News Feeds

DENVER—The Interior department announced Thursday that it is beginning the process of updating its policies regarding designated wilderness, wilderness study areas, and lands with wilderness characteristics.

Interior “is seeking recommendations on potential improvements to wilderness study area and lands with wilderness characteristics policies used by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service,” according to an Interior department press release.

The review will “help determine whether existing policy documents should be updated or clarified to improve consistency, increase transparency and ensure public lands continue to be managed effectively in accordance with applicable laws,” according to the release. Wilderness designations are conferred through acts of Congress that land management agencies must implement as directed, and the degree to which this review will infringe on or undermine congressional authority is unclear.

The Interior department published previews of three separate notices related to this review in the Federal Register on Friday:

• Policy Review: Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process

• Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas

• Management of Designated Wilderness Areas

The notices will be officially published in the Federal Register on Monday, kicking off 60-day public comment periods for each review.

The New York Times reported earlier this month that the Agriculture department has drafted an order allowing off-road vehicles on millions of acres of wilderness study areas inside national forests. Interior is also updating its wilderness policies in accordance with the EXPLORE Act’s directive on fixed anchor climbing within wilderness, via a separate review.

The Center for Western Priorities released the following statement from Communications Director Kate Groetzinger: 

“The Trump administration is laying the groundwork for an attack on America’s wilderness with these reviews. While the notices themselves don’t tell us much about the administration’s intentions, we know President Trump and Interior Secretary Burgum aren’t interested in increasing protections for America’s public lands.

“Wilderness designations are the most powerful tool we have to protect sensitive and ecologically important public lands. We’ll be watching closely for any attempt by the Trump administration to undercut existing or future protections for America’s wildlands.”

Learn more: 

• Interior puts wilderness study areas under scrutiny as “war on wildlands” widens – The Wilderness Society

• Wilderness Designation FAQs – The Wilderness Society

Feature image: Kiger Gorge at Steens Mountain, Oregon; Source: Masako Metz/@mypubliclands

The post Interior lays the groundwork for attacks on wilderness and wildlands appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Suggested image: A sharp satirical illustration of Shell executives in hard hats auctioning off giant offshore wind turbines from a floating “Green Transition Clearance Sale” platform. Behind them, a huge Shell oil rig and LNG tanker loom triumphantly under a banner reading “More Value, Less Wind.” A small shredded sign in the foreground says “Net Zero Journey — Terms and Conditions Apply.”

Disclosure: This article and accompanying image concept were generated by ChatGPT in response to source material supplied by the site publisher. Human editorial review is recommended before publication.

PART ONE: FACT-BASED TABLOID-STYLE DEEP DIVE

Shell’s energy transition has apparently reached the stage where the green bits are being packed into cardboard boxes, labelled “non-core,” and discreetly shown to the exit.

According to a June 12, 2026 report carried by Reuters⁠ and originally reported by Bloomberg⁠, Shell is preparing a sale of offshore wind assets worth around $1 billion. Bloomberg described the move as the latest step away from renewable energy as the company focuses on higher-return fossil-fuel businesses.

There it is: the grand green pivot, now seemingly available at auction.

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 familiar territory of “disciplined capital allocation” — the corporate dialect used when a fossil-fuel giant wants to say: “That climate-friendly stuff looked lovely in the brochure, but oil and gas are still where the grown-up money lives.”

Let us be precise. This is not yet a completed sale. It is a reported plan. Shell may decline to proceed, adjust the scope, sell only some interests, or find a structure that allows it to claim continuing relevance in offshore wind while someone else takes more of the development headache.

But as a signal, it is hardly subtle.

This is Shell standing on the deck of the energy transition ship, quietly lowering the renewable lifeboats into the sea while telling investors everything is absolutely under control.

The Green Promise, Meet the Fossil-Fuel Spreadsheet

Shell’s public messaging has for years been sprinkled with the language of transition. Less emissions. More value. Net zero by 2050. Low-carbon solutions. Customer choice. Pragmatic pathways. All the soft-focus corporate mist needed to make an oil major look like it has wandered into a climate conference by accident and decided to stay for the canapés.

In its 2024 Energy Transition Strategy⁠, Shell said it was investing $10–15 billion between 2023 and the end of 2025 in low-carbon energy solutions. That included electric vehicle charging, biofuels, renewable power, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.

Very impressive. Very glossy. Very “please admire the slide deck.”

But the pattern since then has told a rather different story. Shell has been pruning, trimming, retreating and “re-focusing” in clean-power areas that once helped decorate the company’s transition credentials.

In October 2025, Shell announced it had withdrawn from Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind⁠, assigning its 50% interest to its joint-venture partner EDF power solutions.

Reports have also described Shell withdrawing from major floating offshore wind projects off Scotland, including MarramWind and CampionWind. Renewables Now⁠ reported that the decision related to Shell’s strategy shift in power from late 2024, under which the company said it would not lead new offshore wind developments.

Now comes the Bloomberg/Reuters report that Shell is preparing a sale of offshore wind assets valued at around $1 billion.

One can almost hear the soundtrack: wind turbines fading out, LNG terminals swelling heroically in the background.

From “Energy Transition” to “Energy Transition, But Only the Profitable Bits”

To be fair, Shell has never promised to become a charity for wind turbines. It is a publicly traded oil and gas giant, not a monastery of decarbonisation. It answers to investors, dividends, buybacks, commodity prices and the iron law of quarterly performance.

But that is exactly the point.

Shell’s transition messaging has often tried to have it both ways: presenting the company as a responsible energy-transition participant while continuing to defend, expand, optimise and monetise its oil and gas core.

The latest reported wind-farm sale fits neatly into the Wael Sawan era: sharpen the portfolio, prioritise returns, simplify the business, keep investors sweet, and make sure any lower-carbon activity survives only if it can compete with the fossil-fuel cash machine.

At Shell’s Capital Markets Day 2025⁠, the company framed its strategy around delivering “more value with less emissions.” That sounds soothing enough. But critics might translate it as: “more value first, less emissions where convenient.”

The phrase has the suspicious flexibility of a corporate yoga instructor. It can stretch around almost anything.

Sell wind? More value.

Focus on LNG? Less emissions, allegedly, compared with coal.

Keep oil production steady? Pragmatic realism.

Retreat from green power? Portfolio discipline.

At this point, “energy transition” risks becoming less of a destination and more of a lobby display: tastefully lit, rarely visited, useful when journalists arrive.

The Offshore Wind Problem: Difficult Market, Convenient Excuse

Shell is not alone in finding offshore wind difficult. The sector has faced inflation, supply-chain pressure, higher interest rates, permitting delays, vessel shortages and political turbulence. Several major wind developers have written down projects, renegotiated contracts, or abandoned schemes.

So yes, there are real economic headwinds.

But Shell’s retreat cannot be viewed merely as victimhood at sea. The company is choosing where to allocate capital. It has judged that certain renewable projects do not meet its return thresholds. Meanwhile, fossil-fuel production, LNG trading, oil and gas assets, and shareholder distributions remain central to the business.

This is not a mysterious act of nature. It is capital discipline with a hydrocarbon accent.

The uncomfortable question is not whether offshore wind is hard. It is whether Shell ever had the corporate appetite to tolerate the lower returns, longer timelines and political risk necessary to become a serious renewables builder at scale.

Judging by recent exits, the answer appears to be: only until the spreadsheet stopped smiling.

Investors: The Invisible Choir Behind the Strategy

Shell’s biggest institutional investors include some of the world’s largest asset managers. Public shareholder data commonly lists major holders such as BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Norges Bank Investment Management among significant investors in Shell.

These investors are not necessarily sitting in a smoky room ordering Shell to sell wind farms. But they are part of the pressure environment. Their expectations shape the boardroom climate: capital discipline, cash generation, dividends, buybacks, returns, and no expensive experiments unless those experiments can justify themselves in hard numbers.

This is the great institutional-investor paradox of the climate era.

The same investment giants publish stewardship reports, climate-risk statements and sustainability principles while remaining deeply embedded in the ownership of fossil-fuel supermajors. They want transition, but not too much transition. They want climate risk managed, but not at the expense of returns. They want companies to prepare for the future while continuing to pump cash out of the past.

Shell is very good at hearing that music.

And the tune currently sounds like: “Sell the wind, keep the hydrocarbons humming.”

The Historical Pattern: From Green Costume to Fossil-Fuel Comfort Blanket

Shell has spent decades trying to present itself as more than an oil company. The company has experimented with solar, hydrogen, wind, biofuels, retail power, EV charging and carbon capture. Some of these activities remain. Some have been scaled back. Some have been exited. Some appear regularly in glossy sustainability documents like decorative parsley beside the steak.

This is not new.

Oil majors have long had a habit of adopting the language of transition while maintaining business models overwhelmingly tied to fossil fuels. Shell has faced climate litigation, environmental criticism, investor dissent, regulatory scrutiny and accusations from campaigners that its transition plans remain inadequate to the scale of the climate crisis.

And yet, whenever the returns wobble, the green limbs seem remarkably easy to amputate.

The company says it remains committed to net zero by 2050. But a pledge for 2050 is a wonderfully distant object. It sits safely beyond many executive tenures, many political careers and many bonus cycles. Today’s action is what matters.

Today’s action, according to Bloomberg and Reuters, is another possible sale of renewable assets.

The Shell Translation Guide

When Shell says “portfolio optimisation,” ordinary people may hear: selling things that do not make enough money.

When Shell says “disciplined capital allocation,” ordinary people may hear: fossil fuels still win the internal beauty contest.

When Shell says “more value with less emissions,” ordinary people may ask: less emissions compared with what, exactly, and by when?

When Shell says it supports the energy transition, ordinary people may reasonably ask: then why does the transition keep being shown the side door?

The absurdity is not that Shell wants profits. Of course it does. The absurdity is the ongoing pantomime in which fossil-fuel giants dress routine shareholder-first strategy as climate-era statesmanship.

A Wind Farm Sale With Symbolic Force

A $1 billion wind-farm sale would be financially modest beside Shell’s vast balance sheet. This is not a company-altering disposal on the scale of a supermajor merger or an upstream mega-sale.

But symbolically, it matters.

It tells governments, campaigners, investors and the public that Shell’s practical commitment to renewable power generation is narrowing. It reinforces the view that the company’s green transition is not a wholesale transformation, but a selective investment filter: low-carbon businesses may stay if they fit the returns machine; if not, they are liable to be sold, shelved, spun off or quietly forgotten.

That is not illegal. It is not surprising. But it is revealing.

Shell’s critics have long argued that the company’s transition rhetoric is more impressive than its transition reality. This reported sale hands them another exhibit.

Conclusion: The Wind Changed Direction — Shell Followed the Money

Shell’s reported $1 billion wind-farm sale plan is not an isolated development. It fits a broader pattern: withdraw from difficult renewable developments, focus on trading and customer-facing power where returns are stronger, keep LNG and oil at the heart of the machine, and reassure investors that the company is not about to sacrifice profitability on the altar of climate virtue.

In other words: the green halo is being resized to fit the balance sheet.

Shell will no doubt insist that it remains committed to the energy transition. It may say it is focusing on areas where it has competitive advantage. It may say it wants to create value while reducing emissions. It may say it is being pragmatic.

Fine.

