News Feeds

This article is part of Food Tank’s primer series, “Food Tank Explains.” Each installment unpacks the ideas, innovations, and challenges shaping today’s food and agriculture systems, offering clear insights into complex topics. To explore more articles in the series, click here.

Antimicrobials are medicines used to treat infectious diseases caused by microorganisms like bacteria, fungi, viruses and parasites. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) occurs when disease-causing microorganisms develop resistance to the medicines designed to treat them. As a result, infections become difficult or impossible to treat, increasing the risk of disease spread, severe illness, and death.

Public health agencies and researchers worldwide agree that AMR poses an urgent threat to global health. The World Health Organization (WHO) ranks AMR among the top 10 global public health threats, while the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and researchers writing in The Lancet, Healthcare, Science, and JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance have each warned of its consequences for global health.

An estimated 5 million deaths were associated with drug-resistant infections in 2019, including 1.27 million deaths directly attributable to AMR, according to a Lancet study. The CDC estimates that more than 2.8 million antimicrobial-resistant infections occur in the U.S. each year, resulting in more than 35,000 deaths.

AMR also poses a significant threat to global economic stability, according to the Center for Global Development. AMR drives health-care costs largely through longer hospital stays and increased need for intensive care. It can require additional diagnostic testing and reliance on second-line antibiotics. AMR was associated with almost US$700 billion in hospital costs globally in 2019, according to research published in BMJ Global Health.

Researchers warn that the burden of AMR could increase substantially in the coming decades. By 2050, drug-resistant infections could claim 10 million lives each year, while imposing trillions of dollars in economic costs.

AMR can develop through a range of interconnected factors. It can develop naturally as microorganisms adapt to their environments. But according to FAO and research published in JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare, the primary driver of AMR is antimicrobial use. When exposed to these medicines, susceptible microorganisms may be killed while resistant ones survive and multiply.

Evidence has linked the development and spread of resistance with the misuse and overuse of antimicrobials in human health, animal health, and food production. Meanwhile, global human antibiotic consumption increased by 65 percent between 2000 and 2015. And a Science study found that the proportion of animals carrying resistant bacteria in low- and middle-income countries nearly tripled between 2000 and 2018.

Antimicrobials have played an essential role in agriculture for decades, helping treat diseases in livestock, crops, and aquaculture. But the scale and manner of their use have raised concerns about agriculture’s contribution to AMR.

More than 70 percent of antibiotics worldwide are used in animals raised for food, and resistance in food animals has risen sharply. Part of the concern centers on antimicrobials used for purposes other than treating disease.

Several reports indicate that antimicrobials are used imprudently in agriculture, often being given to healthy animals for growth promotion and prophylactic purposes.

Experts suggest limiting antimicrobial use in food-producing animals when it is not needed to treat disease. WHO has called for restrictions on medically important antibiotics used for growth promotion and routine disease prevention in healthy animals.

FAO recommends reducing the conditions that create demand for these drugs. For example, by improving hygiene, biosecurity, and ventilation animal welfare, reducing crowding and stress, and farming breeds better adapted to local conditions.

Increasingly, experts approach these measures through a One Health approach, which treats human, animal, and environmental health as interconnected. A resistant bacterium that develops in livestock, for example, may spread through manure into soil and water, creating pathways for resistance to move between agricultural systems, animals, and people. Addressing AMR therefore requires coordination across sectors rather than focusing exclusively on antimicrobial use in human medicine or agriculture.

“One-Health is pivotal to combating AMR,” Haileyesus Getahun, Director of Global Coordination for the Joint Secretariat on AMR, tells Food Tank. “No sector or country acting alone can tackle AMR.” The Joint Secretariat—comprising FAO, WHO, the U.N. Environment Programme, and the World Organisation for Animal Health—coordinates international efforts to address AMR across human, animal, and environmental health.

Consumers can also influence antimicrobial demand in agriculture through their food choices. One study co-authored by Ramanan Laxminarayan found that limiting meat consumption to 40 grams per person per day could reduce antimicrobial use in livestock by 66 percent.

His advice to consumers is straightforward: “Don’t purchase meat raised on antibiotics. Reduce consumption of meat. Ask questions about where your food comes from,” Laxminarayan tells Food Tank.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Bastian Wardana, Unsplash

The post Food Tank Explains: Antimicrobial Resistance appeared first on Food Tank.

Probiotics are a popular dietary supplement, promising to boost people’s health by populating their guts with healthy microbes.

People trying to help coral endure heatwaves might soon be reaching for something similar. Infusions of a special probiotic cocktail helped coral stay healthier as they stewed in overheated water in the Red Sea near Saudi Arabia, scientists reported last week in Cell Reports. Even a mix of dead microbes, a so-called postbiotic, proved beneficial.

While scientists have seen promising lab results that such microbial tweaks might help ailing corals, this is the first report from real world conditions: wild coral in the open ocean during a real underwater heatwave.

“When an innovative idea like this actually works—particularly under field conditions—we are positively surprised,” said Erika Santoro, a postdoctoral researcher at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in Saudi Arabia. “The most exciting takeaway is that this study opens a new avenue for coral microbial therapies.”

People might picture coral as rigid, brightly colored underwater sculptures. But they are so much more. This “skeleton” is just the mineral home to colonies of thousands of tiny coral polyps, identical clones resembling little sea anemones. Then there are the symbiotic algae that live inside the polyps, providing much of the coral’s energy through photosynthesis. Finally, there’s a stew of microbes living in an around the coral.

Scientists are experimenting with each of these kinds of organisms in a desperate bid to help coral endure the underwater heatwaves proliferating across the world. Without help, most corals are expected to be killed by the end of the century, as the oceans absorb much of the excess heat generated by global warming. That would lay waste to one of the most productive and diverse marine ecosystems on Earth.

 

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

 

Researchers are altering coral genetics in hopes of boosting heat tolerance by measures such as crossbreeding coral from different parts of the world. They are working to find and breed strains of algae that will do the same, in some cases accelerating evolution in overheated laboratory waters. They are also studying the microbial communities surrounding coral, in search of mixtures that might help coral stay healthy.

In this new research, Santoro and colleagues tested two different microbial mixtures collected from Red Sea corals and identified as likely candidates based on their genetic profiles and performance in earlier experiments. In 2022, during a prolonged underwater heatwave in the Red Sea that pushed temperatures to nearly 32° Celsius (90° Fahrenheit), the scientists dosed colonies of spiky Acropora valida in a reef near KAUST with one of five mixtures. Two got different probiotics. Two received dead “postbiotic” combinations of the same blends. The last got a salt water placebo with no microbes.

Over 15 days, the scientists watched for changes in color that indicated the coral might be ejecting their algal companions, a response to heat stress. They also measured how efficiently the algae were using sunlight for photosynthesis.

The results were encouraging. While they saw little difference in color changes, coral treated with the placebo and one postbiotic experienced a big drop in their photosynthetic performance. By contrast, corals that got either probiotic or one of the postbiotics showed no decline in photosynthesis over the 15 days.

A survey of the microbial population around the corals at the end of the experiment showed that the communities in the healthier corals looked different than in the sicklier ones. That difference was also reflected in chemistry tied to their metabolic activity.

