks of fire, drought risks and other extreme weather events.

WORLD ON FIRE: Global fire outbreaks hit a “record high” in Africa, Asia and elsewhere this year, reported Reuters, with conditions expected to worsen to the “highest in recent history” if a strong El Niño “kicks in”. More than 150m hectares of land were damaged by fires from January to April – 20% more than the previous record – according to data compiled by the ​World Weather Attribution (WWA) research group cited by the newswire. 

Around the world

• ETHIOPIA EVS: Electric vehicles now account for 8% of Ethiopia’s car fleet as “soaring prices and fuel shortages compel” African countries to switch to “cleaner and cheaper transport”, according to the Associated Press. 
• UK AID CUT: The UK has halved its most recent contribution to the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF) as part of a government “shift from development aid to military spending”, according to Climate Home News. The UK is no longer the top donor to the GCF following the move, said Carbon Brief.
• TORT RETORT: Reuters reported that the New Zealand government plans to amend a key climate law, to prevent courts from holding private companies liable for climate harms. This would apply to “both current and future proceedings”, the newswire said, including a current case against six major emitters. 
• RENEWABLE SECURITY: Military alliance NATO is “openly backing renewables and other non-fossil fuel sources of energy as key to the alliance’s security” despite US scepticism, reported Politico. The outlet covered a NATO-backed study that highlighted how imported fuels have been used as a “bargaining chip” in conflicts.
• NO INDIAN ‘LOCKDOWN’: India’s oil-and-gas minister “dismissed concerns of any imminent lockdown-like restrictions” after prime minister Narendra Modi “urged citizens” to adopt fuel-saving measures amid a global energy crisis, reported the Economic Times.

One billion barrels

The volume of oil the world has lost over the past two months since Iran began its blockade of the strait of Hormuz following attacks by the US and Israel, according to Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser, quoted in Reuters.

Latest climate research

• Antarctic sea ice levels have plummeted to “record-low anomalies” since 2015, with researchers calling it “one of the largest present-day climatic shifts in the Earth system” | Science Advances 
• Rainfall reductions in the southern Amazon will occur at progressively lower levels of deforestation as the planet warms, indicating that “climate change amplifies the sensitivity of rainfall to forest loss” | Global Ecology and Biogeography 
• Economic inequality adds more than 100,000 deaths to the total toll from heat and cold in Europe | Nature Health

(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)

Captured

Contrary to claims by the UK car industry that demand is not high enough to meet the UK government’s sales targets for “zero emissions vehicles” (ZEVs), a new Carbon Brief factcheck found it has actually “overcomplied” with its mandate. The chart above shows the required (left) and achieved (right) share of ZEVs in total UK car sales in 2024, the latest figures available. “Flexibilities” (in light blue) include the sale of lower-emission petrol cars.

Spotlight Chennai’s gig workers race against the heat

This week, Carbon Brief visits one of India’s first air-conditioned lounges designed to help gig workers deal with extreme heat.

An air-conditioned lounge for gig workers in Chennai’s T Nagar shopping district. Credit: Ishan Tankha / Scorched

On a single day in late April, 20 of the world’s hottest cities were all in India.

Chennai was not on the list this time, but is no stranger to high temperatures. In the south-eastern coastal capital of Tamil Nadu, extreme humidity and heat are inescapable facts of life.

“The heat is by no means manageable, but we have no choice but to deal with it,” said Mohammed S, a 29-year-old grocery platform delivery worker, speaking to Carbon Brief. 

Last year, Chennai became India’s first ever city to roll out air-conditioned lounges for millions of gig workers, like Mohammed, navigating India’s increasingly hotter cities. 

Lounge access

In the dense shopping district of T Nagar – recognised as an “urban heat island” – studded with silk sari and jewellery shops, an unassuming oblong container-like structure stands out.