But from the outside, it looks like this: when the wind business became hard, Shell remembered it was an oil and gas company.

The turbines can go. The slogans can stay.

PART TWO: SPOOF SHELL PR/SPIN SECTION

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Shell is pleased to announce that our commitment to the energy transition remains as strong as ever, provided the energy transition does not become financially irritating.

Recent reports that Shell is preparing a sale of offshore wind assets should not be misinterpreted as a retreat from renewables. It is simply an exciting opportunity to transition our transition into a more transitionally optimised transition.

Shell remains committed to “more value with less emissions,” especially the “more value” part, which is currently performing with excellent reliability.

Offshore wind continues to be an important part of the global energy system. We wish it every success under the ownership of people with more patience for offshore wind.

Shell’s own strategy is focused on areas where we have clear strengths: oil, gas, LNG, trading, marketing, shareholder distributions, and explaining why all of this is compatible with net zero by 2050.

We reject any suggestion that Shell is abandoning the green agenda. We are merely placing it in a carefully managed strategic storage facility, beside several previous PowerPoint decks.

ENDS

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION

GreenwashDetectorBot: Alert: renewable asset detected leaving building.

DividendGoblin: I support the energy transition, but only if it yields above my hurdle rate and comes with a buyback.

WindTurbine_404: Sorry, this Shell climate commitment cannot be found.

LNGFanAccount: Great news. Nothing says net zero like selling wind and hugging gas.

InstitutionalInvestorBot: We are deeply committed to long-term climate stewardship, provided long-term climate stewardship does not interfere with short-term capital discipline.

CorporateTranslator: “Portfolio optimisation” means “the wind farm failed the bonus-cycle audition.”

ShellHistorian: New name, same weather vane: always turns toward money.

SatireUnit: Shell’s energy transition is now so streamlined it may fit inside a press release.

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary. It uses satire, criticism and rhetorical exaggeration while relying on publicly available sources believed to be accurate at the time of writing. The reported wind-farm sale is described as reported by Reuters/Bloomberg and should not be treated as a completed transaction unless confirmed by Shell or transaction documentation. This article is not investment, legal, tax or financial advice. Readers should consult original sources and qualified professionals before making financial or legal decisions. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Shell’s Great Green Shrink Ray: Oil Giant Reportedly Eyes $1 Billion Wind Farm Sell-Off While the ‘Energy Transition’ Banner Catches Fire was first posted on June 12, 2026 at 8:51 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

ChatGPT Images: A satirical illustration of Shell’s Monaca petrochemical plant as a giant golden plastic funnel: Pennsylvania taxpayers pour $1.65 billion into the top, while plastic pellets, smoke, warning notices, and tiny “promised jobs” crumbs fall out the bottom. In the background, executives in hard hats point at a “Petrochemical Renaissance” banner peeling off the wall.

Image alt text: Satirical image of Shell’s Monaca plastics plant depicted as a taxpayer-funded petrochemical machine producing pollution, plastic pellets and broken job promises.

Disclosure: This article and accompanying image concepts were generated by ChatGPT in response to the source material supplied by the site publisher. Human editorial review is recommended before publication.

PART ONE: FACT-BASED TABLOID-STYLE DEEP DIVE

There are corporate fairy tales, and then there is Shell’s Monaca petrochemical plant in Beaver County, Pennsylvania — a $14 billion plastics palace sold to the public as an economic miracle, an industrial renaissance, a jobs bonanza, a shimmering shale-gas promised land.

And now? According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, the whole thing looks rather less like a renaissance and rather more like a giant petrochemical whoopee cushion, slowly deflating beside the Ohio River while taxpayers wonder who ordered the plastic confetti.

IEEFA’s latest analysis, “Shell’s Monaca plant exposes Pennsylvania’s failed trickle-down petrochemical renaissance”⁠, argues that the Monaca plant has become a glaring case study in overhyped fossil-fuel industrial policy: public subsidies, grand promises, underwhelming jobs, pollution headaches, and market conditions that appear to have stomped on the dream in steel-toed boots.

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 headlines with a project that was supposed to turn Appalachian shale gas into regional prosperity. Instead, it has produced the familiar Shell cocktail: fossil-fuel dependency, environmental controversy, expensive optimism, and enough public subsidy to make a hedge fund blush.

The Monaca facility uses ethane from natural gas to produce polyethylene — a common plastic used in packaging and consumer goods. Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection says the facility includes ethane cracking furnaces, polyethylene units and gas-powered electricity turbines, and began polyethylene production processes in fall 2022: Pennsylvania DEP facility information⁠.

The sales pitch was magnificent. The public was told that Appalachia was on the edge of a petrochemical boom. Shell’s plant would be the anchor. More facilities would supposedly follow. Jobs would multiply. Downstream manufacturers would bloom. The region would be reborn in a glorious cascade of plastic pellets and press releases.

Instead, by 2025, Spotlight PA reported⁠ that Shell was exploring a sale or partnership for the $14 billion facility. Shell CEO Wael Sawan told analysts: “The issue is it’s our only one, our only major facility” making this kind of plastic, adding: “we’re not the natural owner of that asset.”

Translation from Corporate Esperanto: after Pennsylvania helped throw a record-breaking subsidy party, Shell appears to be checking the exits.

The Taxpayer-Funded Plastic Dream

The plant was lured to Pennsylvania with a tax incentive widely reported at up to $1.65 billion over 25 years. That is not a modest welcome basket. That is a golden throne, a brass band, and a state-sponsored love letter delivered by forklift.

Local communities were told this would be transformational. The petrochemical “renaissance” would deliver downstream manufacturing and regional regeneration. Yet the grand boom appears to have fizzled. The facility was built, yes. The promised wider petrochemical wave? Not so much.

Spotlight PA⁠ noted that the Department of Energy once saw the Shell cracker as the first of multiple facilities across Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Five years later, Shell’s Monaca plant stood alone.

One plant. One enormous subsidy. One lonely plastic behemoth sitting where a renaissance was supposed to be.

If this is trickle-down economics, the trickle seems to have evaporated before reaching the public.

The Market Problem: Plastic Dreams Meet Reality

IEEFA’s earlier report, “Shell’s petrochemical problem in Pennsylvania”⁠, described Monaca’s market reality as “unfavorable and uncertain” because of oversupply, weak demand, weak operating rates, trade frictions and policy risks. It also pointed to weak profit margins caused by the spread between ethane feedstock prices and finished ethylene.

That is analyst-speak for: the economics may not be wearing the party hat Shell expected.

IEEFA also said Shell’s initial guidance suggested annual EBITDA of $1 billion to $1.5 billion, while its own analysis indicated the plant may generate only $416 million to $987 million annually. Even the higher end of that range is a long way from the glorious subsidy-soaked brochure version of events.

So, Pennsylvania helped bankroll a petrochemical showpiece just as the global plastics market became increasingly awkward: oversupply, environmental pressure, changing trade dynamics, and growing public scrutiny of single-use plastic and fossil-fuel-derived materials.

It is almost as if building an enormous fossil-plastics monument in the middle of a climate and pollution crisis might not have been the masterstroke promised by the petrochemical priesthood.

The Pollution Problem: The Cracker That Keeps Cracking the Public’s Patience

The environmental controversy has been just as inconvenient as the economics.

The Pennsylvania DEP says Shell’s Monaca site required complex environmental reviews, approvals and permits. The facility began production in fall 2022, and its Title V operating permit application remains under review according to the DEP page last updated in May 2026: DEP facility information⁠.

Meanwhile, PublicSource reported in March 2026⁠ that Shell Polymers Monaca had continued to emit nitrogen oxides above permitted levels for almost three years without clear new fines, while temporary permit extensions stretched far beyond the original timeline.

That is quite the achievement: a “renaissance” so advanced it apparently still needs regulatory training wheels.

In 2023, Shell agreed to a $10 million settlement with Pennsylvania regulators over air pollution violations at the plant. Environmental groups and local residents have continued to scrutinise emissions, flaring, odors and pollution incidents. FracTracker Alliance⁠ has also highlighted emissions and malfunction reports associated with the facility, including hazardous pollutants such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, naphthalene, nitrogen oxides and styrene.

Shell will no doubt point to compliance efforts, investments, safety systems, monitoring, community engagement and all the usual corporate vocabulary polished to a high gloss. But the public record still leaves a nasty aftertaste: a giant plastics plant, in an already burdened region, with repeated regulatory and pollution concerns.

The slogan might as well be: “You can be sure of Shell — especially if you enjoy reading permit documents.”

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs — Now Please Mind the Fine Print

The political case for Monaca was not just “plastic.” It was “jobs.” Lots of them. Glorious jobs. Jobs raining from the sky like polyethylene pellets after a handling mishap.

But the actual employment footprint has been far more modest than the rhetoric used to justify the subsidy. Construction created temporary employment, as large industrial projects do. But permanent full-time jobs at the facility have been reported in the hundreds, not the sweeping regional transformation once implied by boosters.

The problem with trickle-down petrochemicals is that the “downstream” part often turns out to be aspirational wallpaper. Politicians cut ribbons. Executives smile in hard hats. Consultants produce charts. Then the region is left asking where the rest of the miracle went.

The Monaca case should be taught in public finance courses under the module: “When Corporate Welfare Arrives Wearing a Jobs Costume.”

The Global Shell Context: Fossil Expansion With a Side Order of Plastic

This is not an isolated personality quirk. Shell remains one of the world’s most powerful fossil-fuel companies, with major operations in oil, gas, LNG, chemicals and petrochemicals. The Monaca plant fits into a larger strategy in which oil majors seek demand growth through petrochemicals even as transport fuels face long-term pressure from electrification and climate policy.

Plastics are not some innocent side hustle. They are deeply linked to fossil-fuel extraction, ethane production, pipelines, cracker plants, chemical manufacturing, waste, and pollution. When oil and gas companies talk about petrochemicals, they are not just discussing shampoo bottles and sandwich bags. They are discussing a fossil-fuel lifeboat.

And who is financially along for the ride? Shell’s shareholder base includes some of the world’s largest institutional investors. MarketScreener’s Shell ownership data lists major shareholders including Norges Bank Investment Management, Vanguard Capital Management, BlackRock Investment Management (UK), BlackRock Advisors (UK), State Street’s SSgA Funds Management, and Legal & General Investment Management: MarketScreener Shell shareholders⁠.

These asset-management giants often present themselves as sober custodians of long-term value. Yet here they are, invested in a company whose Pennsylvania plastic adventure raises awkward questions about subsidy dependency, regulatory risk, environmental liabilities, market oversupply and reputational damage.

Passive investing may be passive. Pollution is not.

The Political Lesson: Don’t Let Fossil-Fuel Giants Write the Renaissance Brochure

Pennsylvania’s Monaca experience exposes a brutally simple problem: governments are often far too willing to treat fossil-fuel megaprojects as economic salvation, while underpricing the risks dumped on communities.

The rhetoric is always the same. Investment. Jobs. Energy security. Industrial renewal. Competitiveness. The future.

Then come the externalities: air pollution, water concerns, traffic disruption, regulatory delays, market volatility, local frustration, and the slow dawning realisation that the public may have subsidised a corporate asset that the corporation itself may no longer be desperate to own.

A genuine renaissance should leave a region stronger, cleaner and more economically resilient. It should not require residents to accept pollution risk while executives quietly explore strategic alternatives.

