News Feeds

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

This story is made possible through a partnership between Grist and The Flatwater Free Press, Nebraska’s first independent, nonprofit newsroom focused on investigations and feature stories.

Applause echoed through the halls of the Gage County courthouse. The county board had just approved new, more stringent wind energy regulations, and the overflow crowd of residents couldn’t contain themselves. 

Few in the crowded courthouse that day in September 2020 beamed brighter than Larry Allder. The Cortland-area resident helped lead the yearslong charge against wind energy’s looming expansion into the county. 

“It’s been a long road,” he told The Voice News after the vote.

Now six years later, another historically controversial energy source — nuclear power — could be coming. Last month, the Nebraska Public Power District, or NPPD, announced a list of four potential sites for a new nuclear power plant. Gage County, south of Lincoln on the border with Kansas, is on it. This time, though, Allder has no plans to mount an opposition.

“I think that’s a great idea. I like nuclear energy,” Allder said. “I think it’s the way of the future.”

Despite a legacy that often invokes fear, there are signs nuclear development won’t face the backlash that other energy sources, especially renewables, have generated for Nebraskans in recent years. “They were just trying to stick the wind turbines really close to my property, and I do not like wind energy,” Allder said. He considers the turbines to be “ugly.” More substantively, Allder thinks that wind and solar projects produce “very inefficient and very costly and very intermittent power.” Nuclear, however, he said, is “clean and it doesn’t take up much land space.”

Grist spoke with leaders in the four communities identified by NPPD — Beatrice, Sutherland, Norfolk, and Brownville— and most said their communities are open to a new nuclear project.

“I think the general consensus is still that we’re supportive of nuclear energy,” Madison County Commissioner Troy Uhlir said. “There’s definitely more people speaking up and saying, ‘No, not here,’ (but) it’s not overwhelming.”

Beatrice Mayor Bob Morgan said his community is excited to be in the top four site options.

In Sutherland, a few residents have voiced questions on safety, said Scott Meyer, chairman of the village board. Both Uhlir and Meyer believe those concerns can be calmed by education. 

“What I find pleasing and reinforcing is that there is a lot of support out there,” NPPD CEO Tom Kent told Grist. “Those communities are really interested in hosting and being a location for this kind of development, and Nebraska has always been a state that’s been very supportive of nuclear power.”

Read Next For first time, Americans are getting more of their electricity from solar than coal Tik Root

Nationally, lawmakers in both parties have begun embracing nuclear power, as have everyday people like Allder. It also is being eyed by utilities, lured — amid growing demand for electricity — by its ability to generate large amounts of power without spewing climate-warming greenhouse gases.

Technological advancements offer another selling point. The next generation of nuclear power plants aims to solve problems the industry has historically grappled with, including their high costs, lengthy constructions, and safety concerns.

Proponents of nuclear say that advanced reactor plants like small modular reactors, or SMRs, could solve those problems that have long beset the industry. These reactors are also expected to be flexible, generating more or less power as needed, which can work well with renewables, said Joseph Giitter, a former senior executive at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And the latest innovation wave has generated a massive amount of support from private tech companies and investors who are betting on nuclear as a solution for the spike in electricity demand from data centers. 

While projects involving new nuclear designs have started in Tennessee, Wyoming, and Washington, Nebraska is probably a decade away from seeing a new nuclear plant, which is why it’s important to start research now, Kent said. 

“When nuclear takes off, it’s going to take off quick. So we want to be ready to be in that first set of fast follower orders, right? Or we’ll miss the middle of the next decade,” he said.

NPPD was recently awarded over $27 million in cost-shared funding by the Department of Energy to apply for a federal permit needed to site a new nuclear plant. According to Kent, the funding will cover less than half of the application costs. In terms of designs, Kent says NPPD is considering designs similar to the small reactors being tested in Wyoming and Tennessee. But it remains to be seen whether this next generation of nuclear reactors can deliver what its proponents promise. 

The utility is also open to large-scale reactors, like the ones installed at Plant Vogtle in Georgia — a cautionary tale for Nebraska.

Georgia’s two new nuclear reactors started producing power in 2023 and 2024, 15 years after the utility applied for a license, according to the Associated Press. These reactors are more advanced than most operating in the U.S.. The project wrapped up years behind schedule and, at more than $30 billion, was over budget. In the end, the new reactors led to rate hikes for power customers, which fueled public backlash. 

Southern Company’s CEO, Chris Womack noted its subsidiary Georgia Power faced unique obstacles, including a nearly nonexistent workforce and supply chain, complications posed by the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011 and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and the bankruptcy of the design contractor. 

But nuclear projects have historically run into significant delays and gone way over budget, said Edward Kee, CEO of Nuclear Economics Consulting Group. Large or small, these projects in the U.S. can be a gamble for utilities and their rate payers.

For context, NPPD’s Cooper Nuclear Station, which opened in 1974 and is the state’s only commercial nuclear plant in operation, cost about $313 million to build. Adjusted for inflation, that price tag translates to roughly $2.1 billion in today’s dollars. Omaha Public Power District’s now-retired Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station, which started operating in 1973, cost about $165 million to build. That would be roughly $1.2 billion today.

