News Feeds

From Indigenous-led governance to worker-owned cooperatives, scattered experiments may offer a blueprint for a pathway out of our global predicament.

Declaring, "I believe in America, I believe in us," an active duty Air Force major was arrested Wednesday for a non-violent act of civil disobedience after he publicly called for Trump to be impeached, removed and convicted for his scores of impeachable offenses. Citing the "foundational oath" he took to defend the country "against all enemies foreign and domestic" - most vitally a lawless president - Major Jason Watson insisted, finally, "The bill must come due."

Watson's action came after a press conference with advocacy groups including About Face Veterans, Defenders of Our Republic, Removal Coalition, its newly launched Remove the Regime, and Free Speech For People, which has gathered over a million signatures urging Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump for his hundreds of crimes. Also present was Rep. Al Green, the only member of Congress to have filed impeachment articles. Declaring this "an existential moment for our nation," Free Speech president John Bonifaz praised Major Watson for "the kind of courage our democracy demands (in) stark contrast to those who continue to look away as President Trump commits unprecedented abuses of power."

Watson introduced himself by citing his 17-year career in the military before swiftly adding, "Who I am is immaterial. In the grand scheme of things I'm a nobody. What's more important is what I have to say, and the price I'm willing to pay to say it" - which is substantial. Thanking allies "working to restore responsible governance to our country," he repeated the "foundational" oath he first swore over 20 years ago, and has since repeated "many times since," to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," which "binds us all together as Americans." We have all "played a part in getting us into this mess," he added, but undeniably "the burden of culpability" falls most heavily on the executive branch, "and the bill must come due."

Matter-of-factly, he offered a hefty list of high crimes and misdemeanors: The "unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’ authority" with military action against foreign countries, absent the requisite emergency scenario, in Venezuela, Cuba, Iran; the granting of power to an unelected person to shut down large swaths of the government; the detaining and sending of residents without due process to a foreign country; the abuse and murder of those exercising their First Amendment rights, etc etc. After each, he added, "For this, the president and vice-president must be impeached convicted, and removed." He was there not as a Democrat - "I am not a Democrat" - but to call on Americans to peacefully "join me in the defense of our republic."

Video of his speech then briefly cuts out; when it returns, he is walking slowly, deliberately, toward the Capitol steps, an area that is open to the public but where protest is prohibited. Several Capitol Police stand to the side, nervously watching. In somber, lonesome silence, he climbs the stairs; mid-way, he stops and holds up a sign that reads, "Impeach. Convict. Remove." The watching crowd cheers. After a brief huddle, a couple of officers arrest him. As he is led away, his hands cuffed behind him, his dignity intact, the crowd breaks into chants of "Shame!" and, "Who do you serve? Who do you protect?" Excellent questions. We, and many weary, grieving, enraged Americans, salute him and his good trouble.

Forty years after the world’s worst man-made disaster at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Belarus is aggressively expanding its nuclear ambitions, declaring its readiness to build a second plant. This effort is bankrolled and managed by Russia, which has already financed two reactors in Ostrovets and is now planning a third. But how did the nation that suffered most from the Chornobyl catastrophe come to embrace the “peaceful atom”, and why have anti-nuclear activists been unable to halt this trajectory?

The explosion at Chornobyl on 26 April 1986 left Belarus as the primary “target” of the radioactive plume. Due to prevailing winds in the disaster’s immediate aftermath, approximately 35 per cent of all caesium-137 fallout in Europe landed on Belarusian soil, despite the plant being located in Ukraine. 

The radiation forced the evacuation of 470 villages and towns. Some were literally buried – homes and farmstead buildings bulldozed into the earth to contain high doses of radiation. Estimates suggest that between 140,000 and 300,000 Belarusians left their homes forever; some fled voluntarily, while others were forcibly relocated by the state. 

Belarus was also forced to withdraw 2,640 square kilometres of agricultural land from use – an area larger than the territory of Luxembourg. Radiation contaminated over 20 per cent of the country’s farmland, permanently altering the economic structure of what was once a predominantly agrarian nation. A quarter of Belarusian forests absorbed dangerous radionuclides like a sponge, making the gathering of berries, mushrooms, and the use of firewood hazardous even four decades later. 

In the first decade following the disaster, Belarus faced an unprecedented surge in thyroid cancer, particularly in the Gomel and Brest regions. Cases among children skyrocketed tenfold – a direct consequence of the “iodine shock” caused by Soviet authorities concealing the disaster while people celebrated May Day outdoors. 

Nowadays, official data suggests that one in ten Belarusians – including 180,000 children – still lives in radioactive contamination zones. Their bodies are exposed daily to low doses of radiation through local food and the environment. 

Meanwhile, state propaganda has begun to “forget” Chornobyl, framing its consequences as a historical event that has been successfully overcome. Assistance programs have been curtailed, and benefits for “liquidators” (recovery workers) have been revoked. Today, Belarus is ploughing land once deemed contaminated, grazing livestock on it, and harvesting timber from radioactive forests for export. Official health statistics no longer link thyroid disease or oncology to the 1986 disaster. Belarusians are being told that radiation is no longer a threat – and may even be beneficial. Yet warnings can still be found between the lines of specialised journals, which, for instance, continue to advise fishermen on how to cook fish that may contain caesium-137. 

The Kremlin’s geopolitical leash  

Despite the collective trauma of Chornobyl, President Alexander Lukashenko decided to build Belarus’s first nuclear power plant in 2008. The regime marketed it as a cutting-edge, safe project that would grant Belarus energy independence and cheap electricity. 

Defying expectations, the site chosen for the nuclear power plant was not in the already contaminated zones, but Ostrovets, a pristine area near the border with Lithuania (an EU and NATO member). On clear days, the cooling towers of the Belarusian NPP (BelNPP) in Ostrovets are visible from Gediminas Hill in Vilnius. 

Lacking the technology and capital to complete the project independently, Lukashenko turned to Russia for a 10-billion-dollar loan. Predictably, the Russian state nuclear enterprise Rosatom became the general contractor. The construction was plagued by scandals: the first reactor vessel was dropped during installation, and the second was damaged during rail transport. Nevertheless, the plant was inaugurated in November 2020, timed to coincide with the anniversary of the October Revolution in typical Soviet fashion. 

At the ceremony, Lukashenko remarked: “A little time will pass, and we will fully realise what a feat we have accomplished with the support of our elder brothers… I’m only half-joking when I say that since we’ve learned how, we should build a second plant.” 

However, the following years were marked by technical failures and unscheduled shutdowns. Six years after its launch, experts note that the plant has failed to deliver cheaper energy; in fact, electricity prices in Belarus have risen. Furthermore, the country now faces the massive expense of building its own spent nuclear fuel storage. 

The structural mismatch in Belarus’s energy strategy became painfully clear in 2024. According to the energy ministry, fully absorbing the output of just two nuclear units would require an annual demand surge of 18.5 billion kWh. However, with domestic consumption growing by a mere 6 billion kWh over the last five years, the project has become a white elephant. To make BelNPP economically viable, the country would need to consume in a single year what the plant has cumulatively generated over the past five. 

As a result, Belarus has effectively been placed on a 10-billion-dollar geopolitical leash. “Energy is the backbone of the economy, and in this, we are dependent on Russia,” notes Irina Sukhiy, an anti-nuclear activist and expert with the Green Belarus Alliance, which brings together Belarusian NGOs, experts, local communities, and activists. “If our eastern neighbours choose, they can cut off gas or stop supplying nuclear fuel.” 

Vanishing hopes for еxport 

In February 2025, the three Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) officially decoupled from the BRELL grid (connecting Belarus, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) and began dismantling infrastructure on their borders with Belarus and with Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave. 