The success of one of the postbiotics was “particularly exciting,” said Santoro. That’s because dead microbes could be more practical to use on a large scale, because they can be stored more easily since they aren’t alive.

A single 15-day experiment is hardly evidence of a silver bullet. There likely won’t be a single measure that gives coral the key to surviving, and no one is talking of measures that could rescue coral if climate change continues on its current trajectory.

Take this as a glimmer of good news amid an ocean of bad news for coral.

Santoro, et. al. “Probiotic and postbiotic treatment improves coral health and promotes specific metabolic and microbiome changes in situ during a heatwave.” Cell Reports. Sept. 3, 2026.

Image courtesy of Coral Probiotics Village

With June’s UN climate talks inching towards gridlock, a group of diplomats calling themselves “Friends of Science” issued a stark warning: climate science was under attack in Bonn.

The coalition, spanning the world’s richest to its most vulnerable nations, pointed the finger primarily at those who think “science threatens their economic prospects” – a thinly-veiled reference to fossil fuel-dependent states accused of casting doubt on long-held scientific tenets in the UN climate process.

Fiji’s lead negotiator, Sivendra Michael, went still further. He denounced what he called “a very polluted narrative” taking hold outside the negotiating rooms and singled out ECO, a daily newsletter on the talks produced by Climate Action Network (CAN) International, for overlooking the issue. 

“They are representing developing countries, but they are not representing us,” Michael said. His words hinted at how a rift between governments over the science of global warming has created tensions inside the climate movement.

Watchers of the UN climate talks have told Climate Home News there is growing unease over where the world’s most influential coalition of climate NGOs stands in an increasingly heated debate about how scientific messages produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are crafted and turned into global climate policy. 

UN sets out narrow path back to 1.5C warming after inevitable overshoot

CAN’s international leadership has publicly backed a line of argument, championed by some big emerging economies including India, that questions how fair and equitable the models underpinning the work of the IPCC – the UN’s climate science body – are because they are dominated by research from the Global North. 

But some climate activists, including from nations on the frontline of the climate crisis in the Pacific, are increasingly disappointed by CAN’s silence in a connected row over whether the IPCC’s forthcoming assessment report should be finished in time to inform the next UN scorecard of global climate action.  

Over the last two years, India, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and Kenya have pushed back against attempts by a large coalition of nations to align the IPCC’s AR7 report timeline with the second stocktake of national climate plans under the UN climate process. They claim this would put a burden on developing countries with limited resources and restrict their ability to provide scientific input into the process.

India flags bias in IPCC assumptions

CAN International Executive Director Tasneem Essop spoke at an online event last month in which panelists challenged the “Friends of Science” campaign launched at the Bonn talks. 

During the webinar, an Indian scientist and government negotiator set out her view that the IPCC’s way of working and scientific assumptions perpetuate inequity between developed and developing countries – and yet its reports have come to be treated as “scripture” that cannot be questioned. 

In her intervention, Essop did not comment directly on the Bonn science campaign nor on the IPCC timeline issue. But the participation of CAN’s leadership in an event where such criticism of the IPCC was aired has sparked concern in some parts of the NGO community.

“The way in which CAN International is playing into what could be the destruction of the IPCC inputs into the climate process is very concerning,” said Bill Hare, who was involved in CAN’s establishment nearly four decades ago and now runs think-tank Climate Analytics. 

Science ‘under attack’ from fossil fuel interests at UN climate talks

He added that it was a mistake for CAN International to align itself with arguments made by India and Saudi Arabia, when those countries are blocking the conclusion of the IPCC’s next key report on cutting emissions in time for it to feed into the next global stocktake, which is due to conclude in 2028.

Like other insiders Climate Home News spoke to, the veteran Australian climate scientist fears these tensions could hamper CAN’s widely recognised power to influence the talks.

“The CAN International voice has been very, very important in the process. That voice doesn’t need to be diluted at this moment in history – that would be a really bad move,” Hare said.

Dialogue to reconcile differing views

Over the last decade, CAN has been working to transform itself into an organisation that is more representative of, and responsive to, voices and needs in the Global South. In 2019, it appointed Essop – a South African expert on climate, energy, poverty and social justice – as executive director, shifting further away from its European and North American roots.

CAN International, which functions as the broader network’s secretariat, says it is discussing how to reconcile varying views on the IPCC and the science and equity question among its hundreds of member groups spread across 130 countries.

“We acknowledge that there are different perspectives within a global network of over 2,000 members on these issues,” CAN International’s Essop said in response to questions from Climate Home News. “Given this diversity, we have democratic processes to build internal agreements.” 

“Science and equity are both fundamental principles for effective climate action and are firmly embedded in CAN’s work,” she added in a written statement. “Putting these principles into practice in a painfully unjust world is not always straightforward, which is why we need continued dialogue across the network.”

Calls for “fair share” approach

The webinar in late August – which aimed to untangle what organisers described as “a growing narrative” that “treats science and equity as opposing priorities” – opened with a presentation by Tejal Kanitkar, a prominent Indian climate scientist who also serves on her government’s delegations at the IPCC and UN climate talks. 

Outlining the findings of a paper she co-authored, Kanitkar argued that the IPCC had used scenarios for future emission reduction trajectories based primarily on assumptions put forward by Global North researchers that are skewed against the world’s poorest nations. These, she noted, were then incorporated into the first UN review of global climate action in 2023 and turned into widely cited emissions-cutting targets for limiting warming to 1.5C – a goal the UN has now conceded will be breached, at least temporarily.

Tejal Kanitkar speaking at a meeting of the IPCC in March 2026. Photo: IPCC Secretariat | Melissa Walsh Tejal Kanitkar speaking at a meeting of the IPCC in March 2026. Photo: IPCC Secretariat | Melissa Walsh

Kanitkar said the “Friends of Science” group included “some of the people who have over-consumed the carbon budget and now use science as a slogan”. When Climate Home News raised the participation of diplomats from vulnerable countries, she said they should be asked why they “accept outcomes that burden the poorest the most”.

Commenting on Kanitkar’s presentation, CAN’s Essop said everyone knows that “imbalances of power dictate who sits at the table, who designs the models and who determines the assumptions underlying them”.

Her wider intervention focused more generally on the need to ensure that emissions-reduction pathways follow an equitable approach and account for the “fair share” of action countries need to take based on their historical responsibilities for climate change. 

IPCC working to update models

Hare later acknowledged that most of the IPCC models used for 1.5C scenarios fail to account for the higher cost of capital and transition financing faced by developing countries. But as this is a “well-known” limitation, the IPCC gives a nuanced reading of the scenarios, and the next generation of models it uses is expected to include more consideration of equity, he added.

Echoing this, a climate scientist from a developing country currently involved in the IPCC process, who did not want to be identified, told Climate Home News that economic models inevitably contain biases and IPCC authors are already working to identify and correct them. 

• Sep 2, 2026 Science UN sets out narrow path back to 1.5C warming after inevitable overshoot Leading scientists say warming must peak at 1.8C to be able to reverse course this century, but current government climate policies are way off track Read more
• Sep 2, 2026 Comment Keeping to 1.5C of warming is no longer possible – but we must still limit the overshoot We need a strategy for navigating the huge risks to ecosystems and societies Read more

Despite criticisms of how IPCC scientific reports have been produced, all governments must sign off on every line of a key “summary for policy-makers” at a dedicated meeting. In 2023, the approved summary included the emissions reduction figures in question that informed the UN’s first global stocktake. 