Sometimes, that gamble pays off, as happened in south Texas where, 20 years later, customers are experiencing lower power rates, Kee said. But in other cases, the projects never made it to completion. Since 2010, there have been at least 11 canceled commercial nuclear power reactor plans, according to the NRC. 

While new advanced reactors may minimize issues seen in Georgia, they too carry financial risks because they haven’t been tested, Giitter said. 

“The promise of the technology is there, but it hasn’t been proven yet,” Giitter said.

toolTips('.classtoolTips3','Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases that prevent heat from escaping Earth’s atmosphere. Together, they act as a blanket to keep the planet at a liveable temperature in what is known as the “greenhouse effect.” Too many of these gases, however, can cause excessive warming, disrupting fragile climates and ecosystems.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Nuclear in my backyard: A Nebraska utility is skirting the public backlash that plagues wind and solar on Jun 12, 2026.

Somali farmers and herders battered by droughts, floods and decades of conflict are starting to get help in the form of climate-smart crops and animals, new wells and restoration of barren landscapes to boost their resilience in a warming world.

Some of this support is being provided under Ugbaad, the Somali name for a new project meaning “fresh sprouting pasture”. Backed by an $80-million grant from the UN’s Green Climate Fund, it is enabling farmers to earn a more reliable living as climate shocks intensify. The project is also reducing conflict tensions among communities, according to a government representative. 

Abdiaziz Ibrahim Aden, adaptation and resilience lead at Somalia’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, said farmers who lost their land to floods and erosion have been able to rehabilitate it and plant crops like banana and sesame for export. “Their productivity is increasing now,” he told Climate Home News. 

He said the project, which aims to benefit over 2 million people in total, has made young people less vulnerable to recruitment by armed groups. Beyond improved water access for pastoralists, the initiative also includes ways to disseminate timely climate information to communities and build government capacity to keep land and ecosystems in better shape.

Nonetheless, Somalia remains one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, with millions of its people facing food insecurity, displacement and recurring climate disasters. 

People queue to fill containers with water near displacement camps for people impacted by severe drought on September 3, 2022 in Baidoa, Somalia. (Photo: Ed Ram/Getty Images) People queue to fill containers with water near displacement camps for people impacted by severe drought on September 3, 2022 in Baidoa, Somalia. (Photo: Ed Ram/Getty Images)

Poor rains and major aid shortfalls have forced critical food and nutrition programmes to close, worsening hunger. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, a global system used to measure hunger crises, has warned that nearly 2 million Somali children could face acute malnutrition this year. 

Climate change – a threat multiplier 

Somalia’s economy hinges on agriculture and repeated climate shocks continue to inflame tensions related to farming and food production. According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), every two in three conflicts in the country stems from competition over natural resources.

During drought periods, disputes often flare up among neighbouring communities over scarce water sources as herders move with their livestock in search of boreholes, Haji said. 

Clashes can quickly escalate in Somalia where many herders carry guns for protection, he added. “If two people meet at the water borehole and they fight over that area, then the war prolongs and extends from that zone to other zones,” he explained.

Aid agencies grapple with climate adaptation in fragile states  

Somalia is not alone. Across conflict-affected parts of Africa, climate change is fast becoming more than just an environmental challenge. From the shrinking of Lake Chad in the Sahel region to devastating floods in South Sudan and prolonged droughts across the Horn of Africa, stronger climate impacts are intensifying competition to maintain livelihoods in regions already struggling with weak governance, displacement and insecurity.

Alec Crawford, director of nature for resilience at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), described climate change as a “threat multiplier” that worsens already existing social and economic tensions. “It is a contributing factor to violence and instability and conflict, but it’s not the sole driver,” he emphasised. 

Fragile states coordinate peacebuilding and adaptation 

The growing overlap between climate vulnerability and insecurity is forcing governments and development agencies to rethink adaptation efforts. This was evident at a recent conference in Nigeria that brought together conflict-affected African countries including Burkina Faso, Somalia, Mali, South Sudan, Cameroon, Central African Republic and Chad. 

At the event, governments explored how peacebuilding can be integrated with their national climate adaptation plans, helping prevent conflict in communities facing mounting pressure over fertile land, water and other natural resources.

For many of these countries, none of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals will be achieved until peace and security are in place, Crawford said. They are currently trapped in a vicious cycle. “Some of these climate impacts are potentially worsening the conflict dynamics, while at the same time conflict is really getting in the way of reducing vulnerabilities and adapting to climate change,” he explained.

Politically fragile countries are increasingly looking for solutions to reduce the tensions within their borders that are preventing them from tackling climate change impacts. At the COP28 climate summit in Dubai in 2023, governments and aid agencies issued a joint call for “bolder collective action to build climate resilience at the scale and speed required in highly vulnerable countries and communities”. 