“We no longer have ties with Russia and Belarus; the energy system is in our hands,” declared Lithuanian Energy Minister Žygimantas Vaičiūnas. This synchronisation with continental Europe, accelerated by Russia’s war in Ukraine, dealt a serious blow to Minsk’s export ambitions. Lithuania, once the primary hub for Belarusian electricity, has not only closed its borders but also legally banned the purchase of energy from Ostrovets. 

A year before, Lithuania’s nuclear power safety regulator, VATESI, had issued a formal demand to the Belarusian Ministry of Emergency Situations, insisting that the BelNPP halt operations until all outstanding safety concerns are fully addressed. VATESI underscored that since the project’s inception, Minsk has prioritised rapid construction and commissioning over rigorous quality control – a particularly alarming strategy for a facility located a mere 40 kilometres from the Lithuanian capital. “This irresponsible approach is increasingly manifested in frequent unplanned shutdowns and power fluctuations,” the regulator noted, suggesting that such systemic instabilities were likely overlooked or ignored during the critical construction and installation phases. 

Beyond technical failures, VATESI accused the Belarusian regime of systemic opacity. The regulator claimed that Minsk consistently conceals critical data regarding BelNPP’s unstable performance, emergency scrams, and protracted maintenance periods. Rather than accepting vague official explanations, the Lithuanian authorities are now demanding full disclosure on radionuclide emission limits, the publication of all international expert mission recommendations, and transparent reports on their implementation. Such data, the regulator insists, is indispensable for the accurate modelling and forecasting of potential radioactive releases in the event of a major accident. 

Meanwhile, Minsk shows no signs of slowing its nuclear expansion. Following the 2023 commissioning of the second unit at the Ostrovets plant, the regime signalled a further push in 2025 with plans for a third reactor. According to Energy Minister Denis Moroz, this new unit is slated for operation between 2035 and 2038. This trajectory has drawn a sharp rebuke from Vilnius. Lithuanian presidential adviser Deividas Matulionis said that the third unit represents a qualitative leap in the regional threat level. He warned that, while the first two reactors were already a source of deep concern, a further expansion would pose an even more formidable security challenge. 

According to Evgeny Makarchuk, an energy security specialist at the International Strategic Action Network for Security, this stance has deprived Belarus of access to the Nord Pool power exchange market. Under different political conditions, Belarus could export up to 2.1 billion kWh per year, generating revenue of 230 million euros. Instead, the BelNPP generates a huge surplus of electricity with nowhere to sell. Ukraine is closed due to the war, and Poland maintains a strict sanctions regime. While this surplus could theoretically flow eastward, Russia itself suffers from excess capacity and has no need for Belarusian kilowatts at market prices.  

“Strategic isolation has effectively turned Belarus into an energy island,” notes Sukhiy. The Ostrovets plant was originally conceived as a profitable route to Western markets, but the collapse of the BRELL network has turned it into a structural dead end. Instead of a bridge to Europe, the plant now functions as an isolated asset, operating solely within the Kremlin’s broader energy and political manoeuvres. 

Tightening control 

Technical incidents at the Ostrovets plant have sparked concern in Europe about whether Minsk has learned the lessons of Chernobyl. The regime’s secrecy and the lack of independent monitoring only exacerbate the atmosphere of persistent mistrust between Belarus and its neighbours. 

The tension further increased at the end of 2025, when the Russian defence ministry announced the deployment of the nuclear-capable hypersonic Oreshnik missile system in Belarus. Lukashenko presented the move as a means to ensure Belarus’s security.  

According to Lithuania’s national security threat assessment, the BelNPP has now become the central element of the regional threat. By deploying the Oreshnik missile system and tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, the Kremlin has effectively blurred the lines between civilian energy production and aggressive military strategy. Lithuanian intelligence emphasises that the persistent lack of transparency regarding the plant’s operations and the proposed expansion of the facility are being used as psychological leverage against Vilnius. 

Beyond the safety concerns, officials view Russia’s state-owned giant, Rosatom, as a tool of geopolitical influence.  

Belarus has effectively been placed on a 10-billion-dollar geopolitical leash.

The (r)evolution that never happened 

Today, the BelNPP has become a monument to Belarus’s authoritarian regime. Dmitry Kuchuk, an environmental policy advisor to exiled opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, believes this is a problem the future must solve. “You can’t just flip a switch and close it immediately. We will need a serious audit of the plant’s condition and safety before deciding its fate,” he says. As the former head of the Belarusian Green Party, Kuchuk personally advocates for the plant’s closure: “The sooner the better for the budget and the country’s development”. 

However, the Belarusian government has turned a deaf ear to the warnings of experts and environmental activists. “Belarusians are categorically opposed to nuclear power, and it must be understood that the decision to build the NPP was made by Lukashenko alone. He ignored even his own Academy of Sciences, whose experts argued that the country simply did not need such a plant and that existing capacities were sufficient,” says Kuchuk. 

Belarusian authorities did initially signal a pivot towards renewable energy development. In 2010, the country passed a law on renewable energy sources (RES), which aimed to incentivise producers and provide tax breaks. However, the subsequent pivot toward nuclear energy effectively brought the development of renewables to a standstill.  

In 2018, a study titled “Energy [r]evolution”, supported by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, showed that Belarus had the potential to reach 92 per cent renewable energy by 2050. The report examined two distinct scenarios. The first was based on existing state strategies, which prioritised natural gas and the expansion of nuclear power. The second was a “revolutionary” scenario focused on the aggressive development of solar and wind energy. “Our research demonstrated that Belarus possesses enough potential to transition to 92 per cent renewable energy by 2050. And that was based on technology available back in 2018,” says Sukhiy from the Green Belarus Alliance. “Naturally, such a transition requires significant upfront investment. However, these calculations show that, in the long term, this path is more economically viable than the scenario chosen by the state.” 

It is symbolic that Belarus’s first wind turbine – a 250-kilowatt Nordex unit standing 50 meters tall – appeared in 2000 as part of a project to assist those resettled from the Chernobyl zone. It was installed near the village of Stakhoutsy, close to Lake Narach in the country’s most pristine region. By road, it stands just 60 kilometres from the BelNPP – and even closer as the crow flies. 

Path to a green future 

Belarusian civil society, now largely operating from abroad, is rethinking national and regional security through the prism of energy. “It’s impossible to build a free state if its ‘energy heart’ runs on foreign fuel, is serviced by foreign specialists, and is burdened with foreign debt,” proclaims Sukhiy. 

“By creating a vision of a green Belarus and working on a green transition, we are laying the foundation for Belarus’s independence, reducing its critical dependence on Russian energy resources, and ensuring that Belarus becomes a modern country rather than remaining stuck in the past,” she adds.  

Central and Eastern Europe’s post-communist history suggests that during any democratic transition, Moscow might attempt to crush reforms by “turning off the tap”. In 2006, after the “Orange Revolution” brought a pro-Western government to power in Ukraine, tensions between Moscow and Kyiv escalated. Russia’s Gazprom cut off gas supplies to Ukraine following a dispute over pricing and debt. Another incident occurred in 2009, when Russia stopped all gas flows through Ukraine to Europe.  

In Moldova, after pro-European forces came to power in 2020-2021, Russia sharply increased gas prices, forcing Chișinău to seek new suppliers, including those in Romania and other EU countries. This crisis was a clear instrument of political pressure. 

However, according to energy security expert Makarchuk, “this does not mean that the future is predetermined. Crises occur where there is a lack of preparedness. If we start acting now, the consequences can be mitigated, and disasters for the people and the economy can be avoided.” 

To achieve this, Belarus will have to make a series of critical strategic decisions in the very first hours of its genuine independence from the Kremlin. The diversification of the energy market and a departure from total reliance on Russian energy sources must become a prerequisite for any future democratic transition. 