Irrespective of this wider debate, Hare said the “Friends of Science” campaign, which he supports, is focused on the timing of the IPCC’s next assessment cycle rather than the equity of its models.

Unresolved row over IPCC report timeline

A political battle over that time-frame has dragged on for more than two years at successive meetings of the science panel, with governments repeatedly failing to find a solution. 

A large majority of nations have been pushing for a timeline that would ensure the next round of AR7 reports can feed into the UN’s global stocktake. But a group of countries, including Saudi Arabia, India, China, Russia and Kenya, have said at previous IPCC meetings that this would put a burden on developing countries with limited resources and have lobbied for a longer process.

Member of the “Friends of Science” campaign wears a pin in Bonn. Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth Member of the “Friends of Science” campaign wears a pin in Bonn. Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth

In Bonn this summer, the coalition that wants to align AR7 with the 2028 stocktake – which includes diplomats from Fiji, Nepal, the European Union, Switzerland, Sierra Leone and Panama – vowed to ensure that decision-making in the UN climate process remains based on the “best available science”, including the IPCC assessment reports. 

They pointed the finger at “the usual suspects” but stopped short of singling out any countries at the public press conference. Discussions in the previous week had seen Saudi Arabia and India play down the centrality of IPCC reports in the UN stocktake and oppose calls in draft texts to encourage scientific work on scenarios to limit an overshoot of the 1.5C warming goal.

Bonn upset fuels further tension

A campaigner with knowledge of internal discussions told Climate Home News that many civil society groups from some of the world’s most vulnerable nations, including the Pacific islands, had expected CAN International to back calls in Bonn defending the centrality of the IPCC in UN climate policy-making. 

Despite this, a day before the “Friends of Science” press conference, CAN published an ECO newsletter that did not mention the issue. Instead, it voiced surprise over the claims of an attack on science happening in the negotiations and accused some of the IPCC’s loudest-defending governments of hypocrisy for continuing to expand fossil fuels and not delivering “fair shares” of emissions cuts and finance to the developing world.

“We were really shocked we could not find a common position and then this jarring narrative was being pushed,” the campaigner added. 

After divisions hardened in Bonn, Hare said his organisation was approached by “very upset” CAN members from various regions about the stance taken by the network’s international leadership on the issue.

Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push

While Climate Home News understands that internal discussions have continued during the summer, including at a CAN leadership meeting in Nairobi in recent days, the campaigner said that CAN International’s endorsement of the recent webinar that directly challenged the “Friends of Science” coalition did not send a reassuring signal. 

Some observers said they feared it would inflame tensions over how climate science is defined and utilised for policy purposes, with consequences reaching well beyond Bonn.

In a statement to Climate Home News, Essop said that “at a time when communities are experiencing the most horrific impacts of climate chaos, our collective energy must turn to solutions such as filling the Loss and Damage Fund, the phasing out of fossil fuels led by the Global North, and justice for people who are least responsible for this climate emergency”. 

The post As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond appeared first on Climate Home News.

Headline News:

• “Parched Summer In Rockies Sends Bears Into Urban Areas” • A black bear opened the door of a Toyota SUV and got trapped inside it. The animal ripped apart the Toyota’s interior, as it tried desperately to escape. It was one of hundreds of examples of bears getting into more trouble than usual in the parched Rocky Mountains this summer. [ABC News]

Black bear (sawyer, Unsplash)

• “Why Moscow Still Has A Role In Europe’s ITER Fusion Project” • The EU and Russia are geopolitical adversaries, with Russia under sweeping EU sanctions and its ties to the EU cut back. Yet inside the world’s largest nuclear fusion experiment, the two remain linked by a partnership forged decades ago and built to endure for generations. [Euronews]
• “Global Trade Made Up 35% Of The EU’s Carbon Footprint In 2023” • The EU is making a full-on effort to cut its emissions, but 35% of its carbon footprint was generated abroad in 2023, data from the European Climate Foundation and climate consultancy Matière says. And globally, over 20% of greenhouse gas emissions are linked to global trade. [Euronews]
• “BYD Sales Outside of China Grew 134% To Record 189,466 Vehicles In August” • BYD reportedly sold 189,466 vehicles in August outside of China. That was 134.5% more than it sold outside of China in August 2025. BYD also achieved 5% growth, month over month. That happens often, and BYD’s sales outside of China often hit new records. [CleanTechnica]
• “Ball State Study Finds Utility-Scale Renewable Projects Have No Significant Effect On Indiana Home Prices” • A research brief from Ball State University outlines an analysis of 20 years of data for home sales near large renewable energy projects in Indiana. It finds no statistically significant negative impact on residential property values. [pv magazine USA]

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

As education workers, students, parents and other community members in Ontario battle Doug Ford for a better education system, alliances are forming or expanding to...

The post Join parents’ fight for better public education first appeared on Spring.

Companies behind plans in East Yorkshire for a £2.5m lower-volume frack, well test and data centre study have given notice of preparation work.

The news came in a formal statement by the majority owner, Reabold Resources, released this morning (9 September 2026).

West Newton-A well site, East Yorkshire. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The work is planned for the West Newton-A well site in Holderness. Reabold, which holds an almost 80% stake, said:

“preparatory work for the planned recompletion, stimulation and test programme at the West Newton A-2 well will commence shortly”.

The site operator, Rathlin Energy updated its website yesterday (8 September 2026), saying:

• Plans were “being progressed” on the lower-volume frack and test plans
• Work was targeted for the fourth quarter of 2026 (as announced in June 2026) if well completion and test contractors were available
• A community benefit scheme would be set up

The local campaign group, West Newton Said No, said this morning:

“Our monitors will be keeping a close eye on anything that happens and will take any and all actions it deems necessary to protect our precious aquifer and local communities.”

See full statement below from West Newton Said No

Data centre plans

Previous Reabold statements said gas extracted from West Newton could be used to generate electricity to run a bitcoin mining operation.

For the first time, Reabold said today a feasibility study was underway for a data centre on the West Newton site.

It said:

“The Company believes that West Newton’s onshore location, scale and proximity to existing grid and transport infrastructure make it well suited to such applications, and further updates will be provided as this work progresses.”

Stephen Williams, Reabold’s co-chief executive, said:

“It is particularly exciting that a study is underway to assess the feasibility of co-locating data centre infrastructure at site, which would be powered by West Newton’s natural gas, offering a uniquely positioned “behind-the-meter” development solution for digital infrastructure in the UK.

“The UK is experiencing a significant acceleration in demand for digital infrastructure, driven by AI and the growing digital economy for which securing and scalable, affordable and reliable power has become a key constraint.

“We believe West Newton has the potential to provide reliable power generation, creating an additional value pathway alongside the project’s existing traditional natural gas development plans.”

Other details

Rathlin Energy said plans were “being progressed” for the proposed lower-volume frack, described as a well stimulation, and the well test, due to last up to a year

The West Newton-A project also requires the construction of passing places on the access road, Pasture Lane.

Rathlin confirmed that Pasture Lane would be closed for about four weeks from mid-September 2026.

Reabold said in its statement that authorities for expenditure had been issued for the highways work and procurement of long-lead items, including speciality chemicals.