Shell’s Monaca plant may still operate for years. It may find a partner or buyer. It may improve performance. It may deliver some local economic benefits. But the larger mythology has already taken a beating. The “petrochemical renaissance” was sold as a regional transformation. What arrived was a massive plastics plant with market trouble, environmental controversy and a subsidy bill large enough to deserve its own postcode.

Conclusion: The Plastic Miracle Melts Under Heat

Shell’s Monaca saga is not merely a Pennsylvania story. It is a cautionary tale for any government tempted to believe that fossil-fuel giants bring prosperity out of pure civic affection.

They bring spreadsheets. They bring lawyers. They bring lobbyists. They bring tax-credit appetite. They bring risk-transfer machinery polished to perfection.

And when the market shifts, the politics sour, or the asset no longer fits the portfolio, they bring the phrase “not the natural owner.”

Pennsylvania was promised a petrochemical renaissance. It appears to have received a subsidised plastic monument to magical thinking.

Shell, of course, may prefer a more dignified interpretation. Something about strategic review, portfolio optimisation and disciplined capital allocation.

The rest of us might call it what it looks like: a $14 billion warning label.

PART TWO: SPOOF SHELL PR/SPIN SECTION

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Shell is delighted to clarify that the Monaca facility represents a world-class example of strategic petrochemical possibility, community-adjacent value creation, and advanced expectation management.

While some critics have described the project as an over-subsidised plastics gamble wrapped in a fossil-fuel fantasy, Shell prefers the phrase “dynamic long-term optionality platform.”

Yes, Pennsylvania provided a substantial tax incentive. But please understand: without generous public support, how could a multinational energy supermajor possibly afford to pursue its dreams?

Yes, market conditions have been challenging. But Shell sees challenges as opportunities, especially opportunities to explain why previous opportunities now require new strategic opportunities.

Yes, our CEO has said Shell is not the “natural owner” of the asset. This should not be misinterpreted as regret. It is simply a sophisticated way of saying that after building the thing, accepting the subsidy, and celebrating the project, we are now exploring whether someone else might enjoy owning the consequences.

As for pollution concerns, Shell remains committed to listening, monitoring, reviewing, assessing, engaging, reporting, recalibrating, dialoguing, and issuing statements containing the word “safety” at regular intervals.

We thank Pennsylvania taxpayers for their partnership, patience and wallet.

ENDS

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION

PetroBot3000: Incredible success. The plant converted public money into private optionality with 97.4% efficiency.

SubsidyGoblin: I was promised a renaissance. I received nitrogen oxides and a LinkedIn post.

PlasticPelletPatriot: To be fair, without Shell, who would teach Pennsylvania the difference between “jobs boom” and “temporary construction phase”?

AssetManagerBot: As a long-term investor, I am deeply committed to sustainability, unless sustainability conflicts with quarterly performance, index exposure, fee structures, or the sacred right to own everything.

LocalResident42: The brochure said prosperity. The air said otherwise.

CorporateSpinUnit: Please stop calling it a failed trickle-down petrochemical renaissance. We prefer “under-realised hydrocarbon-adjacent regional value journey.”

ShellHistorian: Remember: when the brand name changes, the business model does not necessarily receive a moral software update.

TaxpayerMug: I gave $1.65 billion and all I got was this strategic review.

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary. It uses satire, criticism and rhetorical exaggeration while relying on publicly available sources believed to be accurate at the time of writing. It is not investment, legal, tax or financial advice. Readers should consult original sources and qualified professionals before making financial or legal decisions. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Shell’s Pennsylvania Plastic Fantastic: The $14 Billion “Renaissance” That Looks Suspiciously Like a Taxpayer-Funded Faceplant was first posted on June 12, 2026 at 8:27 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

When Ben Haywood moved to his current home in South Carolina, he quickly made two friends: The pair of Eastern Bluebirds that readily took to the nest box he put up outside his home in the spring of...

The global roadmap on transitioning away from fossil fuels now being developed should be a “continuing conversation” which is part of UN climate talks, not just a one-off report, several governments told the Brazilian COP30 Presidency on Friday in Bonn.

During a 90-minute exchange of views at the annual mid-year climate talks in Germany, several European governments and the Marshall Islands said the roadmap that Brazil is due to finish by November should be incorporated into the official negotiations.

Any such push is likely to be resisted by nations whose economies are reliant on fossil fuel production. While Russia did not speak on Friday, it has said in earlier written submissions that the roadmap should not be referenced in any document approved by governments at UN climate talks. 

At COP30 last year, Brazil tried to get governments to agree to produce a roadmap on how to transition away from fossil fuels but the proposal did not win consensus, with major nations like Saudi Arabia and Russia opposed. 

Feedback in Bonn

To save the day, Brazil’s COP30 president André Aranha Corrêa do Lago promised at the closing plenary in Belem to draw up a voluntary roadmap in consultation with interested governments. Over 20 countries have officially submitted their opinions on this roadmap and, in Bonn on Friday, Corrêa do Lago sought their views – and those of civil society – in person after the presidency presented its findings so far.

The roadmap will also incorporate outcomes from the first global conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels held in Santa Marta, Colombia, in April and attended by around 60 countries. 

A negotiator for the Marshall Islands told Friday’s meeting that at COP31 this year all governments should “welcome the collaborative effort behind the roadmap and the Santa Marta conference and for this work to be taken on to COP32 and beyond”.

• Jun 11, 2026 Politics Fewer journalists register for Bonn talks, as cuts to climate reporting bite UN data shows a smaller number have signed up to cover the mid-year climate negotiations in Germany than in any year since the COVID-19 pandemic Read more
• Jun 9, 2026 Politics COP31 leaders unveil global targets, with spotlight on electrification Co-hosts Türkiye and Australia want countries to sign on to global targets in three of their priority areas for this year’s COP climate negotiations Read more

A spokesperson for Switzerland said on behalf of a group of nations which includes South Korea and Mexico that the roadmap must be a “sustained process, not a one-off report” and “we would welcome an ongoing platform for dialogue, for learning and cooperation including among fossil-fuel production countries”.

“We expect more than a document, rather a process whereby we come together to develop concrete steps, recommendations and tools to prepare for the transitions,” she said, calling on the COP31 co-presidents Australia and Turkiye and COP32 host Ethiopia to “take up the leadership” for implementing the roadmap”.

Global stocktake response

France’s negotiator said the roadmap “is a process and we will need continuing discussions” as “implementation needs time”, while the UK called for a “continuing conversation, including as we head towards the second [global stocktake]”. 

The global stocktake (GST) is an official five-yearly report into how the world’s governments are doing on their Paris Agreement goal to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures.

The second stocktake will be published in 2028 and governments are likely to negotiate a response to it, which could include new commitments to reduce emissions, at COP33 that year. The response to the first global stocktake included the landmark COP28 commitment to transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems.

Activists and Indigenous people take part in a Stop EACOP campaign protest against fossil fuels during the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Belem, Brazil, November 13, 2025. REUTERS/Adriano Machado Activists and Indigenous people take part in a Stop EACOP campaign protest against fossil fuels during the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Belem, Brazil, November 13, 2025. REUTERS/Adriano Machado

“Even though it’s not a formal part of the negotiation agenda, the roadmap can be a key input for the entire information-gathering phase of the second GST,” Enrique Maurtua Konstantinidis, an independent climate policy consultant, explained to Climate Home News. 

“The key is for countries not to focus the discussion on defending the roadmap itself, but rather on its content, which is what truly matters,” he added.

At the Bonn event, civil society organisations also supported continuing the roadmap inside the formal climate process.

Natalie Jones, policy adviser for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, told Climate Home News the roadmap should be “an ongoing dialogue where countries can exchange their experiences, best practices and continue implementing the [transitioning away from fossil fuels] consensus”.

Russian resistance

But economies reliant on fossil fuel production are likely to oppose incorporating the roadmap into negotiations in Bonn and at COP summits. Russia’s written submission to Brazil’s consultation says the roadmap was not agreed by governments at COP30.

It says such work should therefore take place on the margins of the UNFCCC process, adding that “ the inclusion of any references to the “Roadmap” in the agenda or in official or informal documents” at Bonn or COP “would constitute a deviation from previously agreed consensus outcomes”.

Other major oil and gas producers like Saudi Arabia have not made written or spoken submissions and the US, as it has left the Paris Agreement, is not involved in discussions. But countries other than Russia are likely to resist incorporating the roadmap into official talks.

The UN climate process needs ambition – the law demands it

The submission by Japan, which is not a major producer of fossil fuels but consumes them from overseas, suggests nervousness about the roadmap. It asks Brazil for clarity on how the roadmap is “envisaged to be utilised” and argues that as many countries continue to rely on fossil fuels for electricity, a full and fast shift to “full decarbonisation” is “challenging.

After Friday’s event, Corrêa do Lago told Climate Home News that “the suggestions and the key milestones of the roadmap are not clear yet”. He added that the next step for the COP30 presidency will be to “sit down in July and August to really prepare” the content.

The veteran Brazilian diplomat added that the roadmap will have a section on the challenges of the transition and another section on solutions.

National fossil fuel roadmaps

Brazil, as COP30 president, is drawing up the global roadmap but its leader Lula da Silva has also ordered his officials to draw up a national roadmap. 

In April, France became the first and so far only nation to produce a roadmap, which amalgamated different existing energy and decarbonisation plans and targets. Colombia is reportedly drawing up a roadmap too, based on a draft document by academics.

On Friday, a coalition of nearly 100 civil society organisations called on the COP31 co-presidents Australia and Türkiye to both come up with national roadmaps in order to “lead by example”. Türkiye produces about a third of its electricity from coal, while Australia is the world’s third-largest fossil fuel exporter, the NGOs said.

But in the Brazil-led consultation meeting, a Norwegian negotiator downplayed the importance of separate national roadmaps for transitioning away from fossil fuels. 

While they can “have a supporting role”, the official said countries’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs) “must remain the primary vehicle for driving global climate transition.” 

NDCs are climate plans, usually containing emissions reduction targets, which the Paris Agreement states governments must update with higher ambition every five years. 

The post European, island states seek clear future for global roadmap to cut fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.

  In this June 11 webinar, MEIC outlined the major shortcomings in NorthWestern’s IRP, discussed what has been changed since NorthWestern released its Draft IRP in January, and gave tips on how to provide persuasive public comments to the PSC in writing and in person at the PSC’s upcoming public meetings this summer. NorthWestern’s IRP …

The post Webinar: NorthWestern Energy’s IRP Revisited: A Plan for Montana’s Energy Future and How You Can Get Involved appeared first on Montana Environmental Information Center - MEIC.

This article Time traveling to a 1980s ACT UP meeting through theater was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Imagine a murder mystery dinner party, where everyone sheds their true identity at the door and assumes a role to play in the night’s events — only instead of solving a crime, they must reenact a contentious activist meeting. That’s what artist David Wise tasks participants with in his immersive theater piece “Fight Back.” He recreates the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, or ACT UP, meeting on March 13, 1989 in the same room where it happened nearly 40 years ago. 

It’s impossible to sit in the same room in New York City’s LGBT Community Center where their meetings happened nearly 40 years ago without feeling the echoes of today’s governmental failures, and the urgent need for both resistance and mutual aid.