“Technically, I see opportunities to completely break our dependence on Russia. We have our own oil refineries capable of processing up to 24 million tons of oil, while our domestic market requires only six million tons. We have assessed our oil import capacity: approximately 1.5 million tons can be obtained from Lithuania and about two million from Poland. All of this can be processed to produce gasoline, diesel fuel, and fuel oil. Furthermore, crude oil and petroleum products can be imported by rail,” Makarchuk notes. 

Ultimately, securing Belarus’s sovereign future depends on sustained solidarity and strategic cooperation among its neighbours. This path cannot be taken in isolation; it requires coordinated regional efforts and strong support from the broader European community to transform Belarus’s energy independence from a national dream into a pillar of European security. 

This will be difficult, given that Belarus has sided with Russia, distancing itself from and alienating its neighbours. However, experts will not insist on a green transition for Belarus.“The assertion that Belarus cannot exist without Russian oil and gas is not entirely accurate. Yes, the stakes are high: in 2023, the gap between preferential prices for Russian gas and global market prices was 4.2 billion dollars. However, with sound policy, careful preparation, and supply diversification, the crisis can be overcome. It need not be a catastrophe for the Belarusian people,” Makarchuk adds. 

As for the Ostrovets power plant, experts agree that its presence during Belarus’s transformation will help balance the country’s energy system. However, in the long term, Belarus can meet its energy needs without the plant, especially given the country’s strong potential to develop renewable energy sources. Whether the political will for such a major change exists, however, is another question.  

Last week, the nine convicted anti-ICE protestors were sentenced to a barbaric amount of time ranging from 30 to 100 years. One of them, who wasn’t even at the protest,…

More than 150 years ago, Frederick Billings returned to Vermont after making his fortune during the California Gold Rush where he had witnessed miners clearing forests, eroding hillsides...

In April 2026, Greenbelt Alliance was thrilled to endorse the Wolfe Road Housing development in Cupertino, an infill project that will create over 250 affordable homes in the city. Developed by Eden Housing, this project is specifically designated to support our educator workforce and provide affordable housing options to these essential workers.  

The Wolfe Road Housing development is aligned with Greenbelt Alliance’s climate SMART—Sustainable, Mixed, Affordable, Resilient, Transit-Oriented—development criteria in several ways. Keep reading to learn how!

Affordability, Accessibility & Engagement 

Wolfe Road Housing increases the affordability and variety of housing in Cupertino. With nearly all 251 units designated as affordable, Greenbelt Alliance is assured that this project will meet the needs of our educators and low-to-middle-income households. This vibrant new community will be adjacent to the shopping district on Stevens Creek Blvd and give residents access to a handful of bus options nearby. Additionally, the inclusion of over 200 bike parking spaces and new bike-pedestrian trails will make it easier for people to get around.

We appreciate the dedication of Eden Housing in supporting the housing needs of our region and engaging with the existing neighborhood. Born out of new connections and listening workshops, this is a project that is thoughtful in its approach and mindful of the various concerns raised by the community. 

Sustainability & Resilience 

As part of those community conversations, Wolfe Road Housing will now introduce lovely native plant landscaping and tree-lined streets that are both aesthetically pleasing and cooling on increasingly hot summer days. The buildings will have an all-electric design, heat pumps for water heating, rooftop solar, and low-flow water fixtures. Paired with EV charging and sound attenuating windows, the developers demonstrated their priority to center both environmental and community needs. We also would like to note that Wolfe Road Housing is neither in a flood risk area nor faces wildfire risk thereby ensuring the project’s resilience in the long-term. 

A metrics comparison based on GreenTRIP—a tool created by Transform that models traffic and greenhouse gas impacts of residential projects in California—underscores the project’s environmental benefits:

• 3,869 fewer miles driven every day compared to the Santa Clara County average.
• 48% fewer GHG impacts every day compared to the Santa Clara County average.
• 20% less parking use every day compared to the Santa Clara County average.

We believe that Wolfe Road Housing is a significant new project in Cupertino that will make the city more accessible and affordable to more people. Greenbelt Alliance hopes the project will inspire cities in Santa Clara County and around the Bay Area to be audacious and redouble their efforts to grow in more sustainable ways.  

Greenbelt Alliance’s Climate SMART—Sustainable, Mixed, Affordable, Resilient, Transit-Oriented— Development Endorsement Program goals call for fully protecting the Bay Area’s greenbelt, directing growth within existing communities, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and accomplishing both in a way that equitably benefits all Bay Area residents. Our Endorsement Program supports projects that advance the right kind of development in the right places. By promoting climate SMART development, we can create thriving, resilient neighborhoods with ready access to transit and housing choices for all of the Bay Area’s people. Find out more about our Endorsement Program here. Feel free to contact our team for more information. 

The post Greenbelt Alliance Endorsed: Wolfe Road Housing in Cupertino appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

In April 2026, Greenbelt Alliance was thrilled to endorse the 2 Park Rd development in Burlingame, an infill housing project that will create 144 homes near the downtown area of the city. Being well-situated in a highly urbanized area, the proposed development is within walking distance from a major shopping district and the city’s Caltrain station. 

The 2 Park Rd development is aligned with Greenbelt Alliance’s climate SMART—Sustainable, Mixed, Affordable, Resilient, Transit-Oriented—development criteria in several ways. Keep reading to learn how!

Mixed-Use & Transit Oriented

This exciting new project brings 144 new homes to Burlingame and provides new residents with easy access to shops and amenities in the downtown area. 2 Park Rd is also built with public transit in mind as it’s just a 10 minute walk to SamTrans lines 397, ECR, and 292. Plus: residents would be able to take the Caltrain to go to the major job centers of San Francisco or San Jose. While the affordability component is limited, we still appreciate the developers for including 10 affordable units to serve the needs of moderate to low income families. 

Sustainability & Resilience 

Additionally, 2 Park Rd has a multitude of sustainability highlights including full electrification, smart meters, native and water-efficient landscaping, and solar readiness for future panel installations. The project goes above and beyond with its utilization of cool roofs for high solar reflectance and various energy and water monitoring systems to ensure efficient usage. 2 Park Rd is also resilient to both wildfires and flooding due to its central location in the city. 

A metrics comparison based on GreenTRIP—a tool created by Transform that models traffic and greenhouse gas impacts of residential projects in California—underscores the project’s environmental benefits:

• 808 fewer miles driven every day compared to the San Mateo County average.
• 18% fewer GHG impacts every day compared to the San Mateo County average.
• 9% less parking use every day compared to the San Mateo County average.

We believe that 2 Park Rd is a great new project that will bring more homes to Burlingame’s downtown area. Greenbelt Alliance hopes the project will inspire cities in San Mateo County and around the Bay Area to build in our existing communities and grow in more sustainable ways. 

Greenbelt Alliance’s Climate SMART—Sustainable, Mixed, Affordable, Resilient, Transit-Oriented— Development Endorsement Program goals call for fully protecting the Bay Area’s greenbelt, directing growth within existing communities, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and accomplishing both in a way that equitably benefits all Bay Area residents. Our Endorsement Program supports projects that advance the right kind of development in the right places. By promoting climate SMART development, we can create thriving, resilient neighborhoods with ready access to transit and housing choices for all of the Bay Area’s people. Find out more about our Endorsement Program here. Feel free to contact our team for more information and support.

The post Greenbelt Alliance Endorsed: 2 Park Rd in Burlingame appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

When Vegan (his combat nickname) first tells me about himself, it is 2024, and summer can still be felt in Ukraine. He has found time to talk because, as part of a rotation, he has temporarily been pulled back from the front. He is the spokesperson for Ekoplatforma, a Ukrainian eco-anarchist organization bringing together soldiers and activists. He runs its Instagram account. Vegan is very young. Perhaps too young. He is 19. “I volunteered in 2022. In 2023 I signed a contract. The beginning of my service was not entirely legal,” he says with a smile.