It also said final engineering activities and award of contracts were currently underway. It said:

“Subject to the completion of these preparatory activities, the well will be recompleted, followed by a period of testing.”

Rathlin Energy said the North Sea Transition Authority had approved its applications for the lower volume frack and well test.

The company also restated that the hydraulic fracture plan had been approved by the NSTA and Environment Agency (EA).

The EA’s decision to permit the fracture operation is the subject of a legal challenge by local campaigner, Peter Lomas.

• At the time of writing, there has been no statement today on West Newton from Union Jack Oil, the other investor in the operation. Union Jack is the subject of a takeover bid from Reabold Resources. Union Jack shareholders recently voted to remove the entire board . The new directors are due to make a statement this week. Union Jack issued a statement at 10.50am.

Reaction

The campaign group, West Newton Said No, issued a statement this morning:

“Today’s RNS [regulatory news service statement] from Reabold comes as no surprise, following the rebuttal by shareholders over at Union Jack Oil for a takeover of their company. We see this as just another can kicking excercise by the industry and an attempt to bully UJO [Union Jack] into selling up.

“This farcical story has continued for years, and what’s even more farcical is that now Reabold are talking about using the gas, which has never been proved to flow at any rate, let alone commercial rates to power AI data centres, a change from its originally proposed bitcoin mining farms.

“The planning condition to construct passing places on Pasture Lane where originally planned for construction in August, these were scrapped.

“West Newton Said No will be actively campaigning for the liaison group to reject any community fund. It’s just another bribe to placate the local communities and has been used as a weapon worldwide, take the money and if anything untoward happens your gagged.

“A question needs to be answered here, if they plan on constructing a data centre, and if they ever get permission, which is highly doubtful , do they plan on abstraction of our clean fresh drinking water from our irreplaceable chalk aquifer to cool it ?

“Our monitors will be keeping a close eye on anything that happens and will take any and all actions it deems necessary to protect our precious aquifer and local communities.”

For years, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has been working to make the state a welcoming home for clean energy manufacturing — EVs, solar panels, batteries for storage. The state went all out with tax breaks and a worker training program to attract EV and battery makers — and for a while it was working. 

Georgia-based bus manufacturer Blue Bird started selling electric buses commercially in 2018 and built an expanded factory for electric buses in 2023. In 2022, Hyundai built a plant near Savannah that it said would be dedicated to making EVs. In 2024, Kia started making EVs at its West Point plant. And in 2025, Rivian broke ground on its manufacturing plant near Atlanta. The Hyundai and Rivian operations are two of the biggest economic development projects in Georgia history. The state has also worked to attract other parts of the EV and clean energy manufacturing sector, including battery makers and recyclers and solar panel companies.

Under the second Trump administration, the economic outlook for these companies has been destabilized. In addition to ending federal EV tax credits, the Trump administration has imposed tariffs on battery packs, charger hardware, and other components; loosened rules around emissions from gas-powered cars; and ended the Biden administration’s push to make government vehicle fleets electric. And a year ago, federal immigration agents raided an electric vehicle battery plant and arrested more than 400 people, most of them South Korean workers there to help get the new factory off the ground.

The past year and a half has been a grim moment for what was a booming industry in Georgia. But the EV makers are still forging ahead, even if that means making some adjustments.

At Kia’s plant in West Point, a long and constantly varied line of vehicles moves steadily forward on the assembly line, step by step gaining all the trimmings that turn metal shells into driveable cars. But this plant functions more like a short-order cook than a traditional assembly line. Instead of producing big, uniform batches, Kia has designed the plant to manufacture cars according to unique specifications — each one a different model, color, trim, or even drive train — that is, gas-powered, hybrid, or electric. Kia says it has done this to make more of the cars people most want to buy at any given moment. Right now, that means hybrids.

“What we’ve seen is a transition back away from maybe full EV vehicle building to this kind of a middle-of-the-road opportunity,” said factory CEO Stuart Countess.

Electric cars are still the future, he said. But for several reasons, including price and charging access, consumers just aren’t there yet. Changes to federal policy are a major factor, too.

“We had a tax incentive credit that did go away,” Countess said. “Sales were really moving in the right direction, but once it went away, it became a much different environment.”

Just as Kia has ramped up hybrid production, its sister company Hyundai has added hybrid production to the lineup produced at its massive plant near Savannah, which was originally built to make EVs. 

“It’s kind of a messy period we’re in right now,” said Stephanie Valdez-Streaty, director of industry insights at Cox Automotive. “But I think the manufacturers are adjusting.”

Read Next Next stop for California’s high-speed rail: Finding private investors Benton Graham

At the same time, battery makers throughout the state have started shifting to producing storage batteries for electricity in addition to ones made to power vehicles.

“The state continues to have a lot riding on the success of both the electric vehicle but also the battery market,” said Stan Cross of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, or SACE. 

Georgia leads the region in EV and battery manufacturing, but the growth has stumbled, with layoffs at SK Battery earlier this year. More than $4 billion in investment has been canceled or scaled back in the last year across the Southeast, according to SACE. 

That’s dwarfed, though, by the nearly $74 billion in manufacturing investment that’s moving ahead. Still, one open question, Cross said, is whether Georgians will buy the hybrids and EVs being made in the state.

Despite actively pursuing EV manufacturing, Georgia doesn’t have incentives to encourage EV adoption like some other states. In fact, there’s an extra registration fee designed to make up for lost gas taxes. And the thorny politics may extend beyond state policy and the now-ended federal incentives. “When it comes to electric vehicles, Georgia politics remains utterly confused,” Cross said.

Private investment continues, though. Kia and Hyundai are part of a charging consortium called IONNA that has installed several charging stations around the state, including one at the Kia factory site in West Point. Electric utilities are investing more in vehicle charging too. Across the region, EV-related investment by utilities increased by 14 percent this year, according to SACE.

“Though we’re not seeing a lot of activity on the legislative side, we do see potential on the regulatory side and really are encouraging Georgia Power to step up and help kind of fill the void that policymakers in the state are creating,” Cross said.

Valdez-Streaty believes that, over time, making EVs in Georgia will likely lead to more people in Georgia buying them.

“It’s like that familiarity, right?” she said. “People have jobs at those companies and familiarity with those products.”

Though shaky for the last 18 months or so, she said the EV market is starting to stabilize — and the auto industry is still going electric, it’s just taking a little longer.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Georgia bet big on EV manufacturing. Trump pulled the plug. on Sep 9, 2026.

Delta Coalition decries Voluntary Agreements framework as unreliable and ecologically destructive to an already fragile Delta Estuary

For Immediate Release:

September 9, 2026

Contact:
Ashley Castaneda, ashley@restorethedelta.org

SACRAMENTO — The Bureau of Reclamation and the Westlands Water District have indicated they will not participate in the Voluntary Agreements (VAs) if the State Water Board approves the updated San Francisco Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan (“Bay-Delta Plan”), prompting renewed criticism from the Delta Tribal Environmental Coalition (DTEC)—consisting of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Little Manila Rising, and Restore the Delta.