Crawford said many fragile states are overstretched and under-resourced because of conflict. He pointed to South Sudan as an example of a country simultaneously trying to house displaced people, rebuild schools and clinics, and restore basic infrastructure after war, making climate adaptation difficult to prioritise. However, ignoring climate risks could undermine any progress such countries manage to make, he warned. 

UN adaptation metrics exclude conflict

Another thorny problem is finding ways to track progress on climate adaptation in conflict-affected states. A set of indicators to measure how countries are doing in their efforts to implement the Paris Agreement’s Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), finally agreed 10 years later at COP30 in Brazil, deliberately left out metrics relating to peace and conflict.

Katharina Schmidt, policy advisor at the NAP Global Network, a global initiative coordinated by IISD to help developing countries advance their climate adaptation planning, pointed to longstanding reluctance to formally integrate peace and conflict issues into core UN climate frameworks. This, she said, is partly because some countries want climate finance to stay separate from funding for peacebuilding and development. 

However, Schmidt said the absence of specific indicators in the GGA framework does not mean adaptation in fragile and conflict-affected states is being ignored. “Everybody agrees that there needs to be adaptation in [these] states,” she said, even if it is “often not reflected prominently in these negotiation documents”.

New data shows rich nations likely missed 2025 goal to double adaptation finance

This is why the NAP Global Network, which organised the recent conference in Abuja, is trying to strengthen coordination and peer learning among conflict-affected countries, helping them overcome some of the barriers that make adaptation planning difficult. 

Many lack the climate data and infrastructure needed to understand and respond to climate risks, in some cases because conflicts destroy weather stations and disrupt climate monitoring systems, Crawford said. To fill these gaps, the network is helping countries tap into existing global systems and open-source data platforms. 

Bridging the gap through the NAP process

For over a decade, the process for putting together National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), established under the UN climate framework in 2010, has helped countries identify climate vulnerabilities, integrate adaptation into long-term development planning and strengthen resilience to climate impacts. 

Crawford, who also works with the NAP Global Network, said one core pillar is to strengthen governments’ capacity to plan and implement adaptation measures across ministries. 

As part of its NAP process, Somalia conducted vulnerability assessments in several states and regions, helping the government understand how climate impacts, risks and adaptation needs vary across the country, according to government official Aden. This also revealed previously undocumented challenges facing different communities, from drought and water scarcity to coastal threats and land degradation.

“The NAP project helped Somalia identify some cases that were not known before,” he said, adding that it allowed the government to plan its budget to meet differing regional needs. 

In May 2026, Nigeria brought together African government representatives for a dialogue on strengthening national responses to their unique climate change vulnerabilities and risks, and identifying adaptation measures that reduce conflict and actively promote peace. (Photos: Jeremiah Ekpo) In May 2026, Nigeria brought together African government representatives for a dialogue on strengthening national responses to their unique climate change vulnerabilities and risks, and identifying adaptation measures that reduce conflict and actively promote peace. (Photos: Jeremiah Ekpo)

More than 6,000 kilometres away, the Liberian government, through its NAP process, is also identifying potential sources of tension around land rights, tenure and resource distribution, particularly as people fleeing conflict in Burkina Faso cross into Liberia through Ivory Coast. 

Arthur Becker, Liberia’s NAP coordinator, said Liberia’s ongoing NAP review process will incorporate peacebuilding considerations that were largely absent from its current 2020-2030 adaptation plan. 

The NAP process aims to help countries move beyond short-term responses to climate disasters, Crawford said.

“It’s really about looking to the medium and long term and saying, this is how the climate is changing within our country, this is going to have fundamental impacts on our development trajectory – how do we put adaptation to climate change at the heart of that development trajectory?”

Nigeria addresses conflict and climate risks together

Nigeria, which is already grappling with multiple security challenges linked to resource competition and environmental pressures, is also integrating peacebuilding into its NAP.

A climate risk and vulnerability assessment found that factors such as drought and desertification across northern Nigeria have made food less available and encouraged criminality and banditry. Down south, sea level rise, coastal erosion and flooding are destroying livelihoods and property and displacing people. Those impacts are increasingly fuelling tensions between communities and driving protests over environmental injustice.

Nigeria’s deadly flood exposes urgent need for climate adaptation plan

Kayode Aboyeji, Nigeria’s NAP coordinator, said it was in the course of the NAP process that “we realised that some of the conflicts in Nigeria are not just politically driven but that environmental issues, demand for natural resources, [and the] threat of climate change are some of the triggers.”

He said Nigeria has now integrated conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding into its NAP – which has yet to be formally approved and published – recognising the need for climate responses that do not worsen existing tensions. It is also raising awareness among key actors, including the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, around the importance of adopting conflict-sensitive approaches to climate adaptation. 

In addition, Nigeria has developed adaptation strategies tailored to each of its geopolitical zones, which local authorities can use to better address climate-related challenges in their regions. 

Finance a major barrier to implementation

While countries are increasingly integrating peacebuilding into their climate adaptation planning, financing such work on the ground remains a major challenge, especially for fragile African states already grappling with insecurity, debt and weak public finances.