Ekoplatforma is one of many small left-wing initiatives operating in Ukraine under the broad umbrella of the anti-authoritarian movement. These groups, often made up of only a few people, stand out for their clearly defined views; they prefer cooperation within networks of small, ideologically precise entities that do not compromise, rather than forming one larger, more politically moderate bloc. Among them are radical vegans, squatters, LGBTQ+ organizations and tenants’ movements.

From the outside, many of these circles may seem radical, even exotic. Ekoplatforma stands out in particular for its unusual style of communication: a combination of military aesthetics, animated characters drawn from Japanese anime and drawings of animals. The group makes no secret of its sympathy for Ted Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, quotes Mao Zedong, and some of its actions could be described as eco-terrorism. They use a green-and-black flag cut diagonally, referring to the traditions of anarcho-primitivist movements.

Although they report events from the front, they just as often address issues related to animal rights, share information about left-wing cultural initiatives or even youth basketball tournaments in Odesa. This vivid, at times ironic way of running social media clearly contrasts with the typical heroic-patriotic narrative of right-wing military groups.

“A perfectly prepared ambush”

Soldiers connected with Ekoplatforma publish body-camera recordings from the battlefield online, adding provocative comments such as:

Our perfectly prepared ambush turned into a real nightmare for Russian infantry. After approaching the enemy, we opened fire at close range, immediately eliminating the attackers. In this way we managed to reduce the number of non-vegans on the planet >smiling emoji<.

The recordings show the bodies of killed Russian soldiers.

At the same time, these same soldiers became known for actions rescuing animals left behind in areas under evacuation. Often, with their commanders’ consent, they encouraged other members of their units to take part in such operations. In the rush that accompanied the evacuation of towns threatened by fighting, many people left pets and farm animals in homes, farmsteads, and farms. For many of them, this meant a slow death from hunger and thirst. Depending on the situation, the animals rescued by the soldiers were taken deeper into the country to organizations involved in animal protection, or at least released into forests, which gave them even a small chance of survival.

Vegan—like his comrades from Ekoplatforma and other green activists scattered across many units throughout Ukraine—also encourage other soldiers to adopt his model of eating. Ekoplatforma’s posts and materials contain detailed instructions on how to maintain a vegan diet even during direct combat operations. Some of the food is self-purchased or taken from captured Russian rations, which “often contain one-third vegan products,” says Vegan. “Usually, however, there is plenty of vegan food in the trenches: fresh vegetables, canned food, Huel.’

More than a squad

Although Vegan gives me the exact number of people who are members of Ekoplatforma, he asks me not to state it publicly. “You can write that there are a few more of us than a close circle of friends, but fewer than a large organization. There are more of us than a small squad, but fewer than a platoon.”

Before the war we were active in several cities, mainly in Odesa. We dealt with street protests, performances and art. We organized exhibitions, published zines and, as far as possible, carried out social work: We helped homeless people and animals, and distributed free vegan food. A few of us had experience of the war in Donbas, but most were civilian activists. When the war (meaning the escalation in 2022) broke out, half of us joined the army and the other half volunteered for other tasks.

Vegan smiles sadly: “Now it doesn’t matter. All the men from Ekoplatforma are already in the army, scattered among different units.”

Now we work with solidarity and anti-authoritarian groups, both on the front and in social activity. We work with the Resistance Committee (also called the anti-authoritarian platoon—a volunteer unit made up of anarchists, active since the beginning of the 2022 war), SAD (Street Aid Daily, an aid group operating in Odesa), the Akhmat collective… it is hard to list them all. The scale of mutual aid is enormous. We support one another through front-line experience, training, organizing fundraisers and exchanging knowledge, but we also continue the work we did before: Our civilian members or people on rotation get involved in publishing zines, doing graffiti and murals, helping squats, or organizing free shops where we distribute aid to people in need.

Vegan Two, or Alfarius

Vegan does not want to give his real name. His friend, another member of Ekoplatforma, who finds time to talk in the first months of 2025, also hesitates for a long moment. Many of you know his face—he was depicted in one of the works by David Chychan, the Ukrainian anarchist artist and soldier killed in August 2025. His combat nickname is also Vegan. “Our name is Legion,” the second Vegan laughs. “If you are the only vegan in the company and you also speak up about animal rights, it somehow sticks. Several of us got that nickname from our comrades. But you can call me Alfarius or Omegon; that is the nickname I use online,” he says, referring to a pop-cultural motif from Warhammer 40k.

A large part of Ekoplatforma’s communication is based on pop culture: games, anime, memes. All the members I have met are very young and very ideological, while at the same time keeping a strong distance from the “seriousness” of the uniform. This prevents them from becoming pompous. They paint their grenades and magazines in colorful patterns. Their Instagram accounts have thousands of followers. In the photographs, frames from the war and destroyed Russian equipment are interwoven with shots in which they wear animal costumes. In one photo, Alfarius poses with a rifle against a white wall, looking straight into the lens; in another, he attends a protest wearing a giraffe-head hat; in yet another he is with his unit during heavy fighting for Kherson. His saved stories contain motifs from Warhammer and his favorite series. Contrary to what someone might think of them, they are not paper soldiers. They have fought on the hardest fronts of this war: in Donbas, Kursk Oblast, and Kherson. Many of them have been wounded, often more than once.

In 2025 Alfarius is 23; he has served since 2022 and also volunteered. He has been a member of Ekoplatforma—and a vegan—for more than seven years. His real name is Gerard, or Gera for short.

I cannot tell you everything I do on and off the front, but in simple terms I am a contract soldier and an eco-activist. I always wanted to be in the middle of the action and feel that I had an impact on reality—whether that meant distributing food to homeless people, vegan and ecological protests and initiatives, or fighting the invader.

Anarchist education

Alfarius sounds like a participant in an academic seminar or a warrior-poet when he writes to me from his positions in Kursk Oblast:

My main everyday interest is spreading vegan and anti-authoritarian values, ideas and practices in every environment, both civilian and military. I would also like to look at the existing problems in these structures, analyzing them through the prism of an anti-civilizational and anti-technological approach.

In our conversations Alfarius emphasizes that he believes in, and promotes, a vision of the army based on horizontal, personal relations between soldiers rather than an authoritarian vision of a hierarchical military. A war of materiel, based on technology that kills people en masse, seems equally inhuman to him.

In fact, life in the army can strengthen you in being an anarchist. Many people who previously had no developed political views began, under our influence, to lean toward our ideas. In the army you see the negative aspects of strict hierarchy. You see officers who do not care about soldiers. In the units where we are, we often manage—or at least try—to build better relationships, in which soldiers and officers talk to one another about decisions and risks. Usually, in the Ukrainian army there is, despite everything, more freedom than in the old and academic structures of European or NATO armies. But this freedom and flexibility of structures also has its bad side: Many processes often do not work as they should, information is not properly processed, standards are not maintained.

Vegan grows serious. “After all, an anti-authoritarian model of the army is not about chaos and lack of organization. Our goal is to limit oppression or internal violence, which are so common in traditional, hierarchical military structures.”

Asked whether they had ever served together as one unit and how such a unit coped on the battlefield, he replies:

No, in fact we never fought as one unit. One of our comrades served in the anti-authoritarian platoon at the very beginning of the war, before its reorganization. I and another comrade from Ekoplatforma were assigned for a while to a regular unit where anarchists from other collectives also served. We stuck together. At the turn of 2023 and 2024 I was transferred to another unit, but my last combat mission was carried out together with that guy from Ekoplatforma.’