DTEC has long raised concerns about the Bay-Delta Plan’s reliance on VAs, privately negotiated deals allowing powerful water districts to offer limited flow commitments and funding in exchange for exemptions from stronger, enforceable regulatory requirements. The coalition has criticized the VA framework as scientifically inadequate and lacking enforceable protections needed to safeguard threatened fish species and address harmful algal blooms (HABs). 

The coalition has also consistently warned that the federal government cannot be relied upon as a partner in complying with state laws and regulatory decisions designed to protect Delta ecosystems, Tribes, and Delta communities. The Bureau of Reclamation’s decision to pull out of the agreements in this late stage, DTEC says, is further evidence of that pattern.

DTEC is calling on the State Water Board to prioritize strong, science-based, and enforceable protections for Delta water quality and ecosystems—and to abandon the failing Voluntary Agreements framework. The coalition emphasizes that the current outcome is a direct consequence of a broken process that excluded key voices, including Tribes and environmental justice communities.

The State Water Board is accepting comments on the plan through September 18, before considering adoption at a hearing scheduled for October 28-29.

STATEMENTS FROM COALITION MEMBERS:

Malissa Tayaba, Vice Chair, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians:

“California tribes were deliberately excluded from the development of agreements that maintain unsustainable water deliveries and frustrate our ability to maintain our culture and traditions. Now, parties that negotiated those agreements are threatening legal action unless they are allowed to operate with zero accountability. There is seemingly no limit to their greed and unwillingness to respect tribal sovereignty and culture. This is why we need a regulatory approach that protects tribal beneficial water uses and ecosystem health.”

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director, Restore the Delta:

“Collectively we have wasted eight years since 2018 on a water scheme that will never satisfy powerful water contractors. They will never volunteer to help solve the water needs of the Delta. Tribes, communities along the watersheds, fishing interests, and many other parties, including ratepayers, who will be footing the bill for the water buybacks, have all been left out of the secret negotiations. There is nothing here to save. It is time to enact science-based Bay-Delta standards rather than promoting a fantasy to fill the Delta Conveyance Project.”

###

Wendell Berry made his choices and stuck to them. He did not have a computer or a smartphone. He wrote more than 50 books of poetry, fiction, and essays, mostly with a pencil and paper, from his farmhouse in Henry County, Kentucky. By the time of his passing last week, the 92-year-old had lived many lives — as a farmer, teacher, philosopher, environmental activist — and inspired several generations of writers, farmers, and advocates in turn. From these varying perspectives, Berry grappled with humanity and the natural world. 

His answer to the fundamental question of how to live right was to start small — to revere the Earth’s endless beauty, and to work a little, each day, to reverse the harm we’ve caused. 

“There is no public crisis that is not also private,” Berry wrote in his essay “Think Little.” Written in 1972 as the environmental movement emerged, the piece marked a conflict of Berry’s: Despite strong environmental convictions, he sometimes despaired of the movement’s focus on bending the ear of politicians, without individuals healing the rupture between modern life and the land. “The changes that are required are fundamental changes in the way we are living,” Berry wrote. 

He extolled this approach in one of his most well-known poems, “Manifesto: Mad Farmer Liberation Front”: “Invest in the millennium. Plant sequoias. / Say that your main crop is the forest / that you did not plant.”

The language of activism was often at odds with Berry’s worldview. It seemed to warn of a coming apocalypse, but to Berry, the world had no end and no beginning. To move in nature’s time meant to think in cycles of death and rebirth, not a straight line leading toward destruction or salvation. 

That didn’t stop Berry from engaging with activism even when it frustrated him, said Jeffrey Bilbro, an English professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, who’s written several books on Berry. 

Berry was arrested in 1979 for protesting a nuclear plant in Indiana. In 2011, he was arrested again during a sit-in inside Kentucky state government offices while protesting mountaintop removal coal mining. He remained active in the fight against coal throughout the 2010s, helping to block the gates to a coal-fired power plant in Washington, D.C., and pulling his papers from the University of Kentucky after the school accepted a $7 million donation from Alliance Coal.

After Berry wrote his essay in Harper’s Magazine, “Why I am not Going to Buy a Computer” in 1987, some called him a Luddite. As a Grist article in 2014 pointed out, he was, in perhaps the truest sense, taking after that early 19th century movement, when textile workers at the advent of industrialization destroyed machinery to protect the dignity of their work. Berry refused, as much as he could, to let technology alienate him from his work. For this, he was sometimes criticized or called a curmudgeon.

Read Next The summer we love is slipping away Grist staff

His views didn’t fit neatly into modern politics. He believed that marriage and family strengthened community ties, but didn’t believe the government had authority to legislate such things. The law of nature, he said in one essay, was universal kinship and kindness, and Biblical stories and Psalms supported that. Berry was religious, but didn’t always like church, calling himself, according to Bilbro, a “bad weather church-goer” because he preferred to spend nice Sunday mornings walking in the woods. He hated dualisms — between humanity and the natural world, between body and soul, between person who believes x and person who believes y. This lent him broad appeal across the political and class spectrum, especially to those who felt that capitalism and industry had moved humanity away from a more honest way of life, whether through agriculture or other means.

“For an uncompromising person or a person of convictions, I think he recognized the need in a fallen world,” Bilbro said. “Our hands are all dirty, and we’re making these compromises, and it’s better to be honest about the necessity to do so and try to do what we can to live right, even if we can’t attain the purity that we might wish.”

The environmental crisis, according to Berry, takes hold in our lives and evinces itself as a sort of social decay. But living isn’t an unforgivable sin in itself, if we can only leave things better than we found them, knowing that the strip-mined mountaintop where we plant spruce, aspen, and wildflowers might not become a lush forest again until long after we’re gone.

In the poem, “A Discipline,” Berry imagines apocalypse: “it approaches / on every side, there is no other place / to turn.” 

And yet, the poem continues, nothing ever really goes away: “It is the time’s discipline to think / of the death of all living, and yet live.”

Only the hard work of tending the land and learning its rhythms again can heal it, he believed. In coming into relationship with the smallest handful of earth, you can understand what it means to fight for change almost too enormous to fathom. To Berry, by tending a sprouted seedling in the ground, you can recognize you are it, and it is you.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Wendell Berry’s life on Earth on Sep 9, 2026.

What if the story we tell ourselves about progress is wrong?

How pronatalist misinformation fuels low-fertility alarmism.

After centuries of dam building, a nationwide movement to dismantle these aging barriers is showing how free-flowing rivers can restore ecosystems, improve safety, and reconnect people with nature.

The soft body of the turtle Channel Comment brendan 9th September 2026 Teaser Media

Dua pemain membuka permainan serupa dengan nilai transaksi berbeda. Satu memakai nominal kecil, sementara pemain lain memasang angka lebih besar. Ketika hasil keduanya bertolak belakang, muncul dugaan bahwa sistem sengaja menaikkan tingkat kesulitan berdasarkan jumlah dana. Dari sinilah anggapan mengenai hubungan Nominal Situs Slot Maxwin dengan algoritma mulai berkembang.

Dugaan tersebut terdengar masuk akal apabila hanya dilihat dari pengalaman singkat. Namun mekanisme permainan digital tidak sesederhana membaca jumlah transaksi lalu mengubah peluang secara otomatis. Algoritma Slot Maxwin pada permainan berbasis RNG bekerja melalui proses perhitungan hasil setiap putaran sesuai konfigurasi game. Nilai taruhan dapat memengaruhi jumlah uang pada hasil tertentu, tetapi bukan berarti tingkat kesulitan otomatis berubah.