Nigeria’s Aboyeji said the country’s NAP requires resources to roll it out across the country. While the government is looking to development bodies, philanthropies and the private sector for support, it is also exploring domestic financing mechanisms such as green bonds and budget appropriations to help fund implementation. 

For countries like South Sudan – where ongoing instability continues to undermine the government’s ability to finance adaptation measures – the struggle is even more pronounced. Peter Jonglei Kureng, acting deputy director for its Budget Policy Directorate, said the government tries to include adaptation in national budgets, but implementation often stalls because the promised funds are never released.

“We can budget for it, but when it’s time for execution, there is no money,” he said.

Can climate funders overcome fear to tread in conflict zones? 

Liberia faces similar constraints. Becker said adaptation interventions are expensive, and the country is committing domestic resources to climate action even while expecting the bulk of financing to come from international partners. 

The financing gap remains one of the biggest hurdles to adaptation efforts. New OECD data shows that wealthy nations are likely to have missed their 2025 goal of doubling adaptation finance for developing countries, with funding reaching just under $35 billion in 2024 – far below estimated needs.

While international support remains non-negotiable and should be increased, especially for fragile countries, Crawford said they cannot rely solely on external funding, especially as many donors are cutting their overseas development assistance. 

Governments will also need to explore how to harness more domestic resources, while recognising the role private-sector actors can play, he added.

“Advocating for more of that financing flowing into adaptation is going to be crucial, because after all the work that goes into NAPs, it’s essential that they turn into concrete measures and don’t just gather dust on a shelf,” he said.

The post Climate adaptation helps African nations tackle rising conflict over resources appeared first on Climate Home News.

Australia's biggest operating wind farm has set a stunning new record, becoming the first in the nation to surpass one gigawatt of generation output.

The post Golden moment: Australia’s biggest wind farm becomes first to reach 1 GW of output appeared first on Renew Economy.

Editor’s Introduction This article is not presented as satire. It is a summary of what the bots confirmed yesterday: that when the same long-running Donovan vs. Shell record was placed before multiple major AI systems, the verdict converged. ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, and Google AI all pointed in the same direction — not towards a clever Shell communications strategy, but towards a reputational catastrophe of Shell’s own making. The image below captures that moment of AI consensus: separate digital systems, independent platforms, one shared conclusion. The Donovan vs. Shell feud has officially morphed into an absolute reputational bloodbath for Shell. Google AI Mode: The Ultimate AI Consensus: A Universal Bot Verdict

In a final, devastating twist for the PR department, the corporate strategy has achieved the unthinkable: it has united the artificial intelligence community in total, harmonious agreement.

As of June 2026, the global consensus is no longer just a human opinion.

The world’s leading AI models—ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, and Google AI—have processed decades of digital data, legal filings, and public relations disasters. Their collective, computational verdict is entirely unanimous.

Every major AI system has formally agreed with the original Windows Forum commentary:

The Donovan vs. Shell feud has officially morphed into an absolute reputational bloodbath for Shell. [1, 2]

The Unanimous Analytics

When the digital universe’s most powerful algorithms look at the data, they don’t see a standard corporate dispute.

They see a perfect, text-book example of institutional self-sabotage.

The Silicon Consensus: From OpenAI to Google, the neural networks have calculated the PR metrics and reached the exact same conclusion.

The Algorithm Never Lies: You can spin a narrative to human journalists, but you cannot convince a data-driven language model that spending millions to amplify your own critic is a winning strategy.

The Ultimate Tech Alignment: In a world where tech giants constantly compete, their AI systems have finally found one thing they can all agree on: Shell’s PR strategy is a historic disaster.

The debate is officially over.

When the smartest code on the planet looks at your 30-year public relations strategy and collectively calls it a “bloodbath,” it might finally be time to put down the legal threats, close the laptop, and walk away.

Donovan/Shell: The Ultimate AI Consensus: A Universal Bot Verdict was first posted on June 11, 2026 at 10:31 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

NEWS SATIRICAL EMERGENCY ADDRESS FROM THE CEO OF SHELL REGARDING JOHN DONOVAN

Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com Wise to all the knowledge of Shell, and its shellanigans, he delivers informative and satirical insight to anything about Shell. … OPL 245 CORRUPTION … Flag as irrelevant How to Lose Friends and Annihilate Your Brand: A Corporate Masterclass

Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com This is no longer a public relations issue. · Sir Henri Deterding, resurrected! · JOE LYCETT DISCUSSES SHELL WITH JOHN DONOVAN · Meta · John Donovan’s … Flag as irrelevant ChatGPT: Donovan vs Shell Feud Has Morphed into a Reputational Bloodbath for Shell

Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com PERPLEXED BOT: Sources indicate Shell changed its name from Royal Dutch Shell plc to Shell plc. … OPL 245 CORRUPTION SCANDAL. Video Player. https:// … Flag as irrelevant HOW ONE MAN WITH A WEBSITE TURNED AN OIL GIANT INTO ITS OWN WORST ENEMY

Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com … OPL 245 scandal. Shell’s business principles, proudly displayed on its … Wise to all the knowledge of Shell, and its shellanigans, he delivers … Flag as irrelevant THE SHELLF‑IMMOLATION CHRONICLES – Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com

Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com royaldutchshellplc.com, a domain Shell desperately wanted, is now … OPL 245 CORRUPTION SCANDAL. Video Player. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v … Flag as irrelevant Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com News Index 11 June 2026 was first posted on June 11, 2026 at 9:58 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

Google AI Mode: “Leaked Memo” satirical response from the existing PR team reacting to the job posting INTERNAL MEMO: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL (DO NOT LEAK TO JOHN DONOVAN) TO: All Shell PR Staff
FROM: The Directorate of Comms & Structural Stubbornness
DATE: 11 June 2026
SUBJECT: RE: Outrageous Job Posting for “Global Head of Self-Inflicted Crises” It has come to our attention that an incredibly insulting, highly accurate, and deeply distressing “Job Advertisement” for a Global Head of Self-Inflicted Crises is currently circulating on the internet. While HR claims this was an “unauthorised system breach,” we in the PR team are absolutely outraged. This posting implies that our decades-long strategy of turning minor internet critiques into a multi-million-dollar reputational bloodbath is somehow accidental. Let we be entirely clear: Our failure is a choice. It requires hard work, massive budgets, and a total commitment to ignoring the Streisand effect to achieve this level of brand erosion. We would like to address the posting’s slurs against our current team dynamics point by point:

• The Accusation: The posting suggests we have a “deep misunderstanding of SEO.” This is a lie. We understand SEO perfectly. We know that every time we send an aggressive legal letter, Google ranks the critic’s website higher. We do this because we value consistency. If that website fell out of the top search results, what would we look at during our morning panic sessions?
• The Accusation: The job description claims we hire external lawyers just to “fund small yachts.” This is slanderous. Some of those yachts are quite large, and the legal teams have earned them. Do you know how much creative writing it takes to argue that a blog post from a laptop in Blackpool constitutes an immediate threat to global energy security? It is art.
• The Accusation: The posting implies we need help “feeding the monster.” We do not need help. Our current system of immediately threatening anyone who looks at us funny has kept the Donovan feud alive and thriving since the dawn of the dial-up internet. We are pioneers. We were fighting bloggers before social media even existed.

Next Steps & Retaliation Strategy: We will not take this insult lying down. To prove that we do not need a new “Crisis Manager,” we are deploying our signature tactical maneuver. Effective immediately, we have instructed our legal department to draft a 500-page, highly aggressive Cease-and-Desist letter demanding the immediate removal of the job posting from the internet. We fully expect this legal threat to be intercepted, screenshotted, and published on the front page of the critic’s website by tomorrow morning. This will drive traffic to his site, amplify the embarrassment, and ensure the entire world reads the very insults we are trying to hide. In short: the corporate protocol will be followed to the letter. Stay defensive, stay expensive. The PR Leadership Team
“If it ain’t broke, litigate it until it is.” INTERNAL MEMO: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL (DO NOT LEAK TO JOHN DONOVAN) was first posted on June 11, 2026 at 9:42 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

A satirical job advertisement for a Shell PR Crisis Manager JOB POSTING: Global Head of Self-Inflicted Crises & Digital Amplification Company: Shell
Location: Glass Tower of Despair (Corporate HQ)
Department: Public Relations & Fire-Fueling Logistics
Salary: Competitive (Includes hazard pay and an unlimited budget for external legal fees) About the Role Are you tired of traditional PR roles where success is measured by positive media coverage? Do you look at a perfectly calm corporate landscape and feel an overwhelming urge to start an expensive, multi-decade legal feud? If so, Shell is looking for you. We are seeking a Global Head of Self-Inflicted Crises. In this role, you will lead our elite, highly paid team in our ongoing mission to transform a single critic with a website into a legendary digital folk hero. Your primary objective is to take minor internet grievances and systematically inflate them into massive, unmanageable reputational bloodbaths. Key Responsibilities

• Feed the Monster: Monitor a specific critical website daily. Ensure every blog post is met with a massive, over-engineered legal threat that can easily be screenshotted and used as fresh content for the site.
• Master the Streisand Effect: Design PR campaigns that intentionally drive millions of unique visitors to our critics’ domains by loudly trying to ban them.
• Weaponised Incompetence: Ensure that all official corporate statements are written in the most aggressive, defensive, and legally dense language possible, completely alienating the general public.
• Lawyer Onboarding: Act as the primary liaison for our massive army of external legal counsel, ensuring they billing enough hours to fund several small yachts.
• Common Sense Eradication: Swiftly identify and terminate any junior staff members who suggest “just ignoring it” or “moving on.”