Vegan’s tone changes for the first time during the conversation. For most of the talk he had smiled and joked; we were somewhere between exchanging anecdotes and an academic left-wing discussion. Now, for the first time, clear sadness can be heard in his voice.

“Contrary to appearances, it is not nice to be at war with friends. At first it is good, because you support each other, but later it is hard to deal with the grief when they die. It overwhelms you and pulls you away from your tasks,” and when he speaks of tasks, it seems he means both his mission as a Ukrainian soldier and as a green anarchist shaping the attitudes of other soldiers. “That is why it makes no sense to have an anarchist battalion. It is much better to have anarchists in many battalions.”

I know that for Vegan and his comrades from Ekoplatforma, work on the vision of the society that will emerge after the war is as important as the fight against the Russians. Ekoplatforma’s social media and those of related anti-authoritarian groups show what matters to them: an egalitarian society without leaders and strict hierarchy, workers’ rights, the right to housing, the struggle for animal rights (even in the middle of war), veganism, and the restoration of nature destroyed by war and industry. Publishing zines, distributing free food to homeless people, or organizing the “first anti-authoritarian basketball tournament in Odesa.”

Asked whether he believes anarchism or opposition to authoritarianism fits the Ukrainian national character in some special way (in the context of the history of Nestor Makhno and the Black factions—Ukrainian anarcho-communists during the Russian Civil War—or the strong tradition of Slavic anarchist movements), Alfarius answers:

You know, people talk a lot about Ukrainians “longing for freedom,” but in practice I do not feel that we perceive radical ideas such as anti-authoritarianism, veganism or anarchism differently or more deeply than other Europeans. The anarchist or anti-authoritarian movement has always been active in Ukraine, but it has always consisted of a small group of devoted people.

“I would very much like to give you a different answer, but after getting to know similar groups in other countries, it is hard for me to point to any significant difference,” Vegan says, spreading his hands.

War in the streets

Far-right and left-wing groups in Ukraine were very popular before the war. Perhaps their appeal resulted from the disappointment mainstream politics had delivered to most Ukrainians; the extensive social activity carried out by such entities was also significant. In a country with a very low level of access to free social services, both right-wing initiatives—such as the Azov-linked Kozatska Khata, a former squat turned cultural center in Kyiv, which offers, among other things, free language lessons, sports classes and tutoring—and the artistic and social activity of left-wing groups fill an important gap. If you are a young person with the will to learn or act, but without resources, such initiatives provide you with a space to do so. If life has knocked you down, they will feed you and give you a place to sleep for a while.

Alfarius says:

In my youth, from my teenage years onward, I spent a lot of time in street confrontations with the far right. There was a lot of violence in that. Honestly, I will say that it ended in different ways. Apart from taking part in vegan circles and Ekoplatforma, I was also a member of other anarchist groups. We sometimes blocked right-wing raids on squats. Besides fights with nationalists, we also blocked evictions and supported workers’ protests against exploiters. Very often we fought greedy developers who wanted to evict people or destroy green areas. We also distributed food; for years we helped homeless people.

The struggle for hearts and minds led to tensions and street clashes between nationalist and right-wing circles and leftists even before the war. Beatings and acts of vandalism were an everyday reality before 2022. After the outbreak of the war, however, tensions eased.

“There is no point comparing the level of street confrontation before the war and now. Of course, there will always be young Nazis looking for trouble, but that is irrelevant. They have no idea how much harm they can do themselves by acting this way, and we try not to be provoked more than necessary,” says Vegan.

The problem, after all, is the external enemy: Both sides realize that it is mainly provocateurs and Russia’s allies who benefit from their internal fights.

From time to time, however, open clashes between Ukrainian left-wing and right-wing organizations occur again. In May 2024 in Odesa, a group of Ukrainian nationalists attacked the launch of a left-wing magazine organized by a number of anti-authoritarian organizations. The attackers took several copies of the magazine and burned them; they also clashed with the organizers of the event. There were scuffles and pepper spray was used, as a result of which, among others, two soldiers from Ekoplatforma who were attending the event during rehabilitation after being wounded at the front were injured. The organization points out that since the beginning of 2024 the number of similar attacks has increased — and more and more attacks from the right are aimed at feminist, LGBTQ and ecological initiatives. Ekoplatforma commented on the attack on its official Instagram account:

Right now we are all fighting an existential threat from Russia, which wants to bring torture, oppression, homophobia, and authoritarian rule here, while Ukrainian right-wing youth decide that the best response is to beat their own people in the name of  >traditional values<. They do not see that their actions serve the same thing Russia wants here: racism, authoritarian values and homophobia.

I am going back to work

At the beginning of 2025 Vegan ends up in a hospital in Sumy Oblast—he has a shrapnel fragment in his leg.

“Nothing serious,” he says. “I will rest for a while and go back to work.”

The stories and recordings he passes on to me make a huge impression. They describe fighting in Donbas, in Kursk Oblast and on other sections of the front. One story in particular stays with me: a tragic mistake experienced by one of his comrades. A lone Ukrainian soldier, belonging to the Ekoplatforma collective, was withdrawing from a position during shelling in one of the Donbas villages. In the night and chaos he pulled along—as he thought—his companion. They ran several hundred meters together before stopping and realizing that they were on opposite sides. Both grabbed their weapons; the eco-anarchist fired first.

Alfarius does not say it outright, but he implies that he served in assault units. He did not take part in the animal-rescue actions in combat areas that Ekoplatforma boasted about on social media. He describes the landscape of the places where he has fought in recent months:

In most of the places where I served, living animals were practically never seen. Sometimes there may have been cats. I remember one that the guys from another unit had taken in. I offered to help evacuate it out of the combat zone, but they refused; they preferred it to stay close to them. Usually, where we were sent, the destruction was so great that any life ceased to exist. Everything died or fled. Only the organisms most adapted to survival remained: mice, rats. And us.

Something else is striking here: although these are representatives of one of the most left-wing circles in Ukraine, certain patterns remain unchanged. Like ordinary soldiers or guys from more right-wing units, some members of Ekoplatforma also use words such as “pidar” and “fag” for Russian soldiers. I know, however, that this has nothing to do with homophobia. “That is just how people speak. It has nothing to do with orientation; it is simply an insult,” they explain to me.

What strikes me most in conversations with them, however, is how strongly the army shapes language. People who, in everyday life, write with enormous empathy about the rights of animals, women or minorities, who can become furious about injustices that an average observer would shrug off, completely change their tone when speaking about war. Vegan, Alfarius and their comrades create beautiful, poetic posts and photographs showing devastated areas abandoned by humans and slowly reclaimed by nature. These images bring to mind the famous passage from Palahniuk’s Fight Club about deer wandering through a ruined Rockefeller Center years after the collapse of civilization.

Yet when they talk about the fighting itself, their language becomes technical. “Zachystyt”—to clear—is the word they use to describe killing Russians. They also use it when referring to the deaths of their comrades: “The occupier attempted to clear our position.” “Going around the APC, I entered the enemy trenches from the side they did not expect and cleared the right side.” Waging war is “work” for them: Vegan, Alfarius and the rest of Ekoplatforma “go to work,” just as artillery, air defense, and other units work.

I ask them about their vision of the future. How do they see their own future—and the future of their values—after the war ends?

“I don’t believe in a quick peace, and I don’t think about it,” Vegan tells me.

I don’t think about what will happen after the war. I’m afraid that even if it ends, it will in fact continue in another form—frozen for a while—and Russia will attack again. That’s why I don’t want to think about what comes afterward.