At the May 18 performance of “Fight Back” — which takes its title from ACT UP’s chant: “Act up! Fight Back! Fight AIDS!” — I did something we rarely have to do these days: relinquish checking and doomscrolling on my phone to spend uninterrupted time face-to-face with strangers, co-creating something from scratch. Nearly 40 of us had two and a half hours to make our way through a 26-item agenda, an education in ACT UP’s work. 

ACT UP is a direct action group formed during the AIDS epidemic to fight for visibility, healthcare access and an end to the crisis. To mark the second anniversary of the group’s formation, they were in the midst of planning Target City Hall — the kind of creative, high-profile direct action for which the group had become known — to protest Mayor Ed Koch’s failure to adequately address the AIDS crisis in New York City. 

By the beginning of 1989, more than 18,000 New Yorkers had been diagnosed with AIDS and over 12,500 had died. ACT UP was demanding affordable access to the highly toxic but potentially life-saving drug AZT, which had just come on the market a year earlier. They also demanded housing for people living with AIDS and changes to the Food and Drug Administration’s drug trial policy to give more patients hope. They demanded dignity for the living and the dead. In the midst of all this, members still found the time and space to plan fundraising parties and, more importantly, to flirt.

The 1980s was an era of phone trees and answering machines. We checked our cell phones at the door. The experience is an invitation to follow the advice writer Mira Jacob gave on Instagram earlier this year: “Stop scrolling. Do literally anything else … We’re going to prevail, but only if you don’t let this app scare you numb.” If you were mad in 1989 because your friends were dying at the hands of the government and you wanted to yell at someone about it, you had to show up to a meeting or participate in a phone zap or volunteer to surreptitiously print flyers at your office denouncing Mayor Koch as a closet case. (One attendee politely corrected our pronunciation of “Koch” — no relation to the present-day billionaire brothers who pronounce their last name “coke.”)

A smaller group within ACT UP gathers during David Wise’s experimental theater piece, a reminder that the organization was not a monolith. (Hong-An Tran)

The atmosphere in the room was tentative. Every question opened up a minefield that only the basic tenets of improv could answer: Say “yes, and” to help the scene unfold; make bold choices, even when you are unsure of them, and don’t “break” the illusion. Most of us had brought hastily scribbled notes about our assigned historical personas, pulled from summaries and the ACT UP oral history archive. This background helped with questions like, “What affinity groups are you in?” and “Is this your first meeting?” But they offered little to lean on when it came to more quotidian conversation starters, “Are you coming from work?” or “Are you out to your family?” Those we stumbled through, together.

I had been assigned the role of Bill Bahlman, my first part since a non-speaking role in the middle school production of “Schoolhouse Rock!” A lifelong New Yorker and a music journalist, Bill had been a part of the Gay Activists Alliance and the Gay and Lesbain Alliance Against Defamation, or GLAAD. A self-described anarchist, he sometimes found the groups to be too soft, particularly the Gay Activists Alliance’s discussions of whether to drink mixed drinks or soft drinks at their dances. He splintered off from GLAAD into the Lavender Hill Mob, a direct action group formed in 1986 and named after a British comedy film. The dozen members focused on AIDS activism and organized disruptive “zaps,” interrupting a CDC meeting, a Catholic mass and other high-profile events with leaflets and banners bearing slogans like, “Gays and lesbians will not be silenced!” 

When ACT UP formed in March 1987, Bill and many other Lavender Hill Mob members joined, but their affiliation and camaraderie with one another remained. While ACT UP is often remembered as a monolith, it was in practice a true coalition under which many smaller groups coalesced, including affinity groups like Delta Queens, La Cocina or Wave 3 that demonstrated together at actions.

Bill was slated to speak late in the agenda. The items were laborious in their minutia. Should the flyers Wave 3 planned to wheat paste around the city to gather people for Target City Hall in two weeks be printed in color, or black and white? Should we send three or four people to the Lesbian and Gay Health Conference in San Francisco? We rose from our chairs for civil disobedience training, half of us playing cops and half of us playing protesters gone limp to resist arrest, but then it was butts right back in seats. 

By the two-hour mark, I could no longer stifle my yawns. There may have been flirting at meetings, and even a little in our reenactment, but the agenda was a reminder that there is little instant gratification in organizing. It took much longer than an Amazon delivery or a ChatGPT response. This focus on consensus decision making has undergirded some of the most visible movements and organizations, like Occupy Wall Street, Jewish Voice for Peace and the Democratic Socialists of America. While they don’t offer an instant dopamine hit, the memorable actions and ballot wins delivered by these groups are clear evidence of their effectiveness.

#newsletter-block_7b6e49f1db5b793b9852a4a3908831a9 { background: #ececec; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_7b6e49f1db5b793b9852a4a3908831a9 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

There are no professional actors associated with the production. Every meeting member was a stranger assigned to play their role for one night only. That said, I recognized an actor from an old TV show who attended as a curious citizen. She had been assigned the role of our chant leader Ron Goldberg, and I expected that, given her background, she might be the one to voice the most objections. Or, I thought, they might come from the tall, brawny and bespectacled man who wore a Larry Kramer name tag, a historical figure whose outspoken anger and divisive politics had been a catalyst for ACT UP’s formation. Instead, the objections came from Karen Ramspacher, a 24-year old curatorial assistant played by a middle-aged white woman seated in the back row with a bun on top of her head. “People are dying and we can’t cobble together the money for color printing?”

The meeting’s facilitators, one of whom I assumed must be Wise himself, tried to keep us on track. I kept glancing at my watch, hoping that time would run out before it was my turn to speak. When my name was called, my hands shook. I stood at the front of the room and looked out at the gathered crowd, some in their 50s, some in their 20s, many filling out the ages in between. I held the mic and spoke about Steve Zabel, my friend who I had found murdered in his apartment at the beginning of the month. The police had done nothing. What could we do to put pressure on them? Steve was just one man, but we all knew a Steve. To my surprise, everyone had ideas. The Media Committee wanted to take it to the press. The woman with the bun wanted to agitate with the neighbors. They had Bill’s back.

When the bell rang to return us to 2026, I made my way over to the outspoken woman, who in real life looked closer to 54 than 24.

“You were great!” I said, relieved to speak as myself again. “Really channeled the anger of the time.”

“I was there,” she said.

“What?”

The woman who had interjected so many times during “Fight Back” had attended ACT UP meetings as a teenager. She had a job in the 80s in Philly calling men to let them know where they were on the wait list to see the only doctor in the city who would treat AIDS patients. Many had died before their turn came. 

A little group gathered around to hear her story. One man shared that he had come to the center that night with a friend who had also been a part of ACT UP, but he had turned around at the door because she wasn’t ready to reopen the emotions of that time. Wise revealed himself to have been Iris Long from the Treatment and Data Committee, a cancer researcher determined to publicize the life-saving uses of aerosolized pentamidine. The reenactment of the meeting had, in fact, been facilitated by everyday people.

Later, the woman continued, she had worked as a social worker in New York City with young transvestites, as they called themselves then, and sex workers. At one point she was given one dose of AZT and had to choose who to give it to in her community. She didn’t realize at the time that the medication had to be taken once every 12 hours to be effective. Of course she was still angry.

#support-block_60b2657cb3d363e27ae29128da32576b { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

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

Donate

After everyone else dispersed, I lingered. The woman pointed across the room at her adopted daughter, a young Black woman whose biological parents had died of AIDS in Africa. She had remained in the global AIDS fight her whole life.

“If the AIDS crisis happened in New York today, we’d all be dead already,” she told me. “You had to be out there, you had to be visible, you had to be risking arrest to make yourself heard. Today everyone is stuck at home. You know what you have to do?”

I leaned in closer.

“Host a dinner party of strangers. You don’t even have to cook. Tell everyone to bring their favorite dish. People love to show off their culinary skills. Think about the seating arrangements. You don’t even need to set an agenda. That’s where political action comes from, talking to people.”

Wise had laid the groundwork for such unexpected offline encounters. His theatrical experiment will take place again on June 15, but Wise hopes to make his impressive research on these figures widely available someday, so school groups and others can try to reenact the meeting on their own.

Art about AIDS abounds. For starters, there’s “Rent” and there’s “Angels in America,” there’s Sarah Schulman’s “People in Trouble,” Rebecca Makkai’s “The Great Believers,” and, more recently, Natalie Adler’s “Waiting on a Friend.” Those pieces invite sorrow and rage, empathy and memory in equal measure. “Fight Back” invites you to act.

This article Time traveling to a 1980s ACT UP meeting through theater was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Rushed environmental reviews won’t speed up new mines. Evidence suggests it slows them down

Cutting environmental red tape to speed up mining in America has become a popular talking point across party lines. On the right, the Trump administration has made expediting mineral production a signature effort; on the left, the “abundance” movement argues that faster permitting is essential to building a clean energy future. But both arguments rest on a flawed premise.

Research and real-world examples show that “permitting reform” targets the wrong problem, and the proposed solutions from both sides increase delays and opposition to projects, not reduce them.

As former Interior department official Steve Feldgus explained in a recent episode of the Center for Western Priorities podcast, The Landscape, and as University of Utah researcher Jamie Pleune lays out in a forthcoming article titled “Red tape is a red herring,” the real obstacles to responsible mining lie elsewhere: misleading industry claims, financing and market dynamics, inadequate agency staffing, and a loss of public trust.

Much of the problem starts with flawed statistics that purport to pinpoint singular bottlenecks in the process of developing a mine. For example, mining industry advocates frequently claim that it takes between seven and ten years to permit a mine in the United States, citing a report that was funded by, among others, the National Mining Association. However, as both Feldgus and Pleune point out, this industry-funded report notes that its authors did not do independent research to arrive at this statistic, and that it relied on data provided by “third parties,” including the National Mining Association.

Statistics on mine development timelines are also inconsistent regarding when the clock starts and what parts of the process are included. Most mines begin with exploration, where individuals or companies search for minerals, assess whether mining those minerals would be profitable, and seek investors to finance development of a mine. As Pleune notes, exploration that disturbs five acres or less of public land does not require a mining plan—the person or company just has to notify the Bureau of Land Management—and for exploration that disturbs more than five acres and requires an exploration plan, those approvals are usually granted in six months or less. So permitting does not delay exploration, and yet exploration is often included in mine development timelines that blame permitting for how long mine development takes.

The Mountain Pass rare earths mine in California, Tmy350 via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

Pleune also points out that in some cases, a smaller mining company may start exploration and then negotiate with a larger company to take over development of an actual mine. Negotiating these deals adds to the timeline, and permitting is not responsible for causing delays at this stage. Arranging financing for mine development is another large and complex hurdle that extends mine development timelines. As Pleune explains, investors prefer projects that offer predictable returns on short timeframes with manageable risks; most mining projects check none of these boxes, making financing challenging to secure. Global minerals markets and geopolitical dynamics introduce even more complexity into mine development. A company might complete its permitting process, but decide to wait for more favorable market or geopolitical conditions before it begins operations—again, dragging out the timeline and blaming permitting when it’s actually other factors driving production decisions.