Nominal Situs Slot Maxwin Sering Disalahartikan sebagai Pengatur Peluang

Nominal menjadi elemen paling mudah diamati pengguna. Angka terlihat jelas pada layar, berubah setiap putaran, serta langsung berkaitan dengan saldo. Tidak heran apabila bagian ini kerap dianggap sebagai faktor utama saat hasil permainan berubah. Padahal ada perbedaan antara nilai taruhan dan probabilitas. Taruhan menentukan besarnya nilai finansial pada satu putaran. Probabilitas berkaitan dengan struktur matematika permainan, kombinasi simbol, tabel pembayaran, volatilitas, serta konfigurasi sistem. Situs Slot Maxwin pada dasarnya menjadi medium akses menuju permainan dari provider. Jika game memakai sistem RNG, hasil putaran tidak semestinya ditentukan hanya karena pemain menaikkan atau menurunkan nominal.

Nominal Besar Membuat Perubahan Saldo Terlihat Lebih Dramatis

Ada alasan psikologis mengapa nominal tinggi terasa lebih sulit. Ketika nilai per putaran meningkat, perubahan saldo juga berlangsung lebih cepat. Beberapa hasil tanpa pembayaran bisa menciptakan penurunan cukup besar dalam waktu singkat. Situasi tersebut mudah diterjemahkan sebagai peningkatan kesulitan. Padahal mekanisme dasarnya dapat tetap sama. Sebaliknya, nominal kecil membuat perubahan saldo tampak lebih lambat. Durasi bermain dapat terasa panjang sehingga pengguna memperoleh lebih banyak kesempatan melihat variasi hasil. Perbedaan pengalaman ini sering membentuk persepsi keliru mengenai Algoritma Slot Maxwin.

Bagaimana Algoritma Slot Maxwin Membentuk Hasil Putaran?

Permainan slot digital umumnya menggunakan Random Number Generator untuk menghasilkan keluaran secara acak sesuai parameter permainan. Sistem tersebut berjalan pada setiap putaran dan menentukan susunan simbol berdasarkan aturan internal game. Di sisi lain, ada RTP teoretis serta volatilitas. RTP menggambarkan persentase pengembalian secara matematis dalam simulasi jangka sangat panjang, bukan janji hasil pada satu sesi. Volatilitas menjelaskan karakter distribusi pembayaran. Game bervolatilitas tinggi dapat memiliki rentang hasil lebih lebar, sedangkan volatilitas rendah cenderung menghasilkan distribusi berbeda. Karena itu, membahas Algoritma Slot Maxwin hanya melalui nominal transaksi mengabaikan banyak variabel teknis lain.

Perubahan Nilai Taruhan Tidak Sama dengan Perubahan Mesin

Saat pemain berpindah dari Rp1.000 menjadi Rp10.000 per putaran, efek paling nyata terdapat pada nilai uang. Jika kombinasi memberikan pembayaran 20 kali taruhan, hasil finansial tentu berbeda. Namun peningkatan tersebut tidak otomatis membuktikan bahwa sistem masuk ke mode lebih sulit. Pengecualian bisa muncul pada permainan dengan fitur, jackpot, atau syarat tertentu berdasarkan level taruhan. Informasi semacam ini seharusnya tercantum pada aturan permainan. Karena setiap produk memiliki konfigurasi berbeda, pengguna perlu membaca paytable serta informasi fitur daripada menganggap semua game memakai pola identik.

Mengapa Mitos Nominal Mengubah Algoritma Mudah Menyebar?

Pengalaman pribadi memiliki pengaruh besar terhadap cara pemain membaca pola. Seseorang mungkin menaikkan taruhan lalu mengalami beberapa putaran tanpa hasil. Kejadian tersebut kemudian dianggap sebagai bukti hubungan sebab-akibat. Masalahnya, sampel beberapa putaran terlalu kecil untuk menjelaskan sistem probabilitas. Cerita komunitas juga memperkuat kesan tersebut. Pengalaman unik lebih sering dibagikan dibanding sesi biasa. Akibatnya, pengguna melihat kumpulan cerita ekstrem dan merasa pola serupa terjadi secara konsisten pada Situs Slot Maxwin. Bias konfirmasi ikut berperan. Setelah seseorang percaya nominal besar membuat permainan sulit, setiap kekalahan setelah menaikkan taruhan terasa seperti pembenaran. Hasil berbeda sering justru terlupakan.

Situs Slot Maxwin Perlu Memisahkan Fakta Sistem dari Persepsi

Transparansi menjadi bagian penting ketika sebuah platform menyajikan informasi permainan. Situs Slot Maxwin idealnya memberikan akses jelas terhadap aturan, tabel pembayaran, batas taruhan, fitur khusus, serta informasi RTP apabila tersedia dari provider. Informasi tersebut jauh lebih berguna dibanding klaim mengenai nominal tertentu sebagai angka “aman”, “panas”, atau dianggap mampu membuka peluang khusus. Tanpa data teknis dari pengembang, klaim semacam itu tidak cukup kuat untuk dijadikan kesimpulan.

Nominal Situs Slot Maxwin pada akhirnya lebih tepat dipahami sebagai pengaturan nilai finansial per putaran. Besar atau kecilnya angka dapat mengubah kecepatan perubahan saldo dan persepsi risiko, tetapi tidak otomatis menjadi tombol rahasia untuk menaikkan atau menurunkan tingkat kesulitan.

Algoritma Slot Maxwin tetap perlu dibaca melalui mekanisme game, RNG, volatilitas, paytable, fitur khusus, serta parameter dari provider. Memisahkan unsur tersebut membantu pengguna melihat perbedaan antara sistem matematika dan pola semu hasil pengalaman singkat. Dengan begitu, nominal tidak lagi dianggap sebagai bukti bahwa algoritma diam-diam berubah setiap kali angka taruhan dinaikkan.

• Plug-in hybrids emit six times the amount of greenhouse gases than official testing suggests, according to a new European Union study. The auto industry is opposed to regulations that would bring those figures into line with reality. (Transport & Environment)
• Density makes cities more productive, but traffic congestion eats up a lot of those benefits. (Brookings)
• West Coast states are leading the way in exploring new sources of transportation funding to account for more fuel-efficient vehicles and declining gas tax revenue. (Government Technology)
• House Republicans’ proposed five-year transportation funding bill could result in 25 percent cuts for Milwaukee County transit. (Urban Milwaukee)
• In response to outrage from transit advocates, the Houston Metro cut jobs and restructured debt rather than cutting rail and bus service as previously planned. (Chronicle; paywall)
• A new design for Boston’s Blue Hill Avenue keeps a controversial center bus lane while adding more parking, more trees, new sidewalks and a bike path. (WBUR)
• A Montreal study says that investing in transit brings greater economic development benefits than investing in car infrastructure. (Global News)
• A small group of Seattle property owners is out to stop a monorail project by disingenuously asking for expensive “improvements” that drive up the cost and demanding more studies. (The Stranger)
• Amtrak will suspend Virginia-to-D.C. service next month to make critical track upgrades. (Mercury)
• Fort Worth Report lists the most dangerous intersections in the city.
• Drivers killed two pedestrians in Wilmington last week, prompting renewed interest in Vision Zero. (WWAY)
• Darrell Owens delves into the drama over a bike lane in Berkeley that’s been a hot topic on Bluesky. (The Discourse Lounge)
• If you’re in Toronto and want to gawk at some celebs this week, take the King Street streetcar. It’s being rerouted effective Thursday to pass by an international film festival. (blogTO)

For small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs, the right financing can make all the difference. Unfortunately, not all lenders have your best interests in mind. 