Gera, Alfarius, however, has a more concrete vision:

After the war, I will actively engage in vegan and anarchist activism. I would like to promote primitivism, a return to roots and a simple life. To live with friends in a community we create together, and to help others establish similar temporary autonomous zones where the ideals of ecological living, anarchism, and cooperativism can be put into practice.

Several months after finishing work on the first version of the text, while scrolling through Instagram, I come across a new post by Ekoplatforma. “You cannot save nature without saving Ukraine and rebuilding a healthy society,” one of the guys writes on Ekoplatforma’s profile, as if answering all the questions.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: U.S. Army 81SBCT by Staff Sgt. David Carnahan; modified by Tempest.

The post From squats to trenches appeared first on Tempest.

For those who have worked alongside Shorebird Conservation Manager River Gates, it's difficult to imagine Audubon without her unwavering commitment to conserving shorebirds. Since joining Audubon in...

It was a warm, still evening in June when the crew gathered just after sunset at Audubon's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary for the first Frog Watch survey of 2026.  Led by Sally Stein, Audubon's Director...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 30th, 2026 

CONTACT: 

Katie Valentine, kvalentine@cacampaign.org, (770) 861-0397

Mia McPherson, mia@envirn.org, (734) 489-4357 

 

Young people and people of color pay the price when cleanup is delayed

Detroit is not expendable: Federal Coal Ash Rollbacks Threaten Cleanup of Toxic Waste

Please see a recording of the press conference here.

Detroit, Michigan —On Tuesday, June 30, 2026, community leaders, public health experts, and environmental justice advocates discussed the EPA’s delays in the cleanup of coal ash in the Detroit/Wayne County area.  The press conference highlighted what is at stake for local communities and the harm caused across the country. 

Michigan Senator Stephanie Chang said: “Coal ash is a dangerous substance, a mix of pollutants, metals, carcinogens, including arsenic, boron, cobalt, chromium, lead, lithium, radium, and other heavy metals. And so what does that combination of pollutants mean? It means that people exposed to coal ash, either through their well water or air pollution or contact with contaminated soil, can get cancer, heart disease or other serious conditions. 
The Trump administration is trying to roll back EPA coal ash rules, and that is dangerous for public health and dangerous for our communities. Old unlined coal-ash sites are leaking hazardous materials into our groundwater and into our lakes and rivers. Here in the Great Lakes state and especially here in Detroit, where we are connected to our beloved Detroit River, we know that we cannot afford to go back.

Nick Leonard, Executive Director, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, said: “Detroiters are struggling with high levels of air pollution. High levels of ozone pollution, high levels of fine particulate matter pollution, leading it to being named the asthma capital of the United States. 
And the Detroit River is still recovering from decades of overpollution, notably from the coal industry, that discharged dangerous chemicals into our water for decades without regulation. And now the coal industry is coming to the Trump EPA and saying we can’t afford to clean up our own mess. But Detroiters shouldn’t bear the burden of the coal industry refusing to take accountability for its pollution.”

Dr. Michael Simon, Retired Oncologist, Michigan Clinicians for Climate Action, said: 

“As a physician, I am particularly concerned about the health impact of the proposed federal coal Ash rollback. I spent 35 years of my career in Detroit, treating and managing patients with cancer and other illnesses, many of which were either caused by or worsened by toxins associated with coal ash. 
It is a well-known fact that coal ash contains a litany of toxic chemicals and heavy metals, linked to various cancers, heart disease, thyroid disease, respiratory illness, neurological damage, and other serious health problems. Coal plants in the U.S. produce roughly 70 million tons of coal ash every year that end up in unlined ponds, landfills, and mines. Michigan has at least 18 coal ash ponds. 
And according to an analysis from Earthjustice, across the country, groundwater is polluted above federal standards at 91% of the plants. You don’t have to look too far to see the Belle  River coal power plant sitting right outside Detroit. It is well documented that people living near coal power plants face higher rates of hospitalization, chronic lung disease, and premature deaths. 
Yes, that is death. Pregnant women are more likely to experience adverse birth outcomes, such as low birth weight. And research suggests that exposure to coal ash can harm our children’s cognitive development. 
That is our children, our grandchildren, everyone’s children.”

Ken Whittaker, Executive Director, Michigan United, said:

“The Trump EPA wants to erase the coal ash protections communities organized for in 2015 and 2024. Those rules are what forced power companies to monitor groundwater and clean up toxic ash that they left behind. Now this administration wants to undo those protections, not because the science changed, but because corporations ask them to. 

“
But they don’t want to tell you about Belle River. Belle River is DTE’s coal plant in China Township, which is converting from coal to gas. And they want you to believe that that solves the problem, but it doesn’t. 
Because the coal ash remains on the site. In 2023, the EPA reviewed how DTE was storing coal ash and unlined ponds at Bell River and the Monroe plant on Lake Erie. At both sites, they found DTE’s groundwater protection to be inadequate. 
This rollback makes it harder for the EPA to hold companies like DTE Energy and consumers’ energy accountable when they fail to protect our water.”

These delays will only lead to more health problems for people of color and young people going forward in Detroit and across Michigan. We need the federal government to step up, not back down to these polluters.

###

About Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments:

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments (ANHE) supports nurses in promoting planetary health and equity globally by educating and leading the nursing profession, advancing research, incorporating planet-safe practices, and influencing policy.

The post Press Release! Young people and people of color pay the price when cleanup is delayed appeared first on ANHE.

The New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission voted Wednesday to reform outdated oil and gas bonding and cleanup rules, adopting some of the strongest safeguards in the country to prevent orphan wells and ensure oil and gas corporations pay to clean up the wells they drill and operate.

“This decision comes down to the simple idea most New Mexicans agree on: If you drill it, you clean it,” said Tannis Fox, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “After a thorough, evidence-based process, the Commission acted to protect our water, our communities, and our state budget – ensuring the public isn’t left paying for industry’s messes.”

The Commission’s decision followed months of hearings, expert testimony, legal briefing, and negotiations among parties. In its deliberations, the Commission largely affirmed the legal and evidentiary basis for modernizing New Mexico’s bonding system and adopted most of the reforms included in the parties’ negotiated agreement, including reaffirming that HB80 complements, but does not replace, a modernized bonding system.

Why It Matters

New Mexico faces between $700 million and $1.6 billion in current and near-future oil and gas well cleanup liabilities, according to state data, with nearly 700 wells already abandoned and more than 4,400 likely to be abandoned in the near term.

When wells are not properly plugged, they can leak methane and toxic chemicals into the air and groundwater, threatening the climate, public health, drinking water, agriculture, and nearby communities.

State data show the average cost to plug a well is approximately $163,000, yet outdated rules have allowed operators to post bonds for far less – leaving taxpayers exposed when corporations walk away or go bankrupt.

What the Rules Do

The updated rules:

• Update bonding requirements to $150,000 per well for oil and gas wells at highest risk of abandonment – including low-producing and inactive wells – more closely aligning with the Oil Conservation Division’s actual plugging costs.
• Require operators with high-risk portfolios – more than 20% inactive wells – to post single-well bonding of $150,000 for all their wells, reducing the risk that large portfolios of aging wells are left without adequate cleanup funds.
• Strengthen well transfer rules to prevent poorly funded or noncompliant operators from acquiring aging wells – a common pathway to well abandonment.
• Require the most marginal wells (producing fewer than 90 barrels of oil equivalent in 12 months) to demonstrate they still serve a useful purpose or properly plug them.
• Tighten rules for inactive wells by requiring operators to show wells will return to production in the future, preventing non-producing wells from lingering indefinitely without cleanup.

Frontline and Community Voices

“After more than a century of living with oil and gas operations and seeing the remnants of aging infrastructure across Diné communities in the San Juan Basin, our communities know what happens when corporations fail to clean up after themselves,” said Robyn Jackson, executive director of Diné C.A.R.E. “These stronger rules are an important step toward ensuring oil and gas corporations are responsible for protecting our water, air, lands, and communities.”