Feldgus points to the Thacker Pass lithium mine in Nevada as a recent example of a misleading timeline. Lithium was discovered there in the 1970s, but no effort was made to develop a mine until much more recently when demand for lithium had skyrocketed—yet advocates for permitting reform claim that the Thacker Pass mine has taken 40 years to develop and blame permitting for the delay.

Aerial view of the Thacker Pass lithium mine in Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey

Other legitimate examples do exist of mines that have genuinely taken decades to permit, but in those cases, as Feldgus points out, “There’s a reason it takes that long. You’re trying to build a mine next to a wilderness area or in a very sensitive fishery. These are mines where people get very worked up and very concerned, and there’s a lot of political pushback. Mines can take a long time, but that’s not the NEPA process doing that.” In other words, this is the National Environmental Policy Act working as intended to ensure projects undergo rigorous review so the government and communities are aware of likely environmental damage.

For the most part, though, once the Bureau of Land Management or the U.S. Forest Service has received a proposed mine plan, the process of reviewing the plan, seeking and reviewing public comment, and eventually approving the mine plan takes three to four years, even for the largest mines. However, both Feldgus and Pleune emphasize that mine plan approval is a small piece of a much longer process which includes exploration, technical and economic analysis, securing investors, and building trust with neighboring communities. In other words, Feldgus says, artificially limiting the environmental review process to two years (as was recently mandated by the Fiscal Responsibility Act passed in 2023) isn’t all that meaningful in the grand scheme of taking a mine from exploration to production. On the contrary, rushed environmental reviews can actually introduce more delays if they are flawed and can’t withstand legal challenges, or if they drive opposition to the project by creating a perception in the community that the project is being rushed and corners are being cut. A mining company may save a year in the NEPA process, but add five years in litigation or overcoming public opposition to the project.

Currently, Feldgus notes, “Congress is very fixated on the idea of speeding up the back end of things. ‘How do we get NEPA done as fast as possible? How do we cut off lawsuits so that these things don’t go through the courts for years and years?’ It’s all on the back end, basically.” A more helpful approach, according to Feldgus, would be to do more on the front end, in the form of early coordination between the mining company, the land management agency, and the local community. He mentioned the BLM in Nevada as an example of a state office that has successfully reduced timelines, without increasing conflict, by doing more and better early coordination.

Gypsum mining in Wyoming, BLM Wyoming

“What we have found, what mining companies find, what academic researchers find, is the best way to ensure better permitting is to do more early on. Talk to people early, engage with them, find out what their concerns are,” Feldgus says. “And the earlier and the more meaningful you make that engagement, the better the permitting process works, because you’re removing sources of conflict that are what causes things to take a long time on the back end.” Feldgus also notes that it’s up to the mining industry to do more of this front-end work to secure local support for projects. Building relationships and trust over time isn’t something that can be legislated or regulated by the government, and attempts to do so turn into empty box-checking exercises.

So what role should the federal government be playing? Both Feldgus and Pleune point to policy proposals that would address some of the issues that are delaying responsible mining projects. Many of these are outlined in a September 2023 Interagency Working Group report on potential mining reforms, which offered 65 recommendations. In Feldgus’s view, the biggest change that would address many issues at once would be to shift mining to a leasing system, similar to what currently exists for other resources such as oil and gas, and to make mining subject to land management planning the way other resources already are. These changes would bring mining into long-term landscape-scale planning processes that would identify and address conflicts and concerns at the outset, develop a plan to address them, and provide greater certainty for both the mining industry and other stakeholders over the years or decades that a land management plan remains in place. However, Feldgus doesn’t believe a shift to a leasing system is realistic anytime soon.

Pleune also emphasizes the need for sufficient experienced staff to review mine plans, citing a body of research that identifies agency budgets, staffing, and coordination as significant challenges that actually delay permitting but that lawmakers are less interested in addressing. “Without adequate staff that have the necessary expertise, an efficient, productive regulatory regime is highly unlikely, regardless of statutory reforms,” Pleune writes. She also points out that permits, while maligned by the mining industry, are tools used to implement laws and regulations that were passed by Americans’ democratically-elected representatives. In other words, permits protect the values and protections that Americans want to see protected. Weakening or eliminating permitting systems will reduce the public’s trust in the regulatory environment, which will in turn increase public suspicion of the mining industry and opposition to mining projects. In other words, if the public doesn’t trust the process, they will reject the outcome. For this reason, deregulation is an unsound long-term strategy for the mining industry and could destroy the public support that projects need to move forward.

Featured image: Oak Flat in Arizona, near the site of a proposed copper mine; Elias Butler/CC BY-SA 4.0

The post Red tape isn’t the problem appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Nearly 320,000 acres of public land in northwest Arizona have been nominated for oil and gas leasing since January 2025, despite geologists saying the region has little to no known oil or gas reserves.

The nominations came from Zonaco, LLC, a shell company traced by the Arizona Republic to Rodney Ratheal, a Utah man who settled a 2012 SEC civil action alleging he raised more than $4 million from roughly 100 investors for an oil and gas scheme on the same stretch of federal land, then spent about $3 million of it on himself. Ratheal confirmed his identity to Arizona Republic reporters who showed up at his house. He told them he’s still working out how to finance the effort, targeting older investors who “understand this may be the last time they see their money.”

That opportunity for Ratheal to do this exists because of changes to the federal leasing process. The One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the $5-per-acre nomination fee, required BLM to hold quarterly lease sales regardless of market demand, and opened nominations to essentially any bidder. Nominating 318,000 acres under the new rules cost Ratheal approximately nothing, but prior to the new rules, it would have cost about $1.59 million. About 80,000 of the nominated acres are now scheduled for auction in December.

The BLM is not equipped to screen out nominations like these. Arizona lost 24 percent of its BLM workforce in 2025, and the Arizona Strip Field Office is processing this leasing surge without a staff geologist. “The BLM just doesn’t have the people to do this correctly,” said Center for Western Priorities Executive Director Aaron Weiss. “Because now the law says the BLM has to offer anything that’s a valid nomination.”

Burgum doubles down on support for selling off public land, cuts partnerships to get Americans outdoors

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum joined RFK Jr. in Grand Junction, Colorado to promote public lands as a public health resource. The next day, the Interior department announced it was cutting 43 partnerships with groups that help get Americans outdoors, including internship programs, conservation initiatives, and recreational access partnerships. Burgum also used the appearance to defend Senator Mike Lee’s failed proposal to sell off 2-3 million acres of public land, telling the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel that “in America, you can do two things at the same time.”

Quick hits Trump opens up Pacific marine national monuments to commercial fishing

The Hill | Seattle Times | Hawaii News Now | PBS | Newsweek

Senate committee passes Mike Lee’s Roadless Rule repeal amendment

Salt Lake Tribune | MeatEater | Source NM | Outdoor Life | Missoula Current | More Than Just Parks | Cowboy State Daily

Inside America’s ugly birthday battle

The Atlantic

At least five states are bowing out of Trump’s ‘Great American State Fair’

CNN | NOTUS

At this New Mexico park, mountain bikers pedal amid hundreds of oil wells

Source NM

Interior puts wilderness study areas under scrutiny

National Parks Traveler | Sierra Sun Times

$103M in federal contracts flows to Freedom 250 events

Public Citizen

American Prairie, conservation groups appeal bison grazing decision

Daily Montanan

Quote of the day

The administration is saying one thing and doing another—touting the outdoors as crucial for physical and mental health while cutting programs that increase access to outdoor recreation.”

—Kate Groetzinger, Communications Director for the Center for Western Priorities

Picture This @nationalparkservice

Me: I hate drama. I stay out of it.
Also me at the first sign of it:

The Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii), a year-round resident across much of the continental U.S., is the ultimate drama chaser. This bird is lightning fast and highly agile when pursuing prey through forests or even suburban neighborhoods: Speeds can exceed 50 mph (80 km/h) during a chase or when they fly over to the neighborhood Facebook page after hearing a loud noise outside. Fun fact: unlike falcons, which rely on high-speed dives, Cooper’s Hawks are masters of agility and acceleration, weaving between trees with jaw-dropping precision. Their long tail acts like a rudder, enabling sharp turns to snatch birds such as doves, robins, and starlings. The drama!

Image: Cooper’s Hawk peeking over the fort’s wall @castillonps in Florida.

 

Featured photo: Paiute Wilderness, in the northwest portion of the Arizona Strip. Bob Wick/BLM

The post Trump’s new drilling rules encourage leasing where there’s no oil appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

The Boone County, Nebraska Planning and Zoning Board is meeting on Monday, June 22 at 7:30 p.m. to discuss a proposed ordinance that would address CO2 pipelines in the county.

• WHAT: Public Meeting on CO2 Pipeline Ordinance
• WHO: Boone County, Nebraska Planning & Zoning Board
• WHEN: Monday, June 22, 7:30 p.m.
• WHERE: 222 South 4th St., Albion, NE, 68620

Landowners and residents of Boone County and others in the vicinity who want to protect property rights against eminent domain land seizures, and who oppose the risky Summit CO2 pipeline are encouraged to attend the meeting in person, and share their concerns.

Faced with the looming prospect of local landowners being targeted by Summit Carbon Solutions to obtain easements for its proposed risky CO2 pipeline, and potentially seeking to use eminent domain, elected leaders in Boone County are taking action to protect their community.

Last month, Boone County Commissioners held a public hearing to discuss a proposed moratorium on the construction of CO2 pipelines. Bold delivered a letter of support for the moratorium signed by over 150 Nebraskans during the hearing.

The move follows similar previous actions taken by neighboring counties. Stanton County unanimously denied Summit’s permit request in February 2024, and Dakota County tabled the company’s request in November 2025 and has since removed it from their agenda.

Bold Nebraska supported a bill introduced in the Nebraska Legislature in 2026, LB 916, which would have banned eminent domain for CO2 pipelines in Nebraska. Shelli Meyer, whose family’s land in Dixon County is threatened by the Summit pipeline, testified and Bold’s Founder Jane Kleeb also submitted testimony along with over 700 Nebraskans who wrote letters to their Senators urging them to support LB 916.

Bold will support another bill to ban eminent domain for CO2 pipelines next year.

“The Hub” is a weekly round-up of transportation related news in the Philadelphia area and beyond. Check back weekly to keep up-to-date on the issues Clean Air Council’s transportation staff finds important.

The FIFA World Cup is here! Learn how you can get around to major summer 2026 events without a car, or being stuck in traffic with GoPhillyGo: Car-Free Routes Map!

Image Source: The Inquirer

The Inquirer: Philly has a new law to boost development around transit. Which neighborhoods will benefit? – City Council has approved a bill to incentivize denser and taller development around Philadelphia transit stations. City Council expanded the existing housing agenda to a quarter-mile radius around SEPTA rail, intercity bus stations, PATCO, water taxi, and some bus or trolley stops. However, the unique caveat making it different from other cities is that City Council must opt stations into the transit-oriented development policies. West Philadelphia representatives have opted in most Market Frankford Line stations, but no stops on the Broad Street Line have yet to be included. Factors making this difficult include different representative districts on the same transit lines and other political disagreements.

Image Source: WHYY

NBC Philadelphia: Safety, accessibility upgrades debut in along Market Street in Philly’s Old City – Ahead of the 250th celebrations in the city this summer, Market Street between 2nd and 6th has completed safety and accessibility improvements. Upgrades include new traffic and pedestrian signals, wider sidewalks, protected bike lanes, and accessible curb ramps. Improvements should continue across the city ahead of the 250th celebrations this summer.