Gig workers leave their slippers outside the lounge. Credit: Ishan Tankha / Scorched

Through the building’s tinted windows, workers wearing synthetic jerseys emblazoned with food delivery app logos are stretched out on wooden benches meant to seat 25 people. 

The lounge has charging points for phones, a water cooler and a unisex toilet. It might not seem like much, but workers tell Carbon Brief that it has made a “huge difference” to their lives – even on a day when the air conditioner stopped working. 

“Before this, life was very difficult,” said Mohammed. He continued:

“We would park our [electric] bikes and try to find a tree to sleep under, stop for tea and tea shop owners would tell us we couldn’t sit there for more than 10 minutes, try to rest in a building’s stairwell and be chased away, then try to find shade under a flyover. Now we can sit in the AC and avoid the worst of the heat.”

Dinesh, 27, said his day starts at dawn before the sun is up, picking up packages from companies in north Chennai – another critical heat hotspot.

For the next seven hours, there is no “off point” or breaks for Dinesh as apps rush deliveries. 

Some of Chennai’s gig workers told Carbon Brief they try to avoid the worst of afternoon temperatures from noon to 3pm, but for many – especially migrant workers – sitting back in the lounge is not a choice they can afford. One of them explained:

“If you don’t have cash to cover your bills or have to send money back home, you head out into the heat for a 12-hour shift and hope for the best.”

Dinesh checks his orders in the gig worker’s lounge. Credit: Ishan Tankha / Scorched Feeling ‘gear’

In Chennai, heat might be normalised, but it has its own vocabulary. Speaking to Carbon Brief, the city’s gig workers, auto rickshaw drivers and fish sellers used an all-encompassing term – “gear” – to describe their symptoms, including dizziness, exhaustion and nausea. 

Last summer, researchers offered Delhi’s gig workers a Rs 200 (roughly £2) cash transfer on the first day of a heatwave, to provide them with a means to achieve “real-time” adaptation to heat risk. Workers who received a cash transfer reported fewer heat-related symptoms, according to the study.  

Asked if they would accept similar incentives to stay home on 40C days, workers in the T Nagar lounge expressed disbelief. Dinesh – who also trains technicians on how to repair air conditioners to support his income – told Carbon Brief:

“They [the apps] offer us incentives to go out in the heat when there are fewer riders.” 

Barring a few, none of the dozens of outdoor workers Carbon Brief spoke to had an air conditioner at home or in their hostels, making the lounge the only place they could cool down. 

Watch, read, listen

THE BIG ‘LOSER’: Writing in Foreign Affairs, Princeton University’s Prof Benjamin Bardlow argued that Beijing “may emerge from the war in Iran as its winner – and Washington its ultimate loser”.

CARBON ‘KINGPIN’: A new podcast by Drilled followed Bruce Rastetter – a corn ethanol “kingpin-turned-carbon entrepreneur” from Iowa – now promoting biofuels and carbon-capture projects in Brazil.
OPEC ‘DRAMA KINGS’: An episode of the Polycrisis podcast, titled “Gulf drama kings”, dug into the UAE’s announcement that it was quitting oil producers’ cartel OPEC, asking whether this reflected “doom” for the group, geopolitical tensions, or “different beliefs” about the future of oil.

Coming up

• 17 May: Cape Verde election
• 17-22 May: 13th session of the World Urban Forum, Baku, Azerbaijan
• 20-21 May:Copenhagen climate ministerial

Pick of the jobs

• Greenpeace, communications and engagement co-head (climate) | Salary: £63,756-£67,644. Location: London
• Global Witness, deputy director of campaigns (one-year contract) | Salary: £75,886. Location: London
• Karolinska Institute, research assistant in climate attribution and health | Salary: Unknown. Location: Stockholm, Sweden
• Greenpeace South Asia, climate researcher | Salary: Unknown. Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka

DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

DeBriefed 8 May 2026: EU eyes fossil-fuel exemptions | Wind and solar save UK ‘£1.7bn’ | Amazon ‘tipping point’