“New Mexicans have been clear: corporations should clean up the wells they drill,” said Ahtza Chavez, chief executive officer at Naeva. “These rules move us closer to that standard by protecting our communities, our water, and making sure the public isn’t left paying for industry’s mess.”

“In Carlsbad, we’ve seen firsthand what happens when corporations don’t have the financial backing in place to fix problems they create,” said Haley Jones of Citizens Caring for the Future. “These rules are a practical step to make sure corporations clean up their wells so communities like ours aren’t left with the costs or the uncertainty.”

Broad Public Support

The decision reflects strong, statewide support:

• 89% of New Mexicans support requiring corporations to pay to clean up wells they drill
• 91% say industry should be financially responsible for cleanup
• 90% say protecting drinking water and public health is essential

Support spans political parties and regions across the state.

A Strong National Standard

With today’s vote, New Mexico establishes one of the strongest oil and gas regulatory systems in the nation to prevent orphan wells and ensure timely closure of inactive wells in the country, demonstrating that New Mexico is committed to protecting public health, safeguarding taxpayers, and requiring corporate responsibility.

Looking Ahead

The updated rules mark a major step toward preventing future abandoned wells and protecting New Mexico communities, land, air, and water. By requiring corporations to plan for cleanup upfront, the state reduces long-term environmental and financial risks. At its core, the decision reflects a simple principle: The people who drill and operate wells should be the ones who clean up.

In the coming weeks, the Oil Conservation Commission will issue a written Final Order and publish the rule in the New Mexico Register. Typically, rules become effective 30 days after publication in the Register.

Coalition Support

“Conservation Voters New Mexico Education Fund congratulates the frontline and fenceline communities who have been pushing for better bonding and other oil and gas industry rules for decades,” said Doug Meiklejohn, water quality & land restoration advocate at CVNM Education Fund. “Hard-working New Mexicans and their families and communities are resilient–they deserve clean air, land, water, and good health. These new financial assurance rules are a significant victory that will help ensure oil and gas companies benefitting from our state’s resources will pay to clean up their mess.”

“Low-producing wells can actually be very high-polluting,” said Mandy Sackett, New Mexico lead campaigner for Earthworks. “I’ve documented emissions near schools, improperly functioning flares, and continuous leaks with zero accountability for harms to communities from Counselor to Carlsbad. The new rules make corporations that drill in New Mexico put real money toward cleanup, and that matters for every community I’ve worked in.”

“Orphaned oil and gas wells threaten public health and safety, the water we drink, and the climate,” said Adam Peltz, senior director and lead counsel for energy transition at Environmental Defense Fund. “Far too often, New Mexicans have been left to foot the bill for cleaning up after oil and gas companies, and the state faces billions of dollars in decommissioning risks from low- and non-producing wells. Today, New Mexico finalized reforms to right-size historically insufficient financial assurance, inactive well management and well transfer regulations in order to ensure all wells are plugged in a timely manner at the end of their useful life by their operators. We commend the state for its strong leadership on this critical issue.”

“All religious traditions believe caring for Earth is an ethical and moral responsibility. The oil and gas industry has a responsibility to Earth, our communities, health, and future generations. These state bonding rules are a small way to be responsible and address pollution and harm in favor of the sacredness of Life,” said Sister Joan Brown, community advocate at New Mexico and El Paso Interfaith Power and Light.

“New Mexico families deserve clean air and the assurance that corporations, not hardworking families, are responsible for cleaning up the wells they drill,” said Celerah Hewes on behalf of Moms Clean Air Force. “These stronger protections help safeguard children’s health, reduce harmful methane pollution, and ensure communities across our state are not left with the long-term costs and consequences of abandoned oil and gas wells.”

“When oil and gas companies walk away from cleanup obligations, the costs fall to taxpayers, putting stress on local governments and diverting public revenue away from schools, infrastructure, and essential services,” said Jessica Pace, program director at Western Leaders Network. “By modernizing the state’s bonding program, the Commission establishes New Mexico as a national leader, holds industry accountable for its own mess, and stands up for the natural resources that local elected officials and their communities rely on.”

“New Mexico is finally starting to align oil and gas bonding with the real-world costs and risks communities are already facing across the state,” said Rebecca Sobel, climate and health program director at WildEarth Guardians. “In 2025 alone, industry spilled over 38,000 times, releasing over 9.4 million gallons of toxic liquids across New Mexico. Stronger bonding matters because spills are active, recurring risks tied to aging infrastructure, repeat bad actors, and fracking waste contamination. Today’s vote moves New Mexico closer to a system where corporations, not the public, are responsible for the damage they create.”

Contacts:
Tannis Fox, Western Environmental Law Center, 505-629-0732, fox@westernlaw.org

Robyn Jackson, Diné C.A.R.E., 505-862-4433, robyn.jackson@dine-care.org

Andrew Forkes-Gudmundson, Earthworks, 507-421-9021, andrewfg@earthworks.org

Bill Rodgers, Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter, 330-881-9918, bill.rodgers@sierraclub.org

The post New Mexico modernizes oil, gas industry bonding, cleanup rules, now among nation’s strongest appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

Farmers need a real Farm Bill — not short-term relief used as a bargaining chip for unrelated war funding. As farm families face rising input costs, inflation, disrupted programs, and delayed action from Congress, small- and mid-scale independent farmers need policy that addresses the roots of the crisis. A strong Farm Bill should strengthen farm credit, restaff local USDA offices, rebuild regional food infrastructure, protect SNAP, and curb corporate price gouging.

The post The Senate Should Not Use Farmers as a Deal “Sweetener” appeared first on RAFI.

They tower overhead and sway in the wind and often teem with squawking birds, yet trees are easy to ignore. Urbanites rush by them without noticing, and without appreciating all the work they do: Trees reduce temperatures, mitigate flooding, and provide habitat for animals. 

City leaders are no exception to this oversight. As mayors around the world pledge to reduce municipal greenhouse gas emissions, they’re missing the literal low-hanging fruit of bolstering urban forests, dozens of scientists argue in a new essay. “We have to elevate it from something that is nice to have to something that we require — like, mandatory,” said Manuel Esperon-Rodriguez, an ecologist at Bangor University in the United Kingdom and lead author of the piece, which published today in the journal PLOS Climate. “In the same way that we treat education, security, transportation, it has to be elevated to that level.”

What makes urban forestry so important? For one, trees significantly cool the concrete jungle by providing shade and releasing water vapor to “sweat.” Patches of greenery also allow stormwater to soak into the ground instead of pooling and flooding — that investment alone will spare cities from economic damages as a warming atmosphere makes rain fall harder. Spending time in parks also boosts mental health, while urban farms produce nutritious food and create jobs. Planting trees, especially native species, also provides shelter and food for fauna. At the same time, vegetation absorbs pollutants, improving air quality for everyone.

These scientists have laid out a four-point approach to funding, raising, and maintaining urban forests. This, by the way, includes individual trees on sidewalks, parks, and woodlands in cities. But it’s really about all the vegetation — not just trees but shrubs as well — within the city limits, whether that’s in someone’s backyard or growing in a street median.

The first hurdle is investing in this stuff. Urban forestry isn’t just about buying a bunch of trees and hiring people to put them in the ground. It takes resources to maintain them, especially when they’re newly planted and not yet established, and therefore more vulnerable to stresses like pests. Money can (and does) come from private funders, but that cash isn’t always a guarantee. So city governments should be setting aside money for these green spaces, the researchers argue. “We say that it has to be critical infrastructure, because then we need a special budget dedicated just to them,” Esperon-Rodriguez said. 