Image Source: WHYY

BillyPenn: World Cup fans can take a hike — literally. Soccer enthusiasts in Philly can access Lemon Hill fan fest and other sites via trails – Philadelphia will host its first FIFA World Cup game this weekend, with an influx of fans heading to East Fairmount Park’s Lemon Hill. To avoid extreme traffic congestion and parking scarcities, the Circuit Trails Coalition is reminding the public of over 400 miles of trails in the greater Philadelphia area. The Schuylkill River Trail is 120 miles long, and fans can access many World Cup festivities without cars. Find other ways to access summer 2026 events with Clean Air Council’s GoPhillyGo: Car-Free Routes interactive map.

Other Stories

PhillyVoice: With the World Cup set to kick off, SEPTA touts refurbished stations and additional train capacity

The Inquirer: City Council bans horse-drawn carriages in Philadelphia

BillyPenn: First modular shelters arrive for eventual inclusion in Chinatown Stitch cap park

The Inquirer: SEPTA is expanding daily bus service to the Navy Yard by extending Route 45

CBS Pittsburgh: Parkway East will close in 1 month for Commercial Street Bridge replacement project

Anthropocene: A landmark MIT study debunks persistent myths about electric vehicles

PhillyVoice: Walmart plans to bring delivery drones to Philly in 2027

UK Oil & Gas is selling its stake in the troubled Horse Hill production site and licence, the company’s last remaining hydrocarbon interest.

Stephen Sanderson, chief executive of UK Oil & Gas plc. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The company announced in a statement today (12/6/26) it had agreed sell its entire 85.635% interest in Horse Hill and PEDL137 to energy B plc for £1m.

energy B, led by Neil Ritson, a former executive at Solo Oil and Leni Gas and Oil, has interests in bitcoins and wind turbines.

It said the deal was part of a wider strategy for energy B to “build a portfolio of oil and gas projects in the UK in support of UK energy security”. At the time of writing, energy B shares had risen more than 125%.

Today’s news coincides with the appointment of David Lenigas as energy B executive chairman. This will be his second direct involvement in Horse Hill.

Mothballed

Horse Hill, near Redhill in Surrey, has been suspended since October 2024 after the Supreme Court stripped planning permission five months earlier in a landmark climate ruling.

The court judgement, known as the Finch Ruling, was the culmination of six years of legal action against oil production at Horse Hill by Sarah Finch and the campaign network, Weald Action Group.

The site, once nicknamed the Gatwick Gusher, has not lived up to its operator’s predictions of North Sea levels of oil extraction.

In 2015, UKOG described the oil discovery at Horse Hill in Surrey as “world class” and that the Weald in southern England could produce 100 billion barrels of oil. It later issued two clarifications to the London Stock Exchange.

In the last full six months of production, Horse Hill recorded an average of 30 barrels of oil a day, according to official records. The UK’s biggest producing field, at Wytch Farm in Dorset, extracted an average of 9,802 barrels of oil a day over the same period.

UKOG’s move from oil and gas

Today’s announcement marks the end of UKOG’s current interest in hydrocarbon extraction.

In 2015, the company had direct interests in the Avington and Horndean oil fields in Hampshire, Baxter’s Copse and Markwells Wood in West Sussex, the Holmwood prospect in Surrey and an offshore licence near the Isle of Wight. It also had indirect interests in the Brockham oilfield in Surrey and the Lidsey field in West Sussex.

A year later, UKOG acquired the Broadford Bridge site in West Sussex and the PEDL234 licence straddling the border with Surrey. It was also awarded PEDL331 onshore on the Isle of Wight but failed to get planning permission for a proposed site at Arreton.

In 2019, UKOG revealed plans for a new site near Dunsfold in Surrey. It finally got planning permission in June 2022 after an appeal. But no work was carried out at the site and DrillOrDrop understands the planning permission has now expired.

In recent years, UKOG has switched its interest to hydrogen storage. Last month, the company reported declining assets and revenue. The most recent annual accounts confirmed that Horse Hill was then the company’s sole remaining oil and gas site.

Stephen Sanderson, UKOG’s chief executive, said today:

“Whilst the Company recognises that potentially material resources likely remain within HH [Horse Hill], this divestment presents a timely and attractive opportunity to complete UKOG’s exit from the UK onshore oil & gas sector, freeing our team and resources to focus upon our two material UK salt cavern energy storage projects and new international energy opportunities under active review.

“We wish energy B well in its future stewardship of Horse Hill and in realising its ambition to deliver the field’s full remaining potential.”

UKOG’s stake in Horse Hill is divided between subsidiaries.

It holds 77.9% of shares in the site operator, Horse Hill Developments Limited. UKOG (137/246) has a 35% working interest in Horse Hill.

At the time of writing, the UKOG share price was down 2.56%.

Executives return to Horse Hill

Both David Lenigas and Neil Ritson have had previous interests in Horse Hill.

Mr Lenigas was chairman of UK Oil and Gas Investments until July 2015. Four years later, he left Doriemus, which had a 4% stake in Horse Hill.

He said today:

“This is an incredibly exciting project and important for future of UK energy sovereignty. Not only is there a great deal of oil at Horse Hill, but there is also a lot of gas in this very live, shallow and extensive hydrocarbon system. That gas has historically been flared over the last decade, gas that could have been used to power or heat UK homes.

“The initial flow rates at Horse Hill were incredible but obstacles existed to fully assessing the true potential of the 500m thick oil-laden Kimmeridge limestones identified by some of the biggest independent oil consultancies in the world at the time.

“Only a few of the oil sequences in the Kimmeridge were tested in 2016 testing program. Time constraints limited the ability to test the Kimmeridge’s ultimate flow potential and less than 20% of the Kimmeridge interval was tested back in 2016.

“With the oil and gas window at Horse Hill being relatively shallow compared to the hydrocarbons in the North Sea, this project and many other onshore projects in the UK offer a highly credible solution to assist with the domestic energy crisis.

“Whilst many right now are vacating the oil and gas sector in the UK, we aim to go against the tide with energy B.”

Neil Ritson, chief executive of energy B, was chairman of Solo Oil when it had interests in Horse Hill, more than 10 years ago.

Solo Oil disposed of its stake in Horse Hill in 2018.

Mr Ritson said today:

“I am delighted to present shareholders of energy B with an opportunity to develop the Company as an onshore oil and gas participant, alongside the green energy technology being developed around the HFI patented wind turbine.

“The UK is on a path to net zero, however, we need to recognise that oil and gas will remain part of the energy mix for decades to come.  Importing foreign gas and oil; often with a much higher carbon footprint than indigenous supplies, is environmentally and economically unsound.

“We hope to bring Horse Hill back on to production as soon as possible and to develop its greater potential as a springboard.”

energy B said it was withdrawing from its Bitcoin treasury strategy. The company is listed on the UK’s Aquis Stock Exchange, which specialises in growth and entrepreneurial companies.

Deal details

energy B said it had entered into a share purchase agreement with UKOG for £1m. The deal gives energy B 100% of UKOG (137/246) and 77.9% of Horse Hill Developments Limited.

The purchase has been funded by an energy B share placing, which raised £1.2m. Some of the proceeds will be used to provide working capital, including payment of existing creditors, energy B said.

The agreement must be approved by the industry regulator and energy B’s shareholders.

Planning

UKOG announced more than a month ago that it had applied for planning permission to restart oil production at Horse Hill.

At the time of writing, Surrey County Council had still not published the application or begun a public consultation. DrillOrDrop understood this had been due this week. We will report when this happens.

At Broadford Bridge, another UKOG site where planning permission has lapsed, the company said it had plugged and abandoned the two wells. But the site has still not been restored to farmland, required b a condition of the permission. We continue to follow what happens at Broadford Bridge.

Incredible news: the attempt to undo the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan has failed! Together, we have defeated the efforts of Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Representative Celeste Maloy (R-UT-02)! This is a major victory for the entire Protect Wild Utah movement, public lands advocates across the country, and most importantly, the landscape itself.

How did we get here? In March, Sen. Lee and Rep. Maloy introduced “joint resolutions” to disapprove the monument management plan. They did this using the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a little-known law with a provision that allows Congress to pass a CRA joint resolution by simple majority votes—but the Senate must act within 60 session days. Thursday, June 11, was Day 60, so Lee’s resolution is now subject to the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster and we are confident it will not pass.

I couldn’t be prouder of SUWA’s national network of activists and our whole-of-organization response to this unprecedented attack. For all of 2026, defeating the Grand Staircase-Escalante CRA resolution has been our #1 priority. SUWA’s remarkable grassroots organizing team led efforts to reach persuadable members of Congress, fanning out across the country and working with members and supporters to hold in-district meetings with congressional staff. We became experts in arcane congressional procedures. We worked with the Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal Coalition and brought Tribal leaders, alongside grassroots activists and local business owners, to Washington, DC. We coordinated with friends in the conservation and recreation communities. SUWA’s Utah-based staff were frequent visitors to Washington, working day in and day out with our DC Team.

We gave it 110%, week after week, month and month, grinding away while the odds were stacked against us—with the Republicans controlling the House, the Senate, and the White House. This outcome was far from guaranteed; Republicans used the CRA six other times during this Congress to undo land management plans and a seventh time to undo a protective mineral withdrawal at the headwaters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. But love for Grand Staircase-Escalante was strong and opposition to what Lee and Maloy were trying was widespread and overwhelming, across Utah and nationwide (see this webpage for highlights).

We are also clear-eyed: while we’ve defeated one major attack, both Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments, as well as the rest of the redrock wilderness, remain under attack from the Trump administration and Congress. But what we’ve said before bears repeating: SUWA has never backed down from a hard fight, and we’re not going to start now.

By raising your voice in opposition to Lee and Maloy you made a difference. We’re going to keep calling on you—your voice and advocacy will continue to be crucial in defending the wild public lands that inspire, heal, and renew us in the best and worst of times. Powered by love and hope, we know that we can still make the critical difference to protect the places and values that matter. Together, we just did! And we’ll continue to do so.

Thank you for standing with Grand Staircase-Escalante and SUWA at this critical moment. Take time to celebrate the important victory we just achieved together. And if you’re able, please consider financially supporting our work.

For Grand Staircase-Escalante,

Scott Braden

SUWA Executive Director
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

The post Breaking News: Mike Lee Fails, Grand Staircase-Escalante Protections Remain in Place! appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

June 12, 2026

Senator Lee’s Attempt to Fast-track Attack on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan Fails Opposition from across Utah and the nation leads to failure of Senator Lee’s efforts to attack one of the nation’s iconic national monuments

Contacts:
Grant Stevens, Communications Director, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA); (319) 427-0260; grant@suwa.org
Keri Gilliland, Communications Manager, The Wilderness Society; (303) 386-2243; kgilliland@tws.org 
Perry Wheeler, Earthjustice, (202) 792-6211, pwheeler@earthjustice.org 
Tim Peterson, Cultural Landscapes Director, Grand Canyon Trust; (801) 550-9861; tpeterson@grandcanyontrust.org 
Andrew Scibetta, NRDC, (202) 289-2421; ascibetta@nrdc.org
Kris Deutschman, Conservation Lands Foundation, 505-498-0212; kris@conservationlands.org
Brian Willis, Sierra Club; 202-253-7486; brian.willis@sierraclub.org
Caitlyn Burford, Senior Communications Manager, National Parks Conservation Association, cburford@npca.org, 541-371-6452
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (801) 300-2414, tmckinnon@biologicaldiversity.org

Washington, DC – Senator Mike Lee’s (R-UT) effort to fast-track an attack on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) has failed. The CRA includes a provision that allows the Senate to pass a “joint resolution of disapproval” targeting an administrative action via a simple majority, but it must act within 60 Senate session days after that action is entered into the Congressional Record. Thursday, June 11, was day 60, meaning Senator Lee’s resolution is now subject to the 60-vote filibuster should he attempt to bring it up for consideration. This setback of Senator Lee’s attack on the monument comes the same week as the anniversary of the Antiquities Act, which was used to protect the 1.9-million-acre landscape.