DeBriefed

|

08.05.26

DeBriefed 1 May 2026: Countries chart path away from fossil fuels | China’s clean-tech surge | Global forest loss slows

DeBriefed

|

01.05.26

DeBriefed 24 April 2026: Europe’s energy-crisis plan | Renewables overtake coal | Colombia’s fossil-fuel summit

DeBriefed

|

24.04.26

DeBriefed 17 April 2026: Fossil-fuel power slumps | ‘Super’ El Niño warning | Afghanistan’s climate struggle

DeBriefed

|

17.04.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_ad45c18cfa7c478d53b16c646d187963 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post DeBriefed 15 April 2026: Trump-Xi talk energy | ‘Supercharged’ El Niño | India’s first ‘heat lounges’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.

“In order to support a stay, the movant must substantiate that irreparable injury is ‘likely’ to occur. Bare allegations of what is likely to occur do not suffice,” the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said in its decision. 

The UK is no longer the top contributor to the UN’s flagship Green Climate Fund (GCF), after the government announced that it only intends to honour half of its most recent pledge.

Amid wider cuts to its climate aid for developing countries, the UK informed the GCF in May that it will reduce its commitment for the 2024-27 period to £815m ($1.1bn).

In doing so, the Labour government is drastically cutting a Conservative pledge of £1.62bn ($2.16bn), hailed by former prime minister Rishi Sunak’s government as “the biggest single funding commitment the UK has made to help the world tackle climate change”.

This “record” pledge also meant the UK became the top GCF funder, after the Trump administration withdrew $4bn in pledged US funds in 2025.

Now, the UK follows the US in becoming the second major donor to cancel substantial funding, leaving aid experts concerned that other developed countries will follow suit.

As the chart below shows, the UK’s total past and promised contributions to the GCF have now dropped below those of Germany, France and Japan.

GCF pledges by top 10 donors. Dark bars indicate pledges from the initial resource mobilisation in 2014 and the first replenishment round in 2019, while light blue bars indicate pledges from the second replenishment round in 2023. Source: NRDC GCF pledge tracker.

The GCF is the largest dedicated UN climate fund and is seen as a vital way of raising grant-based climate finance for developing countries. It oversees more than $20bn worth of funding across 354 projects and programmes.

Developed countries, such as the UK, are obliged under the Paris Agreement to provide climate finance. One of the main ways to do this is through specialised climate funds, such as the GCF. 

However, despite countries committing to increase their climate finance over time, progress in scaling up GCF contributions between funding rounds has been gradual.

With its now-revoked £1.62bn pledge in 2023, the UK was among the donors that had increased its GCF pledging compared with the previous 2019 funding round. 

The latest reduction means the UK will now provide around 45% less funding than it did during the 2019 round. This is the biggest reduction between rounds by any major donor, apart from the US.

In an email to the GCF board, reported by the Financial Times, the fund’s executive director Mafalda Duarte said the UK’s actions were “expected to have a material impact on the delivery” of the fund’s projects.

According to the newspaper, Duarte noted that the move came as the UK cuts its overall aid budget in order to “invest more in addressing growing security threats”. 

In March, the UK government announced plans to spend “around £6bn” of its aid budget on climate projects in developing countries over the next three years.

Carbon Brief analysis suggests that this spending amounts to roughly halving the UK’s annual climate finance, when accounting changes and inflation are factored in.

Analysis: Wind and solar have saved UK from gas imports worth £1.7bn since Iran war began

UK policy

|

07.05.26

Q&A: How the UK government aims to ‘break link between gas and electricity prices’

Renewables

|

21.04.26

Analysis: UK is ‘halving’ its climate finance for developing countries

Renewables

|

27.03.26

Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas

Policy

|

25.03.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_df2bd84d6efd96a81c4e56617c4f794f .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Meanwhile, residential prices have been growing in all regions of the United States, “and we expect this trend to continue,” the U.S. Energy Information Administration said.