Read Next The delight — and power — of your neighborhood’s unplanned green spaces Matt Simon

Even for cash-strapped governments, this is an investment proven to bring dividends: A recent report found that for every dollar put into parks and recreation, cities reap $3 in local economic benefits every year. That’s because green spaces encourage people to exercise, supporting public health and reducing the costs associated with sedentary lifestyles. By attracting locals and tourists, parks also spur economic activity as folks filter into surrounding neighborhoods to shop or have lunch. So while yes, it does take money to plant and maintain this greenery, it’s in a city’s best interests to do so.

Mayors must ensure that these domains blossom in an equitable way, the scientists add. Richer areas tend to be much greener, and therefore cooler, than underserved neighborhoods. People who can’t afford air conditioning are at higher risk of the urban heat island effect, or the tendency for the built environment to absorb the sun’s energy all day and release it throughout the night. “Then what’s the cost?” Esperon-Rodriguez asked. “They are missing opportunities, they are missing recreational activities. And if they don’t have air conditioning, then on top of that there is the issue of health.”

Officials can’t just roll into a neighborhood and plant trees, though — the essay argues that cities have to collaborate with their communities on strategies for doing so. Some folks might want more fruit trees, for instance, while others might object to cherries splatting on the sidewalk. Some might worry about their allergies, and request trees that don’t spew so much pollen. 

Esperon-Rodriguez adds that expanding the canopy across a metropolis, and doing so equitably, needs to be enshrined in some way. That is, it can’t just be a mayoral candidate’s promise to increase tree cover by 30 percent, but something that’s legislated. This is not only more durable over the years, and hopefully decades, but helps citizens hold elected officials accountable if they’re not meeting targets, Esperon-Rodriguez said.

Overall, these campaigns need to be evidence-based, the essay argues. Cities, for example, have to identify not just the tree species that communities prefer, but ones that will actually survive ever-climbing temperatures. It’s not just thinking about increasing the canopy in the near term to meet some goal, but making sure cities are more verdant and safer in the long run. “It’s a way to secure,” Esperon-Rodriguez said, “that whatever we’re planting today is going to survive the next 10, 20, or 50 years.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Urban trees aren’t just nice, scientists say — they’re mandatory on Jul 1, 2026.

The Environmental Protection Agency has approved the highly persistent pesticide trifludimoxazin for use on wheat, oats, oranges, apples and almonds. The pesticide is a “forever chemical” — often called PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

“This is the PFAS presidency brought to you by Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Waiting to open the floodgates on new pesticide approvals until after the Supreme Court granted immunity to pesticide companies takes a special kind of callousness.”

The approval late Tuesday marked the third new forever chemical pesticide approved in a single day by the Trump administration. Diflufenican and epyrifenacil were also approved Tuesday.

Often the EPA will accompany new pesticide approvals with a press release to alert the public, however the agency has done nothing to announce these approvals other than quietly post approval documents on regulations.gov.

This is the fifth PFAS pesticide approval under Trump in less than two years in office. The previous two PFAS pesticide approvals were cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram. The Biden administration approved one PFAS pesticide in the prior four years.

A 2024 report from researchers at the Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Working Group and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility found that forever chemicals are increasingly being added to U.S. pesticide products, contaminating waterways and posing potential threats to human health.

In addition to the three new PFAS pesticides approved Tuesday, the EPA also approved new uses of the PFAS pesticide bifenthrin, the first food use of chlormequat, and the non-PFAS, fluorinated pesticide fluoxapiprolin.

While some PFAS differ in their toxicities, potential to accumulate in the body, and potential to pollute water, all PFAS are highly persistent and have chemical bonds that will essentially never break down. PFAS ingredients in pesticide products have been found to contaminate streams and rivers throughout the country.

The EPA has found that trifludimoxazin will eventually break down into 12 different PFAS chemicals. Trifludimoxazin is one of the few PFAS pesticides that does not break down into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), however EPA has found that it breaks down into other PFAS chemicals that are highly persistent.

The agency has classified trifludimoxazin as having “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” based on the development of thyroid tumors in exposed animals.

Trifludimoxazin’s approval will allow it to be combined in the same product as another PFAS pesticide called saflufenacil, all but ensuring that any resulting pollution will contain mixtures of different PFAS chemicals.

Diflufenican can also break down into a chemical called 2,4-difluoroaniline malonate, a fluorinated chemical that has a similar structure and toxicity profile to aniline, a component in tobacco smoke. Although the EPA has classified aniline as a probable human carcinogen it did not require any studies to assess the cancer risks of diflufenican’s breakdown product in real-life settings.

Epyrifenacil causes liver tumors in animal studies and is part of a class of pesticides called PPO-inhibitors, many of which are also linked to liver tumors. However, the EPA categorized it as “not likely to be carcinogenic” at low doses based solely on the pesticide company’s interpretation of their own studies.

The EPA also approved new uses of another PFAS pesticide, bifenthrin. Uses of bifenthrin that have been in place for years have made it one of the most widely detected insecticides in U.S. streams, lakes, and rivers, where it is often found at levels that exceed aquatic safety thresholds.

The EPA’s approval of chlormequat, a non-PFAS pesticide, is also controversial. Chlormequat is found in the urine of 90% of Americans, thought to come mostly from residues on imported foods where the pesticide has been used. Approval of its use on U.S. wheat and oats ensures that exposure to the U.S. population will increase dramatically. The pesticide has been linked to reduced fertility, reproductive toxicity and birth defects.

EU parliament's recent decision to authorize the commercialization of plants derived from New Genomic Techniques marks a turning point for EU agriculture, and paves the way for new GMOs to enter the market as early as 2027.

The post Europe | ECVC: The Hidden Stakes of “New GMOs” appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Meet our inaugural cohort of the Coastal Leadership Program, and learn why they're excited to start building a community of Salton Sea leaders!The mission of the Costal Leadership Program is to...

We're excited to introduce the 2026 Coastal Leadership Program cohort. Beginning this July, a group of early professionals with backgrounds spanning environmentalism, education, and the arts will be...

As 350.org, Fuel Poverty Action and coalition partners today demonstrate against rising energy prices outside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, a new report from the UN Development Programme (UNDP) lays bare the true scale of the fossil fuel subsidy crisis: governments worldwide are on course to spend $1.1 trillion propping up the fossil fuel industry in 2026, a figure that could rise to $1.43 trillion if oil prices reach $110 a barrel.

The UNDP report, Military Escalation in the Middle East: Cushioning the Global Shock, finds that governments have responded to conflict-driven oil price spikes by expanding fossil fuel subsidies, price caps and tax rebates. While these measures offer short-term relief, they are consuming public budgets that should be building schools, hospitals and clean energy infrastructure. Many developing countries entered the latest crisis already burdened by rising debt, and fossil fuel handouts to keep prices artificially low are depleting public budgets and increasing their risk of debt distress.

Anne Jellema, Executive Director of 350.org, said:

"The $1.1 trillion that governments are pouring into fossil fuel subsidies this year is not a safety net, it is a ransom payment. Every dollar spent shielding the fossil fuel industry from the consequences of its own price volatility is a dollar not spent on the clean energy systems that can bring costs down for good.

We need a phase out to end public subsidies for fossil fuel companies, and a permanent windfall tax on fossil fuel profits. Not a one-off levy, but a permanent, legislated mechanism that redirects the extraordinary profits of an industry driving this crisis into the just transition every country needs. That means affordable clean energy, retrofitted homes, and funding to protect people from the extreme weather unleashed by fossil pollution..”

The UNDP report calls for easier access to international climate financing and accelerated investment in renewable energy, and explicitly frames energy security and the energy transition as inseparable.