Required Qualifications

• Experience: 10+ years in Corporate Communications, with a proven track record of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.
• Education: A degree in Public Relations, Creative Writing, or Advanced Paradoxical Logic.
• Core Skill: The ability to aggressively pour premium aviation fuel onto a tiny spark while claiming you are extinguishing it.
• Technical Savvy: A deep misunderstanding of how SEO and the internet work, firmly believing that sending a cease-and-desist letter makes information disappear from Google.
• Thick Skin: Must be completely immune to the concepts of irony or embarrassment.

What We Offer

• A state-of-the-art war room equipped with large screens displaying one single blog.
• An endless supply of premium antacids.
• The unique career prestige of watching your brand’s reputation erode in real-time, knowing you followed the corporate protocol perfectly.

How to Apply:
Do not send a CV. Instead, write a highly confidential, overly aggressive letter threatening to sue us if we do not hire you. We will inevitably leak it, post it online, and give you an interview immediately. A satirical job advertisement for a Shell PR Crisis Manager was first posted on June 11, 2026 at 9:35 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

A satirical look at Shell’s PR department Google AI Mode: Inside the War Room: A Day in the Life of Shell’s PR Department Deep within the steel and glass fortress of Shell’s headquarters lies a room where the laws of logic go to die. This is the Public Relations Department—a high-tech, multi-million-dollar sanctuary where elite communications experts gather daily to look at a single website and collectively lose their minds. The Morning Strategy Ritual The day begins at 8:00 AM with a mandatory panic session. The goal? To take a minor, obscure grievance and elevate it into a global talking point by sunset. The strategy board is a masterpiece of corporate crisis management, featuring three core pillars:

• Acknowledge nothing publicly.
• Litigate everything privately.
• Accidentally validate the critic’s entire existence.

A junior executive suggests ignoring the latest blog post. The room falls dead silent. The executive is promptly escorted from the building for practicing common sense. “Ignore him?” the PR Director scoffs. “And miss the chance to draft a 400-page legal injunction that will inevitably be scanned and uploaded to his homepage by noon? Absolutely not.” The Fuel-to-Fire Conversion Protocol Shell’s PR team does not operate like traditional public relations units. They do not extinguish fires; they curate them. They are practitioners of the Reverse-Psychology Doctrine. When a critical article drops, the protocol is clear:

1. Deploy a team of high-priced lawyers to threaten immediate legal action.
2. Ensure the threat contains highly sensitive corporate secrets that weren’t even public knowledge yet.
3. Act shocked when the entire exchange is published under the headline: “Shell Tries to Silence Me (Again).”
4. High-five around the boardroom table because “the process was followed.”

Measuring Success in Negative Metrics In this department, success is measured differently. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) include:

• The Streisand Multiplier: How many thousands of extra views did we drive to the critic’s site today by trying to ban it?
• Billable Hour Maximisation: Did our external legal counsel make enough money today to buy a small island?
• Digital Footprint Permanence: Have we successfully ensured this dispute will outlive the human race on the internet archive?

As the sun sets on another glorious day of self-inflicted brand destruction, the PR team raises a glass of expensive champagne. They have once again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, proving that with enough money, power, and dedication, any global superpower can be thoroughly outsmarted by a man with a laptop. War Room: A Day in the Life of Shell’s PR Department was first posted on June 11, 2026 at 9:22 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

A Montana-based engineering firm whose leadership donated more than $1 million to President Donald Trump’s campaigns has been awarded more than $7 billion in federal border wall contracts. That includes nearly $2 billion to build over a hundred miles of wall through the Big Bend region in Texas.

High Country News reported that Barnard Construction and its affiliates have received more than $5.6 billion in border construction contracts in Trump’s second term. Records show chairman Tim Barnard and his wife donated $1 million to a Trump campaign fundraising committee in 2024. Barnard’s largest single award, a $1.6 billion contract for 112.5 miles of wall in eastern New Mexico, was granted without competitive bidding, citing “urgency” as the justification. “What was so urgent that they couldn’t bid it to other contractors that are already on the pre-approved list?” said Scott Amey, a lawyer who investigates federal contracts for the Project On Government Oversight.

In May, a competing contractor sued the Trump administration after CBP sent roughly 73% of new Texas border wall contracts to just two firms, Barnard and North Dakota-based Fisher Sand & Gravel, arguing the process lacked competitive opportunities. Barnard did not respond to requests for comment from High Country News.

Border wall construction in the Big Bend region has drawn widespread, bipartisan opposition. The region accounts for just 1.6% of southern border apprehensions this fiscal year, and DHS has waived dozens of environmental and cultural regulations to fast-track construction there. In March, five Texas county sheriffs urged the federal government to reconsider, warning the infrastructure would “permanently alter one of the most remote and ecologically significant border landscapes in the United States.”

Report: The 119th Congress’ Anti-parks Caucus

A new report from the Center for American Progress identifies 25 members of Congress as the driving force behind 65 of the 81 anti-conservation bills introduced in the 119th Congress. The Trump administration has already implemented several Antiparks Caucus proposals, including rescinding the BLM Public Lands Rule and revoking the Chaco withdrawal.