Online lenders often promise fast cash and easy approvals, but those offers can come with high costs and long-term financial stress. Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) like Mountain Association take a different approach, focusing on your long-term success while still delivering financing decisions quickly. 

Predatory Lending vs. Community Lending 

Predatory lenders often market themselves as a solution for businesses that don’t qualify for traditional bank financing. They advertise same-day approvals and minimal paperwork, but those conveniences can come at a steep price. Many charge extremely high interest rates, add hidden fees, or require daily or weekly payments that put pressure on cash flow. 

We’ve seen annual percentage rates (APRs) ranging from 40% to more than 350%. In some cases, business owners end up repaying several times what they originally borrowed, making it harder to invest in growth and build financial stability. As an example, a small business in Leslie County was having to pay $1,300 per week to a predatory lender. 

At Mountain Association, we believe financing should create opportunity, not become a burden. As a CDFI, we work with entrepreneurs who may not qualify for conventional financing and help strengthen local economies across Eastern Kentucky. 

Our loans range from $1,000 to more than $1 million, with interest rates typically between 5% and 9.75% and flexible repayment terms. We also offer solar financing at a fixed 4% interest rate with terms up to 20 years. For loans under $50,000, decisions are often made within 2 to 10 business days once all required information is received. 

More Than a Loan 

One of the biggest differences between Mountain Association and many online lenders is the relationship we build with borrowers. 

While predatory lenders often rely on automated systems and provide little support after approval, our team takes the time to understand your goals, challenges, and opportunities. Whether you’re starting a business, purchasing equipment, expanding operations, or strengthening working capital, we’ll help identify the financing option that best fits your needs. 

Our lending process is transparent and supportive. We’ll explain the terms, answer your questions, and make sure you’re comfortable before moving forward. We also connect entrepreneurs with free business coaching, technical assistance, and additional resources to help build a stronger foundation for success. 

Financing Designed for Growing Businesses 

We also structure loans differently than many traditional and online lenders. 

For larger equipment purchases, we typically pay vendors directly. For smaller purchases, borrowers can submit receipts for reimbursement. This approach often benefits businesses because they only make payments on funds that have actually been disbursed, rather than on the entire loan amount from day one. 

We also prioritize accountability and flexibility. While we offer working capital loans when appropriate, many of our loans are structured around specific business investments. 

Another important difference is our approach to collateral. We work hard to separate business and personal assets and avoid using personal assets as collateral whenever possible. To address collateral gaps, we may utilize a collateral support fund through the Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky or share risk through lending partnerships. 

Work With Us 

We’re proud to offer financing that helps people build businesses, create local jobs, and strengthen their communities. 

If you have a business idea or are ready to grow an existing business, choosing the right lender matters. Mountain Association is committed to providing fair, affordable capital along with the guidance and support entrepreneurs need to succeed. 

Learn more at mtassociation.org/lending 

The post Avoid the Business Debt Trap: Know the Difference Between Predatory and Community Lenders  appeared first on Mountain Association.

Open Letter to the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution

Your excellency, Amb. Julio Cordano,

The release of the Aid to Negotiations marks a key step in the process to develop a legally binding international instrument to end plastic pollution. Unfortunately, rather than bringing the Parties closer to delivering the ambition mandated by the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) Resolution 5/14, the document raises profound concerns about both its substance and the process by which it was developed.

Your Aid to Negotiations is not a neutral facilitation document. It is a political document that makes choices. These choices consistently favor the lowest common denominator – about what is prioritized, what is sidelined, and what is left unresolved. And time and again, sacrificing the ambition mandated by governments in Resolution 5/14.

The result is deeply troubling: rather than facilitating progress towards an ambitious, fit-for-purpose treaty supported by a majority of countries, as demonstrated in previous rounds of negotiations, the Aid to Negotiations text is an insidious attempt to compromise on the wishlist of a small group of petrostates. 

Rather than helping Parties conclude a treaty capable of truly ending plastic pollution, the document renders ineffective the core elements needed to achieve its objective. It systematically removes obligations to address upstream measures, weakens the financial mechanisms necessary to ensure effective implementation of the instrument, and excessively relies on voluntary, non-binding, nationally determined measures whilst sidelining binding ones. It gives disproportionate weight to positions advanced by a small group of countries that have consistently sought to delay, dilute, and derail negotiations, while disregarding proposals supported by broad majorities of Parties.

Since your assumption of the Chairmanship, observers—particularly those representing the communities most impacted by plastic pollution—have repeatedly been denied access to the process. This has effectively turned what should be an inclusive, transparent, and fair multilateral process into almost a year-long series of closed-door meetings, under the pretext of an informal Member State-led process. The ambiguity in the Rules of Procedure regarding observer participation in informal meetings has been repeatedly invoked to justify our exclusion.  Such restrictions undermine the transparency, inclusivity, and legitimacy of the process. Those living on the frontlines of the plastics crisis cannot be expected to accept decisions being made about their lives, livelihoods and communities from behind closed doors. Yet, we remain attentive, engaged and determined to achieve an ambitious, fit-for-purpose treaty that protects human health and ensures environmental justice to all. The Aid-to-Negotiations text carries a conscious choice. Specifically:

• Conference Room Papers supported by large numbers of ambitious governments on key upstream measures have been ignored, while weaker downstream options championed by a handful of spoiler countries are prioritized
• The text regress us  instead of building on progress achieved over the past five negotiation sessions
• The interpretation of “balance” consistently result in lower ambition
• Texts that have been officially rejected by the International Negotiations Committee at INC-5.2 are considered as references
• Low-ambition text that has not been previously negotiated in the formal INC process, has been introduced

These are not rhetorical questions. They go to the heart of whether this process is still serving the mandate governments agreed to in Nairobi in 2022.

UNEA 5/14 Is Not Open for Renegotiation

There is no legitimate disagreement about the treaty’s purpose. Governments agreed that this instrument must end plastic pollution through a comprehensive approach addressing the full lifecycle of plastics. Yet, the document repeatedly treats upstream obligations as optional, secondary, or politically unrealistic while upending the waste hierarchy and prevention principles.

Plastic pollution does not begin at the waste stage; it begins with fossil fuel extraction, petrochemical production and ever-increasing plastic production. No amount of geopolitical influence can override the prevailing scientific evidence when it comes to reordering the stages of the plastics lifecycle. The science is clear: the plastics crisis must be addressed across its full lifecycle, and no political maneuvering can change that reality. 

Three-quarters of greenhouse gas emissions from primary plastic production occur before polymers are even manufactured. Waste management systems cannot solve a crisis driven by unchecked production. Only around 9% of all plastics ever produced have been recycled. A treaty that does not address production cannot end plastic pollution if  it ignores its primary driver.

Consensus cannot become a Veto

The document also perpetuates another false narrative: that consensus at any cost is necessary for success. It is not.