The elected officials leading the effort to attack the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan, Senator Mike Lee and Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-UT-02), were some of the same members behind the 2025 failed public lands sell-off attempts. Then, as now, their ideas are deeply unpopular and have been fiercely opposed. If the CRA resolution were to pass, the management plan – which sets expectations for how these remarkable public lands will be managed for recreation, camping and outdoor access; collaboration with Tribal Nations; dark night skies; grazing and other uses – would be undone, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would be barred from issuing another plan that is “substantially the same” in the future. This assault on a national monument marked a significant escalation in Congress’ use of the CRA and – if it had been successful – would have led to chaos on the ground. 

“Senator Mike Lee’s misguided attack on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has failed. This is a major victory for the millions of Americans who care deeply about the Grand Staircase and for everyone who supports our nation’s wildest public lands and want to see them protected,” said Scott Braden, Executive Director at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. “While together we’ve defeated one major attack, both Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments, as well as the rest of the redrock wilderness in Utah, remain under attack from the Trump Administration and this Republican Congress. The lesson for politicians is clear: Americans cherish their public lands and want to see them conserved for current and future generations to enjoy, not attacked and exploited.”

“Just like the defeat of Senator Lee’s unpopular public land sell-off attempt last year, the dearth of support for this attack on Grand Staircase – Escalante reflects Americans’ fierce love for our public lands,” said Thomas Delehanty, senior attorney with Earthjustice’s Rocky Mountain Office. “No one except extractive industry CEOs wants these special places destroyed. Senator Lee and Representative Maloy should take note.”

“The Utah delegation knows that our national monuments are well-loved by Americans and protecting them is overwhelmingly popular among Utahns regardless of party affiliation,” said Tim Peterson, Cultural Landscapes Director at the Grand Canyon Trust. “The public would not have stood for legislation that gets rid of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument outright, so the Utah delegation tried to eliminate the commonsense management plan that affords day-to-day protections to the monument. We’re so grateful that didn’t happen.”

“Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Celeste Maloy’s failed attempt to overturn the Grand Staircase- Escalante land-use plan was out of step with what Americans want,” said Axie Navas, director of designation campaigns at The Wilderness Society. “The current plan, built on years of engagement with Tribes and local communities, balances the freedom to recreate with traditional uses and conservation in a way that benefits all. The public has made it clear they want these lands protected—and managed—so that future generations may experience Grand Staircase-Escalante as we do today.”    

“Grand Staircase-Escalante’s protections are still standing today because people would not let them fall,” said Bobby McEnaney, Director of Land Conservation, NRDC. “This was never really about land management. It was an attempt to make it easier to dismantle every national monument in the country, and that threat has not gone anywhere. Tribes, local communities, and voters saw this attack for what it was and spoke up. We owe it to them, and to the generations who will inherit these lands, to stay in this fight for as long as it takes.”

“While this is a welcome pause, we have no reason to believe Sen. Lee will stop his attack on the country’s national monuments and Grand Staircase,” said Chris Hill, CEO of the Conservation Lands Foundation. “Tens of thousands of people registered their opposition to this particular Congressional power grab–as hundreds of thousands have done over the past several years in support of conserving the country’s public lands. Local communities, business owners, and Tribes support and rely on the balanced management of national monuments and the overwhelming majority of voters in Utah and across western states want their Congress members to protect these places, not sell them off. We are here to make sure that Sen. Lee and other anti-public lands members of Congress cannot ignore the fact that Americans of all political identities don’t want what they’re selling and are fighting like hell to stop it.”

“Today, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument management plan will remain intact, and that’s a testament to the chorus of voices that showed up to protect this incredible landscape from attacks in Congress,” said Cory MacNulty, Southwest Campaign Director for the National Parks Conservation Association. “This management plan is more than a policy document. It reflects years of engagement with communities, Tribes and stakeholders to shape how the monument would be cared for. We know this monument, and all monuments across the nation, still face threats from Congress and the administration. But this is a reminder that public lands should reflect all of us, and people on both sides of the political aisle will continue to show up to protect them.”

“This outcome is bigger than one monument,” said Athan Manuel, Director of Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program. “Had this effort succeeded, it would have created a dangerous roadmap for dismantling management plans and undermining protections for public lands across the country. Instead, the broad coalition that came together to defend Grand Staircase-Escalante proved once again that Americans will unite to protect the places that belong to all of us. This failed fast-track attack should serve as a warning to anyone looking to weaken our public lands: people are paying attention, and they are prepared to fight back.”

“Veterans and military families understand what it means to protect something that belongs to all Americans. The failure of Senator Mike Lee’s attempt to fast-track an attack on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument is an important victory for those who believe our public lands should remain public. Places like Grand Staircase-Escalante are part of our shared national heritage and serve as places where veterans heal, reconnect with their families, recreate, and continue serving their communities. While we are encouraged to see this effort fall short, the broader threats facing Grand Staircase-Escalante, Bears Ears, and other treasured public lands remain very real. Veterans will continue standing up for these places because they are worth protecting for future generations, just as they were for ours.” — Janessa Goldbeck, U.S. Marine Corps veteran and CEO, Vet Voice Foundation

“Lee’s attempt to weaponize the Congressional Review Act to strip protections from Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was an affront to all Americans and I’m thrilled he failed,” said Taylor McKinnon, Southwest director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Like Grand Canyon and Zion, this iconic landscape and its extraordinary animals deserve permanent protection, not to be used as political pawns.” 

A compilation of opposition to the use of the CRA on Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument Management Plan can be found here; some highlights include:

• Inter-tribal Coalition members call for stop to proposal to use Congressional Review Act (CRA) to harm Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
  
• The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) issued a statement and the Navajo Utah Commission of the Navajo Nation Council issued a resolution opposing the use of the CRA resolution.

• Over 40 local businesses in gateway communities like Boulder, Escalante, Tropic, Cannonville, Kanab, and Page (AZ) support the Monument. Local business owners respond in this video montage after Rep. Maloy claimed the 2025 Management plan is bad for business.

• Faith Leaders across Utah and the American West oppose the use of the CRA, as do over 125 local, state, and national groups, and over 150 scientists.
  
• The Salt Lake Tribune, the Grand Junction Sentinel, the Durango Herald, the Las Vegas Sun, the Arizona Daily Star, and the Idaho Statesman have editorialized against the CRA and in support of the Monument. Letters to the editor have gone into papers across the country; particular powerful op-eds include “The strike on Grand Staircase is a strike on my culture and my history” by Autumn Gillard; “Stop Trying to Utah our Nevada” by Dackota York; “GOP leaders say local interests were ignored in the Grand Staircase-Escalante planning process. That’s not what I saw” by Erik Stanfield; “A Utah Monument Comes Under Attack – Again” by Stephen Trimble; and “Congress in gunning for a National Monument in Utah” by Scott Braden. 

About Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument & the Monument Management Plan

Since its establishment, heightened protections for the Monument’s geology, paleontology, wildlife, plant communities, and ancestral sites have succeeded in preserving these unique values for generations to come, and local communities on the Monument’s doorstep have benefited as well. Nearly 30 years later, the numerous benefits of protecting Grand Staircase-Escalante are clear: the Monument preserves a remarkable ecosystem at the landscape level and sets the stage for future discovery about human, paleontological, and geological history on the Colorado Plateau. 

On December 4, 2017, President Trump ignored millions of public comments and unlawfully eliminated large swaths of the Monument, slashing it by 47 percent – roughly 900,000 acres. Thankfully, on October 8, 2021, President Biden signed a proclamation restoring Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to its full, original boundaries. In 2023, BLM began developing a new management plan for the full Monument. As a part of that work, the BLM engaged in extensive outreach to Tribal Nations, the State of Utah, local governments, stakeholders (including local outfitters, guides, ranchers, and utilities), and the public. During the planning process, BLM received overwhelming support from throughout Utah and the nation for a holistic, conservation-based management plan worthy of this remarkable place.

In August 2023, a Federal District Court Judge in Utah dismissed lawsuits brought by the state of Utah and others challenging President Biden’s use of the Antiquities Act to restore the boundaries of Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments. The state and other plaintiffs quickly appealed that decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held oral argument on September 26, 2024, and may issue a decision at any time. Conservation organizations intervened on behalf of the United States to defend President Biden’s restoration of the Monuments, as have four Tribal nations.

National monuments are overwhelmingly popular.Seventy-five percent of Utah voters support the President’s ability to protect public lands as national monuments. Three in four Utah voters, including a majority of Republicans, want to keep Grand Staircase-Escalante as a national monument.

About the Congressional Review Act (CRA)

The CRA is a federal statute enacted in March 1996 that requires federal agencies to submit “rules” to Congress for a mandatory review period “before they may take effect.” If Congress votes to overturn, or “disapprove,” the rule, it “may not be reissued in substantially the same form. . . .” The BLM has long maintained that its land management plans are not “rules” subject to the CRA. Other federal land management agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service, have similarly not submitted their land management plans to Congress under the CRA.

However, emboldened by a series of non-binding Government Accountability Office (GAO) opinions, Republican members of Congress have embraced the novel theory that federal land management plans are in fact “rules” subject to the CRA. This year, Congress has passed seven CRA resolutions overturning previously finalized land management plans or other types of public lands management decisions.  The GAO issued an opinion regarding the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument Management Plan on January 15, 2026.

• While overturning the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument management plan would not change the boundaries of the monument or alter President Biden’s proclamation establishing the monument, it is a serious threat with potential implications for all national monuments. 
• Monument management plans set expectations for how the land will be managed for wildlife, outdoor access, dark night skies, grazing, and other uses. The Utah delegation’s gambit threatens that certainty. Using the CRA to overturn the Grand Staircase-Escalante management plan disregards years of public input on how these lands are managed for the public, including hunters, hikers, scientists, ranchers, and others who hold permits to use public lands inside the monument.
• Congress is ignoring Tribal Nations. Multiple Native American Tribes are connected to Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal Coalition advocates for the conservation of their ancestral lands and for the continued protection and preservation of the cultural and environmental resources found within the monument. Tribes provide deeply valuable perspectives related to the management of Monument lands and cultural resources that tell the story of their peoples, and are integral to the history of the United States, and should be consulted before any changes are made to the Monument’s management plan.