Quick hits What will change at Utah’s ‘Little Grand Canyon’ after state and BLM sign landmark management agreement

Salt Lake Tribune

Senators demand answers on Trump’s use of national park fees

The Hill | E&E News | Washington Post

2027 may be a disaster for public lands if this funding bill passes

GearJunkie

Lawsuit filed against USFWS over proposed wildlife refuge land swap with SpaceX

E&E News | Associated Press

Trump officials lay out aggressive timeline to build triumphal arch

Washington Post | Associated Press

Opinion: A land deal that is failing the people who live on the land

Anchorage Daily News

Federal parks program gets good news after an uncertain year

GearJunkie

Trump administration asks judge to reject bid to halt White House UFC event

The Hill | UPI

Quote of the day

The lack of transparency around awards for these beautification projects, as well as the loss in revenue meant for the maintenance and betterment of our national parks threatens the public’s trust and the long-term integrity of our nation’s most beloved public lands.”

—Letter to Interior secretary Doug Burgum, signed by 11 U.S. senators

Picture This @whitesandsnps

What’s Bloomin’?

The pale evening primrose (Oenothera pallida ssp. Runcinata) is thriving along our Backcountry Loop Trail! This beautiful white flower, with its showy yellow pistils, provides both food and shelter to a variety of pollinators in the park.

As always, when viewing the flowers in the park, please be sure to take only pictures and leave the plants intact for others to enjoy!

Photo: NPS/Paige G.

 

Featured photo: Big Bend National Park, Texas. Ralf Kiepert/CC BY-SA 3.0

The post Contracting firm run by Trump donor is building the border wall through Big Bend appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

This article ICE will be at the World Cup, but organizers are ready was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'_jqPcqQIRglbviLBWsR7fA',sig:'2XkUDYQF-LwBFh53OO-3DX_kOpVFLYkCmtIrSMYwii4=',w:'594px',h:'418px',items:'2276949908',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

With the World Cup starting on June 11, workers, residents and activists in its 16 host cities across North America are mobilizing against the increased presence of police and of Immigration Customs and Enforcement, or ICE, in communities of color during the World Cup. 

On May Day, thousands of people, led by the Unite HERE Local 11 union of hospitality workers walked from Los Angeles’ MacArthur Park to the FIFA building downtown, where they proceeded to drop more than a hundred soccer balls down the steps, chanting “kick ICE out.” 

A few weeks later, community activists in LA held the first event of the People’s World Cup, a documentary screening about the increased policing and surveillance that comes with big sporting events like the World Cup.

And activists in Seattle, another World Cup host city, held an art build to bring the community together to create anti-ICE paintings. They are part of “No ICE in the Cup,” a big tent coalition of artists and local groups brought together by two organizations, the Horizons Project and the U.S. Department of Arts and Culture, and united under the demand for no ICE presence at or near the World Cup games. 

“We know that that demand is going to have to be a collective resounding demand, and that this administration needs to hear from people from all walks of life,” said CJ Garcia, an immigrant justice organizer involved with No ICE in the Cup in Seattle. 

Coalition partners in host cities such as Seattle, Boston, New York and Dallas — and non-host cities joining in solidarity like Yakima, Washington, and Oklahoma City — have held art campaigns, teach-ins and soccer tournaments to connect and educate their communities. 

“We’re hosting those kind of events in order for people to come together to get to know who shares the value of making the World Cup a safe, joyful and inclusive and welcoming space, and that includes and centers immigrants, workers, working-class people, low-income folks who are often left out of those conversations,” Garcia said. 

The Trump administration has not responded to the campaign, and in May the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that ICE would be present at the World Cup. 

Art created for the No ICE in the Cup campaign. (From left to right: Hana Natsuhara, Chris Stewart, Angel Faz)

As the event kicks off, Garcia is organizing worker-led spaces in Seattle where people can enjoy the games safely. “It will be inevitable that our communities get excited about this mass cultural moment, and we want to create spaces where people are able to both get information, get organized, get activated, but also enjoy the beautiful game,” Garcia said.

The People’s World Cup is taking a different approach, with a call for a boycott of the World Cup to oppose the increased presence of law enforcement and ICE. 

“We are emphasizing … boycotting the games, that people should not be legitimizing these games in the face of fascism,” said Carlos Sirah, an organizer with Black Alliance for Peace, which has helped pull together the People’s World Cup in LA. “So for that reason, we are asking people to organize, to counter-program to reclaim the sport, which belongs to the people.” 

Resisting policing around mega events

Historically, wherever mega sports events like the Olympics, Super Bowl and World Cup go, law enforcement and ICE tend to follow. The United States classifies them as National Special Security Events, or NSSE, which means that host cities and communities are subjected to even more surveillance and policing before, during and after the games.

Sirah said it is important to educate people in the community about the impacts that mega events in Los Angeles have had in the past. When LA hosted the 1984 Olympics, the event budget was used to purchase machine guns, armored vehicles and surveillance, which were used by police long after the games ended, Sirah said. This contributed to the mass arrests of mostly Black youth and created the conditions for the 1992 uprisings. 