More than 115 countries support maintaining the ability to adopt decisions by voting after all efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted. This reflects a standard and widely accepted practice under international law. Without this safeguard, an impasse shaped by a handful of minority countries seeking to delay or weaken the treaty could render any progress or achievement supported by the overwhelming majority of governments meaningless.

The climate regime offers a clear warning: overreliance on consensus has delayed, weakened, and postponed critical decisions for decades. The plastics crisis cannot afford to wait 30 years for urgent action. 

Consensus should be the preferred outcome, not a permanent veto for those most invested in preserving the status quo. Consensus is not interchangeable with unanimity.

The document points toward a Framework Convention

The most worrying feature of the Aid to Negotiations is its overall direction. Throughout your communications, you have emphasized that the treaty should be “concise”, “adaptable,” and capable of evolving over time. Taken together with the removal of substantive obligations throughout the document, this suggests a deliberate shift toward a framework convention. A treaty that establishes broad aspirations today while postponing binding and urgent measures until future protocols is spineless. That is not what governments mandated in the UNEA 5/14 Resolution.

Framework conventions delay action, postpone difficult decisions, and require years, sometimes decades, of additional negotiations before meaningful obligations exist, if they are ever achieved. The world does not have that time.

The plastics treaty must include binding global control measures from the outset, supported by annexes that can be strengthened over time by independent, science-based evidence. This is how a treaty can both evolve and remain relevant and effective.

Transparency has been replaced by Opaqueness

The concerns extend far beyond the text itself. The process through which this document has been developed has lacked transparency from the outset – and this deficit has become increasingly pronounced since you assumed the Chairmanship of the Committee.

Governments, rights-holders and observers have no clear understanding of how negotiating advances were discarded, why widely supported proposals disappeared, or on what basis competing options were selected.

A Chair’s document should faithfully reflect Parties’ positions; it should not quietly rewrite them. When choices consistently favor those seeking weaker obligations, confidence and trust in the neutrality of the process inevitably erode.

With a document so consistently aligned with the agenda of countries seeking the weakest possible treaty, it is reasonable to ask: Whose positions is this document actually reflecting and representing?

At every stage of this process, meaningful civil society and rightsholders participation has been systematically sidelined, increasingly reduced to the margins and, in practice, denied altogether. Governments face language barriers that prevent meaningful participation from any non-English-speaking delegation. Indigenous Peoples, waste pickers, frontline communities, women, youth, scientists, and public health experts have repeatedly been prevented from fully and effectively engaging in this process.

In your 4th letter to the Committee, you proposed a new multi-stakeholder action agenda. Observers are not asking for another forum; we are asking to participate in the negotiations and to have the right to engage with our country’s representatives present at the negotiations.

We also reject the false equivalence implied by the term “Observers.” Communities living with plastic pollution are rights-holders. Corporations whose business models depend on expanding plastic production are not. The Tobacco Convention recognized this distinction and succeeded in solving the problem it was intended to address. The Plastics Treaty must do the same.

Leadership requires Upholding the Mandate, not Lowering It

The Committee won’t succeed by producing a document that everyone dislikes equally. Your responsibility is not to protect the comfort and interests of the least ambitious Parties. It is not to make a treaty that is politically convenient for spoiler countries. It is to facilitate negotiations that allow governments to deliver the treaty they were mandated to negotiate.

The Aid to Negotiations does the opposite: it narrows ambition. It privileges obstruction. It weakens obligations. And it risks steering this process toward a treaty incapable of ending plastic pollution.

A Note to Ambitious Countries

We, Observers, recognize that this process has been intense, demanding, and frustrating. Yet, we have not come this far to agree to a text that does not fulfill the mandate of Resolution 5/14. We request that Governments reject any negotiating text that retreats from the agreed mandate.

The world did not launch these negotiations to produce another framework for future discussions. It was launched to end plastic pollution. That remains the benchmark by which this process should be judged.

Civil society will stand with ambitious countries that reject a weak treaty. Your leadership is needed to avoid a catastrophic outcome. No treaty remains a better option than a bad treaty.

We also encourage you to consider negotiating a treaty outside the UN. The UNEP umbrella has consistently failed to deliver a fair process, and unfair processes do not result in strong outcomes. A treaty driven by the ambitious majority, guided by a genuine desire to end plastic pollution and by the power and experience of countries that have demonstrated commitment to the process has a winning chance to deliver the needed outcomes. If you decide to move in the direction of a Coalition of the Willing, civil society will stand firmly alongside you applauding  your braveness, supporting your decisiveness and ready to work with you. 

The post GAIA Response to the Aid to Negotiations first appeared on GAIA.

President Donald Trump and his recently appointed U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Aitkins are proposing to rescind the pay-to-play rule. The rule prohibits investment advisers and their officers from making or soliciting campaign contributions above a small threshold to government officials responsible for awarding investment contracts to those advisers for two years prior or during the contracting period. Craig Holman, Ph.D., government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, released the following statement:

“In a stunning and completely out-of-the-blue new proposal, President Trump and SEC Chair Aitkins are seeking to overturn a highly successful and decades-old anti-corruption rule. Trump’s proposal comes on the heels of – nothing. There have been no new problems with the rule and no new reasons for its repeal, though investment advisers have never particularly cared for it. The effort to rescind the pay-to-play rule is simply the latest extension of the Trump administration canceling ethics rules, especially those that get in the way of the rich getting richer.

“Back in 1994, then-SEC Chair Arthur Levitt grew fed up with repeated scandals in which investment advisers appeared to be buying government contracts by making large campaign contributions to those responsible for awarding the contracts. Levitt cracked down on this corrupt practice by banning anything but small de minimis contributions from advisers and their associates to those responsible for awarding government investment contracts, which quickly became known as the ‘pay-to-play’ rule.

“The pay-to-play rule remains on the books today because it works. Repealing it is nothing but the most brazen corruption.”

Center for International Policy Executive Vice President Matt Duss issued the following statement in response to new measures announced by the United Kingdom and other US allies in response to Israeli settlement expansion:

“Banning the import of settlement goods and sanctioning those who facilitate settlement expansion are welcome, if long overdue, steps toward upholding international law, protecting Palestinian national rights, and advancing regional security. Several countries have announced that they will join the United Kingdom in adopting such measures, which we urge them to consistently enforce. We also applaud the UK’s recognition that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful.

“American lawmakers who seek to uphold the rule of law and pursue a non-violent resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should welcome these efforts by some of our closest allies. They should call on the US government to adopt these and similar measures, instead of resisting them.

“The decades-long approach of urging Israel to halt settlement expansion, while failing to impose any consequences for it, has been a catastrophic failure. By effectively granting Israel impunity from international consequences, the US has fueled an annexationist movement that openly terrorizes Palestinian communities, forcibly displaces them, and steals their land in full partnership with the Israeli government and armed forces. Make no mistake: Those trying to undermine or penalize the lawful steps rightly taken in response to the occupation are actively abetting this deadly, illegal conquest.”

With prices down, costs up, and trade barriers potentially loosening further, peasant farmers across several provinces are mobilizing in South Korea.

The post South Korea: Peasant Unions Take to the Streets Over CPTPP trade pact and Collapsing Crop Prices appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.