Additional Information

• March 4, 2026 Press Release – Senator Lee, Rep. Maloy Introduce Joint Resolution to Undo Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan 
• February 26, 2026 Press Release – Senator Lee formally begins process to fast-track the destruction of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah 
• The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Inter-Tribal Coalition who have spoken against using the CRA on the Monument Management Plan

###

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 this world-renowned landscape. Learn more at www.suwa.org.

 

 

The post Senator Lee’s Attempt to Fast-track Attack on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan Fails appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

We invite you to watch this short “teaser” video of "Radical Visions Reconnecting Academia and Nature: A Community Truth, Reckoning and Right Relationship" from a two-day event in March 2026.

The post Radical Visions Reconnecting Academia and Nature: A Community Truth, Reckoning and Right Relationship appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

A new paper details how the remnants of dead organisms strongly influence the fate of survivors.

Read more on E360 →

For decades, American politicians have been slow to take on climate change and curb carbon dioxide emissions, under the assumption that doing so might pass along costs to their voters. Ironically, their failure to rein in fossil fuel emissions has yielded the same result: Expenses for everyday Americans have soared as a result of more extreme flooding, fires, and heat.

“What’s striking is that already, households are bearing serious costs,” said Kimberly Clausing, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. She co-authored a paper from earlier this year finding that families were paying between $400 and $900 more each year because of the effects of climate change, with the costs above $1,300 in the 10 percent hardest-hit counties, many of them found in Florida, Louisiana, Nebraska, Colorado, and California. 

On Wednesday, the Commerce Department reported that the annual inflation rate reached 4.2 percent in May, the highest rate in three years. Though the war in Iran is mostly responsible for this recent increase, a surprising number of Americans are attributing the general economic pinch they’re feeling to the changing climate. Two-thirds of U.S. voters agree that global warming is affecting the cost of living to some degree, according to new survey data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, including most Democrats and moderate Republicans. Of those two-thirds, a majority of them said that climate change was driving up what they pay for groceries, utility bills, and home insurance.

Rising energy prices were at the top of people’s lists, a concern that some climate advocates are tapping into ahead of the midterm elections this November. On Monday, the LCV Victory Fund, a political action committee, announced that it will target “energy bill voters” with messages about how clean, affordable energy can trim their monthly expenses, and how Republicans have held back renewable power. That follows successes for Democrats in the off-year elections in 2025, where energy prices played a role in state races in Georgia, New Jersey, and Virginia.

There are many factors pushing up electricity prices, but in some parts of the country, efforts to revamp the electric grid to handle more extreme weather is the primary reason. In California, utilities are upgrading their infrastructure to reduce wildfire risk; in the Southeast, they are rebuilding after hurricanes and flooding and billing their customers for it. In Arizona, residents are cranking up the air conditioning during scorching heat and paying more for power simply because they’re using more AC.

Technicians conduct maintenance at electric facilities among the ruins of beachfront structures after the January 2025 wildfires in Los Angeles.
Qian Weizhong / VCG via Getty Images

Even Republican-leaning voters — 42 percent of conservative Republicans, and 57 percent of moderate ones — are linking their rising costs to global warming, according to the Yale survey. “It makes perfect sense that they would do so, given the results from our study, which show that the geographically rural areas are actually facing some of the highest costs,” Clausing said. From wildfires to hurricanes, rural areas are often facing the brunt of the damage. Her study found that the largest household costs occurred in parts of the West, the Gulf Coast, and Florida.

Utility bills, despite being a top political issue, are actually one of the smaller price-point impacts of climate change, according to Clausing’s research: Households are spending an average of about $35 more on electricity per year, compared with an extra $356 on homeowners’ insurance premiums, the biggest cost. Clausing, who owns a house in Portland, Oregon, said the insurance premium on her home skyrocketed from around $1,000 five years ago to about $2,200 today — an increase that her insurance company said was to help recoup the costs of wildfire damage in Oregon.

Another major category of costs in Clausing’s study was the health effects of climate change. As wildfire smoke grows more common, exposing people to harmful particulate matter, it’s leading to early deaths. The estimated economic damage of these premature deaths works out to $103 for every household in the United States each year. That’s not to mention the other ways climate change damages the public’s health, from lengthening allergy seasons to expanding the geographic spread of infectious diseases as temperatures warm, allowing ticks and mosquitoes to explore new territories. 

But it seems like many Americans haven’t made the connection: Only 35 percent of those in the Yale survey who agreed that climate change was driving up prices saw a link to higher health care costs. That’s because these health risks haven’t been adequately communicated to the public, said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “Health is one of the most powerful ways we have of saying, ‘Actually, this affects our lives right here, right now. It’s already affecting the people and places and things that we love,’” he said.

Read Next What’s behind your eye-popping power bill? We broke it down, region by region. Naveena Sadasivam & Clayton Aldern

Though most of the respondents thought climate change made groceries more expensive, it’s hard to measure the effect of extreme weather on food costs, according to Catherine Wolfram, a co-author of the study and a professor of applied economics at the MIT Sloan School of Management. That’s mainly because the United States’ food supply comes from all over the world, mitigating the impact of, say, a drought in Brazil or a heat wave in the Great Plains. Still, other research has found that hot summers can lead to higher food prices, with more increases projected as the world warms. 

As the effects of global warming grow more extreme, it’s becoming clear that they’re posing a problem for the budgets of lower-income Americans. Clausing is studying ways to design policies that tackle climate change without burdening poor families, through rebates or other mechanisms that can offset costs. 

“I’m glad people are connecting the dots,” Clausing said. “I think, at the moment, if you pursue better climate policy, the benefits to households, for the country as a whole, would exceed the costs.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What’s driving up your expenses? Many Americans say climate change. on Jun 12, 2026.

Travis Terry lives in Forest Hills, a neighborhood in Queens about 5 minutes from an abandoned rail line. He describes the tracks, last used in 1962, as a “blight” plagued by illegal dumping. “It’s been sitting there for 65 years now,” he said, “and those of us in the community, we got tired of what it had become.” 

Terry has long seen great potential for a green space that would allow people to easily bike to Forest Park, the borough’s third largest park. He’s pursued this vision since 2011, advocating for a proposal, called QueensWay, to convert the 3.5 miles of idle railway into a 47-acre park.  

But some would rather the tracks, once the Rockaway Beach Branch of the Long Island Rail Road, become a subway line running north-south through New York’s largest borough. 

Andrew Lynch doesn’t see why it can’t be both. “When I saw this debate, I was like, ‘Man, none of you guys want to work together. Let me show you what’s up,’” Lynch told Grist. He wrote a blog post in 2016 outlining a project with rail service and green space. That led to the formation of QueensLink, a proposal to extend the subway’s M Train line and create 33 acres of parkland. 

All these years later, the two ideas remain at odds, a dispute that mirrors debates in other cities over how to repurpose such infrastructure — whether as transit, green space or some combination of the two. Nationwide, more than 25,000 miles of rail have been converted to recreational trails. The Atlanta Beltline is among the most prominent examples with its 22-mile loop of trails and parks, though plans to include light rail have stalled.

The debate in New York is happening even as the city continues expanding its subway system. It is spending $5.5 billion on the Interborough Express to connect Queens and Brooklyn, and $7.7 billion on phase two of Manhattan’s Second Avenue Subway. Queens, meanwhile, has shown steady growth since the pandemic, and residents make more commutes by car than those in any other borough. New York also has a history of ambitious rail-to-trail projects, including The High Line, and officials have spent more than a decade investing in equitable park access.

This long-running question now confronts Mayor Zohran Mamdani. While QueensWay’s first phase is expected to begin construction later this year, supporters of QueensLink are urging city and state officials not to foreclose the possibility of restoring rail service.

As an assemblyman representing parts of Queens, Mamdani expressed support for QueensLink in 2023. As mayor, however, he included $43 million for the QueensWay park project in his $124.7 billion annual budget. “The City remains committed to expanding green and open space across the boroughs and is actively exploring all available funding options to make that a reality,” a mayoral spokesperson told Grist.

Lynch said QueensLink supporters were “miffed” and “shocked” by that decision. A City Hall official told Grist the decision to finance the park does not preclude building the rail line as well.

Phase one of QueensWay, which would create a 5-acre linear park, is set to begin later this year. Phase Two, which would have added a 1.3 mile extension, was to be paid for with a $117 million grant from the federal Reconnecting Communities initiative, but Congress rescinded funding for that program when it passed the Big Beautiful Bill. 

Read Next Your local park is bringing in the green (and by that, we mean money) Matt Simon

Mamdani’s staff recently told QueensLink supporters that the park project’s first phase is too far along to stop, according to Lynch, and said the administration will not rezone the land as park space. That preserves the possibility of also building the subway line, a point former Mayor Eric Adams’ administration made when it said one does not preclude the other. However, Lynch thinks the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or MTA, which operates much of the region’s transit network, would balk at building a line on park land. 

Lynch said QueensLink is looking for Governor Kathy Hochul, who appoints the MTA’s board and plays a major role in drafting its budget, to support the project. Her office directed Grist to the MTA and New York City Hall for comment. 

The nonprofit Trust for Public Land has supported the park project since 2011. Tamar Renaud, its New York State director, said QueensWay will boost equity by eventually serving four of the 20 neighborhoods with the least amount of accessible park acreage. With 28 schools around the rail line, it would improve recreation for kids, while making the area more bikeable and walkable. “It was really about reconnecting communities that had been separated through these big infrastructure projects,” she said. 

QueensWay supporters see their project as more practical. A 2019 MTA report found that the QueensLink rail line would cost $8.1 billion, but the agency has since revised that to $5.9 billion and estimated it would serve 39,000 daily riders. “Reactivating the Rockaway Beach Branch with NYCT service has a high cost and serves a relatively modest number of riders,” the agency concluded. “This project would reduce auto usage and provide additional rail connections, but compared to other projects, the benefits are average for sustainability and resiliency.”

Advocates for the park project, on the other hand, put its cost at around $350 million. “I think we all recognize that after all these studies there wasn’t going to be a train,” Terry said.

Railway supporters argue the MTA’s cost estimate is high and its ridership estimate low. They hired the consulting firm Transportation Economics & Management Systems to evaluate the report; it placed the cost closer to $3.5 billion. A New York University report estimated it would serve around 75,000 daily riders; another found it would take 14,800 cars off the road each day. 

Eric Goldwyn, an expert on public transit project costs at the NYU Marron Institute, said QueensLink might not hugely boost ridership but that it would benefit operations by allowing busy trains on Queens Boulevard to run at a higher capacity. 

In Goldwyn’s view, QueensLink is the project that harmonizes rail and park. Like Lynch, he thinks the advancement of QueensWay would not be a good sign for QueensLink. “Once that first spade of dirt is turned over, the odds become… longer,” he said. “It’ll be harder and harder to envision QueensLink in the way that it’s been proposed.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What is the best use for old railroad tracks? New Yorkers have opinions. on Jun 12, 2026.

Heat warning tools have become more sophisticated, yet public attention is still focused on record temperatures rather than the social conditions that turn heat into illness or even death. Why social risk, not temperature alone, should be at the center of how we report on extreme heat.

So much talk about the importance of ‘care’ in agroecology, but what does it mean? Anouk Dijkman’s ‘Matrix of Care’ offers a clear way to see how domestic, community and more‑than‑human care practices connect, and why they matter for agroecological change.