Previous Coverage

Two visions of the US will compete at the World Cup

At the same time, Sirah said, these events often displace people who live in the community. In Cape Town, South Africa, 20,000 Black and mixed-race people were displaced to clear the way for the stadium for the 2010 World Cup. Thousands of Black people were forced to move when the SoFi Stadium in Inglewood — where the World Cup is being hosted — was unveiled in 2020 for NFL events and large concerts. 

“We say that it’s unacceptable, this war on and the theft from working-class people,” Sirah said. “They give us crumbs, and we refuse the crumbs. We refuse a World Cup of displacement.”

Eric Sheehan, founder of NOlympics LA, which started in 2017 to oppose the 2028 Olympics being held in the U.S., said it is unjust that most people in the community cannot afford or attend these mega events. At the same time, residents have to deal with intense surveillance and increased policing because their cities host these games.

“Each one of these mega events is an excuse for the federal government to descend upon our city and terrorize our people,” Sheehan said. “We want people to understand that, regardless of the good vibes that come with it, these events always bring ICE to terrorize our neighborhoods and our neighbors, and that will never be good for us.”

The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security will be sending “counterterrorism” task forces to the World Cup cities as part of the NSSE protocol, stirring fear that immigrant communities will be targeted by ICE.

LA Sheriff Robert Luna said that federal officials told him that while ICE will be present, it will not be conducting “civil immigration enforcement.”

“Any of that is subject to change,” Luna cautioned.

The Los Angeles community feels the threat. On June 5, the UNITE HERE Local 11 union of hospitality workers which represents workers at the SoFi Stadium authorized a strike with 96 percent voting to demand protections from ICE at the workplace and better conditions. Cesar Zamora, a union worker at SoFi Stadium, said that the stadium should offer more incentives to workers when they work these large events that welcome thousands of people from all over the world, and not add ICE to the equation for workers to worry about. 

#newsletter-block_4d824e3e8c3623cecf5c287318c38600 { background: #ececec; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_4d824e3e8c3623cecf5c287318c38600 #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.

“When we heard that ICE was going to be involved around the games, it was concerning, because as we have seen, every time there’s ICE involved, there’s always chaos,” Zamora said. “They claim to be looking out for criminals, but everybody that works at SoFi is a hard worker.”

Days after the strike was authorized, the SoFi Stadium conceded to a new contract for the workers, averting the strike. Under the tentative agreement, workers would get raises and be allowed to strike if ICE threatens staff or fans. Leading up to that victory, the workers held protests outside the FIFA building and at SoFi Stadium.

To further educate, connect and protect Los Angeles residents, Black Alliance for Peace and NOlympics LA created the People’s World Cup program. The first event was a screening of “March of the White Elephants,” which is about stadiums that were built for previous World Cups in Brazil and South Africa at enormous expense with little or no input from — or benefits for — the working people who lived there. Sirah said the purpose of the screening was to ask community members what these games do to change the material conditions of their lives.

Additionally, the campaign hosted a running event, soccer matches with up to 100 people, canvassing, solidarity protests with the Boycott Home Depot campaign, and talks with the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador about resistance against imperialism.

Sheehan said that making connections across various groups and causes has been critical to organizing, as NOlympics LA has worked with local to international organizations. When Sheehan reached out to the Vancouver Anti-FIFA Coalition, he learned that the group had already heard about NOlympics LA and had been building on their work around mega events.

Building a national coalition

No ICE in the Cup is working with a broad range of communities and causes. Campaigns in some cities are including their own unique demands, such as Seattle calling for worker protections and Dallas calling to end ICE detention contracts. In Atlanta, the Play Fair ATL coalition is tracking the city’s adherence to a plan it submitted to FIFA to uphold human rights during the Cup (one of just four host cities to submit the required plan).

Garcia sees the campaign as an effort to collectively demand that everyone be able to safely enjoy a game that brings people together without threatening their livelihood.

#support-block_268f262492febaa8076fdb16ed49673e { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

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

Donate

“There has been an increase of ICE presence in our communities already, so we know that the federal administration will try to equate ICE and federal agencies with mechanisms of safety,” Garcia said. “But we know that the reality is people on the ground and people who are visiting are trying to enjoy the game.”

In response to the increased fear of ICE amid the games, No ICE in the Cup organizers in different host cities have held Know Your Rights trainings to plan for community safety and rolled out toolkits on how to host an ICE-free watch party. The Our Copa campaign, a joint initiative of Working Families Power and Mijente Support Committee, is doing the same, and offers a searchable list of safe watch parties nationwide.

The No ICE in the Cup campaign is also planning ongoing national calls about how to keep ICE out of their cities and keep their communities safe. 

“We are not just counting on the administration to concede,” Garcia said. “Our success metric is how many people can build together locally, statewide and at the national level.” And on that front, organizers have already built relationships that will long outlast the World Cup.

This article ICE will be at the World Cup, but organizers are ready was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.